Commons Sitting of 8 October 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at Twelve of the clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Colinton Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]—Second Reading deferred till Monday, 18th October.
Copy ordered of Part I. of the Finance Bill as proposed to be amended by His Majesty's Government.—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Duke of Northumberland and Walbottle Cottages.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention had been drawn to the petty sessional court proceedings against the Duke of Northumberland in respect of insanitary cottages situated at Walbottle; whether he has had under his notice the mortality rate among the mining inhabitants of these premises; whether he could give the House the relative death rate from tubercular diseases in the cottages referred to and that of the rest of Walbottle township, also the rate for the Newburn sanitary area, excluding Walbottle; whether any inquiry had been held respecting the sanitary condition of this locality during recent years by inspectors of the Local Government Board; or whether he contemplated ordering such investigation at an early date?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns): I have seen some newspaper reports of these proceedings, and have observed the statements in them as to the rate of mortality in the premises concerned. I am not in a position to give the particulars asked for; but I am in communication with the urban district council on the subject to which the question relates.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman forward me a copy
  2344
  of the more complete answer when he obtains the information?
  Mr. BURNS: Yes.

ADJOURNMENT OF HOUSE.
Captain NORTON (Lord of the Treasury) (for the Prime Minister)Captain NORTON (Lord of the Treasury) (for the Prime Minister) moved:
"That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Monday, 18th October.'
Perhaps I might mention that we placed this Motion on the Paper in order to suit the general convenience of the House. It was done with the approval of the Opposition and with the object of enabling us to conclude the business of the House, it is hoped, about dinner time.
Sir F. BANBURY: I do not wish to raise a discussion on this question because, of course, it is evident it is for the convenience of every section of the House that we should have a slight interval in view of the fact that we have been sitting here from 12th February. I have only been away one day from the House, and then a Bill got through which ought not to have got through, so I made up my mind that I would not go away again. I rise to make a protest against the manner in which the question of the adjournment has been moved. The Opposition are placed in this position, that either they are compelled to allow the Development Bill to be discussed in a totally inadequate manner or the Government must have a Saturday sitting, which, in view of the exhaustion of Members and especially of the officers of the House, no one on this side of the House desires. I am quite aware that the Government have proposed an alternative, namely, that of coming back on Monday. That would have been quite impossible, because we should have brought back all the officials of the House, and prevented them having a clear week's holiday. It would have been extremely difficult to have had Members on this side of the House or Members on the other side of the House, and discussion would accordingly have been an absolute farce. Therefore the only alternative for the Opposition was to acquiesce in the desire of the Government that the Development Bill should go through all its stages to-day. I only raise this protest against the manner in which this Bill has been brought before the House. It had no discussion in the

2345
Grand Committee upstairs, to which it ought never have been committed, and it has had no discussion in the House. I hope the country will recognise this Bill is a Bill which becomes law with the nominal assent of Parliament, few Members understanding or knowing anything about it.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Samuel Evans): The course we have taken has been taken, I think, with the assent of all parties in the House, as the hon. Baronet has said. I only want to say that I do not think the Bill has been inadequately discussed at ail. We had a very business-like discussion yesterday. We were engaged on it for ten days in the Committee upstairs, and if we have anything like a business-like discussion to-day I do not think that any part of the Bill which requires discussion will pass un-considered. I am sorry that such pressure has been put on hon. Members. I am in a worse position than the hon. Baronet, for I have not had a single day away.
Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN: I am glad to hear from the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Bill was discussed yesterday in a thoroughly businesslike manner, and certainly so far as I am concerned, and I speak for those on this side of the House, we have nothing to complain of, but everything to approve of as regards the way the hon. and learned Gentleman has conducted the Bill. I must, however, beg to differ altogether as to the sanguine estimate of the hon. and learned Member of the character of the discussion which can follow this afternoon. According to him the discussion yesterday was of the most business-like character—but what did we succeed in accomplishing—one Clause out of a Bill containing 20. I have given the best attention in my power to this Bill, and I cannot imagine that the discussion of the remaining 19 Clauses of the Bill could be carried out less satisfactorily than it can in this case if they are to be disposed of during one afternoon sitting along with the third reading of the Bill. In my judgment it is absolutely impossible that the remaining portions of the Bill can be discussed as adequately as they ought to be. However, we are placed in this position by the action of the Government, and we are absolutely powerless. All we can do is to continue a businesslike discussion as long as our strength permits, and then leave it to the public to judge of the character of the Bill and apportion
2346
the blame where it is due. The Prime Minister himself, when he announced the business for the remainder of the Session, expressed the opinion that he was not in the least sanguine that this Bill would receive the assent of Parliament. In spite of that it has been forced upon us, and whatever be the ultimate character of the Bill when it leaves the House, the Government alone must take the responsibility.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The right hon. Gentleman's complaint is a day too late. When it was suggested that the House should not sit next week the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur Henderson) opposed the suggestion on the plea that next week might be profitably spent in discussing this and other measures. That suggestion found neither sympathy nor support from the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. If he was so very anxious to talk, that was the proper occasion. I rose especially to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can give us any information as to the administration of the grant for unemployment. The distress committees in different parts of the country are again finding themselves very bard pressed to meet the necessities of the situation. In Glasgow it has become very serious indeed though, owing to the revival in trade which is now proceeding, the number of persons out of work in Glasgow is nothing like so large as it was twelve months ago, but the proportion is still sufficiently heavy to tax the energies of the distress committee to its fullest extent, and, if the right hon. Gentleman would say what is being done to meet the necessities of the case in the way of the administration of the grant, that would be some encouragement to distress committees, and would relieve the minds of those who are specially concerned in the subject.
The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns): I had no notice that this important subject was to be raised this morning. I can only say that the various distress committees throughout the country are in frequent communication with the Local Government Board, and in the light of the experience of previous years the relationships between these committees and the Local Government Board are satisfactorily proceeding, and what help the Board can give is being given.
Question put, and agreed to.

DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUNDS BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee) further considered.
DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUNDS BILL.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Establishment of Development Fund.)
  (1.) All advances, whether by way of free grant or by way of loan, made under this part of this Act shall be made out of a fund called the Development Fund, into which shall be paid—

  (a) Such moneys as may from time to time be provided by Parliament for the purposes of this part of this Act;

  (b) The sums issued out of the Consolidated Fund under this section; and

  (c) Any sums received by the Treasury by way of interest on or repayment of any advance made by way of loan under this part of this Act, and any profits or proceeds derived from the expenditure of any advance which by the terms on which the advance was made are to be paid to the Treasury.

  (2) There shall be charged on and issued out of the Consolidated Fund, or the growing produce thereof, in the year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and eleven, and in each of the next succeeding four years, the sum of five hundred thousand pounds.
  (3) The Treasury shall cause an account to be prepared and transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for examination, on or before the thirtieth day of September, in every year, showing the receipts into and issues out of the Development Fund in the financial year ended on the thirty-first day of March preceding, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General shall certify and report upon the same, and such account and report shall be laid before the House of Commons by the Treasury on or before the thirty-first day of January in the following year, if Parliament be then sitting, and, if not sitting, then within one week after Parliament shall be next assembled.
  (4) Payments out of and into the Development Fund, and all other matters relating to the fund and the moneys standing to the credit of the fund, shall be made and regulated in such manner as the Treasury may direct.
  (5) The Treasury may from time to time invest any moneys standing to the credit of the Development Fund in any securities in which trustees are by law authorised to invest trust funds.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "free" ["whether by way of free grant."]—(The Solicitor-General.)
  Sir F. BANBURY Sir F. BANBURY moved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Act" ["made under this part of this Act,"] to insert the words "after estimates have been submitted showing the detailed expenditure under the scheme or schemes which it is proposed to aid."
  This will give Parliament some opportunity of controlling the action of the Treasury. As the Bill stands the procedure will be that any persons authorised under this Bill to ask for advances of grants will proceed to the Commissioners, and they will have to justify before them their application, and the Commissioners have a power of veto. If, however, the Commissioners, in their judgment, think the scheme is a good one, it is forwarded to the Treasury or to one of the Departments interested, through which it goes to the Treasury for their approval, so that practically the final approval rests with the Treasury. In the Grand Committee several attempts were made to alter the procedure so as to prevent the Treasury having the final control. I was always against that, and I believe it is right that the Treasury, which will have to provide the money, should have the final say in the matter, but I do not think the Treasury should be absolutely independent of Parliament. If we are to have a Bill of this sort the procedure is good provided the Commissioners are carefully selected, and it is a good thing that the Commissioners should go into the question and study it, which, of course, Parliament could not do. But after they have approved it, before it is finally agreed to, the Treasury should allow Parliament to understand what is going on and put some detailed scheme before the House so that they may understand what the expenditure is going to be and whether they approve. After all, it is the House of Commons which finds the money, and it ought to have some control over the Treasury. As the Bill stands the Treasury will be autocratic in the matter. The whole of the money which has been voted so far will come from the Consolidated Fund, and will be free entirely for the control of this House. I am aware that the rest of the money will have to be voted by Parliament, and that the Finance Bill will have to pass before the money for the second part of the Bill can be found, but with regard to the first part, the two and a-half

  2349
  millions and the half-million every five years will come out of the Consolidated Fund. Therefore what we are doing now, unless we accept an Amendment of this sort, is to leave the Treasury in full control of this two and a-half millions except as far as regards the opinion of the Commissioners. That is against all the ancient customs of the House. It is against the statement of hon. Gentlemen opposite four or five years ago that they would do their best to restore the control of Parliament over the Members of the Government, especially on financial matters. For some reason or other, ever since they have been in power they have done their best to do away with what little control was left to the House of Commons. It is for that reason that I move the Amendment, and I hope, although I have not much faith in the hope, that the Government in this small matter will do what they would be the first to advocate if they were on this side of the House. It is not impossible that within a short time they may be on this side of the House.
  Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I think there is no difference between us in any quarter of the House on the question of the desirability of the House of Commons keeping its control over the finances of the country. What we really have to consider in connection with this matter is whether or not any of the real control of Parliament is lost in the proposals contained in this Bill, and whether, if the Amendment were accepted it would be possible for the Commissioners to carry on the business entrusted to them in a businesslike fashion. The amount is limited to £500,000, and this Parliament gives sanction to further public money being given. It is intended that the money should be expended in the various ways we discussed yesterday. It would be impossible for any business body of men who have to deal with this matter to come to the House of Commons with estimates for all the schemes before they are approved, and when they are recommended by the Commissioners. Some of them will be small, and some big. I do not know of any similar case where estimates are necessarily laid before Parliament before grants can be made. At present grants of public money can be made for various purposes. I reminded the House yesterday that under the Light Railways Act of 1896 grants can
  2350
  be made by the Treasury up to £250,000. Grants are made by the Board of Agriculture in regard to horse breeding. In no case is an estimate necessarily laid before Parliament beforehand under a scheme for the expenditure of money. The control of Parliament in this matter will be retained. First of all we have the Commissioners looking after the expenditure in connection with the schemes they recommend. They must take each scheme into consideration, and the expenditure must be sanctioned by the Treasury. There is no doubt that there will be a check upon the expenditure from the fact that the Treasury will be responsible for it, and that they will know anybody who desires to do so can raise a question upon it in the House of Commons. Further, the Commissioners will have to make their annual report to Parliament, and I have no doubt that there will be opportunity for discussion on the matters which are dealt with in the Report. I agree that that is discussion, so to speak, after the money has been spent, but I think that in schemes of this kind it is unavoidable. I think we must be satisfied with the check which Parliament will have ex post facto, and the sense of responsibility which will be felt at the Treasury, that in respect of anything they may do they will have to face discussion in Parliament.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: The hon. and learned Gentleman has told us that he is not aware of any case where a similar demand has been made. I would remind him that no such Bill as this has ever before been submitted to the House of Commons. If I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly, he is of opinion that it is contemplated by the Mover of the Amendment that estimates should be submitted to Parliament for each scheme before it is sanctioned. I do not understand that to be the proposal in the Amendment at all. There is nothing in the Amendment to warrant the idea that that is contemplated by the Mover of the Amendment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The point of the Amendment, as I understand it, is that an estimate should be submitted to the Treasury. If it is submitted to the Treasury, it will be possible for any Member of this House to ask a question concerning it, and in that way the control of Parliament can be preserved. There is no suggestion as to submitting estimates to Parliament, and having a discussion on every scheme.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: The hon. and learned Gentleman admits that all these matters

  2351
  ought to be conducted in a thoroughly businesslike fashion. Is it a businesslike fashion to sanction large advances of money for particular schemes without having before you any estimates whatever of the cost they are likely to involve? That is the position with which we are confronted. We on this side of the House are a minority at present, and we must dc our best to submit to this, whether right or wrong. The decision must rest with the Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Amendment negatived.
  Lord BALCARRES: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (b). I can scarcely hope that the Government will consider this Amendment more favourably than they did the previous one, but as it refers to an important subject, I wish to make a protest against what is proposed. The House will remember that there are three sources from which these funds may be derived, namely, the Estimates, the Consolidated Fund, and any moneys which the Development Board may get in repayment of advances, interest on loans, and so forth. I propose to leave out the words: "The sums issued out of the Consolidated Fund under this Section." Those sums amount to £500,000 a year. The Solicitor-General, in opposing the previous Amendment, said that the Commissioners need not submit estimates of the cost because they would have to face Parliamentary criticism. I deny that in toto. The £500,000 a year which is to come out of the Consolidated Fund will be effectively withdrawn from the control of Parliament except by the cumbrous method of an Address to the Crown. Everybody is aware of the excellent reasons why certain official salaries are on the Consolidated Fund. The salary of Mr. Speaker is on the Consolidated Fund simply to prevent the risk of capricious criticism which may be incurred when voting salaries on the ordinary Civil Service Estimates. For the same reason the salaries of the Lord Chancellor and the judges are on the Consolidated Fund. Now the Government say that this sum guaranteed under this Bill for the next five years is to be met out of the Consolidated Fund. The salaries of the Commissioners, as far as I can read it, will come out of the Consolidated Fund. On the Grand Committee the Government refused to give any guarantee whatever that the salaries of the Commissioners should be put on the Civil Service Estimates.
  2352
  This is repugnant to all the pledges which we heard a few years ago about Parliamentary control. It is no good saying one can move an Address to the Throne. It is only on the gravest occasions that this House has sanctioned that procedure. When this Amendment was refused upstairs the only argument put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, "We are going to appoint Commissioners, and the whole prospect of the Bill depends on these Commissioners being first-class men." That is true enough, but they say, "We will never get a good class of men to become Commissioners under this Bill unless they know that they have got money behind them." I thought that was a most inconclusive argument. What have these people got behind them? Five hundred thousand a year for five years. If that is going to be a solace to prospective candidates for prospective Commissionerships they must be very easily pleased. That sum is a mere drop in the bucket. They have got to deal with afforestation, co-operation, agriculture, reclamation and draining of land, and estuaries have now come in; and they have also got to deal with the construction and improvement of harbours and canals and the development and improvement of fisheries. They have also to attend to "any other purpose calculated to promote the economic development of the United Kingdom." If Clause 1 of the Bill is to be carried out it will not carry them over a single month, and probably not over a single week, and the Government ought to give some considered reason why they are withdrawing the guaranteed sum which Parliament provides from the Civil Service Estimates and placing it on the Consolidated Fund. There is no good in saying that putting it on the Consolidated Fund gives a better guarantee for the future than if it were put on the Civil Service Estimates. If this is a bonâ fide Bill, and if the objects are good, and as such as the country desires, no more guarantee is required than the fact that the objects of the Bill are good and are being approved of by Parliament, and public opinion may reasonably assume that Parliament will give its sanction if the money is placed on the Civil Service Estimates, just as we vote £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 for our Army or our Navy and £20,000,000 a year for education. It has never been suggested that the guarantee of the Consolidated Fund is required. Public opinion ensures in a far greater sense than the Consolidated Fund that these sums will

  2353
  be annually provided. I move the omission of the Sub-section in order to protest against the salaries of the Commissioners, and possibly of the annual expenditure being withdrawn from the control of Parliament, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will give a reply more satisfactory than that which we received in Grand Committee.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: In reply to the observations with which the Noble Lord prefaced his speech, I hope that it will not be understood that I have suggested that loans or grants should be substituted. I am not going back on that portion of the Amendment. With regard to the observations of the hon. Baronet, nobody has any reason to suppose that the Treasury would sanction the expenditure for carrying out a scheme of this kind without an estimate being before them. The Sub-section which the Noble Lord seeks to omit only provides for payment into the Development Fund of the sums issued out of the Consolidated Fund under this Section in Clause 2. Sub-section (1) states what the Development Fund is to consist of. It consists of three heads of income, so to speak. First of all such sums as shall from time to time be provided by Parliament; then this fixed sum of £2,500,000 spread over five years; and then any further sum or accretions of the same. Unless provided by Parliament, these roust come out of the Consolidated Fund. The reason is very simple. In starting a national work of this kind, and in starting it by means of this body of Commissioners who are now to be created, there ought to be some certainty, so that they may proceed with the work in a businesslike way, that they would have a certain sum of money at their disposal. It is for this class of work, small enough in all conscience—only £2,500,000 over five years. When you consider the expenditure of other countries on similar work, I think that for a rich country such as this is, and is likely to continue to be, the sum put down as a fixed sum, so that the Commissioners may have no doubt about it when they set to work, is very small; but it is a guarantee that for the work which they are called to perform under this Act, whether Parliament makes further grants or not, they will have this sum of money to begin with.
  Lord BALCARRES: My point about Parliamentary criticism is not met. Will the Government give a guarantee that this half-million shall be impinged on to the extent of two or three thousand pounds a
  2354
  year and reduced by that sum—I do not say in the Bill—in order that the salaries of the Commissioners may be placed upon the Civil Service Estimates? That is the essence of Parliamentary control, and if that is refused Parliamentary control disappears.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: That is a big question which might be raised upon the clauses which provide for the appointment of the Commissioners, and if the Noble Lord withdraws now I will, when we come to it, make the few observations which I should like to make on that.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I very much regret that the Government have not accepted my Noble Friend's Amendment in this respect. The Government talk about this being a guarantee that the Commissioners will have £500,000 a year for five years. Of course, it is not so. It will necessarily depend each year on the intentions of Parliament whether or not that £500,000 is to be provided. It is an attempt to forestal the decision of Parliament in future, and it seems to me to be undesirable. If Parliament next year does nothing then there is to be no discussion as to the general policy in connection with the Development Fund, or about its administration in the year preceding. It seems to me to be thoroughly unsound finance, like so much of the finance of the present Government. It does not seem to me that you gain anything by what you propose, and I do think that it is open to the grave criticism passed upon it by my Noble Friend. Though I personally should very much regret the detailed criticism of schemes put forward by the Commissioners, because I think that discussion in Parliament, so far from diminishing expenditure, would certainly increase it under present conditions; yet I do think that a general discussion of the policy pursued in development matters is essential. Personally I do not see the advantage of making the Commissioners report to Parliament unless there are some means of discussing their proceedings on the Estimates, or in some other way.
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I must confess that I do not think the Solicitor-General's reason for removing this sum from the Estimates is altogether sound. There are grave reasons why this £500,000 should not be withdrawn from the control of Parliament, and I think that those reasons are admitted to be valid in all quarters of the House. The Commissioners to be appointed under this Bill will find them-

  2355
  selves face to face with enormous problems for the development of the country. They may have before them any number of schemes for the study and advance of agriculture, for the reclamation and drainage of land, and various other proposals which would really require millions of money if they are to be properly carried out. We are told that it will be some consolation to the Commissioners, and fortify them in the discharge of their duties when they find that, at any rate, Parliament has placed at their disposal the sum of £500,000 a year for the next five years, which will enable them to go forth cheerfully to deal with these problems; but I submit that to withdraw this sum from the Estimates and put it on the Consolidated Fund, thus depriving the House of Commons of the opportunity of criticism, is a departure from proper constitutional practice.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I think that the concession which the hon. and learned Gentleman foreshadows is not a good one at all. What will be the effect of my Noble Friend's Amendment? It would not stop the Commissioners getting the £500,000 at all; and it would enable the House of Commons when the Estimates for the year come before it, to discuss the policy which had been pursued in the year in which the money had been
  spent. If it was limited to the salaries of the Commissioners only, what would happen would be a Motion for their reduction. In Parliamentary phrase and custom that means that the House is not content, and does not approve of the action of the Commissioners. That might be very much misunderstood in the country. The simpler-way would have been to have £500,000 voted from year to year, and then the whole of the Commissioners' proceedings could be reviewed. That would he a businesslike course, and would be understood by the country. But to discuss the whole thing on the question whether the Commissioners should have £2,000 or £1,900 a year would really make the proceedings more or less a farce, and I am quite certain that the country, which I regret to say does not understand the procedure of the House of Commons, would be apt to be misled when it saw that because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Local Government Board, or the President of the Board of Agriculture, had done something wrong they reduced the salary of some one else against whom there was no complaint. I hope that my Noble Friend will go to a Division on the question.
  Question put, "That the paragraph stand part of the Clause."
  The House divided: Ayes, 101; Noes, 23.

  Division No. 791.]

  AYES.

  [12.55 p.m.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Partington, Oswald

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Pointer, J.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Hogan, Michael

  Rees, J. D.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Brigg, John

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Robinson, S.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jenkins, J.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Seddon, J.

  Clough, William

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Shackleton, David James

  Clynes, J. R.

