§ This Act shall apply to Scotland, with the following modifications:
(1) Unless the context otherwise requires—
(c) The expressions "the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908," and "the Act of 1908," mean the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, and references to Section forty-two of the first-mentioned Act shall be construed as references to Section twenty-nine respectively of the said Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act:
§ (3) In the application of Sub-section (3) of the Section of this Act relating to compensation for disturbance "five years" shall be substituted for "two years."
§ (4) For references to becoming bankrupt or compounding with creditors there shall be substituted references to becoming not our bankrupt or executing a trust deed for be hoof of creditors; and for references to a receiving order in bankruptcy there shall be substituted references to an award of sequestration:
§ (5) The Sections of this Act relating to extension of tenancies under leases for a term of years and to notices to quit shall not apply, and in lieu thereof—
- (a) Sub-section (1) of Section eighteen of the Act of 1908 shall, in the case of a lease granted for a term expiring after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, have
288 effect as though for the words "three years" and the words "six months" there were substituted the words "two years" and the words "one year" respectively;
- (b) The provisions of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907, relating to removings shall, in the case of any holding to which Section eighteen of the Act of 1908 applies, have effect subject to the provisions of that Section as modified by paragraph (a) of this Sub-section:
(9) For Sub-section (1) of Section eleven of the Act of 1908, there shall be substituted the following Sub-section:—
(1) All questions which under this Act or under the lease are referred to arbitration shall, whether the matter to which the arbitration relates arose before or after the passing of this Act, and notwithstanding any agreement under the lease or otherwise providing for a different method of arbitration, be determined, if the parties so agree, by a single arbiter agreed to by them in accordance with the provisions set out in the Second Schedule to this Act, and, failing such agreement, shall, upon the application of either party, be determined by the Scottish Land Court, which, for this purpose, shall have the like powers and jurisdiction as they have for the purposes of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919. References in this Act or in the lease to arbitration or to arbiters shall be construed accordingly:
§ (10) The Section of this Act relating to the constitution of a panel of arbitrators shall not apply, and references in this Act and in the Act of 1917 to arbitration or arbitrators shall be construed in accordance with the provisions of the immediately pre ceding paragraph of this Section.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)
The first Amendment standing on the Order Paper is out of order, because it may involve a charge.
May I very respectfully suggest that this need not necessarily involve a charge, and, if that be so, it is in order to insert it in the Bill?
§ Sir D. MACLEAN
On that point of Order. I suggest to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that although the proposal of the Amendment may lead to an increase of expenditure, it does not lead to a new charge. If I might respectfully refer you to a ruling of the Speaker on the Agriculture Bill on the 2nd of November when the question of the Welsh Wages Board was introduced. It is quite 289 obvious that to introduce any fresh machinery of that kind would inevitably increase the expenditure, but my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill said this to Mr. Speaker: "May I say that there is a charge already for the payment of the expenses of the Agricultural Wages Board? I anticipate that the charge may be increased, but there will be no fresh charge." Then Mr. Speaker said, after hearing what had been put to him by my right hon. Friend on these grounds: "I think that disposes of the difficulty of a fresh charge." On this particular Amendment there is such a differentiation between a cost that may fall upon the Exchequer in giving a subsidy to the Scottish farmer in dealing with wheat and oats other than might fall upon the Exchequer in dealing with the farmer farther south of the Tweed. I quite agree that there may be some fresh machinery invoked in ascertaining what this difference was. As far as that is concerned, whatever it might be, it would not be a fresh charge, and such an increase as there might be would be a very small one, because such statistics as they want can be got from the "Return of Market Prices," issued by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, which gives, on page 5, the whole of the necessary details. Having stated that, may I emphasise the distinction which I respectfully suggest to you you might take on this occasion, in accordance with the ruling of Mr. Speaker, that, although if as the result of the operation of this proposal there would be some added expenditure there will be no fresh charge within the meaning of the Standing Orders of the House which you have' to administer?
§ Sir F. BANBURY
As I raised the question which my right hon. Friend has alluded to, when I pointed out to Mr. Speaker that the Amendment would involve increased expenditure not only my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Boscawen) admitted that there would be increased expenditure, but my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that though there would be an increased expenditure, which even might run up to some considerable amount, that would not involve a fresh charge, and on that Mr. Speaker ruled that the Amendment was in order. It does not seem to me that that differed in any kind of way from the point of Order which is now before you. I sup- 290 pose it would not be in order to say I was rather surprised at the ruling, but it is a ruling which was given, and it seems to me it bears upon the present question.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I do not base myself in any way on the case to which the right hon. Baronet has referred of any increased cost of administrative expenses. I talked the matter over a short time ago with Mr. Speaker, and I have his notes in front of me. It is solely on the ground that it might, and probably would, increase the charge on the guarantee, because the purpose of the Amendment clearly is that if you fix the price of wheat in Scotland below the price in England a special arrangement should take place which would involve an increase on the guarantee. On that ground Mr. Speaker ruled out an Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid-Antrim when he wished to propose a precisely similar differentiation in the case of Ireland.
§ Mr. MUNRO
I beg to move, in paragraph (1, c), to leave out the words "Section forty-two of the first-mentioned Act shall be construed as references to Section" and to insert instead thereof the words "Sections twenty-one and forty-two of the first-mentioned Act shall be construed as references to Sections twenty and".
This is a purely drafting Amendment, consequential upon an Amendment made to Clause 20, which has reference to Section 21 of the English Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908. This Amendment substitutes for Scotland a reference to the corresponding Section of the Scottish Act of 1908.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. J. GARDINER
I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (3), to insert the words "and paragraph (c) of Sub-section (5) of that Section shall apply to yearly tenancies only."
The reason for this suggestion is to make sure that the custom and law of Scotland shall continue in the future as in the past, and that yearly tenancies only shall be affected by the Clause.
