Commons Sitting of 1 November 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Robert Gordon's Technical College and Aberdeen Endowments Trust Order Confirmation Bill,—considered; Amendments made to the Bill; Bill to be read the third time upon Wednesday.

PETITIONS.
Mr. WALTER GUINNESS Mr. WALTER GUINNESS presented Petitions against the Finance Bill from Tenby Corporation; from Newcastle-on Tyne, with 10,177 signatures; from Glasgow, with 24,300 signatures, and from inhabitants of the United Kingdom with 52,817 signatures.
Mr. D. V. PIRIE Mr. D. V. PIRIE presented a Petition in favour of the Temperance (Scotland) Bill from the parish council of Glasgow, the most important parish in Scotland, with a population of 571,000, praying the House to pass the Bill into law during the present Session.

SESSIONAL RETURNS.
  ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER NO. 10.
  Return ordered of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing the definite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any Division taken thereon during Session 1009 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 360, of Session 1908).—[Mr. Caldwell.]

  PUBLIC BILLS.
  Return ordered of the number of public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1909; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House, but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords, but not by this
  1426
  House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.207, of Session 1908.)—[Mr. Caldwell.]

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Return ordered of the number of public Petitions presented and printed in Session 1909; with the total number of signatures in that year (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.209, of Session 1908).—[Mr. Caldwell.]
  SELECT COMMITTEES.
  Return ordered of the number of Select Committees appointed in Session 1909 and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.208, of Session 1908).—[Mr. Caldwell.]
  STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Return Ordered for the Session of 1909, of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the four Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47, showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings at which he was present and the number of Divisions in which he took part; and (2) the number of Bills considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of days on which each Committee sat, and the names of all Bills considered by a Standing Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing, in the case of each Bill, the particular Standing Committee by whom it was considered, the number of days on which it was considered by the Committee, and the number of Members present on each of those days (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.205, of Session 1908.—[Mr. Caldwell.]

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return of the number of days on which the House sat in Session 1909, stating for

  1427
  each day the date of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after eleven p.m.; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.208, of Session 1908).—[Mr. Caldwell.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (DAYS OCCUPIED BY GOVERNMENT AND BY PRIVATE MEMBERS).
  Return ordered showing with reference to Session 1909 (1) the number of Sittings at which Government Business had precedence under the Standing Orders during the entire Sitting; (2) the number of Sittings on Tuesdays and Wednesdays at which precedence was given to Government Business up till 8.15 p.m., and to Private Members at 8.15 p.m., and the number of Sittings on Fridays at which Private Members had precedence under the Standing Orders; (3) the number of Sittings at which Government Business was given precedence under a special order of the House during the entire Sitting; (4) the number of Saturday Sittings; (5) the total number of Sittings at which Government Business had precedence; (6) the total number of days on which the House sat; and (7) the number of days on which Business of Supply was considered (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 362, of Session 1908).—[Mr. Caldwell.]

  PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Return ordered of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1909, classed according to the following subjects:—Railways; Tramways; Tramroads; Subways; Canals and Navigations; Roads and Bridges; Water; Waterworks; Gas; Gas and Water; Lighting and Improvement; Police and Sanitary Regulations; Corporations, etc. (not relating to Police and Sanitary Regulations or to Lighting and Improvement Schemes); Ports, Piers, Harbours, and Docks; Churches, Chapels, and Burying Grounds; Markets and Fairs; Gaols and other County Buildings; Inclosure and Drainage; Estate; Patent; Divorce; Naturalisation; Hospitals, Name, Legitimisation, and Miscellaneous:
  Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders
  1428
  which in Session 1909 have been reported on by Committees on Opposed. Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:
  Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session 1909, have been referred by the Committee of Selection, or by the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended:
  And of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 0.204, of Session 1908).—[Mr. Caldwell.]

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Return ordered of all Draft Provisional Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which in the Session of 1909 have been reported on by Commissioners, together with the names of the Commissioners; the first and also the last day of the sittings in each group; the number of days on which each body of Commissioners sat; the number of days on which each Commissioner has served; the number of days occupied by each Draft Provisional Order before the Commissioners; the Draft Provisional Orders the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; and the Draft Provisional Orders the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved.—[The Lord Advocate.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Staffordshire Yeomanry Officers' Speech.
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDSasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a speech made by Lieutenant-Colonel C. T. Mander, D. Squadron, Staffordshire Yeomanry, in which he complained of the Budget, and said that no drill hall or riding school would be provided until there was a new Government; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): The Army Council have now considered and report that, in view of all the circumstances, and of the fact that the officer has expressed his regret for the indiscretion, they do not propose to take any further action beyond administering a severe reprimand.

  Importation of Chinese Pork.
  Mr. FELLasked the President of the Local Government Board if any further report has been received with regard to the condition of the Chinese pork now at the docks; how many further carcases have been examined; and how many, if any, have been condemned by the inspector?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. J. Burns): I am informed that since 7th October, the date of the hon. Member's last question on this subject, 1,469 carcases have been examined, and of these 83 were condemned.
  Mr. FELL: As to 3,000 or 4,000 carcases being left over, are these being kept back for the Christmas market?
  Mr. BURNS: I have no information to that effect.
  Mr. FELLasked if the inspectors have reported if it is possible to distinguish Chinese pork, when exposed for sale, from English or Irish pork?
  Mr. BURNS: I do not think it would be possible to distinguish Chinese pork from English or Irish, except in its fresh and uncured condition, when the inspector might be able to say that the pork had been frozen, and, therefore, was probably not English or Irish.
  Mr. FELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is damaging the sale of English pork in the market as the people fear they may be buying Chinese pork?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.

  Boycott of British Trade (Yangtze).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the proclamation issued by the Chinese Government against the boycott of British trade on the Yangtze, orders that no man shall boycott British trade on the Yangtze on account of the murder of Yu-Fa-Cheng by the British constable at Kiukiang; and whether, in view of this proclamation of the Chinese Government that the killing in that case was murder, a trial will be ordered before the British court of Shanghai to settle the question whether the killing was murder or not?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. T. McKinnon Wood): I have nothing to add to what I have already stated in previous answers to the hon. Member.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is it the intention of the Government to leave in China as the representative of this country a man believed by the Chinese Government and people to be a murderer?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have already explained to the hon. Member that the person is not a representative of the British Government.

  Government Contracts (Fair Wages Clause).
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the firm of Messrs. Ransomes and Rapier, Ipswich, are contractors to the Admiralty; if so, whether he is aware that the rivetters and platers in their employ are paid 22s. per week, the district rate being 32s. per week; and whether he will take action to have the Fair Wage Clause complied with?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The inquiry which I undertook to make on 26th October is not yet complete, and I will furnish the hon. Member with the information as soon as I receive it.

  Naval Punishments.
  Mr. BYLESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty circular of 30th January, 1906, directing the suspension of the King's Regulations respecting the birching and caning of boys and youths in the Royal Navy, is still in force; and whether the use of the cat is now entirely abolished in His Majesty's ships?
  Mr. McKENNA: No change has been made since my Noble Friend the late Parliamentary Secretary made his statements on this subject on 21st February and 1st March, 1906. The use of the cat has been suspended by Admiralty order since 1881.
  Mr. BYLES: Can it be renewed by Admiralty Order?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes; it can be renewed by Admiralty order, and I apprehend that my hon. Friend would take the earliest opportunity of drawing attention to that.

  Colonial Contribution to Navy.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the large armoured vessels which have recently been offered as contributions to the British Navy by certain of the self-governing Colonies are in addition to, or included in, the eight large armoured vessels sanctioned by Parliament during the present Session?
  Mr. McKENNA: The large armoured vessels offered by the Australian and New Zealand Governments are not included in the eight armoured ships sanctioned by Parliament this Session?

  Service of Rate Summonses.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that it is the custom in many parts of the country for rate summonses to be served upon poor people by police officers in uniform; and whether he is in a position to take any step or make any representation with a view to abolishing this practice?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. Gladstone): I believe it is usual for a police officer to wear a uniform when serving a summons. In so doing he is performing a duty as a constable, and it is convenient and right that he should wear a uniform which indicates his office.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that for an offence which is in no sense a criminal one a plain clothes' officer might be entrusted with the service of these rate summonses?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: It would be very inconvenient for the police-constable to have to change his clothes for the purpose.

  Children Act (Administration).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether
  1432
  his attention has been called to the proceedings at a recent inquest at Hammersmith upon the body of Edith May Clark, aged two years, who, being left outside a public-house whilst her mother went in to buy some supper beer, ran into the road and was knocked down by a motor omnibus; whether he has also had his attention drawn to the observations of the coroner, to the effect that an accident of this kind was one of the dangers of the public-house Clause in the Children Act, and was liable to frequently happen; and whether he has yet completed his promised inquiry into the working of the clause in question?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I have seen a newspaper report of the inquest referred to. The point will receive attention when the observations upon the working of the Act, which are still in progress, are completed; but there is nothing in the Section mentioned to justify or excuse a mother who leaves infant children unattended in a crowded street.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman also received a report from the police officer, and has his attention been called to the fact that there has been an enormous increase in the number of lost children who have been brought to the police since this Clause has been passed?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I have no information.

  Robberies in London Docks.
  Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the numerous robberies on board ships in London docks and to the alleged inefficient police protection there; and if so, whether he will take steps to reinforce the police and make inquiry into the alleged inefficiency and the causes thereof?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: My attention has not been specially called to the number of robberies in the London docks, nor have I any reason to suppose the police arrangements there are inefficient. In any case, this is a matter for the Port of London authority, of whom I am making inquiry.

  SUFFRAGISTS IN PRISON.

    USE OF WATER HOSE.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received the Report of the Commission sent to report upon the assault committed on a woman prisoner in Strange-ways Gaol, Manchester; and whether he can communicate its terms to the House?
    Mr. GLADSTONE: I have received the Commissioner's Report, and its purport is briefly as follows:—While the Visiting Committee of Manchester Prison were present at the prison for one of their ordinary meetings Miss Davison barricaded herself in her cell, and in spite of persuasion and command, refused to open the door. An attempt was made to break into the cell, but the Visiting Committee were afraid that the heavy wooden door, 2½ in thick and lined with sheet iron, might fall suddenly into the cell (as had recently Happened in a case in the male division of the prison), and might injure the prisoner, and they unanimously passed a resolution directing the officers of the prison to play the water hose into the cell in hope of compelling the prisoner to remove her barricade. The order was obeyed, and at first the water was played on to the ceiling. As that had no effect, it was subsequently turned on to the prisoner's shoulder for two or three minutes. In the meantime the officers succeeded in removing one of the hinges and effected an entrance into the cell, and the prisoner was carried out. She was promptly taken in charge by the matron and the female warders, wrapped in blankets, removed to the hospital, and every necessary attention paid to her health. I am satisfied from the Commissioner's Report that the Visiting Committee acted from a desire to support the authority of the prison officers and to secure entrance into the prisoner's cell in the way likely to cause least risk to herself; but, in my opinion, they were guilty of a grave error of judgment in the measures they adopted. I am communicating with them accordingly.
    Mr. H. BELLOC: May I ask what measures the Home Secretary would have suggested that would have been more merciful?
    Mr. GLADSTONE: Parliament has not supplied me with much power in the matter.
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Are we to understand that the members of the visiting committee are Justices of the Peace?
    Mr. GLADSTONE: Yes.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the Home Secretary, if he has not already done so, communicate with the Lord Chancellor with a view to having these men removed?
    Mr. GLADSTONE: What they did is a matter of common knowledge, and I do not
    1434
    see that there is any necessity for me to call special attention to the matter.

    REFUSAL TO TAKE FOOD.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Mrs. Leigh is still being fed by force in Winson Green Gaol, Birmingham; whether persons convicted of a similar offence to hers at Newcastle, Dundee, and elsewhere, who refused to voluntarily take food were liberated; and on what grounds forcible feeding is being applied to Mrs. Leigh and not applied to the other cases named?
    Mr. GLADSTONE: Since the outbreak of violence at Birmingham in September, I have followed one rule with regard to the prisoners who refused to take food. Where they were reported medically unfit to be fed by artificial means I have advised the remission of their sentences as soon as this was recommended by the medical authorities of the prison. In other cases it has been obviously impossible for me to remit the sentences, and they have received the medical treatment appropriate to their condition. Some of the Newcastle prisoners were released on medical certificates; others served their sentences under suitable medical treatment. In the case of Mary Leigh, there was no indication until Friday last of any medical reason for her discharge; but on Friday, owing to a change in her condition, a consultant was called in, and on Saturday I received certificates which showed that her health, weakened by her repeated attempts at starvation, was suffering, and her discharge was immediately authorised.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman reply to the part of the question which refers to Dundee, and were the prisoners who were discharged there during the hunger strike also suffering from weakness of health?
    Mr. GLADSTONE: I did not reply to it because it had nothing to do with me. Perhaps the hon. Member will put the question to the proper authority.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will the Home Office follow the example of the Scotch Office in regard to forcible feeding?
    Mr. HUGH LAW: Will he publish the medical report?
    Mr. GLADSTONE: I think that would be quite unnecessary.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any special report of the condition of Charlotte Marsh, who is also in

    1435
    Winson Green gaol, Birmingham, and whose sentence does not expire till some six weeks hence, and will he make any inquiry as to her?
    Mr. GLADSTONE: Yes; reports are furnished every day about all these prisoners who are being submitted to forcible feeding. I will obtain the information for the hon. Member.
    Mr. HUGH LAW: Is he prepared to abandon this filthy and disgusting practice?
    Mr. GLADSTONE: I do not agree that it is a disgusting practice. Hon. Members have made no protest against this practice, which has prevailed for very many years past in asylums, in prisons, and hospitals, and the effect of which has been grossly exaggerated, as the hon. Member is himself aware.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Under these circumstances is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to move a Vote of Censure on the Scotch Home Office for not following this practice?
    Mr. HUGH LAW: Is not the balance of medical evidence to the effect that it is exceedingly dangerous?
    Mr. GLADSTONE: Emphatically no. The most skilled and experienced medical men have given a precisely opposite opinion.

  Obstruction by Pickets (Bond-street, London).
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDSasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a case at the Marlborough-street police court, on the 27th of October, where several members of the National Amalgamated Furnishing Trades' Association and the French Polishers' Society, who had been peacefully acting as pickets in connection with a dispute with the Orchestrelle Company, Bond-street, London, were fined 2s. 6d. each for obstruction; whether he is aware that the men, at the time of the alleged offence, were simply walking along in single file, and that they were stopped by the police and marched off to the police station; and whether he will favourably consider the remission of the fines inflicted and take steps to secure that the right of peaceful picketting shall be vindicated?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The learned magistrate, after careful investigation, held
  1436
  that the defendants, eight in number, had caused actual obstruction by parading backwards and forwards over a space of about 19 yards of narrow and crowded footway. His decision did not, in his opinion, affect any right which the defendants might have under the Trade Disputes Acts, 1906, but upon this point he expressed his willingness to state a case for the High Court if the defendants so desired. I see no reason for any action upon my part.

  Small Holdings (Newborough).
  Mr. BOULTONasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if the Commissioners of the Board have conferred with the county council of the Soke of Peterborough upon the question of providing small holdings for the applicants at Newborough who have been approved by the small holdings committee, and whose approval has been confirmed by the Board's Commissioners but refused by the Council; if the council has at the conference between it and the Board's Commissioners agreed to withdraw its previous refusal, and, if it has not agreed to withdraw such refusal and provide small holdings, if the Board now propose to undertake the provision of land for these approved applicants and charge the expenses upon the defaulting council?
  Captain NORTON (Lord of the Treasury, for Sir E. Strachey): A meeting of the county council took place on the 20th inst., at which one of the Small Holdings Commissioners was present. We have since been informed by the clerk that the council have every desire to provide small holdings and that at the present time they are proposing to purchase 92a. Or. 31p. of land in Newborough and Eye for such purposes, and as soon as other suitable land comes in the market it will be acquired to satisfy the existing demand. The council are not, however, disposed to exercise compulsory powers for the purpose of obtaining land, and they inform us that as there is not at the present time a sufficient quantity of land procurable by voluntary means, they cannot forthwith satisfy the present demand made by the inhabitants of Newborough. The views thus expressed by the council are inconsistent with their statutory obligations in the matter, and the Board propose therefore at once to adopt the measures prescribed by law in such circumstances for dealing with cases of the kind.

  Black Scab (Potatoes).
  Mr. STANIERasked to what extent black scab in potatoes has been reported in England, Scotland, and Wales, respectively, and when will the results of their investigations be published on this disease?
  Captain NORTON: The disease is unfortunately very prevalent in allotments and cottage gardens in Cheshire, North Shropshire, Staffordshire, South Lancashire and parts of Warwickshire, Derbyshire and Notts. It has been found in certain parts of Fife, but to a much smaller extent. A few isolated cases have been reported from other parts of the country. In none of the districts named does the disease exist except to a very small extent in fields under rotation. We hope that our information as to the results of the investigations which have been instituted will be available in the course of the present week, and they will be at once communicated to every occupier of premises on which the disease is known to exist.
  Mr. W. P. BYLES: Does this disease exist in Ireland, where potatoes are the food of the people?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question should be put to the Minister responsible for the Irish Department.

  Land Purchase Annuitants (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state the number of land purchase annuitants and payers of interest in lieu of rent, respectively, against whom the Land Commission have instituted proceedings this season for the recovery of arrears?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The number of payers of land purchase annuities on the books of the Land Commission in respect of instalments due on 1st May and 1st June last was 142,016. The number of payers of interest in lieu of rent on the books in respect of the gale due 1st May last was 173,785; 5,403 of the former and 4,990 of the latter were included in the schedules for proceedings in the different courts in Ireland for the recovery of arrears, but experience has shown us that a very large proportion of these persons will pay the amount due before the issue of any process.

  Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908.
  Mr. COCHRANEasked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the opinion expressed by the Law Officers of the Crown
  1438
  that The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, does not apply to sheep stock and other valuations, and in view of the recent decision of the First Division of the Court of Session to a contrary effect, he intends to appeal to the House of Lords or what course does the Government intend to pursue?
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the opinion given by the Law Officers of the Crown that Section 1, Sub-section (2), of The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906, does not apply to sheep stock valuations, and in view of the recent decision of the First Division of the Court of Session to the contrary effect, he proposes to take any action with a view either to further declaration of the law or its amendment?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I am aware of the decision referred to. The Government has no right to appeal to the House of Lords, as they are not parties to the litigation, and they do not propose to take any action in the matter.
  Mr. ROBERT DUNCAN: Is this decision confirmed by some legal opinion on which the House will place more reliance than the right hon. Gentleman's.

  Ross-shire Western District Committee (Footpath Extension).
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that the Ross-shire Western District Committee have reported that an extension of Wester Alligin footpath to the end of the township is much needed for the convenience of the people, will he state the estimated cost of the work; and why the Congested Districts Board have declined to make the requisite grant?
  Mr. URE: The district committee applied for a grant to extend a path previously constructed with the aid of a Government grant. The estimated cost of the extension was £65, and the Board took the view that the case was not sufficiently strong to justify them in the expenditure of more public money on this access.

  Applecross River (Ross-shire).
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the difficulty recently experienced in constructing a bridge over Applecross River, Ross-shire, is attributable to the proprietor having forced the Western District Committee to accept a site exposed to the full force of the tide;

  1439
  and will he state whether the Congested Districts Board made any effort to induce the proprietor to grant the more suitable site which was selected by the committee?
  Mr. URE: The Congested Districts Board are not aware of the difficulties alleged. They dealt in the matter with the county council, who applied for, and received, a grant in aid on the usual conditions, that they would complete the works and maintain them.
  Mr. WEIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary for Scotland to look into the documents if I send a copy to him?
  Mr. URE: Certainly.
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the bridge recently constructed over Applecross River, Ross-shire, has collapsed owing to the piers not having been carried down to the solid rock; and, seeing that this deviation from the terms of the contract was made under direction of the Congested Districts Board's supervisor, will the Board order an inquiry into the matter, and give instructions for the bridge to be reconstructed at the cost of the Board?
  Mr. URE: The Congested Districts Board do not admit the allegations contained in my hon. Friend's question. Correspondence is at present passing in the matter.
  Mr. WEIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary for Scotland to look into the papers if I send him copies showing him that my information is accurate?
  Mr. URE: Certainly.

  Typhoid Fever (Lewis).
  Mr. WEIRasked, in view of the outbreak of typhoid fever in the townships of Borve and Lower Shader, island of Lewis, which continued from January to June last, and is attributable by the medical officer to the insanitary condition of the townships, whether arrangements have yet been arrived at under which sites may be secured in suitable positions, especially bearing in mind that Dr. Dittmar, the Medical Inspector for the Local Government Board for Scotland, in his Report published in April, 1905, strongly condemned the condition of the Lewis townships?
  Mr. URE: In this case the outbreak is attributed as to a probable cause to contamination from surface wells. Steady
  1440
  progress is being made by the district sanitary authority with such resources as they have at their disposal in improving the water supply.
  Mr. WEIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question which refers to whether arrangements have been made under which sites have been secured?
  Mr. URE: That is a matter which is in the hands of the district sanitary authority.

  Crofters Crops (Damage by Deer).
  Mr. WEIRasked whether, having regard to the fact that the crops of the crofters of Ardcharich, on the estate of Inverlael, Lochbroom, Ross-shire, suffer from the inroads of deer from the adjoining deer forest, the property of Mr. W. Ewing Gilmour, of Woodbank, Alexandria, Dumbarton, and that letters addressed to him on the subject are ignored, the Congested Districts Board will provide funds to enable crofters who are thus aggrieved, and without means, to prosecute the claim for compensation to which they are entitled under Section 2 of The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906, especially bearing in mind that the Congested Districts Board are empowered to provide money in aid of agriculture under Section 4, Subsection (a), of The Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897?
  Mr. URE: The statement of facts in my hon. Friend's question must rest upon his own authority; in any case it is clear that the Congested Districts Board's funds cannot be utilised for the purposes suggested.
  Mr. WEIR: Will the people whose crops have been destroyed be within their rights in poisoning the deer who eat their crops; and, if so, will the Congested Districts Board provide a supply of poison for the purpose?

  Trawling in Moray Firth.
  Colonel LOCKWOODasked whether English trawlers are forbidden to fish in the Moray Firth; and whether any restrictions are placed upon foreigners fishing in that place?
  Mr. PIRIEalso asked if the Lord Advocate is aware that trawling by foreigners is going on in the Moray Firth to an even larger extent since the last legislation was passed than before as is evidenced by the wreck of a Belgian trawler which was rescued by a German trawler fishing in waters prohibited to English trawling vessels?
  Mr. URE: The reply to the first part of the gallant and hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The reply to the second part is to be found in the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Act of the present Session, which renders unlawful the landing in the United Kingdom of fish caught by trawling in the Moray Firth, by whomsoever caught. In answer to my hon. Friend's question I have no information to the effect which he has suggested. If he will put down a question I will answer it.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Is it not a fact that foreigners are absolutely prohibited from fishing in the Moray Firth within the three mile limit?
  Mr. URE: That is the fact.

  Military Officers (Shortage).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary for War if he can state the number of officers required to complete the establishment of the Regular Army, the Territorial Army, and the Special Reserve respectively?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): In the Regular Army there are at present 204 vacancies, but the majority of these will be filled by the beginning of 1910. The figures for the Special Reserve and Territorial Force were given in replies to questions put by the hon. Member for the Blackpool Division of Lancashire on Monday, 18th October, to which I would ask the hon. Member to refer.

  Territorial Force Camps (Non-attendance Fines).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary for War if he can state how many Territorials have been fined for non-attendance at camp, and the amount of fines; and, in the case of a man being fined and unable to pay, how is the fine recovered?
  Mr. HALDANE: No statistics as regards fines for non-attendance at camp are available at the War Office. The recovery of fines is dealt with under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts.

  Army Officers' Rations.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary of State for War if officers are allowed a free ration of meat and bread; and, if so, what is the quantity?
  Mr. HALDANE: Officers serving at home do not receive a free ration of bread and meat; abroad they are entitled to the same ration of bread and meat as the
  1442
  soldier, which consists, at most stations, of 1 lb. bread and 1 lb. meat; at a few tropical stations where the cattle are poor an extra ¼ lb. of meat is given.

  Special Reserve (Education Test).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary of State for War if he can state the reason the education test for admittance into the commissioned ranks of the Special Reserve has been abolished?
  Mr. HALDANE: The hon. Member has been misinformed. No education test has been required for admission to commissions in the Special Reserve of officers since the reserve was instituted, and none will be imposed until after 31st March, 1912.

  Maryhill Barracks Contract (Fair Wages Clause).
  Mr. JOWETT (on behalf of Mr Barnes)asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the circumstances under which the firm of P. and J. Gordon, contractors for the painting of Maryhill barracks, violated the Fair Wage Clause, he can take similar action to that taken in connection with the contract of Messrs. Clarkson, cartage contractors for the Royal parks, by the Office of Works?
  Mr. HALDANE: The two cases are not analogous. Among other points of difference bribery occurred over the cartage contract It was therefore possible under the terms of the contract to declare a certain sum forfeited by the contractor, which was then applied in part to the payment of certain of his employés. I may assure my hon. Friend that all the measures possible in this case have been taken.

  Jamaica Banana and Mail Contract.
  Mr. YOUNGERasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether anything has been decided as to the renewal of the subsidy for the Jamaica banana and mail contract; whether the whole of the elected representatives of the Legislative Council of Jamaica recently voted against its renewal; and whether it was only carried by the casting vote of the Governor?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): Two resolutions have been before the Legislative Council in connection with the renewal of the contract for a steamship service between the United Kingdom and the Colony. In May last the Council passed a resolution calling on the Government to obtain tenders and agreeing to provide a subsidy of £20,000. In Septem-

  1443
  ber a resolution was moved against providing for a renewed subsidy for a service under the present conditions. This later resolution was negatived on a division by the Governor's casting vote, the eight elected members present voting in favour of it. No decision has as yet been taken by the Secretary of State in the matter.

  Croydon (Sanitary Condition).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can say what number of cesspools now exist in the Croydon rural district area; whether, as a result of the additional powers which have been conferred upon the Croydon Rural District Council, according to his statement in the House on 27th July, the number of cesspools has been reduced; and, if not, whether, in view of the seriousness of the existence of cesspools within water-supply areas, as is evidenced by the case of Gravesend in the report of Dr. Reece to the Board, he will say what action the Board will take in the matter?
  The HON. MEMBERalso asked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the seriousness of the menace to the public health of Croydon by the existence of cesspools in the Croydon rural district area, as stated in the reports of the medical officer of health for the borough and the borough engineer, he will request the Croydon Rural District Council to cause reports to be made to them by the medical officer of health, surveyor, or inspector of nuisances of the rural district on the question and the extent of the danger, so that the rural district council may take action under Section 46 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907; or whether he will see fit to direct a local inquiry into the matter under Section 293 of the Public Health Act, 1875?
  Mr. BURNS: It is estimated that there are 11,900 inhabited houses in the Croydon rural district, and that approximately 400 properties drain into cesspools. Of these, 270 are outside the areas in respect of which there is an agreement between the councils of the borough and of the rural district for the reception of the sewage into the sewers of the corporation, and these houses are stated to be for the most part in rural portions of the district, and at a considerable distance from an outfall sewer. In one parish, Woodmansterne, it is stated that there is urgent need for main drainage for about 90 houses near the
  1444
  boundary of Coulsdon which could be connected with the borough sewers, but this parish is outside the areas from which the corporation receive the sewage, and I am informed that they refuse to extend these areas except upon terms which the district council are unable to accept. The rural district council, who have spent some £220,000 on works of sewerage and sewage disposal, have schemes already sanctioned or in course of preparation in respect of 70 of the properties in the parishes of Beddington, Coulsdon, and Sanderstead, parts of which are included in the drainage areas, and it is stated that the remainder of these properties are, with a few exceptions, in isolated places where at present the cost of sewer extension would be unreasonable. It is added that in every case where a public sewer is within 100 feet of the property draining into a cesspool, the owner has been urged by notice or otherwise to connect with the sewer. The rural district council have offered to instruct their medical officer of health to prepare a report upon the matter referred to in the second question of my hon. Friend, and I have requested that this may be done.

  Navy Transports (Officers' Allowances).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state, the cubic space allowed to each officer, officer's wife, and each child on board a British transport; and what is the cubic space allowed to the men, women, and children of the rank and file on board a British transport?
  Mr. McKENNA: The average cubic space in the transports is as follows:—First class, 209 cubic ft. per adult or two children under 10 years of age; third class, men, 74 cubic ft. per man; women and children, 172 cubic ft. per adult or two children under 10 years of age.

  School Attendance Bill (Ireland).
  Mr. JOHN MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has now considered the proposals in the School Attendance Bill; if he is aware that they have met with the approval of most persons in Ireland connected with education; and whether he can therefore see his way to afford facilities for the passage of the Bill as an agreed measure through Parliament this Session?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The School Attendance Bill would make very sweeping changes in the existing law, and some of its provisions

  1445
  would no doubt prove to be contentious. It is therefore out of the question that it should be passed into law as an agreed measure at this stage of the Session?

  Irish Constabulary (Redistribution).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked whether the statutory redistribution of the free force of constabulary, which was due in May last, has taken place; if so, what is the total number of men of the free force as redistributed; whether the extra force of 750 men previously chargeable to counties proclaimed as disturbed areas has been reduced by reason of the Order in Council effecting the redistribution; to what extent, and in what counties, has such redistribution been carried out; and whether there has been any resulting diminution in the gross strength of the general police establishment comprising free and extra forces?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The free force of constabulary was redistributed as required by law in May last. The total number of sergeants and constables then allotted to the various counties was 9,303. The 750 men previously chargeable to proclaimed counties was reduced to 389. The redistribution affected every county in Ireland, and the gross strength of the free and extra forces was not diminished as a result of the redistribution.

  Care of Feeble-Minded.
  Mr. HENRY WALKERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-Minded in favour of taking out of the Poor Law all classes of mentally defective persons and of removing the feebleminded from the workhouses, steps are now being taken for the preparation of legislation on the subject; and whether, in the meantime, care will be taken not to give the sanction of His Majesty's Government to any schemes of local authorities which would involve in any Department expenditure in a direction contrary to the recommendations of the said Royal Commission?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The Government are alive to the importance of this matter, and I would refer my hon. Friend to a statement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, made on 31st August last, in reply to a deputation. The Home Secretary on that occasion said that, though there might be considerable difficulties in the
  1446
  way of legislation, he was in agreement with the deputation as to the importance of the subject, and that he had ascertained that the Lord Chancellor was of the same opinion. And he added that he hoped to be able to make a practical effort next Session in the direction of legislation. In answer to the latter part of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to an answer given on 27th August by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Evesham Division, in the course of which my right hon. Friend gave an assurance that he would bear in mind the recommendations of the Royal Commission, but that, pending legislation, he was not prepared to undertake that his sanction should be withheld in all cases in which proposals for new buildings for inmates of the class described might be brought before him.

  Non-Able-Bodied Poor (Cost of Main- tenance).
  Mr. HENRY WALKERasked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that not only boards of guardians but also the local public health, education, and sometimes even the police authorities provide maintenance and other assistance in various forms to the non-able-bodied poor, and that there is the greatest variety and confusion in the powers of these several authorities as regards the charge and recovery of the cost so incurred, whether he will appoint an inter-Departmental Committee to consider the whole question of what forms of public assistance can properly be made the subject of assessments and upon what persons these assessments should be made, in order that the law may be amended upon some definite principle and be consolidated by Parliament into a single Statute?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The subject referred to in the question will receive the attention of the Government in connection with their consideration of the Reports of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law; but I am not prepared, at the moment, to appoint a Departmental Committee, such as my hon. Friend suggests.

  Temperance (Scotland) Bill.
  Sir WALTER MENZIESasked the Prime Minister whether he will grant facilities for the concluding stages of the Temperance (Scotland) Bill when the House resumes on 23rd November?
  Mr. FINDLAYhad given notice of the following question: To ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the expressed opinion of Scottish Members in favour of the Temperance (Scotland) Bill, he will arrange to give facilities for the passing of this Bill when the House resumes on the 23rd instant?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps I may reply to both of these questions at the same time. The matter is under my consideration, and, in the event, of which I am hopeful, of our being able to give facilities for the Temperance (Scotland) Bill, ample notice will be given. I hope on Wednesday or Thursday to make a statement as to the business which we propose to take when we reassemble (on the 23rd) after the adjournment.
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in considering the propriety of giving facilities for the Temperance (Scotland) Bill he will bear in mind the changed conditions in respect of new licences, the effect of the minimum duty, and the result which the Chancellor of the Exchequer claims for temperance in Scotland owing to the new Spirit Duty?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Doubtless these will be entitled to be regarded as relevant considerations.

  County Court Judgeship (Monmouthshire).
  Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSasked the Prime Minister whether, in appointing a county court judge to fill the vacancy caused by the death of the late Judge Owen, he will consider the advisability of establishing one or two new courts in the Western Division of Monmouthshire; and, in view of the increase of population in the county of Monmouth, will he confine the duties of the new appointment to the county area?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The appointment mentioned by the hon. Member does not rest with me, but I will communicate his question to the Lord Chancellor.

  Housing and Town Planning Bill (Crown Lands).
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I desire to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether the Government intend to take any steps to extend the Housing and Town Planning Bill to Crown lands, and, if not, why not?
  Mr. BURNS: It would not be practicable at this stage of the Bill to insert a
  1448
  provision on the subject to which the Noble Lord refers, even if it were thought desirable to do so.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask whether it would be in order for me to move an Amendment, supposing it is otherwise relevant to the Lords' Amendment, extending the Bill to Crown lands?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It would be relevant if the Noble Lord could produce the assent of the Crown.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to get the assent of the Crown?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I am not.
  NEW MEMBER SWORN.—John Dumphreys, esquire, for the Borough of Southwark, Bermondsey Division, in room of Dr. George Cooper, deceased.

HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC., BILL.
Lords Amendments considered.
Mr. JOHN BURNS: I would ask at this moment the indulgence of the House, and entirely for its convenience, the privilege of stating very briefly the attitude of the Government towards the Amendments to this Bill which appear on the Paper to-day. It perhaps would be convenient if I were to give the number and the character of those Amendments in the briefest possible form. There are 181 Amendments to this Bill upon the Paper, of which 39 were moved or accepted by the Government in another place. A number of these 39 were to keep faith with promises and pledges that were made in this House. The remainder, in the opinion of the Government, were not incompatible with the main principles of the Bill. To apply the Bill to Scottish law, custom, and procedure 24 other Amendments were necessary. Important, but not vital, Amendments carried against the Government in another place numbered 18. Amendments consequential to these 18 numbered no less than 47. Minor Amendments carried against the Government were 19, and the Amendments consequential on the insertion of these 19 Amendments were 30. But the vital Amendments, which the Government consider are destructive of the principles and character of the Bill, numbered in our

1449
opinion not more than four or five. It would be perhaps allowable if I were to say, having given those facts about the Amendments and their character careful consideration, that a review of all the facts leads me to the conclusion that this Bill ought to pass, and in my judgment will pass. The time and trouble spent upon it, in all its progress during the last two years, namely 35 days, either in the House of Lords or in this House or in the Committees thereof, supplemented by 36 days in the Special Committee to which the original Bill was remitted, in all more than 70 days of Parliamentary time, leads me to the belief that the House of Commons will insist upon this Bill in its main features becoming an Act of Parliament. What is more, we believe that Parliament will not allow its labours to be thrown away on such a well-considered measure of sober and equitable sanitary reform; and we believe that as this Bill is fraught with great benefit to the working classes in particular and immense benefit to the community as a whole, a serious responsibility will rest upon any section if an Act of this beneficent character is prevented from being admitted to the Statute Book. As regards the four vital Amendments, I will indicate the attitude of the Government on each of them when we come to them. I need only say here that I believe that on second thoughts, when the Amendments from another place, which we intend to reject today, reach the other place, the points at issue will receive more sympathetic consideration than some of them in the same place have received. We cannot be expected to sympathise with emendations that do not amend, nor favour Amendments that do not improve, nor welcome omissions that cripple, nor rejoice at additions which omit important principles and practice that we deem necessary for a good Housing Bill. But having said that, I trust that the House of Commons will meet the difficulties of a great problem such as this Bill embodies with firmness and with moderation, so that all its labours for housing the working classes will remove the existing evils under which the poor live and have their being in large cities, and that as a result of our labours, our firmness and our moderation, each at the right time and in proper proportion, we will prevent the recurrence or these housing evils, and by this Bill being passed into law we will do something to prevent the recurrence of many things that we now see, not only with
1450
regard to housing, but also with regard to the badly ordered condition of towns, cities, and even villages, to rectify which is the object of the Bill that I now have to submit to the House of Commons.

HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC., BILL.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Provisions as to Acquisition of Land under Part III.)
  Sub-section (1).—A local authority may be authorised to purchase land compulsorily for the purposes of Part III. of the principal Act, by means of an order submitted to the Local Government Board and confirmed by the Board in accordance with the First Schedule to this Act.
  Lords Amendment: Leave out "and confirmed by the Board."
  Mr. BURNS: I move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Will the President of the Local Government Board state why he proposes to disagree with this Amendment, the object of which, as I understand, is to substitute for the Local Government Board some extra Governmental tribunal to decide on the questions arising under this Clause. I do not quite follow why the Government object to the proposal of the Lords introducing a form of procedure sanctioned by the Government and by the President of the Board of Trade in the Port of London Act last year. All that the Lords Amendment does is to provide that, where there is objection taken to land being acquired for the purpose of this Clause, there shall be an impartial inquiry. It does not even propose that that impartial inquiry shall be conclusive. If objection is made to land being taken, surely it does not seem an unreasonable proposal that there should be an impartial inquiry by some tribunal which is not administratively concerned as to whether the land should be acquired. The Government considered a similar matter in connection with the Development Bill, and, in the discussion upstairs, they themselves recognised that the proposal submitted was not reasonable, and they agreed to an impartial inquiry. If there is some objection to the actual form of the impartial inquiry, that is a different matter; but, if it is the principle of the thing on which the Government are moving to disagree with the Amendment, I think the House is entitled to some explanation of what it is the Government regard as so very objectionable in this principle of an impartial inquiry.
  Viscount MORPETH: The President of the Local Government Board told us over and over again in previous Debates that he preferred to adopt the Small Holdings procedure, and I remember very clearly that in one of the discussions he challenged Members of this House to produce any one occasion in which a complaint had been made about the operation of that procedure. Since that challenge, I understand from what I have seen in the newspapers and from the Debates in the House of Lords that various cases of complaint have been received. I am not, and I do not know that the House is, in a position at the present moment to say whether there is any real ground for those complaints. I believe complaints are being made, and I think it is for the Government to see whether they are in any way reasonable. The Government themselves have receded from the position they took up in regard to the acquisition of land under the Small Holdings Act, in connection with the Port of London Bill, and, what is much more important, in the Development Bill. Under pressure in the Grand Committee upstairs the Government, in the Development Bill, remodelled the whole of the procedure for acquiring land under that measure, and proposed a system which met with very general acceptance on both sides of the House. But under this important Bill, where very large interests are at stake, they stand up for the older and less reasonable form of procedure, which does not meet with general approval, and is actively opposed on this side of the House. This Bill is very different from the Small Holdings Act. The latter measure, after all, deals with rural land, which is less valuable, and it deals with land probably not in very large quantities. This Bill deals with land of the very utmost value—urban land, which is extremely valuable, worth so much per foot—and it deals with schemes which may be of the greatest importance and the greatest cost. A large housing scheme or a large building scheme on urban land cannot be described as an acquisition of small holdings in a sparsely inhabited district. We have opposed and we still oppose the procedure under the Bill, because under the Government scheme the Local Government Board is left absolute master of all the land of the country. They are able to say whether land shall be taken and what price shall be given for it, and they are not only parties, but they are the absolute judges.
  1452
  We think it is desirable that there should be some check and some limit on the power of the Local Government Board, and that the land of the country should not be in their absolute control, but that some powers should be reserved to Parliament, and that this House should not be deposed from its position. Parliament should be able to say whether a scheme is or is not unreasonable. I am sure no one on this side of the House desires to make the acquisition of land unduly cumbersome or unduly expensive, but we make this protest against the unlimited depotism set up in this matter for the Local Government Board.
  Mr. BURNS: The Noble Lord wants to know why it is the Government do not accept the procedure which is in the Port of London Act. The reason is this: We have had experience now for over a year of the Small Holdings Act procedure. It is a method of compulsorily acquiring land for small holdings and allotments. In that connection, it will be understood that the amount of land for small holdings and allotments in reference to the number of users thereof is enormously disproportionate to the amount of land that will be secured under this or any other measure. Under Part 1 or Part 2, it would be insignificant, while under Part 3 it would not be very large. Having had that experience of the Small Holdings Act, if there had been the gross injustice that has been suggested we should have heard of it in the way of facts and figures this afternoon. In the absence of evidence, which I think cannot be produced, hon. Members have conjured up what really does not exist. We prefer the Small Holdings terms, because an Order when made by the local authority is confirmed by the Local Government Board. If objection is taken, there is a local inquiry by the Local Government Board inspector, at which all interests will be heard, and then the matter will be confirmed by the Department. Under the Small Holdings method, our object can be effected without going through a costly and dilatory procedure such as the procedure under the Port of London Act would possibly mean. On account of its simplicity and its economy, we think the time has arrived when the process of acquiring land for building new cottages in rural districts should be adopted and nothing has arisen from the point of view of small holdings experience to warrant us in saying that it will not do otherwise than work better with regard to the provisions

  1453
  of land for cottages than even it has done with regard to the provision of land for small holdings. We cannot accept the procedure of the Port of London Act, because it was passed for an entirely different matter. It has little bearing on this Bill. The Port Authority is not analogous to a local authority. It is a trading corporation. If it wants land, which possibly may be land owned by its rival commercial competitors, it does seem to me that it ought to be treated rather differently than the local authorities acquiring properties for the people within its jurisdiction, and that there is no comparison between the two cases. We prefer to follow the small holdings method as against the Port of London terms, and it is because of that we ask the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit not to accept what I must say is, in my opinion, a most reasonable Amendment. The only defence that the right hon. Gentleman has given us is that the small holdings' experience, which has not been quite a year, has satisfied him that no injustice will be done. I do not think that the Small Holdings Act is analagous to the present Bill. The Small Holdings Act only deals with small parcels of agricultural land, while, if this Bill has anything like the scope and range which the right hon. Gentleman has foreshadowed in the course of the many speeches which he has made on it, there may be occasions on which very large amounts of very important and very expensive land may become the subject of compulsory purchase. Under those conditions I would ask the House to put aside altogether consideration of the Small Holdings Act. I should like to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, if it has not already been brought to his notice, comments that have been made from the judicial bench with regard to an appeal brought by a Norfolk farmer on the subject of small holdings. That was a case in which the man's land was severed, and the light land which was necessary to work the stiff land separated from that stiff land by an order which the man considered harsh. The learned judge, before whom the appeal came, said in dismissing the appeal:—
  "Here there was a public Department put in a position of absolute supremacy, and whatever the opinion of the farmer of Norfolk, who came to the Court asking for relief, might be about the matter they could only say that Parliament had enacted only last year that the Board of Agriculture in acting as they had should be no more impeachable than Parliament itself."
  1454
  I venture to say that this is fundamentally a vicious principle. The question of the compulsory taking of land, which may be worth very large sums of money round towns, with the questions whether the land should be taken compulsorily, and whether the object is sufficiently good to justify such compulsory purchase, is not an administrative question, but is a judicial question. It is contrary to all precedent, except that of the Small Holdings Act, that in important cases such matters should be treated by the Local Government Board administratively instead of by courts of justice. Surely if the House will not agree with that they may fairly be asked to regard the terms made in another place as reasonable terms. I agree that in small cases it would be disastrous to go to the expense of a Provisional Order. The objection of the right hon. Gentleman is, it seems to me, a most astonishing objection, and is to leave the matter to any impartial person. If the matter is small, and is not worth expense, why is he afraid of submitting the issue to an impartial person instead of to his own Department? I should be content to leave the matter to the right hon. Gentleman if we could always secure his services, as he is a just-minded man, but in the future we might get people not so much to be trusted. This is a question, high or low, on which Parliament ought to be consulted. Why should it not be left to an impartial person? No reason has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman except that of costs. I think myself that an impartial person, who would be appointed for the purpose by the Board, would not incur the cost of a Provisional Order unless there was good reason that he should do so. That cost, as I shall show on a subsequent Amendment, is somewhat exaggerated. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether this is one of the vital Amendments which he has pledged himself at all costs to resist. I should certainly be surprised if he should regard a matter of this kind in that light. It can only, as I submit, show that upon this question he is afraid of an impartial person.
  Sir WALTER FOSTER: With regard to what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyttelton), I do not believe that the President of the Local Government Board is afraid of an impartial person, but that he is afraid of the delay and expense necessitated by the

  1455
  Amendment which we are now considering, and which I hope the House will reject. During the last 20 years I have watched with care and attention the various attempts to house the people in various parts of the country. Every Act of Parliament which has hitherto been passed has failed, and failed entirely, on account of its cumbrous nature, and the difficulty of acquiring land. In this Bill, as it left the House of Commons, there were principles of a simpler and more expeditious character. It provided that when there was a local want of houses a Local Government Board inspector should hold an inquiry, that the Local Government Board might issue an Order and take the land—procedure similar to that which has been adopted by this House and followed in connection with the Small Holdings Act. I believe that that procedure is simple, is quick, and is also comparatively inexpensive. I believe that the procedure as suggested in this Amendment will take a considerable amount of time. Take a case where land is wanted especially in the rural districts, where the need is as great as it is in town districts. Five or ten acres of land might be wanted on which to put decent houses in which people might live as Christian people, which they cannot do now in many places in the country. Under the suggested Amendment the procedure would be that there would first have to be an application to the Local Government Board, and if the Local Government Board thought fit or gave any decision they would have to call in this impartial person, who would then go down and hold a public inquiry. The inspector of the Local Government Board would, I believe, be an equally impartial person, and would hold an equally good inquiry. After that comes in the subtle method by which delay is caused. This Amendment suggests that before the Order can be issued, enabling the proposed houses to be erected, that a period of thirty days is to elapse, during which anybody interested in the land may oppose, and possibly may obtain a vote in opposition to the Order in either House of Parliament. If the impartial person does not approve of the Order, then you have to go to the expense and incur the trouble and delay of a Provisional Order in order to obtain the land. The effect would be to go back to the old and disastrous method which has produced delay for so many years.
  1456
  Because I believe that the acceptance of this Amendment would interfere with what is urgently necessary for the health and moral welfare of the people I hope that it will be rejected.
  4.0 P.M.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Walter Foster) has informed us that he is quite certain that the President of the Local Government Board does not object to an impartial person, but that what he really does object to is a lengthened and expensive inquiry. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to show what would occur provided this Amendment of the Lords was carried. I think the right hon. Gentleman can hardly have read the Amendment, because there must be an inquiry under any circumstances. Why should an inquiry by an impartial person be longer than an inquiry by an official of the Local Government Board? I see no reason why an impartial person—that is, a person who has no interest in the subject before him—should not be able to hold an inquiry just as quickly as an inspector who has an interest in the question. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that if he has a grievance and he desires to go to arbitration, the arbitrator should be a person who has an interest in his opponent's case? That is what this Amendment seeks to avoid. All the Amendment does is to say that the person holding the inquiry is not to have an interest in the case of one of the parties to it. I do not believe the inquiry would take any longer; and even if it did, I think in the interests of justice it would be worth while, rather than to run the risk of an unjust decision. What foundation has the right hon. Gentleman for saying that the Local Government Board would be so quick? My impression is that the Local Government Board is very dilatory, and I have heard many complaints in this House about delay on the part of that Department. The right hon. Gentleman also complained that after the inquiry had been made the Order would have to lay on the Table for 30 days. That is not a very long time when you are dealing with a man's property. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that it is a very good thing to dispossess one man in order to put another man into his place; but before you do that you ought to be perfectly certain if you are doing the right thing. Why has the right hon. Gentleman such a want of confidence in this House or in another place? I do not

  1457
  share that want of confidence in another place, but I may agree with the right hon. Gentleman in not having much confidence in this House. But even in this House, why should there be a vote given without due inquiry or due care being taken? It is extremely difficult to get an Address to the Crown carried after 11 o'clock at night. The matter is practically in the hands of the Government; if they can make anything of a case against it, the Motion is not carried.
  The President of the Local Government Board has made an extremely bad defence of his Motion to disagree with this Amendment. He says it is much simpler to trust the Local Government Board. I daresay it is. It would be much simpler to do away with this House and with another place, to enthrone the Local Government Board in those palatial buildings which have just been completed across the road, and to leave everything to the right hon. Gentleman. We could then go away and enjoy ourselves; we should not sit here all through the summer and the autumn; and, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman would do exceedingly well. But he is not going to live for ever; and when some other person takes that exalted office, what guarantee have we that the new President of the Local Government Board will be equipped with all the mental powers, impartiality, and accomplishments of the right hon. Gentleman? I do not believe you could find another person who would do so well; and for that reason I would prefer a procedure a little more complicated, which would stand the test of time, instead of the 20 or 30 years during which we may have the pleasure of the right hon. Gentleman's society. The President of the Local Government Board says that no injustices have arisen under the Small Holdings Act. I was going to cite the case referred to by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyttelton), which seemed to me to be a case of great injustice. In that case a farmer bought with his own capital a certain quality of land in order to work it with land which he already had, and I think it is very unjust that he should be dispossessed of the light land in order that some other person might be put in possession of it. Reference has also been made to the case where the Berkshire County Council purchased certain land, dispossessing a considerable number of labourers, in order that somebody else might come in. I am told that there are many other cases; but there, at any rate, are two within 18
  1458
  months. I do not know how many cases of injustice the right hon. Gentleman thinks that Radical legislation should bring about, but I think that two in 18 months are sufficient. What it would be in 10 years I do not know. The next argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that not much land would be required. That reminds one of the woman's plea that the baby was only a little one. Does the fact that only a small quantity of land is required make the case any better? Are you to do something in which injustices may occur because there will be only a small number of them? The argument is not worthy of the mental qualifications of the right hon. Gentleman. I think he knows that he has a bad case, and that is why his arguments have been so weak.
  The Amendment merely proposes that you should have an inquiry by an impartial person. Who objects to that? Surely not hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Provisional Order only comes in in large cases. In small cases the Order has to lie on the Table for 30 days. That is a very moderate request when you are dealing with the property of other people. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the Small Holdings Act, but there have not been many cases of compulsory purchase under that Act, and the value of small holdings' purchases is not very great. I am informed that the London County Council have spent over £2,500,000 in housing schemes. When dealing with such large sums of money, it is only right that there should be some proper inquiry in which people can have confidence. As I cannot induce the right hon. Gentleman to abandon the attitude which he has taken up I can only express the hope that another place will disagree with the action he is now taking.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: The President of the Local Government Board seems to forget that all this kind of legislation depends on the way in which public opinion deals with it. If there is any suspicion of partiality or injustice in these inquiries you will lose much more than you would gain by saving a little extra cost or delay. The right hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division (Sir W. Foster) suggested that Local Government Board officials could not in any way be suspected of partiality. I do not think it is a reproach to a Government official that he should take a great interest in his own work and prefer it to any other interest. When an official goes down day after day

  1459
  to look at houses he is likely to be obsessed with the importance of the matter, and to take rather less account of private interests than an impartial person in the habit of looking on all sides of the case would be. A Local Government Board inspector has no training in these other matters. I think it is essential that you should have men who are in the habit of arbitrating on these complicated questions of fact. The President of the Local Government Board stated that having an inquiry of this kind was really not necessary because the amount of land involved would be so small. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has pointed out that that is really no argument at all, and I might also say that it is hardly accurate as a matter of fact. There have been no cases under the Small Holdings Act which can compare in importance and magnitude with certain estates which have been bought for Part III.—Housing. The London County Council bought one estate of 225 acres at a cost of over £90,000. Is that such a small transaction that it is not necessary to have a proper judicial procedure in regard to it?
  Mr. BURNS: Was that bought compulsorily or by agreement?
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I do not think that affects the argument. There is nothing whatever in the Bill limiting it to small cases. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that you would never want to buy large estates. But if a local authority buy a large estate by agreement, what on earth is there to prevent them buying it compulsorily? They are more likely to buy a large estate compulsorily, because they would think it better worth while to incur the expense which might be entailed. There have been considerable injustices under the Small Holdings Act procedure. The right hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Lyttelton) mentioned the case of a farmer in Norfolk, but I am not sure that he made it clear that there was in dispute, not only a matter of fact, but also a matter of law, the farmer stating that the Board of Agriculture official disregarded some of the provisions of the Act. It might be right not to have an appeal on questions of fact; but there is certainly no justification for setting up a Government Department above the courts of the land on matters of law. There was another hard case in Wales, where a lady had to sell some land for small holdings. She was most anxious to employ a
  1460
  barrister, but was unable to do so; and she was very much prejudiced by the fact that the clerk to the county council was a lawyer, had all the procedure at his finger-ends, and was able to get far harder terms than probably would have been the case if she had had her own representative. Surely you cannot argue that because it is right to have this procedure for small holdings, that, therefore, it is right for housing. It appears that the two cases are absolutely different. There is always any amount of land available for housing around a town, where owners are most anxious to sell if they can get a reasonable price. As everybody knows, there may have been cases where it has been difficult to get agricultural land in a position suitable for small holdings. That land has to be close to a market, and may in some cases be in few hands. You do not get a monopoly of that kind in the case of housing land. For that reason it seems to me that the procedure of the Port of London Bill is far more applicable to the case than the procedure of the Small Holdings Act. Then the right hon. Gentleman made out that it was going to cause less delay if you left the matter with the Local Government Board. My experience of that Department is that nothing could be slower. If you write a letter to them once a week, you will be lucky if you get an answer at the end of the year. I have no doubt that it is a good thing that they should not hurry their work, but I do think in these matters that it is absurd to argue that you are going to gain time by leaving the thing in the hands of the Local Government Board, who already cannot get through their work in a reasonable time. When they have the enormous amount of work to be placed upon them by this Bill, the planning out of every town in the country, and the work of the law courts, then they surely will be more incapable of a speedy decision than at present? The cost has surely been very much exaggerated. The only way in which you can reduce the cost in these matters is by cutting down proper and legitimate inquiries. But if you are to avoid injustice you must have an inquiry. It must be fairly costly where you get a complicated case. I think the Government are in such a position as to suggest that they either want to avoid cases being sifted or alternatively they will have to admit that reasonable expenses must be allowed. I believe that if this Amendment of another place is refused and the Bill becomes law

  1461
  as it is a very great grievance will he created. It will do much to prejudice the cause of housing and destroy its popularity amongst those classes upon whom much depends to carry it through.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): I am exceedingly sorry that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has lent the great weight of his authority to this particular Amendment. Local authorities have been waiting for the important procedure proposed by the present Bill for a considerable length of time. The Select Committee which sat to consider this question informed us that one of the chief obstacles in the way of local authorities who desire to put Housing Acts into operation was the complicated nature of the machinery by which land can be compulsorily acquired. Not only did they say that this tended to make the local authorities reluctant to take any action at all—and one cannot be surprised at the reluctance of local authorities under the circumstances—but in cases where action has been decided upon it almost necessarily increases the expense of their schemes, since a local authority will often be prepared to pay more than the market value of the land acquired than undergo the uncertainty and delay which the action of putting into force compulsory powers now involves. The Report proceeds to say there can be no doubt whatever that the price of land acquired under such circumstances has often been far beyond its real value. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken in support of this Amendment fail to consider the power that the Local Government Board already has. Have they forgotten the Local Government Act of 1894, which authorises parish councils to compulsorily acquire land, and allows the Board to confirm the Order without variation, that Order having the force and validity of an Act of Parliament?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Not without a public inquiry.
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: A public inquiry certainly, but without any Provisional Order. We are told that the Board has received some new, exceptional, extraordinary and despotic powers which they have not exercised before. As a matter of fact, this power was granted to them by the Local Government Act of 1894. It has been exercised in a large number of cases and nobody, so far as I am aware, has
  1462
  made any complaint whatever as to the impartiality of the Local Government Board in regard to the numerous cases which have arisen under the Act. Reference has been made to the Small Holdings Act. We have been told that certain cases of injustice have arisen under the Small Holdings Act. In the Burkshire case, to which reference was made, the land was not compulsorily acquired at all. That was land which was acquired by voluntary agreement. With reference to the other case, I would only ask hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House to read the report of the Debate that took place upon this particular case in the House of Lords, and I believe every impartial person will come to the conclusion that in that case Mr. Ringer suffered no injustice whatever. If this Amendment be adopted let us consider what a local authority will have to face. It will, in the first place, supposing it wants to acquire some piece of land compulsorily, have to face the negotiations between the local authority and the owner, which will take some time. Then, if the parties fail to agree, they will attempt to agree upon an arbitration. If an obstructive owner refuses to agree, then the impartial person to whom allusion has been made will have to be appointed. However impartial that person may be he will be a man, I have no doubt, of experience and authority, but he will have no partiality for low fees. I am perfectly certain that that will add very considerably indeed to the expense, not to say the delay, of a transaction. There is one point which has not been alluded to in the course of the Debate. This impartial person is alluded to—"and such other persons as the person holding the inquiry in his discretion thinks fit to allow, shall be permitted to appear and be heard at the inquiry." That means that counsel, witnesses, and experts will have to be heard at the inquiry. Take the case of the acquisition of a small piece of land. Imagine for a moment what the expense will be. The local authority, knowing beforehand what that expense will be, will naturally be tempted to give for the land a very much higher price than it otherwise ought to come to. Then, after the inquiry, the Order may become of a provisional character. The question thereafter may be fought before the Committee of the House of Commons; it may be fought before the Committee of the House of Lords. A local authority, face to face with a prospect of that kind, will be so appalled that it will

  1463
  feel that it could not possibly proceed with its scheme. I venture to go so far as to say that if this Amendment were accepted that it will make this portion of the Bill practically a dead letter. That is the reason why the right hon. Gentleman has stated that this Amendment is absolutely fatal to the Bill. I cannot forget that in the course of 12 years in the matter of acquiring land compulsorily for the erection of working-class dwellings that only seven Provisional Orders were applied for. To accept this Amendment would be to destroy the beneficent purpose of this portion of the Bill; to defeat and disappoint the hopes that local authorities entertain that by means of paying a fair price for property they will be able to acquire equitably land for the great purpose which the Bill is designed to fulfil.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are not dealing with the very wide question that he discussed in his speech, namely, the question of the price of land. We are dealing with the preliminary step which the local authority has to take before they can proceed with an Order. The right hon. Gentleman has reminded us of the fact that as the Bill left the House of Commons there was some provision that there should be an inquiry by the local authority on the spot, but that there is no such provision here. He is entirely dealing with the Schedule of the Bill. Under that there is no need for the Local Government Board to send down anybody to make inquiries. The Board can confirm or alter an Order as they like from Whitehall without holding any inquiry at all. Therefore the object of this Amendment is that there should be required to be held a local inquiry on the spot, at which people may appear and state their grievances. I venture to submit there is nobody more likely to know what is good for the welfare of a district than those who live there. The only way to arrive at a proper conclusion is that a local inquiry should be held and that the parties interested should attend. It was also said that no word has ever been urged against the impartiality of the Local Government inspectors. In my younger days I had considerable experience in connection with the acquisition of land for sewage schemes, etc. You must remember that the reports of the gentlemen who are sent down by the Local government Board are never published,
  1464
  and time after time you find out that the representative of the Local Government Board has reported strongly in one way, and that directly after that pressure is brought to bear—I am not referring to the present Government—by the Parliamentary representative of the place concerned, and the Local Government Board has gone dead in the teeth of their report. The Swansea case is a case in point. Here, though the report of the Commissioner was published, it was overruled by the Department. When the hon. Gentleman said that for a large number of years no one had ever heard anything against the impartiality of the Local Government Board inspectors, it must be remembered that their reports are not published, and that they are frequently overruled, and he must have heard frequent dissatisfaction either on the part of the landowner or on the part of the Local Government Board. And again even in cases where this would not occur it frequently occurs that some pressure had been brought to bear. One cannot go about the country without hearing remarks of that kind. Surely it is better to avoid a possibility of any such remark occurring in the future, and, therefore, I support this part of the Amendment that makes for an independent authority to try the case. The ordinary precedure differs fundamentally from that which is set up under this Bill. Under this Bill no inquiry is necessary. The President of the Local Government Board stated that no complaint has come to his ears in connection with the working of the Small Holdings Act which contains this machinery, but surely he must have known that under this and similar Acts case after case has been brought to his notice. I will only mention two cases especially, those which occurred in Wales, and that which occurred in Northamptonshire, where great injustice has been done by the working of the Act. I am not sure whether that injustice arose under the Bill of last year or under Bills of previous years containing the same machinery, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me when I say that deputations put such instances of injustice under these Acts before him, and that similar instances have been multiplied here to-day—I venture to hope he may see his way to reconsider the position which he has taken up upon this Amendment, and having regard to the fact that his Bill as it stood offered no security at all of any local inquiry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, it did."]
  Mr. BURNS: If the hon. Member will look at pages 37 and 38 of the Schedule he will see that it is there prescribed that if within the prescribed period no objection to the Order has been presented to the Board by a person interested in the land, or if any such objection has been withdrawn, the Boards shall, without further inquiry, confirm the Order, but if such an objection has been presented and has not been withdrawn the Board shall forthwith cause a public inquiry to be held in the locality.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there are two Orders, the first, as I understand it, under Schedule 1, is an Order as to the acquisition of land. The other is as to the price to be paid. As to the Order for the acquisition of land, I do not find any provision for an inquiry. That seems to be governed by the second paragraph, but as to the price, it is perfectly true that there
  is a provision for an inquiry. We are now on the question of whether there should be an inquiry before the acquisition of land. We are not on the question of price at all, which is a different matter. I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that he is mistaken.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I guarded myself in the beginning by saying we were not discussing the question of the price, but the preliminary inquiry, and so far as that is concerned my remarks are quite accurate. I think that so far as the probability of injustice occurring, enough has been said to cause the Government to pause before they insert in this measure anything which will cause injustice of the character which has been brought into their notice.
  Question put: "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 163; Noes, 47.

  Division No. 875.]

  AYES.

  [4.53 p.m.

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

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

  Essex, R. W.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Armitage, R.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Everett, R. Lacey

  M'Callum, John M.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Marnham, F. J.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Massie, J.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Ginnell, L.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Barnes, G. N.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Mond, A.

  Bell, Richard

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Mooney, J. J.

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

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Bertram, Julius

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Morrell, Philip

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Myer, Horatio

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Branch, James

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Henry, Charles S.

  O'Malley, William

  Brooke, Stopford

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hodge, John

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hooper, A. G.

  Pointer, J.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Radford, G. H.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hudson, Walter

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Rees, J. D.

  Clough, William

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Rowlands, J.

  Cross, Alexander

  Lamont, Norman

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Crossley, William J.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

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

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Sears, J. E.

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

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Weir, James Galloway

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Vivian, Henry

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

  Wadsworth, J.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Fell, Arthur

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Percy, Earl

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Stanier, Beville

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Kerry, Earl of

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Winterton, Earl

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Younger, George

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Dumphreys, John

  M'Arthur, Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Rawlinson and Viscount Morpeth.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Fardell, Sir George T.

  Lords Amendment agreed to.

  Mr. BURNS Mr. BURNS moved that the House disagree with the Lords in the Amendment to insert, after the word "Act," at the end of Sub-section (1),
  (2) If within the period prescribed by the Board no objection to an Order under this Section has been presented to the Board by a person interested in the land, or if every such objection has been withdrawn, the Board shall, without further inquiry, confirm the Order either without modification or subject to such modifications as they think fit, but if such an objection has been presented and has not been withdrawn the Board shall appoint an impartial person not in the employment of any Government Department to hold a public inquiry on their behalf in the locality in which the land is proposed to be acquired, and the local authority and all persons interested in the land, and such other persons, as the person holding the inquiry in his discretion thinks fit to allow, shall be permitted to appear and be heard at the inquiry.
  (3) If the person who held the inquiry reports, or if on considering his report, it appears to the Board that by reason of the extent or situation of any land proposed to be acquired compulsorily, or the purposes for which such land is used, or any other circumstances, the land ought not to be acquired compulsorily without the sanction of Parliament, the Order of the Board shall be provisional only, and shall not have effect unless confirmed by Parliament.
  (4) An order, other than a Provisional Order, made by the Board under this Section shall come into force after it has lain for thirty days during the Session of Parliament on the Table of both Houses of
  1468
  Parliament, unless either House during those thirty days presents an Address to His Majesty against the order, in which case no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of a new order.
  House disagreed with Lords Amendment.

  CLAUSE 7.—(Expenditure of Money for Housing Purposes in Case of Settled Land.)
  Sub-section (2).—The provision by a tenant for life, at his own expense, of dwellings available for the working classes on any settled land, shall not in any case be deemed to be an injury to any interest in reversion or remainder in that land.
  Lords Amendment: After the word "land" ["working classes on any settled land"], insert "provided that the powers conferred upon a tenant for life by this Sub-section shall not be exercised by him without the previous approval in writing of the trustees of the settlement."
  Other Amendments agreed to.

  CLAUSE 10.—(Powers of Enforcing Execution of Housing Acts.)
  Lords Amendment: At the end of Sub-section (1), insert, "Before deciding that a local authority have failed to exercise their powers under Part III. of the principal Act, the Board shall take into consideration the necessity for further accommodation for the housing of the working classes in such district, the probability that the required accommodation will not be otherwise provided,

  1469
  and the other circumstances of the case, and whether, having regard to the liability which will be incurred by the rates, it is prudent for the local authority to undertake the provision of such accommodation."
  Mr. BURNS Mr. BURNS moved, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment only asks that the Local Government Board shall do what is their ordinary work, which ought to be clearly expressed in the Bill—that is, take all the matters into consideration. I appeal to hon. Members below the Gangway not to press their objection to this Amendment.
  Lords Amendment: At the end of Subsection (3), insert (4) An order relating to Part III. of the principal Act made by the Local Government Board under this Section shall not take effect until a draft thereof has lain for thirty days during the Session of Parlament on the Table of both House of Parliament, and, if either House during those thirty days presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of a new Draft Order.
  Mr. BURNS Mr. BURNS moved, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment is not necessary, and I think the request to insert it is quite unreasonable.
  Viscount MORPETH: This proposal throws some light on the policy adopted by the Government. I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should be so reluctant to submit himself to the judgment of the Houses of Parliament. The Secretary to the Local Government Board said that the whole object of this procedure was to achieve simplicity. Everybody must desire simplicity, but in a complicated state of society it is not easy to be simple, and if the right hon. Gentleman wants to see the sort of procedure he desires to enforce he only needs to go to some of those Oriental countries where the executive power is combined in one person, and where the subject is absolutely unprotected in any way from the inroads of the executive. In this country it has been considered necessary to safeguard the citizen against any possible abuse of power, not only on the part of his neigh-
  1470
  bours, but even on the part of the central government. The objection we have to these provisions is that all safeguards are withdrawn from the private citizen, and he is left at the mercy of the Executive Government, which in this case is the Local Government Board. It would be some protection to the citizen if he had this House to look to, because here he would be able to get some hon. Member to ventilate his grievance and bring it before the House. It is extremely unlikely unless the case was one of a very grave character, and a genuine grievance was felt in regard to it, that any hon. Member would venture to raise it in this House, because he would find the whole force of the Government, as well as the whole feeling of this House, against him. Hon. Members object to having small trumpery matters brought before the attention of the House. For these reasons I regret that the right hon. Gentleman does not see his way to accept this Amendment. I do not think this Amendment would cause the delay which has been put forward as an argument against it by the spokesman for the Government. The real objection is that the Government Department in this matter desires to be supreme.
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: There is a precedent for the application of a proposal like the one contained in this Clause. May I refer the Noble Lord who has just spoken to Section 299 of the Public Health Act of 1875, under which for the last 24 years hundreds of cases have arisen under that Section, and there has been no serious Debate in Parliament as to the way in which the Local Government Board has exercised its powers under the Public Health Act. The Local Government Board have precisely the powers under the Public Health Act of 1875 with regard to default by the local authority in respect of water supply that it is proposed to give them now, and there is no appeal in cases of that kind. Having regard to these facts there is not the least necessity for the adoption of this Amendment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Public Health Act of 1875 gives the Local Government Board the precise powers which are given under this Clause for the acquisition of a water supply, or the failure of a local authority to initiate a water supply, and he seems to think because of that it is right to give the powers under very much more extended provisions such as those which are contained in this Bill. The

  1471
  question of a water supply is a small matter compared with the powers which the Local Government Board are going to take under this Clause. A water supply is a necessity, and in a small place it is not a very costly matter. What we are now considering, however, is a very different thing. After all, the people who have a knowledge of the locality and who have to find the money ought to know what they require. The county council may say, "We do not think, first of all, that this proposal is necessary, and, secondly, as we have to find the money, we do not think the locality will be able to find it." The Local Government Board can come down and override the decision of the county council. What does the Local Government Board know, for example, about the power of Merionethshire to provide money? The Local Government Board, under this Clause, can override the decision of the people on the spot merely because four large inhabitant householders may decide that they require a large scheme for providing additional cottages costing many thousands of pounds. I was not aware that the Government attached so much importance to precedents. I could give the right hon. Gentleman any quantity of precedents against every measure which the present Government has brought in during the last four years. When it suits their purpose they say, "We do not care about antiquated, musty precedents." The Government, however, cannot have it both ways. The hon. Member has quoted a precedent of 34 years ago.
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: It has been in operation ever since.
  Sir F. BANBURY: But that does not make it any better. The House of Lords has been in existence hundreds of years, but is the hon. Gentleman on account of that going to declare that he will not say anything against them? The precedent quoted by him is only a small matter, and it is no argument to use it in favour of giving arbitrary powers to the Local Government Board, which will permit them to enforce upon a locality enormous expenditure which the inhabitants may not desire. The question was raised during the Committee stage of the Bill, but we had not an opportunity of discussing the details. I regret the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to accept the
  1472
  business-like Amendment which has been inserted in another place.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: I think this is a material and a reasonable Amendment. I agree that there are cases where it is necessary to give power of this kind to a Government Department, but such a power as this ought to be exercised with the greatest possible caution. The success of the Bill will depend mainly upon the harmony with which the local authorities work with the central authority. There may be a very few cases in which an appeal is necessary to the county council, and in which the Local Government Board will have to assume the position of the determining authority. It is agreed that in no case should they act unless there is a very strong reason indeed. Surely it would be much more acceptable to the local authority which is overruled if the Order was laid upon the Table of this House. It is quite clear that this House or another House would never interfere with a case in which the right of the Local Government Board to decide was evident; and, on the other hand, if there was this appeal to Parliament it would make these provisions more acceptable to the local authorities.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I think the right hon. Gentleman has taken up rather an extraordinary attitude considering the party to which he belongs. We are continually being told that the will of the people must prevail, yet here we have a responsible Minister of the Crown refusing to trust the local authorities or the House of Commons. He does not dare to place these orders overriding the local authorities on the Table of Parliament for fear Parliament should behave unreasonably. I think that it is an extraordinary proposition to come from a Member of the Government. Apparently the only body he can trust is the Local Government Board, and apparently he can only trust it because it is entirely out of touch with the electors and represents nobody. This Amendment would not involve any expense to anybody, and it is not a new proposal. It has been embodied in a like ease—in the Small Holdings Act. There is a provision in that Act for laying the facts before Parliament when a local authority is coerced, and, if it was right in that case, I cannot see that it is going to-do any damage here. After all, housing is a local matter, and I do not think any-

  1473
  body can have a greater claim to decide the matter than the locality concerned. Other cases in which the central authority interferes with local administration are those in which either the public health is concerned and where epidemics might be caused by local authorities neglecting their duties or those in which the central authority makes a grant. If the right hon. Gentleman were making a grant out of the Exchequer towards housing, then I should say the Local Government Board ought to have this right to override the wishes of the ratepayers; but, as there is no provision of that kind, it appears to me quite unreasonable to take away all the control from the representatives of the ratepayers and to concentrate all power in the hands
  of a Government Department. The Government have also embodied a provision of this kind in the Territorial Reserve Forces Act. I understand there has never been any question or difficulty arising under that Act, and that there is no possibility of any delay being caused or of any action being taken except in very flagrant cases. If the Local Government Board is as reasonable and as accessible as we are continually being assured they are, I do not see that they would lose anything whatever by agreeing to the fullest publicity of their proceedings.
  Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  The House divided: Ayes, 174; Noes, 50.

  Division No. 876.]

  AYES.

  [5.8 p.m.

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

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Micking, Major G.

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

  Essex, R. W.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Armitage, R.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Marnham, F. J.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Massie, J.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Mond, A.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Morrell, Philip

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Ginnell, L.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Barnard, E. B.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Myer, Horatio

  Beauchamp, E.

  Glover, Thomas

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Nolan, Joseph

  Bell, Richard

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Bertram, Julius

  Gwynn, Stephen Luclus

  O'Malley, William

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Branch, James

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pointer, J

  Brodle, H. C.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

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

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Radford, G. H.

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hodge, John

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rees, J. D.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Hooper, A. G.

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

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hudson, Walter

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Clough, William

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rowlands, J.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Keating, M.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Cox, Harold

  Laidlaw, Robert

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

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Sears, J. E.

  Cross, Alexander

  Lamont, Norman

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Crossley, William J.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Summerbell, T.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Sutherland, J. E.

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

  Lupton, Arnold

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Waterlow, D. S.

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

  Vivian, Henry

  Weir, James Galloway

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Wadsworth, J.