  Kelley, George D.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lamont, Norman

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Crossley, William J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Cullinan, J.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Toulmin, George

  Erskine, David C.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

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

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Falconer, J.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Marnham, F. J.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Gill, A. H.

  Massle, J.

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

  Ginnell, L.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

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

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Morse, L. L.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Murphy, John (Kerry, E.)

  Gulland, John W.

  Nichoils, George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Norton and Mr. Whitley.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fell, Arthur

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Forster, Henry William

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Gretton, John

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hunt, Rowland

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  F. Banbury and Mr. Staveley-Hill.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Mr. CHAPLIN Mr. CHAPLIN moved, at the end of paragraph (b), to insert the words: "(2) No advance shall be made by the Treasury in any year for purposes relating exclusively to England, Scotland, or Ireland which will exceed in the case of England eighty per cent., in the case of Scotland eleven per cent., and in the case of Ireland nine per cent., of the total amount advanced during that year under this Part of this Act."
  I moved this in the Committee, and I think it deserves the serious attention of the Government. I am merely adopting the precedent which has been almost invariably adopted in every other Bill in which grants have been made for common purposes to the three countries. I need not quote precedents, because I am sure they will not be contradicted, and why there is a departure from the usual practice I really do not understand. Certainly we were afforded no light on that point by the replies which were made to me on behalf of the Government in Grand Committee. There is a special reason why I think this Amendment should be accepted in regard to this Bill. I will state what it was. It has been alluded to before in the Debate on the second reading. I refer to the well-known statement made by the Leader of the Irish party, the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond). That statement, I may remind the House, was as follows:—
  "Under those circumstances the Irish party had decided to support the so-called Land Taxes in the Budget."
  Now this is the important statement:—
  "Out of the Development Fund it is proposed to create he had reason to know that within the next twelve months money would assuredly be provided for the drainage of the Barrow and the Bann and other rivers…." etc.
  That statement was brought before the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is perfectly true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, hearing it for the first time, got up in his place and said he knew nothing whatever about it. From that moment to this, however, the hon. and learned Member for Waterford has never withdrawn or modified the statement he
  2358
  made on that occasion in the smallest degree, and we have to choose between that statement, not withdrawn, deliberately made by the Leader of one of the parties in this House and the simple statement on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he knew nothing whatever about it. We have, since no further statement has been made in the House by the Government in connection with this question, been left completely in the dark as to the true position.
  Everyone who knows the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford and his practice in this House is aware that he is not reckless in his statements, but rather precise than otherwise, as the leader of a party, in the statement he makes. In view of a statement of that kind, which has hitherto never bean withdrawn, it is more than ever necessary we should adopt the usual, and I believe I may say the invariable, precedent that has been adopted in other Acts of Parliament making grants to the three countries in the same way that is done in this particular Bill. For this reason above all, supposing there is anything to warrant the belief that "within the next twelve months," which is so precise, "out of the Development Fund money would assuredly be provided for the drainage of the Barrow and the Bann and other rivers." What is going to be left for the purpose of agriculture in England, or for any of the other great works mentioned in regard to England, and in Scotland, if anything of that sort were to occur? I think I have made out a sufficiently strong case for the insertion of the Amendment, and I hope that the Government will give me some very different answer to that they have given me in the Grand Committee before they decide finally to refuse this Amendment.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: While not in any way complaining of the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman with reference to some difference of opinion as to the statement supposed to have been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I hope he will not expect me to enter into that question now. He was perfectly

  2359
  right in bringing that controversy forward as an argument in support of his proposal that this money should be voted in certain fixed proportions to England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively. Wales, in these matters, has never had anything like an equivalent grant, for educational purposes or otherwise. I make that statement, however, not as Solicitor-General, but as Member for Mid-Glamorgan. There is a great difference between the money here concerned and money such as educational grants. In the latter case it is regular annual expenditure, and when you have regular annual expenditure it has been considered right by Parliament to allocate the money in certain fixed proportions, although there has always been a controversy as to whether those proportions were fair as between the three portions of the United Kingdom. Here there is a great difference in the kind of work for which the money is required. One year you may have considerable expenditure in England, and the next a large expenditure in Ireland, with possibly none in England at all. The same thing may happen in regard to Scotland. It is nothing like regular annual expenditure for a fixed purpose. The discretion of the Commissioners in this important work would unquestionably be largely hampered if Parliament said to them that before recommending any scheme they must consider whether or not the Treasury would be likely to say that the respective proportions would be not complied with. The Government think it better to allow the Commissioners full discretion. It is almost impossible to have fixed proportions when you are dealing with expenditure for schemes of the kind here contemplated. I have no doubt that, as has been said over and over again, pressure will be brought by those who are interested in expenditure in one particular district, and those interested in expenditure in another. I hope, however, that the Commissioners will not succumb to pressure of that kind, but will consider the general interests of the United Kingdom as a whole in recommending schemes. This question does not divide Members according to strict party lines at all. The same proposal was brought forward in Committee by the right hon. Gentleman when, out of 40 Members present, eight voted for the Amendment and 32 against. That shows an enormous preponderance of opinion in favour of the course adopted in the Bill so far as
  2360
  the Committee was concerned. Of the eight Members who voted for the Amendment, five were Conservatives and three Liberals, six were Englishmen, and two Scotsmen, whereas the 32 included a certain number of Conservatives and representatives of all four nationalities. I submit that in this matter the House ought to come to the same conclusion as the Committee, and leave the Commissioners unfettered discretion in the allocation of this expenditure as between the various parts of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: While we are indebted to the Solicitor-General for the statement he has made, personally I am not impressed by, or much interested in, his account of the proceedings before the Committee. My views about sending Bills of this kind to a Standing Committee are well known, and need not be repeated. The mere fact that the eight Members in favour of the Amendment included six Englishmen and two Scotsmen, whereas the 32 against the Amendment included all the Irishmen present is in itself significant. The Solicitor-General has ignored the real facts of the case with regard to this allocation of money. I do not suppose that my right hon. Friend would wish to adhere rigidly to the proportions set out in his Amendment, but he has taken the proportions adopted in 1888 by the late Lord Goschen and adhered to ever since. If it can be shown that the relative proportions are not fair, the necessary alterations can be made. It is the principle to-which we attach importance. The Solicitor-General is entirely mistaken in saying that this system has been adopted only when dealing with money voted annually for certain specific purposes. I was a Member of the Government who adopted the system, and I have been a Member of successive Governments who have followed it. The origin of the system was a precisely similar proposal as regards a sum of money as that which we are now considering. The State decided that certain public money should be applied to purpose which had hitherto been provided for by local funds. In that particular instance the proposal affected Great Britain alone. It was naturally urged by the Irish Members that if we were going to give this money out of public revenue in aid of what would otherwise have been local expenditure, an equivalent grant ought to be made to Ireland. From that time onwards, whenever money has been voted out of Imperial revenue in aid of local expenditure, if it has not been found desirable to

  2361
  effect the same reform in all parts of the United Kingdom, equivalent grants have been made. What are you proposing to do under this Bill? I am not talking about the machinery or the method, to both of which I have a strong objection, but to the financial proposals. You are doing exactly what Parliament has done before in regard to the distribution of burdens. You are simply asking the State to pay money which otherwise, if the work were done, would have to be paid by the local rates.
  The Solicitor-General says that this Amendment would curtail the powers of the Commissioners. That is one way of looking at it. On the other hand, I believe it would be an enormous advantage to the Commissioners. Nothing has been more remarkable in the legislation of the present Government than the way in which Parliament has been invited to avoid the settlement of difficult and complicated questions by passing them over to a body of Commissioners charged with extraordinary powers, to whom is left the solution of problems which the Government itself is not prepared to face. Now, I said yesterday, when the Solicitor-General altered one of the Sub-sections of Clause 1 from "canals" to "inland navigation"—which I think everybody who has taken the trouble to study this Bill must admit to be true—that it was making the thing a farce if you are going to charge the Commissioners with these powers and not to give them the money necessary. I repeat that if you adopt my right hon. Friend's Amendment that you will be aiding rather than impeding the work of the Commissioners. What would be the result? That at the beginning of each year the Commissioners would know that there would be a certain sum available for the three Kingdoms. Not only would the Commissioners know this, but the local authorities and Government Departments upon whose initiative these grants will have to be made, would know, and they would, to the best of their ability, shape their applications to the money available. The Commissioners would be able to take the applications from each country, and deal with them according to the money available for each country. They would therefore be much more able to make good use of their money. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond). What did the hon. and learned Gentleman say? He said that this money
  2362
  would be available for the drainage of the Bann and the Barrow. Hon. Members below the Gangway know what the cost of dealing with these rivers in even an elementary way would mean. We are told that the Leader of the Irish Nationalist party is quite confident this money is to be available for these two purposes. We are told also that all the local work of England, Scotland, and Wales is to be provided for out of the same fund. The Solicitor-General says that this can be easily settled by the Commissioners, who on earth are these Commissioners going to be, and where are they going to get their powers to enable them to arrive at these remarkable decisions? You are going to put before them alternative proposals—one, say, for Ireland for drainage, and one, say, for Scotland for some technical education scheme, and one for England for the improvement of rural transport, of which we heard so much last night. Just look at the variety of these things! They involve a totally different kind of consideration. They will vary in the amount which each will cost. And it is because Parliament cannot see its way out of these difficulties itself that it is leaving them to be solved by the Commissioners. There is another aspect of the case, and a very important one, to which I would call the attention of the Solicitor-General. We have never yet succeeded during our discussions on this Bill in ascertaining from the Government what power Parliament will have to review the proceedings of these Commissioners, and the expenditure of this money. So far as I can tell, on careful examination of the Bill, the only possible power Parliament will retain over the expenditure of the money is by raising the question on the annual Vote of the Treasury. According to what the Government said, the Treasury has apparently complete control, and therefore it may be possible on this Vote, which covers a whole multitude of subjects, for it to come in. £500,000 is to be voted for this work, and it has been so carefully arranged that it will not otherwise come under the review of Parliament. Therefore you are going to leave it to the Commissioners to decide, not only between the comparative advantages and disadvantages of different kinds of local work, but between the claims of the three countries, and to leave them this immense work without Parliamentary reference or control! Recent events in this House lead me, and many others, to believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member

  2363
  for Waterford knew very well what he was talking about when he said that this money would go to Ireland. What is the latest evidence we have on the subject? It is to be found in the Debates on the Finance Bill. I appeal to the House—not to one side alone—to whom have the most generous concessions been made? Has it not been to the Irish Members? So it will be with the Commissioners! There is no doubt that you get a greater unanimity of opinion about any given work in Ireland than you do from any part of England or Scotland. I am not very much impressed by the 32 to 8 votes argument. But I am surprised that Englishmen and Scotsmen should be willing to walk so contentedly into this difficulty! Because I am satisfied when you come to the distribution of this £500,000 between the different countries that Ireland will be absolutely certain by unanimity of opinion, by concerted action, and greater power of pressing their case, to get the larger amount. I think, speaking with no disrespect to the Solicitor-General, that it is a profound misfortune that we are debarred from the principle laid down by a great Chancellor of the Exchequer, and followed by every Chancellor of the Exchequer; that we are asked to depart from this, and adopt an entirely new system which has never been adopted before by Parliament in dealing with these grants. And we are doing it at the invitation of the Solicitor-General alone, and not by either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or by a representative of the great Treasury Department which is specially concerned in this particular work. I believe that those who sit on this side of the House will feel that it is neither right nor proper that we should be asked to depart from this system laid down years ago, and followed since, and without, so far as I know, any reasonable complaint on the part of anybody.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Perhaps I may be allowed a word of reply. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, has had much greater experience than I have had in the application of moneys according to the equivalent grant system. But I remember the origin of it very well; I was a colleague of the right hon. Gentleman in the House. It is perfectly true that in making grants to relieve local taxation that the equivalent grant system has been adopted. But this is not that case at all. The most analogous to this are the cases where grants are
  2364
  made either by the Board of Agriculture or the Board of Trade for fisheries or for harbours; and these grants, so far as I am aware, have never—the right hon. Gentleman never said they were—been allocated according to this equivalent grant principle. The Government have said again and again that these grants were not a contribution to the local rates at all. We avoid, so far as we can, any relief to the local rates by any of these grants which we shall make under the provisions of this Bill.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: That is not the point I raised. I was dealing with a totally different question. In moneys allocated in regard to any public expenditure in Great Britain and Ireland the money is given to the Department concerned and by them distributed. It is not given to a central body to distribute, as they think well, between the three countries. Money hitherto given to the Irish Government has been spent at the desire of the Irish Government, and could not be spent outside, and in the same way money distributed by the Board of Agriculture or the Board of Trade is money given to them for the purpose of distribution within Great Britain or Ireland. In each case the Central Department has control of the money which Parliament has said is available. In this particular case you are going to distribute the money without any guidance from Parliament.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Sums of money allocated for similar purposes have never, so far as I am aware, been allocated upon the equivalent grant principles. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Irish Members, by reason of their pertinacity and their persuasiveness, will obtain more than their full share of these grants. He was speaking as a right hon. Gentleman who has held office, and will again, I have no doubt, rather than as an Irish Member. I understand that he will be transplanted to more congenial soil before, to the loss of Ireland and to the gain of the other constituency, but I might point out to him the powers of the Irish Members cannot be exercised upon the Commissioners, however they may press their views upon the Government. These Commissioners will be perfectly independent in every possible way. The Treasury, no doubt, make the grants, and they cannot refuse what the Commissioners recommend, but the Treasury cannot make any grant where the Commissioners do not so recommend, so that, really, full

  2365
  control is vested in the Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman was, in truth and in fact, thinking of the pressure that might be brought to bear in this House, and I daresay also the pressure of votes. As regards the concessions on the Finance Bill, they were made, not because of any pressure in this House, but because of the justice of the case.
  Mr. DILLON: On entering the House just now I found a leading Irish Member—in fact the Leader of an Irish party, who sits for an Irish constituency, and who obtained hospitality in Ireland at a very critical stage of his career—engaged in a furious tirade against the possibility of Ireland getting more than her fair share. That is a new doctrine in this House, and I do not think it will be very popular in South Dublin. Fortunately for himself, the right hon. Gentleman is going to take his departure, and that constituency will know him no more. The right hon. Gentleman's zeal to prevent Ireland getting more than her fair share under this new system appears to have outrun his discretion and his memory. He is entirely mistaken in his view that these proposals of the Government are against all precedent and against all well-established practice. That is absolutely untrue. This system of the proportionate grant is a very modern invention; it never was heard of until quite recently. I remember very well when the idea was first introduced by Lord Goschen. Up to that date no such thing was ever heard of in the finances of this House. What was the other branch of the right hon. Gentleman's argument? That it has been the unbroken practice ever since it was introduced by Lord Goschen—
  Mr. WALTER LONG: No; I did not say that.
  Mr. DILLON: If that was not the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that that has been the practice ever since, what was the point of his argument? By far the strongest case in connection with local grants took place under the Agricultural Bating Act passed by the Tory Government. Was it on a proportion such as the right hon. Gentleman proposes in this case that that money was apportioned? Nothing of the sort. In regard to Ireland the principle was applied that each country should take according to its needs, with the result that Ireland, being an agricultural country, got a very large portion of it. That was the practice of the right hon. Gentleman's own Government long after
  2366
  Lord Goschen introduced the equivalent grant system. Under the Agricultural Bating Act and the principle of distribution adopted, the Irish landlords got about three times as much as they would have got under the equivalent grant system. I opposed that with all my might, but the principle was put in force and the Irish landlords got the benefit of it. Take another case. Attempts were made to apply the principle of the equivalent grants to the education grants made to Ireland, so that whenever a fresh grant was made to England Ireland was to get her equivalent on the very principle set forth in this Amendment. What was the result? The result was that Ireland was most disgracefully treated. We get the equivalent grant for one year, and then when the Estimates for English education went up by millions the Government forgot to increase our equivalent grant. We have again and again brought forward this grievance from which we have been suffering. This artificial system was put forward for one year, then it was dropped, and although the amounts voted for education rose in England increased enormously we got nothing whatever. It was a bad system and an unfair system, and was very seldom put in force. With regard to the fear entertained by the right hon. Gentleman that we shall get more than our share, I might point out that the Commissioners about to be appointed will most likely be all Englishmen, and that probably not more than one member of it will be an Irishman. So far from getting more than our fair share, our experience has always been, except in the case of old age pensions, that we always get less than our share. It sometimes suits Members of the Opposition to describe Irish Members with contempt and at other times to describe them as more than a match for the other 600 English and Scotch Members in the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Mr. J. H. Campbell) takes that view. So that if that is true no country was ever better served than Ireland is by her Nationalist party, since its 80 Members are more than a match for the rest of the House of Commons. If there is a word of truth in that—and of course there is not—the moral to be drawn from it is that the Nationalist party are the most powerful party that ever sat in any Parliament, and ought to obtain the support not only of their friends but also the support of the Member for Trinity College (Mr. J. H. Campbell). The only case

  2367
  recently in which Ireland has got more than her share is under the old age pensions scheme. I want to call attention to this subject because it has been continually thrown in our face. May I point out that no Irishman ever asked for old age pensions. The system was introduced by Englishmen on the demand of the Radicals and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to suit the needs of this country. We did not clamour for old age pensions, therefore, it is not fair to throw it in our face that we are getting more than our share. It frequently happens that your system of taxation crushes the Irish people, although it looks fair, and now when you have given old age pensions in utter ignorance of the condition of our country you suddenly discover that unwittingly you have given us much more than you originally intended. That is the history of the old age pension system, and whilst we recognise that it is a great benefit, I am bound to say that if you had had the common-sense to offer us the money we could have made ten times better use of it, and we should have done ten times more good for Ireland. That is a fair example of the way this House, with the best intentions, through looking to what suits this country best very frequently wastes money. I rejoice that the Government have had sufficient sense not to listen to this Amendment for one moment, because it would be most unfair. You are going to trust this matter to thoroughly competent hands, and to an independent board, and surely they ought to be entrusted with full discretion to spend the money to the best advantage.
  Mr. WILLIAM JONES: There seems to be, in this matter, a joint conspiracy on the Front Opposition Bench to leave Wales out. On the Committee upstairs we resisted this Amendment, because we thought it would be better to let the Commissioners frame their own schemes, and that all the money should be "pooled." As far as Wales is concerned, wherever we had an equivalent grant under the Goschen scheme we always used it fairly and squarely for legitimate development. Wales is the only part of the United Kingdom that used all the "whisky money" for education. There is not a single county in the whole of Wales that used the Goschen money to relieve local burdens, or for selfish interests, for they spent every penny of it on higher education and secondary schools, and if under this Bill
  2368
  we had a scheme from Wales I should be opposed to any political pressure being exercised upon the Commissioners. I rather fancy that the pressure will be brought by the joint action of county councils which are composed of both Liberals and Conservatives and Churchmen and Nonconformists. The county councils will say, "Here is a scheme for the development of the agricultural interests of Wales," and they would press it forward on that account. You could not do that under this Amendment, because Wales would be completely shut out, and Wales as a national entity would not be mentioned at all. An overwhelming majority on the Committee resolved that the whole of this money should be "pooled," and that the claims should come from England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and it was resolved that the Commissioners should act according to the merits of the respective schemes placed before them. That was the view of some hon. Gentlemen opposite—in fact, the Government made a concession to the Noble Lord opposite by appointing a Royal Commission instead of an Advisory Committee. In Wales we are quite satisfied to put our schemes before this independent body, believing that they will deal justly and fairly with the various needs of the Principality.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The speech which has just been made by the hon. Member for East Mayo has convinced me that the Amendment we are discussing is a necessary one. It is clear that if my right hon. Friend again seeks the suffrages of South Dublin his action to-day will be brought up against him. What better illustration could we have that pressure is going to be put; not upon the Commissioners, but upon the Government? The Solicitor-General said he had no doubt pressure would be brought upon the Commissioners by those who were interested in obtaining grants, and he said he hoped the Commissioners would resist any such pressure. The hon. Member for East Mayo said the Nationalist party were very powerful—
  Mr. DILLON: I did not say that. What I said was that from what had been said on this point the Opposition seemed to think ours was the most powerful party that ever existed in this House.
  Sir F. BANBURY: In this Parliament that is so, but I hope it will not be so in the next.
  Mr. DILLON: It will foe much more powerful in the next Parliament.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am aware that hon. Members below the Gangway are thorough Parliamentarians. I believe that pressure will be put upon the Treasury not to sanction the schemes of the Commissioners. The Commissioners may say, "Very well; we think a certain amount of money should be given to England and Wales," and the Irish party will say, "Oh, if that is done there will be no money left for us." They will then go to the Treasury and say, "Do not you sanction this scheme." The result will be that the Treasury will not sanction the scheme, because they know what will happen if they do. The Commissioners may put forward a scheme for Scotland, and the same thing will happen. In process of time a scheme will go up for Ireland necessitating a large grant of money, and hon. Members below the Gangway will go to the Treasury and say, "This scheme is all right; you can sanction this," and the Treasury will sanction it. By that means hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will have more than their share of the grant. It is because I do not want them to have that, and because I do not want pressure to be put upon the Government, that, if my right hon. Friend goes to a Division, I shall have the greatest pleasure in voting with him. There was in Committee a general consensus of opinion that the first thing to do was to establish, free from any pressure, or advance any particular interest, and it was for that reason that the Commission was set up. I am very much afraid the acceptance of his Amendment has rather dulled the antagonism of the Noble Lord the Member for Marylebone; but I cannot help feeling that the Commissioners are only human, and that the final power rests with the Treasury, and that the course I have outlined is as certain to be carried out as the fact that I am here addressing the House. I warn my Noble Lord that his Amendment is not far-reaching enough to outwit the astuteness of the Irish party. I therefore sincerely trust we shall show our desire to avoid any possibility of pressure being put upon a Government Department by adopting this Amendment. The hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Dillon) brought forward instances which he said showed it would be a mistake to maintain relative proportions throughout the Kingdom, and one of his instances was the Agricultural Rates Act. Ireland only received her
  2370
  proper proportion, but it happens that a larger proportion of Ireland is agricultural than England.
  Mr. DILLON: My point was that her proportion was not calculated on the figures of this Amendment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Quite so, nor ought it to have been. That was a special grant for a special object, divided according to the proportion of agricultural land. Ireland happened to have a larger population, and she therefore got a larger share. That was a perfectly proper manner of proceeding, and has nothing whatever to do with the manner of proceeding in the present case. Any number of schemes—God knows how many—will be brought before the Commissioners, quite without regard to the question whether they benefit any other part of the United Kingdom. I hope we shall show, at any rate on this side of the House, that we are anxious there should be no pressure or any corrupt methods brought to bear upon the Treasury. I shall therefore, if my right hon. Friend divides, vote for the Amendment.
  Mr. W. P. BYLES: I am glad the hon. and learned Member has resisted the Amendment. I have risen merely to express my astonishment at the arguments which have been brought forward by the Unionist party, who want to draw this distinction between Ireland, Scotland, and England, and to separate the United Kingdom into three parts. If these arguments had been addressed to the House from these benches we should unquestionably have had the old nickname applied to us, and have been reminded that we were Separatists; but, coming from the Unionist party, it looks as if the old traditions of Unionism have been quite forgotten. Was not Ireland to be treated as a county? Nobody thinks Yorkshire or Lancashire is going to get too much. It is admitted that, if a larger need arises in Yorkshire or Lancashire, it should have the application of a suitable amount from this fund; but, if Ireland should happen to want rather more than some other part of the United Kingdom, then careful restrictions are to be imposed that equivalent money should be spent in other parts of the United Kingdom. Until you give Ireland leave to raise her own taxes and spend her own taxes upon her own people and needs, these difficulties will continually arise. Once let Ireland tax herself and spend the money upon her own needs and these difficulties will be solved; but so long as Ireland is part of the United Kingdom,