§ Mr. MUNRO
I hope this Amendment will not be pressed. The paragraph to which it relates is that which provides that compensation for disturbance, shall not be payable where the tenant with whom the contract of tenancy was made has died within three months before the date of the notice to quit. This matter was very fully discussed both in its English and Scottish aspects, not only in Committee upstairs but on the Report stage of the Bill. A division was taken on each of those occasions and the principle of the matter was then definitely settled. It is now proposed, for a reason which I do not fully understand, to restrict its application, as regards Scotland, only to the case of yearly tenancies. It is in such cases no doubt that the provision is most likely to operate, but I do not see why the Clause should not apply in England and in Scotland both, or should be excluded from operation in England and in Scotland both. I do not see any reason for applying this provision to Scotland, and not applying it to England, where yearly tenancies are much more numerous than they are in Scotland. The provision as it stands exactly echoes the provision in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908, which deals with compensation for disturbance in the very same manner as this Section deals with it.
§ Mr. MUNRO
I said disturbance. The principle is really the same, and I am not aware that there has been any difficulty whatever found in the operation of the Act of 1908. I should be sorry to disturb the principle which was then established, particularly having regard to the solemn decision to which the House and the Committee came after full debate, in the course of which both the English and the Scottish case were thoroughly debated. I hope the House will adhere to the decision already come to if my hon. Friend does not withdraw his Amendment.
§ Major W. MURRAY
I am in agreement upon this Amendment, for practical reasons, with the hon. Member (Mr. Gardiner). When a lease in Scotland comes to an end after the death of the tenant, there are very sound reasons for allowing that lease to go on. At the close of the lease the landlord has two important questions to consider. He has to consider whether the dispersal of 292 the tenant's property is such that he cannot continue the tenancy to the widow, because it would be against reasons of good estate management, and he has to consider likewise whether he can put in the son. These questions sometimes take some time to decide. They are very often rather better if not decided in a hurry. It is the custom of the country in Scotland at present to decide them at the close of the lease, and for that reason, the reason really of good estate management, it would be very much better that the decision in these matters should be allowed to rest until the lease comes to an end, and the present custom be adhered to, and paragraph (c) of Sub-section (5) only applied in the case of yearly leases.
§ Amendment negatived.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE
I beg to move, after paragraph (3), to insert a new paragraph—(4) In the application of Sub-section (4) of the Section of this Act relating to compensation for disturbance, 'rent' means rent after deduction of the county and parish and other local rates payable by the owner.It has been decided that it is the gross rent which is to be taken as the standard in computing whether one year's rent is to be paid for disturbance in accordance with good estate management, or two to four years' gross rent in the case of capricious disturbance. There is a slight difference between gross rent in Scotland and gross rent in England. In England the landlord does not pay the rates. The tenant pays the whole of them. In Scotland, on the other hand, the landlord and the tenant each pay half. The consequence is that though nominal rents are higher in Scotland than they are in England, the actual rent for similar land is practically the same. A farm which would, perhaps, be let in England for £100, is charged £120 in Scotland, but in England the farmer pays all the rates. The landowner in Scotland would get £120, but he would have to pay away £20 in rates, and the tenant would have to pay £20 less in Scotland than he did in England. Unless this Amendment is accepted, the compensation for disturbance will be considerably greater in Scotland than in England. It will be greater by the extent of half the local rates. The object of the Bill is to put Scotland 293 and England in precisely the same position, as far as possible, with regard to the provisions under this Bill.
§ Sir A. SPROT
I beg to second the Amendment.
The subject may be described as one of international importance, and if this be not adopted, it may be said to be another injustice to Scotland, because the Scottish landowner will be mulcted in a greater sum than his English confrère, whose circumstances are similar. If a landowner lets his farm in England at £100 a year, and gives notice to quit under these circumstances, he will be called upon to pay £100 compensation, amongst other things, to his tenant, but in Scotland, supposing the rates amount to £20 on a farm which is rented at £120, and if the Scottish landowner was called upon to pay £120 to his tenant, he would really be paying more than in a similar case in England, because £20 of it is represented by the rates which he has to pay. There is a precedent for this. Under the Budget of 1909 the Mineral Rights Duty was imposed, and when it was first passed it was charged upon the gross, both in England and in Scotland, notwithstanding the fact that in Scotland mineral rents are assessed to local rates. About two years afterwards, when the subject had been ventilated a little, an Amendment was introduced into the Budget of that day, and from that time the Scottish mineral rent owners have only paid on the net and not upon the gross. I trust the Minister in charge will adopt the same proceeding in this case.
§ Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY.
I am not sure whether the Amendment as drafted will carry out what the mover and seconder of it have in view, but I certainly think there should be no differentiation between English and Scottish landlords, and that a Scottish landlord should not pay more compensation than the English landlord is called upon to do, though under the Bill as it at present stands the Scottish landlord has to pay more. I certainly think some such Amendment as this should be introduced to make it fair as between the two countries.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
May I say as an Englishman, I should be very loath to see another injustice to Scotland, but I do not know of any injustice on Scotland at pre- 294 sent. It does seem to me that the Amendment is most reasonable. I rather object to the allusion by the seconder to what took place in the 1919 Budget. There is very little left of that and whatever was in it was wrong. I hope the Scottish landlord will be put in the same position as the English landlord. My general experience is that he is in a better position
§ Mr. MUNRO
Like the right hon. Baronet, or perhaps even more so, I should be sorry to be a party to doing any injustice to my native country. The Mover of the Amendment raised this point on Clause 7. While I quite appreciate there is a Scottish aspect of this matter, yet there are one or two considerations which I think the House should bear in mind before coming to a decision. The present Amendment is based on this, that in Scottish counties owners pay, broadly speaking, one half of the local assessments, including rates, which in England are payable by the occupier. That is no doubt true. That feature is also reflected in the Scottish farm rents, because in order to obtain the same return as English landlords the Scottish owner must charge a higher rent, and accordingly the Scottish tenant pays through the landlord in the form of rent a certain sum which in England he would pay direct to the rate-collector. The Seconder of the Amendment has suggested a precedent which after the remarks of the right hon. Baronet I hesitate to refer to. He mentioned the Mineral Rights Duty. I do not think that is as appropriate a precedent as that which is to be found in Schedule D of the Income Tax Act, where rent is taken as the measure of a farmer's profits and the farmer is allowed no such deduction as this. That case is really more analogous to the present case. Payment under this Bill is made by way of compensation not of fine. There are obvious advantages in taking the gross rent as the measure in this case. The amount is well known and definite. Local variations which would require special investigation in every case would be extremely difficult in administration. Therefore I suggest these two considerations should be borne in mind, but if there be a general wish that the matter should be again reconsidered, I shall be happy to look into it again before the Bill goes to another place.
