Mr. GUINNESSI beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
Clause 3 empowers the Minister to undertake very costly operations in the 2034 reconditioning of land. The total capital expenditure authorised for this Clause and Clause 2 is £25,700,000. The Minister in the first Sub-section is to have very wide powers to execute reclamation, drainage, or other work where he thinks it necessary for land to be satisfactorily used. We know what extravagant sums can be spent on land reclamation. Wild expenditure was indulged in in the spacious days during the War and just afterwards, and there are many cases where £60, £70, and £80 an acre was spent on land which at the end was not worth £10 or £20, and of which at the present day the value would be far less. We know the problem of heath land. There are various ways of improving its fertility, but they are extremely costly. There are lands in Norfolk and Suffolk which you can reclaim it is true, but where you certainly will never get a return corresponding to one-fifth of your capital outlay, and it is the same with the reclamation of land on the sea coast.
Of course, the Minister need not only go in for reclamation of land, which is in the sea or not growing crops; he can try to improve land which has been let down. I think this too in a lesser degree will be found in present conditions not to justify the cost. Land which has been let down has not been allowed to go out of cultivation or into a poor condition from choice, but simply because in present conditions it does not yield any return for the expenditure which might be made upon it. In our Agricultural Credits Act a few years ago and in the Land Improvements Act there are elaborate provisions to enable landowners and owner-occupiers to get loans for the improvement of their land, and, if they have not found it worth their while under present conditions to do so, surely it is no good pouring millions of public money down the drain.
The Minister is going the wrong way to work; he is baling out the ship instead of trying to stop the leak. Land has gone out of cultivation—a million acres the Minister tells us—and it has gone out of cultivation because the burdens and prices which is now has to bear are such that it is impossible for the cultivator to carry on. The Minister's proposals seek to place new burdens on the land with an extravagant system of valuation in preparation for new imposts.
2035 The Government do not apparently realise that instead of spending money on curing symptoms it is better to tackle the disease of low prices. We are waiting for the cereal policy of the Government; they told us that as soon as the Imperial Conference reported, they were going to take practical steps to put cereal growing on a firm foundation. If they could enable the corn grower to make a profit, there would be no need for the reclamation of such land.
Subsection (7) enables the Minister, after certain safeguards, to clear land which is in a seriously neglected condition. He has not to deal with a large problem. He has to deal with the case of one eccentric landowner, who, I believe is probably out of his mind. I do not think there is sufficient ground to pass elaborate provisions of this kind for an exceptional case. [Interruption.] This used to be looked on as a difficult case, but I understand the Minister has been more fortunate than we were, and that he has been able to get the weeds cut and his requirements complied with and that the man is no longer a nuisance to his neighbours. On the Clause as a whole, I would say that least of all is it justified in the present conditions of financial difficulty. We cannot possibly afford this expenditure at the present time. If we wish to spend money on productive purposes, the thing is to carry out the Government's pledges to make farming pay.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREDo I understand that it is not the intention to safeguard the Amendment on page 4, line 39, which I understood was to be called—in page 4, line 39, after the second word "is" to insert the words
suitable for use for agricultural purposes but cannot be satisfactorily and economically so used by reason of its being.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIt is not the intention to save any Amendments except the last Amendment standing in the name of the Minister of Agriculture—in page 5, line 1, to leave out the words "any steps which he could have taken to secure" and to insert instead thereof the words
reasonable steps to reserve or enforce any right for securing.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREWe are not allowed to put a question of drafting to 2036 the Minister. Does that mean that there are no Amendments to be called?
§ Mr. W. S. MORRISONI support the Amendment because the Bill as it stands represents the diversion of the whole energies of the Minister of Agriculture to a task which is secondary and more remote that the real problems which face agriculture. So far as the agricultural problem is concerned, by reclamation you cannot help the man who is working on land which is already reclaimed. It seems to me that we are beginning to tackle this problem at the wrong end. You propose to spend great sums of public money on land when land already in cultivation with the utmost energy and skill is failing to return an adequate livelihood to those who labour upon it. It does appear to the whole agricultural population that this proposal is the sort of tactics adopted by princes and governments in the past when they launched out on foreign expeditions to distract the attention of the people.
§ Mr. MORRISONTo continue my argument, I am sorry that hon. Members opposite are incommoded by draughts, but perhaps they are more accustomed to hot air than to a little cold air. I would urge on the Minister to accept this Amendment, and I would assure him from my own experience of the agricultural population that, if he takes this action, it will improve the prospects of co-operation on his Bill among the whole of the agricultural community. There is a feeling of irritation and disappointment with this attitude of plunging forward on the question of the reclamation of land. The ordinary man asks why money should be wasted on bringing more land under the plough when the land that is already under the plough is not paying. For these reasons, I support this Amendment, and I urge the Minister to accept it if by so doing he will remove from the Bill a point of criticism that is obvious to anyone engaged in agriculture and give the Bill a better chance of securing cooperation.
§ Mr. MUFFMay I ask that the windows on the other side of the House shall be opened so that the Opposition will catch cold and not Members on this side?
§ Major G. DAVIESIt is perfectly true that this Clause dealing with the reclamation and drainage of land raises a big issue that has very often been voiced in this House on both sides. It has been a very common charge, when agricultural questions have come up, for hon. Members opposite to say that bad and poor farming and neglect of the land have resulted in the water-logging of land that might be made productive. At first glance, there seems a good deal to be said for that point of view, but it does seem to me that in tackling this problem a Measure of this nature approaches it from the wrong end. The first thing, surely, is to try and visualise what conditions have produced that state of affairs. We see on the other side of the Channel our neighbours spending large sums of money reclaiming great tracts of territory. It is obvious to anyone going around the country that there is need of drainage, but, when it comes to applying the remedy, I suggest that in any event this Clause is premature.