  2371
  it should be treated as part of the United Kingdom, and should have as strong a claim upon any fund of this nature as any other part of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: Perhaps the House will permit me to say a few words in reply to the various observations made in the course of this Debate. The Solicitor-General, to my surprise, rather advocated opposition to my Amendment on this ground: Very little may be wanted in one year in one country, and nothing at all might be wanted for England during a single year. That was rather a curious argument to come from the Treasury Bench after all the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his enthusiastic determination to provide funds year after year for English agriculture, and it gives rise to some very curious reflections. The Solicitor-General was also opposed to any restrictions on the powers of the Commissioners, but it is for the Government to determine matters of high policy, and to insert them in their own Bill, and what I call high policy is the policy which has now been adopted for a certain number of years in nearly all cases of this kind. One or two instances were cited to show the precedents I have quoted—break-downs altogether. The hon. Member for Mayo quoted the case of the Agricultural Rates Act, but my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir E. Banbury) answered that point, and I think I am right in saying that the money in that case—so far as Ireland is concerned—was distributed as nearly as possible in the proportion which I am advocating. Indeed, I believe Ireland got a little the best of it, as she generally does. Again, the hon. Member for East Mayo referred to the case of the old age pensions. I say that that has no analogy to the Amendment I am now moving, or to the circumstances which we are discussing. This Bill deals with a limited sum, but there was no limited sum in the case of the old age pensions, except that which was sufficient to fulfil the requirements of the Act. It is said that Ireland has got a great deal more than her share of those pensions. I know nothing about that. All I know is that in the case of Ireland old age pensions were required for a certain number of people who complied with certain conditions as to age and other matters, but that has nothing whatever to do with the Amendment I am now asking the House to ac-
  2372
  cept. One of the reasons which has been urged in support of this proposal is that there is reserved to Parliament no power whatever of discussing the question of how the money is distributed. No answer has been given to that by the Treasury Bench. It is of no use to tell us it can be discussed on the Treasury Vote. That opportunity would be quite inadequate for a question of this kind. Another objection urged is that it will lead to scrambles for the division of the spoil. This Amendment-would at least remove that objection. There would be no possibility of a scramble between the three countries each for their own share, for the distribution would be prescribed according to precedents which have constantly been adopted in past years. Then the hon. Member for East Mayo talked of the attitude adopted by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Dublin (Mr. Walter Long); he described it as extraordinary. I think the attitude of the hon. Member himself in one respect in this Debate is still more extraordinary, because one of the grounds on which he opposed my claims to support for this Amendment was based on the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond)—the Leader of his own party. What did that hon. and learned Member say?
  Mr. JOHN DILLON: I did not hear it.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: Then I will refresh the memory of the hon. Member and read it.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think it would be regular to read that speech now.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: But the hon. Member said he did not hear it.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It can hardly be necessary to repeat the speeches of all Members for the benefit of those who do not happen to hear them.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: The hon. and learned Member for Waterford made a very important speech bearing on this question, which I wished to recall to the attention of the hon. Member for East Mayo. But in view of your ruling I will content myself by simply reminding him that it embodied one of the chief justifications I put forward in support of this Bill. I think it was very unfortunate the hon. Member for East Mayo did not hear it. It was desirable the House should be afforded some information as to the observations of the hon. and learned Member to the effect that he had positive assur-

  2373
  ances that enormous sums would be given out of the Development Fund under this Bill for Irish purposes during the present year. I may observe that the hon. Member for East Mayo, who was in the House when my right hon. Friend the Member for South Dublin commented on the great concessions to Ireland, had no reply to make. The hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has conclusively shown how pressure may be brought to bear in

  Division No. 792.]

  AYES.

  [2.5 p.m.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fell, Arthur

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Gretton, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Viscount

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Clyde, James Avon

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Astbury, John Meir

  Henry, Charles S.

  Pointer, J.

  Barker, Sir John

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Honiman, Emslie John

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Reddy, M.

  Beale, W. P.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Rees, J. D.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Brigg, John

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Jenkins, J.

  Robinson, S.

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

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Byles, William Pollard

  Kelley, George D.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Clough, William

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

  Clynes, J. R.

  Laidlaw, Robert

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

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Seddon, J.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lamont, Norman

  Seely, Colonel

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Crossley, William J.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Cullinan, J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

  M'Callum, John M.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

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

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Dillon, John

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Toulmin, George

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Massle, J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Erskine, David C.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Gill, A. H.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

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

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Napier, T. B.

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

  Gulland, John W.

  Nicholls, George

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Norton and Mr. Whitley.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Partington, Oswald

  Mr. ARTHUR FELL Mr. ARTHUR FELL moved, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "five" ["the sum of five hundred thousand pounds"], and to insert instead thereof the word "one."
  regard to the allocation of these funds. I do earnestly urge that we ought not in these cases to depart from the almost invariable practice with Bills presented by this Government during the period they have been in office.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided: Ayes, 26; Noes, 125.
  I move this Amendment with the object of ascertaining, if possible, on what grounds the Government have fixed upon the sum of £500,000 as the amount to be spent after Easter next year. We really

  2375
  do not know whether £100,000 would be as useful under the circumstances or whether £1,000,000 would be anything like sufficient. Our experience is that if we vote £500,000 that money is spent, but whether it is spent usefully or not is sometimes very doubtful. This whole thing is an experiment. In the initial stages we are bound to go slow, or we shall make some terrible mistakes. It is so with every new enterprise. The Commissioners will be new to their work, and if they have £500,000 to spend in one year they will feel bound to adopt schemes, proposals and suggestions which come before them, in order to absorb that amount. It may be they would do that against their better judgment. We hope the Commissioners will be very able and prudent men, because on that depends the success of the whole new undertaking. The safest way would be to begin with institutions which are already conducting these experiments, and which are sadly in want of funds. You should assist bonâ fide schools which are experimenting in these matters; for instance, schools like that at Oxford for afforestation and agriculture. I went to the opening of that school last year, which is connected with my old college of St. John's. The funds of that institition are not large. Experiments in afforestation are being conducted at that school, and there are gardens and nursery grounds. A sum of £500 to an institution like that would go a long way. I ask are there many other such institutions in the country to which £500 or £1,000 might be given in as safe a way as in the case I have mentioned? I doubt if there are half a dozen in the country. To such institutions £500 or £1,000 would be of immense assistance. I am only afraid of their feeling bound to spend the money this first year, and spending it on objects which may be unsuccessful, and which, therefore, may do more harm than good. Every failure which they have will naturally prejudice them in the eyes of the country.
  Amendment not seconded.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE Mr. KEIR HARDIE moved, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words: "The Treasury may accept any gifts made to them for all or any of the purposes for which advances may be made under this Part of this Act and, subject to the terms of gift, apply them for the purposes of this Part of this Act in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury."
  This Amendment was proposed upstairs, and in substance at least, accepted by the Government with the assent, I understand, of all sections of the Committee. It is simply to give the Treasury power to accept gifts to be applied in the administration of this Act, which, I understand, would not be possible unless special authorisation is inserted.
  Mr. JOHN WARDseconded the Amendment.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I accepted the substance of the Amendment in Committee, and now that it has been put in legal form I am pleased that an opportunity is given to people to direct their benevolence into this channel.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS Sir SAMUEL EVANS moved, in Subsection (4), after the word "may" ["as the Treasury may direct"], to insert the words "by Minute to be laid before Parliament."
  The Sub-section deals with payments out of, and into, the Development Fund. The words are taken from the section of the Exchequer and Audit Act dealing with accounts.
  Amendment made.
  Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH moved, at the end of the Clause, to add: "(6) No advance shall be made to a public authority (other than a Government Department), university, college, institution, or association of persons, or company, unless such public authority, university, college, or association of persons, or company, is prepared to devote to the purpose for which the advance is made a sum of money out of its own funds equivalent to the advance."
  I put the Amendment down rather with the object of directing attention to a very serious danger than with any hope of the Amendment being accepted in its present terms. I have no wish to deprive any educational institution even of free grants, but in regard to local authorities the old rule might well be observed that they should show by a financial contribution, or in some other way, that they are deserving of a grant. Yesterday there was some little confusion in regard to this question. It was stated by one right hon. Gentleman that this Government had frequently granted money without requiring any contribution from local authorities. I have entirely failed to find any such cases except the one instance of the Congested

  2377
  Districts Board in Ireland. Under every other statute in any way similar to this, as far as I am aware., it has always been required by Parliament that the local authority should make an equivalent grant, or, at all events, a substantial contribution, to the purposes for which the advance is made. I should like an assurance that this difficulty is met in some part of the Bill.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: I beg to second the Amendment. The Solicitor-General was not able to assent to our proposal that the advances under the Bill should be made by way of loan, and it would remove a great many of our difficulties if he would accept this Amendment. It needs very little argument to prove that it is sound on financial grounds, but I am certain it will prove in the future, as it has proved in the past, of very great assistance to local promoters of any proposed scheme that the grant should have this condition attached to it. By this means they would be able to induce that local help which is an essential condition of real success in such a scheme. If the Solicitor-General were able in any way to meet this he would do only what in practice will be found almost essential, and what it will be expedient to lay down as a general rule in an Act of Parliament applying to all cases.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I think the principle which has been enunciated by my hon. Friend (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth) in regard to local authorities is a perfectly sound one, speaking generally—that is to say, that there ought to be an effort made locally by the community itself in addition to the effort made by the State in regard to educational work. My hon. Friend is perfectly right in saying that there is no provision in this Bill expressly saying that a definite and specific sum should be contributed by a local authority, or by any of the institutions which are mentioned in the Bill and the Amendment. The Amendment is, as I think the hon. Member himself will admit, quite inapplicable to universities, and so forth. If they have no moneys already, how are you to expect them when making application for a grant to provide an equivalent sum? They cannot do that out of funds which they have not got. It would make an application nugatory if we were to say, when they came to us for assistance, "You cannot get this from the State unless you contribute some part of the money required." Nor do I think it would be right in every case to say that a public authority should
  2378
  contribute a half. The Commissioners may take the matter into consideration and apply the principle which my hon. Friend seeks to apply by the Amendment. Subsection (1) of Clause 1 says: "The Treasury may, upon the recommendation of the Development Commissioners appointed under this Act, make advances to a Government Department, or through a Government Department to a public authority, university, college, institution, or association of persons or company (not trading for profit), either by way of free grant or by way of loan, or partly in one way and partly in the other, and upon such terms and subject to such conditions as they may think fit," for certain specified purposes. The Commissioners, therefore, will have it fully in their power when recommending a scheme to recommend whether it should be carried out by money wholly granted by the Treasury or on condition that part of the expenditure should be contributed by the local authority. Even if they did not do that the Treasury themselves might say, "We will contribute so much, but we think that the local authority ought to come to the assistance of the State and make their fair contribution towards the necessary expenditure." I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: In reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I would point out that Sub-section (1) of Clause 1 is no direction to the Commissioners in the way suggested by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. I gathered that the hon. Member wished there had been some indication given to the Commissioners that in making a grant they should keep in view whether the body making the application is prepared to contribute a sum equivalent to the grant. I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that it is not the intention of the Government that the Commissioners should make advances without considering this principle. But the intention of the Government goes for nothing unless it is put in the Bill. What we want is to have the intention of the Government expressed in the Bill. There is no reason why the direction should be made mandatory so long as there is something in the Bill to show that these facts are to be kept before the Commissioners. How are the Commissioners to know what the desire of Parliament is unless it is in the Bill? They will say, "We can only interpret the desire of the Parliament by what is in the Bill. There is nothing in

  2379
  the Bill as to the necessity of our asking these institutions or local authorities to provide part of the money." The hon. and learned Gentleman made what seemed to me a startling assumption. Does he really mean to say that universities and colleges have no funds?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: No surplus funds to provide for the particular purposes for which they require aid.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I very much doubt that. There are, I believe, many colleges and educational institutions which have funds. I do not see where the word "surplus" comes in. If these institutions choose to extend the scope of their work they can use their own money, supplemented by the money of the State. I think the Amendment is a sound one.
  Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH: I am sure the Solicitor-General feels that the principle of the Amendment is sound; but, having regard to the limited amount of time available for the business to be done, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Constitution of Development Commissioners.)
  (1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act there shall be established a Commission consisting of five Commissioners, to be styled the Development Commissioners and to be appointed by the Treasury, of whom one to be appointed by the Treasury shall be chairman. The Treasury may, on the recommendation of the Commissioners, increase the number of the Commissioners to such number as they think fit.
  (2) Subject to the provisions of this Section, the term of office of a Commissioner shall be 10 years. One Commissioner shall retire every second year, but a retiring Commissioner may be reappointed. The order in which the Commissioners first appointed are to retire shall be determined by the Treasury. On a casual vacancy occurring by reason of the death, resignation, or incapacity of a Commissioner, or otherwise, the person appointed by the Treasury to fill the vacancy shall continue in office until the Commissioner in whose place he was appointed would have retired, and shall then retire.
  (3) There shall be paid to not more than two of the Commissioners such salaries, not exceeding in the aggregate three thousand pounds in each year, as the Treasury may direct.
  (4) The Commissioners may act by three of their number and notwithstanding a vacancy in their number, and subject to the approval of the Treasury, may regulate their own procedure.
  (5) The Commissioners may, with the consent of the Treasury, appoint and employ such officers and servants for the purposes of this Part of this Act as they think necessary, and may remove any officer or servant so appointed and employed, and there shall be paid to such officers and servants such salaries or remuneration as the Commissioners, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine.
  (6) The salaries of the Commissioners and the salaries or remuneration of their officers and servants and any expenses incurred by the Commissioners in the execution of their duties under this Part of this Act to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury shall be defrayed out of the Development Fund.
  Sir W. ANSON: I beg to move to leave out, in Sub-section (1), the words "there shall be established a Commission consisting of," and to insert instead thereof the words "it shall be lawful for His Majesty and his successors, by warrant under the Sign Manual, to appoint."
  I have put down this Amendment really with the intention of ascertaining what are the intentions of the Government as to the relationship of the Commissioners to the Treasury and to this House. What I want to know is whether this is merely an Advisory Committee to help the Treasury in the distribution of a large sum of public money. Is the business of this Committee to discharge the ungrateful task of refusing applications for grants while it cannot make a grant except with the concurrence of the Treasury? Is it to be a body which may say "No" but cannot say "Yes"? On the other hand, is it to be a body with the very great and serious responsibility of handling large sums of money for carrying out the purposes of the Bill? If it is to be in that position, there will be required men of ability and technical knowledge, men who are hard working and with complete devotion to the objects of the Commission, and not merely that, but they must be men free from political bias and above the mere suggestion of political bias. If it is only to be an Advisory Committee, I say that the whole construction of the Commission is wrong. You can get at all the objects you wish to get at with easier and more satisfactory working through the various Departments con-

  2381
  cerned, if you were to construct an inter-Departmental Committee on which the Board of Agriculture, the Board of Trade, the Board of Education, the Local Government Board, and the Treasury should be represented. In that Committee every Department could be heard, and they would be able to combine their resources of information, and finally advise the Treasury whether or not grants should be made. If it is to be really the great and important body which some of the operations indicated in the Bill suggest, then I think we must take measures to ensure its independence and its importance in the public esteem, and to make it what the public would expect from a body which has to spend money and fulfil the duties which are placed upon it by the Bill. I confess I cannot understand why the business of the road communications of the country should be separated from the other branches of economic development sketched out in the Bill, unless it is that this Government have a passion for creating new offices and new officials and for that purpose are making two bites of this gigantic cherry, and are creating one body for the communications in the country by means of roads and another body for all these purposes which are summed up in the Bill.
  Under the Bill the Commissioners are appointed by Treasury minute. I do not in any way slight that method of appointment. Very important and distinguished personages, the Patronage Secretary and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, are appointed in that way. But it makes them servants of the Treasury and capable of sitting in Parliament. It has been the practice with that great body whose functions are either judicial or administrative with a judicial character to appoint them during good behaviour, subject to the right of the Crown to remove them on an Address of the two Houses of Parliament. That is the case with all the judges and the recorders. It is the case with the paid members of the Charity Commission. It was the case with all the members of the Indian Council—I forget whether it is still the case with some members of that Council—and it is the position occupied by the Controller and Auditor-General and the Deputy Controller and Auditor-General. The status of the Commissioners is such that they may sit in the House of Commons; and, lastly, their numbers are capable of increasing in number on their own recommendation at the pleasure of the Treasury. I put it to
  2382
  the Government: If the functions of the Commission are what the Bill describes, if they are to dispose not merely of this half-million which is to be provided for the next five years, but of the millions which Parliament will have to find if the purposes of the Bill are to be carried out in anything like a comprehensive manner, and if it would probably be a good thing to be able to make orders for the compulsory acquisition of land, as they can do under the Bill, then they must be put in a position not merely of dignity, not merely of comparative independence of the Treasury, so that they cannot be moved in and out of office at the mere personal wish of the Commons and the Treasury for the time being, but they must be put in a position of complete independence of all suggestions of political influence. They must hold their office during good behaviour; they must be incapable of sitting in this House of Parliament, at any rate, and their number must be limited by the terms of the Act. My Amendment seeks to secure these things. The position of the Commissioners as appointed by the Minister is a much more dignified and important thing than if they were appointed by Treasury minute, and it would make them permanent. A man who has devoted ten years of his life to this business surely is capable, and would be prepared to go on.
  Then, if you make them independent, you would exclude the paid Members certainly from sitting in the House. If the Government thought it desirable that they should be represented on this council it would be quite easy to make that consistent with my Amendment by providing one additional member appointed by the Treasury, who should hold office during pleasure, and that this one member, like the unpaid Charity Commissioner, might sit in this House. But, as a fact, this body of Commissioners will be so intimately connected with the Treasury that they might as well be, and would be, better represented by the Treasury in this House than the Board of Agriculture is by the hon. Member (Sir Edward Strachey), who represents it so admirably at the present time. I would urge the Government to make this body as independent of political influence as they can be. I would urge them to alter the character of the appointment, the tenure of the officers and their status, so as to exclude paid members, at any rate, from sitting in the House, because, whatever may be the intentions of the Government as to the character of the