§ Sir G. YOUNGER
I am not at all convinced by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a very good Amendment, nor do I think the Income Tax analogy is at all applicable. Everybody knows that under the Income Tax there are all sorts of charges made which are neither fair nor just, but which are supposed to be allowed under the existing law. We have often been told we shall never have a fair system of Income Tax until there has been a reconsideration of the whole situation and a special measure passed. Surely it seems perfectly fair where the landlord pays a sum in rates that that ought to be allowed in paying compensation. I cannot really see any argument against this Amendment. I do not think the reason he has given is at all apposite, and I hope some further consideration will be given to the matter.
Sir J. HOPE
I am not at all satisfied, with the right hon. Gentleman's reply. This Bill was in Committee last July, and the point was brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, so that he has had plenty of time to consider it. With regard to the difficulties of deduction, the right hon. Gentleman referred to Income Tax, but he knows that in assessment for Income Tax there is a deduction allowed for local rates. As to the objection that under the Amendment there will not be a precise sum, I would point out that the compensation can never be precise, because it must vary according to the decisions of the arbitrator or the Land Court in Scotland.
Sir J. HOPE
I think the right hon. Gentleman objected to accepting the Amendment, because it would put on an indeterminate sum, instead of a definite sum. My reply to that is that the sum for compensation is always dependent on the arbitrator's decision in England, as I hope it will be in Scotland, or on the Land Court in Scotland. Therefore, the fact that there is not any absolute fixed amount is not of any great weight. There is approval on both sides of the House for this proposal, and unless the right hon. Gentleman can give me some guarantee that he will consider sympathetically before it goes to another place, I shall have to press the Amendment.
§ Mr. MUNRO
May I say that I have really given the undertaking that the hon. and gallant Member asks for. The hesitation I feel in accepting the Amendment here and now is because of administrative difficulties which I fear will attend its acceptance, and the further difficulty that I am very doubtful whether this particular Amendment would achieve the object aimed at. On those grounds I hope the hon. and gallant Member will rest satisfied with the assurance I have given.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Further Amendment made: In paragraph (4), leave out the words "and for references to a receiving order in bankruptcy there shall be substituted references to an award of sequestration."—[Mr. Munro.]
§ Mr. MUNRO
I beg to move, in paragraph (5, a), to leave out the words "and the words 'six months' there were substituted the words 'two years' and 'one year' respectively," and to insert instead thereof the words "there were substituted the words 'two years'."
Paragraph (5) of this Clause consists of two parts. The first requires notice of not less than one year and not more than two years before the determination of a lease of two years and upwards, instead of three years, as the law stands to-day. The second part of paragraph (5) increases the notice which is required in leases from year to year or for any other period less than two years from six months to one year. My Amendment proposes to eliminate the second part and leave the first part standing. One of the chief objections to the second part is that it would or might require in the lease for a year that notice should be given on the day of entry, in order to avoid possible expense. That seems rather an absurd condition, and the Amendment proposes to alter it. So far as I know, there is no demand for the extension to which I have referred. An Amendment was moved on this subject in Committee, and I said that the matter might be reconsidered if there was any general feeling in the agricultural community that the period of notice should be enlarged. From that day until now I have not received any representation of the 297 kind suggested, and accordingly I proposed this Amendment.
§ Major M. WOOD
I also in the Recess made it my business to get the opinion of farmers or anyone likely to be interested in this question, and I found that there was no demand for the change proposed. Therefore, I think that it is right that we should leave the law as it stands to-day.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ 6.0 p.m.
§ Sir G. YOUNGER
I beg to move to leave out paragraphs (9) and (10) and to insert instead thereof a new paragraph—(9) In Sub-section (1) of Section fifteen of this Act for the words 'the Lord Chief Justice of England' there shall be substituted the words 'the Lord President of the Court of Session,' and in Sub-section (2) of the same Section the words 'Auditor of the Sheriff Court' for the words 'Registrar of the County Court.'May I say that, in moving this Amendment, I do not do so because of any particular feeling I may have expressed in the past in connection with some decisions of the Scottish Land Court. I have nothing of that kind in my mind. I say quite frankly that I think it is an excellent Court as part of the machinery for dealing with small holdings and rent and matters of that kind. I hope it will be particularly noted that any objections I have to the proposal of the Clause have got nothing to do with any feeling as to the Land Court, which is presided over by a very able and impartial judge. I object to the proposal for two different reasons. I object mainly, because I do not think it is possible for the Land Court, as constituted in its present size, to discharge the duties proposed to be imposed upon it by this Bill. We recently placed some new duties on their shoulders in connection with the Amendment of the Scottish Landholders Act. Everybody knows that there is very considerable congestion of cases before the Land Courts. I am told that they are gradually getting through the arrears, but many have been standing over for an unconscionable time. It is the essence of these questions that they should be decided promptly. The whole of those cases will arise either at Martinmas or Whitsuntide, and there would be considerable congestion in con- 298 sequence of the periodic times at which these changes take place, and there might be considerable delay on the part of the Land Court in settling the very difficult questions that arise.