I knew of some apparently good and desirable land in Somerset that was in an undrained and waterlogged condition. It caused me the same pang of agony that undoubtedly the Minister would experience and illustrates the state of things that he is trying to remedy by this Clause. Therefore, my zeal outrunning my discretion, I took steps to reclaim and drain that land. But when I had repaid the cost of that reclamation I found that the value of the land that was reclaimed was less than the amount I had spent on reclaiming it. That is not a particularly alluring prospect for the owner of the land, nor for the State to risk in our present condition. Therefore, if we find that land is not being farmed in the best possible way or that land has been going out of cultivation owing to faulty drainage, the road of approach is to find out why those who are trying to make their living out of the land are not putting it to the best use. The reason is 2038 plain, of course; even unwaterlogged land in the best possible condition does not possibly give a return for the operations on it.
The Minister is holding out very high hopes of successful experiments to farmers who have the intelligence to be able to carry on their operation at a profit, and I venture to submit that, while the Minister has painted his picture, he has not yet proved his case. If, as is clear, that the first step should be really to implement, as the practical farmer understood it, the undertaking that farming should be made to pay—that is to say, by some form of Government legislation to give a reasonable prospect to the capable farmer of making a living out of his land—then, many of these things could be added unto him. [Interruption.] I mean to the Minister. If the right hon. Gentleman were to take steps in that sequence, then I believe that there would be some prospect of finding out whether we were legislating wisely. It seems to me that we are jumping ahead and holding up those who apparently fall below the standard which the Minister would set for his operations under the aegis of the State and those who have to pass the test of whether their operations are economic or not. This is not the time to discuss the question of prices, but I do suggest that the cause of land going out of cultivation and being waterlogged is that there is not anything to attract the necessary capital to correct that state of affairs on an economic basis.
The Minister hopes to show us how under present economic conditions farming can be made to pay if those occupying the land make intelligent use of it. We suggest dropping the whole of this Clause from out of the Bill because it cannot work while farmers cannot farm, as under present conditions, on an economic basis. When the occupiers of land get the benefits which are held out to them, the Minister will find that the area of land to which h have alluded will rapidly diminish, as farmers will see that it is worth their while to reclaim the land with reasonable help from the State or the banks on an economic basis. But this Clause not only proposes to spend the money of the State in a direction in which there is no proof' that there will ever be a return, but it is going to penalise people. Under its provisions you can go 2039 to people, who are unable to live up to that standard; and say to them, "Because you have allowed your land to become neglected, because the land is not in the fullest possible cultivation, although we have not proved anything, we are going to serve a notice on you to put it right, and, if you do not do it, the State will step in and take it from you." I am not speaking of confiscation and I have not mentioned the word, bat, in doing that, we, the taxpayers, are shouldering an obligation which the occupiers of the land are unable to discharge themselves. We are going to take all the chances of making a failure of it. From whichever point of view you approach it, this Clause should be dropped from the Measure. When the case for it is proved, you can bring it forward as an entirely separate Bill after the Minister has proved his case for the large-scale and mechanised farm. That is why we criticise the retention of this Clause and hope that it will be withdrawn.
§ Viscount CRANBORNEI hope that the Minister will drop this Clause. It is a remarkable example of the "farmer complex" of the right hon. Gentleman and others on that side. Just, as certain of my hon. Friends on this side seem to see the hand of Russia everywhere, so the hon. Members opposite see everywhere the sinister hand of the farmer. The attitude of the hon. Members seems to be that of saying, "This land was in excellent condition, and now it has been allowed to go out of cultivation through the fault of the farmers who had it, either through their inefficiency or their natural vice." Anybody connected with agriculture knows there is only one reason why land goes out of condition, and that is because it does not pay to cultivate it. If you want to get this land back into a proper cultivated state without expense to the nation, you must make farming pay, and immediately all the land will go back into cultivation under the proper conditions.
The right hon. Gentleman is beginning at the wrong end. He is going to recondition it at the expense of the State and then to work it himself, in which case he will lose more money, or let it to tenant farmers, who will be no better off than other tenant farmers, and the land will 2040 soon be back in the condition it was before. I hope he will look at it in the way recommended by agricultural experte—I hesitate to mention the Farmers' Union before him—all of whom agree that agricultural prices are the whole secret. [Interruption.] If there is one particular part of this Clause we dislike most, it is the part with regard to the compulsory powers of the Minister. We hope that the Minister will not take that as a criticism of himself. He is a reasonable man and we can trust him, but he will not be there for ever. All flesh is grass and, although his is a hardy kind of grass, he will be burned up in the furnace like everybody else. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite evidently do not recognise the quotation from the scriptures. It does not mean what they mean.
I notice with some alarm that, though he may not be in favour of immediate nationalisation of land, yet, whenever the subject is mentioned, there is always a gleam of triumph in the eyes of every hon. Member on that side, and it is extremely probable that the right hon. Gentleman's successors will be much more in favour of State control of the land that he is. It will be no good for him to say then that he did not mean it. They will reply that the law allows them to take over the land, and why should they not do it? We feel that these compulsory powers are dangerous to the State, and we oppose them throughout the Bill. We are not opposing any individual Minister, but the law which allows proceedings of that kind. Students of English literature will remember that Mr. Jorrocks once said that "The law is a hass." All we can do in this House in making the laws is to try to curb its asininity. These compulsory powers, instead of curbing its asininity, gives it full rope. I hope that the Minister will agree to withdraw this Clause.