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

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Forster, Henry William

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Percy, Earl

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bull, Sir William James

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hills, J. W.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanier, Beville

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Winterton, Earl

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Dumphreys, John

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Younger, George

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Fardell, Sir George T.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. W. Guinness and Sir F. Banbury.

  Fell, Arthur

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  CLAUSE 10.—(Power of Local Government Board on Complaint to Enforce Exercise of Powers.)
  Sub-section (4).—Any order made by the Local Government Board under this Section may be enforced by mandamus.
  Lords Amendment: After "mandamus" insert (6) For the purposes of this Section, so far as it relates to Part III. of the principal Act, the expression "local authority" shall not include the London County Council, or the council of any county borough.
  Mr. BURNS Mr. BURNS moved, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The reasons for this disagreement can be put very briefly. If this Amendment were carried, and if the proposal which my hon. Friend for one of the Divisions of Lancashire hopes to persuade me to adopt, but which I cannot accept, were agreed to, two-thirds of the urban population of this country would be ruled out from the operations and provisions of this Bill. We cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment. I see no reason why 74 county boroughs, 252 non-county boroughs, and the London County Council, which has nearly 5,000,000 people within its jurisdiction, should be exempted from the operations and provisions of this Bill. I can give even a shorter reason than that. Seventy-five per cent. of the population of England and Wales live in urban communities, and if this Subsection were carried and amended as my hon. Friend wishes, more than half of that 75 per cent. would be
  1476
  exempted from the Bill. There is no reason why London should be exempted. There are certain portions of London where greater activity is wanted with regard to housing, particularly in the Southwark area. The details have been admirably set forth by the medical officer for Southwark himself in his report for 1908, and if the condition of things which he describes is allowed to go on there is reason for either the borough council or the county council, or probably both, being defaulted. For these reasons we ask that no invidious distinction shall be made between the bodies—whether rural or urban, large or small—and that all should come under the jurisdiction of this Bill.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I do not understand the reference of the right hon. Gentleman to the Southwark area. This Clause only affects Part II. and Part III. There is plenty of power to coerce the local authority under Part I. If the right hon. Gentleman relies on the Southwark case——
  Mr. BURNS: Not wholly.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I venture to assert that the Southwark case will not arise under this Clause. Where you get this large population of 50,000, which is the limit for county boroughs, it is quite reasonable to allow the ratepayers to decide what they can do without putting an undue financial burden on the rates. I think it is most undesirable in a matter of this kind—where obviously the Local Government Board cannot know all the circumstances of the neighbourhood and

  1477
  the possibilities of good housing being provided by the public authority—to take away the control from the representatives of the ratepayers. It will be quite sufficient if this provision is limited to the smaller areas. I think the large towns will do the work quite satisfactorily without any of this coercion.
  Mr. A. H. SCOTT: I am very sorry the President of the Local Government Board declines to make this concession to the county boroughs. In the observations that he made he rather led this House to believe that the municipalities are not interested in this Bill. That is quite an erroneous opinion. The municipalities are very anxious to get this Bill passed into law. Although, as has been already stated, it originally sprang from the rural districts, it is the desire of the municipalities to acquire power to deal with their housing problems—that is, responsible for its being extended to the municipalities. But in carrying out the Housing Bill there is all the difference in the world between a great municipality being permitted to do what it thinks possible in developing its own area and its being compelled to act on lines laid down by the permanent officials of the Local Government Board. The municipalities of this country do not trust the Local Government Board. I do not say that with any disrespect to the presiding officer of that Board. But the Local Government Board exists for all time, while its representatives in this House are not a permanent fixture. There are many municipalities that have had reason to doubt very greatly the wisdom and judgment of the Local Government Board. Take the case of the City of Manchester and its experience in connection with a housing scheme in a district which by the extension of tramways has entirely altered in its residential character. The local authorities of our municipalities best know the requirements of their district, and it is absurd to think that anybody sitting in London can be acquainted with the conditions of municipal life in most of these great towns. If they are to be deprived of all authority to initiate schemes, there will be an increasing difficulty in getting citizens to carry on municipal affairs. They do not care to have an autocratic power in London dictating to them in every single instance the way in which they shall manage the interests of their own district. The object of this Clause is to give the Local Government Board power to dictate to every
  1478
  local authority what their schemes should be, and how they should carry them out, and to compel the local authority to pay every penny of expenditure that may be incurred. When it is remembered that the local authority—leaving out the aldermen—are the direct representatives of the municipality and of the ratepayers, I think it must be admitted that they are the truest judges and the best people to carry out these great works.
  Viscount MORPETH: The hon. Gentleman opposite has at least made a speech in favour of local self-government, but it is local self-government for London and the county boroughs only. All the other local authorities he cheerfully leaves in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. He thinks there is all the difference in the world between the county boroughs and the other local authorities. What difference is there? He tells us that in Manchester they know their own affairs, and they do not want anybody in London to come down and dictate to them! Does not the inhabitant of the rural district know his own affairs? Why, then, should he be put under the authority of the Local Government Board in London while the Manchester inhabitant is to go free? The arguments which the hon. Gentleman has advanced that the municipalities best know their own requirements are arguments in favour of leaving these matters subject to the supervision of the Local Government, but leaving the decision to the local authority. The hon. Gentleman in every Division that has taken place has not voted with us on this side of the House when we have tried to insert these safeguards. He has, on the contrary, supported the Government. Now he asks that the county boroughs and the larger borough of the County of London only shall be exempt, and that all the other authorities shall be left under the control of the right hon. Gentleman. He gives us as one reason for that that this Bill had its initiation in the needs for housing in the rural districts. But taking the rural districts all round, I venture to assert that the need for housing in the great centres of population is ten and even one hundredfold greater than it is in the rural districts. Where the need in rural districts exists it is not universal; it is only in certain districts. It is mainly for the towns that this Bill is passed. I am unable to support the Amendment which places London and the county boroughs in a privileged position. If London and the county boroughs are to be in such a privi-

  1479
  leged position they will immediately cease to take any interest in the smaller and more helpless local authorities. They will become selfish, privileged persons, and it is because I desire to see them kept in the same category as other local authorities, and to use their great influence on behalf of self-government instead of being allowed to escape the conditions enforced on everybody else, I shall vote without any hesitation with the Government for keeping the county boroughs in line with the other local authorities.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am very sorry my Noble Friend has informed the House that he is going to take a certain course. I hope before the Division is taken I shall be able to persuade him that his better course would be to oppose the Motion of the President of the Local Government Board. My Noble Friend seemed surprised at the excellent speech made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Scott). I was not in the least surprised. It was exactly what I expected. For years hon. Gentlemen opposite have been trying to apply compulsion to other people, but the moment it is applied to themselves they come down, and advance strong reasons why they should be exempt. My Noble Friend is perfectly correct when he says there is no earthly reason why the London County Council and the county boroughs with over 50,000 inhabitants should be exempt. On the other hand, I believe everybody should be exempted, and I shall, therefore, vote for the exemption of the smaller numbers. I take exactly the opposite line of the hon. Member opposite. If we are not to exempt the borough and rural district councils why should we exempt the large ones? But I voted against compulsion being put on the other bodies, and I shall, therefore, vote against its being applied to the larger ones. I must say the argument of the President of the Local Government Board rather took my breath away. I am sorry he is for the moment absent from the House. I have had the pleasure of sitting in the House of Commons for nearly 18 years opposite to the right hon. Gentleman. Up to a short time ago there was nobody here who reverenced so much or looked with a higher regard upon the London County Council. Over and over again he has said in this House that the London County Council was superior to every existing institution and yet such is the irony of fate the right
  1480
  hon. Gentleman, now that he is no longer a member of that body, is trying to put his own Department above his once cherished ideal. Really it beats everything that the President of the Local Government Board—I prefer to call him the Member for Battersea—should come down and propose to put above the London County Council the Local Government Board. Words fail me to describe such a derogation from principles which for so many years the right hon. Gentleman has held. I hope that the country at large will take notice of this. I have no desire to use unparliamentary language, but I do trust that the public will note the way in which hon. Members opposite regard the grant of power over another man's property to the bureaucracy presided over by the right hon. Gentleman, and the horror with which they regard it when it touches themselves. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman has now returned to the House, and I will simply call his attention to the fact that he, formerly a great champion of the London County Council, is now proposing to subordinate the body which he once adorned to the Local Government Board.
  Mr. BURNS: Only when they are ire default.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the London County Council can ever be in default?
  Mr. BURNS: There are many recent symptoms.
  Sir F. BANBURY: They can only have arisen since the right hon. Gentleman left it. He may, perhaps, go back to it, and then he will regret his present action.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: As representative of one of the most enlightened county boroughs I cannot listen unmoved to what has occurred. We are asked to make provision for something which everybody knows will never take place. It is right I should say here that an observation made by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill should be contradicted at once. He said that this Amendment would take out of the provisions of this Bill a very large proportion—which he named—of the urban population of this country. It will do nothing of the kind. If the Amendment is not disagreed with the only effect will be to remove the population from the extreme provisions of these entirely useless minatory proceedings. I say that they are useless because their sanction is only a mandamus. What is the

  1481
  use of a mandamus against a town council? It is the kind of thunder and lightning which we see on the stage: it has practically the same effect. Instances on record show that it is a perfectly useless proceeding, and public opinion will practically prevent in these cases your putting it into operation at all. It will be no use for the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else who answers me to say that the taking of them out of this particular limiting provision of the Bill is really removing from them the foundation of the whole Bill. It is not the foundation of the whole Bill. As everybody knows in the cases of those large enlightened municipalities, what has been wanting in the past is not the will, but the power. It is either owing to financial straits or the want of absolute power under the law which has restrained them in the past. It has not been a want of will, but entirely a want of power. The resisting of this Amendment does nothing to make that state of things better, and though I think it is possible that the hon. Member who supported this Amendment, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. A. H. Scott) probably is in favour of drawing the line at a place where nobody else would draw it. I do think that by negotiations or otherwise it ought to be possible to draw some line at a point where this provision would be practically of no use at all to you, and where nobody would ever dream of putting it in force.
  Mr. CLAUDE HAY: Many hon. Members who like myself have had the advan-
  tage of hearing speeches by the President of the Local Government Board when he represented the London County Council, must be profoundly, I will not say excited, but concerned at the way in which he now looks upon the opinion of the county council. In those days, and I believe even quite recently he always held that the public opinion of London was sufficiently vivacious, and the proceedings of the London County Council were sufficiently public to ensure that no possible case of default would arise in regard to the housing question in the Metropolis. But be that as it may, whether it be in London or Manchester, or Liverpool, or any other big city, there is sufficient public spirit and enthusiasm, there is an abundance of critics and schemes, to make it certain that they will not be supine or slow to move in any branch of housing. Therefore, to have the octopus touch of the right hon. Gentleman over these bodies is not only to give the go-bye to all his previous policy, but is really to insult all those freely-elected bodies, thoroughly versed in the local questions and difficulties of housing. I hope that London as a whole will read with very great interest and mark for future use the votes which London Members will give upon this Amendment.
  Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 53.

  Division No. 877.]

  AYES.

  [5.35 p.m.

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

  Clough, William

  Glover, Thomas

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Astbury, John Meir

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gwynn, Stephen Luclus

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Cox, Harold

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cross, Alexander

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Crossley, William J.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Bell, Richard

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Hedges, A. Paget

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

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

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

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Higham, John Sharp

  Black, Arthur W.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hodge, John

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Essex, R. W.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Branch, James

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Brodle, H. C.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Brooke, Stopford

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Hudson, Walter

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Jackson, R. S.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Ginnell, L.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. H. R.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Keating, M.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Laidlaw, Robert

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Stewart, Halley (Creenock)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Malley, William

  Summerbell, T.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Pointer, J.

  Vivian, Henry

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wadsworth, J.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  M'Micking, Major G.

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

  Wardle, George J.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Radford, G. H.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Massie,

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Rees, J. D.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Menzies, Sir Walter

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

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

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Mond, A.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Morrell, Philip

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Rowlands, J.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Myer, Horatio

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Sears, J. E.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Fell, Arthur

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Armitage, R.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Percy, Earl

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bull, Sir William James

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hills, J. W.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanier, Beville

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Clyde, J. Avon

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Younger, George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfreu

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. A. H. Scott and Mr. W. Guinness.

  Dumphreys, John

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

  CLAUSE 12.—(Powers of County Council to act in Default of Rural District Council under Fart III.)
  If the council of a county on the complaint of the parish council or parish meeting of any parish comprised in any rural district in the county, or of any four inhabitant householders of that district, after holding a local inquiry, are satisfied that the rural district council have failed to exercise their powers under Part III. of the principal Act in cases where those powers ought to have been exercised, the county council may resolve that the powers of the district council for the purposes of that Part be transferred to the county council with respect either to the whole district or to any parish in the district, and these powers shall be transferred accordingly, and, subject to the provisions of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1900,
  1484
  and this Act, Section sixty-three of the Local Government Act, 1894, shall apply as if the powers had been transferred under that Act.
  Lords Amendments: Leave out "If" ["If the council of a county"], and insert "Where a complaint is made to," and leave out "on the complaint of" ["on the complaint of the parish council"], and insert "by."
  Leave out "of" ["of any four inhabitant householders"] and insert "by."
  After "district" ["householders of that district"], insert "the county council may cause a public local inquiry to be held, and if"; and leave out "a local inquiry" ["holding a local inquiry"], and insert "such an inquiry the county council."
  House agreed with Lords Amendments.

  CLAUSE 13.—(Power of County Council to Exercise Powers of Mural District Council under Part III.)
  (1) Where the council of a county are of opinion that for any reason it is expedient that the council should exercise, as respects any rural district in the county, any of the powers of a local authority under Part III. of the principal Act, the council, after giving notice to the council of the district of their intention to do so, may apply to the Local Government Board for an Order conferring such powers on them.
  (2) Upon such an application being made the Board may make an Order conferring on the county council as respects the rural district all or any of the powers of a local authority under Part III. of the principal Act, and thereupon the provisions of the Housing Acts relating to those powers (including those enabling the Public Works Loans Commissioners to lend, and fixing the terms for which money may be lent and borrowed), shall apply as if the council were a local authority under Part III. of the principal Act: Provided that the expenses incurred by the county council under any such Order shall be defrayed as expenses for general county purposes.
  (3) Where, under any such Order, the county council have executed any works in a rural district they may transfer the works to the council of that district on such terms and subject to such conditions as may be agreed between them.
  Lords Amendment: After "purposes" ["defrayed as expenses for general county purposes"], insert "unless after a local inquiry the county council are satisfied that it is just to limit the charge for the whole or part of the expenses so incurred to the rural district or to some conributory place or places therein, in which case they may order that any such expenses shall be so charged."
  Mr. SPEAKER: This appears to alter the incidence of local rates, and if that is so it comes within the Rule which this House has laid down for itself, that it can alone determine the incidence of rates.
  Mr. BURNS Mr. BURNS moved, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  House disagreed with Lords Amendment.

  CONTRACTS BY LANDLORD IN LETTING WORKING- CLASS HOUSES.

    CLAUSE 14.—(Extension of s. 75 of the Principal Act.)
    (1) In any contract made after the passing of this Act for letting for habitation
    1486
    by persons of the working classes a house or part of a house there shall be implied a condition that the house is at the commencement of the holding in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation.
    (2) In this Section the expression "letting for habitation by persons of the working classes" means the letting for habitation of a house or part of a house at a rent not exceeding:—

    (a) in the case of a house situate in the administrative county of London, forty pounds;

    (b) in the case of a house situate in a borough or urban district with a population according to the last census for the time being of fifty thousand or upwards, twenty-six pounds;

    (c) in the case of a house situate elsewhere, sixteen pounds.

    Lords Amendment: Leave out from "habitation" ["In any contract made after the passing of this Act for letting for habitation"] to "of" in Sub-section (2) ["means the letting for habitation of."]
    Mr. BURNS: I move to agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, which is purely drafting and verbal.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman says it is purely drafting, but that is not the view which the Government took in the other House. They took the view that it was an important Amendment, and an important extension of the Bill. They resisted it then, but I am glad they have thought better of their action in the matter.
    House agreed with Lords Amendment.
    Lords Amendment: After "pounds," at end of Clause, insert "there shall be implied a condition that the house is at the commencement of the holding in all respects reasonable fit for human habitation, but the condition aforesaid shall not be implied when a house or part of a house is let for a term of not less than three years upon the terms that it be put by the lessee into a condition reasonably fit for occupation."
    Mr. BURNS: I wish to move to add at the end of the Lords Amendment, "and the lease is not determinable at the option of either party before the expiration of that term."
    The object of my Amendment is to secure what the hon. Member behind me desires, and to prevent the occupier or the owner evading his responsibilities in the direction that, I believe, he will suggest.
    Mr. W. H. DICKINSON: I think the effect of the Lords Amendment is more far-reaching and objectionable than the President of the Local Government Board really appreciates. The Bill, as drafted, provided that in every case of letting a house for the purpose of being occupied by the working classes there should be an implied condition, first of all, that it is in a reasonable state of repair, and, secondly, under Clause 15, that it is to be kept in a reasonable state, and the Amendment that has been proposed in the other place excludes from that category all cases in which there is a tenancy of three years, and in which the tenant undertakes to carry out the necessary repairs. I think this may afford a loop-hole through which a great number of owners of property that is now inhabited by the working classes will evade the provisions of this Bill, and I fear if we agree to the words which are being inserted in the other place we may be committed to the exclusion of this particular class of houses. In all working-class dwellings there are four persons concerned. There is the freeholder, there is the owner, and the owner is the person who is held by law to be the person who takes the rack-rent. Then there is the tenant, and there is the subtenant. The subtenant is a person who, in the ordinary working-class dwellings, occupies one floor and very often one room, and in these very cases, and there are thousands of them in London and in the large towns, the tenant is not a bit above the ordinary occupiers of those rooms. He is a small man of no means. He very often takes the house for a short term of years, and he lets out all the rest of the house, with the exception of one or two rooms that he occupies, to other persons in that dwelling. The person who is always held to be responsible for the conduct of these houses is the owner. That is the man who lets to the tenant for a short term of years, and if under this Clause, as it is amended, the owner can escape from the obligation of keeping the house in repair and place the obligation upon the man who has taken the house, a poor man with no real power of carrying out that obligation, he will render this portion of this Act almost nugatory.
    I believe the importance of this provision lies in the fact that, after it is passed, the ordinary owner of these working-class dwellings will feel the obligation cast upon him of seeing that they are kept in proper repair, and if he can shift this responsibility and put it on to the person who has
    1488
    taken the house from him under these conditions, he will do so. All he has to do is to grant a lease, which is very often three years, and to include in the lease the condition now proposed to be inserted that the tenant shall be responsible for repairs, and then the local authority will have no one to fall back upon at all that is worth powder and shot. The only person they are able to fall back upon is the ordinary tenant who takes these houses and lets them out in rooms, or in flats, in different floors. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that he should not close the door to-day by accepting this Amendment, but that he should allow the House to disagree with the Amendment, and then in the ordinary course arrive at some more satisfactory conclusion. I cannot believe that the other House really intended to bring about the condition of affairs which I certainly think will arise if the exact provisions of this Clause are maintained, and I do not think the words which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to insert at the end at all meet my point. All they do is to say that there must be no words in the tenancy which will enable the Clause to be evaded by merely granting a lease with some conditions under which it can be terminated at much shorter notice. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will at any rate keep the door open, because I am convinced that if this is done tens of thousands of houses in our big towns will not enjoy the protection which was intended by the Bill as originally drafted.
    Mr. BURNS: My hon. Friend appeals to me not to close any door, but to avail myself of any open door between now and the final stages of this Bill, in both this and the other House, to see that an abuse of this is not made possible. That he can rely upon me doing, but the House must bear in mind what has been done by the Government in this Bill with regard to houses occupied by the working classes. We have raised the value in some cases from £8 to £16 and in others from £20 to £40 a year, a rent at which practically, with the exception of London, nearly all the working classes of the Kingdom will be included, and we moved this Amendment to the Lords Amendment because we are satisfied that in the event of either the owner or the occupier or the lessee attempting to evade responsibility by means of a three years' lease, that evasion would not be allowed, and the words I have added would prevent it. I appeal to my hon. Friend not to press his

    1489
    Amendment, but to rely upon my making still clearer and, if possible, still further strengthening this Clause against any possible abuse by anyone from anywhere.
    Amendment made in Lords Amendment.

    CLAUSE 15.—(Condition as to Keeping Houses Let to Persons of the Working Classes in Repair.)
    (1) The last foregoing Section shall as respects contracts to which that Section applies take effect as if the condition implied by that Section included an undertaking that the house shall, during the holding, be kept by the landlord in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation.
    Lords Amendment: At end of Subjection (1) insert "but nothing herein contained shall make it obligatory on the landlord to remedy any defect caused by the act or default of the tenant or occupier, or any person for whom the tenant is as between himself and the landlord responsible.
    "(2) The landlord or the local authority, or any person authorised by him or them in writing, may at reasonable times of the day, on giving twenty-four hours' notice in writing to the tenant or occupier, enter any house, premises, or building to which this Section applies for the purpose of viewing the state and condition thereof."
    Mr. BURNS Mr. BURNS moved to omit the words, "but nothing herein contained shall make it obligatory on the landlord to remedy any defect caused by the act or default of the tenant or occupier, or any person for whom the tenant is as between himself and the landlord responsible."
    The reason for disagreeing with the first part is that we must make it obligatory on the landlords to remedy any defect caused by the act or default of the tenant or occupier on the ground that that is practically the law now. The tenant must necessarily, in these circumstances, be a man of straw, against whom proceedings could not be properly taken, and it is the business of the landlord, if the tenant is behaving in such a way as to make the house undesirable, to get rid of him as soon as possible, and if that were not done we should place a premium upon landlords using the misdeeds of some tenant as a reason for not keeping in order houses
    1490
    and rooms which were desirable for better tenants.
    Mr. GEORGE CAVE: I do not think it is very reasonable entirely to exclude the first part of this Amendment. The case proposed to be met, I understand, is this: That the property is let on a yearly tenancy and the tenant wilfully damages the property. The Act throws on the landlord the responsibility of putting it into order. When it is put into order the tenant may repeat the damage again and again if he is a malicious tenant. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Let the landlord turn him out." That sounds reasonable at first sight, but if you look into it, is it so? The property is let on a yearly agreement and it may take very nearly two years to turn out the tenant, and during that time the damage may be done again and again, and a malicious tenant may throw a very heavy burden indeed on the landlord. Where damage is caused by the tenant the landlord ought not to be responsible. Of course he will do his best to keep his property in order, but when he has no effective remedy and cannot turn his tenant out except by giving him a year's notice, determining at the end of some year of the tenancy, it may take nearly two years to turn him out, and in that case the remedy suggested is useless.
    Mr. BURNS: The landlord, in the case the hon. and learned Gentleman assumes, would have an action for malicious damage. A person who took a house like this for a year would not be a titled person.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: That really is scarcely an answer. It would take about six months before an action for malicious damage could take place, and the hypothesis is that the malicious tenant, first having done the damage, could throw upon the landlord or the owner the expense of defending proceedings taken by the local authority against him, and the remedy suggested to the landlord by the right hon. Gentleman is that he should incur against a man of straw further additional cost.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division (Sir Walter Foster) said earlier in the evening that he was against delay. I would like to know what the hon. Member thinks of this delay. Is he going to vote for this Amendment to the Lords' Amendment, which would prevent a man from getting compensation for damage to his property, unless he goes

    1491
    into a court of law, against a man who may have gone out of the country months before the case can be heard?
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords-Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 49; Noes, 186.

    Division No. 878.]

    AYES.

    [6.4 p.m.

    Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Forster, Henry William

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gardner, Ernest

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Percy, Earl

    Bowles, G. Stewart

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

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Hills, J. W.

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Stanier, Beville

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Kerry, Earl of

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Courthope, G. Loyd

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

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Younger, George

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    M'Arthur, Charles

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Cave and Mr. G. D. Faber.

    Dumphreys, John

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Fell, Arthur

    NOES.

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

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Armitage, R.

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Essex, R. W.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Astbury, John Meir

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Maddison, Frederick

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Marnham, F. J.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Massie, J.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Bell, Richard

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Middlebrook, William

    Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

    Glover, Thomas

    Molteno, Percy Alport

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

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Mond, A.

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Morrell, Philip

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

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Black, Arthur W.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Gywnn, Stephen Luclus

    Myer, Horatio

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Branch, James

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Brodle, H. C.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Norton, Captain Cecil William

    Brooke, Stopford

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hedges, A. Paget

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Malley, William

    Byles, William Pollard

    Henry, Charles S.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Hodge, John

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Clough, William

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Pointer, J.

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Hudson, Walter

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Jackson, R. S.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Radford, G. H.

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

    Jowett, F. W.

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Keating, M.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Rees, J. D.

    Cox, Harold

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Cross, Alexander

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Crossley, William J.

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Lamont, Norman

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Rowlands, J.

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

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

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John p.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Lupton, Arnold

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

    Sears, J. E.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

    Steadman, W. C.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Vivian, Henry

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

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

    Summerbell, T.

    Wardle, George J.

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

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. J. Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Weir, James Galloway

    Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords Amendment as amended."
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask the President of the Local Government Board why this Amendment is being accepted? The assumption underlying the Lords Amendment is that the occupants of these houses, who, of course, are working people, are not to be trusted to admit the landlord to come in and inspect his own property at reasonable times unless they are compelled to do so by Act of Parliament. The speeches which were made above the Gangway a few minutes ago in regard to the tenants of these houses were such that if they had been made by the same speakers in Bermondsey a few days earlier there might have been a different result to the election. The same reason, which led to the rejection of the first part of the Lords' Amendment, seems to justify the rejection of the second part. What justification is there for assuming that the people occupying these houses require to be compelled by Act of Parliament to admit the landlord to view his own property under reasonable conditions?
    Mr. A. LUPTON: I rise to support the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. It seems to me that this is none of the most extraordinary proposals I have ever read in my life. I think, if it passed into law, it will be possible to visit and inspect a house at any hour of the day. There is a large section of the middle classes in the provinces who occupy houses with a rental not exceeding £26 a year, and even £16 a year, while in London a large number occupy houses with a rental not exceeding £40 a year. This Amendment is going to give the right of entry to the houses of the greater part of the population by landlords whenever they like. I have been brought up on the theory that an Englishman's house is his castle. I think, if his house is his castle, it should not be invaded unless it can be shown that some local authority invested with power for the purpose has reasonable grounds for invading the house. It is possible that an
    1494
    inspector representing the sanitary authority might bring disease into a house. I am glad to think that this was not in the Government Bill. It is an Amendment which was introduced by the House of Lords, and I strongly urge this House to reject it.
    Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil has asked the reason which has induced the Government to agree to this part of the Amendment. The reason, in our judgment, is very simple. By the medium of this Bill we impose upon the landlord certain responsibility, and if he does not exercise that responsibility we put upon him severe penalties for failing to keep the house in order. It is impossible for him to fully and freely exercise both his responsibility to the tenants from whom he receives rents, and to the local authority to whom he is under liability for keeping the houses in a sanitary condition, unless he has the right of access to see that repairs are carried out by the contractor to whom he often sub-lets the work of keeping the houses in order. It is in the interest of the working classes that the landlord should have the right of entry to see that the houses are in a sanitary condition. If he has not that right, I really believe that three-fourths of the liability and responsibility for a certain class of property put on the landlord would not be carried out, because if he were brought before a court of law he would only have to plead as an excuse for not carrying out the work that he was menaced by a sturdy tenant who declined to allow him to enter.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE Mr. KEIR HARDIE indicated dissent.
    Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member shakes his head. I have known a number of people not belonging to the working classes who would almost repel with horse, foot, and artillery the attempt of an ordinary painter to enter their houses for a spring cleaning. If that be true of people comfortably situated surely it is doubly true of people who live in such places as the neighbourhood of Tabard-street, or in many parts of our large cities. If you

    1495
    compel the landlord to keep the house in order surely he ought to have the power to see that the sanitary repairs are carried out.
    Mr. G. N. BARNES: With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman he has altogether evaded the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie). The suggestion which my hon. Friend made was that the tenant might reasonably be left to give access to the landlord to the house at any reasonable time on reasonable cause being shown. The right hon. Gentleman assumes that tenants are not going to be willing to do that, and that three-quarters of them are going to deny access to the landlord, whether the landlord goes there properly or not. Our point is that no case has been made out for imposing this condition on the tenant. I may further point out that if you strike out the word "landlord" you still have in this particular Subsection the provision that the local authority shall have a right of access to the house, and in this case the local authority is going to determine when a house is not fit for habitation. It seems to me that this provision would be quite enough without giving the right to the landlord every other day to enter the house of a man which we were led to believe was his castle. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Member who has just spoken (Mr. Barnes) and the hon. Member for Sleaford (Mr. Lupton) referred to the ancient and admirable maxim that an Englishman's house is his castle, and we are now insisting on the principle that it is the duty of the owner of the castle to keep it in a condition fit for human habitation. Now for excellent reasons—and I am strongly in favour of this part of the Government proposal—it has been decided that it is not the duty of the occupier of the house but that it is the duty of the owner of the house to keep it in habitable repair. It is now provided by this Amendment that the person who is charged with that duty shall have an opportunity of seeing whether he is under any obligation in respect of the duty so put upon him and that he shall be allowed to go and see whether anything ought to be done The hon. Member who has just spoken positively suggested that it would be perfectly equitable and legitimate to give the local authority the power to go
    1496
    and see whether the house was being kept in repair, while the landlord, on whom the duty rests, is to have no power to go in to see whether it is necessary to discharge that duty.
    Mr. LUPTON: This Clause gives the landlord no power to repair; it only gives the power to inspect.
    Lord R. CECIL: It throws upon him the duty to repair. This Clause, which was accepted by the Government, very properly, in the House of Lords, so far as this particular provision is concerned, merely gives the landlord the power of seeing whether he is under any obligations under the provisions of this Clause. The hon. Member for Merthyr and the hon. Member for Blackfriars both made a statement which, if I did not know that they constantly tell us that they are fully acquainted with, and are experts on, the housing problem of this country, would cause me to doubt whether they really knew anything at all about it. The hon. Members say that the Clause dealt solely and entirely with the case of houses occupied by what have been called the aristocracy of labour, artisans who earn high wages. They did not deal with the important case, the case that is exceedingly common, as hon. Members ought to know, in every big city, of having undesirable tenants, who will not keep the necessary sanitary appliances of houses in proper condition. That is constantly occurring, as everyone who knows anything about this class of property knows, and the landlord must be entitled, and the local authority must be entitled, to go in and see whether any nuisance has been created, not by the original defects of building or defects of the house, but by ill-treatment on the part of the tenant. Of course, good tenants would be only too willing to admit the landlord to inspect as to the necessity of repairs, but the hon. Members do not deal with the case of the other class of tenant, who are one of the great difficulties of sanitation. I am very glad that the Government have accepted this Amendment, as it is obviously necessary for the proper working of the Bill.
    Mr. H. MYER: I do not know whether the hon. Members for Sleaford and Merthyr are aware that in nearly every lease of premises for £1,000 or £2,000 a year there is provision that the landlord may enter at all reasonable times to inspect the property. I cannot see why they should make this difference between the case of pro-

    1497
    perty covered by this Bill and the case of property of a valuable character, which may be worth £10,000 or £20,000; and I hope that the Government will stick to this Amendment.
    Sub-section (2).—If it appears to the local authority within the meaning of Part II. of the principal Act that the undertaking implied by virtue of this Section is not complied with in the case of any house to which it applies, the authority shall, if a closing order is not made with respect to the house, by written notice require the landlord, within a reasonable time, not being less than fourteen days, specified in the notice, to execute such works as the authority may specify in the notice as being necessary to make the house in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation.
    Lords Amendment: Leave out "fourteen" ["fourteen days"] and insert instead thereof "twenty-one."
    Mr. BURNS: It has been represented to us that injustice might be done in particular cases if the period were limited to 14 days. We have, therefore, agreed to an extension to 21 days, which I ask the House to accept.
    Lords Amendment: Add at the end of Sub-section "(4) Within twenty-one days after the receipt of such notice the landlord may by written notice to the local authority declare his intention of closing the house for human habitation and thereupon a closing order shall be deemed to have become operative in respect of such house."
    Mr. BURNS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    You might have a case in which a landlord with house property worth £200 would have to spend £120 or £130 to put it into habitable repair. He might think it better to spend an extra £70 on building a new house instead of repairing the dilapidated house, and we think that in such a case it would be only reasonable to allow him to do what he wishes.
    Other Amendments made.
    Sub-section (4).—A landlord may appeal to the Local Government Board against any notice requiring him to execute works under this Section, and against any demand for the recovery of expenses from him under this Section or order made with respect to those expenses under this Section by the authority, by giving notice of appeal to the Board within fourteen days after the notice is received, or the demand or order is made, as the case may be, and no proceedings shall be taken in respect of such notice requiring works, order or demand, whilst the appeal is pending.
    Lords Amendment: After "Board" ["Local Government Board"], insert "or the county court of the district."
    Mr. BURNS: I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Lords in this Amendment. The object of this Amendment is to substitute for the Local Government Board a county court.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: "Or."
    Mr. BURNS: A county court, or rather to make it optional for the parties to go either to a county court or the Local Government Board. In our judgment the county court is not the proper tribunal for deciding such questions as whitewashing, sanitation, and building repairs, and we think it would be dilatory and wasteful. The inspectors who will see that this class of work is carried out will have a greater knowledge than any officers that the county court could appoint, and we sincerely trust that the House will accept our disagreement with the Lords on this particular point; but it is only fair that we should note here that we have art Amendment which enables points of law on serious matters to go to the High Court of Justice. That was pressed upon us when the Bill was in Committee, and we now see our way to adopt the suggestion, and the words are as follows: Clause 40, page 17, line 20, "Provided that the Local Government Board may at any stage of the proceedings, if so directed by the High Court of Justice, state in the form of a special case for the opinion of the court any questions of law arising in the course of the agreement." I believe that the Local Government Board has already considered that, and with regard to the Amendment which I have now read out, the Local Government Board is a better authority than any county court could possibly be.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I regret the decision at which the Government have