  2383
  Commission, I think it will be impossible, as the Commission is now constituted, to prevent any member of the public from regarding it with suspicion. They cannot fail to surmise that influences are brought to bear upon the Treasury which may be reflected on the Commission which, as the Bill stands, are the mere creatures of the Treasury, and if that is so, and if influences can be brought to bear on the action of the Commission, I do not wish to forecast conclusions which would appear to be exaggerated, or which would shock my hearers, but there is no doubt that, with the money placed at the disposal of this Commission and the work which they have to do, and, it should be recollected, with the work which they are bound to undertake in localities having regard to the amount of the employment that is going on in the locality, it would be very difficult to keep them clear of the suspicion of influences; and it might happen that there would be an amount of political corruption on a scale which we have hardly realised since the days of the Government of Lord North. I regret I have not made provision in my Amendment for the purpose of having one Commissioner sitting in the House, but that, I think, could be done if the Government were prepared to look favourably on all, or even on half of the suggestions which I have made. I assure the Solicitor-General I am not speaking in any spirit of hostility, but with the serious desire that this great and important body should occupy the position in the public mind which, I believe, the Government would desire that it should.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The right hon. Baronet has introduced very serious words in his Amendment dealing with a very important matter in this Bill. Indeed it goes right down to the root of the usefulness of the measure. In a very lucid speech, such as we have every right to expect from one of his great authority on constitutional law and matters of the kind, he has gone not only into the first Amendment, but into the other Amendments quite properly in order to explain the whole of his scheme. I may be allowed to follow him in respect of dealing with the whole matter on these Amendments. In the first place a short history should be given of the alterations made in the Bill during its progress through Committee.
  As we introduced our Bill the Treasury were permitted to deal with these
  2384
  matters upon the recommendation of an Advisory Committee, to be appointed by them, and the right hon. Baronet asked whether or not the body of Commissioners were to be like the Advisory Committee. It is not to be like the Advisory Committee. A change was made from the Advisory Committee to this body of Development Commissioners on the suggestion of the Noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord R. Cecil). He and his very able colleagues on that Committee put forward their scheme on the very grounds which the right hon. Baronet says he has in view—in the first place, to give greater dignity, a better position, and more complete freedom from any pressure or any political influence than would have been secured by the appointment of an Advisory Committee. The considerations which were placed before the Government upstairs brought the Government to the conclusion that it would be better to alter the status of the body which was to advise the Treasury in making advances for these public purposes from that of an Advisory Committee to that of a body of Commissioners. Having said that much with regard to the history of the matter, I will deal with the questions put by the hon. Baronet in their order. I do not think his suggestion of a Departmental Committee would have done at all. Departmental Committees are only appointed ad hoc, and I do not think the right hon. Baronet would like to hand the powers conferred on the Commissioners to such a body. Several times in the course of his speech he spoke of the Commissioners as people who would have the spending of a great deal of money, the performance of very important duties, and who would have the disposal of many millions. They will not have the spending of any money at all. They only recommend a scheme for adoption by the Treasury. Their position is an administrative one, and it is not a judicial one in the sense in which that word is usually understood. They are to consider the matter coming before them as administrators, although they cannot spend the money, or, indeed, compel anybody else to spend the money granted for the purpose of carrying out the schemes they recommend. They are not judicial in the sense in which we apply that term to judges, or even to the Railway and Canal Commissioners. They are only quasi-judicial in this sense, that they must bring their judgment to bear fairly on all schemes which will come before them, and report

  2385
  upon them. Their position, therefore, is one of complete independence. The right hon. Baronet said they will be creatures of the Treasury, but they will in no sense be the creatures of that Department, except that their appointment rests with it. In no other sense can they be called the creatures of the Treasury, and the Treasury will have no control whatsoever over the Commissioners. The Treasury cannot take away from the Commissioners any application or scheme which any authority or responsible body may send to the Treasury. All schemes which may be sent in to the Department must go forth to the Commissioners. The Treasury cannot in the first instance prevent any scheme from going before this body of Commissioners for their independent consideration, and for their impartial recommendation. While they are recommending they will have nothing whatsoever to do with the Treasury.
  The Treasury must send applications forward to the Government Departments which are concerned with the particular matters comprised in those applications, and the Government Departments have to report to the Commissioners what they think of the schemes. The Commissioners are as independent of the Government Departments, the Local Government Board, the Board of Trade, or other Department, as they will be of the Treasury. And they will be entirely independent of Parliament also. I concur with the right hon. Baronet that it would not be advisable that they should have anybody representing those Commissioners in Parliament. I agree with him that responsibility for the schemes to Parliament had better be the responsibility of the Treasury.
  Sir F. BANBURY: They can be Members of Parliament.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I am not at present dealing with that question. I was dealing with the point whether the Commissioners should be represented by someone in Parliament. I agree with the right hon. Baronet that the discussion of these schemes had better be on the Vote for the Salaries of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman objects to our proposal on three grounds. First of all, he objects to the tenure of the Commissioners, which is what is described as tenure at pleasure, and not tenure during good behaviour. The right hon. Gentleman gave some instances of the last kind of tenure. The tenure we propose is one by which they can continue in their office
  2386
  for ten years. It was thought better not to give them a tenure for life, or for any longer term than ten years. We have provided, in the event of certain contingencies, for retirement by rotation of one of the five Commissioners every two years, so that there will be reappointment or replacement of one of the Commissioners in that period for good and sufficient reason. I submit to the House of Commons that this is a proper tenure for people who have to do this class of work. They are in no sense in the position of judges. They are much more analogous to the body of Commissioners who are acting, under the Light Railways Act of 1896. That is an exact precedent. The Light Railway Commissioners cannot spend money; they can only recommend. "Recommend" is not quite an accurate term. They hold a public inquiry and give their certificate to the Board of Trade, and that Department may act on their own responsibility, and do act on their own responsibility, in adopting or refusing any schemes which may have been approved by the Light Railway Commissioners.
  Sir H. CRAIK: What is the tenure of the Light Railway Commissioners?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The tenure of the Light Railway Commissioners is precisely the tenure of the Commissioners under this Bill, with this exception, that the appointment is made by the Board of Trade and not by the Treasury.
  Sir H. CRAIK: For ten years?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: No, not for ten years, but it is at pleasure, and their tenure is sure. There is another body of Commissioners under the London Government Act in the same position. On the other hand, the Railway and Canal Commissioners have a more stable tenure. They are appointed, I think, during good behaviour under the Sign Manual of the Crown. They, again, are much more nearly analogous to the judges than the Commissioners under this Bill; in fact, one of the members of the Railway and Canal Commission must be a judge of the High Court, and presides always at the meeting. There are two other Commissioners, of course, and their functions are very nearly purely judicial functions They have to decide matters under special Acts of Parliament. Under those circumstances, I think I have shown to the House that we have precedents favourable in this matter. Indeed, suppose we had no precedent, it is better to appoint these

  2387
  administrators in this way than it would be to place them in a position like that of the judges. I entirely agree with the right hon. Baronet it is a position of dignity, and that it ought to be absolutely independent of political influence. I say quite so, and I should think any one of those Commissioners would say to any Member of this House, or to anybody, "We have nothing to do with the question of politics here at all. If your county council would like to say that this scheme should be considered by us, we will consider it; but pressure from you we will not accept, and you have no right to subject us to that pressure." Fortunately we have in this country a very large number of persons of position and experience who are willing to serve the State in these non-political matters and willing to serve, as we very well know, without any payment at all merely for the honour and dignity of acting as great citizens of a great country. Our local government in this country is pure and free from political corruption. The right hon. Gentleman, in his illustrations, mentioned the time of Lord North, but we have advanced a great deal in these matters from those times, and there is no feeling of corruption abroad now as there was, unfortunately, in those days. In our administration of local government this country is freer from anything like political corruption, or any corruption, than almost any country in the world. The very object, I think, of adopting the proposals of the Noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord R. Cecil) and his Friends by making this a body of Commissioners instead of a mere advisory committee under the Treasury, was to secure still further their absolute independence from any such influences as those which have been described.
  In regard to their status, the right hon. Baronet said any of them might sit in the House of Commons. I am quite willing, if he will tell me it is necessary, to adopt one of the Amendments which provides that a member of these Commissioners may not sit. I should have thought myself it was not necessary. I have not looked into it particularly, but I thought it was an office of profit under the Crown. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is necessary, I am quite willing to accept his Amendment to provide, that no paid member of this Commission shall be a Member of the House of Commons at all. The only other matter dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman was the increase in
  2388
  the number. He objects to the increase upon the mere recommendation of the body themselves. This is a matter which requires to be explained a little. The Amendment which was moved to that effect was an Amendment by the Noble Lord the Member for Chorley (Lord Balcarres). It was not debated at any great length. I said there ought to be the possibility of increasing the number of the Commissioners. I have no great objection to accept the Amendment. The Amendment was accepted in that form. I am not enamoured of it myself at all. Upon this matter I am very anxious to ascertain the feelings of the Members of the House, as I have already ascertained the opinions of the right hon. Baronet who has just sat down. If there be any serious objection to the increase in the number of Commissioners upon their own recommendation subject to the sanction of the Treasury, I am quite willing to take up that Amendment. I may, therefore, now that this matter is allowed to remain open, be allowed to give my own opinion. My own opinion is that a body of Commissioners, consisting of five, who would have the right to appoint Advisory Committees, is a much better body than a body of an indeterminate number. And if it should appear that the duties devolving upon them under this Bill are greater and heavier than a body of five can properly perform, I do not think anything would be easier than to have the responsibility of Parliament to add to the number of the Commissioners. Those are my answers to the right hon. Gentleman. I have met him in reference to the position of a paid Member in his capacity to sit in the House of Commons. I rather gather those who are really taking an interest in this Bill will endeavour to revert to the number of five than to have any increase in the number. Under those circumstances I hope the House of Commons will come to the conclusion as the Committee did upstairs unanimously in this matter, that a body of Commissioners appointed, as we are appointing them here, would be a much better body for the purpose of carrying out their duties than an Advisory Committee.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I intervene because the motion of the right hon. Baronet will sweep away several Amendments, of which I have given notice, to the same effect. I am quite ready to admit the reasonableness of the action of the hon. and learned Member (Sir Samuel Evans). He has dealt very fairly with the question. I

  2389
  admit a very great improvement in the Bill was the substitution of this Commission for the Advisory Committees originally in the Bill, but the question is whether your Commission, even now as constituted, is strong enough for the burden you are about to place on it. I do not believe it is. I am quite certain that the needs of administration that will possibly and actually take place within a few years under this Bill will be vastly larger than most Members of the House at present recognise or realise. I am quite certain that the powers vested in these Commissioners will be of a kind very different from that which they were constituted to exercise. The hon. and learned Gentleman gave us some parallels for other Commissions similarly constituted, and he said that those only bear out the proposals of the present Bill. Amongst those was the question of tenure, and he said that the tenure of the Commissioners under this Bill is exactly the same as the tenure of the Light Railway Commissioners, but the point was admitted that that tenure was not only for ten years, according to the proposals of the present Bill, but for life No doubt all Civil servants and all appointments of the Crown are held during good behaviour. That does not mean that they are not, under all ordinary circumstances, held for the life of the holder. There are few professional men who could accept such a position on the understanding that it might come to an end in ten years. He would have lost his position in his profession, and he would have no other means of livelihood. What independence will he have if he is told that the renewal of his appointment depends on the Treasury, that is, on his acting in accordance with the views of the Minister of the day? The analogy which the Solicitor-General attempted to establish between the Light Railway Commissioners and this body entirely breaks down. We shall not put these Commissioners in a position of absolute independence of the Government of the day and of all political pressure unless we put them upon a similar footing to judges of the High Court, and that is what is involved in the Amendment before us and in subsequent Amendments of which I have given notice. The Solicitor-General says that these are quasi-judicial functions. Either they are judicial or they are not. It is no good telling a man that he is to act as a judge without any political bias, without being subject to the wishes of Ministers or parties, unless you put him in
  2390
  a position of perfect independence of all political parties by placing him in the same position as a judge of the High Court.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: My hon. Friend recognises that a great safeguard has been introduced by the appointment of these Commissioners as an essential part of the machinery of the Bill. For my part, I think that that change has made a material difference in the danger of the Bill. Although I have great doubts whether the advantages which the Government hope for will really accrue from the Bill, I feel that the dangers of political corruption and so forth have been diminished to such an extent that the Bill has become comparatively innocuous. My hon. Friend expressed a doubt whether the Commissioners as designed in the Bill would be strong enough to resist the pressure of those who are anxious to share in these grants. I do not know that any machinery you could possibly devise would be perfect in that respect, but in my judgment the existence of these Commissioners with their power to refuse grants is an immense improvement on any system of making grants by a Department. In these matters we must consider past history. Too often in the past grants for public purposes have been made by Departments in obedience to political pressure—not on the merits, but to meet claims persistently put forward in the House of Commons. As to tenure, I should prefer to see the Commissioners invested with all the responsibility of judges of the High Court, not only because that would remove them still more from political pressure, but because it is important that you should get the very best men. You must make the position as attractive as possible to men of public spirit and high position in the estimation of their fellow-citizens. One of the great advantages of the position of a judge of the High Court is that he knows he cannot be removed unless he seriously misbehaves himself. For such appointments men are prepared to sacrifice positions of greater emoluments or more attractive to themselves personally, because they are satisfied that they will have an appointment which frees them from party considerations and the necessities of politicians in a different sphere. Although I shall certainly vote for an Amendment in the direction of a more permanent tenure, I think a ten years' appointment is a considerable security, especially as it may be renewed if the Commissioner performs the duties of his office satisfactorily. There have been suggestions that some such limit

  2391
  even in regard to judicial appointments would not be an unmixed evil. Personally, I should be sorry to see it, because I think that the position of an English judge is one of the finest things ever created by the ingenuity of man. At the same time, there are disadvantages even in that admirable arrangement. Therefore, although on the balance of advantages I think an appointment during good behaviour would be the best kind of tenure for these officials, if the House does not see fit to grant that I believe the appointment of Commissioners as now proposed is a great improvement on the Bill as originally introduced.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I rise to say a word or two in support of a limited appointment. Comparison has been made between these Commissioners and judges. In one essential respect the position is totally different. The judge is a salaried officer of the State. The Commissioners to be appointed, with the exception of one or possibly two, will be unsalaried. Surely that makes a very important difference. If we are to secure the best men for the position a limited appointment will prove a greater attraction than a life appointment. The Noble Lord the hon. Member for Marylebone says that ten years is a considerable slice cut of a man's life; but, judging from what was said by the Solicitor-General, it seems to be in the minds of the Government that the men to be appointed first will not be the men of rash ideas, but men somewhat advanced in years, experienced in public life. I can imagine a man like that advanced in years contemplating with more satisfaction the ten years than he would if he felt on accepting the appointment that he was taking it for the full term of his natural life.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member who has just sat down seems to think that because a man is not to be paid that he would not like to accept an appointment for any length of time. May I point out that he can always resign his appointment. If we want to get independent men to exercise their independent judgment they must know that their tenure of office—long or short—for two years or for life—will not be dependent on the judgments that they may give.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: What does the hon. Baronet mean by two years; the appointment under the Bill is for ten years.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The Commissioners are appointed for ten years, but at the end of two years one is to retire The person who is selected to retire is selected by the Treasury—
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): The order is selected by the Treasury; not the person.
  Sir F. BANBURY: It is exactly the same thing. The Treasury decides who is to retire. Alluding to my Noble Friend again, what I think was in his mind when the Amendment was drawn up was that there should be, if possible, some body superior to the Advisory Committee in the Bill. First of all my Noble Friend desired the Light Railways Commissioners. An Amendment to that effect was drawn up. But I think the Amendment of my right hon. Friend below me is a better scheme than the original one, and for that reason I shall vote for it.
  Viscount MORPETH: I think it should be said from this side of the House that we appreciate the Government's open-minded-ness in the matter of the Amendment proposed by the Noble Lord on my right. The Committee certainly were grateful to the Government, and I think the House ought to be grateful to them now. My hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir W. Anson) and others have pointed out that this is ruining athwart the present system of administration by Departments. It is one of the inherent difficulties of the Bill. Whilst the principle of the Bill is accepted, it seems to me that you should crowd all this work that is being done by half a dozen Departments into one, and call it development work, and you must invent some new machinery to deal with it, for it is no longer possible to leave the work parcelled out among different Departments. If it is said that it will reduce some Departments to impotence, or take a great deal of work out of their hands—well, that is due to the Bill itself, and not to any machinery here invented. In criticising those Advisory Committees which have now to disappear, I do not think anybody will deny that this scheme is an enormous Improvement on those Advisory Committees. It has practically removed all that danger of political pressure, and even political corruption, which was most genuinely feared by many Members of this House on both sides. With regard to the independence of the body, I prefer a life

  2393
  tenure. But with a 10 years' tenure there are very few men who would not feel themselves tolerably secure. There is no doubt that this body of Commissioners in a very short space of time will secure a sort of Departmental tradition of their own, will build up their own rules, their own procedure and policy. And, as a matter of fact, it will be quite impossible for the Treasury—that is, the Government of the day—to materially interfere with what they are doing. If they are the sort of men that we expect will be appointed they would not for a moment tolerate any interference, and would resign rather than submit to it. There is some argument for having some of the Commissioners unpaid, for, without any aspersion upon paid men, a member is more ready if unpaid to resign if he considers himself affronted or slighted than if he has to perhaps think of his salary. I think the least happy part of the scheme is that which deals with rotation, which seems to be entirely unnecessary and cumbersome. It probably will mean nothing, and that the man will be re-appointed at the end of two years; but if it means nothing it is not worth putting in, and if it does mean retirement at the end of the first two years it is mischievous. I think the Government might well drop this part of their scheme without doing any harm.
  Mr. DILLON: I wish to say a few words as to the position taken up by the Noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Robert Cecil). He has constituted himself since he entered this House a champion of political purity; he seems obsessed with the idea that political corruption is inseparable from any popular assembly, and he gave very bitter offence by a letter in "The Times," fearing that we were rapidly drifting in the direction of the corruption that prevailed in America. That was commented upon, and naturally commented upon, with very great bitterness in several American journals. Whilst I do not propose to offer any objection to the alterations introduced into this Bill, and, on the whole, I am rather disposed to think that the alteration that there should be independent Commissioners to distribute this money is for the better in every respect, and a great relief to Members of Parliament, I must protest in the most emphatic manner against the doctrine which appears to be continually championed: That publicity in an assembly like that is calculated to lead to corruption. I hold
  2394
  a totally different view, and I emphatically protest against this new doctrine that the granting of public money ought to be done in the dark by absolutely independent Commissioners withdrawn from public criticism.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: There is nothing about being done in the dark—
  Mr. DILLON: The expression "done in the dark" may be a slight exaggeration, but I say withdrawn from public criticism. The Noble Lord and certain other speakers have been comparing, as if it was a fair analogy, the work of the judiciary to this work of the distribution of money. A more dangerous analogy could not be suggested. The judiciary here have nothing to do with the distribution of public money; their duties are of a different order. I join with the Noble Lord in his admiration of the judiciary of this country, which, I think, is one of the highest in the world. But to apply that principle, and to set up a tribunal which is to be as immune from public criticism as the judiciary of this country while doing a totally different class of work, would be doing a most dangerous thing, and one calculated in the highest degree to lend itself to corruption. I am in favour of independent Commissioners, but I am totally opposed to withdrawing the work of those Commissioners from the criticism of this House, because I am deeply convinced there is no better method ever devised by human ingenuity to protect the public against corruption than public criticism in a public representative assembly. Therefore, while I entirely agree with the change which provides that these moneys should be distributed by perfectly independent Commissioners, with powers over which we have no control, I think it would be a great advantage instead of a disadvantage that their conduct in distributing this money should be open to the criticism of every Member of this House.
  Sir W. ANSON: I recognise fully the fair tone of the Debate, and I welcome the new concession, but I am sorry that in other respects I cannot accept the assurances of the Government. I regret very much the Government cannot see their way to placing the tenure of these Commissioners on the footing suggested in the Amendment. I cannot accept the analogy of the Light Railway Commissioners. The area of work over which these men's jurisdiction will extend is infinitely larger, and the amount of money which will come under their purview is