§ Mr. BUTLERI hope that it will not be amiss if, at this hour, a Member from the arable districts should endeavour, in face of the somewhat twittering behaviour of hon. Members opposite, to bring an air of reality into the Debate which may quieten the giggles worthy of schoolgirls which have been going on for some time. Having addressed myself to the Members 2041 on the benches opposite, I turn to the subject which we ought to consider with a great deal more sense and seriousness at the present moment. I appeal to the Minister again, on behalf of the cereal districts. The right hon. Gentleman, by including this Clause in the Bill, is put ting the cart before the horse. He is putting something which does not matter before something which does matter. He knows it perfectly well himself. He has to-day derided the National Farmers' Union—
§ Dr. ADDISONNo, I did not.
§ Mr. BUTLERI am right in saying that he does not like the name of the National Farmers' Union. I believe that is a fact which he cannot contest.
§ Dr. ADDISONHon. Members are trying to sow distrust between myself and the Farmers' Union. I am in consultation with certain leading officers of the Union and I have arranged for them to come and see me on a certain matter.
§ Mr. BUTLERI am extremely glad that the right hon. Gentleman is in touch with the Farmers' Union. I wish, however, to protest against the pointing out of their alleged deficiencies and saying that their opinion does not matter. That is what we have gathered is the attitude of the Government and its supporters. We regret extremely that that organisation, which does represent organised farming in this country, should be so regarded. I know that the union objects very strongly to this provision. At the present time there are people in very genuine distress in this country who are looking to emergency measures for help and not to fancy legislation. I regard this as a. case of fancy legislation. It is something which does not matter in the present crisis. We have heard of a great disturbance in New Zealand. I regard that as an emergency. We have in the arable districts of East Anglia an emergency not so visible but hardly less poignant. I must apologise to the Rouse if I have to treat this subject perfectly seriously at this hour. I only hope that some of the remarks from these Benches will go out to the nation [Interruption.]—It would be out of order if I were to discuss further the emergency in the Eastern part of England, but if we were to act here as if this was the grand committee of the nation where 2042 the business of the nation was discussed in a business-like way, we could decide to omit this Clause and not wreck the Bill in one jot or tittle. If we had more than three Members of the Liberal party present, and enough Members to defeat this Clause, I think we should be doing a great national service to the country.
I seriously protest against a Clause like this being taken at such a ridiculous, hour. We have the opportunity to defeat something, and if we did, the nation would be extraordinarily grateful. We have the opportunity of saving the nation many millions of money by omitting this Clause. We know the condition of the nation's finances, we know the extraordinarily serious condition and what is going on in the City, which is as much as anything due to the distrust of our finance in the world, we know branches of agriculture which for £1,000,000 could have great improvements, such as the sugar beet industry. With some substantial help it would keep land cultivated and give employment. We on this side of the House are facing realities, and we have checked some of the giggling going on for the last half hour on the benches behind the Government. We could save many millions if we could drop this provision, which seems to be directed, as has been said, larely against a person not in his right mind. We have not had sufficient proof that such provisions are wanted in this present emergency. In the struggling position in the country, particularly in East Anglia, the right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself for taking up the time of the House and making a mockery of our institutions.
§ Dr. ADDISONI am sure the hon. Member who has just spoken must have derived a great deal of satisfaction from his speech. I could not connect much of it with the Amendment. He spoke of the earthquake in New Zealand and the price of gold in the City and various things we have done or left undone. He did not produce a single reason why we should not have this Clause except to say that it would be a waste of money. He did not produce a single tittle of evidence. I feel quite unrepentant when confronted with his reproaches. He presumed lack of interest in what was happening to the sugar beet industry and cereals. In due season, I hope to be-able to convince him that he is mistaken.
2043 What is our crime? It is that we propose to spend a little money in making better use of our native land. That is supposed to be a waste of money. The hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Major Davies) said we must drop the Clause, but that I could press forward when I had proved the case. How am I going to prove the case when I am not to be allowed to try it? If I cannot exercise the power, I cannot prove it. It is a species of logic I am unable to follow. The hon. Member himself speaking of land both he and I know very well, said that it required draining and was waterlogged. I propose we should have power to do what the owners have not done. I do not blame them. They may, or may not, be doing it because they have to pay a great deal in Death Duties. The families may have drawn rather freely for generations on the family inheritance. There are many reasons not involving blame on the present land owners, why the land has not had spent upon it money for works of improvement and maintenance.
It is clear that we can promote more employment on the land. Surely it was a sensible thing to take power where
The Minister is of opinion, with respect to any piece of land, that the execution thereon of reclamation, drainage, or other work is necessary in order to enable the piece of land to be satisfactorily used for agricultural purposes.5.0 a.m.It is not a mere freak; it is put down in order to bring land into use. It seems to me an entirely praiseworthy and sensible thing to do. The fact that large areas of land need treatment has been attested to by inquiry after inquiry over the last 50 years. It is about time we did take these powers.