    1499
    arrived on this occasion, and I regret it mainly in the interests of what I believe to be good housing legislation. As I understand it, the procedure under the Bill is that the local authority makes a closing order, and, if there is any objection, the appeal goes from the local authority to the Local Government Board. We do not know yet—because the Government have always refused to tell us—exactly what the procedure of appeal to the Local Government Board will be. That is to be dealt with under Clause 40, by Regulation to be made by the Local Government Board later. There is nothing that I can see that provides for an open trial in open court where anything can be heard properly, and where everything is in the sight and hearing of the public. I attach enormous importance to that. I am not only saying what is my own opinion, but what I know to be the opinion of people who during their whole life have devoted themselves to this housing question, and they all hold very strongly that, unless you have some means of public trial, in the case of certain of the smaller local authorities, you will have the gravest abuses in connection with the housing question. There will be favouritism, and a tendency to make closing Orders against certain people unless certain steps are taken to propitiate certain people. The only way to prevent action of that kind—I do not speak of any particular authority, I am only referring generally to the smaller local authorities—is to have a public and open inquiry, which ought to be held before a judicial tribunal, absolutely free from any imputation of bias either for or against the tenant, or the landlord, or the local authority. An appeal to the Local Government Board does not do any of these things. There is nothing to secure an open inquiry. There is nothing to secure that an inspector will be a person of judicial training. Some of the Local Government Board inspectors are admirable, but there is nothing to secure that the decision of an inspector will be adopted by the Local Government Board. That is not a satisfactory procedure in dealing with a matter which is essentially judicial, essentially a matter of litigation. I understand fully the objections that have been made to appeal to the bench of magistrates. It is said that the magistrates may have a local bias and that sometimes they are biassed in favour of the landlords, and sometimes in favour of a closing order. That has been true in
    1500
    some parts of the country, and I think it is quite legitimate to take away the jurisdiction from them. But no one will say, taking them broadly, that the county court judges of this country are not perfectly competent to deal with this matter, which has always been treated as a judicial matter. Whether a house ought to be closed is a pure question of fact that any judicial tribunal can perfectly well decide. I repeat that I regret the decision of the Government, but I hope even now the House will refuse to be led by the right hon. Gentleman, and will insist on some independent and open inquiry free from bureaucracy on the one side and the suspicion—I will not put it higher than suspicion—of corruption which any secret inquiry must necessarily give.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: Members on both sides of the House have sat together many days on this Bill, and I think hon. Members opposite ought to agree with us that this measure should be right in its provisions, or at least that it should be thought right by ordinary citizens. Take an ordinary person who has had a demolition Order made against him—say, it is a case in the North of England. What is his remedy? This is, of course, a judicial matter, and there is a severe penalty upon him. He thinks he has a right of going to court, and he has always had the right in these matters of going into court. The Government have decided that the court, which has hitherto dealt with these matters, namely, the bench of magistrates, may be possibly open to some objections. The Government are possibly right in that matter. But they do not set to work to substitute another Court, which would be altogether free from any imputation such as that. Although, of course, I should never think of making any implication upon the Local Government Board inspectors—far from that—I am perfectly certain that in the ordinary sense, when property is being dealt with by a local authority, the owner of that property will not regard the inspector of the Local Government Board as a satisfactory tribunal, and, above all, he will not regard that tribunal as satisfactory when the inquiry which takes place will be private. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would be necessary where a case arose in Newcastle for someone to come from Newcastle up to London for the purposes of an appeal, or whether the inspector would be sent down in every case?
    Mr. BURNS: There would be a local inquiry.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: Is my Noble Friend right in assuming that the local inquiry will not be public?
    Mr. BURNS: The local inquiry would be public.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: I do not find the words.
    Mr. BURNS: It is in Clause 17, Subsection (6).
    Mr. LYTTELTON: "Where an appeal is made to the Local Government Board tinder this Section the Local Government Board shall not dismiss the appeal without first having held a public local inquiry."
    Mr. CAVE: That is only as to appeal under Clause 17.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: I do not see that the Sub-section affects the matter at all, and my Noble Friend is perfectly right when be says that there is nothing in this Bill which will prevent the inspectors from holding these appeals in private under regulations which we have not seen, and which may not be of a judicial kind at all. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this matter. The county court, after all, is a legal tribunal which is highly satisfactory. It is judicial, it is open, and it is entirely unbiassed. None of these qualifications are possessed by the tribunal of appeal which the Government have substituted for the magistrates. I ask what possible reason can there be for putting the Local Government Board inspector to decide on the mere question of fact, in a position superior to the county court, when it is not alleged that the cost of the inquiry before the one will be greater than the cost of the inquiry before the other? I think my Noble Friend is fully justified in his opposition to the Government's attitude on this matter.
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that these officials of the Local Government Board are, after all, responsible to the Department, and the Department is responsible to the House. [An HON MEMBER: "No."] In all these administrative matters they are responsible to this House.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that in this House we can challenge inquiry into the action of the Local Government Board as to the value of? a house which is to be closed?
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: Yes; any question can be asked any day at the proper time, and these matters can be raised on the right hon. Gentleman's salary. The Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) said that this was essentially a judicial matter, but I venture to say that it is essentially a practical matter which ought to be decided by men experienced in the work. What experience, after all, Lave county court judges in these matters? What means has a county court judge of ascertaining whether the order which has been made is reasonable or not except by pocess of a full and formal trial in court, with witnesses called on both sides, and each side represented? We cannot possibly expect the county court judge to spend the limited time at his disposal in investigating slums of various kinds, and in seeing what is the state and condition of certain property. All those who are strongly interested in the housing of the working classes are opposed to this Amendment made by the Lords, and I understand they are absolutely united in their opposition. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no."] May I quote one or two passages—I could quote many were there time at my disposal—bearing on the question of the county courts. A very representative Committee was appointed by the Lord Chancellor to inquire into certain matters, and among other passages of their Report I will quote the following:—
    "It is not surprising to find that with the increase in the ordinary work and the numerous duties cast upon the county courts, the amount of work to be done has reached a point at which the strength of the courts, as a whole, is heavily taxed to cope with it, and the information which the Committee have been able to obtain, shows clearly that attempts to try cases of any length have frequently resulted in serious inconvenience and waste of money. … The county courts, with the mass of small cases which are brought in them, must continue to dispose of the poor man's cases. This is their primary business, and the statistics above given, show how, as the population increases, the work of these courts also increases, and may be expected to increase. It is essential that that work should not be interfered with by an attempt to deal to any serious extent with larger cases taking up longer time in hearing. … Small debt cases must be disposed of at once, and parties in contested cases may or may not have their cases reached and disposed of on the day fixed or may have costly and inconvenient adjournments."
    They express the opinion that no change in the extent of the jurisdiction of the county courts should be made. Here we have the opinion of the Committee chosen ad hoc for this particular purpose. I think the opinion that they have expressed is conclusive. I believe that the proposal is most practical, and I trust that the House will accept it.
    Mr. CAVE: The hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary has stated a few points. One is that, according to a recent Report, the county court judges have a great deal of work to do. The Committee express no opinion at all upon the point now before the House. If it be a fact, as it is, that the county court judges are fully occupied, surely the remedy is not to withdraw from judicial cognisance matters that ought to be judicial, but to appoint more judges. I really do not see the difference between doing that and to appointing more inspectors, which hon. Members opposite are in favour of. One or other course is desirable. It matters nothing to us from any point of view, except the public point of view, which course they take. The hon. Member said also that no housing reformer is in favour of this Amendment. I can assure him he is very greatly mistaken. Housing reformers are desirous, like other people, that the procedure of the Bill should be fair. I could give him one name, of a lady, very closely connected with housing reform for years past, who takes very strongly the view that this Amendment ought to be accepted. It is quite true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that the Clause as amended gives the option to go either to the Local Government Board or to the county court. The President of the Local Government Board made a remark in his opening statement which struck me very much. He said that that provision means that there will be an appeal to the county court. What is the meaning of that? It surely is this, that the right hon. Gentleman knows that the Local Government Board will not be deemed to be the best tribunal for this purpose——
    Mr. BURNS: No.
    Mr. CAVE: And that if appellants have the choice that they will choose to go before the county court judge. The point of the matter is this, that we think that the Local Government Board, with all its merits, ought not to be entrusted with judicial functions, and that no appeal, in which the rights of individuals are concerned, ought to go to a Government Department, but to a court, or some wholly independent tribunal which would decide the case without any kind of feeling either on one side or on the other. The second point is, and it is one which I press on the Government, that it ought to be made perfectly clear that any appeal shall be heard in public. That does not appear in the Bill now. The provision to which
    1504
    the right hon. Gentleman referred only deals with the appeals against closing orders, and does not apply to Clause 15. I think if the right hon. Gentleman will consider that point and go some way to meet the objection we have and insert a provision that appeals over this Clause shall be open public appeals, then he will meet one point on which he has not met us up to the present.
    Mr. J. S. HIGHAM: I hope that the President of the Local Government Board will adhere to his decision and not accept this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) asked why the appeals will go to the county court instead of to the Local Government Board. We all know that they will, because the landlords will want to frighten the local authorities, especially small authorities, with costs, and with that view will take the cases to the county court, and then will take the right of appeal from them. [An HON MEMBER: "They cannot do so."] It does not say so. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] Even giving way on that point, we have over 60 county court districts, and we shall have all the varied decisions of that number of judges, while in the Local Government Board they will work on one decision, and all the cases will be settled on that basis. As an illustration of the variety of decisions of the county court judges, take the instance of imprisonment for debt. I have the figures for 1906 before me, and on the same law one county court judge committed 1,014 persons to prison, while another with exactly the same sort of facts before him and the same sort of cases committed less than 20. With a variety of decisions like that applied to this Bill, I think that every Member of this House interested in the question and who has any hope of housing reform would be in despair if the Amendment were accepted. I hope, for the reasons I have mentioned, that the President of the Local Government Board will keep to his decision to disagree with the Amendment.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has quite unconsciously hit on an argument in favour of the Amendment. We say that in order to make an appeal to the Local Government Board satisfactory the right hon. Gentleman should give one or two pledges which I understand he has not up to now given. The first question is: Will there be publicity in these proceedings? The right hon. Gentleman has referred to a clause as to publicity, but which ap-

    1505
    parently does not apply to these particular appeals which we are discussing. Axe we to take that as an implied promise that such an inquiry will be held in public? We certainly ought to have some sort of pledge in the affirmative or otherwise on that point. There is the further point raised by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Higham) as to the uniformity of the decision on these appeals. Will there be bonâ fide consideration of the cases by the Local Government Board? Or will they leave the matter, as Departments are so apt to do, to the inspector, and to the man who is sent down on the spot? Will the decision rest with the inspector? Will the inspector on the spot be allowed to announce his decision beforehand, as we have seen done in some cases? I wish to state with all possible respect for the inspectors that as everybody knows there are some of them more advanced and some less advanced in their views, and that they take the most widely divergent views upon questions of housing and sanitation and kindred matters. Therefore, unless there is some security that the ultimate decision shall be considered by the Local Government, and that the inspector's inquiry shall be properly reviewed by officials, whose decision shall be uniform, then I think we would be much better in the hands of the county court judges. At present the appeal lies to the magistrate. In these cases it must be borne in mind that although we are told that on questions of law we are going to have an appeal to the High Courts, questions which are not purely questions of law, but in almost all cases questions of fact, will arise, and I do think that the county court judge is a better judge on questions of fact than even an inspector. I should like to know whether we are going to have publicity on these appeals, and as to what steps the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take to bring about uniformity.
    Mr. BURNS: I can only with your indulgence respond to the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stuart-Wortley). He asked what the Local Government Board will do in relation to inspectors' decisions dealing with the appeals that have been referred to by previous speakers. In order to secure not only uniformity of action, but, if I may add, uniformity so far as equity and justice in deciding those appeals is concerned, I most willingly repeat the statement I made upstairs, that, considering the nature and character of this Bill,
    1506
    and its experimental character, it is the desire of the Local Government Board that we should attach to this Bill all the interests that are affected; and he can rely upon it that within the first six—and I will go even further, and say, within the first 12 months, it should be the obligation and the duty of the Local Government Board to review very carefully the inspectors' reports and recommendations, so that some of the hardships that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House apprehend may be obviated, and, I trust, entirely disposed of. The hon. Gentleman can rely upon it that we shall do our best not to damnify the interests of anybody, but to pursue the line of least resistance, because it is the interest of our Department to make as many people in favour of this Bill in the initial stages as we, by reasonable and just action, can induce. I trust that with that assurance the House will agree with us to disagree with the Lords Amendment.
    Viscount MORPETH: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Higham) said if this Amendment were inserted, it would entail the whole paraphernalia of appeals. If he will look at page 8 of the Amendment, line 29, he will see that a further Amendment is inserted as follows: "The decision of the judge of the county court shall be final." The other reason that he put forward for putting the Local Government Board in the position of a court of appeal was that we would have uniformity, and that otherwise each county court judge would act according to his own idiosyncrasies. The hon. Gentleman must surely know, if he has had experience of Local Government inspectors, and especially educational inspectors, that it is almost the invariable practice for a new inspector to take diametrically opposite views with regard to almost every question from those held by his predecessor. That is one of the greatest difficulties the local authorities have to face. Why the hon. Gentleman imagines that the emissaries of the Local Government Board should act with more unison than those of the Board of Education, I do not understand. This matter goes on appeal to the magistrates at present. I am told, I should not like to say on my own opinion, by housing reformers that the magistrates are hot a good authority. They are supposed to be somewhat backward in supporting municipalities that wanted to adopt an advance policy, and it is sug-

    1507
    gested that they are interested to a certain extent themselves in house property. I do not say that, but it is alleged by many persons that that is the case, and that is the reason for removing the magistrates from their present position. Even if it is not true, I agree that if there were a suspicion of that it is well that some other tribunal should be substituted.
    On the other hand, if the old tribunal is to be taken away, many persons feel where the authority is very zealous that the work might be rushed, and that they might be exposed to injustice, not owing to the action of the local authority, but because the local authority allowed its zeal to outrun its discretion. It seems to me that the proper authority is the county court. It is perfectly easy to put before the court the question pro and con whether a house is fit for human habitation, and the county court judge is a person who, being a man of common-sense, can very easily settle that question. It is not a
    very abstruse question, and it is a question which might very well come before him. I am reminded that it is suggested that the whole divorce question should be given to the county court judges, and surely, if they are able to settle a question of that kind, they could equally settle whether a house is habitable. County court procedure would not be expensive procedure. It would be a procedure that would reassure a great many people who have apprehensions at the present time, and I do suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he would be wise to provide such a court of appeal as would give satisfaction and confidence to the people who have to repair to it rather than he should set up himself when those who have to appeal to him are not satisfied that they will get impartial or rapid justice.
    Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 51.

    Division No. 879.]

    AYES.

    [7.0 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

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

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cox, Harold

    Jackson, R. S.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Cross, Alexander

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Armitage, R.

    Crossley, William J.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Keating, M

    Astbury, John Meir

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

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

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Lamont, Norman

    Barnes, G. N.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

    Beale, W. P.

    Essex, R. W.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Bell, Richard

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

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

    Findlay, Alexander

    Lupton, Arnold

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Branch, James

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Brodle, H. C.

    Glover, Thomas

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Brooke, Stopford

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Marnham, F. J.

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Massie, J.

    Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Middlebrook, William

    Byles, William Pollard

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Mond, A.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Morrell, Philip

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Morse, L. L.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Myer, Horatio

    Cleland, J. W.

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Clough, William

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nolan, Joseph

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hodge, John

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

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

    Hooper, A. G.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.).

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Horniman, Emsile John

    O'Malley, William

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

    Hudson, Walter

    Parker, James (Halifax).

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Rowlands, J.

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

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

    Walters, John Tudor

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Wardle, George J.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

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

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Pointer, J.

    Sears, J. E.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Steadman, W. C.

    Weir, James Galloway

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

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Radford, G. H.

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Summerbell, T.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Rees, J. D.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

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

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

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

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Vivian, Henry

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Wadsworth, J.

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

    Fell, Arthur

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Forster, Henry William

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Percy, Earl

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Bowles, G. Stewart

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

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hills, J. W.

    Stanier, Beville

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Hunt, Rowland

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Cave, George

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Keswick, William

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Younger, George

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon, A. Akers-

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Morpeth and Mr. Rawlinson.

    Dumphreys, John

    M'Arthur, Charles

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Question, "That the House doth agree with the Lords Amendment as amended," put, and agreed to.

    House disagreed with Lords Amendment: After "Board" ["notice of appeal to the Board"], insert "or the local authority."
    House agreed with Lords Amendment: Leave out "fourteen" ["within fourteen days"], and insert "twenty-one."

    CLAUSE 15.—(Condition as to Keeping Houses Let to Persons of the Working Classes in Repair.)
    Sub-section (5).—In this Section, the expression "landlord" means any person who lets the house under any contract referred to in this Section, and includes his successors in title, and the expression "house" includes part of a house.
    Lords Amendment: After "lets," insert "to a tenant for his own habitation."
    Mr. BURNS Mr. BURNS moved, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    We regard this Amendment as unnecessary. We think that the letting to a big colliery company who again let out the cottages does not come within this Section. The Amendment would enable a landlord to let a house to a man of straw, not for his own habitation, but for
    1510
    another's use, with the result that there would be no substantial person to proceed against.
    Sir F. BANBURY: My information is that on 11th October Lord Beauchamp, on behalf of the Government in another place, agreed to this Amendment. A pledge ought to be kept. Does the right hon. Gentleman throw over his own colleague?
    Mr. BURNS: I think the hon. Baronet is putting too severe a construction upon the statement referred to. He has not proved, by quoting, that the Noble Lord accepted the Amendment, and until he does I am justified in asking the House to disagree. If I find that my colleague and I have misunderstood each other, or that I am not keeping a pledge, I will do my best to satisfy both Houses on the point.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: Lord Beau-champ's words were:—
    "As he had previously remarked, in the opinion of the Local Government Board the Amendments really necessary, but the position was already sufficiently covered. … but if the Noble Duke was anxious to have these words in, the Local Government Board would not object."
    Sir W. FOSTER: It was a very qualified acceptance. The Amendment is a dangerous one, as it would enable a house to

    1511
    be let to a man of straw who would stand between the local authority and the real and responsible owner. Under these circumstances there might be the most deplorable sanitary conditions it is possible to imagine, and no one to proceed against.
    Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: What is a man of straw? I take it that a man of straw is a man of whose obligations it may be shown he has not the pecuniary means to meet. That is the only man who can be thought of in connection with this. Does the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, or anybody else, suppose that all cottage property in this country is owned by persons of considerable means? If so, he is profoundly mistaken. A considerable proportion of it is owned by extremely poor people; often that is heavily mortgaged, and it may be when the local authority attempt to deal with these people they will find that they are dealing with what the hon. Gentleman opposite, and I think the Government themselves, describe as "men of straw." There is no security in the Bill as it stands, nor can there be security, that the person against whom you are going to proceed is a person of substantial means. I think the Government must feel that something—whether they accept this Amendment in its entirety or not—must be done to meet the particular case which I understand the other House had in view when they introduced this Amendment. The only reason for not accepting it is the idea that the landlord may deliberately interpose, and I would say fraudulently interpose, between himself and the local authority some man of straw, some person practically who has no financial means of his own, so that there can be no proceedings against him. By all means introduce words to prevent that. I call it very near fraud. If it is done for the purpose of evading legal obligations it seems to me to be moral fraud. Whatever the legal point of view may be substantially it seems to me to be fraud. But if you leave this Bill as it stands now it is not the immediate landlord, it may be a millionaire, who is responsible, or somebody beyond him. Ultimately you get back to the freeholder—the ground landlord. There may be eight interests between the ground landlord and the man who occupies the house. There very often are. Everybody who has a knowledge of the actual working of these matters in our towns knows that the number of interests which get interpolated be-
    1512
    tween the owner of the soil on which the house stands and the person who occupies the house are very numerous. As the Bill stands now, in the series of persons to be attacked you may get back the ground landlord who has nothing whatever to do with it, and who in the terminology of the Government may not be the landlord at all. In the Finance Bill we were over and over again told by the learned Attorney-General that in anything, I think, over 50 years—I forget the exact number—the tenant is the owner; and unless you insert the words "immediate landlord" I really do not see how you can possibly work your system. I speak with some diffidence, because I had not the advantage of hearing the earlier Debates on the subject either in Committee or on Report, but it seems to me that if you do not do something to meet the perfectly legitimate point of the case you really will leave your Bill in a perfect state of hopeless confusion. Guard against your man of straw, certainly, by whatever penalties you like for fraudulent interposition, but take care that you guard against the possibility of the persons who have no direct responsibility for the House at all being made directly responsible, as they are, for the duties thrown upon the owner under this Bill. I respectfully make this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in no controversial spirit, but in order to meet a real necessity.
    Mr. BURNS: The Leader of the Opposition has made an appeal to me to see whether some way cannot be found out of the difficulty that has been raised by previous speakers, notably by his colleague the hon. Baronet who sits for the City of London. May I, before I come to the Leader of the Opposition, deal with the apparent cause of misunderstanding? I believe that the words originally used in another place were "to a tenant for habitation." There is a considerable difference between those words and "a tenant for his own habitation." I do not think there is any need for the words to be challenged now. It is for us to find out what were the exact words agreed to in another place, and, if the agreement was made, of course it has got to be considered. The next point is that raised by the Leader of the Opposition. He says that there is danger to be guarded against. We were under the impression that by disagreeing with the Lords Amendment to this particular point, that we were taking the best step known to us at the moment to prevent abuse that the Leader of the Opposition contemplates might be pos-

    1513
    sible. I would like to remind the Leader of the Opposition that these words only apply to contracts after the passing of this Act. That makes a material difference. The whole matter then resolves itself into what the agreement between my Noble Friend who represents my Department made with those who moved the Amendment. If the House will be assured by me I will take steps between now and the further stage of this Bill to see what actually was done, and to see if we can provide for the contingencies contemplated by the Leader of the Opposition. If we can, we will be only too pleased so to do, but at this stage we must respectfully ask the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I have no knowledge of what took place in another place, but it appears to me that this Amendment very forcibly safeguards against an abuse which has rapidly grown up. In my own Constituency it is a common thing for a small company of persons to farm a number of houses; to guarantee to the owner of the property so much a year for a good number of years, and then to make the best of their investment and their contract by doubling, trebling, and, in a case to my own knowledge, quadrupling the rent which they charged to the tenant. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in this Clause, as now drafted, the original owner of the house property would be held responsible, or whether the company or the individual who farms out the property would be the landlord under the Act? It is rather an important point. If these words, or some similar words, were inserted that would place the onus on the owner of the property to let his house direct to the persons who were going to use it for their own use, that would make it somewhat difficult for the person who did not intend to inhabit the house, but simply to use it as a means of living without work to carry on practices as they are carried on to-day.
    Mr. BURNS: May I say that if this last Amendment is rejected the Bill would then enable local authorities to proceed against either or both of the persons concerned?
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: My recollection of taking part in the preparation of the Act of 1890 is rather old, but I think there was a definition of owner in that Bill which really is much more effective than the definition in the present one. An owner was there defined to be the person in receipt of the rack-rent. This is a defi-
    1514
    nition which, if the person is the one receiving the rack-rent in a beneficial sense, and not in a fiduciary capacity, clearly excludes these possible sham middlemen put up for the purpose of evading responsibility. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the point as to why he has departed from that sensible definition of owner, and indicated a definition for the first time which I shall be very much surprised to hear has not been found insufficient.
    Mr. PHILIP MORRELL: I think this Amendment really raises an important point of principle, and I sincerely trust my right hon. Friend will resist, and continue to resist the Amendment proposed. It seems to me that as the Clause is now drawn that the local authority can go against the owner of insanitary property, whether he is the immediate owner or occupier, or the man who is himself drawing the rent. It is very desirable to reach the man who may be drawing a rent from insanitary property while it continues to be insanitary. I quite agree that a man may not be morally responsible, because he may not be aware for the moment that the property is insanitary, but I think it would be very desirable—I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—that the local authorities should have power to get at the superior landlord if it can be shown that the property of the superior landlord is in an insanitary condition. As the Clause now stands there is no possible means of escaping the difficulty of the man of straw.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Extension of Power for Making Bye-laws with respect to Lodging-houses for the Working Classes.)
    Sub-section (3).—Where an owner or other person has failed to execute any work which he has been required to execute under the bye-laws, the local authority or sanitary authority, as the case may be, may, after giving to him not less than fourteen days' notice in writing, themselves execute the works and recover the costs and expenses, and for that purpose the provisions of Sub-section (3) of the last foregoing Section, with respect to the execution of works and the recovery of expenses by local authorities, shall apply as if the owner or other person were the landlord and with such other adaptations as may be necessary.
    Lords Amendment: After the word "authorities" ["local authorities"] insert "and the provisions of Sub-section (6) of the last foregoing Section with respect to an appeal against any notice requiring the execution of works and any demand for the recovery of expenses and against any order made with respect to those expenses under this Section."
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not want to go back upon the discussion we have had in regard to the county court, but is there any reason why there should not be an appeal to the Local Government Board under Section 16? The effect of this Amendment would be to give an appeal under Section 16 to the Local Government Board. Having refused the appeal to the county court, the Government will not, I trust, refuse an appeal to the Local Government Board.
    Mr. BURNS: The Amendment gives an appeal not on a question of altering regulations, but from an Order requiring the execution of works. There is no possible ground for an appeal in such circumstances. There is no such appeal now the Clause does not alter the duties imposed by the law. It merely extends the class of persons who may be required to perform the duty.

    CLAUSE 17.—(Amendment of Procedure for Closing Orders and Demolition Orders.— Duty of Local Authority as to Closing of Dwelling-house Unfit for Human Habi- tation.)
    Sub-Section (3).—Where a closing order has become operative, the local authority shall serve notice of the order on every occupying tenant of the dwelling-house in respect of which the order is made, and within such period as is specified in the notice, not being less than seven days after the service of the notice, the order shall be obeyed by him, and he and his family shall cease to inhabit the dwelling-house, and in default he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty shillings for every day during which the default continues.
    House disagreed with Lords Amendment to leave out "seven" ["not being less than seven days after the service of the notice"], and to insert instead thereof "fourteen."
    Sub-section (4).—The local authority may make to every such tenant such reasonable allowance on account of his expense in removing, as may be determined by the local authority with the consent of the owner of the dwelling-house, or if the owner of the dwelling-house fails to con sent to the sum determined by the local authority, as may be fixed by a court of summary jurisdiction, and the amount of the said allowance shall be recoverable by the local authority from the owner of the dwelling-house as a civil debt in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts.
    Lords Amendment: Insert words providing that the tenant may "be ordered to quit the dwelling-house within such time as may be specified in the order."
    Mr. BURNS: We think it is far better that a person who is ordered to quit should quit than be liable to a pecuniary fine.
    House agreed with Lords Amendment.
    Lords Amendment: Insert at the beginning of Sub-section (4): "Unless the dwelling-house has been made unfit for habitation by the wilful act or default of the tenant or of any person for whom as between himself and the owner or landlord he is responsible."
    Mr. BURNS: Here we have a peculiar instance in which the Committee of the House of Commons and also the House of Lords agreed that where you have a tenant who deliberately damages his house it would be advantageous to penalise him for the damage done. There are circumstances where the local authorities are allowed to grant compensation to people who are turned out of their houses when public improvements take place or a demolition order is issued. We contend in these cases a person loses, and should receive compensation from the local authority for removal expenses or some gratuity which is paid like that given by the county council. I think it is a reasonable and just encouragement to people who do keep their houses in order to give them a gratuity, and if those who wreck their houses are fined it will act as a proper deterrent.
    House agreed with the Lords Amendment.
    Sub-section (7).—A room habitually used as a sleeping place, the surface of the floor of which is more than three feet below the surface of the part of the street adjoining or nearest to the room, shall for the pur-

    1517
    poses of this Section be deemed to be a dwelling-house so dangerous or injurious to health as to be unfit for human habitation, if the room either—

    (a) is not sufficiently protected against dampness, effluvia, or exhalation; or

    (b) is not sufficiently ventilated; or

    (c) is not in every part thereof at least seven feet in height from floor to ceiling; or

    (d) is not, to the extent of one foot at least in height, above the level of the surface of the part of the street adjoining or nearest to the room; or

    (e) has not one or more windows opening directly into the external air, with a total area clear of the sash frames equal to at least one-tenth of the floor area of the room, and so constructed that one-half at least of each window of the room can be opened, the opening in each case extending to the top of the window; or

    (f) is not provided along the entire frontage thereof with an open area properly paved, at least four feet wide in every part thereof: Provided that in the area there may be placed steps necessary for access to the room, and over and across the area there may be steps necessary for access to any buildings above the room, if the steps are so placed in each case as not to be over or across any external window.

    This Sub-section shall not come into operation until the first day of July nineteen hundred and ten.
    Mr. BURNS Mr. BURNS moved to agree with the Lords Amendment to leave out the lines "so dangerous or injurious to health as to be unfit for human habitation."
    Mr. MORRELL: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why he proposes to agree with the Lords in this Amendment? This provision enables the local authority to act, and I would like to know in what respect he considers the Amendment of the Lords is superior to the Bill as originally drafted? It seems to me that the Bill as originally drafted was preferable.
    Mr. BURNS: I think I speak with the entire approval of the hon. Member who moved this Clause in the Grand Committee upstairs when I say that it will enable us to deal with the difficulty contemplated by the Clause, and to make bye-laws and regulations dealing with matters of light, effluvia, and ventilation. In basements and cellar dwellings the varying conditions
    1518
    both as to the actual situations in town and country of this kind of accommodation is better dealt with by bye-laws and regulations than by statutory prohibition. I think Lord St. Aldwyn, who moved in the House of Lords that bye-laws and regulations should take the place of statutory regulations to enable us to get at objectionable cases, was right in thinking that it could be better done by bye-laws than by statute. I trust the House will take the assurance from me that we can best deal with basement and cellar accommodation by bye-laws and regulations.
    Mr. MORRELL: Do we understand the right hon. Gentleman will make such regulations?
    Mr. BURNS: Oh, certainly.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Why leave out these few lines and keep in the rest? I do not understand why these lines should come out and the rest of the Clause remain in.
    Mr. BURNS: Look at the next Amendment.
    Sir WALTER FOSTER: All necessary precautions are taken in the Amendment which follows.
    House agreed with Lords Amendment to leave out in paragraph (c), Sub-section (7), "in every part thereof," and to insert instead thereof "on an average."
    Lords Amendment: Leave out paragraphs (e) and (f), and insert, "Does not comply with such regulations as the local authority with the consent of the Local Government Board may prescribe for securing the proper ventilation and lighting of such rooms, and the protection thereof against dampness, effluvia, or exhalation: Provided that if the local authority, after being required to do so by the Local Government Board, fail to make such regulations, or such regulations as the Board approve, the Board may themselves make them, and the regulations so made shall have effect as if they had been made by the local authority with the consent of the Board.
    "Provided that a closing order made in respect of a room to which this Sub-section applies shall not prevent the room being used for purposes other than those of a sleeping place."
    Mr. BURNS: It is now desired to amend this Amendment by the addition of the following words: "If the occupier of the room after notice of an order has been served upon him fails to comply with the order, the order to be complied therewith may, on summary conviction, be made against him."
    This is an instance in which it is desirable to get out the occupier. If the occupier fails to comply the court of summary jurisdiction may make an order and force him to do so by a penalty under the Summary Jurisdiction Act.
    Mr. W. THORNE: How many days notice will the occupier have before it is attempted to get him out?
    Mr. BURNS: He will have the usual notice. It is only one room. It is not a house.
    Mr. W. THORNE: It does not matter if it was only half a room.

    CLAUSE 23.—(Amendment of Principal Act as to Contents of Schemes.)
    (1) Section six of the principal Act (which relates to the contents of an improvement scheme) shall be read as if in Sub-section (1) the words "for sanitary purposes" were omitted in paragraph (a); and as if the following paragraphs were inserted at the end of that Sub-section:—
    "and
    (e) may provide for any other matter (including the closing and diversion of highways) for which it seems expedient to make provision with a view to the improvement of the area or the general efficiency of the scheme; and
    (f) may provide for giving to the local authority any powers which may be necessary to enable them properly to carry out the scheme and for dispensing so far as necessary with any obligation of the local authority or any other person to comply with any provision contained in any Local Act, Provisional Order, or Order having the effect of an Act or any bye-law, regulation, or other provision, under whatever authority made, which is in operation in the area."
    (2) Provision may be made in a reconstruction scheme under Part II. of the
    1520
    principal Act for any matters for which provision may be made in an improvement scheme made under Part I. of that Act.
    Lords Amendments: In Sub-section (1) leave out "were" ["paragraphs were inserted"] and insert instead thereof "was."
    Leave out paragraph (f) to end of Subsection.
    House agreed with Lords in the said Amendments.
    Lords Amendment: Leave out Clauses 24 (Amendment of procedure on improvement or reconstruction scheme authorising compulsory purchase of land) and 25 (Duty of local authority themselves to carry out improvement scheme).
    Mr. BURNS Mr. BURNS moved an Amendment to restore Clause 24, which deals with the Amendment of procedure on improvement or reconstruction scheme authorising compulsory purchase of land.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I understand that the effect of this Amendment to the Lords Amendment will be to reinsert Clause 24, which was left out in another place. This is an extremely important Amendment, and I should like to hear some good reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman for proposing to reinsert Clause 24.
    Mr. CAVE: May I point out that the Noble Lord in charge of the Bill in another place agreed to the omission of this Clause?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: This is an important matter, and I think we are entitled to a fuller explanation from the Government. I understood that the Government in another place expressed the view that they did not regard the retention of this Clause as a matter of vital importance. A good deal has been said about the expense of Provisional Orders, but I think the matter has been a good deal exaggerated. Not long ago the Under-Secretary to the Board of Trade gave some very striking figures on the Trade Boards Bill, in which he pointed out that Provisional Orders were not really an expensive matter, and that Department does not appear to have found them, either a cumbersome or an expensive procedure. The vast majority of Provisional Orders are not opposed, and they are neither cumbersome nor expensive. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have given the House some good reasons for abandoning this procedure.
    Mr. BURNS: The Noble Lord is perfectly justified in asking for an explanation which I will readily give. The action of the Government upon this point is consequential on what the House did in regard to Clause 2.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I understand that this Clause deals with the larger schemes of housing, and the effect of it will be that such schemes will be withdrawn from the cognisance of Parliament. I ask hon. Members to consider what they are doing. They must not consider this particular provision in isolation. Are they prepared to withdraw all these great schemes involving the compulsory acquisition of land, and dealing with water supply, railways or other matters from the cognisane of this House? Are they prepared to violate the immemorial practice of this House in this respect and hand their functions over to a public department. If that is so there is no reason why we should keep any of these powers. Does anybody pretend that a relatively small scheme of water supply for a town which requires compulsory powers should go through all the forms of coming before this House to be open to opposition, and if opposed be tried, and at the same time you have powers which may be used in a far more important case involving greater interests and much larger sums of money, and yet be able to say, "This is a matter which the Local Government Board may decide." I do not think the House ought to begin piecemeal in this way dealing with the immemorial rights and privileges of Parliament. It may be right to withdraw small matters which can be withdrawn, perhaps because they are out of all proportion to the benefits to be gained, but here you are going far beyond small cases, and you are dealing with really big matters of national importance. I do not see how it would be possible for this House to retain its powers over any private Bill legislation if it gives up its powers in this particular case. This is one of the disadvantages which the sending up of Bills to Grand Committee inevitably involves. Things are allowed to pass in Grand Committee which would not be allowed to pass in this House, and possibly vice versâ, things that are allowed to pass in this House would not be allowed to pass in Committee. There is no party in this matter, and it has nothing to do with party. As a matter of fact, the party to which I belong happens to have done more than any other party in lightening the weight of this procedure on public Bills. But, however that may be, do not let us
    1522
    in respect of one measure and one class of property give up the whole principle of Parliamentary control over great questions dealing with compulsory purchase in regard to vast schemes of rehousing. These are not less important; in fact, they are more important than many of the things which we seek to keep within our jurisdiction, and I am sorry a Member of the Government has determined to make a breach in our immemorial system without giving due notice to the House that we are travelling far beyond the particular case with which we are dealing, and we are really starting a new principle which cannot fail to have very large consequences in the future which neither side of the House at this moment can realise. We should not initiate a new policy without knowing it, nor start a great change without fully recognising our responsibility.
    Mr. LUPTON: When a Bill dealing with waterworks comes before this House, it generally deals with the water supply of more than one town. This particular Bill deals with one place and one town.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Member is quite mistaken in regard to waterworks. A great many Bills have no relation whatever to any other towns.
    Mr. LUPTON: There are a great many Waterworks Bills which have relation to other towns.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I think the right hon. Gentleman opposes this Amendment owing to a confusion of thought as to what really causes expenses in regard to these inquiries. As a rule, the expense is not caused by a Provisional Order, but by the investigation which is necessary owing to the necessity for the compulsory acquisition of land. A provisional Order itself is a comparatively small thing. Very often they are not opposed, and, if they are opposed, the matter is generally fully threshed out before an inquiry. An inquiry must lead to expense, and it can only be saved by abolishing the system whereby you inquire into all the various claims which the different parties put forward. I cannot imagine that the Government want to do away with this form of inquiry and take people's land without having all the circumstances of the case brought forward. Where an application is unopposed, there is no necessity for a Provisional Order, and I think it is advisable to leave this Clause out because it adds very considerably to the perplexity with which anybody not very well acquainted with the Hous-

    1523
    ing Acts will meet with when he tries to understand the existing state of the law. Anyone must feel puzzled who reads it to know what this Section means. My impression is that, when he looks it out, he will find another reference in the Section to which he is referred. It has caused no inconvenience in the past to bring up these proposed schemes, and I think the Government will be very well advised to agree to this Amendment.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The House ought to understand that all these Orders go through without Parliamentary confirmation under the existing law, excepting only in a limited part of one class of cases. All these Orders go through without Parliamentary confirmation, except where it is proposed to take land compulsorily, and, even there, if steps have been taken to ascertain whether opposition exists and opposition does not emerge, there is no necessity for Parliamentary confirmation. If, as the right hon. Gentleman proposes, Clause 24 is replaced, it will be for the Local Government Board, without Parliamentary sanction, to decide whether the land of a man shall be taken compulsorily in spite of his opposition. I think that ought not to be done. It was not done in the case of the Port of London Bill without a preliminary and impartial inquiry, and I think it is a very serious step with which we should disagree.
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: May I point out that the principle to take land compulsorily has already been settled, and that, whereas compulsory acquisition of land under Parts I. and II. schemes of the Act of 1890 is merely incidental, it is the essence of schemes under Part III.
    Sir J. DICKSON-POYNDER: I regret that the President of the Local Government Board cannot see his way to accept this Amendment. I am sure the House will realise that Part I. schemes are very different from Part II. and III. schemes. I have had considerable experience of Part I. schemes in connection with London, and I think it is the general feeling of all who have had experience of them that they are an unduly expensive and clumsy method
    of dealing with insanitary areas and improving housing conditions. One of the main objects of this Bill is to improve the sanitation of houses individually and, if possible, by closer supervision to prevent houses becoming insanitary. We may, therefore, contemplate that in future the majority of cases of insanitary houses will not be dealt with under Part I., but under Part II. schemes. They will be dealt with in small blocks or individually. If there still remain any bad districts in some of our large towns which necessitate Part I. schemes, the buying out of all the interests in large areas and all the expensive machinery attached to the laying out of a whole section of a town, those instances will, I think, be very rare, and where they occur I do not think it is asking too much that they should come as a Provisional Order before this House. It would in no way prejudice the best cause of housing, and it will maintain a most important tradition of this House. I therefore appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision.
    Mr. W. R. PEEL: I listened to the reply of the Under-Secretary, and I fail to understand his argument. He said that compulsory acquisition was the essence of Part I. schemes, whereas it is only incidental to Part III. schemes It is just as incidental to Part I. schemes as it is to Part EEL schemes. Very complicated questions arise under Part I., and there is, of course, a difference between the amount of compensation given. Under those circumstances, I fail to understand what the hon. Gentleman means. I certainly thought, when he was talking easily about small schemes, he had really forgotten what was the nature of Part I. of the Housing Act. I cannot agree at all that it is a small matter. I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken that these cases, and more particularly cases where very difficult and complicated questions arise, ought not entirely to be removed from the purview of Parliament, and that they certainly ought to be dealt with by Provisional Order.
    Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords Amendment to leave out Clause 24."
    The House divided: Ayes, 183; Noes, 38.