  2395
  enormous, and they will have the power of interfering with and overriding various Departments of the Government, which will put them into a very anomalous position as regards these Departments with which they will be brought into contact. I avoid saying they will spend the money, but it is nevertheless the case that these large sums cannot be spent without their
  concurrence, and although the Treasury may forbid the expenditure it can only take place on the good will and on the report of these men. Under these circumstances I must press my Amendment to a Division.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The House divided: Ayes, 148; Noes 32.
  Sir W. ANSON Sir W. ANSON moved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "chairman," to leave out the words "The Treasury may, on the recommendation of the Commissioners, increase the number of the Commissioners to such number as they think fit."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir F. BANBURY Sir F. BANBURY moved, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "ten" ["the term of office of a Commissioner shall be ten years "] in order to insert "twenty."
  I think there are plenty of very competent men who will not take these appointments if they understand that it is only going to be for a period of ten years. They might have to go back again to the Bar at the end of ten years, and they would then find that they had lost touch with their old business, and they would not be able to take up their practice as they left it. It is well known that if a barrister retires from his profession for five or six years he finds at the end of that time that his practice has gone in other directions, and it is impossible for him to get it back again. A man cannot give up his business in this way and then go back to it at the end of ten years. It seems absolutely necessary in order to get good men that the chairman and the vice-chairman should be appointed for a longer period.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: There is no question of principle here, but we have decided that the appointment is not to be permanent, and at any rate we can say that 20 years is much nearer a permanency than 10 years. I hope, as we cannot make it permanent, the hon. Baronet will not think it necessary to divide.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir F. BANBURY Sir F. BANBURY moved, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "second" ["one Commissioner shall retire every second year"], and to insert instead thereof the word "tenth,"
  Unless this Amendment is carried, one Commissioner will have to retire at the end of every second year. That, I think, would go a long way to destroy the immunity of the Commissioners from pressure which it is the wish of everybody they should have. There is nothing in the Clause to prevent the Treasury so arranging that each particular Commissioner should in turn retire, and that would be a very bad thing. The whole object of the discussion during the Committee stage was to make these people as free from liability of pressure of any sort
  2398
  being brought upon them as possible. I do not remember any suggestion in Committee that there should be a retirement at the end of two years. If it is desired that there should be the possibility of removing any of these Commissioners should they be of bad behaviour, I have an Amendment providing for their removal upon an address to the Crown from both Houses of Parliament. The Solicitor-General has met us to a very great degree, and I hope he will be able to meet us upon this matter.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL Lord ROBERT CECIL seconded the Amendment. I am afraid the Amendment hardly carries out the wish of my hon. Friend, who, as I understand, desires that the rotation of two years should be abolished, and that the Commissioners should hold office for ten years without retiring at the end of the second year. I should have thought that was an improvement. I never quite understood the advantages of this rotary retirement every two years, and I rather hope the Government will be able to tell us they are not wedded to this particular form of appointment. I altogether disclaim the honour of being responsible for the Amendment in the Bill. I made a suggestion, and the Government adopted it and are responsible for it. I have no desire to pose as an apostle of purity, and I am not sure the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) would desire to occupy the position himself. When I spoke of political corruption, I did not suggest there is any political corruption in this country. I said there is a certain tendency to put pressure upon Ministers of the Crown in order to obtain advantages of sectional interests, and even, sometimes, for constituencies and individuals. I could not put it anything like as high as the Chancellor of the Exchequer put it upstairs. He was extremely frank and forcible in the case he made. I have no desire to set myself up as a standard of purity in politics or anything else.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I have an open mind upon this matter, though in some respects, I think, the rotation would be useful. We are having a new body to perform new and fresh duties, and I see objections to the Amendment. We cannot, however, make the amendment because we have already passed the words: "One Commissioner shall retire." I will, however, gather the sense of the House upon the matter, if the House will permit it to stand as it is for the present.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the Solicitor-General is prepared to strike out the whole reference to the rotary retirement and the hon. Baronet would withdraw his Amendment, there can be no objection to striking out those words. If the hon. Baronet insists on his Amendment, then, of course, we cannot go back.
  Mr. J. CULLINAN: I should like to ask whether the hon. Baronet is in order. The Commissioners are being appointed for ten years, so, if his Amendment were carried, there would be no retiring at all.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I am afraid I do not agree with my hon. Friend, and I am bound to say so. If there is any alteration, I think it would be better that the Commissioners should hold office during good behaviour.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I was about to appeal to the House to allow this matter to be dealt with elsewhere if on consideration we find it necessary. I think under the circumstances, this being experimental, I should personally vote for rotation, but if the words are allowed to stand I will communicate the views expressed to the Cabinet.
  Mr. DILLON: These Commissioners will have a very novel and difficult task, and I think new men should be brought in by degrees instead of changing the whole personnel at one time. In my opinion, rotation would be much better.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment on the understanding that the point will be seriously considered.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir F. BANBURY Sir F. BANBURY moved, in Sub-section (3), to omit the words "not more than two of."
  The object of this Amendment is to provide that all the Members shall be paid. I feel it would be quite impossible to obtain sufficiently capable men for the purpose unless you pay them. No doubt there are people who, out of the great goodness of their hearts, will come forward to perform these great services for the State. When the London County Council was established and Lord Rosebery became its first chairman there was an article in "The Times" which suggested that for all time the best intellects of the Kingdom would be placed at the service of that body. We know what has since happened, and the same thing, I believe, may happen again in this case. At the first blush two or three
  2400
  men will come forward and take prominent positions, enjoying the confidence of all parties, but after a short time they will find that the labour entailed is so enormous and so unceasing they will be unable to continue it. Then I do not believe you will find eminent men willing to sacrifice the time required for the work. If you pay a reasonable salary—and I would give the Commissioners £10,000 a year each—you might be certain of obtaining really competent men who would impartially administer the enormously complicated matters that will arise under this Bill, and will do so in a manner creditable to themselves and to the country. We do not want men to come forward with the idea that this is going to be a stepping-stone to something else. We want good trained business men to deal with the enormous number of subjects that will have to be dealt with, and unless you pay them you will not get the proper class: you will only get those who will soon tire of the work.
  There being no Seconder, the Amendment fell to the ground.
  4.0 P.M.
  Sir W. ANSON Sir W. ANSON moved, at the end of Subsection (3), to add the words: "NO Commissioner so paid shall be capable of sitting in the House of Commons during the tenure of his office."
  I am quite prepared to take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether the words are necessary.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I do not think that they are necessary. I will, however, look into the matter, and if requisite steps shall be taken to insert them.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Powers and Duties of Commissioners.)
  (1) Every application for an advance under this Part of this Act, whether by way of free grant or by way of loan, by any body qualified to receive an advance under this Part of this Act, shall, if the applicant is a Government Department, be referred by the Treasury to the Development Commissioners, and if the applicant is any other body shall be sent by the Treasury to the Government Department concerned, to be by them referred together with their report thereon to the Development Commissioners.
  (2) The Commissioners shall consider and report to the Treasury on every application so referred to them, and may for that

  2401
  purpose, if necessary, hold inquiries either by themselves, or by any of their officers, or any other person appointed for the purpose.
  (3) The Commissioners may also appoint advisory committees, and may submit to any such advisory committee for their advice any application referred to them.
  (4) The Commissioners shall make to the Treasury an annual report of their proceedings, and such report shall be laid annually before Parliament by the Treasury.
  Amendment proposed: In Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "free" ["free grant."]—[Sir Samuel Evans.]
  Question, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Further Amendment proposed: In Subsection (1), after the word "body" ["any other body"], to insert the words "or persons."
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I have been asked not to move my other Amendments, as it is desired to discuss some important matters arising on Part II. of the Bill. I wish it to be thoroughly understood that if I refrain from moving them it is not because I think they do not deserve discussion, but because I wish to facilitate Debate on other parts of the Bill. I hope the country will notice that an important Bill of this sort is being forced through the House in such a manner that it is quite impossible to discuss it. I make no complaint against the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I do not want to stand in the way of the convenience of this House. I only desired to enter my protest against the way the Bill is being forced through and to say I shall not move any more of the Amendments I have on the Paper.
  Sir W. ANSON Sir W. ANSON moved to leave out Subsection (3).
  It seems to me that you are multiplying Committees and inquiries beyond all necessity. The Departments to which the Commissioners will necessarily appeal have their own means of obtaining information. Under the circumstances it is unnecessary to multiply these Advisory Committees.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to press his Amendment. When the Commissioners were introduced in the Bill the Government were not particularly anxious to preserve
  2402
  the Advisory Committees, but a very strong feeling was expressed by many members of the Committee—Members representing both sides of the House—that this option should be given to the Com-missioners. In cases of special work, where the Commissioners have no particular information, the Advisory Committees might be exceedingly useful.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that the Development Commissioners were appointed in lieu of the Advisory Commissioners, and the Developing Commissioners have power to appoint others. All they want is someone to assist them in their work, and that is why this Advisory Committee is now reinserted in the Bill. Surely it is unnecessary to put this in here.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE Mr. KEIR HARDIE moved, at the end of Sub-section (3), to insert the following new Sub-section: "(4) The Commissioners may also frame schemes with respect to any of the matters for which advances may be made under this Part of this Act with a view to their adoption by a Government Department or other body or persons to whom an advance may be made."
  This was substantially accepted by the Government upstairs with the assent, I understood, of all parties in the Committee. It gives the Commissioners themselves power to frame schemes to be submitted to the Treasury or to a Government Department. There are many instances under which it would be very desirable and most advisable for the Commissioners to have that power.
  Mr. JOHN WARD Mr. JOHN WARD seconded the Amendment.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I accept.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I very much hope the Government do not really mean to accept this Amendment. Surely it is a complete mistake that the Commissioners should be both a framing and a deciding body. I cannot think it is a good plan, and it must have the greatest objection when it comes to compulsorily taking the land. What would happen under this Amendment would be that the Commissioners would first frame a scheme working the compulsory taking of land. Then they would solemnly decide whether it was or was not right that the land should be compulsorily taken. That is putting them in the absolutely impossible position of being both litigants and judges. I do not think either

  2403
  that it would work well in practice, because the kind of man who would be very useful as a Commissioner to decide what ought to be done would not necessarily be at all the kind of man who would be useful in framing schemes. You want a man of imagination to frame schemes, but that quality is out of place in a man who has to decide whether or not a scheme should go forward.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: May I join in the appeal of my Noble Friend. It is really putting the Commissioners in the position of being applicants to themselves.
  Mr. RUFUS ISAACS: It seems to me that the Amendment is a very useful one, because what we have to remember is that the Commissioners are not really judges in the ordinary sense of the term. A number of schemes will be put before them, and it may be that out of a great number of schemes, ranging over districts from one end of the country to another, they may be able to formulate some two or three which they may think very useful, but which have not been put before them and which will be the result of all the knowledge they have gained. All it means is that they may have the power, should the occasion arise, to take the initiative instead of waiting for a scheme to be put before them. I do submit that it would be most useful, having regard to the work they have to do.
  Viscount MORPETH: There has been no reason offered by the Government why this Amendment should be accepted. The Amendment was submitted in the Committee upstairs, but it was not argued there, and it has not been argued here. There are a good many weighty reasons why it should not be accepted. It would appear that the Commissioners are to be empowered to draw up a scheme of their own which will override the scheme of the Government Department. I think that is putting the Commissioners in a false position in regard to the big Government Departments. Although that is not so objectionable in regard to bodies like universities, it is a wrong principle to say that when a Government Department put forward a scheme it may be set aside in favour of another drawn up by the Commissioners.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: This Amendment was accepted in the Committee after the
  2404
  Noble Lord had said something like what he has said this afternoon. It is not really a very large modification of the Bill as it stands. You cannot prevent the Commissioners, even under the Bill, dealing with the various schemes which are sent to them by any body in the United Kingdom. It is absurd to say that the Commissioners cannot out of their information and expert knowledge manufacture better schemes than those which are brought before them. I do not think it would be possible to interpret the Act under other conditions. I think the Commissioners would have power under the Act as it stands to do what the Amendment proposes, but in order to make it clear we accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
  Sir W. ANSON: I think the business of the Committee is to receive applications for advances of money to carry out schemes which are submitted to them. I agree with the Under-Secretary to the Home Department that the Commissioners may make suggestions for the modification of schemes. It is very desirable that they should do so, for presumably the Commissioners will be persons of large experience. The Amendment would give them initiative in these matters, and it would not only enable them to suggest modifications in regard to the schemes submitted to them, but it would enable them to cast their eyes over the whole Kingdom with reference to an enormous variety of subjects, and to make schemes for afforestation, waterways, light railways, or anything that might occur to their imagination. Surely it is not desirable that the Commissioners should have this large power of initiative conferred upon them. They should be limited to dealing with the applications made to them, with such powers as are inherent in them to suggest improvements in the schemes submitted to them. I was not a member of the Committee that dealt with this Bill, but I must confess that I am surprised to hear that a proposal so widely drawn was even considered. I am surprised also that the Amendment should be so lightly accepted by the Government at this hour of the Debate.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The Amendment was not only put upstairs in substance, but it was considered. The hon. Baronet is quite right in saying that it gives the Commissioners power of initiative if these words are added. They have the right no

  2405
  doubt to say that a scheme ought to be modified, but supposing a body put forward a scheme and would not accept the modification. It might be an excellent scheme when modified. Surely in that case it ought not to be impossible for the Commissioners to say that if the body proposing a scheme will not accept the modifications, they will propose one.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: It is quite true that this Amendment would enable the Commissioners to frame schemes. I wish to ask a question on that point. Would there be any power under the first Clause of the Bill to enable the Commissioners to make advances to themselves in respect of a scheme which they frame, because unless they are able to do so a scheme framed by them would be a dead letter?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Treasury have to make the advances, and a scheme made by the Development Commissioners would still have to obtain the sanction of the Treasury.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: Yes, Sir, but under what wording in the first Clause would the Treasury be enabled to make advances to the Commissioners? It is upon the recommendation of the Commissioners that the Treasury may make advances to other people. Is there anything in the Clause which would enable the Development Commissioners to get an advance themselves in respect of a scheme which they had framed?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question of law, or what may become law, and not a point of order.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: On a point of Order. The advance would not be to the Development Commissioners. They would merely frame the scheme with the view to its adoption by a Government Department. The advance would be to the Government Department concerned.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I understand that the Commissioners would frame a scheme for adoption by a Government Department, and that the Commissioners would recommend the scheme to the Treasury.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The Commissioners can recommend a scheme of their own for the sanction of the Treasury
  Mr. STEWART BOWLES: I understand that the Commissioners are to frame a
  2406
  scheme, and suggest its adoption by a Government Department. If they recommend a scheme, say, to the Board of Trade, I suppose that Board will consider it, and say whether they wish to adopt it. In the event of the Board of Trade agreeing to it, are the Commissioners to hear objections, make inquiries, and employ their inspectors with regard to it? The Commissioners frame a scheme and go to these persons and say, "Will you adopt it?" Either they do or do not. If they do, the same thing is to be gone through—these persons go to the Commissioners and ask leave to go on. The thing appears to me to be fantastic, and I cannot think that the Government have seriously considered what it may mean. Certainly it would entirely alter the position of the Commissioners, who will inevitably have numerous schemes brought before them. I can imagine that five men may think that a blend of two or three schemes may make a better scheme than any one of them. That will constantly be done under this arrangement. The Commissioners will proceed by way of blending schemes, and make a new scheme of their own. The moment that is done and the moment it is adopted by a Government Department, or any persons, the scheme, of course, will go through, because it will have the Commissioners behind it. It is putting the Commissioners into the position of an executive authority with regard to spending money. Of course, if the Commissioners make their own schemes, then, in fact, the whole of the administration of this money is put in their executive control. That may be right or it may be wrong; it is quite clear that it is a tremendous advance on the original proposal of the Bill.
  Mr. ARNOLD LUPTON: It seems to me that the heads of Government Departments have already more than they can do. They have to sit here during the Session, and in other ways they are overworked. Here we are appointing Commissioners, men who are supposed to have some brains—and they will have brains for this particular work—and if we are going to forbid them to do anything except receive their salaries, I think it would be a stultification of the whole scheme.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 32.

  Division No. 794.]

  AYES.

  [4.28 p.m.

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  O'Grady, J.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  O'Malley, William

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Gulland, John W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Partington, Oswald

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Oaring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pointer, J.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Beale, W. P.

  Hazieton, Richard

  Reddy, M.

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Hogan, Michael

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Robinson, S.

  Boland, John

  Hooper, A. G.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Horniman, Emsile John

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Branch, James

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

  Jenkins, J.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Keating, Matthew

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Seddon, J.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Lamont, Norman

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Clough, William

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lupton, Arnold

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

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

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Toulmin, George

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Verney, F. W.

  Crossley, William J.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Vivian, Henry

  Cullinan, J.

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Massie, J.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Dillon, John

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Mond, A.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Erskine, David C.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Napier, T. B.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Falconer, James

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Gill, A. H.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Ginnell, L.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Norton and Mr. Whitley.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Renton, Leslie

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Clark, George Smith

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

  Clyde, J. Avon

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Valentia and Lord Edmund Talbot.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Sir SAMUEL EVANS Sir SAMUEL EVANS moved to insert, as a new Sub-section:—
  "(5) Before making any recommendation for an advance for the purpose of the improvement of rural transport the Commissioners shall consult with the Road Board."
  This Amendment is in the name of the Noble Lord the Member for Chorley (Lord Balcarres). I made a promise to the Noble
  2408
  Lord yesterday, and no doubt it is because of that promise he put down this Amendment. I think, therefore, as the Noble Lord is absent, I ought to move it.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Potter to Acquire Land for Certain Purposes.)
  (1) Where an advance is made under this Part of this Act for any purpose which in-

  2409
  volves the acquisition of land, the Department, body, or persons to whom the advance is made, may acquire and hold land for the purpose, and where they are unable to acquire by agreement on reasonable terms any land which they consider necessary, they may apply to the Commissioners for an order empowering them to acquire the land as if authorised to do so by a special Act of Parliament incorporating the Lands Clauses Acts, and if the Commissioners make such an order those Acts shall apply accordingly subject to the following modifications:—

  (a) Any question of disputed compensation shall be determined by a single arbitrator, who shall be appointed, and whose remuneration shall be fixed, as respects England, by the Lord Chief Justice of England, as respects Scotland, by the Lord President of the Court of Session, and, as respects Ireland, by the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, and the arbitrator so appointed shall be deemed to be an arbitrator within the meaning of those Acts:

  (b) An arbitrator appointed may, notwithstanding anything in the Lands Clauses Acts, determine the amount of costs, and shall have power to disallow, as costs of the arbitration, the costs of any witness whom he considers to have been called unnecessarily, and any other costs which he considers have been caused or incurred unnecessarily:

  (c) In determining the amount of any disputed compensation no additional allowance shall be made on account of the purchase being compulsory:

  (d) The provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts as to the sale of superfluous land shall not apply.

  (2) In construing the Lands Clauses Acts for the purposes of this Section this Part of this Act together with the order shall be deemed to be the special Act and the Department, body, or person to whom the advance is made shall be deemed to be the promoters of the undertaking.
  (3) No land shall be authorised by an order under this Section to be acquired compulsorily which, at the date of the order, forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground, or forms part of the home farm attached to and usually occupied with a mansion house, or is otherwise acquired for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling-house, or which at that date is the property of any local authority, or has
  2410
  been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking, or is the site of an ancient monument or other object of archælogical interest.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "the" ["they may apply to the Commissioners"], to insert the word "Development."—[Sir Samuel Evans.]
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS Sir SAMUEL EVANS moved, in Subsection (1), to leave out from the word "land" ["an order empowering them to acquire the land"] in Sub-section (1) to the end of Sub-section (2), and to insert instead thereof the words "compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act."
  There are certain conditions laid down in reference to the acquisition of land for certain purposes. We have decided that the same conditions shall apply in both parts of the Bill; therefore, instead of putting the qualifications here, they will come in, with one or two minor additions, in the Schedule.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. CHARLES M'ARTHUR Mr. CHARLES M'ARTHUR moved, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the word "or" ["acquired by any corporation or company"].
  I further desire, after the word "company," to insert the words "person or body of persons." The object of the Subsection is to protect against compulsory acquisition land belonging to a local authority or which has been acquired by any "corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking." There are public authorities concerned in these undertakings, such as water boards and, in some eases, dock and harbour boards, which are not, properly speaking, corporations or companies. I have no doubt the intention of the framers of the Bill is to include these bodies. In the case of similar exemptions in the Finance Bill the other day these words were specially put in. It was said that the term "statutory company" was to include not merely a corporation, but "any person or body of persons so authorised." Therefore, I think that probably the Solicitor-General will recognise the desirability of putting in similar words in this case if it is to be made clear that these authorties are to come within the purview of the Board.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: If we were to adopt any other words to make sure of the application of the Clause it would be on the basis of the Small Holdings Act.
  Mr. M'ARTHUR: The only point is that I understand that a similar alteration has been made in the Finance Bill, and, if necessary there, it would appear to be necessary in this case.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I have not the Finance Bill before me. But I will look into the matter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. CHAPLIN Mr. CHAPLIN moved, at the end of Subsection (3), to add the following words:—
  "(4) The Commissioners in making an order for the compulsory purchase of land shall have regard to the extent of land held or occupied in the locality by any owner or tenant and to the convenience of other property belonging to or occupied by the same owner or tenant, and shall, so far as practicable, avoid taking an undue or inconvenient quantity of land from any one owner or tenant, and for that purpose where part only of a holding is taken shall take into consideration the size and character of the existing agricultural buildings not proposed to be taken which are used in connection with the holding and the quantity and nature of the land available for occupation therewith, and shall also so far as practicable avoid displacing any considerable number of agricultural labourers or others employed on or about the land."
  This is another Amendment taken out of the Small Holdings Act.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I think I may accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Definition of Agriculture and Rural Industries.)
  For the purposes of this Part of this Act the expression "agriculture and rural industries" includes agriculture, horticulture, dairying, the breeding of horses, cattle, and other live stock and poultry, the cultivation of bees, home and cottage industries, the cultivation and preparation of flax, and any industries immediately connected with and subservient to any of the said matters.
  Mr. CULLINAN Mr. CULLINAN moved, after the word "flax" ["the cultivation and preparation of flax"], to insert the words, "the cultivation and manufacture of tobacco."
  So far as I can gather from the wording of the Clause, tobacco might be included. Tobacco cultivation has been taken up with great interest in Ireland recently. It shows an immense improvement, and I know tobacco plantations where a considerable amount of labour is employed.
  Mr. DILLON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I think in many parts of the Kingdom there are hopes that the cultivation of tobacco may become an important industry, and I have no objection therefore to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. CULLINAN: I beg to move to add, at the end of the Clause, the words "including water supplies for agricultural purposes."
  This is a matter of great interest to people in Ireland and England and Scotland. I do not think it is too much to ask that where there is great dearth of water a grant should be given for the purpose of developing schemes for raising water, and also for the purpose of irrigation. I ask the Solicitor-General whether he cannot include an Amendment for that purpose in this Bill? Before I proposed this Amendment I communicated with the Board of Agriculture in Ireland, and asked them about the different water supplies in the country, and I found them most sympathetic, and I am sure if the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland (Mr. T. W. Russell) were here this afternoon he would support this Amendment. I trust, therefore, the Solicitor-General may accept it.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I have had no communication from the Department of Agriculture in Ireland on the subject.
  Amendment negatived.