In the second part of the Clause we propose that where any piece of land suitable for use for agricultural purposes cannot be satisfactorily used for those purposes by reason of it being in a seriously neglected condition, the Minister may take it compulsorily if the owner for one reason or another has not been able to execute the necessary works of maintenance. The reason why I am taking this power is not because one man is not quite right in his head. The late Minister of Agriculture did his best to get at one particular case in Hampshire. 2044 We all know about that case. This particular man has resisted all attempts of the county council and everybody else. The land is a desert, about 2,000 acres of it, the buildings are in disrepair, roofs are falling in; it is a sea of thistles from one end to the other. I am not concerned whether he is sane or not. What I am concerned with is the land, and I say it is time that someone had power to stop a thing of that sort.
I agree that this man has distinguished himself in his clever ability to elude the law. He has succeeded in fighting the efforts of the county council and various Ministers of Agriculture for a good long time. By the aid of legal advisers we have, I think, for once scored a point, but I have no faith in the result of our temporary victory. But that is not the only case. I am not blaming anybody. There is the fact and it is absolutely essential that we should be able to execute essential work. It is a discredit to the country that we have not had the power long ago.
§ Major GLYNThe House has listened with some astonishment to the last remarks of the Minister. There seems to be that feeling of land hunger which excites the back Benches, and the impression that they can make a better job of the land than the men who have been brought up on it. If they cannot make a living out of it, how can it be hoped that the Minister, by reclaiming land and spending vast sums of money on it, is going to make it pay? There is already an immense amount of land on the market, I am sorry to say at a price which gives little return to those unfortunate enough to own it. There are very few counties in England or Scotland where the owners would not be glad to sell the whole of their land for 15 or 20 years' purchase. But the experience of everybody who lives in the country in regard to the administration by Government offices when land was being controlled for War purposes was sufficient to show that when these people go to the country, they do make most painful mistakes. This is not the time when this country can afford £5,000,000 and a blank cheque to the Minister, no matter how honest he is in his desire to see land brought back to cultivation.
There is nothing in this Clause to justify the statement of the Minister that 2045 there is a great deal of land out of cultivation, which by expenditure for drainage purposes or anything else could be brought back to profitable cultivation. I notice in the Board of Agriculture Blue Book that there are 65,000 acres out of 29,500,000 identified as not used for agriculture. That is a very small percentage. I do feel that the Minister has hardly made out a case which justifies us in putting such a Clause into a Bill at a time when the country is staggering under a vast debt, and when it is very difficult to make the Budget balance. This Amendment, if carried, would give great satisfaction to the taxpayers, whether living in town or country. The money could be far better spent in assisting both small and large holders to produce on land well able to be brought back into cultivation, if you protect your market and allow your people to have a fair chance in your own market.
My constituency consists of downland and arable land in the vale, and in the old days the parishes were divided into long strips, which were devised for the purpose of grazing in the downland, and gradually, as you came to the richer land below, you had your arable land. During the War a party of inspectors from London went there, and they thought that these ancient arrangements were entirely wrong. They attempted to grow corn on land where it could not be grown at a profit, and they did not grow corn where it could be grown at a profit. This sort of example one sees of official farming does not encourage me to believe that by giving this money to the Minister he will spend it wisely.
Not a word has been said about the Drainage Bill, and there does not seem to be anything in the Bill saying that the officials must consult the officials of the new catchment areas. It seems to me a form of sloppy legislation to bring in a Bill which is the Alpha and Omega of drainage, and then bring in another Bill which can override the schemes of the catchment authority. As I believe that consultation is necessary in regard to drainage, so I believe that it is necessary in regard to organisations of farmers, county committees and county land officers, and also to the shepherd and farmer. I would like to see this Clause dropped from the Bill.
§ Colonel LANE FOXIf there is anything to make us doubtful of how the Clause will work, it was the speech of the Minister just before he left the House. Personally, I would far rather see the duty of reclamation put in the hands of a county agricultural committee consisting largely of men of experience who do not waste money. Take the case of the notorious gentleman in Hampshire. What is he going to do about him? The Minister glories in the fact of spending money, and that means spending £5,000,000, more or less. He was going to spend money in regard to the man in Hampshire, and to turn his place into a model holding, but how did he propose under present conditions of prices to get the money back? The £5,000,000 belonged to the taxpayers, and I defy anyone to explain how they are going to get any proportion of their money back. It is going to be a waste of money to reclaim these large tracts of land in the present condition, unless something can be done to make agriculture a more paying concern. The remedy is one which is not worth applying in present conditions. Much though we wish to see it, we cannot maintain land at the highest standard of cultivation, and the reason that it has gone down is that it has ceased to attract capital. I want to see this Clause taken out. I do not want the Minister to have the chance of wasting all this money. If there was any chance of getting the money back, I would support it, but in present conditions I am not prepared to give the Minister with his previous record a chance of wasting £5,000,000.
Captain BALFOURI should like to associate myself with the protests against the derogatory remarks of the Minister about the speech of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) when he touched on some factors which are vital in the present circumstances and which showed a recognition of the facts. The Minister said that he was going to spend a little money to make an improvement in the countryside—an admirable sentiment, if it can be carried out. I take particular exception to the reclamation proposals in this Bill, because we are embarking on proposals of a vast national reclamation scheme, and the country is not ready for it. From the agricultural point of view, they know 2047 that the Government have allowed farming to drop into a state of depression which has never been touched upon before in our history. If the Government undertake a reclamation scheme, they are bound to put a capital charge on the capital value, and the capital cast would be out of all proportion to the return. That would be a bad business for the taxpayers. The alternative is that the farmer will be called upon to pay a heavy charge on his land. Either the taxpayer or the farmer will have to lose, with agriculture in its present state.