    Division No. 880.]

    AYES.

    [8.14 p.m.

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

    Astbury, John Meir

    Barnes, G. N.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Beale, W. P.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Barker, Sir John

    Bell, Richard

    Armitage, R.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

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

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maiden)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

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

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Pointer, J.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Beulton, A. C. F.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

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

    Branch, James

    Higham, John Sharp

    Radford, G. H.

    Brooke, Stopford

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Hodge, John

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

    Hooper, A. G.

    Rees, J. D.

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Horniman, Emslie John

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

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hudson, Walter

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jackson, R. S.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Jowett, F. W.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Keating, M.

    Rowlands, J.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Laidlaw, Robert

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

    Clough, William

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

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

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Sears, J. E.

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

    Lamont, Norman

    Snowden, P.

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Summerbell, T.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Cross, Alexander

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Crossley, William J.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

    Lynch, H. B.

    Toulmin, George

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Verney, F. W.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Vivian, Henry

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Wadsworth, J.

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Essex, R. W.

    Massie, J.

    Walters, John Tudor

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Wardle, George J.

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Middlebrook, William

    Weir, James Galloway

    Findlay, Alexander

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Mond, A.

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

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Montgomery, H. G.

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Morrell, Philip

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Morse, L. L.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Ginnell, L.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Glover, Thomas

    Myer, Horatio

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

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Winfrey, R.

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Malley, William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fell, Arthur

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gardner, Ernest

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Gretton, John

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Cave, George

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

    Stanier, Seville

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Chaplin, Rt Hon. Henry

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Hills, J. W.

    Younger, George

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Mr. Pike Pease.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

    Dumphreys, John

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Question, "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords Amendment to leave out Clause 25."
    Mr. P. MORRELL: Why are we to agree with this Amendment? The Clause, as I
    1526
    understand it, prevents the Local authority from deputing the duty of carrying out an improvement scheme to an independent body. If they make an improvement scheme under the Bill they must

    1527
    carry it out themselves as the Bill is now drafted. But if this Amendment of the Lords is carried the result will be that the local authority may arrange with any society or person to carry out the whole or any part of the improvement scheme as provided for in Clause 12. It seems to me very undesirable that they should depute their duties in this way. If they want an improvement scheme it is better that they should carry out the work themselves. I should be very glad to know in what way the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this Amendment of the Lords will improve his Bill?
    Mr. BURNS: I think the hon. Member is reading into the agreement with the Lords something which is unjustified. We contend that this thing can be better done in the Scheme itself or by an Order of the Board.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I would like to move to insert that Sub-section (2) be retained in the Bill. That Sub-section is altogether different from Sub-section (1).
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is too late to move an Amendment. The proposal before the House is "That this House doth agree with the Lords Amendment."
    Mr. DICKINSON: Perhaps I may be allowed to make my point. At the present moment no authority can build a house to sell unless it gets the express approval of the confirming authority. As it left this House the Bill abolished that restriction. I do not see why it is necessary, in order to carry out what the Lords desire, we shall retain the impediment in the way of local authorities building themselves, namely, that of getting permission or express approval from the confirming authority. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, in any arrangements he may come to with the other House, to allow Subsection (2) to stand even if he be obliged to accept the excision of Sub-section (1).
    Mr. LUPTON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain at greater length why this Clause should be left out. I understand that what it does can be done in some other way, but some of us are not so well up in the practices of the Local Government Board, and therefore I ask for a further explanation.
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: The Clause simply makes statutory the existing practice of the Local Government Board, which has always been able to insert the
    1528
    necessary provision in the Order confirming the scheme.
    Mr. MORRELL: If the Clause merely makes the existing practice statutory why was it introduced into the Bill? It surely must have been drawn for good reasons, and I do not think we have had anything stated which will show not merely that the Bill will be improved, but that it will not be damaged by the excision of the Clause.
    Mr. BURNS: In the period between a Bill leaving this House and being dealt with in another place we often have second thoughts. Sometimes they are wiser than our first thoughts. Here is an instance in which we can say that the words may almost be construed as verbiage. They are not needed, as they only embody existing practice which can be inserted in a better way in the scheme itself.

    CLAUSE 28.—(Amendment as to the Vesting of Water Pipes, etc.)
    An improvement scheme under Part I. of the principal Act may provide for any exceptions, restrictions, or modifications in the application of Section twenty-two of the principal Act (which vests in the local authority pipes, sewers, and drains), and that Section shall take effect subject to any such exceptions, restrictions, or modifications.
    Lords Amendment: After "may," insert "with the consent of the person or body of persons entitled to any right or easement which would be extinguished by virtue of Section twenty-two of the principal Act."
    Mr. BURNS Mr. BURNS moved to agree with the Lords Amendment.
    Mr. SCOTT: I am sorry that the Government have not seen their way to restore the Clause to the position in which it left this House. The marginal note is entirely illusory. If the municipality is desirous of acquiring an area it is necessary under the law at the present time that it should compensate all water pipes and easements whether they require to take them or not. The absurdity of that position is best shown by acquiring an area of rotten property and leaving it as an open space. The authority which does that will still have to compensate the owner of the property for all pipes and easements. Under the Clause as originally drafted, it was open

    1529
    to the municipal or local authority when they did not want to take over those rights, to appeal. The House of Lords has insisted by this Amendment on giving to the owners of the premises a right to compensation for these easements and rights. The result is that any person selling a property to a municipality to be kept as an open space will, although the rights will not be interfered with at all by the scheme of the local authority, have to be compensated. I do not know the reason why the President of the Local Government Board has given way on this point. He has fought hard on one or two questions. I suppose his idea is that the smaller the number of matters he will have to come to an arrangement upon with the other House the better it will be for him. I think in dealing with a question of this sort that it is a principle which should be insisted upon. It is absurd that municipalities or local authorities should have to pay in respect of these matters, and unless the Clause is reinserted in its original form municipalities will continue to suffer as they do at the present time.
    Mr. BURNS: Perhaps my hon. Friend wishes me to say a word or two in explanation of the attitude which the Government have taken with regard to the particular Amendment. My hon. Friend has forgotten what invariably happens with regard to a Bill of this kind. Immediately a Housing Bill is broached in Parliament a number of very excellent people and most worthy associations always regard a Housing Bill, not as an ordinary omnibus which carries 26 passengers, but as a motor omnibus which is capable of taking on board a large number of passengers which it is not the business of anybody in charge of an ordinary 'bus to attempt to take, and, anxious as I am to assist corporations, I do not see why my Housing Bill should be made the corpus vile for the improvements which they ought to get in another way. We cannot accept my hon. Friend's view, because a statement of the facts of the case will, I think, answer him. What does the original Act of 1890 say with regard to pipes, sewers, and drains? It provides that where a local authority takes an easement as to drains and pipes and sewers, the pipes and sewers shall themselves vest in the local authority, and that is to be the position. Of course, the original Clause of this Bill proposed that exceptions might be made. Here is an exception: Take, for instance, the Metropolitan Water Board. It is the municipal
    1530
    authority in London for the supply of London water. It not only supplies it within the County of London, which is 113 square miles, but supplies water in a larger area of 400 or 500 square miles. It does seem to me absurd that the local authority in whose area a town-planning scheme would operate, say, Richmond, Croydon, or elsewhere, should ask that the water works of the Water Board should be vested in them. The proper authority in whose jurisdiction these pipes should be vested would be the Water Board. In that and in similar cases that were pointed out to me, and I am one of the most susceptible persons and amenable to reason, and I decided to listen to that argument and to surrender, as every reasonable man ought to, on facts shown and evidence proved, and I am sorry that the facts and evidence in support of this Amendment are much stronger than those which have been adduced by my hon. Friend; and considering the generous way in which I have met the Municipal Corporations Association in other portions of this Bill, I do ask my hon. Friend to extend to me a slight modicum of that generosity which I have given to his clients, and he will not insist on my giving him all that he could wish.
    Lords Amendment: Leave out "of Section twenty-two of the principal Act (which vests in the local authority pipes, sewers and drains)," and insert "to that right or easement of that Section."
    House agreed with Lords Amendment.

    CLAUSE 32.—(Expenses of Rural District Council under Part III. of the Prin- cipal Act.)
    (1) The expenses incurred by a rural district council after the passing of this Act in the execution of Part III, of the principal Act shall be defrayed as general expenses of the council in the execution of the Public Health Acts, except so far as the Local Government Board on the application of the council declare that any such expenses are to be levied as special expenses charged on specified contributory places or as general expenses charged on specified contributory places in the district in such proportions as the district council may determine, to the exclusion of other part of the district, and a rural district council may borrow for the purposes of Part III. of the principal Act in like manner and subject to the like conditions

    1531
    as for the purpose of defraying the above-mentioned general or special expenses.
    (2) The district council shall give notice to the overseers of any contributory place proposed to be charged, of any apportionment made by them under this Section, and the overseers if aggrieved by the apportionment may appeal to the Local Government Board by giving notice of appeal to the Board within twenty-one days after notice has been so given of the apportionment.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1), leave out "general" ["shall be defrayed as general expenses of the council"], and insert "special."
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Emmott): This and the two following Amendments are privileged Amendments, as they alter the incidence of local rates.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I would point out that last Session, when Mr. Speaker made a similar ruling, the Secretary of State for Scotland moved that this House should agree with the Lords Amendment, and the House did agree with the Lords Amendment; and, therefore, it is quite in our power to do the same thing on this occasion. This Amendment is an exceedingly
    important one, because what it does is to turn general expenses into special expenses. Under the Public Health Acts special expenses are only assessed on agricultural land and railways, etc., at one-fourth of their value, so that this is a very important question for agriculture, and it is an extremely important question for railways and similar undertakings. In the case of railways in rural districts they practically are the sole ratepayers, and if the incidence has to be altered, and, if instead of being assessed upon one-fourth of their value, they are assessed upon the whole, it is a very important question for them and also for the agricultural interest. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will not agree with the Lords Amendment, but I shall be compelled to divide on the question.
    Mr. BURNS: The subject matter of this Clause has been debated in Committee, and I do not think the hon. Baronet can expect me to go over the merits. I insist on this being regarded as a matter of privilege.
    Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said) Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 30.

    Division No. 881.]

    AYES.

    [8.40 p.m.

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Allen, A Acland (Christchurch)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Hodge, John

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

    Hooper, A. G.

    Armitage, R.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hudson, Walter

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Cross, Alexander

    Jackson, R. S.

    Barker, Sir John

    Crossley, William J.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Barnes, G. N.

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

    Keating, M.

    Beale, W. P.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Bell, Richard

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

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

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Lamont, Norman

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

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

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Findlay, Alexander

    Lupton, Arnold

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Lynch, H. B.

    Branch, James

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Brigg, John

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Brooke, Stopford

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Glendinning, R. G.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

    Glover, Thomas

    Maddison, Frederick

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Byles. William Pollard

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Massie, J.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Cawley Sir Frederick

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Middlebrook, William

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Mond, A.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Montgomery, H. G.

    Churchill, Rt Hon. Winston S.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Morrell, Philip

    Cleland, J. W.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Morse, L. L.

    Clough, William

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Myer, Horatio

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Walters, John Tudor

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Rowlands, J.

    Wardle, George J.

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

    Weir, James Galloway

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

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

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Sears, J. E.

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

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Snowden, P.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Pointer, J.

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Miles, Thomas

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Summerbell, T.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Wills, Arthur Walters

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

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

    Radford, G. H.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Winfrey, R.

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Toulmin, George

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Rees, J. D.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

    Verney, F. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Vivian, Henry

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex F.

    Forster, Henry William

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gardner, Ernest

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Cave, George

    Gretton, John

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Clyde, J. Avon

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

    Stanier, Beville

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Hills, J. W.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Douglas, Rt Hon. A. Akers-

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Dumphreys, John

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir P. Banbury and Mr. Stewart Bowles.

    Fell, Arthur

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    House disagreed with other Lords Amendments.
    Lords Amendment: After Clause 38, to insert Clause A.—
    Duty of Local Authority in Administration of Housing Acts.
    (1) In the administration of the Housing Acts it shall be the duty of the local authority to secure, as far as practicable, that dwelling accommodation provided for the working classes under those Acts is occupied exclusively by persons of the working classes, and, other things being equal, the local authority shall give priority to applications made by British subjects belonging to the working classes for such accommodation.
    (2) The local authority shall cause a list to be kept showing particulars of the accommodation comprised in every dwelling provided by them in the exercise of their powers and duties under the Housing Acts and of the rent, and such list, so far as it relates to dwellings vacant or about to become vacant, shall be open at all reasonable times, and subject to such Regulations as may be prescribed by the local authority, to the inspection, without payment, of ratepayers in the area and of persons of the working classes who desire to apply for dwelling accommodation provided by the local authority under the Housing Acts.
    Mr. BURNS: I beg to move "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    We think it is unnecessary to put upon every local authority the duty of securing in the matter of dwelling accommodation provided for the working classes that the houses should be occupied exclusively by the working classes. The working classes are very difficult to define. It may be that a member of another class on 1st January comes to be reduced later on through circumstances suddenly imposed upon him, and that may make him nothing else than a working class man; and, indeed, he may be so impecunious as to be a dependent object of charity. For us to ask the local authorities to act in the way proposed would mean the incurring of unnecessary expense, the employment of unnecessary officers, and the needless irritation of people who are quite content with the rough standard of living of the working classes. To ask us to adjure the local authorities to do that is to ask us to do something which in many cases would be absurd. That brings me to the next point, namely, the proposal that a preference should be given to British subjects. We have in the United Kingdom not more than 250,000 or 260,000 aliens, as they are called. Nearly half of these live in London, and of that half three-fourths live in the East End. I am very glad to say that

    1535
    private individuals, philanthropic companies, the London County Council, and even borough councils, have erected houses for the working classes, irrespective of colour, race, creed, or nationality. If we were in the elementary matter of providing housing accommodation to adopt this proposal with respect to foreigners who are domiciled here, we would subject them to invidious distinction which would be construed as a differential humiliation put upon them, and I decline to associate myself with such a proposal. This matter can be left to the London County Council, who all through have housed people of nearly every nationality, without the friction or the prejudices which in some other countries and cities arise through creed, colour, race, or nationality. For these reasons I decline to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I am very much disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman does not see his way to accept the Amendment. I cannot see any possible harm that can be done by it. It is only to secure, as far as practicable, that local authorities should fill their dwellings with working men who are British subjects but there is nothing to prevent them from filling up vacancies with others. The right hon. Gentleman asked what are the working classes, and he pointed out that in certain cases a man on account of distressed circumstances might wish to occupy one of these dwellings, though he could not be said to be a working man. I think if the right hon. Gentleman would look at the definition given in a new clause passed by the House of Lords he will agree that that definition of the working classes is quite wide enough. I think the case would be covered by the words "persons whose income does not exceed an average of 30s. a week and such persons as may be residing with them." The chief advantage of some such clause as this will be that it will discourage local authorities from wasting the very small funds which are available for housing in providing not working-class accommodation at all, but what may really be called small villas. If the right hon. Gentleman will examine a Return issued by the London County Council in regard to housing he will see that there has been a good deal of accommodation provided at rentals as high as 14s. 6d. a week. I do not think anybody can say that the aver-
    1536
    age working man can possibly afford to pay a rent of that kind.
    Mr. BURNS: That depends upon the collective earnings of father, son, and daughter.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: There may be cases where working-class families have sufficient income to pay that rent, but in those rare cases I think they are sufficiently well off to find accommodation which is amply provided by other means. There is only a small amount of money available for this, and it is much better to devote it to meeting the demand which private agencies do not attempt to cover. There is very considerable incentive for local authorities to put up large tenements, because they are always anxious to make their accounts show a profit. It is quite easy to understand that large tenements pay very much better than small ones. If you have six-roomed houses you do not require a back yard very much larger than you have to provide in the case of three-roomed houses, and you do not require to have more in the shape of larder and sanitary accommodation. Undoubtedly, in a great many cases, working men cannot afford to pay the rents asked by local authorities. I have had a certain amount of experience in connection with a housing enterprise which is not in any way connected with local authorities, and where the tenants are only taken from that class who are earning less than 25s. a week. They are tenements which probably would shock housing fanatics because they are not self-contained, but they meet a want. There are always five or six times more people applying for these tenements than it is possible for us to accommodate. I think it is very hard to expect working men who are earning such small wages always to be content with other people's leavings. The local authorities build comfortable new houses, and they say that in this way they make vacancies for working men, but the fact is that those who move into these houses get the advantage of convenient accommodation, and working men have to put up with indifferent accommodation in houses built for a different purpose. They have to put up with houses which are not adequately provided with sanitary requirements. The class for whom the local authorities are providing are amply provided for by private enterprise. A return issued by the London County Council showed that in London last year 32,500 rooms were pro-

    1537
    vided. Of these only 1,074 were provided by the local authorities.
    If you go round London, as I have done, in connection with the London County Council houses, inquiring as to the rents, you will find that almost the whole of this new accommodation is let at a rent of about £30 a year, so that a very large proportion is quite out of the reach of working men, who have only a limited amount of money to spend. It does seem to me that you ought to do something to encourage local authorities to cater for that class which is neglected by every other arrangement. I quite agree that small tenants are undesirable in housing, but the fact remains that they are inevitable; and as you have a class that cannot afford more than 5s. or 6s. a week rent, surely it is better that they should have sanitary small tenements than live in most unwholesome rooms, which are not tenements at all, with no cookery accommodation, no sanitary accommodation, no storage for food, and none of those other conveniences which other classes can afford to provide for themselves. I am afraid that the line which I have described is that which many local authorities are taking. There is only a certain amount of money to spend on this problem, and it does seem to me unfair to fritter away our resources in providing for aliens and for persons provided for by other means. I do not say that this Clause is going to solve the question, but I feel that it will give an indication of how Parliament intends local authorities to work towards the solution of the housing problem. It cannot do any harm, and I believe it will do a great deal of good. The last portion of the Clause as to the keeping of a list of housing accommodation by the local authority does not cause any inconvenience at all. I understood from the right hon. Gentleman that it would involve perhaps keeping extra officials and a great deal of unnecessary trouble. I have consulted officials of the London County Council and I find that all the necessary information is already at their disposal. No landlord, be he municipality or otherwise, can expect to carry on his business unless he has an up-to-date list of all the vacant habitations, and the only innovation at the end of this Clause is that this information shall be kept readily available to the ratepayers and those in search of accommodation, who would have it brought to their notice by this Act that information as to this accommodation is available, and that
    1538
    by going to the local authority there will be saved all the bother of tramping round looking for the accommodation which they require. For these reasons I am very much disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to accept the Amendment. I believe that it would do a great deal to put some enterprising local authorities on right lines and encourage them to devote their attention to those classes who are most in need of sanitary housing accommodation.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. HENRY VIVIAN: The hon. Member who has just spoken has not given any reason at all for the insertion of these proposals. As I understood him his main arguments consisted in the opinion that they would do no harm. Surely it does not need an Act of Parliament in order to bring forward a proposal that will do no harm. Yet that was the best reason that the hon. Member gave. Surely this House is not to waste its time over what will do no harm. We want something that will do good. Why should you in the absence of any reason insert this narrowing proposal in an Act to provide houses for the working classes? In the absence of any reason for cramping the local authorities I would be in favour of leaving them latitude, because there are cases where great hardships would be brought about by attempting restrictions in the way suggested. With regard to a second point the hon. Member says that the London County Council keeps a list of vacancies. I suppose that every decent landlord does. Why should there be an Act of Parliament solemnly commanding all these authorities to do what their subordinate clerk in his office will know is his duty? With regard to the aliens we should not be asked to waste our time in a matter of that sort. No evidence has been given to show that municipal enterprises as far as houses are concerned have been flooded with aliens, nor has any reason been given to show why you should adopt a proposal which in certain cases would inflict injustice.
    Mr. HAY: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Vivian) has shown profound ignorance of the conditions which prevail in East London when he says that the question of aliens in respect of housing is not one that is worthy of taking up the time of the House. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Burns) in his speech went very lightly over the alien aspect of the housing question in the Metropolis. We have

    1539
    the experience of the London County Council, which, with great care, carried out a scheme specially designed to deal with the terrible overcrowding in a certain part of London—in Bethnal Green, better known as the Boundary Street Scheme—and what is the experience? I know the actual buildings, and that to a very large extent aliens have invaded these buildings, so that practically the original object of the scheme has been defeated. Perhaps the hon. Member for Birkenhead will be interested to know what is the opinion of a journal which gives attention to these subjects. The "Daily News" says that the net result of some of the council schemes was that crowded districts had become more overcrowded than ever owing to people from the cleared slums being driven into them. The result is that the very people for whom rate-aided dwellings have been erected have not been able to take advantage of the buildings erected by the London County Council, but have had to move to other and more miserable tenements, while the aliens invaded the dwellings that were erected. There is another aspect of the alien question in connection with the housing problem in slums, and that is that when aliens invade a locality they often make life unpleasant to the people who have been living there. I think if the right hon. Gentleman would inquire, he would find a Member of this House who lived for many years in Stepney with his family, but eventually found foreigners came there who were so objectionable that he moved to another part of London. At least so he told me. Then there is the evil of key-money in the East End of London, which is so notorious that it does not need describing. I think we should really try, in dealing with the housing of the working classes, to see where remedies can be found by the municipal authorities not merely for the housing of those sections of the working classes who are more or less comfortably off but for those who are the poorest, and efforts in that direction ought not to be in any way sterilised by allowing areas in which buildings have been constructed being monopolised by the least desirable foreign element. The aliens who come to London accentuate seriously the housing trouble of the British poor, and it should be our first duty to ensure that our own people should have a prior right to healthy and convenient municipal dwellings. As to the question of the list, why on earth should such a list not be avail
    1540
    able to any member of the community? Many must know how, after having hunted right and left in a neighbourhood, a workman cannot find a place suitable and within his means. If the municipality had the information readily available for anyone who applied, surely it would be a great public advantage. A great many of these buildings, which have been erected not only by municipal but by private enterprise, have not carried out the object for which they were intended. Indeed, so serious is the position that the Sutton Trust, for instance, has been devoted to supplying accommodation for the casual labouring and the poorer classes under conditions in which the amount of rent should not be the governing feature. The trustees, under the guidance of the Government, are bound to minister to the wants of those who are in most need of healthy homes in the poorest areas of London, independently of economic rent. Surely the facts and the conditions, which are known to anybody who has to do with great masses of our poorer metropolitan population, make it necessary that the Government should take the opportunity of joining hands with the other branch of the Legislature in order to put the municipalities in the way of carrying out the true-objects of municipal housing. Surely, in the first place, there should be provision for the poorer classes who depend on casual labour. I cannot imagine how you would aid that object more than by making some definite arrangement by which a certain class, the poorest class, shall have priority of right to these buildings, and I think it most unreasonable of the right hon. Gentleman not to accept this Amendment or make some other proposals to meet the object in view.
    Mr. STEWART BOWLES: I cannot help thinking that the reception which this proposal of the Lords has received is not quite worthy of the importance of the considerations which it raises. I am quite sure the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Vivian) is perfectly well aware that one of the grave defects, one of the great criticisms which have always been made against attempts at municipal housing has been a real and a genuine criticism, namely, that these attempts in no case have really dealt with that with which they were intended to deal—the horrible and gross overcrowding of some areas of our cities and of London. They have not remedied the evil which they set out to remedy, and in no case

    1541
    have they really cured the evil, while in many cases they have actually made it a good deal worse. I am no authority myself on these matters, but I do not believe what I have stated will be challenged by any authority. I do not believe anyone doubts for a minute on the other side of the House that the great defect of municipal housing schemes is that they have in fact not provided accommodation for the poorer classes of the country, who have a claim in this matter on Parliament. It has not helped them; it has not tended to their advantage, but very often to their prejudice. The House will remember the figures which have been constantly given on this matter. I have in my hand a return issued by the County Council in connection with one of their big clearance schemes, that of Bethnal Green. What happened? There were turned out of their homes, I understand, 5,719 people—the poorest people, some of the poorest classes in the country, certainly in London. New buildings were put up on the area which had been cleared, and I am informed that only eleven of the original inhabitants of that area came back as tenants of the new houses. What does that show? It shows that the buildings were unsuited to the people who had been turned out, and that they could not afford to live in them. That is a serious criticism, it appears to me, to make aginst all these housing schemes. The London County Council, in their official report for the year ending 9th March, 1908, show the number of tenants of these houses. Out of 1,078 tenants, according to this table, 15 were actors, 25 church and mission workers, 356 were clerks, 26 were draughtsmen and designers, 56 were electricians, 28 were insurance agents, 20 were musicians, 110 public-house managers, 209 were shop assistants and salesmen, 17 were teachers, 134 warehousemen, and 181 miscellaneous.
    Mr. MADDISON: Were there any Members of Parliament?
    Mr. STEWART BOWLES: It is not so stated. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that all those people were poor enough, and I do not doubt it, and that they are most deserving and excellent persons, but were those the class of persons for whom Parliament intended that these schemes should be set upon foot, and for whom it was intended that these great sums of money should be spent? I say that they are not the people for whom it was intended that these schemes should be made, and that the housing of those persons will tend
    1542
    rather to hinder the housing of the people who are put out of their houses, and perhaps people much worse off than those for whom accommodation is provided. I repeat I am not an authority on the subject, and I do not pretend to be, but if these facts are, as I have stated, and as I find them, then I say that the criticism which has been made, and which so far has never been answered, holds good—the criticism that unless you alter the line upon which these schemes have been run, so far as the poorest of the poor, and so far as the working classes are concerned, you do not really do them any good, but, on the other hand, you run great risk of doing them disservice. From that point of view the question is a serious one, and I think it would be a very useful thing to put into the mind of local authorities that the intention of Parliament was, as I believe it is, to provide dwellings, not for musicians and shop assistants in preference to those persons into whose slum areas these schemes are brought, and unless some indication of that sort is made on the face of the Bill then those people will infallibly in future, as they have always in the past, according to the best illustration I have been able to find, be totally neglected and rather injured than assisted.
    Viscount MORPETH: There has been some reference about the previous policy of the London County Council. I would point out that under this present Bill there will be full power held over the local authority to compel them to provide housing accommodation. They are not to be the judges as to whether the people are to be housed or as to whether the people are the working class or as to their nationality. They are to have this power held over them. We are entitled to ask how far this power is to be extended. Is the right hon. Gentleman to be able to say, "It is true you have got sufficient accommodation for the working classses, but not for the class who may be supposed to be socially a little better off"? Is he to be able to come down on a local authority and say, "You must provide out of the rates for this class of person"? The whole point is that the provision is to be made out of the rates. Of course, the class to which my hon. Friend (Mr. Bowles) made reference are a very estimable class, but the whole question is: Who is Parliament making provision for? And what is more important than what Parliament is doing, is for what class the Local Government Board will be able to force

    1543
    the local authority to provide for out of the rates. Is it for the class that might be well able to afford sufficient accommodation? The hon. Member for Birken-head (Mr. Vivian) found great fault with my hon. Friend below me because he said, in his studious desire not to overstep the mark, that these words would do no harm. The hon. Member remarked what a ridiculous thing to put in words that would do no harm or make unnecessary provision. But then the President of the Local Government Board, in Clause 25, put in a Clause which the tinder-Secretary afterwards told us was the present practice of the Local Government Board, so that if what my hon. Friend supported is surplusage, then so was Clause 25.
    Mr. BURNS: You can have too much of a good thing.
    Viscount MORPETH: There is no reason why it should be called surplusage when somebody else put it in. This Clause is not vital, but it gives a useful and important indication to the local authorities and what is even more important, to the right hon. Gentleman, as to the class to be catered for under this Bill.
    Mr. MORRELL: I was somewhat astonished at hearing the Noble Lord, who talks about the local authorities and about those great democratic bodies which should be allowed discretion, seeking by this Clause to tie the hands of the local authorities as to the tenant they are to admit to the houses they build. This Clause deals entirely with the action of the local authorities and does not in any way affect the action of the Local Government Board. Then the Noble Lord, following another hon. Gentleman, said that any rate this Clause will do no harm. In my opinion it
    might do a great deal of harm in just those places where the houses are most required. No speaker has dealt with the case of the rural village. But everybody knows that it is in the rural districts there is the greatest necessity for building houses under this Act. You may very well have the case of a rural village in which the local authority would build cottages which could only be let at an economic rent, and yet it would be of the greatest possible value to that village that those cottages should be built. A cottage might be built that would be occupied say by a blacksmith, or by a farrier. There are a great many cases, and I know of many cases, in which it is impossible to build cottages of that sort unless you have compulsory powers to take the land. There is the case of Goring-on-the-Thames, where there is a demand for houses, but where there is no land available for the purposes. It is a great inconvenience and hardship to the working classes of that district that they are obliged to walk two or three miles to their work. In cases of that sort it would be absurd, and might do a great deal of harm, to tie the hands of the local authorities, and to say that they are only to build for people who pay a certain rent, and who come within a certain category defined by this Bill. I believe that in most cases the object of the local authorities will be to help the working classes in their own area. I think they will do it best by leaving them full discretion as to how they let the houses that they build. For that reason I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has refused to accept this Amendment.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, 36.

    Division No. 882.]

    AYES.

    [9.25 p.m.

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Clough, William

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Black, Arthur W.

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Bowerman, C. W.

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

    Armitage, R.

    Branch, James

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Astbury, John Meir

    Brigg, John

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

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Brooke, Stopford

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Barker, Sir John

    Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

    Cross, Alexander

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Crossley, William J.

    Barnard, E. B.

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

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

    Barnes, G. N.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Beale, W. P.

    Byles, William Pollard

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

    Beauchamp, E.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Bell, Richard

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

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

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Essex, R. W.

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

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

    Cleland, J. W.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Lupton, Arnold

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Findlay, Alexander

    Lynch, H. B.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Rowlands, J.

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

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

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Sears, J. E.

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Glover, Thomas

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Snowden, P.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Marnham, F. J.

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Massie, J.

    Summerbell, T.

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Middlebrook, William

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Mond, A.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Montgomery, H. G.

    Toulmin, George

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Morrell, Philip

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Morse, L. L.

    Verney, F. W.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Merton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Vivian, Henry

    Henry, Charles S.

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Myer, Horatio

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Higham, John Sharp

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Hodge, John

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Wardle, George J.

    Hooper, A. G.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Hudson, Walter

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Weir, James Galloway

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Whitbread, S. Howard

    Jackson, R. S.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Pointer, J.

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Jowett, F. W.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Keating, M.

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

    Miles, Thomas

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Radford, G. H.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

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

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Rees, J. D.

    Winfrey, R.

    Lamont, Norman

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

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex F.

    Dumphreys, John

    Nield, Herbert

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fell, Arthur

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Forster, Henry William

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bull, Sir William James

    Gretton, John

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Cave, George

    Hills, J. W.

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Stanier, Beville

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

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

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Cralk, Sir Henry

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Morpeth, Viscount

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Walter Guinness and Mr. Hay.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 39.—(Joint Action by Local Authori- ties.)
    Where the Local Government Board are satisfied that it is expedient that any local authorities should act jointly for any purposes of the Housing Acts, either generally or in any special case, the Board may by order make provision for the purpose, and any provisions so made shall have the same effect as if they were contained in a provisional order made under Section two hundred and seventy-nine of the Public Health Act, 1875, for the formation of a united district.
    House agreed with Lords Amendment: After "where," insert "upon an application made by one of the local authorities concerned."

    CLAUSE 40.—(Appeals to Local Government Board.)
    (1) The procedure on any appeal under this Part of this Act to the Local Government Board shall be such as the Board may by rules determine, and on any such appeal the Board may make such order in the matter as they think equitable, and any order so made shall be binding and conclusive on all parties, and where the appeal is against any notice, order, or apportionment given or made by the local authority, the notice, order, or apportionment may be confirmed, varied, or quashed, as the Board think just.
    House agreed with Lords Amendment, after "Act" insert "including costs."
    House disagreed with the following Lords Amendments:
    After "Board" ["Local Government Board"] insert "or a county court."
    After "Board" ["the Board may by rules"] insert "or the authority having power to make rules of practice under the County Courts Act, 1888."
    After "Board" ["the Board may make"] insert "or the court."
    After "Board" ["the Board think just"] insert "or the court."
    After "just" insert "(2) The decision of the judge of county courts of the district on any appeal to the court under this Part of this Act shall be final."
    Mr. BURNS Mr. BURNS moved, at the end of the Clause, to insert, "Provided that the Local Government Board at any stage of the proceedings on appeal shall, if so directed by the High Court, state in the form of a special case for the opinion of the court any question of law arising in the course of the appeal."
    This is a material concession to meet those cases which have been referred to where substantial points of law arise. I am advised by my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor that this is not only just but necessary, and will probably tend to remove—though it will only be very exceptionally used—a certain amount of discontent which would ensue if these words were not included.

    CLAUSE 42.—(Power to Prescribe Forms and to Dispense with Advertisements and Notices.)
    Sub-section (2).—The Local Government Board may dispense with the publication of advertisements or the service of notices required to be published or served by a local authority under the Housing Acts, if they are satisfied that there is reasonable cause for dispensing with the publication or service.
    Lords Amendment: Leave out "or the service of notices."
    Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to have an explanation of the reason which induces the right hon. Gentleman to disagree with this Amendment, as I under-
    1548
    stand that this Amendment simply provides that notice shall be given to the owners and other people interested in connection with any proceedings that the Local Government Board may desire to take. The effect of the omission will be that the Local Government Board may do all sorts of things without giving notice to the people affected. The matter seems to me small, but rather important.
    Mr. BURNS: In response to the hon. Baronet I may say that the Amendment, which was moved and carried in another place, will prevent the Local Government Board from dispensing with service of notice if the Board are satisfied that there is reasonable cause. It is a most useful power, and a power which the Board ought to have. The object is to meet cases where there has been a substantial, but not literal, compliance with the Act in regard to advertisements and notices. Hon. Members in the legal profession know that at times these notices and advertisements are published in the local papers, and occasionally there has not been a full notice in the strict sense of the word. Ordinarily the Board would insist upon the notices and advertisements being properly carried out. There may be certain circumstances, as hon. and learned Gentlemen will probably know, where there has been a substantial but not literal compliance, and in all cases of that kind the Board ought not to ask the party to go through the additional period of a fortnight, three weeks, or a month for the new notice, when probably seven-eighths of the requisite and necessary notice has been given. I can assure the hon. Baronet that if this power is given to the Board it will only be exercised in those cases where even he will admit such discretion ought to be given to the Board.