PART II.—ROAD IMPROVEMENT.

  CLAUSE 7.—(Constitution of Road Board.)
  (1) For the purposes of improving the facilities for road traffic in the United Kingdom and of the administration of the road improvement grant under the Finance Act, 1909, there shall be constituted in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury a board, to be called the Road Board, consisting of such number of persons appointed by the Treasury as the Treasury may determine.
  (2) The Road Board shall be a body corporate with a common seal, with power to hold land without licence in mortmain.
  (3) The Road Board may pay the chairman or vice-chairman of the Board such salary as the Board, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine.
  (4) The Road Board may appoint such officers and servants for the purposes of their powers and duties under this Part of this Act as the Board may, with the sanction of the Treasury, determine, and there shall be paid to such officers and servants out of the road improvement grant such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may determine.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS Sir SAMUEL EVANS moved, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "under the Finance Act, 1909," and to insert instead thereof the words "provided under any Act passed in the present or any future Session of Parliament."
  When this Bill was drafted some people entertained the sanguine hope that the Finance Bill would have become law; therefore I move to omit these words in order to insert the words I have read.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Viscount MORPETH Viscount MORPETH moved, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "Treasury" ["regulations made by the Treasury a board"], and to insert instead thereof the words "Local Government Board."
  Under this Bill certain taxes are definitely earmarked for new roads, and the whole of the proceeds are handed over to the Road Board, subject to the regulations of the Government Department. Upon the Committee upstairs no real reason was advanced why the Treasury should do this work instead of the Local Government Board. It seems to me that all the arguments are rather on the other side. In the first place, the Local Government Board is already the Department dealing with roads, and they already possess a staff with knowledge of the subject dealing with motor speed on the roads, and they make restrictions with regard to the speed of motor cars. What is more important still, the Local Government Board is the Department to deal with town planning, and in all probability a large number of the new roads will be found to be exits leading out of big towns. The Local Government Board, although it may be criticised, has always been in close touch with the local authorities, and they know the idiosyncrasies of that body; what is more, they have already got a large staff of officials who go about the country holding local inquiries.
  2414
  They also possess all the means necessary to get into touch with local knowledge which the Treasury does not possess. I cannot understand what argument there can be for putting forward the Treasury, and giving them this entirely new work to do. It has been alleged that the Local Government Board is already overworked, but that ought not to influence the Government, because they are always ready to appoint more officials. The staff will have to be increased on account of the Housing and Town Planning Bill if it is passed into law. I imagine that the Treasury is equally overworked, therefore that cannot be the reason for this proposal. In the interests of good local self-government the Local Government Board is the proper Department, and there is no reason whatever for bringing the Treasury into this matter at all.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I rise to second this Amendment. I hope the Government will decide to consider what I think is a very practical point. During my official career I have had many negotiations with the Treasury, and, speaking for myself, I have no reason to complain of the treatment I have received, or of the way the officials at the Treasury have discharged their duty. The object of the Government is to set up a central Department as a sort of controlling body, and it is perfectly ridiculous to put the Treasury forward as the controlling body in this connection. I came across an instance the other day in which the Treasury under some Act of Parliament had power to grant loans, and they granted two or three small loans to a burial board. In the ultimate negotiations this case came under the notice of the Local Government Board, and the first information which it was the duty of the Local Government Board to give to the Treasury was that the Burial Board, to which they had issued these loans, had been abolished by the Act of 1894. That does not look as if the Treasury had that exhaustive knowledge of these local boards which is desirable if they are to have any control in local government.
  The Treasury have not got the officials necessary to perform these particular duties. They have constantly told the Local Government Board and other Departments that they have no means or machinery by which they can ascertain the information necessary, for instance, with regard to the granting of loans. For some time they were the supreme authority

  2415
  in regard to the granting of certain loans, but during the 11 years I was at the Local Government Board it was their invariable practice to apply to that Department for the necessary information before they could grant a loan. That information is obtained through an inspectorate, and the Local Government Board has all the necessary machinery. They have in their office all the information with regard to existing boards, their operations and liabilities, and is it not absurd, when you have already the Local Government Board charged to a large extent with the supervision of the work of local authorities in regard to improvement and development schemes that you should bring another Department—the Treasury—which has no means whatever of arriving at the necessary information alongside the Local Government Board and give them a dual control? I have been unable to ascertain the object of the Government in putting in the Treasury. If they substituted the Local Government Board it would not interfere with the symmetry of the Bill or its smooth working. I hope they will tell us why the Treasury are selected for this particular work. For my part, I believe it will result in immense confusion. The Treasury have not the officials or the machinery required for the work, and I hope the Government will not think it is necessary to adhere rigidly to their Bill, but will have regard to the practical effect of their proposals. I am sure, if they do, they will accept my hon. Friend's Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman thought it undesirable I should reply.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: No, no.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am only doing so because I spoke on this particular Amendment upstairs. I may say the right hon. Gentleman has rather exaggerated the question at issue. We are setting up an independent authority only responsible in so far as their financial enterprises have to be approved by the Treasury, and the particular Amendment which is proposed is merely that the regulations and constitution of the body shall be determined by the Local Government Board and not by the Treasury. I agree that both Departments do not want to come into competition. It seems to us that the financial conditions are more important than
  2416
  those in relation to the Local Government Board. We want it to be understood from the first that this is a separate central body set up to deal with national money and not a body which is representative of the local authorities, although we wish it to be in close touch both with the Local Government Board and the local authorities. Later on, when we come to the financial provisions, the right hon. Gentleman will see that we take power specifically in Clause 9, Sub-section (2), for the central body, before it constructs any new-roads, to consult fully with the Local Government Board and the local authorities affected. But we do not desire that this Road Board shall be in detail under the supervision of inspectors appointed by the Treasury. The Road Board will appoint its own inspectors. Nor do I think it desirable that that board should use the inspectors of the Local Government Board. The interest of the Local Government Board in connection with these road-improvement schemes is not exactly the same as those of the Road Board. The one represents a national desire for new and improved roads and the other represents the security of the taxpayer, and the appeal by local authorities against schemes which may affect the ratepayers. The new and improved roads are to be constructed entirely out of national money, and, therefore, we have, at the initiation of this, put in provisions which, in regard to entirely financial matters, fix the Treasury as the proper Department to deal with them.
  Mr. E. B. BARNARD: I cannot see why the Local Government Board should be brought in here at all. What officials are there at that Board qualified to deal with such subjects at all? So far as I am aware, and I have been on county councils and local authorities, no officials of the Local Government Board, except the auditors, deal in any way whatever with our management of county roads or district roads.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: The hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. There is a Department at the Local Government Board, and an assistant secretary whose duty it is to supervise and examine all such schemes. As far as the hon. Gentleman has referred to the county roads maintained by the county council or highways board, of course the Local Government Board have no authority whatever, except over the expenditure of money which comes from the State. As to other

  2417
  schemes of improvement the Local Government Board officials inquire into them. The paid officials of the Local Government Board have greater knowledge of this work than any other Department.
  Mr. BARNARD: So far as county councils in rural districts are concerned, no official at the Local Government Board excepting the auditors interfere with the management. I gather that this Bill is likely to deal with new roads or the improvement of old roads in the districts I am referring to.
  Amendment negatived.
  Sir F. BANBURY Sir F. BANBURY moved to leave out the words "such number of" ["consisting of such number of persons"], and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
  The object of this Amendment is to provide that the number of persons on the Road Board shall be identical with the number of persons on the Commission which deals with Part I. of the Bill. As the Bill stands the Treasury is empowered to make regulations, and according to those regulations to appoint any number of persons that it may determine to appoint. I think everybody in this House who has had any experience of business will agree with me that a large board ayways leads to delay and is not inclined to ensure a businesslike discussion or rapidity of consideration which would be necessary for a body that has to deal with the roads of the United Kingdom. A great deal of the time of a large body is wasted on small points which are raised by different members, and it is impossible to get a continuous policy. I think it is almost now an accepted maxim that a committee of three is only improved by a committee of one. You will find that in large business concerns it is the custom to only appoint a small number of people to inquire into any particular subject. If the Commissioners who are appointed under Part I. should be limited to five, it is surely right that the Road Board should be limited to the same number. I ask that a number should be inserted in the Bill, and that it should not be left to the Treasury to appoint any number. Unless a number is put in the Bill, so far as I can see, there is nothing to prevent the Treasury appointing 10, and two or three years afterwards increasing the number to 15. That is the first thing I desire to see put in. Secondly, I should like the hon. Gentleman, if he alters the number, I suggest to make it as small as pos-
  2418
  sible, because I believe you would get a very much more businesslike procedure with a small than with a large number.
  Mr. STEWART BOWLES: I beg to second. We are giving great powers to the Board, and certainly we ought, in the Act itself, to give some indication as to the total number of the Board. The tendency of Boards of this kind, appointed by a Department, is to grow, and they very easily go on growing till they reach an unmanageable size. I hope the Government will consider that it is very important that a Board with large powers like this should be a small body.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: With the intention represented by the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment the Government are entirely in accord, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer asks that he should be allowed a little latitude on the matter, and he does not want to fix the number exactly, but it will be a small body of some five, six, seven, or eight members. He has to consider a good many claims to be represented in some form or other—the interest of the three Kingdoms, the interest of the local authority, the interests of those who are promoting the new traffic and partly paying the taxes—and, though he repudiates the idea that each particular interest shall nominate someone to the Board, all these things must be taken into consideration. It is rather an important Board, because, unlike the Development Commissioners, it is charged with the power of making new roads. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with that explanation.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Is the hon. Member going to put words in the Bill limiting the number?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No. I merely said that it is the intention, publicly expressed, of the Government that the number shall be limited.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is no use at all. We are always being turned off by being told that it is the intention of the Government to do so and so Suppose we had another Government, and they did something else. There would be no use if we thought they were wrong in saying that they ought not to have done that because it was the intention of the last Government that it should not be done. The reply would be, "Why was not that put in the Bill?" What is the use of a Bill unless the intentions of the Government are

  2419
  expressed in it? Under the circumstances I cannot accept the assurance of my hon. Friend (Mr. Masterman).

  Division No. 795.]

  AYES.

  [5.20 p.m.

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Gulland, John W.

  Pointer, J.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Reddy, M.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hazleton, Richard

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

  Beale, W. P.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

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

  Robinson, S.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

  Hogan, Michael

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Boland, John

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

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

  Branch, James

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Scanlan, Thomas

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

  Jenkins, J.

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

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

  Keating, M.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Seddon, J.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Lamont, Norman

  Steadman, W. C.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Clough, William

  Lupton, Arnold

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Verney, F. W.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Massie, J.

  Vivian, Henry

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Crossley, William J.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Cullinan, J.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Mond, A.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dillon, John

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Erskine, David C.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Falconer, J.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Ginnell, L.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Norton and Mr. Whitley.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  NOES.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Renton, Leslie

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir F.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Banbury and Mr. Stewart Bowles.

  Mr. BARNARD Mr. BARNARD moved, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "at least one-third of the members of such Board shall be members of highway authorities."
  I am anxious that some slight consideration should be given to the position which existing highway authorities will occupy after this Bill becomes law. Of course, we understand that the Government or the Treasury will appoint the Road Board, and there are very strong reasons why they should select a portion of the mem-
  Question put, "That the words 'such number of' stand part of the Clause."
  The House divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 21.
  bers of this Board from men who have to do with the existing highway authorities. I cannot help thinking that whilst the Bill as it stands is not exactly hostile to local authorities, at the same time it is very suspicious of them, and it appears to me that they stand to lose rather than gain in more than one way. It is proposed to alter the present arrangement for collecting the motor licence money. The local authorities now receive the proceeds of the licence, but it is proposed to stereotype the amount, and whatever is paid into the

  2421
  Exchequer will be paid out to the Treasury, save that the stereotyped sum cannot be exceeded in future. If that be so, and if the roads are to be made better in order to facilitate motor traffic, it may ultimately mean that the local authorities will not have any increased revenue while they are bound to have increased expenditure. I beg to move.
  Mr. M. KEATING: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: If the highway authorities are to be adequately represented it would be a mistake to say that one-third of the members of the Board must be members of highway authorities. Very likely the best men to represent them might not be members of those highway authorities, and they may be called upon to become members of the Board, in which event they would adequately represent the interests of the local boards. The Chancellor of the Exchequer promised in Committee, and I repeat the promise here, that there will be full consideration given to the representation of the interests of highway authorities on the Board.
  Mr. BARNARD: I am quite satisfied, and I ask leave to withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 8.—(Powers of Road Board.)
  (1) The Road Board shall have power, with the approval of the Treasury—

  (a) to make advances to highway authorities in respect of the construction of new roads or bridges or the improvement of existing roads or bridges;

  (b) themselves to construct and maintain any new roads and bridges connected therewith,

  which appear to the Board to be required for facilitating road traffic.
  (2) An advance to a highway authority may be either by way of free grant or by way of loan, or partly in one way and partly in the other, and shall be upon such terms and subject to such conditions as the Board think fit.
  Mr. CHAPLIN Mr. CHAPLIN moved in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "Treasury," and to insert instead thereof the words "Local Government Board."
  What does the Clause propose? That the Board shall have power to make advances to highway authorities in respect of the construction of new roads or bridges, or the improvement of existing
  2422
  roads or bridges which may be regarded as necessary. If there is one Department of the State which is more calculated in every respect to deal with the matter than any other it is the Local Government Board. Why it is left out in these matters I cannot conceive. The matter would go to the Treasury in the long run, and it would go with all the authority of the Local Government Board, and with their recommendation or non-recommendation attached and supported by the highest expert knowledge that could be produced in any Department of the State. Whether I divide on this Amendment or not will depend on the answer.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: This would result in leaving out the approval of the Treasury, which has the financial control. If they were left out we should have to put them in again. What the right hon. Gentleman perhaps means is that it should be with the approval of the Local Government Board and the Treasury. We are quite anxious that the Road Board should have all the information possible from the Local Government Board, but we are creating an independent central body, and that is the whole meaning of this Part. The Amendment would allow the Local Government Board to veto any scheme which might be prepared by the Road Board. It is not we who are multiplying the authorities, but the right hon. Gentleman, as he wishes to bring in the Local Government Board.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say he did not object to the words "with the approval of the Local Government Board and the Treasury"?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No, I did not say that. It would render the quasi-independence of the Road Board impossible, and would really make it part of the Local Government Board.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I shall let the Amendment be negatived and place my opposition on record.
  Question, "That the word 'Treasury' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  Amendments made: In paragraph (a), after the word "to" ["advances to highway authorities"], to insert the words "county councils and other."
  To leave out the words "or bridges" ["new roads or bridges"].—[Sir Samuel Evans.]
  Viscount MORPETH Viscount MORPETH moved, after the word "bridges" ["the construction of new roads or bridges"], to insert the words "and the Road Board shall have power to make advances to the highway authorities for the increased cost of maintenance due to the new roads."
  I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the object of this proposal is to make new and to improve existing roads, and not merely to relieve the rates. The scope of the Amendment is really very small. The Road Board are to have power to make advances to highway authorities in respect of the construction of new roads, and the Amendment simply suggests that the maintenance of those new roads may be paid for by the Road Board if the Board think it desirable. It cannot be said that the maintenance of new roads made at the instigation of the Road Board would be a relief of the rates. It is a new expenditure thrown on the highway authority by the desire of the Road Board, and it seems to me only fair that in such cases the Board should have power to say to the highway authority, "If you are willing to make this new road to carry out a policy which we think desirable, we will grant so much not only towards the construction of the road, but for its maintenance when made." The Amendment would make the work of the Road Board with the local authorities easier, and I hope the Government will accept it.
  Mr. W. R. ADKINS: I beg to second the Amendment. This Amendment, if passed, taken in conjunction with other Amendments of which the Solicitor-General has given notice, would, I think, fairly meet many of the objections rightly felt by local authorities to the Bill in its original form. It is obviously most important that the local authorities should have reasonable inducement to apply for the making of new roads or for power to make them; and if, when they make out a good case, they can feel that they will not be involved in great additional annual expenditure, it will make a great difference to the working of the Act in the country.
  Mr. LUPTON: I hope the Solicitor-General will not allow all the Development Fund to be frittered away in the relief of rates. I quite approve of the making of roads, but I do not want the money to be spent merely to save the landowners from making their fair contribution towards them.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The new roads under this Bill may be made either by the
  2424
  Road Board, or by the local authorities by means of advances made by the Road Board. The question, which has been carefully considered by the Committee upstairs and by the Government, is whether or not any contribution ought to be possible out of the Development Fund to the local authority simply for the maintenance of a new road. There is no question of sharing the maintenance of existing roads. That would be giving money simply and solely in relief of rates It is very desirable not to put any difficulty in the way of county councils asking for power to construct new roads, and if no power were given to contribute money out of the Development Fund for maintenance. I am told in many cases that the county councils might abstain from asking for power to make roads. It is desirable that so far as possible the construction of new roads should be in the hands of the local authorities; it is part and parcel of their work. We have considered this matter very carefully, and we think there is reason in some of the proposals which have been made. I do not know whether the Noble Lord will accept the words which appear lower down in the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Northamptonshire (Sir F. Charming): "The maintenance of 'such new roads,'" instead of "maintenance 'due to the new roads'"?
  Viscount MORPETH: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will move them.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: There is one point in reference to this that I should like to understand, and that is whether this is in lieu of Sub-section (b) of Clause 9, which seems to give all the powers that are being asked for? The Amendment appears to be that the Road Board may make arrangements for the maintenance of roads that ought to have been made and looked after by the local authority, and that we are simply going to relieve the local rates of some burden or another, or that the local authority may contract for the maintenance of roads made by themselves. If that is not correct, then the Amendment would appear to be a suggestion that they may contract for the maintenance of roads not made by themselves. That is a thing I should most certainly object to. I should like some explanation on the point from the Solicitor-General.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Sub-section (6) of Clause 9 says: "The Road Board and the council of any county or county borough may contract for the undertaking

  2425
  by the council of the maintenance and repair of any such road"—that is, a road made by the Road Board itself. The Road Board will themselves have to maintain the reads they make.
  Viscount MORPETH: I am quite indifferent as to the words used, and will move my Amendment in the form desired by the Solicitor-General.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I think, on consideration, it would have to be moved as a new sub-section.
  Viscount MORPETH: In that case I ask leave to withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: To leave out the words "or bridges" ["existing roads or bridges"].—[Sir Samuel Evans.]
  Lord ROBERT CECIL Lord ROBERT CECIL moved to leave out paragraph (b): "themselves to construct and maintain any new roads and bridges connected therewith."
  The point aimed at in this Amendment is quite familiar to all those who attended the Grand Committee. The question raised is whether the Road Board ought to have the power of constructing roads or whether they ought only to have the power, as I think right, to advance money to the highway authorities to construct new roads and to improve existing roads. The objection to allowing the Road Board to become the authority for the construction of new roads is that it would involve them in conflict with the existing highway authorities. The action of the Board would be regarded as an infringement of their duties, and they will throw every obstacle in the way of such proceedings. The matter was considered very elaborately and freely by the Road Conference held this year, at which all the highway authorities in the country were represented, and they were unanimous against allowing the central authority, if created, to become the authority for the construction of the new roads. They reluctantly accepted the idea that the central authority should have control over the money advanced, but the idea that the new authority should have power to construct new roads was resented by every authority at that conference. A passage was read from an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer early in the year, in which he definitely stated that the purpose of the Road Board would not be to construct new roads. The
  2426
  Chancellor of the Exchequer is reported to have said:—
  "The new authority will be purely an authority to dispense money. We do not propose to set up a road department. We simply say 'we approve' or 'we disapprove,' or suggest alterations and say, 'If you meet our views we shall be able to make you a grant of so much.' The local authority will send in a scheme, saying, 'We are going to improve our roads. At the present moment they are very dangerous, because they are narrow, the curves are sharp and numerous, and we propose to widen and straighten the road; we have got to buy land for the purpose; we have got to incur a good deal of expense; 3we have got to improve the metalling of certain roads, and so forth. The scheme will cost so much, what grant will you give us?' We shall then consider the scheme, and make up our minds just as the Light Railway Commissioners make up their minds now as to what grants they will recommend. There is no interference contemplated with the work of the road authorities: the initiative will be entirely theirs, and if the county council does not choose to effect any improvements it will get no grant. But our new road authority cannot interfere."
  This Report of the interview was read to the Conference by one of its Members, and it lays down what ought exactly to be the true functions of the Road Board. If powers are given to the Board to enter upon the construction of roads it will greatly imperil the success of this part of the Bill.
  Viscount MORPETH: I second the Amendment. I do not think much could be added to what was said by the Chancellor, except to point out that it was a definite statement made on his part. We have had no explanation why the Chancellor altered his opinion. There was less need for the modification because, under the old scheme, where motor roads formed a very important feature of this Bill, it might have been necessary that the construction of those motor roads, entirely different from every other class of highways in the country, ought to be carried out by a separate definite authority, and not the highways authority, who might have had no experience of such roads. Now that the motor roads have been eliminated, and have become ordinary highways, there is no reason why they should not be made by the ordinary highway authorities. There is only one argument for leaving in this power for the Road Board to make the roads, and that is that as the roads may run through areas belonging to different authorities you might cause conflicts and jealousies which would make the construction of new roads difficult. I believe that difficulty to be entirely imaginary, because no road authorities are opposed to the making of new roads. The only thing that prevents them doing this is that they have no power to compulsorily acquire land, and they have

  2427
  before them the ever-present fear of the ratepayers, and if they spend large sums of money they are likely to lose their seats. It must not be supposed that if a central authority were established willing to grant money to the highway authorities, and they could say, "Here is an important scheme for a new highway which is urgently needed," the local highway authorities would only be too willing to fall in with the desires of the Road Board to get the money which would be forthcoming for the new work. Power is given to the Road Board to provide these new roads. This will not lead to simplicity, and it will be sure to cause a great deal of difficulty in the districts through which the new roads go. Much better work can be done by acting through the highway authorities.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I quite recognise the feeling of the hon. Member in moving this Amendment. I regret that the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been introduced so much in regard to this matter, because in the statement which he made upstairs my right hon. Friend gave a complete reply, and now he is no longer here to give a further reply. The reply was that he was dealing with an unauthorised and unofficial Report of a deputation which appeared in a newspaper, and he was not dealing with the making of new motor roads. He promised that where advances were made to local authorities there should not be any vexatious interference on the part of the central authority. On the second reading of the Bill the question whether the Road Board should be empowered to make roads at its own expense was very fully and elaborately discussed, and on the Committee the general feeling was that they should be given this power. It is not proposed that the Road Board should start immediately driving huge trunk roads throughout the length and breadth of the country, but there may be instances in which it is not only in the interests of a particular series of highway authorities that the roads should be made, but it might be desirable in the interests of towns to be connected with some remote part of the country. Other examples may readily occur to hon. Members. There are examples where it is desirable they should have the power to make these new roads themselves. I therefore ask the House to support the Government in this matter.
  Mr. DILLON: I find myself to some extent in sympathy with the Noble Lord. With most of the provisions of this Bill I have the deepest sympathy, but the idea of constructing large roads for the convenience of these detestable machines called motor cars, which are one of the curses of modern life, fills me with horror. This country was until recently one of the most lovely in the whole world, but it is rapidly becoming one of the most hideous, and to take large sums of public money to expedite the process fills me with genuine horror. It is bad enough in London to be kept awake at night by the noise of motor cars and to be unable to get a breath of fresh air because of their stench without having them introduced to all parts of the country. For my part, I wish there were more turning and twisting roads too narrow for motor cars.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: The hon. Gentleman tells us that the general feeling of the country is in favour of making these new roads by the new Road Board. I do not believe it is the general feeling even among motorists themselves, or that there is any foundation whatsoever for the statement. There might be something to be said for the proposal if it was limited to roads for short distances, where they might possibly be useful in connecting certain localities or for avoiding villages, but we have to take the Bill as it is, and what it says and enables the Road Board to do. It is totally different from what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite tell us. Why, in Heaven's name, do you not put into the Bill what you say you intend it to do. I have only the Bill to look at in order to judge how it is to be administered, and in those circumstances I feel bound to support the Amendment.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. LUPTON: I must say that when living in London I find the stench of the horse-dung in the streets perfectly insupportable—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That hardly arises on this Amendment.
  Mr. LUPTON: With regard to country roads I hold that if by making a few straight cuts you can get the motor cars off the twisting-turning roads you will restore once more "dear old England."
  Question put, "That the words to the words 'construct and maintain any new roads' stand part of the Clause."
  The House divided: Ayes, 96; Noes, 20.