Another objection to the proposals in this Bill is one that has been touched on from the point of view of drainage. I see nothing which gives any indication that the Minister would take into consideration the need which has been recognised by this House for the co-ordination of the whole of our coast protection. This has a very important bearing on the proposals for reclamation of agricultural land, because a great deal of it is sluiced and dyked, and depends for its reclamation on adequate control of our coasts. The Minister would take a piece of land here and a piece there. He might succeed in the particular place in which he was carrying out his work, but he would do so at the cost of land adjacent, unless the whole coast protection of Great Britain be co-ordinated. For these reasons, I say that this is a bad Bill, that Clause 3 is one of the worst Clauses in a bad Bill, and I sincerely hope that it will be deleted. The right hon. Gentleman talked about a mysterious Mr. X somewhere in Hampshire. I am not cognisant of the facts of that case, but he seemed to take great pride in the Government having prepared a Bill by which Mr. X would get what he deserved. When this Bill has been found unworkable, if it ever reaches the Statute Book, the Government will have one consolation—that Mr. X has been saved by the Bill.
§ Lieut. - Colonel RUGGLES - BRISEThe financial Clause to which we shall come later provides a sum of no less than £5,000,000 to be spent between Clauses 2 and 3. I think it is rather remarkable that we have had no indication either in the Committee stage or on Report from the Minister or any other member 2048 of the Government as to the division of this £5,000,000 as between the demonstration farms and land reclamation. Perhaps it may be that the Government have no particularly vivid ideas on this subject. The Minister has succeeded in inducing the Chancellor of the Exchequer in these times of national financial distress to say that expenditure up to £5,000,000 may be incurred either in demonstration farms or in land reclamation. But in regard to almost every other subject in connection with this Bill the Minister has been absolutely reticent and refused to enlighten us, or the country, as to how he intends to apply the vast sums of money he will be empowered to spend under this Bill.
We are entitled to know what amount of money he intends to spend in the reclamation of land. We have no idea at all. Is the expenditure going to be productive, either at this time or any other time? That is the test that ought to be applied to the expenditure of public money. It is a test that ought to be applied, above all, at this particular time when the finances of the country are in such a deplorable condition. Can the Minister say with his hand on his heart that there is any hope of this expenditure being productive? It is within the knowledge of hon. Members on all sides of the House that the expenditure of money to-day on land reclamation for the purposes of agriculture cannot be other than a loss to the nation once and for all. What is the use of bringing more land into agriculture at a time when all the best land in the country is being operated at a loss to the farmer? Would it not be, far better to apply this money to assisting agriculture at the present time to tide over its great difficulties? It may be that £5,000,000 would not save it for long, but we all live in hope that this desperate situation will not last for long. For the Government to come to this House and ask for the expenditure of 25.000,000 in an utterly unpractical manner is nothing short of a grave public scandal, and I sincerely trust that the House will reject this Clause.
§ Major COLVILLEThis part of the Bill is well in keeping with the actions of the Government, because whenever the country asks for bread, they give it a stone. When a Government spends time in discussing a Trade Disputes Bill, while 2049 trade is being lost, and a Representation of the People Bill while all that the people want is that they shall be properly represented by those whom they have sent to this House, it is not surprising that such a Government should take up drainage and the securing of waterlogged areas, while good areas are going daily out of cultivation. Supposing the Minister does exercise his right, takes over certain ground, spends money on it, reconditions it and gets it into absolutely fertile soil, will he get it into any better order than land, to which I could now take him, that is being turned into grass because the tenants cannot make a living out of it? What good will come of it in the long run unless it can be sure of some return in the end? There are areas of land in this country better than he could hope to reach which are not able to support farmers at the present time.
The part of the Bill relating to compulsory acquisition is particularly objectionable. It reminds me of the story of Ahab and Naboth's vineyard, but the Minister does not need to turn his face to the wall; all he has got to do is to send his authorities—any person at all—an official of his Department presumably can go down, enter and inspect Naboth's vineyard, say whether he is using it properly or not, bring back his report, and if it is satisfactory from the Minister's point of view, and unsatisfactory from Naboth's point of view, he simply acquires it otherwise than by agreement. We cannot allow that proposal to pass without registering a protest. Some hon. Members opposite regard this with great joy as a lever for nationalising the land. There is another point. How do we know that the taxpayers' money is going to be used on land that is even likely to become suitable for agricultural purposes? We have no guarantee that the Department or the Minister may not make grave mistakes in this matter. They may take land which will be—to use a mixed metaphor—a white elephant to them for many years to come.