These questions can only be settled with reasonable fairness by arbiters who understand the local conditions, who are conversant with climatic conditions and general farming arrangements practised in the district and know exactly the circumstances with which they are dealing. Members of the Land Court do not know anything about that. They have no experience and they would be taken away from what they are dealing with to a much wider and more difficult class of question. It would be impossible to discharge these duties in their own person. They could not break themselves up in sufficient numbers to go about the country and inquire on the spot. Whoever settles these questions can only do it by inspecting the farm and understanding the question. The cost appears to me to be very considerable. I understand that it will be a charge on the taxpayer. I understand that the Secretary for Scotland when he asked the farmers, I think in the Chamber of Agriculture, whether they preferred to pay for arbitration of this kind or leave it on the taxpayers, they said that they would much prefer to pay for it because they thought that it would be worth the money, and I am informed that the farmers in Scotland are against this proposal and desire the existing system of arbitration to continue. No doubt under this Clause if there is agreement they can have arbitration. If not they must go to the Land Court.
The Clause for England provides a wholly different system, a panel of arbiters, men of experience and knowledge, in various districts who will deal with those questions and can be relied on to give a fair and impartial decision. I cannot see what difference there should be between a Northumbrian farmer and a farmer in Dumfriesshire or Berwickshire. We do not want the crofter principle applied all over Scotland. It is very suitable for the Highlands. Although the old Liberal Government passed the Crofters Act it was a Tory Government that provided all the money to carry it out. So both parties have an interest in it, and deserve some credit for it though my party never receive any credit, although 299 they are the people who made the Act effective. We do not want to see that all over Scotland. Farmers much prefer arbitration. My right hon. Friend is very fond of the Land Court because it is an easy way out. Governments and hon. Members who draft Bills always take the easiest possible way out, and they say, "As there is a Land Court why not use it?" I have given reasons why I think they should not, and, therefore, with some confidence, I submitted this Amendment to the House.
§ Mr. MUNRO
I desire, at the outset, to acknowledge the moderation of the speech of my hon. Friend and the handsome tribute which he has paid to the existing Land Court. The subject was discussed in other days in a very different manner. I hope that I may be trusted not to import the smallest heat into the Debate to-day. There are two preliminary observations which I wish to make. One must bear in mind that the Bill, according to its present structure, provides for arbitration if the parties are agreeable that that course should be adopted, and it is only in the event of their differing as regards going to arbitration that the good offices of the Land Court are to be railed in. In the second place, you are dealing with a very different situation in Scotland from that in England. Here there is no Land Court and the phrase, I understand, is not by any means a popular one on this side of the Border. In Scotland, on the other hand, you have a Land Court which has been in existence since 1911. In England, in the absence of a Land Court, it was thought proper to select a small panel of arbiters. In Scotland you have ready to hand a panel of arbiters ready to enter upon the duties and fit to perform them. This course will make for economy, which is an important consideration. Arbiters have to be paid by the parties. I do not remember the interview to which my hon. Friend referred, in which I met the farmers, who said that they preferred to pay for arbitration rather than go to the Land Court. One gets information in different ways, but my information, as against that of my hon. Friend, is that the farming community as a whole in Scotland desire that the Land Court shall adjudicate in this matter.
§ Sir G. YOUNGER
I have a letter in my hand from Sir Isaac Connell, Secretary to the Chamber of Agriculture for Scotland. That is my authority.
§ Mr. MUNRO
I have the greatest respect for Sir Isaac Connell and the Chamber of which he is Secretary, but there are other agricultural societies in Scotland as well and their opinions must be considered. So far as the agricultural community is concerned, opinion may be divided. I do not represent it as entirely unanimous. On the question of economy, arbiters have to be paid by the parties and the Land Court is paid by the State. The course which is suggested in the Bill, which was not chosen as an easy way out, will cost the State no more, for you will have a Land Court in any case, and it will cost the farmers less. The machinery and officers are all there and can be utilised without any additional cost so far as my information goes. Therefore this course would make for economy. It will also make for uniformity. If you have arbitrators deciding cases up and down the country you will have irreconcilable and conflicting decisions which would be very undesirable. Take our experience under the 1911 Act. We had arbiters who thought that depreciation in selling value which resulted from the constitution of small holdings was a fair claim which ought to have some value put upon it and they did so, while other arbiters thought that the claim was wholly inadmissible and refused it every time. The result was confusion. There would be precisely the same thing if you are going to have arbiters in every county in Scotland without any consultation with one another pronouncing judgments which are wholly irreconcilable. Uniformity will disappear and one of the chief desiderata in connection with a matter of this kind will be lost. That is recognised in England under this Bill, and the panel is to be a small one. You are not dealing with a proposal that should have arbiters up and down the country. The proposal is that there should be a panel.
Sir J. HOPE
Our proposal is to put Scotland in exactly the same position as England under this Bill.
§ Mr. MUNRO
A small panel is suggested in order to secure uniformity of decision. You can obtain it to a certain 301 extent perhaps by a small panel, but not so well as by one court which is to deal with every case and will give uniform decisions. I go further and say that the proposal which has been adopted not only makes for economy and uniformity but it makes also for efficiency. I would remind the House of the constitution of the Scottish Land Court. It differs in many respects from any other Land Court which I have known. The Chairman to whom a handsome tribute has been paid by my hon. Friend has the status of a judge of the Court of Session, which corresponds to the status of a judge of the High Court in England. That is a very good start. When you talk about local knowledge being required for agricultural matters it is necessary to remember that agricultural matters are decided every day in the High Courts in Scotland and in England and in the House of Lords by gentlemen who have no special agricultural knowledge, but who decide the matter in virtue of their experience upon the evidence submitted to them. Therefore, I think that the argument based upon expert knowledge or local knowledge may be pressed too far.