    CLAUSE 44.—(Prohibition of Back-to-Back Houses.)
    Second Paragraph.—Provided that nothing in this Section—

    (a) shall prevent the erection or use of a house containing several tenements in which the tenements are placed back to back, if the medical officer of health for the district certifies that the several tenements are so constructed and arranged as to secure effective ventilation of all habitable rooms in every tenement; or

    Lords Amendment: Leave out from "of" ["or use of a house containing"] to "placed" ["in which the tenements are placed"], and insert instead "houses."
    Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. R. ARMITAGE: This Amendment, placed to this Clause in the other House, was especially put in to deal with the special circumstances of Leeds. I know there is a great deal of prejudice, both in this House and in most other places, to back-to-back houses. In the original Bill there was no Clause dealing with the subject at all. It was put in upstairs and was altered this year by adding provisions (a) and (b). We had a special local Act to deal with back-to-back houses in 1872. We got powers again in 1903. In 1903 we were opposed both in this House and in the other House by the Local Government Board, and when we produced our evidence in both cases we got the powers given to us. On those powers we have been erecting back-to-back houses. The statistics which have been given with regard to back-to-back houses are based upon old houses. I do not think those old statistics have anything to do with the question before the House. There are old houses in Leeds and other places that nobody wants to see. We have in Leeds spent upwards of a million pounds in acquiring these bad back-to-back houses, and we want to go on clearing these houses out, but we have developed in a way which other towns have not developed, and have put up back-to-back houses which anybody who examines them will find are first-class houses, built at a reasonable cost, and which thoroughly satisfy the people in Leeds. They do not want, like as in many other towns, to live two families in a house. They prefer to have their own house to themselves. The difficulty about back-to-back houses—the chief objection to these houses—are the questions of ventilation and health. Now Leeds has come to be the second place in this country in regard to health statistics. It is second to London, and has been so for many years. Nothing therefore can be said in regard to Leeds being bad in the matter of its statistics of health. The evidence all points to the fact that it is one of the best towns in the country. In regard to ventilation, the houses have got plenty of very good ventilation. There is a good skylight above the main staircase, and anyone who has
    1550
    ever been in these houses and studied them will know that they are quite as well ventilated as a through house, because in most through houses the people hardly ever open the front doors. Sir H. Little-john, who is one of the greatest authorities upon health matters, gave evidence before the Local Government Board not long ago against back-to-back houses. He was induced to come to Leeds, and he then said that his opinion in regard to back-to-back houses had been completely changed since he saw the Leeds houses. I think what has changed him would change everybody else if they came and examined the houses that we have in Leeds.
    We asked the President of the Local Government Board to come and examine them for himself. Whether he has done so or not we do not know. At any rate, he asked nobody in Leeds to show him anything. He did not offer to let the corporation or the officials who knew about the subject give him any information, nor did he seek their guidance in any way. I think if he did come to Leeds, as it is said he did, he might have treated a corporation like Leeds in some different way from what he did. I hope that while he has considered and consulted other interests, so that he is now going to allow back-to-back houses to be put up one on top of the other, he will allow Leeds to put up houses side by side. He is willing to allow people to live in back-to-back houses if they walk up five or six flights of stairs, but he will not allow them to live in back-to-back houses if they walk in at their own hall doors. I think that is unreasonable, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman may at the eleventh hour alter his decision.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I could understand the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman if he had kept the Clause in the original form and forbid all tenements to be constructed except upon the same principle, but it does seem very illogical to forbid back-to-back houses in Leeds and to allow back-to-back tenements in London. I remember showing the right hon. Gentleman plans of houses which were to be put up by a certain trust when the matter came before the London County Council. These tenements were constructed back-to-back. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think they were just as objectionable as back-to-back houses. When you have back-to-back tenements you cannot have a yard, but if you have back-to-back houses you could have a front yard, and you could

    1551
    have far more opportunities for storing goods than you could have in tenements. For that reason it does seem advisable to extend this Clause, and to provide that where a medical officer is able to certify that the houses are so constructed and arranged as to secure effective ventilation such houses should be allowed. We have had up to the present no sort of justification for the Government considering tenements on a different principle from houses, and I hope that before we go to a Division some attempt will be made to explain that matter. There are methods of ventilation for back-to-back houses now, such as having through trunks by having a pipe laid through which gives the same ventilation as a through draft by windows; and in view of the great importance of having cheap accommodation under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, I do think it is very indefensible of the Government to block the way to improvements which may perhaps at the same time give excellent ventilation while affording cheap houses to the working classes.
    Mr. F. W. JOWETT: I was very much interested in the statement made by the hon. Member for Leeds who has spoken on the other side in defence of back-to-back houses, but I do not agree with him. I have spent no small part of my life living in back-to-back houses. The hon. Member was good enough to quote, in support of his statement, Sir Henry Littlejohn, of Edinburgh. No doubt he is a very eminent physician and sanitarian, but he came to Leeds as an expert witness, and most of us have heard expert witnesses on both sides. I should attach much more importance to the hon. Member's case if he had been able to cite the evidence of his own medical officer of health. I should very much doubt whether the evidence of the medical officer of health for Leeds could be obtained in support of back-to-back houses. I have had sent to me—as many Members of the House have—some very beautiful pictures of these marvellous back-to-back houses in Leeds, and I find they are all somewhat of this type. There are a number of houses in each, eight in a block, four in front, and four behind, none of which have separate sanitary conveniences. The conveniences are all at the end of the block, and I should like to ask hon. Members of this House who are in favour of this type of house for the working-classes, how they would like their sisters and daughters to stand there waiting their turn.
    Mr. BURNS: I do not intend to respond to the invitation of my hon. Friend to inform him about my peregrinations in the City of Leeds on the three or four occasions I had the pleasure of visiting it in connection with my visits to the works of the unemployed, and to the afforestation schemes in the last two or three winters. To go into these details would not be germane to the serious subject under discussion. I will deal with the facts, the appreciation of which induces the Government to disagree with this Amendment. The hon. Member for Leeds assumed at the commencement of his observations that there was a great deal of prejudice against back-to-back houses. Of course there is, and that prejudice, as he properly assumed, is universal. It is universal because there never has been a house reformer or any minister engaged in housing reform, and who was seriously interested in the housing of the poor and of the working classes, and who had gone into places in the industrial districts of the Midlands and the North of England, but found that wherever back-to-back houses prevailed there insanitation, fever, disease and anæmia followed in the track, and were co-existent with such houses. Did the hon. Member quote a single authority outside Leeds in favour of back-to-back houses? No, he did not, because he could not. All the local authorities, when they apply for new bye-laws dealing with housing and sanitation, declare that back-to-back houses are useless and dangerous, and ought not to be tolerated, and they asked for bye-laws to make that condition of things impossible. Here we have one authority coming along saying, "We are building back-to-back houses, and we must ask you to allow us to do so." As against that we have most of the other authorities asking for bye-laws to prohibit back-to-back houses, and all the medical officers of health I know are against such houses, and so are the Local Government Board inspectors. The Leeds Trades Council, some of the members of which live in back-to-back houses, have unanimously passed a resolution asking me to ignore the deputation of property owners which came to see me, and as representatives of the working classes they ask us to have nothing to do with back-to-back houses. The Health Congress of the United Kingdom held their August Session in Leeds, and in the Yorkshire "Daily Post" and the "Observer" we saw the amount of chaff to which the chairman of a particular housing committee that de

    1553
    fends these houses was subject to, not only by the delegates at the Congress, but also by men from Ireland, Scotland, and other parts of the Kingdom. With regard to experts, I have known them upstairs in Room 13 maintain one attitude and an hour later in Room 14 maintain almost an opposite attitude. I am not inclined to accept always the opinion of an expert, and I refuse to brush aside the opinion of the Trades Council, the Health Congress, and all our doctors when there is only one authority on the other side.
    10.0 P.M.
    In taking this serious step I think it is only fair that I should justify the attitude of the Government by giving one or two facts. I notice one of the hon. Members representing Manchester sitting before me. If he will go to Dr. Niven, than whom this country does not possess any better medical officer, he will discover this remarkable fact: that in a district with no back-to-back houses infectious diseases are 4.5 per cent. and 8.7 per cent. in back-to-back houses. The figures for consumption are 2.8 in non-back-to-back houses and 5.2 in back-to-back houses, or more than double. So far as children are concerned the deaths from diarrhœa in non-back-to-back houses are 1.4 and 3.4 in back-to-back houses. The universal experience is that back-to-back houses are bad. They may for a short time be acceptable, because when they are new they are often occupied by newly-married couples to whom two rooms, one above the other, with no back yard or garden, is not much of an inconvenience, more especially if both of them go out for the best part of the day. It is, however, a different matter when the children number, 2, 3, 4, or 5, because then a back yard is necessary, and a back garden is indispensable, with proper lavatory accommodation on the ground level, which you can only get in through-houses. Those are the reasons why infantile mortality is greaser in back-to-back houses. May I again quote the case of Manchester? Dr. Niven says that the general mortality in back-to-back dwellings exceeds through-dwellings by 40 per cent.; the mortality from infectious disease by 93 per cent., and from consumption and lung diseases by 86 and 30 per cent. respectively. We contend, in face of those figures, that back-to-back houses stand condemned. The medical officer of Sheffield gives figures up to July, 1909, in which he says that Sheffield has a large number of back-to-back houses—probably about one-sixth of the whole.
    1554
    He gives some figures with regard to Sheffield houses in which cases of consumption were notified. Those particulars have reference to all the causes of consumption-notified during the year 1906–7 for which the information was available. They show that of 702 males suffering from acute tuberculosis the disease began in back-to-back houses in 233 cases, and of 350 females it began in 111 cases. I think I have proved unmistakably that for conducing to infectious disease—diarrhoea in children, anæmia generally, breeding consumption and stimulating it when it is partially there—there is nothing to equal back-to-back houses as a general propagator of the most serious forms of disease.
    Now I come to Leeds. It has been truly said. "A little child shall lead them." The medical officer gives figures up to August, 1909, and he says that while for all forms of tuberculosis in England and Wales the figures are, males, 1,936 deaths per million of population, the figures for Leeds are 2,334. The figures for females are 1,444 in England and Wales, whilst in Leeds they are 1,605. For children under five years, excluding phthisis in the country, the figures are 2,566, and in Leeds 3,904. Take tuberculosis, including phthisis. You find that in the country the figures for children under five are 2,839, whilst in Leeds the total is 4,337, or nearly double-In the case of Bradford, where the industrial conditions and the population is somewhat similar, the figures are 2,550 children per million, as against 4,337 in Leeds. The figures for Burnley are 2,627, as against 4,337 in Leeds; Batter-sea 2,657, as against nearly double that total in Leeds. In London, of which we hear so much, the figures are 3,681, as against Leeds 4,337. Other forms of tuberculosis are: Males—England and Wales, 582; Leeds, 801. Females—England and Wales, 487; Leeds, 371. Children under five—England and Wales, 2,839; Leeds, 4,337. Although Sheffield has 3,721, against Leeds 4,337, the medical officer for Sheffield says the high death rate among children is due to bad conditions in which back-to-back houses bear their part. I could go further, but it is not necessary. I ask this House on my authority, and I appeal to it on behalf of all the local authorities of the three Kingdoms, not to sanction what only one authority has asked for in the teeth of all enlightened medical opinion and in opposition to the interest of the working classes as reflected by the local trades council. I do ask the House of Commons not in these days,

    1555
    when we are doing everything by Act of Parliament, by housing and by Departmental Order, to kill consumption and tuberculosis in the Army and Navy, and in the general community at its source, to perpetuate the nursery for tuberculosis which back-to-back houses inevitably become. I ask the House, on behalf of the people who in the future would live in back-to-back houses when they become dilapidated, to strike out a new line in sanitation, and not to allow back-to-back houses in any quarter.
    Mr. W. MIDDLEBROOK: May I claim the indulgence of the House whilst I undertake the extremely difficult task, which I do with great diffidence, of following the President of the Local Government Board. There is one point to which I am sure the House will attach very great importance, but to which the right hon. Gentleman has made no reference. He has given us statement after statement of experts after first giving us his own view of the importance which he attaches to experts' opinions. We first heard of the three categories of experts, and then we heard the opinion of experts in support of the right hon. Gentleman's view.
    Mr. BURNS: There is a great deal of difference between an expert who is brought in for one particular job and regular officials who have given hostages by long service and are not casually employed.
    Mr. MIDDLEBROOK: I fully appreciate the point of the right hon. Gentleman, and he will hear I am prepared to deal with it. The exceptional powers possessed by Leeds were granted by this House and the Upper House on two separate occasions after the fullest inquiry by the Police and Sanitary Committee of this House and by a Committee of the Upper House, and after hearing experts, including the medical officer for the City of Leeds and also the experts of the Local Government Board, who in those years were in favour of the proposals they now oppose. I have not risen to advocate the continuance of any power to the borough I represent to allow back-to-back houses as any hon. Member understands them to be, nor would I advocate the continuance of the powers at present enjoyed by Leeds if it could be held or alleged that figures such as we have had given us to-night apply to the class of houses there. It is under the circumstances under which we
    1556
    now live impossible to place all the details of these schemes before the House to enable us to come to a proper judgment, but I feel that an injustice will be done if without inquiry you take from Leeds exceptional powers given to it under special conditions upon not one but two separate occasions after the fullest inquiry by special committees both of this and the other House. I am afraid, after what one has heard from the President of the Local Government Board, that there is no hope, but I regret that from the first this should have been his attitude towards all representations made to him. This Clause was not in the Bill as originally drafted. That is singular if the question is of the extreme importance which the right hon. Gentleman now attaches to it. It has found its way in the Bill at the instigation of a private Member. I might add that, in spite of all the figures given to us, the death-rate of Leeds for the two years 1906–7 was 15.5, the lowest of any town in the whole country with the exception of London; and it now stands at that figure.
    Mr. LUPTON: The right hon. Gentleman gave us, as he always does, an exceedingly powerful and eloquent speech, but one would like to have it explained how it is that back-to-back houses are condemned and back-to-back tenements expressly permitted. Why are back-to-back tenements in a big block of buildings to be permitted, and back-to-back houses with entrances on the ground floor, and front windows to every house in streets from 36 to 44 feet wide to be forbidden? Every one must admit that back-to-back tenements are infinitely worse than back-to-back houses. An hon. Member opposite gave a touching instance of the want of sanitary accommodation in certain back-to-back houses, but has he travelled about so little and is his experience so slight that he does not know that exactly the same terrible state of affairs is to be seen in other houses, and is he aware that nothing in this Act will prevent that state of things being perpetuated in tenement houses? It is actually sanctioned in tenement houses, and it is only when it is in back-to-back houses which are far better that it appears to excite the animosity of certain Members. Certain back-to-back houses have every accommodation. In the basement there is a wash-house, a cellar, a coal-house, and a w.c. On the ground floor there is the living room and the scullery. Then you have two bedrooms, and on the

    1557
    second floor you have a large attic and a box room. Yet you are going to forbid back-to-back houses and encourage inferior back-to-back tenements. I will just deal with a question which came under my notice the other day. My wife was convassing in the North-West of London, in a district in which there were very nice houses indeed. At one house at which she called the occupier said: "It is a pity that these houses are deteriorating; it is because they raise the rent." That is the case, because people who were only too glad to secure a house by themselves were by reason of the increase of rent obliged to go into houses where two or more families were accommodated. That will be one of the results of the right hon. Gentleman allowing this Amendment. Respectable people who prefer single houses will in our big cities be forced to crowd into one house. This Amendment may not prevent the cellar-dwelling difficulty. The Clause ought to be left out, so that the matter should be left to the judgment of the local authority and the local medical officers. The right hon. Gentleman says, in so many words, experts are liars, but immediately after that he puts forward the opinion of his own inspectors and medical men at the Local Government Board. Are those experts, and, if they are, are they liars, or are they only liars when they speak against his view on any controversy? If I were a Local Government Board inspector, and I knew that the President wanted me to give evidence in a certain direction, my mind would be certainly biassed though I do not say that I should give the evidence. He asks how it is there is such wonderful unanimity, but I can quite understand why there should be. There is not a single reason given in this matter, except statistics which do not apply at all in regard to the deaths of people who live in the worst part of the town, where there is likely to be a high death rate. It is not, however, the result of living in a back-to-back house, but people who live in those houses live in a low part of the town. You forbid certain things because some ancient back-to-back houses were insanitary, and it seems to me that Parliament is going very much out of its way to do so. Then again, as to ventilation and the number of doors: There are plenty of houses built in the country which have only one door, and if there is a second door you will find it locked. I hope the Local Government Board will see their way to admit the Lords Amendment to this, and, if they
    1558
    do not, I hope the Lords, when it comes to a conference, will insist on their Amendment.
    Lords Amendment: After Clause 44 insert Clause B.—(Power to Local Government Board to Revoke Unreasonable Bye-laws.)
    If the Local Government Board are satisfied, by local inquiry or otherwise, that the erection of dwellings for the working classes within any borough, urban or rural district, is unreasonably impeded in consequence of any bye-laws with respect to new streets or buildings in force therein, the Board may require the local authority to revoke such bye-laws or to make such new bye-laws as the Board may consider necessary for the removal of the impediment. If the local authority do not within three months after such requisition comply therewith, the Board may themselves revoke such bye-laws, and make such new bye-laws as they may consider necessary for the removal of the impediment, and such new bye-laws shall have effect as if they had been duly made by the local authority and confirmed by the Board.
    Mr. BURNS Mr. BURNS moved, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The hon. Member (Mr. Vivian) and the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) have given several instances in which some local authorities had arbitrarily imposed obsolete and unreasonable bye-laws upon builders of houses and cottages, particularly in rural areas, and I promised that if this Bill would enable us to do it, we ought to prevent the local authorities taking this absurd and very unreasonable attitude to modern building requirements and conditions, and it is to meet this point that we say the Local Government Board shall have power to veto such obsolete and undesirable bye-laws.
    Lords Amendment: After Clause 47 insert Clause C.—(Definition of "Working Glasses.")
    The expression "working classes" in this Act shall include mechanics, artisans, labourers, and others working for wages, hawkers, costermongers, persons not working for wages but working at some trade or handicraft without employing others except members of their own family, and

    1559
    persons whose income does not exceed an average of thirty shillings a week and such persons as may be residing with them.
    Mr. BURNS Mr. BURNS moved, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The Lords have put in a new definition of working classes to which we cannot possibly subscribe, for reasons which were frequently advanced, and I must ask the House to support us in our disagreement with the Lords.

    CLAUSE 50.—(Definition of Cottage.)
    For the definition of cottage in Section fifty-three of the principal Act the following definition shall be substituted:—
    The expression "cottage" in this Part of this Act may include a garden of not more than one acre.
    Lords Amendment: Add at the end of the Clause: "Provided that the estimated annual value of such garden shall not exceed three pounds."
    Mr. BURNS Mr. BURNS moved, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    In the Grand Committee I thought it was practically unanimously agreed that a garden attached to a cottage or a house should be raised from half an acre to an acre, and that we should strike out the £3 annual value on the ground that it was rather an absurd limit and ought not to be insisted upon. It seems to be equally absurd that if you increase the area of the garden to one acre you should retain the old value for the garden and yet keep the same low limit of valuation. We think the request of the Lords is unreasonable and inapplicable.

    CLAUSE 53.—(Application of Housing Acts to Scotland.)
    Sub-section (12), Sections fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen of this Act shall apply with the substitution of the sheriff for the Local Government Board; provided that Section one hundred and forty-six of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897 (prescribing the procedure if a local authority neglect its duty), shall apply as if the duties im-
    1560
    posed upon a local authority by Sections sixteen and seventeen of this Act were duties imposed by that Act:
    Lords Amendment: After the word "Board" insert "or county court of the district" and after "that" insert "the reference in Section seventeen to a public local inquiry shall not apply, and provided further where an appeal is competent under any of these Sections an appeal shall not be competent under Section-thirty-five of the principal Act, and provided also that the power to make rules under Section thirty-nine of this Act shall be exercised by the Court of Session by act of sederunt."
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I beg to move "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. HAY: Will the hon. Gentleman give us some explanation?
    Mr. URE: My Amendment is consequential on what was previously moved by the President of the Local Government Board, and it is to substitute for county court in the Lords Amendment the words "and the Court of Session for the High Court."
    Mr. LYTTELTON: I confess myself not familiar with the points of Scotch law referred to by the Lord Advocate, but I think that the House is entitled to some explanation why in his judgment the House should be asked to disagree with the Lords Amendments. He has once or twice rather faintly murmured the word "consequential," but that is all I have heard.
    Mr. URE: The reason is because High Court has been substituted for county court, and I substitute Court; of Session for the High Court.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Surely the Lord Advocate is not accurate in saying that the High Court has been substituted for county court. I do not understand that to have been the effect of the Amendment adopted. I understood that all the President of the Local Government Board was going to do was to give a power to the Local Government Board to ask an opinion of the High Court on a point of law.
    Mr. BURNS: The Amendment which the Lord Advocate has moved is thoroughly compatible with the Amendment which I

    1561
    moved, and which was accepted unanimously, that the Local Government Board on a substantial point of law would refer that point to the High Court of Justice in England. I am told the equivalent of that in Scotland is the Court of Session.
    Mr. CAVE: May I point out that the High Court is not mentioned in Clauses 15, 17 and 18.
    Mr. BURNS: The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that by the previous Amendment we have abolished the county court, and the Lord Advocate's Amendment, so far as it applies to that, is consequential.
    Mr URE: I move, after the word "Board," to insert the words "and the Court of Session for the High Court."
    Mr. CAVE: Where, in Clauses 15, 17 and 38, is the "High Court" mentioned? The effect of the Amendment is that these Sections shall be read as if the Court of Session were substituted for the High Court. Where, in any of those Clauses, is the "High Court" mentioned?
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: May I point out to the Lord Advocate that his Amendment should follow the word "that," and not the word "Board"?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I really do not know what the House ought to do under these circumstances. I do not want to press anything unduly, but in this matter I feel that the House of Commons is really being asked as far as I can understand to enact something which is not grammatically sense. I cannot think the Government desire to do that, and though I should be sorry to do so if we really cannot get an explanation, I should move that the House do now adjourn.
    Mr. BALFOUR: Before that course is taken may I suggest that the Government should read to us the Clause or the Section as it would stand if their Amendments were carried. We would then exactly know where we are, and at present I do not think anybody in the House does know where we are.
    Mr. BURNS: In answer to the Leader of the Opposition, may I say that in my judgment Mr. Speaker has sufficiently directed the House. He has read out the Amend-
    1562
    ments that the Lord Advocate moved with some interruption. It was not heard in some parts of the House what the Lord Advocate did say. I gathered that the first Amendment of the Lord Advocate was, in line 23, to insert: "or county court of the district," and, after that, to insert: "Court of Session." I gathered that the House followed Mr. Speaker in the Amendment of the Bill so far.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Read the words plainly, and if after the word "Board" you have "Court of Session," then the Section is perfect nonsense. Really we must have some explanation.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I speak with the greatest humility, and I presume to say that I can help the Lord Advocate in the difficulty. The real difficulty, as my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave) pointed out, is that there is no reference in either Clause 15, 17, or 18 to the High Court at all. What we have done is that in Section 40 we have a reference to the High Court by an Amendment which we passed tonight. Therefore from this sort of retrospective connection with Clauses 15, 17, and 18 it becomes necessary to move a consequential Amendment. It does not follow that the Amendment which has been moved is the right one. I really believe what we want to say is that Section 40 should be read with the substitution of the Court of Session for the High Court. With all humility and respect I tender that suggestion.
    Mr. CAVE: On a point of Order. Is it open to anybody to move that the Clause should be read substituting Court of Session for High Court when there is not in any one of those Clauses any reference to the High Court, and would the Amendment be in Order?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Members can see for themselves whether the High Court is mentioned or not. If it is not referred to it is a very good reason for voting against the Amendment.
    Mr. BALFOUR: My hon. Friend's point of Order is this: Is it in Order that we should put into the Bill a provision which is absolute nonsense? I understand that Mr. Speaker or the Chairman usually rules out any Amendment which does not read or which according to the ordinary interpretation of the English language has no meaning. I submit that the Amendment as proposed has no meaning, because it suggests the existence in preceding

    1563
    Clauses of words which in fact do not there exist. I cannot believe that the House desires to pass a Clause in that form.
    Mr. URE: The matter will be made perfectly clear if I alter the Amendment so that it will read, "and the appeal given in Section 40 shall apply with the substitution of 'Court of Session' for 'High Court.'"
    Mr. SPEAKER: That will come later.
    Proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lords Amendment: After "that" ["provided that"] insert "the reference in Section seventeen to a public local inquiry shall not apply, and provided further where an appeal is competent under any of these Sections an appeal shall not be competent under Section thirty-five of the principal Act, and provided also that the power to make rules under Section thirty-nine of this Act shall be exercised by the Court of Session by act of sederunt."
    Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Why is not this Amendment necessary, and what is to take its place? It appears to be merely drafting machinery for doing the same thing in Scotland that has been done in regard to England. The Amendment proposes to strike out the public local inquiry as far as Scotland is concerned, I suppose because that is not an appropriate phrase; and it also makes other provisions. These must be necessary to apply the Act to Scotland. We seem to be in great danger of making the Bill, so far as Scotland is concerned, perfect nonsense.
    Mr. BURNS: As I understand, the Bill will read: "Sections 15, 16, and 17 of this Act shall apply with the substitution of the sheriff for the Local Government Board," and the Court of Session would be inserted to meet the point in Clause 40 as to the reference of points of law to the High Court.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman we are not on that Amendment at all; we are on the second Amendment.
    Mr. BURNS: I have replied to the Noble Lord's question. He put a question definitely to me, and I have done my best to reply to it.
    Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed to Lords Amendment: At the end thereof to add, "and the appeal in Section 40 shall apply in substitution of the Court of Session or the High Court."
    Sir H. CRAIK: The words "on appeal" mean an appeal to the Local Government Board, and the word in the Clause the Lord Advocate proposes to introduce is in reference to an appeal to a court of law.
    Words added to Lords Amendment.

  PART II.—TOWN PLANNING.

    CLAUSE 54.—(Preparation and Approval of Town Planning Scheme.)
    Lords Amendment: Leave out Subsections
    11.0 P.M.
    (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.
    Mr. BURNS: I beg to move, "That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The Amendment of the Lords substitutes for the Small Holdings Act terms the costly and cumbersome procedure of Provisional Order. The objection we have to these Lords Amendments is that we should have a local authority compelled to promote a Provisional Order, and owners would be put to needless expense, and the whole of the town planning scheme might get the go-by. My Noble Friend the Secretary of State for the

    1565
    Colonies said if these Clauses introduced were adhered to town planning would become a luxury only possible to the millionaires. It was never intended by the Government that the local authority would have to go to the very lengthy and costly and tortuous procedure which they would have to by means of a local Act, a Private Bill, or a Provisional Order, if these Amendments were carried. It is because we prefer the cheaper provisions of the Bill that we ask the House to support us with the Motion to disagree with the Lords on this Amendment.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: This is a matter of very great importance, and the House will pardon me while I submit my reasons showing why if this Amendment is not accepted, at any rate something of the kind ought to be introduced into the Bill. The President of the Local Government Board by a slight slip said it was a question of the Small Holdings Act terms. That was a slip, because the terms of the Small Holdings Act have nothing to do with this part of the Bill. The procedure in this part of the Bill is certainly simple, but I do not think it is very good. It is simply that the President of the Local Government Board may do what he pleases. There is no inquiry; the Local Government Board is allowed to do exactly what it pleases, subject to certain very wide limits in reference to town planning. He may set aside any statutory provisions that may at present exist; he may acquire any land or sanction any scheme; he may pull down houses that are in the way of a scheme. I do not think it is possible to imagine a wider power to be exercised in reference to a public improvement. They practically have the power to do everything that can be done in regard to public improvement. We had before us quite recently a Bill for development and road improvement in this country. In that case the Government immediately assented to the view that powers of that kind ought not to be exercised without the sanction of some body quite independent of a Government Department. If the Government think that procedure by Provisional Order is not the right procedure that is an intelligible position to take up. The expense of a Provisional Order has been very much exaggerated, but, assuming they think that the Provisional Order system is too expensive, surely they ought to provide for some inquiry by an independent body before exercising such very wide powers as these.
    1566
    I cannot understand why the Government should adopt this procedure. To ask this House merely to disagree with this Amendment without setting up anything in its place appears to me to be a thoroughly unreasonable proposal. I hope we shall have from some Member of the Government some reason why it is necessary to entrust this despotic and uncontrolled power to a public department.
    Mr. W. PEEL: I wish to support what has fallen from my Noble Friend on this question. The view is held that in regard to these large powers dealing with land the matter ought not to be left entirely to the Local Government Board. The allegation that Provisional Orders are unusually expensive has been entirely disposed of by the Under-Secretary to the Board of Trade himself, and the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, that the procedure is lengthy and tortuous, is not justified by the facts. Whatever may be said about the schemes under Part I. there is no doubt that the schemes we are considering now are even more far-reaching. The right hon. Gentleman, on the 31st of August, used these words:—
    "Supposing Glasgow decides on a town planning scheme, looking ten, fifteen, or probably fifty years ahead, as I hope growing cities will seriously undertake to do."
    Those words show the immense scope of some of these schemes, and they show the absurdity of the Local Government Board being allowed to deal with them in this way. After all, Part I. schemes dealt only with the area of a particular authority, but these town planning schemes go much further and deal with areas and authorities entirely outside the area of the particular authority which is framing the scheme. The idea is that the extension of these great towns should not be limited to their own area, but that they should be allowed to have control and lay out areas in districts coterminous with their own. Therefore in such cases the rights of the local authorities themselves might be greatly infringed by these large schemes, and yet they would have no power to come before this House to protect themselves. It is not clear whether it is in the contemplation of the Government that a town planning authority should exercise their power under Section 60 of purchasing any land comprised in a scheme. There seems nothing to prevent them going into very large building speculations. Surely, Parliament

    1567
    should have some sort of control over these very large schemes. The House hesitated to give complete power to the right hon. Gentleman over Part I. scheme of the Housing Act of 1890, and they ought, I think, to hesitate still further before giving these entirely new and really very large and vague powers. Parliament ought, at any rate, in the first few years to retain some sort of control. It should not be left to the uncontrolled opinion of one or two inspectors of the Local Government Board or even of the President of the Board, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us some reply, and to explain why he is going to take very large schemes entirely away from the purview of the House of Commons.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: I have pointed out to the House several times before that this town planning part of the Bill is not sound. There are very few cases to guide the Local Government Board on the subject, and there are very few people in this country familiar with it. If ever there was a case in which full precaution should be taken it is this. These schemes should be thoroughly safeguarded. It is manifest that the arguments we used with regard to the previous parts of the Bill have less force than those we urge with respect to this, because, whilst the housing parts are comparatively familiar to the House and the country, this part is absolutely a novel experiment. Great powers may be used and great innovations may take place, and it may be—I think it often will be the case—that they will be entirely justified; but on the other hand, private owners may have very clear and well-defined views as to the town planning suitability of their property, and they will be liable to be overridden, not by men of great experience, but by men who, like themselves, will be novices in the matter. I do not think this is an exaggerated statement. So far as we know there is at present no one in the department who is an expert, and that seems to me a circumstance, at any rate, averse to giving the Board such wide powers. It may well be that when this subject has been thoroughly thrashed out, when more definite ideas than at present prevail are stereotyped, it will be possible to leave it to the department. But at present it is a great experiment that is being tried. These proposed powers are very wide: they may involve
    1568
    dealing with very great tracts of country; they may involve questions with regard to main roads and with respect to communications between one district and another.
    Has the House of Commons such confidence in the Local Government Board that it can afford to dispense with all the security and to divest itself of all power with regard to questions of even far less magnitude than this? It seems to me not only a most dangerous but really an unconstitutional course, and I venture to say we have at present heard absolutely no reason why the code set up in another case should be disregarded in this. Let me just assume what may happen. You may take an area of 300 or 400 acres in a very expensive portion of the suburban district of a large town. You may have a plan in respect of which the owners affected, and injuriously affected, may not have a right to be even heard by counsel at all. Surely that is wrong. It is supposed always in this House that to exclude counsel is to promote brevity and cheapness. But nothing requires such careful inquiry and scrutiny as cases which are presented by men unacquainted with the practice of the law, who may be called upon to answer difficult points raised by those who are accustomed to argue them before these tribunals. The Local Government Board in these inquiries will get very little information from those who appear before them. I do not think that anybody who considers the matter can contemplate with satisfaction the possibility of elaborate proposals presented by unskilled persons before an unskilled tribunal, and of the immense interests being dealt with by such a tribunal.
    Mr. BURNS: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has asked the Government to give him some better explanation than has previously been given with regard to the operation of the method of a town planning scheme. It is not usual in considering Lords Amendments for us to speak at the length which is customary on the Report stage or on the third reading, but I was under the impression that he was fully cognisant of what the Government adopted as we had discussion of it almost ad nauseam upstairs in the Grand Committee on the third reading and on the Report stage. But as he is anxious to refresh his mind and "Barkis is willin'," I am ready to give the explanation, though I am surprised that he should ask for it, particularly as he is associated with one or two garden cities which, if this

    1569
    Bill is carried with the Lords Amendment, will say, "Thank you for nothing, as we can do under the existing law just as much as we can do under your Bill, which, at the instance of Earl Cawdor, imposes upon us a disability." If this Lords' Amendment were agreed to, there would be no advantage in this Bill either for private owners or local authorities over the existing practice. What is the existing practice? A private Bill for town planning was introduced by the Liverpool Corporation last year. There was no such Bill to provide them with a more economical and more speedy procedure. I do not know the number of hundreds of pounds that the Liverpool Corporation spent upon the promotion of its Town Planning Bill, but whether it was £100, or £800, or £900—it is possible that it was nearer £800 or £900 than £100—it was many hundreds of pounds more than they ought to have been called upon to spend or would have been called upon to spend if this Bill had been passed three years ago. The right hon. Gentleman himself knows something about the Hampstead Garden Suburb. They promoted a bill to enable them to carry out that particular piece of work. Notwithstanding that the Local Government Board rendered the Hampstead Garden Suburb all the assistance that it was our duty to give, it cost them more money than they should have to spend for that private Bill, and if this Bill had been carried, both Liverpool and Hampstead Garden Suburb would have been spared time and expense. What does it mean if Earl Cawdor's proposal prevails? It will have to be done by private Bill or Provisional Order Bill that will have to run the gauntlet of both Houses, and the delay and expense which ensue will be disproportionate to the advantage which the right hon. Gentleman thinks that course will give the promoters. Then he says: Is there to be a public inquiry? Of course there is. Then it was suggested that public statutes were to be brushed on one side. But we do not suspend public enactments with regard to the subject matter of Clause 54.
    The next point the right hon. Gentleman raised is one that he has a perfect right to put. He says town planning is experimental in this country, and up till now novel, and there are very few men who can be regarded as experts on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct, and it is because we are going to take his advice to be cautious that we contemplate adding to our staff a
    1570
    sufficient number of men so that at the beginning of this experiment we can save promoters and local authorities from the pitfalls and dangers that the right hon. Gentleman suggested they will succumb to unless we get the best possible advice. Apart from politics or any predilection whatever, I shall consult everyone as to who would be the best persons to guide the Local Government Board, and we shall go to the best authority, and I hope we shall be able to secure two or three good men who will help to guide this new experiment on the lines I have suggested, and we believe Clause 54 gives sufficient protection to owners, and public enquiry guarantees that every interest will be adequately represented. The Local Government Board is not lightly going about to take up schemes indiscriminately, whether they should be taken up or not. In that matter we shall exercise the greatest discretion. We believe this is the only way in which this new, beneficent and great experiment can be safely launched.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I have the greatest sympathy with the desire of the right hon. Gentleman to cheapen expenditure in reference to these new plans, but I would beg him to consider one or two points which really indicate that we ought to be most cautious in leaving the whole of this to a department to determine. The very claim of this Bill, which I desire to see justified, is that the future of a city shall be determined, as it were, for a generation to come, that its evolution, the course which its new streets are going to take, and the direction in which building is going to be carried out, are to be pre-determined, not, as they are at present, by changes of casual fashion and the enterprise of the builder and of the landowner, but on some fixed scheme. That is a tremendous responsibility from two points of view. In the first place it may entirely alter the relations between the central city, which is going to develop, and the independent local authorities round the city. Their whole future may really depend on what scheme is adopted, whether the new main road is in this direction or in that. Ought you to allow the interests of the independent local authorities round the great cities to be entirely at the mercy of a public department? Then, with regard to individual owners, if this Bill passes the individual owner whose land is taken compulsorily will get a fair price for it. I am not raising any question as to the pro-

    1571
    priety of taking land by compulsion if it is required. I firmly believe in that principle and have always believed in it. But the whole value of the property round the town will depend upon the plans that you make for its future. In determining town planning I agree that you are not robbing anyone, but you are making a tremendous potential change in the whole character of the growing value of sites round that town, and you are doing it, not for this year or next year, but for a generation, or for 50 or 60 years to come. Surely we ought most seriously to consider whether the whole destiny, for two generations, of a great city is to be put in the hands of officials of a single department and all the matters with respect to the rights of neighbouring local authorities and the rights of neighbouring interests.
    The magnitude of the problem is so great that, I confess, I do look with reluctance on the granting of these powers to a department. Do not let us suppose that a public department is under the control of this House. It is not. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, as long as he has the confidence of the Government to which he belongs, or any other head of a department, is absolute master in his own sphere. There is no real control by this House over the head of a department. The House cannot do it under the present arrangement, and no rearrangement can enable it to do it. Are you going to do what was done with, I think, admirable effect in the time of the Stuarts and the Star Chamber. On the whole, I understand that the modern historical view is that the Star Chamber was a most beneficent central authority for keeping local authorities in their proper place. The criticism as to the Star Chamber was that it was an irresponsible body—an irresponsible bureaucracy at the centre of Government, but for all practical purposes you are recreating it. For some purposes such an authority may be necessary. There are strange reversions of types as civilisation develops. It may be that the ideal of the future is the régime of the Stuarts with modern modifications. I really do not dogmatise on the subject, but I confess that I think the House ought to pause before it gives this power over the future development of every city in the Kingdom, over every local authority in the neighbourhood of every city, and over every piece of property in the neighbour-
    1572
    hood of every city, to a single bureaucracy, not responsible to this House, or to any House, or to public opinion, but responsible only to itself. It is because I think this too great a step in the direction of those ancient and abandoned ideas that I shall vote against the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, much as I sympathise with his great desire to do everything that is possible for the proper planning of streets and houses.
    Mr. BURNS: What is your alternative?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I am afraid I am not in a position to offer alternatives.
    Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: The right hon. Gentleman has given the House a most admirable presentment of the ideals of town planning, and I hope these ideals will give a great stimulus to the movement. Like him, I have a great distrust of bureaucracy, but I do not see a better alternative for exercising some control over the local authorities than by having a department of the Local Government Board, with the best information on the subject, advising the President of the Board so far as he has to exercise control over the local authorities. I think the local authorities themselves will be cautious in undertaking their work. In some cases they may be rash. If local authorities err it is on the side of caution, and I do not think they will wish to rush recklessly into expense. I think the local authorities will often be able to co-operate in carrying out a town planning scheme. With a little help I certainly think they will. I believe in leaving as much initiative as possible to the local authorities. I would like to see a bureaucracy interfere as little as possible. But look to any other alternative. Is it to this House we could look with advantage? Would the extension of a Scottish borough or a North of England town be more intelligibly discussed here than by the local authorities themselves, in conjunction not only with other authorities, but with the holders of land in a neighbourhood with whom they would have to enter into consultation and with the advice of such expert assistance as the central department could afford? I confess I see no better help that could be given to local authorities than can be given in the way that is proposed, and in the present state of the House, with the length of the Session and the congestion of business here, I must say I should not look forward with equanimity to all these town planning schemes, not only from