We know that recently in Scotland a certain nobleman offered a. large tract of land in payment of Death Duties, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not take it, because he said that he believed it was land which was not of any 2050 immediate use. It is rather a curious reflection that the Chancellor of the party, which claims to be anxious to get the land over to the people at the earliest opportunity, should refuse a large tract of land offered in payment of Death Duties. We have no guarantee that the Minister or Department will not take over large areas of land which they will find themselves obliged to let or work later on. The taxpayer will thus be saddled with the burden of reclaiming the land and keeping it up afterwards. Unless we tackle the question of price, the question of enabling the agriculturist to get his produce sold, we are only tinkering with the question. We ought to press this matter to a Division, because if there is one part of the Bill which is not justified, it is this Clause.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONI confess that in listening to the hon. Member opposite I had some doubts as to whether he had read this Clause or not. He said in one part of his speech that the Minister had power to send persons to examine a man's land and, if they brought back the kind of report the Minister wanted, the Minister then had powers of compulsory acquisition. If these hon. Members would look at the Clause, they would observe that, if there is a dispute between the owner and the Minister as to whether the land is seriously or grossly neglected or not, there is provision for the appointment of a single arbitrator chosen by the President of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution. It is ridiculous to pretend that this is a Clause under which an arbitrary Minister is going to invade private property, seize it arbitrarily, and compulsorily acquire it for a nationalised state. The fact of the matter is that Clause 3 may properly be divided into two sections. There is, first, the section which deals with the case of the land not in a seriously neglected condition, but land which may be improved and where the proprietor for various reasons—the Minister of Agriculture stated some of them—is unable to put his land in order. The Minister has power here, under the first section of this Clause, to acquire that land by agreement, and to put it in proper order in the national interest.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSAn awful waste of money [...]
§ Mr. JOHNSTONHon. Members opposite say it is an awful waste of money to bring neglected land into condition.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSThe hon. Gentleman was referring to land seriously neglected. There is a great deal of difference between seriously neglected land and grossly neglected land.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONOf course there is, and I am going to deal with that. Only by agreement with the owner may the Minister acquire that land on a fair price to be settled ultimately by arbitration, and he may then bring it into a cultivable condition. Is there anything wrong in that?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEThe whole point is this: Is it worth it at the present time, with world prices?
§ Mr. JOHNSTONI will deal with that. Let me first deal with the point raised by hon. Members who have frequently denounced this as if it were a scandalous thing. Is it a waste of public money to secure, on behalf of the nation, at a fair and reasonable price neglected land and to bring that land into cultivable condition? We on this side do not take that view. I will come to the economic side in a moment. The second part deals with grossly neglected land. There has been one instance repeatedly given, the Hampshire instance. There are others. In the case of grossly neglected land, the Minister has power to acquire by compulsion. He need not only acquire by agreement, but by compulsion. The dispute as to whether the land is grossly neglected or not, and the terms on which it is to be taken over, are to be settled by an arbitrator appointed by the President of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution. It is all rhodomontade about arbitrary ministers in Whitehall sending down persons to seize the land anywhere. I see only one substantial objection to the operation of Clause 3 of this Bill, and it is really an irrelevance to this Bill. Ought the land be cultivated at present prices of produce Is it worth doing so? That is another question. The Minister has never suggested that this particular method, which deals with utilisation of land alone, can possibly deal with that part of the problem. It cannot do it, and it is common knowledge that there is another Bill which does attempt to 2052 deal with the problem of marketing and prices.
This Measure is purely a question of the better utilisation of the soil of our country. Clause 3 deals with cases of neglected land. The Government are willing at any time to take the verdict of the country upon this problem. The Government will do it sooner or later, but I am not the arbiter of the date on which it will be done. Sooner or later the proposition will come to the country that where land is in a grossly neglected condition hon. Members opposite wished to prevent the Government from getting powers to deal with the land. We say that steps should be taken to deal with it. If it comes to an argument of economics, I would say it would pay the nation far better to employ thousands of our unemployed fellow-citizens in the useful work of reconditioning the land of our country rather than that they should be maintained in idleness producing nothing for the nation.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe hon. Gentleman has said something with regard to the land in Midlothian. Does he say it applies to the land in Midlothian?
§ Mr. JOHNSTONif I did give that impression, I did not mean it at all.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe hon. Gentleman was to carry it up to Midlothian. People in Midlothian would have a sufficiently accurate knowledge of the present state of farming to give a good judgment on the Bill as between the Government and its critics. He has said that the Bill is divided into two parts. The first part is acquisition, by agreement, of land which might be better cultivated. By what standard is the Ministry of Agriculture going to judge whether land it proposes to acquire by agreement is properly and fully cultivated or not? There was land in Midlothian which three years ago anyone would have thought wrongly cultivated if it was not used for arable farming, was not used up to the highest standard. Individuals now say that, owing to the present situation they are not going on with arable farming. It is a question of the price of agricultural products. Land for which one standard is applicable today may be entirely inapplicable for that standard two years hence. Officials in all Government departments realise that 2053 they are not the best judges of what particular farms could be put to the best use.
The whole situation of arable land is completely changed. It is doubtful, unless the country changes its mind, whether there will be any arable land left in this country before many years are past. By the standard of conditions obtaining up to quite recently, and in some cases even now, it would be grossly improper to use the best arable land for any other purpose, but what the Government Department has to show is that it will be able to carry on to-day without inflicting a very heavy loss upon the national Exchequer. I gather that the Minister wants to enter into occupation, and that the Government should farm land by agreement.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONSub-section (1) of this Clause says:
If the Minister is of opinion, with respect to any piece of land, that the execution thereon of reclamation, drainage, or other work is necessary in order to enable the piece of land to be satisfactorily used for agricultural purposes, he may purchase and hold the piece of land and execute thereon such work as aforesaid for the purposes of letting, selling or otherwise disposing of the piece of land when the said work has been executed.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDHe can hold it or let it. You may get a piece of land on which you employ labour and restore it to its original condition by drainage. That might have been good business five years ago, but it would be a waste of money to-day. To think that that kind of thing can be settled by a Government Department is taking an optimistic view of the situation that is not justified.