§ Mr. MUNRO
I have some experience of the Land Court and of arbitration. I have been an arbitrator and have appeared before arbitrators. I know something of the cost of arbitration, and as a rule before you are out of an arbitration, even of a small character, you put your hands very deep into your pockets. I have referred to the Chairman of the Court. What about the other members? Three members, I think, are farmers. One of them is an ex-chairman of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, to whom fitting reference has been made. I should have thought that some confidence might have been placed in his judgment. The next member, as a Chairman of a county council and convener of the county, has had administrative experience as a publicist and a man of the world. The third has special experience of the north and west of Scotland and possesses a knowledge of Gaelic, which is a very important matter in dealing with questions arising in many parts of Scotland.
§ Sir G. YOUNGER
I made no attack on the Court. I tried only to show what is the method of procedure.
§ Mr. MUNRO
I have not forgotten my hon. Friend's speech, and I am proposing to deal with it. We are dealing with the kind of tribunal to which the Government propose to submit this matter, and I am entitled to describe to the House the standing and the qualifications of that tribunal. Such is the Land Court to which we propose to submit questions which arise under this Bill. There is a vacancy which I propose to fill at an early date, and I shall bear in mind all relevant considerations in making the appointment. What are the objections to this Court discharging these duties? I understand three objections were taken. It was said, first of all, that they have no time for the work. I must ask hon. Members to remember that under the Land Settlement Act the Land Court was relieved of many duties which formerly it had had to perform, and those duties were placed upon the Board of Agriculture. Prima facie, I think that the Land Court would be well able to cope with this work under this Bill. The Chairman of the Land Court assures me that the Court is well able to do the duty, and he ought to know. The hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) spoke about local knowledge. What has the Land Court been doing for ten years? It has travelled from end to end of Scotland times without number, and it is better acquainted with local conditions in every part of Scotland than any arbitrator of whom one could think. There is nothing about the land which the members do not know. It is suggested that the Land Court is more fitted to perform the duties laid upon it by the 1911 Act than those imposed by the Bill now before the House. I differ from that view. It is relevant to remember who the Chairman is. Surely a gentleman with the status of a judge of the Court of Sessions, accustomed to hearing evidence and to giving decisions upon it, may be trusted to tackle a Statute like this with some hope of success. Then, are not farmers 303 just as well adapted to deal with land taken from farms as any other class of the community? It has been said that they deal only with small matters, crofts and the like. That is true, but the principles are identical, whether you are dealing with a small holding or with an estate. Let me give an example. They have to deal with rents under this Bill. They have to deal now with rents and also with valuations in the case of resumption. Compensation is another matter with which they have to deal. Such questions arise again and again. Compensation and rent are two of the matters to which they are applying their minds every day of the week and every week of the year. I submit, therefore, that the proposal which the Bill makes is a reasonable proposal, and inasmuch as my hon. Friend has fairly stated that he has confidence in the Chairman of the Land Court and that he approves of the Land Court, I submit that he has not succeeded in establishing that there is such a wide divergence of the duty imposed upon that Court by this Bill from that imposed by the Act of 1911 as to disable the Court from performing their hard duties properly.
§ Sir D. MACLEAN
I am certain that Members sitting immediately behind me are in entire accord with the speech of the Secretary for Scotland, for he speaks on this question not only with the experience of his own particular year of office, but also with knowledge of the controversy which preceded the Act now on the Statute Book. The speech as it stands, to my mind, is a complete and final answer to the arguments adduced in favour of the Amendment. The hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) uses his wholly exceptional gifts of geniality, not as a cloak for any insidious attack, for his geniality is a part of himself, but he has all through these long years been a determined opponent of the Land Court. With his usual frankness to-day he has declared that there is a good deal to be said for it.
§ Sir D. MACLEAN
We are dealing only with things as they are, and I am giving the go-by to the past. The hon. and gallant Member (Sir J. Hope) let the cat 304 out of the bag as to what he thinks about it. He says it is a superfluous Land Court. Let me remind him and others who agree with him that, whether he likes it or not, these Land Courts have come to stay, and are an integral part of the development of Scottish agriculture, whereby smallholders can get on the land and the land will have a chance at last of development.
Sir J. HOPE
I said it was superfluous only with regard to large farms and not with regard to small holdings. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to twist my words.
§ Sir D. MACLEAN
I must be more careful, then. One of the strongest arguments which can be adduced in favour of the proposal of the Government is that this Court has an amount of accumulated experience which is at its disposal to-day, and that it is administered by men in whom the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) has a degree of confidence which he could not accord to the Land Court as previously constituted. Anybody who has had anything to do with disputed questions in agriculture knows what an immense advantage that accumulated experience is. It has been suggested that the best way to deal with these matters is by arbiter. Are you going to give the go-by to the whole of that accumulated experience possessed by men who are now trusted by their former critics? Into what hands will you place their duties? The arbiters would be selected from a panel. There could not be a greater waste of public money and of experience. You would lose uniformity, and uniformity is an immense advantage. You would undoubtedly add to the expense. There is no lawyer here who will not confirm me in that statement that if you get a regular Court, dealing with this work with efficiency and speed, that is in the vast majority of cases infinitely preferable to private arbitration. Then there is the question of delay. It is no unusual thing, in going to arbitration, to have a case postponed for days and even for weeks at a time, whereas if that case came before the Court the Court would get on with it and settle it. Once the Court gets hold of a case it finishes it. Arbiters have so many adjournments, and there is such dilatoriness that there is an immense amount of personal inconvenience added to the greater expense. I think that those 305 points alone should dispose of the Amendment.