    1573
    boroughs but from many counties, being submitted to Committees of the House or to review by the House. I do not think it possible.
    As regards the country to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) and I belong, I am not satisfied with the nature of the settlement itself, there being no provision to provide us with anything in the nature of a Local Government Board fit to grapple with this matter, and in the course of the discussion which we had not long ago on the housing portion of the Bill, and also as regards the town planning portion of the Bill, it was shown that as they have got no Local Government Board the local authorities in Scotland are to be led on to indulge in litigation before the Court of Session, which has to take the place of the Local Government Board. With that state of matters, I am profoundly discontented. That is a very weak part of the Bill, but I am bound to say if I had the misfortune to be an Englishman and to live in this country I should be quite satisfied with the provisions of the Bill, because whatever the evils of bureaucracy may be you have a properly constituted department which will be a department to be constituted within itself to give what help it can to the local authorities. That is a great asset which is lacking in Scotland. Therefore, so far as Scotland is concerned the Act will work with great disadvantage as compared with England, and I think that England is fortunate in this matter. I do not think that any other working alternative can be presented as against the sketch which the right hon. Gentleman has given.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The President of the Local Government Board asked what was the alternative to his proposal? The alternative is the Amendment with which the right hon. Gentleman desires to disagree. Here are the chief points. The Local Government Board, after approval of a scheme, is to hold a public local inquiry. What is there to object to in that? If the Order is sanctioned notice is to be served on the authorities and the persons affected. If there is no objection the Order is to be confirmed and come into operation fortwith unless it contains a provision suspending any statutory enactment, in which case the Order must come before Parliament as a Provisional Order. There is also a limitation to expenses. Only a few weeks ago the Under-Secretary to the Board of Trade said that Provisional
    1574
    Orders were very easy of execution and were not expensive, and that out of over 1,000 that had come before the House during the last ten years only 190 had been rejected. This procedure is far and away better than appointing a dictator in the person of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, to decide what is good for everybody. Personally, I am a Tory, but I believe in the right of the House of Commons to settle what is good for the people——
    Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: You are no Tory; you are a Radical.
    Sir F. BANBURY: When the House represents the people, which it does not do now, I prefer the Houses of Parliament to the beneficent rule of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: In supporting this Amendment we are not giving full effect to the usual objection to expropriation against a man's will without Parliamentary confirmation. We are only fighting on the narrow issue raised by the extreme course you are taking, which involves the absolute repeal of enactments passed by this House. I suppose there is no Minister in this House who is not fully prepared to admit that in all these matters the public health, the interest of generations to come, is the highest of all public interests which can be pleaded in favour of expropriation. Even if you preserve Parliamentary forms in this case, the expense complained of by the right hon. Gentleman is rendered in the highest degree improbable, because it is impossible to conceive that any local authority would approach this House otherwise than after it has been conceded in advance by any Committee that could possibly be struck by this House; that this supreme consideration must govern them in their decision as to whether property must be expropriated or not. Another consideration which occurs to my mind in connection with these town planning schemes is that you will be able to achieve an extraordinarily beneficial result. Among other things it is inevitable that you must have a maximum number of houses to the acre, and not only will you be serving the interests of the public health, but you will be going further than has any other measure before the House to solve the difficult and vexatious question of increment in the value of land by imposing a maximum number of houses to the acre; you will supply an automatic means for the

    1575
    settlement of that difficult question. If you are going to put aside Parliament in taking away men's property against their will by appointing officials of a Department, you are constituting the most unsatisfactory of all possible tribunals. I profoundly disbelieve in all these attempts to convert executive departments into judicial authorities. I object to it for this reason: You may find fault with, you may criticise, you may reverse the decision of a Parliamentary Committee, and you may move in this House to remove a judge. You can question the acts of a Minister by discussions on the Estimates, you may put questions to him, you can make his life a burden to him, but if you convert his department into a judicial body, the Minister will be always able to take refuge behind the doctrine that he cannot be objected to because powers have been delegated to somebody in his department who is placed in a judicial position, and whose decision is protected in practice and in theory from all Parliamentary attack and discussion. I really think that this House should disapprove of any control of that kind. I do say, where the issues are so supremely important, where the object is of such inestimable value, it is right that the initial proceeding with regard to this new movement should not be characterised by anything in its earlier stages of any approach to a sense of injustice. I do ask the Government to consider most gravely whether even now this alternative, this fully considered and matured alternative, might, without loss of dignity or credit, be accepted by them.
    Mr. BURNS: The right hon. Gentleman made a statement which ought to be corrected before we come to a Division. He suggests that under the procedure promoted by the Local Government Board that all public Acts are set on one side. If he would do me the honour of looking at page 25, line 30, he will find, "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
    1576
    the making of any new scheme." That removes many of the objections the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind before he was aware of that provision in the Bill. Another point which it is only necessary for me to repeat is that if the Local Government Board disagree with a local authority, provision for a local inquiry will be found in Clause 61, so that protection will be given to the owners of property and interests affected, and if prejudicially affected may make their case known to the Local Government Board, on which an inquiry will be held. The Leader of the Opposition, who I am sorry is not here now, made a few remarkable admissions. He admitted that towns should be planned, he admitted that land should be taken at a fair price, as this Bill does, for the town planning and development of towns in the future, and he said that town planning might benefit, and I would add prejudice, the growth of a town, in such a way that every safeguard should be adopted to prevent a town planning scheme doing injustice to any body affected.
    I put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman who is here in the absence of the Leader of the Opposition, what other alternative is there besides the Central Department to see that the local authority acts fairly; to see that the owners are properly treated. What other tribunal could he have instead of the central authority of the Local Government Board. I assure this House, if we are to save some local authorities from land speculation, which some of them might use this Bill as an opportunity for indulging in, the action of a strong central authority is needed in the interest of public probity in that direction. If we are to prevent, as we must prevent, the black countries repeating themselves, if we are to prevent places like St. Helens and Widnes, and Dudley, and Netherton, and Brierley Hill and Middlesbrough, and Rhondda Valley indefinitely extending themselves, we have got to give some central authority control in that direction, with a view to guiding local authorities and preventing private owners going too far. This is done in Germany, it is being attempted in America, and will be done in nearly every other country. I want our Parliament to have the honour and distinction of being the first legislative assembly to give town planning schemes a reasonable legislative shape, so as to prevent injustice to owners on the one hand, and on the other to enable good owners and prescient local authorities to

    1577
    co-operate for the prevention of the civic horrors and social dangers which towns unquestionably create by not having the advantages that this Bill will confer. We discussed this matter almost day after day in Standing Committee, and in the absence of a better alternative than the Local Government Board, I appeal to the House, now that I have enumerated some of the
    safeguards against the central authority being needlessly arbitrary, to support the Motion to disagree with this Amendment.
    Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 39.

    Division No. 883.]

    AYES.

    [11.55 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Glover, Thomas

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Asthury, John Meir

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A W. H.

    Barker, Sir John

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

    Barnard, E. B.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Radford, G. H.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

    Raphael, Herber tH.

    Beale, W. P.

    Harwood, George

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

    Henry, Charles S.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Rowlands, J.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hodge, John

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Brigg, John

    Hooper, A. G.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Bright, J. A.

    Horniman, Emslie John

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

    Brooke, Stopford

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Seely, Colonel

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Hudson, Walter

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

    Hyde, Clarendon

    Snowden, P.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jowett, F. W.

    Summerbell, T.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Keating, Matthew

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Tennant Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Lamont, Norman

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Lehmann, R. C

    Toulmin, George

    Clough, William

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Verney, F. W.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Vivian, Henry

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

    Maclean, Donald

    Wadsworth, J.

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

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Cross, Alexander

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Crossley, William J.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

    Marnham, F. J.

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

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Whitehead, Rowland

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

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Wiles, Thomas

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Middlebrook, William

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Mond, A.

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

    Montgomery, H. G.

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

    Essex, R. W.

    Worrell, Philip

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

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Morse L. L.

    Winfrey, R.

    Evans, Sir Samuel T

    Murray, Capt Hon. A. C. (Kincard)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Findlay, Alexander

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir W. (Ilkeston)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    NOES.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Clyde, James Avon

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Forster, Henry William

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Gretton, John

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Edm)

    Cave, George

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Dumphreys, John M. T.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Fell, Arthur

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Kerry, Earl of

    Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Younger, George

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos, Myles

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Stanier, Beville

    Nield, Herbert

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

    Lords Amendment: Leave out, at end of Clause, "and the decision of the Local Government Board whether land is likely to be used for building purposes or not, shall be final."
    Lords Amendment: After Clause 54 insert Clause D:—
    Confirmation of Town Planning Scheme.
    12.0 P.M.
    D.—(1) A town planning scheme prepared or adopted by a local authority shall be submitted to the Local Government Board and shall be supported by such evidence as the Board by their regulations require.
    (2) If, on consideration of the scheme and on proof of the publication of the notices prescribed by the regulations of the Local Government Board, the Board think fit to proceed with the case, they shall direct a public local inquiry to be held in or in the vicinity of the area comprised in the scheme.
    (3) After receiving the report made upon such inquiry and considering the same the Local Government Board may make an order sanctioning the scheme.
    (4) Such order may be made with such modifications and subject to such conditions as the Local Government Board think fit to insert, and it shall be the duty of the authority promoting the scheme to serve in the manner prescribed by the regulations of the Board a notice of any order so made upon the authorities whose area and upon the person whose property will be affected by the operation of the scheme.
    (5) If within the prescribed period, not being less than three months, no objection has been presented to the Local Government Board by an authority or person interested, or if every such objection has been withdrawn, the Board may confirm the order unless the scheme contains a provision suspending any statutory enactments, in which case, or if such an objection as aforesaid has been presented and has not been withdrawn, the order shall not be of any validity unless and until it has been confirmed by Parliament.
    (6) Where an order under this section is referred to a Committee of either House of Parliament, that Committee shall not hear expert witnesses, that is to say, any witness who receives any fee or reward for his attendance or evidence other than his out-of-pocket expenses, unless before the hearing of the case upon an application by the party desiring to call an expert witness, the Chairman of Committees in the case of an order referred to a Committee of the House of Lords, or the Chairman of Ways and Means in the case of an order referred to a Committee of the House of Commons, certifies that the evidence of any particular expert witness or witnesses is requisite or desirable.
    (7) Where an order under this section is referred to a Committee of either House of Parliament the local authority who has submitted the scheme and any authority whose area or any person whose property will be affected by the scheme shall be entitled to petition and be heard before the Committee.
    (8) The Local Government Board or, in the case of an order referred to a Committee of either House of Parliament, that Committee, by a majority of the members of the Committee for the time being present and voting, may make such an order as they think fit in favour of any authority whose area or of any person whose property was proposed to be affected by the scheme, for the allowance of the reasonable costs, charges, and expenses properly incurred at any stage of the proceedings in opposing such scheme, and for that purpose shall take into consideration the circumstances under which such opposition was made to the scheme, and whether such opposition was or was not justified by such circumstances, and shall award costs accordingly, to be paid by the local authority promoting the scheme or the opponents of the scheme, as may appear just.
    [(9) All costs, charges, and expenses incurred by the Local Government Board in relation to any Order under this Section shall, to such amount as the Local Government Board, or, in the case of an Order referred to a Committee of either House of Parliament, as that Committee think

    1581
    proper to direct, and all costs, charges, and expenses of any authority or person, to such amount as may be allowed in pursuance of the aforesaid power, shall be taken to be a liability incurred by the authority promoting the scheme, and shall be paid to the Board and to such authority or person respectively in such manner and at such times, and either in one sum or by instalments, as may be directed.]
    (10) A town planning scheme may be varied or revoked by a subsequent scheme, prepared or adopted and confirmed in accordance with this Part of this Act, on the application of the responsible authority, or of any other council or person interested.
    (11) Any costs under this Section may be taxed and recovered in the manner in which costs may be taxed and recovered under the Parliamentary Costs Act, 1865.

    CLAUSE 55.—(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.
    Lords Amendment: Leave out "approved by the Board" ["approved by the Board for the variation or"], and insert "confirmed."
    Sub-section (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, excluding, or varying 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, so 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.
    Lords Amendment: After "apply" ["the scheme is to apply and the authority"] insert "including a schedule showing each parcel of land which it is proposed shall be effected by the making of the scheme, together with a map or plan," and after "and" ["and the authority who are to be responsible"] insert "specifying."
    Viscount MORPETH: I cannot myself see how there can be any objection to this Amendment. I admit it is not very far-reaching, but still it seems to be an advantage that the ratepayers should be able to get this necessary information.
    Mr. BURNS: The maps and plans go with the scheme. If this Amendment were adopted we should have 60 or 70 maps and plans.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: It appears to me that without any provision it would be difficult for the ratepayers to get information. As I understand, the Government are anxious that every one should have an opportunity of learning all about the scheme. This Amendment would make that task easy.
    Question put.
    The House divided: Ayes, 145; Noes, 29.

    Division No. 884.]

    AYES.

    [12.5 a.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Barnes, G. N.

    Brooke, Stopford

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Beale, W. P.

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Beauchamp, E.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

    Byles, William Pollard

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Causton, Rt Hon. Richard Knight

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Brigg, John

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Barnard, E. B.

    Bright, J. A.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Cleland, J. W.

    Horniman, Emsile John

    Radford, G. H.

    Clough, William

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Hudson, Walter

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hyde, Clarendon

    Ridsdale, E. A.

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

    Jowett, F. W.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Keating, Matthew

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Crossley, William J.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Rowlands, J.

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Lamont, Norman

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

    Lehmann, R. C.

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

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Seely, Colonel

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

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Snowden, P.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Fatkirk Burghs)

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Maclean, Donald

    Summerbell, T.

    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Essex, R. W.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Maddison, Frederick

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Marnham, F. J.

    Toulmin, George

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Findlay, Alexander

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Verney, F. W.

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir W. (Ilkeston)

    Middlebrook, William

    Vivian, Henry

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Mond, A.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Montgomery, H. G.

    Walters, John Tudor

    Glover, Thomas

    Morrell, Philip

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Morse, L. L.

    Warner, Thomas Conrtenay T.

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Whitbread, Howard

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Harwood, George

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

    Henry, Charles S.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pointer, Joseph

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Hedge, John

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Hooper, A. G.

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

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

    Courthope, G. Lloyd

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott

    Stanier, Bovine

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Dumphreys, John M. T.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Forster, Henry William

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Cave, George

    Gretton, John

    Younger, George

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Morpeth and Mr. Walter Guinness.

    Clyde, James Avon

    Kerry, Earl of

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

    Lords Amendment: Leave out "or for the execution" and after "scheme" ["of the scheme"] insert "and for the execution of any works which under the scheme or this part of this Act are to be executed by a local authority."
    Lords Amendment: Leave out, "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
    1584
    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."
    Sub-section (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

    1585
    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.
    Lords Amendment: "After "authority" ["more than one local authority"] insert "or is in the area of a local authority by whom the scheme was not prepared."
    Lords Amendment: After "duties" ["necessary powers and duties"] insert "Provided that no local authority shall be authorised, except as a constituent of a joint body constituted as aforesaid, to enforce the observance or the execution of a town planning scheme under this Part of this Act in respect of any land within the area of another local authority, unless such other local authority is not prepared to carry out a town planning scheme for the area in question."
    Mr. BURNS Mr. BURNS moved, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The reason we ask the House to disagree with this Amendment is simply this: Any rural council would be able to prevent an authority of an adjoining large town or city from projecting a town planning scheme into the area of the smaller authority. That would be giving small authorities power to prevent public improvements and development to an extent not warranted.
    Viscount MORPETH: I think the right hon. Gentleman must be under a misapprehension. This gives no power to small authorities outside to stand in the way of town planning schemes on the part of the larger authorities; it only says that, if the smaller authority declines to undertake a scheme, the larger authority may step in. If the small authority is willing to undertake the work, they may do so. Some of the most difficult points with which Parliament has to deal on private Bills upstairs arise with reference to the boundaries between the different local authorities in the country, and now the
    1586
    right hon. Gentleman proposes to step airily in and decide on his own ipse dixit where and when town planning schemes are to be made, and whether large authorities shall be allowed to go outside their area and acquire land. It is because it is not desirable it should have that power that I urge that this Amendment of the Lords should be agreed with.
    Mr. VIVIAN: In dealing with the outskirts of our towns it should not be possible for the smaller local authorities to arrest or check in any way the planning of the large authorities. If you put in this Amendment you will make it possible in, say, an area around London for fifty small local authorities to produce rival pettifogging town planning schemes which will conflict with more important projects of planning intended to meet the future requirements of the city for, perhaps, fifty years to come. Seeing that full provision, is made for attempting to secure the co-ordination of the local authorities, I protest against the reproduction of proposals which will only have the result of enabling minor local authorities to arrest the object we have in view.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think the hon. Member really misunderstands this Amendment. All it provides is that if the minor local authority refuses its consent, then nothing can be done unless you constitute a joint authority. It is very important that a central or big local authority should have the general controlling voice, but clearly the minor local authority is interested in the matter. It may grow, it may wish to expand into a big centre, and therefore its interests should be considered. Is it not reasonable that the local authority should have some voice in the matter, that the scheme should be carried out by a joint and not by a single authority? That I understand to be the object of the Amendment. If the minor authority will not do anything, then power is given to the central authority to override it, but, on the contrary, if it wishes to do something, then it is provided that it shall be done by a joint authority on which the minor authority is represented. I think it is a reasonable proposal which will meet any conflict of interest that may arise between the central and the minor local authority.
    Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords on the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 29.

    Division No. 885.]

    AYES.

    [12.20 a.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Glover, Thomas

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Pointer, J.

    Barnard, E. B.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Harwood, George

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Beale, W. P.

    Hedges, A. Paget

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

    Beauchamp, E.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Radford, G. H.

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

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

    Brooke, Stopford

    Higham, John Sharp

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hooper, A. G.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Byles, William Pollard

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Rowlands, J.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hudson, Walter

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Seely, Colonel

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Jowett, F. W.

    Summerbell, T.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Keating, M.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Cleland, J. W.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Clough, William

    Lamont, Norman

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Toulmin, George

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

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Verney, F. W.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Maclean, Donald

    Vivian, Henry

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Crossley, William

    M'Callum, John M.

    Walters, John Tudor

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Maddison, Frederick

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Whitbread, S. Howard

    Dewar, Arthur Edinburgh, S.)

    Marnham, F. J.

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

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

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Middlebrook, William

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Mond, A.

    Wills, Arthur Waiters

    Essex, R. W.

    Morrell, Philip

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

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Morse, L. L.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Findlay, Alexander

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Dumphreys, John

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Forster, Henry William

    Stanier, Beville

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Gretton, John

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cave, George

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

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Younger, George

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Kerry, Earl of

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord Robert Cecil and Sir H. Craik.

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Morpeth, Viscount

    CLAUSE 57.—(Power to Enforce Scheme.)
    Sub-section (3).—If any question arises whether any building or work contravenes a town planning scheme, or whether any provision of a town planning scheme is not complied with in the erection or carrying out of any such building or work, that question shall be referred to the Local Government Board, and the decision of the Board shall be final and conclusive and binding on all persons.
    Lords Amendment: Leave out "that question shall be referred to the Local Government Board, and the decision of the Board shall be final and conclusive and
    1588
    binding on all persons," and insert, "the matter may be referred for decision to the county court of the district in the same manner and subject to the like provisions as an appeal to that court under Part I. of this Act."
    House disagreed with Lords Amendment.

    CLAUSE 58.—(Compensation in, Respect of Property Injuriously Affected by Scheme, etc.)
    Lords Amendment: At the end of Subsection (3), leave out "the amount of that increase" and insert "such proportion of the expenditure of the authority as, failing

    1589
    agreement, in the opinion of the arbitrator has increased the value of such property."
    Mr. BURNS: I move "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The effect of the Amendment inserted by the Lords would be that the local authority could only recover as betterment the amount of the expenditure by the local authority under a scheme. But expenditure frequently has no necessary relation to betterment. The scheme of a local authority may mean little or no expenditure on the part of the local authority, but property might be enormously increased in value. On the other hand, a local authority might incur very large expenditure, and no property would be materially increased in value thereby. We think this Amendment is inequitable in two ways. It would mean that the local authority could only recover from any particular owner an amount in proportion to the expenditure which had increased the value of his property. The amount so recovered might be much less than the local authority ought to get. On the other hand, I put the case in this way in the interest of the owner. If a man's property is worth £500, and is increased in value by the making of a road which cost £3,000, it would be obviously unjust that the owner should be responsible, as he would be under the Lords Amendment, for £3,000. I am informed that some of the Noble Lords who voted for this Amendment are now under the impression that in many cases it would damnify the owner more than the local authority. The Bill, as originally introduced and sent to the Lords, would have given the local authority the whole of the betterment accruing under the operation of a scheme. Noble Lords objected to that, and we made what I thought was a magnanimous offer, namely, that half should go to the owner and half to the local authority. That offer is still open, and we can only give Noble Lords an opportunity of accepting it by disagreeing with their Amendment. We cannot go further than that. We think that half and half is most reasonable. I have no doubt that when we disagree with this Amendment, their Lordships will see the magnanimity of our proposal and adopt our view.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that we ought to reject the Lords Amendment without further discussion. As a matter of fact, what is the Government scheme as he
    1590
    reveals it? The local authority, without taking upon themselves the responsibility of purchasing a property, embark on a scheme in which that property is involved. If the scheme which they authorise turns out successful, they are to have, under the Government scheme, the entire profit of it at the expense of the owner of the property which it affects. If, on the other hand, the scheme turns out a loss, then the local authority will not contribute a penny to that loss. That is the right hon. Gentleman's idea of equity. If the local authority are convinced of the soundness of a town planning scheme they can apply for compulsory powers, and take the responsibility on their own shoulders. But they refrain from doing that, leave the property on the hands of the owners, wait to see what is the result, and take the gain if there is a gain, and do not share the loss if there is a loss.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: The Amendment which the Government now want to reject appears to me quite necessary if they believe in the principles of their own Finance Bill. Apparently they cannot believe in those principles, because this betterment proposed by the Government is quite indistinguishable from the scheme which will arise under the Finance Bill. I think they could have distinguished it from unearned increment if they had said that this betterment is only to be that increase in value which was the result of the expenditure of the local authority, but now that the Government refuse to take that definition, this betterment covers exactly the same ground as the increment. It seems quite unjust if increment arises under a town planning scheme that the owner is to lose the whole of it, and if it arises in any other way the owner is only to lose one-fifth of it. There is no possible logical foundation for that, and we all wait with interest to see how the Government justify this proposal in one case and not in all cases. The right hon. Gentleman has taken credit to himself for great magnanimity in suggesting that the Government would be satisfied with only half the increase in value. No doubt they copied that provision from one which obtains in certain local Acts. In the Local Improvement Acts where you find that provision the whole district has been improved entirely by the expenditure of public money. In London when the Tower Bridge approach was made the whole increase in value in that district was due to the expenditure of public money, and it was perfectly reasonable that in that

    1591
    case half the increase in value for a given term of years should go to the local authorities. But in the cases which will arise under this Bill there will be no question of public money, although the whole district will have changed its quality and become building land instead of agricultural land by this increase of value owing to the expenditure of private funds. When a district is developed in the ordinary way, roads and open spaces and many other amenities are all laid out at private expense, and it is perfectly absurd for the Local Government Board to come in and say that all that natural increase in value, which is the legitimate reward of private capital being expended, is to be confiscated by the local authority.
    Mr. BURNS: No.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentleman says "No." He has taken that attitude in previous stages of the Bill, and he has never explained how he is going to limit the operation of this provision—"where by the operation of the scheme any property has increased in value." There is not a word about limiting this value, which is the increase of value under the town planning scheme, which will include buildings and roads, and if a man puts up buildings and gets an increase of his capital and good rents by wise planning of his buildings, then, as town planning schemes are controlled by regulations as to buildings under the fourth Schedule, the Local Government Board will be able to run all that in and charge upon it. The chief result of this provision which the Government propose would be, if it ever does become law, to make it quite impossible to build. The President of the Local Government Board shakes his head, but, as has been pointed cut, a town planning scheme is going to absolutely include everything.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not see any answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend. A local authority agrees to a scheme to be carried out, and the Local Government Board confirm it. It is part of the scheme that the work shall be carried out by a private individual, it may be by the owner of the property which is benefited. Then the local authority comes down under this provision and claims the whole of the profit which has accrued to the owner by expenditure of his own money on his own scheme. If that is the effect of the Clause—and as far as I can see it is
    1592
    the effect—the only result will be that no improvement will ever be carried out by a private individual under this town planning provision. They will say, "Very well, we will carry it out in our own way, and not pay a percentage to the local authority or the Local Government Board if we can avoid it." Surely that cannot be what the Government intend. It may be that the Government intend that the local authority shall be entitled to recover the whole of the benefit where they themselves have carried out the scheme and spent money upon it, but in that case the local authority may well spend a very trifling sum. The scheme may merely involve their spending a small sum of money to open up a bit of back land by a road. Are they thereupon to carry off the whole of the profits which may arise?
    Mr. BURNS: Supposing they do?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: If they do, then they throw the cost of it on the ratepayers of the district. I am not quite clear as to whether they can make a special district a special contributory place, but, in any case, the provisions of the Bill are clearly unjust. It cannot be just to say that where two private individuals or the actual individual concerned spends money for developing his property, that thereupon the whole of the profit arising from that development should go to the local authority. That cannot be just or right or proper, I venture to say, that the difficulty raised by the Lords Amendments has not been even alluded to by the President of the Local Government Board. He has got to deal with that case and explain either that it is wrong to suppose that profit can possibly come within this Clause, or that there is some reason which certainly escapes me why that profit should go to the local authority.
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: It seems to me that we are discussing this matter with some little confusion, if I may venture to say so to the Noble Lord who is always extremely lucid, between what I may term the natural benefit, the ordinary element, and the artificial element brought about by making a scheme. As regards the ordinary or natural benefit, that increase in the value of land which would take place in the neighbourhood of a growing town, that under any circumstances would naturally belong to the owner of the property. That would not be due in any degree to the making of the

    1593
    scheme, but as regards the betterment which is due to the making of the scheme, It is surely only right and just, as my right hon. Friend has suggested, that a share of that benefit should belong to the local authority.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not think I made the point I desire to make clear to the hon. Gentleman. There is an owner of land near a town who desires to develop his land. Under this Bill the local authority is entitled to come in and say, "That must be developed under a town planning scheme," and they make a scheme to regulate the development of that land. Assume that it is a beneficial development will it or will it not be the case that the whole of the profit arising from that development or from the making of the scheme which authorised that development to which the local authority will not have contributed one halfpenny, is it or is it not the effect of this Bill that the whole of that profit will go to the local authority?
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: The Noble Lord says that the local authority will not have contributed a single halfpenny, but, as a matter of fact, the local authority is responsible for the payment of compensation in respect of every atom of injurious effect to the property with which they have to deal. I think that should be borne in mind. Surely it is only fair that the local authority should be able to recoup itself from that in some way or other. There is a method suggested by the Lords Amendment by which the local authority could be compensated, but, as my right hon. Friend has already shown, that method might result in the greatest possible injustice to the local landowner. Upon the legal construction of the Lord's Amendment the result to the local landowner might be absolutely disastrous. We are upon that particular Amendment now, and I think the House will be wise to reject it. We prefer the system of assessing not the total amount of the increment, but it is absolutely necessary to draw a dividing line between the natural increment and the artificial increment. As regards the artificial increment, having regard to the expenditure of the local authority, it is absolutely essential some portion of that increment should be given to the local authority to compensate it.
    Mr. STEWART BOWLES: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board has drawn a distinction
    1594
    between what he calls natural and artificial increment. That is very interesting, though for my part it would appear at first sight that no increment could be strictly natural, and the increment of land, particularly in relation to any development scheme, must be to a large extent artificial.
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I meant ordinary.
    Mr. STEWART BOWLES: Ordinary, as apart from the scheme. I will not pursue that aspect now, but really with great respect the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herbert Lewis) has not dealt with, or attempted to deal with, the very simple case put by my noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil). As this is a matter of importance, I will repeat shortly the case put by him. The case is quite simple. A landowner wishes to develop his land and the local authority prepares a scheme for the development, which the landowner adopts, and the development is carried out by him. The local authority does not spend a farthing, and yet, unless some such Amendment as this is inserted, for all time it will be open to the local authority to recover from the owner the amount of the increase of value. I am sure that cannot be the intention of the Government. This is a matter which clearly requires their careful attention.
    Mr. BURNS: If the scheme does nothing which the owner could not have done without the scheme, it will not increase the value of his land. The hon. Member is entirely wrong when he speaks about the local authority taking the betterment for all time. In Clause 58 (3) he will find a limit of three months; and 58 (1) provides: "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." We are astonished at our moderation and generosity.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I think this Amendment presumes certain things which will not happen. What will probably happen is that a landowner will formulate a planning scheme, as the result of which some of his property will be developed in a way short of his strict legal rights, while other parts of his property may be benefited.
    Mr. BURNS: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. For complying with the scheme the owner gets a relaxation of bye-laws and regulations and other incidental advantage, which he could not get if he stayed outside the scheme.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: It may be that under the scheme nobody is injuriously affected, except the landowner, who has, so to speak, averaged the benefit over his whole property. The local authority is to make a claim in
    1.0 A.M.
    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 instal-
    1596
    respect of the particular part of the property which happens to rise in value in consequence of the scheme, in regard to which it does nothing, and it is to make no allowance to the owner for that which he has foregone out of public spirit in respect of the rest of the property.
    Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 113; Noes, 26.

    Division No. 886.]

    AYES.

    [12.55 a.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Glover, Thomas

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Pointer, J.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Harwood, George

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

    Beale, W. P.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Radford, G. H.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Herbert, Col Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Brooke, Stopford

    Higham, John Sharp

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hooper, A. G.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Byles, William Pollard

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Hudson, Walter

    Seely, Colonel

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Summerbell, T.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Cleland, J. W.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Taylor, J. W. (Durham)

    Clough, William

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Lamont, Norman

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Toulmin, George

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

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Verney, F. W.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Vivian, Henry

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Crossley, William J.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Walters, John Tudor

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

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Whitbread, S. Howard

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

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

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Middlebrook, William

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Essex, R. W.

    Mond, A.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Morrell, Philip

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Morse, L. L.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Balcarres, Lord

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Stanier, Beville

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Dumphreys, John

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cave, George

    Forster, Henry William

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

    Younger, George

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Stewart Bowles and Mr. Newdegate.