  Division No. 796.]

  AYES.

  [6.0 p.m.

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

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Guiland, John W.

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

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Robinson, S.

  Beale, W. P.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

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

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

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Henry, Charles S.

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

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Seaverns, J. H.

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

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Seddon, J.

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

  Jackson, R. S.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jenkins, J.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Byles, William Pollard

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Clough, William

  Lamont, Norman

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Verney, F. W.

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

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Vivian, Henry

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Cullinan, J.

  Massie, J.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Mond, A.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Erskine, David C.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Napier, T. B.

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

  Falconer, J.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Norton and Mr. Whitley.

  NOES.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Renton, Leslie

  Barnard, E. B.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Valentia, Viscount

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  M'Arthur, Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Robert Cecil and Viscount Morpeth.

  Dillon, John

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Amendment made: In paragraph (b), to leave out the words "and bridges connected therewith."—[Sir Samuel Evans.]
  Mr. RENTON Mr. RENTON moved to insert the following new paragraph:—
  "(c) To make advances to highway authorities to purchase, or take over on terms to be agreed on, existing bridges, not being at present county bridges, and to maintain, repair, and improve any bridges so purchased or taken over."
  In several parts of England the highway authorities have no power to construct bridges. There is a bridge over the Trent between Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire, built a great many years ago by a company under the authority of Parliament. That company got a monopoly. The company are allowed to make certain charges, and their charges are very heavy in some cases. It is s. 8d. for a cart to go across the bridge, and for pedestrians it is no less than 6d. It would cost more to buy up this bridge than it would to construct a new one. The highway autho-
  2430
  rity has no power whatever to construct the bridge. Parliament gave this company a monopoly a great many years ago. In these days the bridges would be used by motors coming for a long distance, and it is only fair that the local community should also assist in the freeing of the bridge, and if they are not freed now their value will go up every year, and it will be much more expensive later on to get rid of the tolls than it would be to-day.
  Mr. STEWART BOWLES: I beg to second. If you have a bridge, the acquisition of which would be most convenient, and perhaps essential, to a reasonable road scheme, it is absurd that the Road Board I should not have the power to make advances to a highway authority to acquire the bridge, inasmuch as it is part of the road. It would also have the effect of freeing bridges from charges, and in every respect it appears that a power of this sort ought to be given.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: It is very much against the public interest that there

  2431
  should be any bridges which cannot be crossed without a payment being made, but though I sympathise with the object of the Amendment, it is not within the province of this Bill, and I am sorry I cannot accept it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment made: At the end of Subsection (1), to insert, as a new Sub-section, "(2) In making advances to highway authorities in respect of the construction of new roads, the Road Board may, where they think it desirable, also contribute towards the cost of maintenance of such new roads."—[Sir Francis Charming.]
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS Sir SAMUEL EVANS moved, after the words last inserted, to add the words, "Provided that the sums expended by the Road Board out of income on the construction of new roads or the acquisition of land, or in respect of any loan raised for any such purpose, shall not in any year exceed one-third of the estimated receipts of the Road Board for that year."
  We were pressed from the introduction of the Bill to make it clear that the first object was to improve the existing roads before embarking upon any expenditure on trunk roads. Several Amendments were suggested upstairs to meet the point. Having considered the various ways suggested we have come to the conclusion that the object will be best secured by this Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) to leave out the word "free" ["either by way of free grant or by way of loan."]—[Sir Samuel Evans.]
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I beg to move to add, at the end of Sub-section (2), the words, "For the purposes of this Part of this Act the expression 'improvement of roads' includes the widening of any road, the cutting off the corners of any road where land is required to be purchased for that purpose, the levelling of roads, the treatment of a road for mitigating the nuisance of dust, and the doing of any other work in respect of roads beyond ordinary repairs essential to placing a road in a proper state of repair; and the expression 'roads' includes bridges, viaducts, and subways."
  This Amendment indicates the nature of the work which the Road Board may regard as coming within the expression improvement of roads."
  Viscount MORPETH: The words "treatment of roads for the mitigation of dust" are rather limited, and I would suggest that it would be better to have "for the purpose of improving the surface," or something like that.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The word "improvement" is used at the beginning, and then we have the general words afterwards.
  Mr. VERNEY Mr. VERNEY moved, in the proposed Amendment, after the word "purpose" ["for that purpose"], to insert the words "the levelling of hedges at the corners of roads, or elsewhere to such an extent that they shall not obstruct the view of approaching traffic."
  My object is to have something done in the way of levelling hedges in certain places so as to reduce the number of accidents. A great many accidents occur owing to hedges being left so high that the view of approaching traffic is obstructed.
  Mr. TOMKINSON Mr. TOMKINSON seconded the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
  Mr. CULLINAN: I think that this Amendment should be accepted, and I think that in addition to hedges we should include walls. I know several districts in Ireland where there are very sharp turns in the road, and very high walls, and in these places serious accidents have occurred. I think that those walls should be taken down and iron railings put up.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I am afraid that it is impossible to accept the suggestion made which would involve interference with private property.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
  Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
  Mr. RUPERT GUINNESS Mr. RUPERT GUINNESS moved, after Sub-section (2), to add the following Subsection: "(3) In making advances to a highway authority towards the execution of any work under this Part of this Act regard shall be had, so far as is reasonably practicable, to the amount of the proceeds forming part of the road improvement grant under the Finance Act, 1909, collected in the area of such highway authority."
  Mr. STEWART BOWLES: In seconding the Amendment, I may point out that in making advances it is only reasonable that regard should be had to the amount of money collected in the area of the high-

  2433
  way authority. That amount in London, no doubt, would be a considerable sum. The Solicitor-General will see that it is only a suggestion to the Road Board, and is not binding upon them.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The proceeds of the tax go towards the improvement of existing roads and the construction of new ones. The two taxes are one on motor spirit and the other on motor cars. The motor spirit, I take it, is imported, and the duty, therefore, cannot be collected where the spirit is sold. The tax on motor ears is not collected where they use the roads and the proposal of the hon. Member does not suggest at all the right way to collect the taxes, and it is not practicable to give effect to it.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: This Amendment is designed to meet a very grave injustice which will be suffered by the owners of motor cars and motor vehicles in great towns. In point of fact the great mass of the tax will be raised from dwellers in London and other great towns, while the great mass of expenditure will be in country districts, yet the tax is levied on users of the roads for the benefit of the roads. It seems to me that the Amendment brings this point out with extreme clearness.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

  CLAUSE 9.—(Provisions as to Roads Constructed by Road Board.)
  (1) For the purpose of the maintenance, repair, improvement, and enlargement of or dealing with any road or bridge constructed by the Road Board, the Board shall have the same powers (except the power of levying a rate (and be subject to the same duties as a county council have and are subject to as respects main roads, and may further exercise any powers vested in a county council for the purposes of the maintenance and repair of bridges. Every road constructed by the Road Board under the provisions of this Act shall be a public highway, and the enactments relating to highways and bridges shall apply to such roads accordingly, and the Road Board shall have the same powers as a county council for the preventing and removing of obstructions: Provided that—

  (a) All roads or paths communicating with any such road shall be made to communicate in manner to be approved by the Road Board; and

  2434

  (b) the Road Board and the council of any county or county borough may contract for the undertaking by the council of the maintenance and repair of any such road; and for the purposes of such undertaking the council of a county or county borough shall have the same powers and be subject to the same duties and liabilities as if the road were a main road vested in the county council or a road vested in the county borough council.

  (2) Before the Treasury approve of the construction of a new road by the Road Board they shall consult with the Local Government Board and shall satisfy themselves that notice of the intention to construct the road has been sent by the Road Board to every highway authority in the district of which any part of the proposed road will be situate, and shall consider any objections to the proposed road which they may receive from any such authority.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "or bridge" ["dealing with any road or bridge"].—[Sir Samuel Evans.]
  Mr. T. H. D. BERRIDGE (for Mr. Rufus Isaacs)Mr. T. H. D. BERRIDGE (for Mr. Rufus Isaacs) moved in Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" ["shall be a public highway"] to insert the words "subject to the provisions of this Section."
  This Amendment is to pave the way to another one lower down on the Paper, and is intended to give the local authorities power to make regulations for the use of the roads.
  Viscount MORPETH: I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman gave himself away upstairs, when he said his object was to keep sheep off the roads. The Bill, among other purposes, is for the development of agriculture; sheep are a product of agriculture, and it would not tend to the development of the agricultural industry if sheep were to be kept from using the highways.
  Mr. BERRIDGE: The sole object of the Amendment was to give the local authorities power to regulate the traffic, where desirable, dividing the road into two parts, one for quick and the other for slow traffic. At present there is no power in any body to regulate the traffic on our highways. Notwithstanding what has been said, I believe such a power would

  2435
  be reasonably exercised. However, as the Amendment is resisted, I do not desire to press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS Sir SAMUEL EVANS moved, in paragraph (a), to leave out the words: "All roads or paths communicating with any such road shall be made to communicate," and to insert instead thereof the words: "Communications between a road or path and a road constructed by the Road Board shall be made."
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is this designed to prevent interference with existing roads?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS Sir SAMUEL EVANS was understood to assent.
  Amendment made:
  Mr. VERNEY Mr. VERNEY moved, after the words last inserted, to add the words: "The cost of the Road Board."
  Lord ROBERT CECIL Lord ROBERT CECIL seconded the Amendment.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment. It means that the communications would not be roads at all.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER moved in paragraph (b) to leave out the words "the council of any county or county borough," and to insert instead thereof the words "any highway authority in whose district any part of such road is situate."
  In Committee upstairs this change was made in Sub-section (2) of the same Clause, and this is in order to make the two identical. As these roads will avoid populous places, it is desirable to give the Road Board power to enter into a contract with the highway authority of the district in which the roads are situated. I hope the Solicitor-General will accept this as regards this portion of the Clause.
  Mr. A. H. SCOTT Mr. A. H. SCOTT seconded the Amendment.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Having regard to the desirability of working as far as possible through the local authorities, I see no objection to these enabling words.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made:
  In paragraph (b) to leave out the words "the council" ["by the council"], and to insert instead thereof the words "such authority."
  To leave out the word "any" ["repair of any such road"], and to insert instead thereof the words "the part of."
  To leave out the word "road" ["any such road"], and to insert instead thereof the words "in their district."
  To leave out the words "council of a county or county borough," and to insert instead thereof the words "highway authority."
  To leave out the word "main" ["a main road."]
  To leave out the words "county council or a road vested in the county borough council," and insert instead thereof the words "highway authority."—[Mr. Harmood-Banner.]
  In Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "district," and insert instead thereof the word "area."—[Sir Samuel Evans.]

  CLAUSE 10.—(Provision as to Construction of New Roads by Highway Authorities.)
  (1) Where the Road Board make an advance to a highway authority in respect of the construction of a new road the Board may authorise the authority to construct the road, and where so authorised the highway authority shall have power to construct the road and to do all such acts as may be necessary for the purpose, and any expenses of the authority, so far as not defrayed out of the advance, shall be defrayed as expenses incurred by the authority in exercise of their powers as highway authority.
  (2) Where the highway authority to whom the advance is made are a county council the new road, when constructed, shall be a main road.
  Amendment made: At the end of Subsection (1), to insert the words "and the enactments relating to such expenses, including the borrowing provisions, shall apply accordingly."
  At the end of Sub-section (2) to insert the words "and in any other case shall be a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large."—[Sir Samuel Evans.]
  Mr. RUPERT GUINNESS Mr. RUPERT GUINNESS moved, at the end of Sub-section (2) to add the words, "Provided that the maintenance of any such road within the administrative county of London shall devolve upon the local authority responsible for the maintenance of streets and roads in whose district the same is situate."
  The difficulty in London is that the county council make improvements, and

  2437
  hand them over to borough councils to maintain. I hope the Solicitor-General will accept this Amendment, because I think it is absolutely necessary in order to make this Bill workable in regard to London.
  Amendment made.

  CLAUSE 11.—(Acquisition of Land.)
  (1) Where the Road Board propose to construct a new road under this Part of this Act the Board may acquire land for the purpose, and the land so acquired may include land on either side of the proposed road within two hundred and twenty yards from the middle of the proposed road.
  (2) The Road Board may acquire, erect, and furnish such offices and other buildings as they may require, and may acquire land for the purpose.
  (3) Where a highway authority are authorised to construct a new road under this Part of this Act, or an advance is made to such an authority in respect of the improvement of an existing road, the authority may acquire land for the purpose of such construction or improvement.
  (4) For the purpose of the purchase of land by agreement under this Part of this Act by the Road Board or a highway authority the Lands Clauses Acts shall be incorporated with this Part of this Act, except the provisions of those Acts with respect to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement, and Section one hundred and seventy-eight of the Public Health Act, 1875, shall apply as if the Road Board and the highway authority were referred to therein.
  (5) The Road Board or any highway authority may be authorised to purchase land compulsorily for the purposes of this Part of this Act in like manner as a body to whom an advance has been made under Part I. of this Act may be empowered to acquire land for the purposes of that Part, and the provisions of that Part regulating the procedure for the compulsory acquisition of land shall apply accordingly, and the provisions of that Part prohibiting the compulsory acquisition of the classes of land mentioned in Sub-section (3) of Section five of this Act shall

  Division No. 797.]

  AYES.

  [6.45 p.m.

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

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

  Clough, William

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Barnard, E. B.

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Barnes, G. N.

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

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Bryce, J. Annan

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

  Beale, W. P.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Cullinan, J.

  apply to the acquisition by the Road Board of land on either side of a road proposed to be constructed by the Board.
  (6) The Road Board shall have full power, with the approval of the Treasury, to sell, lease, and manage any land acquired by them under this Part of this Act and not required for the new road.
  Viscount MORPETH Viscount MORPETH moved, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words from the word "purpose" ["may acquire land for the purpose, and the land so acquired"] to the end of the Sub-section.
  As the Bill was originally brought in land in boroughs and in urban districts was exempted. That was amended upstairs, and now the Road Board has power to acquire strips of land both in urban and rural districts. In urban districts there is some case to be met in this provision, and it is necessary, because the matter has already been dealt with by the Finance Bill. If new roads have been made, and increment accrues, it can be taken under that Bill. In rural districts, on the contrary, there is no advantage, but a great disadvantage. There will be no increment. The estate acquired by the Road Board will be of a most inconvenient size, as any person acquainted with rural life will know, and it will be extraordinarily inconvenient to the inhabitants that the Road Board should buy these strips. Owing to the lateness of the hour I will not go into the matter at length, but so far as I am concerned I must carry it to a Division. If I say no more it must not be considered that it is because I do not regard the subject as one of very great importance. The objection of my hon. Friends on this side of the House is very strong indeed.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I second the Amendment.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I assure the Noble Lord that I will not judge of the importance that he attaches to the question by the shortness of his speech.
  Question put, "That the word 'and' stand part of the Clause."
  The House divided: Ayes, 87; Noes, 14.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Erskine, David C.

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

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

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Falconer, James

  Massie, J.

  Seddon, J.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Napier, T. B.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Gulland, John W.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Verney, F. W.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Vivian, Henry

  Hazleton, Richard

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Reddy, M.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Hogan, Michael

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

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lamont, Norman

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Lupton, Arnold

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

  Norton and Mr. Whitley.