§ Passing on to compulsory acquisition, the whole of the argument in favour of this Clause is also based on the fact that the judgment of the Government Department is likely to be better than that of private individuals. The Minister has quoted the one instance of some individual in Hampshire. I submit that to pick out a particular instance and to take it as typical is grossly unfair. One might pick out a particular instance and take it as typical of the work of a Government Department, but it would be grossly unfair to the Government Department. I have got in my mind just such an instance as that to which the Minister alluded, and it was done by a Government Department. They altered a drain, with the result that there was a great deal of flooding and a great deal of unnecessary expense. It was a thing which no one in an ordinary business way would think of doing. But I am not prepared to say that that is typical of a Government Department's work. That was done and it would be just as unfair to judge the whole Government Department by that as it is to take the instance the Minister has quoted as typical. The prospect, if this is carried out, will be most unfortunate. Peace between farmers and labourers, and between farmers and owners, is not likely to be promoted by putting them in the difficult position that this Clause will do.
§ Dr. ADDISON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 87.
| Hoffman, P. C. | Mansfield, W. | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Hollins, A. | Marcus, M. | Shield, George William |
| Hopkin, Daniel | Markham, S. F. | Shillaker, J. F |
| Horrabin, J. F. | Marley, J. | Shinwell, E. |
| Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Mathers, George | Simmons, C. J. |
| Jenkins, Sir William | Matters, L. W. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Messer, Fred | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Johnston, Thomas | Middleton, G. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Kelly, W. T. | Mills, J. E. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Milner, Major J. | Smith, Tom (Pontetract) |
| Kinley, J. | Montague, Frederick | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Lang, Gordon | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
| Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Morley, Ralph | Strauss, G. R. |
| Law, A. (Rossendale) | Mort, D. L. | Sullivan, J. |
| Lawrence, Susan | Muff, G. | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
| Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Oldfield, J. R. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Lawson, John James | Oliver, George Harold (likeston) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Tout, W. J. |
| Leach, W. | Palin, John Henry | Wallace, H. W. |
| Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) | Paling, Wilfrid | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Lloyd, C. Ellis | Perry, S. F. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Logan, David Gilbert | Peters, Dr. Sidney John | Westwood, Joseph |
| Longbottom, A. W. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Longden, F. | Potts, John S. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Pybus, Percy John | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly) |
| Lunn, William | Quibell, D. J. K. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Macdonald, Gordon (Iuce) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Raynes, W. R. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| McElwee, A. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh) |
| McEntee, V. L. | Romeril, H. G. | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| McKinlay, A. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| MacLaren, Andrew | Rowson, Guy | Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Hayes. |
| McShane, John James | Sanders, W. S. | |
| Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Sawyer, G. F. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel. | Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | Percy, Lord Eustace |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh) | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Poto, Sir Basll E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Ferguson, Sir John | Ramsbotham, H. |
| Balfour, Captain H. H. (I.of Thanet) | Flson, F. G. Clavering | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Balniel, Lord | Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E. | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Ganzoni, Sir John | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Glyn, Major R. G. C | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Savery, S. S. |
| Boyce, Leslie | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Hartington, Marquess of | Southby, Commander A. R. J |
| Butler, R. A. | Harvey, Major s. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Stanley, Maj, Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Heneage, Lieut.-Col Arthur P. | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.) | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Cazalet, Captain victor A. | Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) |
| Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.) | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Christie, J. A. | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Clydesdale, Marquess of | Liewellin, Major J. J. | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Lockwood, Captain J. H. | Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Lymington, Viscount | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L | McConnell, Sir Joseph | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Macdonald. Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Marjoribanks, Edward | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Muirhead, A. J. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) | O'Connor, T. J. | Sir George Penny and Major the Marquess of Titchfield. |
| Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'any' in page 5, line 1, stand part of the Bill,"
2056§ The House divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 87.
| Division No. 121.] | AYES. | [6.4 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, Weat) | Arnott, John | Batey, Joseoh |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Aske, Sir Robert | Bennett, William (Batteraea, South) |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Attlee, Clement Richard | Benson, G. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Bowen, J. W. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Barnes, Altred John | Broad, Francis Alfred |
| Ammon, Charles George | Barr, James | Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Jenkins, Sir William | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Perry, S. F. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Johnston, Thomas | Peters. Dr. Sidney John |
| Caine, Oerwent Hall | Kelly, W. T. | Pethlck-Lawrimce, F. W. |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Potts, John S. |
| Charieton, H. C. | Klnley, J. | Pybus, Percy John |
| Chater, Daniel | Lang, Gordon | Quibell, D. J. K. |
| Clarke, J. S. | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour. | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Raynes, W. R. |
| Compton, Joseph | Lawrence, Susan | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Romeril, H. G. |
| Daggar, George | Lawson, John James | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Dallas, George | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Rowson, Guy |
| Dalton, Hugh | Leach, W. | Sanders, W. S. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Dukes, C. | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Duncan, Charles | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Shield, Gtorga William |
| Ede, James Chuter | Logan, David Gilbert | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Longbottom, A. W. | Shinwell, E. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Longden, F. | Simmons, C. J. |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Elmley, Viscount | Lunn, William | Smith, Bsn (Bermondsey, Rotherbltbe) |
| Freeman, Peter | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | MacDonald, Maicolm (Bassetlaw) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley) | McElwee, A. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Gill, T. H. | McEntee, V. L. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Glattey, A. E. | McKinlay, A. | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