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    ments 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

    1597
    Board, and the determination of the Board shall be final and conclusive and binding on all persons.
    Lords Amendment: Leave out from "by" ["determined by the Local Government Board"] to end of Sub-section, and insert, "arbitration under this Act in accordance with the first Schedule to this Act."
    Mr. BURNS: I do not accept the words proposed to be inserted, but I propose to substitute for them the words "the arbitration of a single arbitrator appointed by the Local Government Board, unless the parties agree on some other method of determination."
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why the Government propose that the arbitrator shall be appointed by the Local Government Board instead of the Lord Chief Justice? In several other Bills that have been passed on the initiative of the Government, and in the Finance Bill and the Development and Road Improvement Funds Bill it has been provided that the arbitrator shall be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice. Why is that not done in this case?
    Mr. BURNS: Except on a point of law, which we have conceded in Clause 40, we do not consider it desirable to bring in a judicial decision. This is an administrative rather than a judicial matter, and we think the Local Government Board should decide it.
    Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Question, "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 59.—(Exclusion or Limitation of Compensation in Certain Cases.)
    Sub-section (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.
    Lords Amendment: Leave out "reasonably have been inserted in," and insert "be enforced by."
    Question, "That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. BURNS Mr. BURNS moved to leave out the words "could reasonably have been inserted," and to insert "would have been enforcible if they had been contained in."
    The object of this Amendment is to provide that no man should receive compensation in respect of matters which would not have been enforcible if reasonable bye-laws had been made.
    Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: At end of Subsection to insert "or are similar in effect to any enactment which would have been in force within the area to which the town planning scheme applies but for the operation of such scheme."
    Question, "That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Sub-section (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 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.
    Lords Amendment: Leave out "so as to give rise to any claim for compensation under this Part of this Act."
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: Leave out "operation" ["by reason of the operation of any provisions"], and insert "making."
    Question, "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: At end of Sub-section insert: "Provided that if it shall appear to the arbitrator that such provisions are unusual and impose excessive restrictions upon the use of the property, and that under all the circumstances compensation should be awarded, he may, notwithstanding anything in this Sub-section contained, award such compensation as he may think just."
    Mr. BURNS: I move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. STEWART BOWLES: May I ask the Government whether this matter has been fully considered. It appears to me that the Amendment suggested is really reasonable. The House will see that the second Sub-section of the Clause is very drastic and most arbitrary. Nobody can doubt that covenants which restrict the space about buildings, or limit the number of buildings to be erected, or prescribe the height or character of buildings on any given property, may certainly injuriously affect the character of the property, and in equity set up a reasonable claim on the part of the owner to some compensation for the clear loss which in many, and I fear most cases, he must suffer. Where an arbitrator has fully considered the matter, and comes to the conclusion that they are excessive and unusual, there should be power to grant compensation. The word "unusual" is a very strong word for an arbitrator to use, and in giving any award he would have to say that the restrictions are unusual according to the practice which will grow up under schemes of this sort. There should be power in such cases to give a man compensation. The Government might at least give effect to the principle underlying the Amendment.
    Mr. BURNS: I admit that the point raised, in the Amendment is a serious one. If the House were to agree to it, it would mean an addition to the number of houses that might be put upon an acre of ground in excess of what the arbitrator considered reasonable in all the circumstances. It would mean the difference say between 19 and 45, which perhaps would be the maximum. That would render town planning and sanitary and hygienic conditions wholly impossible. The question is whether the arbitrator appointed by the Local Government Board is to say that upon an acre of ground he would as a reasonable man allow 15, 19, or 20. As Ibsen says, men don't do these things, at least whenever they come to the Local Government Board. Would any town planning scheme be worth having if on every acre of ground you were able to pile long rows of brick backs with slate tops, irrespective of the amenities of the whole plan. We have reason to believe that if we resist this Amendment the Lords may possibly adopt a more reasonable view and leave it to the arbitrator to determine the reasonableness or otherwise of the number
    1600
    of buildings. It must be remembered that in the London Building Act it is laid down that no building shall be erected with a Mansard roof more than 86 feet from the ground. I can conceive cases in which owners, but for the sensible provisions which do not allow compensation over 86 feet, would consider themselves entitled to the difference between 86 feet and the 140 feet of that structural abomination known as Hankey's Mansions. If we have no power to determine the number of houses per acre, the Bill will not be worth the paper it is written on.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman's speech had nothing whatever to do with the Amendment. The Amendment does not provide that in any case where regulations are made limiting the size or number of buildings, the landowner shall be entitled, as a right, to compensation. What this provides is this, that the arbitrator who is appointed by the Local Government Board—and therefore presumably a person of fair and impartial character—if he finds certain provisions are unusual and impose excessive restrictions upon the use of the property shall award such compensation as he thinks just. He has got to find that that is a fact first. Then he may, if he thinks it just, take all the circumstances into consideration and grant compensation to the landowner affected by these unusual and excessive restrictions. There is all the difference between that position and what has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman. This is a perfectly rational and reasonable proposal. The real question is whether you are going to say that under no circumstances whatever is a certain type of restrictions to be granted under a town planning scheme, and that under no circumstances is it to be a matter for compensation?
    Mr. BURNS: I will read to him the second section—"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 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."
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: There is to be a universal appearance of the Local Government Board. We are to have absolutely unlimited confidence in the Local Government Board. But the point is this: if the right hon. Gentleman will stretch his imagination he will see the possibility of the Local Government Board making a mistake. If the Local Government Board does make a mistake and does sanction a set of restrictions and they are unreasonable and excessive is it not proper that the arbitrator should have power to award such compensation as he may think just? I do not wish to discuss this at length. My only excuse for discussing it at all is that this provision was introduced under the closure by the Government and was never discussed or considered by this House at all, and this is the first time we have had any opportunity of considering this provision. The first time—on the 1st of November at twenty minutes past one o'clock in the morning. In the circumstances I think this Amendment is a reasonable one and I support it.
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: As a matter of fact, the matter came up on the second reading of the Bill.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: The only case in which the arbitrator is to be given discretion to award compensation is when the provisions are unusual, and impose excessive restrictions. That seems to me to be quite reasonable. In the vast majority of cases the limitation of the height of buildings is a disadvantage, and in many instances the limitation of the number of houses is by no means a disadvantage. I think the Amendment indicates a reasonable way to endeavour to meet the difficulty, and I am rather surprised that the Government do not see their way to accept it.
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: The Amendment gives power to the arbitrator to override the Local Government Board. That is absurd.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I cannot be accused of possessing no sympathy with efforts to restrict the number of houses to be placed on the acre; but I think the hon. Member is unreasonably afraid of this Amendment. All it seems to guard against is the imposition of restrictions which are unusual and excessive.
    Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 61.—(Powers of Local Government Board in Case of Default of Local Authority to Make or Execute Town Planning Scheme.)
    Sub-section (2).—If the Local Government Board are satisfied on any representation, after holding a local inquiry, that a responsible authority have failed to enforce the observance of or to execute the scheme, or any provisions thereof, effectively, the Board may order that authority to do all things necessary for enforcing the observance of or to execute the scheme or any provisions thereof effectively.
    Lords Amendment: Leave out "effectively" ["to execute the scheme, or any provisions thereof, effectively"] and insert "or to execute any works which under this scheme or this part of this Act the authority is required to execute."
    Question, "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: Insert as a new Sub-section
    "(4) For the purposes of this Section the expression 'local authority' shall not include the London County Council or the council of any county borough."
    Mr. BURNS: I beg to move "That this House do disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment." It is obviously undesirable that the London County Council or the council of any county borough should be exempt. This Clause should apply to them as well as to others.
    Question, "That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 62.—(Determination of Matters by Local Government Board.)
    Lords Amendment: Leave out the Clause and insert Clause E.
    E.—(Procedure of Local Government Board on applications.)
    The procedure of the Local Government Board, upon an application in respect of any matter which they are authorised by this Part of this Act or by any scheme made thereunder to determine, shall be such as the Board may by rules determine, and on any such application the Board may make such order in the matter as they think equitable, and any order so made shall be binding and conclusive on all parties.
    Mr. BURNS: I move "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment." We wish to insert Clause 62, without the proviso.
    Question, "That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. BURNS Mr. BURNS moved the omission of the second paragraph—
    "Provided that where the question to be determined is a question whether property is injuriously affected or increased in value, or as to the amount or manner of payment of the sum which is to be paid as compensation or which the responsible authority are entitled to recover from the person whose property is increased in value, the Local Government Board shall not determine the question otherwise than as arbitrators except with the consent of the parties interested."
    Mr. LYTTELTON: Why should this be done? If the question is to be decided by arbitration, it seems unreasonable to omit the provision that the Local Government Board shall not decide it except as arbitrators.
    Mr. BURNS: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 58 he will see that the subject matter which we wish to omit here is properly included there.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: What the President of the Local Government Board has told us is accurate, but it is very difficult to follow on the spur of the moment. The provision in Clause 58 appears to be confined to that particular Clause, but the provision we are dealing with here is quite general. If the right hon. Gentleman assures me that the things are the same I will accept his assurance.
    Mr. BURNS: I can assure the Noble Lord on that point. This Sub-section is mere surplusage.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 65.—(Definition of Local Authority and Expenses.)
    Sub-section (2).—Any expenses incurred by a local authority under this Part of this Act, or any scheme made thereunder, shall be defrayed as expenses of the authority under the Public Health Acts, and the authority may borrow, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, or any scheme made thereunder, in the same
    1604
    manner and subject to the same provisions as they may borrow for the purposes of the Public Health Acts.
    Lords Amendment: After "Acts" ["under the Public Health Acts"] insert "provided that in the case of a rural authority such expenses shall be levied in such manner and by such separate rate and subject to the same exceptions and provisions as are applicable under the said Acts to special expenses."
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is a variation of the incidence of the rates, and is a privileged Amendment.
    Mr. BURNS: I move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: On that I would make an appeal to the Government.
    Mr. BURNS: It is a question of privilege.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: But the House of Commons constantly waives its privilege. It has done so several times this Session, and in every Session since I have been in Parliament. The question is whether it is a reasonable proposal. It appears to be a reasonable and workmanlike proposal. This is quite a case in which the House can waive its privilege.
    Mr. BURNS: Apart from the merits of our action in disagreeing with the Amendment, I say that the time is not propitious for waiving it. I must respectfully ask the Noble Lord to allow me to disagree with him.
    Viscount MORPETH: The right hon. Gentleman says frankly that although it is reasonable, he will not accept it.
    Mr. BURNS: I said apart from the merits.
    Viscount MORPETH: That is to say he waived the merits and declined to consider the Amendment, because the time is not propitious. He desires to use this as a part of his strategy for an entirely different and alien purpose. He expects the Opposition to treat this Bill on its merits, but he declines to do so because of the general political situation.
    Mr. BURNS: No.
    Viscount MORPETH: I am in the recollection of the House. The right hon. Gentleman says that because this is not a propitious time, he declines to consider the

    1605
    Amendment, or even discuss in this House whether it is a meritorious Amendment. I think that for a Minister who desires to conduct his Bill through the House with the least amount of friction and the utmost amount of support from all sections of the House, this is a very unfortunate method of procedure. Even at this late stage of the Bill I think it is a great misfortune that the right hon. Gentleman has adopted that method and refused to accept the Amendment simply because he does not think it fits in with the strategy of his colleagues.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: I hope hon. Members opposite who are really interested in rural housing will take note of the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's declining to consider a most reasonable Amendment. It will most likely prevent most excellent work being done in rural districts, which are poor districts. The effect of resisting the Amendment on grounds which are purely factious and non-meritorious may very likely be that in the cases most urgently in need of
    housing reform the finance of the matter will be impossible by reason of their poverty.
    Mr. BURNS: No.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: And the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to allow assistance to be given to them from the other sources more available by this Amendment.
    Mr. BURNS: The right hon. Gentleman says that the refusal of this Amendment will handicap rural housing experiments. On the contrary, if we were not to have our way in this matter and to disagree with the Lords Amendment, railway companies would be exempted from contributing their proper share, and rural experiments in housing would be handicapped.
    Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 20.

    Division No. 887.]

    AYES.

    [1.40 a.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Glover, Thomas

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Beale, W. P.

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Pointer, J.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

    Brooke, Stopford

    Henry, Charles S.

    Radford, G. H.

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Higham, John Sharp

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Hudson, Walter

    Seely, Colonel

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Summerbell, T.

    Clough, William

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Sutherland, J. E.

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

    Jowett, F. W.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Lamont, Norman

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Crossley, William J.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Toulmin, George

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

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Vivian, Henry

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

    Maddison, Frederick

    Walsh, Stephen

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Walters, John Tudor

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Essex, R. W.

    Masterman, C. F. G.

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

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Middlebrook, William

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Mond, A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Morrell, Philip

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    NOES.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Valentia, Viscount

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Whitbread, S. Howard

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Forster, Henry William

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Cave, George

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Younger, George

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hay and the Earl of Kerry.

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Stanier, Beville

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    CLAUSE 66.—(Application to London.)
    (1) This Part of this Act shall apply to the administrative county of London, and, as respects that county, the London County Council shall be the local authority.
    (2) Any expenses incurred by the London County Council shall be defrayed out of the general county rate and any money may be borrowed by the Council in the same manner as money may be borrowed for general county purposes.
    Lords Amendment: After "shall" ["This part of this Act shall apply"] insert "except as otherwise expressly provided."
    Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 67.—(Application of Part II. To Scotland.)
    Lords Amendment: Insert "(8) The provision respecting the Rules Publication Act, 1893, shall have effect as if section one of that Act applied to Scotland, with the substitution of the 'Edinburgh Gazette' for the 'London Gazette.'"
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

  PART III.—(COUNTY MEDICAL OFFICERS, COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH AND HOUSING COMMITTEE, ETC.)

    CLAUSE 68.—(Appointment of Medical Officer by County Council.)
    Lords Amendment: Leave out Subsection (2) The Local Government Board may by order prescribe the duties of medical officers of health appointed by a county council under Section seventeen of the Local Government Act, 1888, whether before or after the passing of this Act.
    Mr. BURNS: We agree, but desire to insert a new Sub-section.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to."
    Mr. BURNS: The new Sub-section which I have to move is as follows:—
    "The duties of the medical officer for the county shall be such general duties as shall be prescribed by the Local Government Board, and such other duties as may be assigned to him by the county council."
    1608
    I move this Amendment because it is generally felt that this Housing and Town Planning Bill makes it obligatory on the local authority to appoint a medical officer of health to devote his whole time to his duties, and that being so, it is deemed right that the Local Government Board shall be the power to do what it does in regard to some other officers, and that is to prescribe his duties. We do not prevent the county councils themselves from prescribing duties which are to devolve upon the medical officer. We feel it is our duty to see that the medical officer of health shall not be dismissed by the local authority without just cause. I sincerely trust that the House will support me in inserting this provision.
    Mr. W. R. ADKINS: These words are very far reaching in their effect, and I submit that they are entirely unnecessary. If instead of this new Sub-section the Government were content to say that in the discharge of these duties the county council should act through and with the medical officer, that I think would meet the case. My right hon. Friend must be aware that there are other Acts of Parliament under which the medical officers of health have important work to do—such, for example, as the Rivers Pollution Act, etc., and it is perfectly obvious that the method followed for many years in many counties by which the county councils carry out statutory duties, with the help of the medical officer, has worked extremely well. The county medical officers have no contribution made to their salaries by the Local Government Board or any central department. I submit that this provision will not be helpful to the local government in any way, that it will be slighting the county councils, and it will be embarrassing to the officials if their duties are to be dictated by one authority in London and supervised by another authority, say, in Cumberland. Surely a proper course is that the duties of the local authority should be specified by Act of Parliament, and that those duties should be carried out by it with the help of the medical officer. The medical officer should give the whole of his time to his duties, I agree. But we do say it is a positive hindrance to the smooth administration of local self-government to have the duties of an officer prescribed by a Government Department and not by the actual employés of these most important officials. Besides, under the words proposed to be inserted by my right hon. Friend

    1609
    it would be quite open for the Local Government Board to alter the officer's duties from time to time, or to modify them just as they chose, and the people who have to arrange for his salary would be seriously embarrassed. I say nothing now in regard to provisions by which county councils of over 20 years standing which have appointed and dismissed medical officers of health, have only now to dismiss by permission of the Local Government Board. On this Amendment I would only impress on the Government for the sake of the smooth working of the Act not to tie down these officers in this way.
    Sir WILLIAM COLLINS: I should like to join with the hon. Member in his appeal, and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have felt it necessary to insert this Sub-section. I fully agree with the desire to see reasonable security given to medical officers of health, and as one acquainted with the duties and education of medical officers of health, I rejoice to see that this Bill gives them greater security of tenure, and does not allow them to be appointed for a limited period. At the same time I regret this invasion on the rights of the local governing bodies. I think "such general duties" of the medical officers are so well known that they need not be prescribed from Whitehall. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be content with the other great provisions of the Bill and not press for this alternative Amendment.
    Sir WALTER FOSTER: The campaign against bad housing ought to be directed on general principles, and these should be laid down by the Local Government Board in order that there may be the necessary uniformity of action and common scientific principles in conducting work so closely allied to public health. The local control of the medical officer under this Amendment will still be retained by the county
    council. In this matter of public health we do not owe any great debt of gratitude to the county councils. For many years most of them neglected their duties in this respect. Only a few of them seriously undertook these duties. When the Bill of 1888 was before the House I contended for the compulsory discharge of duties in this connection, and it was not granted. The right hon. Gentleman is even now obliged to put in a Clause in the Bill compelling the county councils to do their obvious duty and appoint a medical officer of health. I think no county council will be injured by having general regulations laid down by the highest possible authority in this country—I might say by the highest authority in these matters in the world. Surely no county council can arrogate to itself the same authority and the same scientific knowledge as the great health department of London, which is the envy of Continental nations. Other nations all admit that the Local Government Board Health Department is an excellent institution. And now to-night we are asked by an obscurantist opposition to object to this body laying down general rules for conducting the campaign of public health in the country. I hope the House will support the Amendment.
    2.0 A.M.
    Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: I am not so much concerned as regards the general rule proposed in the Amendment, but there is one item in the Amendment which I think the House would do well to consider before it supports this giving of a right of appeal by a medical officer to the Local Government Board.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 77; Noes, 25.

    Division No. 888.]

    AYES.

    [2.5 a.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Beale, W. P.

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Essex, R. W.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Brooke, Stopford

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Hudson, Walter

    Brunner, J. F. L, (Lancs., Leigh)

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire).

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Glover, Thomas

    Jowett, F. W.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Lamont, Norman

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Clough, William

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Lewis, John Herbert

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

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Pointer, J.

    Toulmin, George

    Marnham, F. J.

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

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Radford, G. H.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Walters, John Tudor

    Middlebrook, William

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Mond, A.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighshire)

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

    Morrell, Philip

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Seely, Colonel

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Summerbell, T.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    NOES.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Stanier, Seville

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Forster, Henry William

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cave, George

    Kerry, Earl of

    Whitbread, S. Howard

    Cecil Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Newdegate, F. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Adkins and Sir W. Collins.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Couglas, Rt Hon. A. Akers-

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Sub-section (5).—A medical officer of health of a county shall be removable by the county council with the consent of the Local Government Board and not otherwise.
    Lords Amendment: Leave out Subsection (5).
    Mr. BURNS: I move "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. ADKINS: There are reasons why I hope the House will agree with the Lords in this particular Amendment. Of all clauses in the Bill the one which proposes that county councils shall no longer dismiss their servants is one which has the least possible authority behind it. It did not appear in the Bill in the first instance. It was added upstairs as part of the somewhat intricate parleyings between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sir J. Dickson-Poynder), in which, if I remember rightly, the hon. Member did not get the best of it. When it came down here upon the Report stage it was not discussed because of the operation of the guillotine. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government will realize that the universal objection to this on the part of the county councils does not proceed from any wish whatever to treat their medical officers badly, but on the ground that many of them have had their medical officers for many years. More than 25 have them at present. During the whole of the 21 years since county councils were first created by Statute there has never been one complaint made as to the way in which they have treated their medical officers, nor any suggestion whatever that
    1612
    they have dismissed medical officers because they were doing their duty too well or for any improper reason whatever. I certainly ask the House to give its support to an Amendment which merely retains to a popularly elected local authority the power given to it by Parliament 21 years ago, which has never been abused. It is surely no part of the case for the Bill to take away from a representative local authority the power which has never been misused in the whole of its career.
    We are all familiar with the arguments which have been used and the cases stated with regard to the very small local authorities, who no doubt have been open to criticism upon this point. But because some small district council has not always treated its medical officer in the proper way should county councils, who have always treated them properly, now have this humiliation put upon them. My first point is that it is not in accordance with local self-government to take away a power which has been used properly, which has led to no form of evil whatever, and in regard to which no complaint has ever been made. I hope hon. Members will bear with me. I am not speaking now on party lines, but from the point of view of good local government. If you strike out the Amendment and leave medical officers in such a position that they cannot be dismissed without the leave of the Local Government Board, are you making for good administration? I say you are not. If the Local Government Board demur and say you are not to dismiss your medical officer, and if the county, which is a large community with an important area, wish, rightly or wrongly, their official to go, do you imagine there can be sound adminis-

    1613
    tration with a state of friction like that existing? Even my right hon. Friend, with his somewhat inflated notion of what the Local Government Board can do, has never gone so far as to fix the salaries of the county medical officers of health, and if the county councils have the power of the purse and the Local Government Board has merely the power of preventing an official being dismissed, you will have created that system of dual control which never works well in administration. Either a local authority is intelligent enough and honest enough to be trusted or it is not. If it is intelligent and honest enough to be trusted there is no need for this new fettering of its functions. The whole experience of twenty years is against there being any such fettering.
    Sir WALTER FOSTER: My hon. Friend forgets that this Bill places entirely new duties on the medical officers of health, and that they are to have relations with property owners which they never bad before to the same extent. One of the matters with which I frequently had to deal when at the Local Government Board was the dismissal of district medical officers because they had interfered with bad property, and we had a difficulty in keeping these men in their positions. I should like to see, not only every county medical officer of health, but every officer of health in the country have the right of appeal to the Local Government Board. It would protect and encourage them in the discharge of duties which are always difficult and delicate. No local authority will ever be refused by the Local Government Board the right of dismissal when officers have done wrong. It is only when the medical officer is in the right that the Local Government Board will not sanction his dismissal.
    Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: No doubt the case for the Local Government Board has been very well put by my right hon. Friend who has just spoken. But there is another side to the question, and the hon. Member for the Middleton Division of Lancashire (Mr. Adkins) put his point extremely well. If you have dual control it is impossible for you to get rid of a public servant however incompetent he may have become. If you had a Local Government Board intervening it means that there is an inquiry, and I cannot conceive anything less conducive to efficiency in the public service than that when there is a good case for the dismissal of one of
    1614
    the public officials there should be a long, drawn-out inquiry, and then either the refusal or the agreement of the central authority in regard to the dismissal. The fact of the matter is that the local authorities are, as a rule, somewhat easygoing in selecting their officials—i.e., in many cases; but they are far more easygoing when it comes to getting rid of an official who is notoriously incompetent. You do allow a fixity of tenure with medical officers in this Bill. I am certain that dividing the responsibility does weaken the efficiency of the public service, and on that ground I do not think this is a case where the central authority should be called in.
    Viscount MORPETH: The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the Ilkeston Division, told us that when he was at the Local Government Board he was constantly occupied in guarding against corrupt dismissals of medical officers by the local councils.
    Sir WALTER FOSTER: I must ask the Noble Lord not to put into my mouth a statement I did not make. I said I had such cases frequently before me when I was at the Local Government Board.
    Viscount MORPETH: Well, frequently. That is, I think, a synonymous term for "constantly," which I think I used. The right hon. Gentleman certainly gave the impression that he was largely occupied in protecting medical officers against corrupt dismissals by local authorities. I say that these local authorities which cannot be trusted to treat their own servants properly should never be entrusted with the enormous amount of complicated work which they have so long undertaken. If our local Government system is so corrupt as to unfit the councils for control in this matter it is certainly very undesirable that the powers under this Bill should be put into their hands. And when the right hon. Gentleman brings these charges as lightly as he has done, it seems to me that it is not altogether public spirit, but a medical trades unionism which has induced him to take the view he has expressed. We are told that it is perfectly easy to get incompetent officials dismissed, and that the Local Government Board would never stand in the way of such a dismissal. If any Member of the House will take up one of the reports—I do not recollect whether the majority or the minority report—of the Poor Law Commission, which has just been issued, he will see that one of the difficulties in poor law administration was when

    1615
    there was inefficiency in the poor law administration the guardians were hampered in their work and had to obtain the help of the Local Government Board to dismiss any incompetent servants. Local authorities, so far from dismissing too readily, are apt to tolerate too long inefficient and incompetent officials. An official might be incompetent, but it might be very difficult to substantiate charges before a local enquiry.
    I maintain that if the local authorities cannot be entrusted with this work, and if the members are not fit persons to judge of the competence or otherwise of the persons employed, it would be far better to take the work out of their hands, and I daresay that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ilkeston Division (Sir W. Foster) would view with some pleasure the taking of local government out of the hands of the people and the placing of it in the hands of members of the medical profession. The real fact is that doctors, like some others, need keeping in order. It will be a very dangerous thing when we hand over the government of the country to experts. I hope the House will not think I am an enemy of the medical officers. In the local work I have had to do in the country my endeavour has been to get medical officers appointed. It is only because I think the course the Government are taking is mischievous that I take up this attitude. It is impossible to have a system under which a servant of the local authority is paid by one person, while he is really governed by another. After all, the persons who have the right to discharge an official are the persons who have control over him. This is an extraordinary and important matter. The Government have chosen to deal with these Lords Amendments to the Housing and Town Planning Bill in a single day; but because the Government have adopted that course, that is no reason why we should not discuss these matters. I have no desire to obstruct, and I am not obstructing. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that all the local authorities of the country feel very strongly about this matter, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he is adopting a dangerous course when he tries to override the local authorities.
    Mr. BURNS: There is really very little to be said in support of the action of the Government in this matter. Everything that could have been said has been admir-
    1616
    ably said by the right hon. Gentleman for the Ilkeston division (Sir W. Foster), and to that statement of his no reply has been made. In the event of there being an incompetent medical officer in the service of a local authority the Local Government Board will support the local authority to get rid of him. We believe that the interests of the local authorities can best be served by the course we are suggesting, viz., that a medical officer shall not be dismissed without the sanction of the Local Government Board. That enables us to stand by a public spirited and competent medical officer who is honestly striving to carry out his duties against, perhaps, a great interest.
    Mr. STEWART BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the course the Government are adopting will enable the Local Government Board to stand by a public spirited and competent officer against the local authority. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered who is going to pay the salary of the officer if the local authority does not want him? Are the local authority to be forced to pay him?
    Mr. BURNS: No. If they do not want him, let them dismiss him.
    Mr. STEWART BOWLES: No. That is not the point. The right hon. Gentleman said the Local Government Board would stand by him.
    Mr. BURNS: No; not if he is not fully competent.
    Mr. STEWART BOWLES: It will enable the medical officer to stand up against what the right hon. Gentleman calls a great interest. If he makes himself unpopular and the local authority desire to dismiss him, the right hon. Gentleman says it is important that the local authority should not be able to do so without the consent of the Local Government Board, because it might be necessary for the Board to stand by him. Another point is that the local authority may desire the dismissal of a medical officer, and the right hon. Gentleman may wish to refuse that course. I ask in these circumstances what would be the position of a medical officer? He would have to go on acting as the medical officer of an authority which does not want him, and which wants to dismiss him. Does the right hon. Gentleman propose in that case to force the local authority to pay the salary of a man as their officer whom they do not want and

    1617
    whose only desire is to dismiss him at the earliest opportunity I That kind of thing cannot make for good local administration.
    Mr. R. W. ESSEX: I think we should turn our minds away from the big Lancashire councils to the rural districts. There you have a body of gentlemen meeting in the county councils, the majority of whom are landlords. Let a medical officer under such a council set about attacking the cottage accommodation that is owned by one of those gentlemen and what is his job worth? How long is he going to be happy in it? You want to stiffen these men and knowing something about rural districts I am bound to say that if you propose—as the Noble Lord (Viscount Morpeth) and those who support him do propose—to continue the present state of things, you will keep up as houses fit for human beings things which are not fit for stables. The right hon. Gentleman has given away quite enough over this Bill. I hope he has got his back up and will stick to this.
    Mr. R. L. EVERETT: County councils are the most popularly elected bodies in any country, and I hope the House of Commons will respect these popularly elected bodies.
    Mr. ESSEX: How many labourers have you on yours?
    Mr. EVERETT: The County Councils Association have unanimously asked that the Amendment made by the Lords shall be supported by us. As an old member of a county council in a rural district I feel
    confident that county councils will do the duty which Parliament commits to them honestly. Inasmuch as they have to pay the officers they ought to have the right to dismiss them. That they will deal fairly and honestly with their officers I am quite sure. I am in favour of the Amendment.
    Mr. JOWETT: I could not sit through this discussion without stating that in my experience the practice of allowing an appeal to a central authority has worked out badly in many instances. It is not always that a local authority is quite sure that they would be able to sustain an appeal. They must feel perfectly convinced that it is their duty to dispense with an officer, but they are faced with the situation that if the Local Government Board takes a different view and upholds the appeal the position would be intolerable. There may be certain small local authorities where certain interests have become more fully represented than they ought to be and the case has been made awkward for an official. But there is the other side. Supposing a county council is anxious to go ahead and do their work thoroughly, and they are dissatisfied with the inaction of the medical officer. If they were to appeal to the Local Government Board I should not be sure that the Local Government Board would uphold them in their decision.
    Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 23.

    Division No. 889.]

    AYES.

    [2.37 a.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Beale, W. P.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Pointer, J.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

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

    Brooke, Stopford

    Higham, John Sharp

    Radford, G. H.

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Byles, William Pollard

    Hudson, Walter

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Seely, Colonel

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Summerbell, T.

    Clough, William

    Lamont, Norman

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Toulmin, George

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Walsh, Stephen

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Walters, John Tudor

    Essex, R. W.

    Marnham, F. J.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Masterman, C. F. G.

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

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Middlebrook, William

    Glover, Thomas

    Mond, A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Morrell, Philip

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    NOES.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Stanier, Beville

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Forster, Henry William

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Whitbread, S. Howard

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Kerry, Earl of

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Newdegate, F. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Alfred King and Mr. Everett.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Bill read the second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

    Sub-section (7).—A medical officer of health appointed under the said Section as Amended by this Section shall not engage in private practice and shall not hold any other public appointment without the express written consent of the Local Government Board.
    Lords Amendment: After "appointed" ["appointed under the said Section"] insert "after the passing of this Act."
    Mr. BURNS: I move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. MORRELL: I am rather sorry to hear my right hon. Friend agree with this Amendment. It is a very bad system that any medical officer should be allowed to engage in private practice. There should be a universal system to the contrary.
    Mr. BURNS: The Sub-section could only apply to officers appointed after the passing of this Bill.

    CLAUSE 69.—(Duty of Clerk and Medical Officer of Health of District Council to Furnish Information to Medical Officer of Health of County Council.)
    Sub-section (2).—The medical officer of health of a district shall give to the medical officer of health of the county any information which it is in his power to give, and which the medical officer of health of the county may reasonably require from him for the purpose of his duties.
    Amendment made: Leave out "duties" ["for the purpose of his duties"], and insert "general duties prescribed by the Local Government Board."—[Mr. Burns.]

    CLAUSE 10.—(Extent of Part III.)
    The foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall not apply to Scotland or the administrative County of London.
    Lords Amendment: After "or" insert "except Sub-section (3) of Section seventy to."
    Mr. BURNS: I propose an Amendment to Clause 70 as follows:—
    "And in the application of the said Subsection to London all references to the medical officer of health of the district shall be construed as references to the medical officer of health of a metropolitan borough."
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 71.—(Public Health and Housing Committee of County Councils.)
    Sub-section (2).—This Section shall not apply to the London County Council.
    Lords Amendment: Insert after "to" "Scotland or."
    Mr. CLAUDE HAY: What is the effect of this Amendment?
    Mr. URE: That this provision as regards housing will not apply to Scotland.

  SCHEDULE I.
  (Provisions as to the Compulsory Acquisition of Land by a Local Authority for the Purposes of Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890.)
  Paragraph (4).—The order [Putting in force the Lands Clauses Act] shall be in the prescribed form, and shall contain such provisions as the Board may prescribe for the purpose of carrying the order into effect, and of protecting the local authority and the persons interested in the land, and shall incorporate, subject to the necessary adaptations, the Lands Clauses Acts (except Section one hundred and twenty-seven of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845) and Sections seventy-seven to

  1621
  eighty-five of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, but subject to this modification, that any question of disputed compensation shall be determined by a single arbitrator appointed by the Board, who shall be deemed to be an arbitrator within the meaning of the Lands Clauses Acts, and the provisions of those Acts with respect to arbitration shall, subject to the provisions of this Schedule, apply accordingly.
  Lords Amendment: After "appointed" ["single arbitrator appointed by the Board"], insert "by the parties, or in default of agreement."
  Mr. BURNS Mr. BURNS moved to disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Why do the Government want to disagree with this Amendment? Surely it is reasonable to give the parties an opportunity of agreeing as to an arbitrator. It is to be hoped the Government will insert this.
  Mr. STEWART BOWLES: May we not be allowed to have some answer? The point is a very simple one, and unless there is some occult reason to the contrary, I think the Government ought to accept it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Consequential."] It cannot be consequential on anything that has been agreed to. Why should you not allow the parties to come to an agreement?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: When there is a large number of small properties to be dealt with it would be desirable that one arbitrator should be appointed.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: That has nothing to do with this matter. That applies merely to the payment of an arbitrator. This has nothing to do with the fixing of the fee. This is merely a question whether you shall not give to the parties an opportunity of agreeing about an arbitrator.
  Lords Amendment: At the end of the Sub-section, after "accordingly," insert, "provided that where the Board has declared a local authority to be in default, and in pursuance thereof an order has been made and confirmed authorising the compulsory acquisition of land, the arbitrator shall be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice of England instead of by the Board."
  Mr. BURNS: I beg leave to move to disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment. The Amendment provides that where the Board has declared a local authority to be in default an arbitrator shall be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice. We think there is no need to call in the Lord Chief Justice or a judicial tribunal. We think the Local Government Board is the best authority to deal with the matter.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: It surely must be obvious to the right hon. Gentleman that when parties are sharply at variance with the Local Government Board it is in no sense in keeping with the ordinary ideas of justice or with the dictates of human nature that the Local Government Board should deal with this matter. The right hon. Gentleman should tell us something more to justify the course he proposes if he wants to persuade us that it is right. As the matter stands the right hon. Gentleman has indicated absolutely nothing except that he is right and we are wrong.
  Mr. BURNS: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. We considered the point in a previous part of the Bill. We considered that the arbitrator in the matter of the land ought not to be any different to the person appointed in Clause 2 and in various other clauses. The right hon. Gentleman twitted me with having given an opinion that the Local Government Board is the best authority to deal with the matter. My short reply to him is that "modesty was never made for those who have no beauty."
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: This proposal has nothing to do with an application to the High Court. The question is whether the Local Government Board or the Lord Chief Justice shall select the arbitrator in particular cases where the Board are themselves parties to the dispute.
  Mr. BURNS: No.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is only in cases where the Board are concerned that the difficulty would arise?
  Mr. BURNS: But the Local Government Board are not an interested party in the same way as the Board of Agriculture. The Board of Agriculture can hold land, but the Local Government Board cannot do so and do not want to.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I cannot understand why the Government cannot accept

  1623
  the Amendment except that they desire to adhere rigidly to the Small Holdings Act. But this is to acquire land for building purposes; for an entirely different purpose. It has nothing whatever to do with the precedent of the Small Holdings Act.
  Paragraph (6).—If within the prescribed period no objection to the order has been presented to the Board by a person interested in the land, or if every such objection has been withdrawn, the Board shall, without further inquiry, confirm the order, but if such an objection has been presented and has not been withdrawn the Board shall forthwith cause a public inquiry to be held in the locality in which the land is proposed to be acquired, and the local authority and all persons interested in the land and such other persons as the person holding the inquiry in his discretion thinks fit to allow shall be permitted to appear and be heard at the inquiry.
  Paragraph (7).—Before confirming the order the Board shall consider the report of the person who held the inquiry, and all objections made thereat.
  Paragraph (8).—The arbitrator shall, so far as practicable, in assessing compensation, act on his own knowledge and experience, but, subject as aforesaid, at any inquiry or arbitration held under this Schedule the person holding the inquiry or arbitration shall hear by themselves or their agents, any authorities or parties authorised to appear, and shall hear witnesses, but shall not, except in such cases as the Board otherwise direct, hear counsel or expert witnesses.
  Lords Amendment: Leave out Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8.
  Mr. BURNS: We disagree with the Lords Amendment and I move accordingly.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I agree as to paragraphs 6 and 7 but not to paragraph 8. There is no doubt in my judgment that the provisions of Section 8 are exceedingly unjust and have already worked out badly in the Small Holdings Act. In this matter they are likely to cause the very greatest injustice.
  Lords Amendment: At end of Sub-section (7) insert "Except with the leave of the arbitrator not more than one expert witness shall be called by any party appearing on an arbitration under this schedule."
  Lords Amendment: Paragraph (14), after paragraph (b) insert "(c) for the reference to the Lord Chief Justice there shall be substituted a reference to the Lord President of the Court of Session;"
  Lords Amendment: At end of paragraph (d) insert "Provided that for the words 'where the Board has declared a local authority to be in default' there shall be substituted the words 'where the Board has made an application to the Court of Session.'"

  SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Minor Amendments of Housing Acts.)
  Lords Amendment: After "Board" (Section 35. The words "if he is not entitled to appeal to the Local Government Board"), insert "the county court of the district."

  FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Matters to be dealt with by General Provisions prescribed by the Local Government Board.)
  Lords Amendment: Leave out Subsection (15). Application with the necessary modifications and adaptations of statutory enactments.
  Mr. BURNS Mr. BURNS moved to disagree with the Lords Amendment.
  The Local Government Board are advised that this power is very useful. There are precedents for enabling Acts to be applied, notably the Unemployed Workmen Act, and the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act. We consider that we should have similar powers.

  FIFTH SCHEDULE.
  2. Procedure during, on and after the preparation or adoption and before the approval of the scheme:—
  Lords Amendment: Sub-section (2) leave out "approval" and insert "information."
  3. Procedure after the approval of the scheme.
  Lords Amendment: Sub-section (3) leave out "approval" and insert "confirmation."
  (a) Notice to be given of approval of scheme.
  Lords Amendment: Sub-section (3) paragraph (a) leave out "approval," and insert "confirmation."
  5. The details to be specified in plans, including, wherever the circumstances so require, the restrictions on the number of buildings which may be erected on each acre, and the height and character of those buildings.
  Lords Amendment: Sub-section (5) leave out "circumstances so require," and insert "scheme as confirmed so requires."

  SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments Repealed.)
  Lords Amendment: Leave out Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890,
  Sub-section (6) of Section eight, and Section nine.
  Sub-section (3) of Section twelve from "but the local authority" to the end of the Sub-section.
  Amendment made: Leave out "Sub-section (3) of Section twelve from 'but the local authority,' to the end of the Subsection."—[Mr. Burns.]
  Lords Amendment: Leave out "Subsection (2) of Section fifteen, including the proviso thereto."
  Lords Amendment: Leave out, "In Section thirty-nine, the words 'by agreement' in Sub-section (4) where those words first occur, and all after the word 'sanctioned' to the end of that Subsection; Sub-sections (5) and (6); the words 'to costs to be awarded in certain cases by a Committee of either House of Parliament' in Sub-section (8); and Sub-section (9) from 'Provided that' to the end. In Sub-section (3) of Section forty-seven, the words 'the time allowed under any Order for the execution of any works or the demolition of a building, or'."
  Amendment made: After "Sub-sections (1), (2), (7), (8), and (14) of Section 96," insert "In Sub-section (3) of Section 97, the words the time allowed under any Order for the execution of any works or the demolition of a building or."—[Mr. Ure.]
  Lords Amendment: Leave out "so far as they apply to Scotland" (Sub-section (3), except paragraph (c), and Sub-section (4) of Section 94, so far as they apply to Scotland).
  Lords Amendment: "Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1896," leave out "the whole Act," and insert "Section three."
  Lords Amendment: "Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1903," leave out "paragraphs (a) and (6) of Sub-section (2) of Section 5, Sections 6 and," and insert "Section."
  Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for

  1627
  disagreeing with certain of their Amendments to the Bill.
  Committee nominated of: Mr. Burns, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Lyttelton, Mr. Herbert Lewis, and Mr. Rogers.
  Three to be the quorum.
  To withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Burns.]
  Reasons for disagreeing with Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.
  To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. Burns.]

PRISON'S (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. CALDWELL, Deputy-Chairman, in the chair.]

PRISON'S (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Extent, Construction and Short Title.)
  (1) This Act shall extend to Scotland only, and shall be construed with the Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1877.
  (2) This Act may be cited as the Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1909, and this Act and the Prisons (Scotland) Acts, 1860 to 1904, may be cited as the Prisons (Scotland) Acts, 1860 to 1909.
  Mr. HAY: Will the Lord Advocate give us some particulars of what is going to be done under this Bill in respect to the appointment of women as members of the visiting committees of prisons?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This has nothing to do with the first Clause.
  Lord BALCARRES: Can we discuss the matters mentioned in the Clause by way of reference?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Appointment of Women on Visiting Committees.)
  The SECRETARY for Scotland may annually appoint, to be additional members of the visiting committee for any prison where female prisoners are received, a woman, or such number of women as shall not exceed one-third of the prescribed number of such committee.
  Mr. HAY: May I ask what number of persons are going to be appointed under
  1628
  this Clause? Will there be any travelling expenses paid to them, and what will their duties be?
  Mr. URE: The Clause enables the Secretary for Scotland to appoint one-third of the visiting committees of prisons women. It was thought desirable that it should be done in the case of prisons where females are received.
  Mr. HAY: Does it involve any expense?
  Mr. URE: No.
  Mr. HAY: Not even travelling expenses?
  Mr. URE: No.
  Bill reported to the House without Amendment; read the third time and passed.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SCOT- LAND) ACT, 1908, AMENDMENT BILL. (LORDS).
Whereupon, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 20th August, adjourned the House without question put.
Adjourned at Seventeen minutes after Three a.m. (Tuesday, 2nd November).