  NOES.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Renton, Leslie

  Morpeth and Mr. Stewart Bowles.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "the land so acquired may include," and to insert instead thereof the words "may in addition require."—[Sir Samuel Evans.]
  Mr. CHAPLIN Mr. CHAPLIN moved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "two hundred and."
  There are now less than 100 Members present, and this affords a striking commentary on the way this Bill is being proceeded with. Under the Bill as it stands the Road Board has power to take land to the extent of a quarter of a mile wide. What, can be the object of taking power to make a road that width when the object of the measure is simply to make roads to connect one locality with another? The effect of my Amendment will be to make the width 40 yards or 120 feet, and surely that is wide enough for any road that can be required. What are the reasons for proposing this very unusual width? I can see innumerable objections to this proposal, and I can see no grounds upon which it can be justified. This is supposed to be a measure for the benefit of agriculture, but how are farms to be conducted with a road 440 yards wide driven between them? See what the position will be if that happens habitually, as will be the case if this Clause is made use of. To what purposes are these roads to be put, and how wide are they to be made? What is contemplated? Are they to be more than 100 feet wide, and, if not, what is to become of all the rest of the
  2440
  land? I move the Amendment in order to obtain from the Government some information as to the reasons for these extraordinary provisions.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the intention to run roads of a quarter of a mile wide—
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I did not say that. I said we had been told that these roads were to be limited to very short distances, and I asked what was the object of these extraordinary provisions.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It has been explained over and over again that this is merely dealing with the question of betterment. There are two questions: Are you to lay a betterment charge upon the neighbourhood or are you to take the right to purchase the land which is bettered by the new road? There is no intention of taking strips a quarter of a mile all down the sides of a new road: but, where there seems the possibility of a substantial betterment accruing to the land by the existence of the new road, then we take the power to deal with it, not as part of a new road, but under Sub-section (6).
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The answer of the hon. Gentleman would have been more complete if he had explained why it is confined to the new Road Board, and not extended to highway authorities. This is really not a considered scheme of recoupment at all, but a relic of a gigantic,

  2441
  megalomaniac scheme which was originally designed to run motor roads through the country as competitors with the railways. I think the Amendment or some slight extension of it would give the Government everything they require for the purpose of recoupment, but it appears to me absolutely ridiculous to ask for this gigantic power to take a quarter of a mile.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: The Under-Secretary has given no answer whatever to the questions I ask, nor has he afforded me one single substantial practical reason for this proposal. We are told these powers are only to be used in most exceptional cases. That is the answer given to every Amendment we have raised. I am not disposed to take much further part in what seems to me to be something very little removed from a farce which is being enacted in the House of Commons this afternoon. I regret it more than I can say. I gather from some cheers in the House this afternoon that hon. Members like it. But there are other people who watch our proceedings here, and we may depend upon it they will not lose sight of what has occurred. When proposals of this extraordinary character are made—proposals of a purely novel nature—made at a time and under circumstances when full and adequate discussion is absolutely out of the question, and submitted to a House of les3 than 100 Members, I think I am entitled to renew this evening the protest I made at the commencement of the proceedings against the conduct of this Bill.
  7.0 P.M.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman, with his usual courtesy and long Parliamentary experience, will allow me to say a few words in defence of the position of the Government in this matter and against the accusations which he has made. It is quite true that the attendance in the House is not very large, but in some of the Divisions nearly 200 votes have been recorded, and constantly the attendance on Friday afternoons has been far below that. In addition I may point out that the attendance on this side compares very favourably with that in other quarters. Far be it from me to suggest that the business this afternoon has not been conducted in a perfectly orderly and effective fashion. The right hon. Gentleman has addressed the Committee several times; we have listened to his arguments, and never on any occasion have we failed to make a reply. The right hon. Gentleman and his supporters may not
  2442
  have been satisfied with the replies, but we certainly have accepted some Amendments. Work is not more effectively done because it takes a long time; it can be equally well done if treated in a businesslike fashion. We on our part have had no desire to rush this Bill through. An offer was made by the Prime Minister that either the Bill should be finished to-day or that the discussion might be continued on Saturday and on Monday and any number of days next week. No pressure was brought to bear upon anybody to bring the matter to a head this afternoon, but it seemed to be the desire in all parts of the House to get the Bill through to-day. The efforts have been in the direction of making the Bill useful as it emerges from this stage, and I think it will be found to be so. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman, having made his protest, does not object to my answering his attacks upon the Government.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: It is perfectly true what the Solicitor-General has said that there has been no pressure brought to bear on the Opposition to conclude the business to-night, but he will remember, and the House will realise, that the conditions under which the offer was made to us were of an extremely peculiar character. Those conditions and the period of the Session at which the offer has been made has led to the criticism of my right hon. Friend. The Solicitor-General thought fit to ignore the fact that the offer was made to the Opposition that they might sit to-morrow—not a very generous offer of the Government The alternative offer was that we should reassemble on Monday. As far as I am concerned, I should be content to come on Monday, but as the Solicitor-General has said, there was a general feeling, not confined to this side of the House, that it would be extremely unfair to bring Members of Parliament back, for one or two days next week if that could be avoided, and when it was the intention of the Government to offer Members some relaxation from the very heavy labours they have been engaged in this Session. My hon. Friend and I have stated on more than one occasion that we have nothing to complain of as regards the Solicitor-General's conduct of the Bill, or of the conduct of those who have assisted him. We agree as to the courtesy and fairness they have shown in conducting the Bill, and I agree that this has been a businesslike discussion in every sense; but, on the other hand, I do not believe

  2443
  many Members of this House will deny the proposition that a Bill of this kind, involving proposals which must have far-reaching effects on the local government of this country, should be discussed as it has been discussed in a very thin House and at the fag-end of a period of very hard work. That is a legitimate complaint.
  Mr. BARNARD: We went into the whole thing most fully in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon called it a farce, and said the country would remember it. The country, I hope, will remember that there is not a single Conservative agricultural Member in the House whilst this discussion is going on.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: To leave out—"(5) The Road Board or any highway authority may be authorised to purchase land compulsorily for the purposes of this Part of this Act in like manner as a body to whom an advance has been made under Part I. of this Act may be empowered to acquire land for the purposes of that Part, and the provisions of that Part regulating the procedure for the compulsory acquisition of land shall apply accordingly, and the provisions of that Part," and to insert instead thereof "(5) Where the Road Board or any highway authority are unable to acquire by agreement on reasonable terms any land which they consider necessary, they may apply to the Development Commissioners for an order empowering them to acquire the land compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act. Provided that the Provisions of Part I. of this Act."
  Further Amendment made: At the end of the Clause to add the words "and any receipts derived from any such land, so far as they are applied for the purposes of the construction of new roads, shall not be treated as part of the expenditure of the Road Board on new roads for the purpose of the provisions of this Act limiting the amount of expenditure of the Road Board on new roads."

  CLAUSE 12.—(Expenses and Receipts of Road Board.)
  (1) All expenses of the Road Board under this Part of this Act, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be defrayed out of the Road Improvement Grant.
  (2) Any sums received by the Road Board under this Part of this Act shall, subject to regulations made by the Treasury, be carried to the account to which the Road Improvement Grant is to be carried under the Finance Act, 1909, and shall be treated as part of that grant.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "Act" ["under this Part of the Act"] to insert the words "including the salary of the chairman or vice-chairman and the salaries and the remuneration of officers and servants."
  In Sub-section (2), after the word "is" ["road improvement is to be carried"], to insert the word "required."
  In Sub-section (2) to leave out "Finance Act, 1909," and to insert instead thereof the words, "Act under which the grant is provided."—[Sir Samuel Evans.]

  CLAUSE 16.—(Application to Scotland.)
  This Part of this Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications:—
  The expression "highway authority" means a county or county council acting as, or possessing the powers of, a local authority under the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878, and the expressions "road" and "main road" mean a highway as defined in the said Act:
  The expression "county borough" means a royal, parliamentary, or police burgh, the town council of which is a highway authority:
  The expression "Local Government Board" means the Secretary for Scotland:
  The expression "borough or urban district" means a royal, parliamentary, or police burgh; and a reference to Sections forty-two to forty-five of the Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, shall be substituted for a reference to Sections forty-nine to fifty-two of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845.
  Amendments made: After the word "Act" ["highway as defined in the said Act"], to insert the words "References to a county council and to the powers and duties thereof shall, as regards their respective areas, be deemed to include references to a county road board and a district committee of a county council and to a town council being a highway authority, and to their respective powers and duties."
  To leave out the words, "The expression 'borough or urban district' means a

  2445
  royal, parliamentary, or police burgh; and a reference to Sections forty-two to forty-five of the Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, shall be substituted for a reference to Sections forty-nine to fifty-two of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845."

  CLAUSE 18.—(Obligation to Consider the State and Prospects of Employment.)
  In approving, executing, or making advances in respect of the execution of any work under this Act involving the employment of labour on a considerable scale, regard shall be had, so far as is reasonably practicable, to the general state and prospects of employment.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL Lord ROBERT CECIL moved to leave out the Clause.
  I desire to take this opportunity of entering my protest against this Clause, the whole of which is objectionable. It is well described by one of the supporters of the hon. and learned Gentleman as a crystallised peroration, and I think that is really about all that can be said in its favour. It does not amount to a very great deal except a kind of pious aspiration, and I do not think it is entitled to the adjective, because it seems to me to be against the principle laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this was to be in every respect a relief Bill. As far as "executing work" is concerned, it is clearly right, and I think it would command the support of everyone in the House that, where great works of any kind have to be executed, where possible they should be executed in times of poor employment and not in times of full employment. I think we are all agreed about that, but when you come to the question whether the work should be approved and the advance in respect of it should be made on grounds not connected with the nature and merits of the work itself, but in connection with the conditions of employment, then you are turning the Development Bill into one for the relief of distress, and that does appear to me to be thoroughly unsound and objectionable. It was said upstairs that that was not a fair view of the Clause, because approving merely meant approving by the Treasury and the making of advances by the Treasury. I think that cannot have been said advisedly, because when one reads the whole Bill through that cannot be taken as the true construction. It is unquestionably true that when the
  2446
  Road Board is considering whether it will make an advance for a new highway it has to consider not only the merits of the proposed road for the purposes of economic development, but also the state of employment. I do not think that is a fail-position in which to put the Road Board. In this way you are putting the Road Board, which ought to be in charge of purely economic considerations, into the position, I will not say a Board of Guardians, but into the position of an authority for the relief of distress or unemployment. The Government have constantly asserted that it is not to be allowed to enter into the consideration of the Development Commissioners or the Road Board that these works are to be sanctioned owing to the condition of employment in the districts. Let them translate their intention into words. I ask them to put in words stating that this cannot be turned into a relief of distress Bill, and that it is a Bill for the economic purposes of the country.
  Mr. STEWART BOWLES: I beg to second the Amendment. I think the Government should accept it because it would merely carry out what they have repeatedly told us is their own object. It is quite right that as to the time and method of executing works regard should be had to the state of employment, but it is quite wrong that the question whether or not a scheme should be approved should depend in any degree on the state of employment. It hampers the Commissioners, destroys the independent economic position of the Road Board and the Development Commissioners, and turns a Bill for development into a right to work Bill, so far as the word is effective, and is a very serious blot on the general principle that has been adopted.
  Mr. J. WARD: I do not expect that the word will have much effect on the Road Board or the Development Commissioners. If I thought that it would amount to a direction to execute work in localities where there happened to be certain persons out of work who had no connection with this work at ordinary times, and that they were to be the people exclusively employed on those works, I would most seriously object to this Clause. But it is so indirect that I feel certain that it will not have that effect. The attempt to deprive of this kind of work men who follow it in the country and to put it into the hands of

  2447
  those who know nothing about it, and would be unable to perform it, I would most certainly object to, unless there were some preparatory school or something of that kind in relation to that part of the business.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I think that the last speaker spoke under a misapprehension. It was never proposed that the work to be done under this Bill should be done as relief work. That was never the intention. The whole matter was threshed out upstairs. Suppose that two schemes of equal merit come before the Commissioners, each entitled to approval and each approved of by them, but that only one can be sanctioned at the moment; and that in one district there is distress and light employment, while in the other work is abundant. Surely in such a case there is no harm in indicating that in the opinion of this House, under those circumstances, approval should be given to the scheme which would assist in relieving the distress due to lack of employment, not by the employment of people who cannot do the work, but by bringing labour into the district to earn and spend wages, and to that extent relieve distress. That is all that this Clause amounts to. The Noble Lord, I understand, would not object to the word "executed" remaining in the Clause. But before work can be executed it has got to be approved and the advances have got to be obtained. Therefore he gains nothing by the word "approval" being taken out. And since he does not object to this direction being given for executing the work, it seems finical to make a stand against the word "approval."
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: This matter was discussed upstairs, and the Noble Lord has now made his protest. The hon. Member who has just sat down has no objection to the paragraph if it be confined to the word "executing," omitting the word immediately following. The only body to which the word "approving" can apply is the Treasury. There is no approval from beginning to end of this Bill of any other body. We do not say that the Development Commissioners in coming to a conclusion are to have regard to the state of work. There is no direction to them at all in this Sub-section. They have to determine, without any restriction, without any direction of the kind suggested, whether the work can usefully be done. I submit that it is not unfair to indicate to the
  2448
  Commissioners, and both the Treasury in giving approval, and the Road Board in making advances, as they can under the Second Part of the Bill, that they should have regard not to the demands of a particular locality, but to the general state of employment in the country. It might be determined that a scheme was a good one, and the Treasury might approve it as one which ought to be carried out, and there is no reason why they should not have regard to the state of employment in the country. The main thing to bear in mind in connection with the Clause is that no scheme will be approved of by the Development Commissioners unless it is a useful work which ought to be carried out for the economic benefit of the country. This is not in any sense a Bill to relieve distress, but if it is decided that a useful work ought to be carried out, and advances are made by the Treasury having regard to these circumstances, then there is no reason why in this way distress should not be relieved. That is the whole object of the provision, which has been called "a peroration." I do not say that it has any great legal effect. I have never said so; it would be wrong in me as a lawyer to say it has. "Peroration" does not quite accurately describe it, and I think "crystallised" was used by the Noble Lord, but it certainly does not contain any principle to which objection could be reasonably taken.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL Lord ROBERT CECIL moved to add at the end of the Clause the words, "Provided that this Section shall not apply to any recommendation by the Development Commissioners or to the making of any advances by the Road Board."
  The Clause as it stands might easily apply to the Development Commissioners. In going through the Bill we find that the-word "approving" is really used in respect of the Treasury, but it certainly might easily be urged upon the Development Commissioners that this was a perfectly general clause, and that the intention of Parliament was that in the whole of the stages of the work under this Bill regard should be bad to the state of employment. I understand that the Solicitor-General does not desire that the Development Commissioners should consider the state of employment in making a recommendation.

  2449
  I ventured to draft words which I thought would make the matter perfectly clear. I really do not understand why it is right for the Development Commissioners and not right for the Road Board. The Road Board in the second Part are exactly the same as the Commissioners in the first Part. They are the people to decide whether certain improvements are necessary in the roads, and all they have to do under the Bill is to decide to make advances. The only power is that conferred on them by Clause 8. When it comes to deciding the expediency of a particular improvement I do press that they ought to be left quite free from other considerations, and ought to decide on the merits of the particular improvement suggested. The Solicitor-General agrees as to the Commissioners, and I cannot see why he should not agree as far as the Road Board are concerned.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: It is always difficult to resist an Amendment if it is moved in the spirit and contains the sense of what is already in the Clause in the view of those in charge of it. I think the Noble Lord will agree with me it is a matter of drafting. First of all, the recommendations of the Commissioners are not referred to at all in this Clause. He said that the Clause might mislead somebody, but he will not say in his opinion he differs from the opinion which I expressed just row, namely, that the recommendations of the Commissioners are entirely outside this Clause.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not agree that it is so clear as the Solicitor-General thinks.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I submit it is perfectly clear. The Road Board require the approval of the Treasury in respect of advances, and they cannot make any advance without the approval of the Treasury, and the approval of the Treasury, as I assume in the case of the Road Board projects would have exactly the same effect as in the case of the Commissioners, and would be on the decision of the authority, namely, that the work ought to be done. I regret I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

  CLAUSE 19.—(Provisions as to Commons and Open Spaces.)
  (1) Where an order made by the Development Commissioners under Part I. or Part II. of this Act authorises the acquisition
  2450
  of any land forming part of any common, open space, or allotment, the order, so far as it relates to the acquisition of such land, shall be provisional only, and shall not have effect unless and until it is confirmed by Parliament, except where the order provides for giving in exchange for such land other land, not being less in area, certified by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to be equally advantageous to the persons, if any, entitled to commonable or other rights, and to the public:
  Provided that—

  (a) This provision shall not apply to the-acquisition of any common land for the purpose of forestry if reasonable access to the land for air, exercise, or recreation is granted to the public and the land has not been dedicated to the public use and enjoyment and is not a metropolitan common within the terms of the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866, or is not a suburban common as defined by the Commons Act, 1876, or which is not subject to a scheme of regulation made in pursuance of the Metropolitan Commons Acts, 1866 to 1898, or the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, or of a private or local Act of Parliament; and

  (b) This provision shall not apply to the-acquisition of any common land for the purpose of the construction of a new road or the improvement of an existing road within a rural district; and

  (c) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the acquisition of land on either side of a new road to be constructed by the Road Board where the land forms part of a common, open space, or allotment.

  (2) Before giving any such certificate of equality of exchange the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries shall give public notice of the proposed exchange, and shall afford opportunities to all persons interested to make representations and objections in relation thereto, and shall, if necessary, hold a local inquiry on the subject.
  (3) Where any order of the Development Commissioners authorises such an exchange the order shall provide for vesting the land given in exchange in the persons in whom the common, open space, or allotment was vested, subject to the same rights, trusts, and incidents as attached to the common, open space, or allotment, and for discharging the part of the common, open space, or allotment

  2451
  acquired from all rights, trusts, and incidents to which it was previously subject.
  (4) For the purposes of this Act the expression "common" shall include any land subject to be enclosed under the In-closure Acts, 1845 to 1882, and any town or village green; the expression "open space" means any land laid out as a public garden or used for the purposes of public recreation and any disused burial ground; and the expression "allotment" means any allotment set out as a fuel allotment or a field garden allotment under an Inclosure Act.
  Mr. J. F. BRUNNER (for Mr. Cowan)Mr. J. F. BRUNNER (for Mr. Cowan) moved, in paragraph (a), after the word "if" ["forestry if reasonable"], to insert the words "the order provides for the granting to the public of."
  I beg to thank the Government for the way they have met the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society with regard to their requirements. All these Amendments have been accepted.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: In paragraph (a), to leave out the words "is granted to the public."
  In paragraph (a), to leave out the word "and" ["and the land"], and to insert instead thereof the word "unless."
  To leave out the word "not" ["has not been dedicated"].
  To leave out the words "and is not" ["and is not a metropolitan common"], and to insert instead thereof the words "or is."
  To leave out the word "not" ["and is not a suburban common"].
  To leave out the word "which" ["which is not subject"].
  To leave out the word "not" ["which is not subject"].
  To leave out the word "of" ["or of a private or local Act"], and to insert instead thereof the word "to."—[Mr. J. F. L. Brunner.]

  SCHEDULE.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS Sir SAMUEL EVANS moved the following Sel edule:—
  (1) An order by the Development Commissioners empowering a Government Department, body, or persons to whom an advance is made under Part I. of this Act, or the Road Board, or a highway authority (in this Schedule referred to as "the undertakers") to acquire land compulsorily shall incorporate the Lands Clauses Acts, and
  2452
  those Acts shall apply accordingly, subject to the following modifications:—

  (a) Any question of disputed compensation shall be determined by a single arbitrator, who shall be appointed, and whose remuneration shall be fixed, as respects England, by the Lord Chief Justice of England, as respects Scotland, by the Lord President of the Court of Session, and, as respects Ireland, by the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, and the arbitrator so appointed shall be deemed to be an arbitrator within the meaning of those Acts;

  (b) An arbitrator so appointed may, notwithstanding anything in the Lands Clauses Acts, determine the amount of costs, and shall have power to disallow, as costs of the arbitration, the costs of any witness whom he considers to have been called unnecessarily, and any other costs which he considers have been caused or incurred unnecessarily;

  (c) In determining the amount of any disputed compensation under any such order, no additional allowance shall be made on account of the purchase being compulsory, and the arbitrator shall have regard to the extent to which the remaining and contiguous lands and hereditaments belonging to the same proprietor may be benefited by the proposed work or road for which the land is authorised to be acquired by the undertakers;

  (d) The provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts as to the sale of superfluous land shall not apply.

  (2) An order authorising the acquisition of any buildings may, if a portion only of those buildings are required for the purposes of the undertakers, notwithstanding anything in the Lands Clauses Acts, require the owners of and other persons interested in those buildings to sell and convey to the undertakers the portions only of the buildings so required if the arbitrator is of opinion that such portions can be severed from the remainder of the properties without material detriment thereto, and in such case the undertakers shall not be obliged to purchase the whole or any greater portion thereof, and shall pay for the portions acquired by them and make compensation for any damage sustained by the owners thereof or other parties interested therein by severance or otherwise.
  (3) In construing, for the purposes of this Schedule or any order made there-under, any enactment incorporated with the order, this Act together with the order shall be deemed to be the special Act and the undertakers shall be deemed to be the promoters of the undertaking, and the expression land shall include easements in or relating to land.
  Sir FRANCIS POWELL Sir FRANCIS POWELL moved, in the proposed Schedule, after the word "Acts" ["shall incorporate the Lands Clauses Acts"], to insert the words "and Sections seventy-seven to eighty-five of the Rail-ways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845."
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I have considered this matter with the assistance of the draftsman, and I propose to accept these words. The effect will be to make it clear that the Mineral provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts apply to this case also.
  Amendment to the proposed Schedule agreed to.
  Mr. CULLINAN Mr. CULLINAN moved, in paragraph (a), to leave out the words "Chief Justice" ["Lord Chief Justice of Ireland"], and to insert instead thereof the word "Lieutenant."
  There is no precedent in any Act dealing with Ireland for the Lord Chief Justice to have the power of making such appointments as these. In the Labourers Act and other statutes it is the Lord Lieutenant If the Solicitor-General does not see his way to make it the same here, perhaps he would insert the head of the Land Commission.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment. It would be rather invidious to make the proposed alteration. We have taken the heads of the judiciary, namely, the Lord Chief Justice in Engalnd, the Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland, and the Lord Chief Justice in Ireland. I do not think we will be able to make an invidious distinction between Ireland and England. Moreover, we have an exact precedent in the Finance Bill of this year, where these same persons are appointed to a like office.
  Mr. CULLINAN: I must say that the Solicitor-General led us to believe—gave us an assurance—that he would go into the matter, and the Members for Ireland thought that the alteration was to be made.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: That is not so. The promise given to the hon. Member
  2454
  for Newry (Mr. Mooney) was that if he brought me precedents for the course suggested the matter would be considered. Those precedents have not been received.
  Question, "That the words 'Chief Justice' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That the Schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
Bill read a second time, and committed.
Whereupon MR. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 20th August, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen minutes before Eight o'clock until Monday, 18th October.

PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
The following Petitions were presented during the week and ordered to lie upon the Table:—
MONDAY.
Finance Bill—Petitions against from Letchworth, Royston and other places.
TUESDAY.
Finance Bill—Petitions against from Adderbury, Carnarvon, Colwyn Bay (two), Criccieth, Great Rollright, Llandudno, London and other places, and Stevenage.

WEDNESDAY.
Assurance Companies Bill [Lords]—Petition of the Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society's Workers' Defence Association, against.
Finance Bill—Petitions against from Cricklewood, Highworth, Samlesbury, and Whitby.
Finance Bill—Petition from Pickering, for alteration.
Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill—Petition from Buxton, in favour.

THURSDAY.
Finance Bill—Petitions against from Abergavenny, Basildon, Battlesbridge, Billericay (two), Brentwood (five), Broom-field, Chelmsford (twelve), Chignall, Cuckfield, Great Baddow, Hanningfield, Headley Common, Ingatestone (two), Ingrave, Laindon, Little Baddow, Ramsden Bell-house, Roxwell, South Weald, Springfield, Stock, Upminster, Vange, Warley (two), West Hanningfield, Wickford, Wivelsfield, and Writtle.
FRIDAY.
Finance Bill—Petitions from Bedford Park, Blandford, and East Acton, against.