§ Sir HARRY HOPE
The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland will cause grievous disappointment in that country when the people read it. My right hon. Friend made absolutely no attack on the personnel of the Land Court. We all quite recognise that that Court is doing quite good work in carrying on its duties, but we have to devise means now for providing machinery whereby this Bill, if it become an Act, will work in the smoothest manner, and command the greatest confidence of everybody concerned. Let us see what the position is. It will be open for the parties to come to an agreement. If they do not the question at issue will be referred to arbitration. We see what the machinery is in England for similar cases. We recognise that in Scotland pretty well the same conditions prevail and we are therefore bound to ask ourselves why not carry out the English method. We recognise that local knowledge is of primary importance. The right hon. Gentleman held up the Land Court as an excellent means for carrying on this Bill. If the Land Court is indispensable in Scotland why not have a Land Court for England? If the Land Court is so absolutely indispensable that the Bill will not work without it in Scotland is it not equally necessary to have it for England? Conditions in Scotland are pretty much the same as those in the South, and when we have local bodies appealing to us to get the Government to appoint a panel of arbitrators to carry on this work I think we should hesitate before taking any other course. Custom goes a long way when once set to work, and the farmers in Scotland have always been accustomed to arbitration. Every extension of the 1908 Act has been a success because the arbitration system has been adopted. And if that is the case I think we are entitled to press the Government to adhere to the old method. The Secretary for Scotland told us that the great advantage in having a Land Court would be that there would be uniformity of procedure. The Land Court is a body composed of farmers. How can such a body go into all parts of Scotland and do its work when it has absolutely no local knowledge of the value of land in the, different districts? I think on the whole the Government would be doing 306 an unwise thing at the present time in refusing to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet. Undoubtedly, if the Bill is to be a success, it must carry agricultural opinion with it in Scotland. It may only be prejudiced, but prejudice goes a long way in this world. There is prejudice against the Land Court at the present time, and when it is without local experience and without local knowledge we may be sure its decisions will not be trusted. Under the circumstances I have the utmost confidence in supporting my right hon. Friend.
§ Colonel GREIG
We have been told that this Amendment would commend itself to opinion in Scotland. Representing as I do a good many farmers, I take leave to say that it does not represent Scottish opinion as a whole in that respect. I have had no representations which show that agricultural opinion in the part of the country I represent is opposed to the Land Court. What is the fact about the Land Court? Would it be necessary for it to travel into different agricultural districts? Of course not. The arbitration can be held in Edinburgh if it is of sufficient importance. If people want arbitration they can get it under the Bill as it stands, providing they can agree between themselves. But they know, and this should be an additional incentive to them to agree, that if they do not agree to arbitration they will go to the Land Court. We have had decisions of this Court for four or five years recorded in a series of very able reports from the different judges, and anyone who has taken the trouble to read those reports must have come to the conclusion that there has never been a body of decisions which show more precision and a more active grasp of the principles of law they have to administer. The same characteristics will surely distinguish their decisions when they come to deal with questions of valuation and so on, which will arise under this Bill, and which are in every respect absolutely similar to the question upon which they have to decide to-day. The only difference will be in the size of the holdings, and that is not of much importance.
§ Mr. J. GARDINER
I was deeply interested in the statement made by the right hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir George Younger), to whom I listen at all times with respect, because I know he is one of the best informed Members 307 that this House possesses. But it is evident that even he occasionally has not perfect information, for on the question whether or not the farmers of Scotland desire to have a Land Court I must differ from the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet quoted as his authority a speech delivered by the Secretary of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture. I happen to be a member of that body, and know what took place when this subject was being discussed. There was a majority of one against the Land Court and in favour of arbitration, and I mention that fact to show that the Chamber of Agriculture itself was very evenly divided. When it comes to the Scottish National Farmers' Union I find they are unanimous on the subject, and agree that the Land Court is desirable rather than the old method of arbitration. So far, therefore, as Scotland is concerned, in its agricultural representative bodies, I claim we have the support of Scottish farmers for our plan. The Secretary for Scotland made it perfectly clear what the position of the Land Court is. I am delighted to think that we have at last a common view that the effect of the present Land Court in Scotland is beyond reproach. We have perfect confidence in its component parts, and I have no doubt that the Secretary for Scotland will be wisely guided in the selection of the additional member that is required. If this Bill is going to effect the purposes for which it was introduced, I suggest there will not be nearly so many opportunities for arbitration as there are for decisions of the Land Court. If we are to have the security that the Bill is supposed to provide there will not be frequent opportunities to decide questions of difference between landlord and tenant. I hope the Bill will succeed in the direction not only of giving security of capital, but also security of tenure. Although I speak possibly from a farmer's point of view, I should like to say I have interviewed one or two of the largest landowners in Scotland, men whose names are known almost everywhere and are respected most highly, and these noblemen are absolutely in favour of the Land Court, the reason being, as they say, that it will give uniformity, which is a most desirable thing. Everybody, no matter on which side he sits, whether on the side of arbitration or of decision in the Land 308 Court, wants to feel that there is some standard that they can trust to to ensure that all the decisions will be equitable and fair. So far as the old method of arbitration is concerned, I am sure that anybody in close touch with agricultural life in Scotland will admit that in the markets and everywhere where agriculturists meet and discuss questions of arbitration, there is constant complaint of the decisions given by arbitrators simply because of the lack of uniformity which the Land Court will bring into being. I hope that my hon. Friends opposite who represent Scottish constituencies, and who talk about there being no Land Court in England, will recognise the fact that Scotland has not always been second in the race of progress from an agricultural point of view, and possibly, after all, the example we are giving England in our Land Court will be one which in a few years' time that country will be only too glad to follow.
§ Mr. FORD
I should like to say a few words in support of the Amendment. I represent in a small way the taxpayers of the country. My constituency is an urban constituency, and I have no brief either for landlord or tenant, but it does seem to me that if the Land Court is brought in for this purpose, we are bound to have a very large increase in the personnel and establishment and charges of the Land Court to the taxpayer, and at this time, when our minds are somewhat justly agitated about national economy, I do not think we ought to embark upon a scheme like this. My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. J. Gardiner), who everyone concedes is somewhat of an authority on agriculture, has said that we are not behind England in our country in agriculture, but I should like to point out that the system of arbitration has been one of the systems most enwrought in the whole fabric of Scottish life, especially in agriculture, and I do not think we are conceding anything to England when we ask that we should be allowed the same economical treatment that England is getting. If these intensely interesting subjects such as unexhausted manures come up, as a taxpayer, I say, let the gentlemen interested fight it out by arbitration, and do not ask us to pay the cost of keeping up a large court for their benefit. My hon. Friend opposite said something about complaints of lack of uniformity in de- 309 cisions, but complaints with regard to decisions in courts of any kind are always to be found, and I have hardly ever met a man yet who did not think there had been a miscarriage of justice and a lack of uniformity. In the interests of agriculturists themselves and of the general taxpayer, I would urge that we should avoid unnecessary expenditure and carry on in the way that has worked extremely well and has not put fresh burdens on the taxpayers for a generation or more.
Sir J. HOPE
The Secretary for Scotland has not really dealt with the crux of the difficulty. He praised and defended the Land Court, which had not been attacked; what we say is merely that the Land Court is quite an unsuitable body to carry out the additional duties proposed for it under this Bill without a huge expense and increase of establishment. What we asked the Secretary for Scotland was a definite answer to the question "How does he propose to work the adjustment of rent by the Land Court?" We have never had a satisfactory answer to that. There are only two ways of doing it, either by enormously increasing the number of members so that they can hold sittings in various parts of the country, or by appointing paid officials who will go and visit the farms on which the rent is to be adjusted, and report to the Land Court the result of their visits; and either course will enormously increase the cost to the ratepayers. As the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Ford) has just said, we have had no answer to this. I asked the same question in Committee, and I got no answer, and I believe it has not been fully considered. I acknowledge that the Land Court are an excellent body individually, but they cannot do impossibilities, and at the present time it is well known that they have not overtaken their work in connection with small holdings.
Rents have to be fixed in Scotland at two particular times, namely, in May and in March, and at those times there will be a huge amount of work which it will be quite impossible for the Land Court to overtake. The arbiters, I submit, will be much cheaper, and in most cases if you leave the arbitrator as the final court of appeal in case of a difference of opinion there will be very little recourse 310 to arbitration. If you let them alone, landlord and tenant in most cases will not go to arbitration, but if you put in the Land Court over the head of the landlord and tenant, you are setting up a whole lot of officials who will be there in case they are wanted. They will have to find work for themselves in order to keep their job going, and it will be to their interest to force landlord and tenant to go to the Land Court to settle their differences. The Secretary for Scotland also made a considerable attack on the general principle of arbitration, and there he was attacking the English Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture did not speak on the Scottish Clause in Committee, but he spoke the following day in opposing the Land Court for Wales, and he said:Fixity of tenure really renders necessary a Land Court; the two things practically go together. If you have anything in the nature of dual ownership, you must have somebody to decide on the respective properties of the landlord and the tenant, and the obvious way to do it is by a Land Court."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee, 22nd July, 1920, col. 719.]The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the conditions in Wales were the same as in Scotland and in England, but that they were not comparable to the crofting counties of Scotland, for which the Land Court was originally set up, and for which we say it is not superfluous, but because it is doing well the work for which it was set up, you are proposing to put upon it additional work which we say it cannot do, and which, if it does do it, will interfere with the work it is at present doing. Do English Members realise that the Land Court has to do with setting up small holdings throughout Scotland? The Prime Minister, in his Caxton Hall speech, had to go out of his way to tell agriculturists that he did not intend to impose a Land Court on the farmers and agriculturists of Great Britain. He said that what was proposed was that when notice was given, the tenancy should not be affected, but the new rent should be fixed either by agreement between the parties, or, failing agreement, by an arbitrator appointed in the usual way. Then there was applause from all the farmers present, and the Prime Minister added, "That, I need hardly tell you, is not a Land Court." All we ask is that the promise of the 311 Prime Minister shall be adhered to and that we shall not have a Land Court for this purpose.
I hope the Secretary for Scotland will reconsider his attitude on this matter. Does he mean to increase the members of the Land Court in number, or does he mean to have officials all over, or does he propose that the four men should sit in Edinburgh and decide the rent of a farm without seeing it, or without having the information from officials as to whether it is good or bad land? Perhaps also the Parliamentary Secretary will explain exactly why he opposes the Land Court for Wales and supports it for Scotland.
§ Dr. MURRAY
It is very distressing to a benevolent onlooker on this side to watch the break-up of the Coalition over this question, and I find that when the Government sticks to some line of progressive legislation they have always got to rely on this side of the House to save them from their friends. My hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down made a very ill-considered speech, if I may say so, and referred to the speeches of the Prime Minister, particularly his Caxton Hall speech. My hon. and gallant Friend should have remembered that the last time the Caxton Hall speech was mentioned here, the Prime Minister was standing behind Mr. Speaker's Chair, and when he heard the phrase, turned tail and ran away. "Caxton Hall" is now as dangerous a term as "Limehouse," and it is very ill-natured of the hon. Baronet opposite to have mentioned it. I also listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger), who had some differences with his Liberal colleagues upon that Bench, and his object was to show that the Tory Codlin was the friend of people who want land, and not the Liberal Short. The Tories fought the Act of 1886 tooth and nail, led by the present Lord President of the Council. I do not deny that the Tories by themselves
§ produced good social legislation of this sort, and so did the Liberals by themselves, but we find that when the Liberals and the Tones come together to produce legislation, such as we have had in the past two years, it is all futile and sterile, and does no good to anybody.
§ I am going to support the Government, as usual when they are in difficulties, on this question of the Land Court. The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs said the Land Court has been doing splendid work in regard to smaller holdings. In the old days the motto of the Tory party used to be, "For beer and the Bible," but they are now doing without the Bible. The old Book says: "He that is faithful in the least is faithful also in much," and if the Land Court have been faithful in the smaller matter of small holdings and croftings, I think it is reasonable to argue that they will be faithful in this respect too. I have a considerable amount of sympathy with my hon. Friend's argument that the work of the Land Court is at present congested, and there is certainly a great deal of arrears of work in the Highlands. They want gingering up and strengthening, and I should be sorry if these additional duties which it is proposed to put upon them made the machine work with more difficulty and more slowly than at present; but I think it is a healthy development of land legislation that there should be an ad hoc authority of this sort to settle these questions, and after all, those hon. Members who are afraid of the Land Court need not go to the Land Court. They have the power of arbitration. I hope the Government will see to it that if this work is imposed on the Land Court, it will not in any way interfere with the present work in connection with small holdings and croftings, and with that reservation I support the position of the Government.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 74.315
|Division No. 371.]||AYES.||[7.0 p.m.|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.||Barnston, Major Harry||Breese, Major Charles E.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William||Barrand, A. R.||Briant, Frank|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte||Barton, Sir William (Oldham)||Briggs, Harold|
|Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James||Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Bromfield, William|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)||Brown, Captain D. C.|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)|
|Baird, Sir John Lawrence||Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)||Cairns, John|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-||Cape, Thomas|
|Barlow, Sir Montague||Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)|
|Barnett, Major R. W.||Bramsdon, Sir Thomas||Casey, T. W.|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert||Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm., W.)||Hopkins, John W. W.||Perring, William George|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)||Pollock, Sir Ernest M.|
|Collins, Sir G. P. (Greenock)||Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)||Pratt, John William|
|Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale||illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.||Purchase, H. G.|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Jesson, C.||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)||Johnson, Sir Stanley||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)||Johnstone, Joseph||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)|
|Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)||Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)||Robertson, John|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George||Rodger, A. K.|
|Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)||Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.||Roundell, Colonel R. F.|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)||Kenyon, Barnet||Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)|
|Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Dixon, Captain Herbert||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)|
|Doyle, N. Grattan||Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)||Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)|
|Duncannon, Viscount||Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Edge, Captain William||Lawson, John J.||Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N' castle-on-T.)|
|Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)||Simm, M. T.|
|Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)||Lindsay, William Arthur||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)||Lloyd, George Butler||Smith, Harold (Warrington)|
|Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)||Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)|
|Entwistle, Major C. F.||Lonsdale, James Rolston||Spencer, George A.|
|Fell, Sir Arthur||Loseby, Captain C. E.||Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)|
|Finney, Samuel||Lyle-Samuel, Alexander||Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.|
|Flannery, Sir James Fortescue||M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.||Strauss, Edward Anthony|
|Foreman, Henry||McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)||Sturrock, J. Leng|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.||Sutherland, Sir William|
|Galbraith, Samuel||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Swan, J. E.|
|Gardiner, James||Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Midlothian)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||McMicking, Major Gilbert||Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)|
|Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Gilbert, James Daniel||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Thomson, T. (Middlesborougb, West)|
|Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John||Maddocks, Henry||Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)|
|Glanville, Harold James||Mallalieu, F. W.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.||Middlebrook, Sir William||Tootill, Robert|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.||Tryon, Major George Clement|
|Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)||Mills, John Edmund||Turton, E. R.|
|Green, Albert (Derby)||Moles, Thomas||Vickers, Douglas|
|Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)||Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.||Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Greenwood, William (Stockport)||Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.||Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)|
|Greig, Colonel James William||Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.||Waterson, A. E.|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Morgan, Major D. Watts||Watson, Captain John Bertrand|
|Gritten, W. G. Howard||Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert||Weston, Colonel John W.|
|Grundy, T. W.||Murchison, C. K.||Wignall, James|
|Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)||Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)||Williams, Lieut.-Com. C. (Tavistock)|
|Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)||Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E)|
|Hamilton, Major C. G. C.||Murray, John (Leeds, West)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)|
|Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin||Neal, Arthur||Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)|
|Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)||Newbould, Alfred Ernest||Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)|
|Harris, Sir Henry Percy||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Wintringham, T.|
|Hayday, Arthur||Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)||Wise, Frederick|
|Hayward, Major Evan||O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)||Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.||Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)|
|Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)||Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.||Woolcock, William James U.|
|Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)||Parker, James||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)||Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)|
|Hirst, G. H.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.||Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry|
|Hodge, Rt. Hon. John||Pearce, Sir William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)||Captain Guest and Commander Eyres-Monsell.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)||Hunter-Weston, Lieut-Gen. Sir A. G.|
|Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.|
|Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-||Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)||Jodrell, Neville Paul|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Falcon, Captain Michael||Lane-Fox, G. R.|
|Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)||Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.||Lorden, John William|
|Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart.(Gr'nw'h)||FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.||McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Ford, Patrick Johnston||Macquisten, F. A.|
|Blake, Sir Francis Douglas||Forestier-Walker, L.||Marks, Sir George Croydon|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Fraser, Major Sir Keith||Marriott, John Arthur Ransome|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.||Gretton, Colonel John||Moreing, Captain Algernon H.|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Gwynne, Rupert S.||Murray, Major William (Dumfries)|
|Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Cautley, Henry S.||Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.||Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.|
|Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin||Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank||Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.|
|Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)||Raeburn, Sir William H.|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Coats, Sir Stuart||Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vera||Remnant, Sir James|
|Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)||Stanler, Captain Sir Beville||Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud|
|Royce, William Stapleton||Starkey, Captain John R.||Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert|
|Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund||Steel, Major S. Strang||Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Rlpon)|
|Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Stewart, Gershom||Younger, Sir George|
|Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)||Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)|
|Seddon, J. A.||Thomas-Stanford, Charles||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Shaw, William T. (Forfar)||Townley, Maximilian G.||Lieut.-Colonel Sir John Hope and|
|Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander||Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.||Mr. Hugh Morrison.|
Question put, and agreed to.