| Gossling, A. G. | MacLaren, Andrew | Strauss, G. R. |
| Gould, F. | McShane, John James | Sullivan, J. |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Maione, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) |
| Gray, Milner | Mantfield, W. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Marcus, M. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Markham, S. F. | Tout, W. J. |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Marley, J. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Mathers, George | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Matters, L. W. | Watts.Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Messer. Fred | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) | Middleton, G. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Mills, J. E. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Harbord, A. | Milner, Major J. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Hardie, George D. | Montague, Frederick | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Haycock, A. W. | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Morley, Ralph | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Herriotts, J. | Mort, D. L. | Wilson, R. J. Marrow) |
| Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Muff, G. | Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh) |
| Hoffman, P. C. | Oltlfield, J. R. | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Holllns, A. | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Hopkin, Daniel | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Hayes. |
| Horrabin, J. F. | Palin, John Henry. | |
| Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Paling, Wilfrid |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh) | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Allen, W. E. D. (Beltast, W.) | Ferguson, Sir John | Ramsbotham, H. |
| Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Fison, F. G. Clavering | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall) |
| Balnlel, Lord | Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E. | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Ganzoni, Sir John | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Savery, S. S. |
| Boyce, Leslie | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Brlscoe, Richard George | Hartington, Marquess of | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Butler, R. A. | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Heneage, Lieut.-Col Arthur P. | Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.) | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Stuart. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) | Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.SirJ.A.(Birm.,W.) | Lamb, Sir J. O. | Titchfield. Major the Marquess of |
| Christie, J. A. | Leighton. Major B. E. P. | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Clydesdale, Marquess of | Liewellin, Major J. J. | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Lockwood, Captain J. H. | Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornby) |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Lymington, Viscount | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | McConnell, Sir Joseph | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Crichton-Stnart, Lord C. | Marjoribanks, Edward | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Cunllffe-Lister. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Muirhead, A. J. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Davidson, Rt, Hon. J. (Hertford) | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Davies, Maj, Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovll) | O'Connor, T. J. | Sir George Penny and Captain D. Margesson. |
| Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William |
§ Dr. ADDISONI beg to move, in page 5, line 1, to leave out the words "any steps which he could have taken to secure," and to insert instead thereof the words:
reasonable steps to reserve or enforce any right for securing.It was contended in Committee that the words in the Bill did not make our intention quite clear, and I undertook to try to improve upon the wording. This is, I think, an improvement on the wording, which means the same thing, but makes it clearer.
§ Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTERI beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
Obviously, both on the merits of the case and the predilections of the Minister alike, we have reached a stage at which this is the most apropriate Motion that can be made to the House. The Minister has carried through his vigil. He has set the House a task to find something useful to do until such time as
The dawn comes up like thunder out of China cross the bay And there are some buses running from the House to Mandalay.Having reached the time when I think every form of traffic is now in motion, and the House having discharged with zeal, patience and tact, and with reasonable tempers, the duty not imposed on it by the will of many of its Members, but by the Minister who, I must say, has behaved a little like a master who keeps the class in for an hour or two and then says, "What can we find useful to do?" [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the kindergarten?"] We have all been kept in in earlier days in circumstances like that. [An HON. MEMBER: "You liked it!"] We liked it all right, but we would rather have been playing some other game outside. [Interruption.] On those occasions we behaved very much as this House invariably behaves during an all-night sitting. We generally found that when we were kept in for many hours we did not get far in the lesson, or get very much work done. I do not think we have got very far, and, after sitting up all night. I doubt whether we have got further than by a little tactful arrangement we probably would have got without sitting up late. It is what always happens when you are kept sitting up all night. [An HON. MEMBER: "The 2060 amateurs!"] There are too many amateurs in the negotiations. I was brought up very early to believe that negotiations should be conducted through the usual professional channels. When you sit up all night you do not get very far. The House gets into a general temper of thinking that you will sit up to-night, and all the next night, and that is not good for the House or for getting business done.For these reasons, I think that we should adjourn. [Interruption.] Let hon. Members opposite be assured that if this is merely to be a test of endurance, we shall go on quite as well and as long as they will, and not only on one night, but on many nights. [interruption.] I realise that the sole desire of hon. Members opposite and their allies is not only that we shall secure no representation in this House, but that even those of us who are fortunate enough to represent a few hundred thousand people in a constituency shall have no opportunity of speaking here. Hon. Gentleman have not yet quite accomplished it, but that is their desire—to convert this House from a Council of State and a deliberative assembly into a Soviet for registering decrees. Incidentally, this would be rather a good Bill to begin with, as it consists of a Bill against the kulaki who are to he driven out of their smallholdings, because they committed the only offence, apparently, of daring to own their land, and are to be made subject to a decree. At this hour of the morning it is very undesirable that we should embark upon the extreme intricacies of this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman began to move his first Amendment by saying that it is difficult to find the appropriate words to define an intention. It is very difficult to deal with these points now. A great deal has been left to the discretion of the Minister. It is a Clause whose complicated details have to be very fully discussed. The House will not he at its best, after an all-night sitting, in trying to deal with the very complicated Amendments which must come upon this Clause.
§ Dr. ADDISONThe right hon. Gentleman's colleagues will welcome the right hon. Gentleman's reappearance.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remark, but I have been here all night.
§ Dr. ADDISONI was only pointing out that he had not been in the class. He has taken a few minutes to advance reasons for his Motion. I should have been only too glad hours and hours ago to come to some understanding. I should like to come to some understanding as to how to finish the Report stage of this Bill. I said I would consider a reasonable arrangement. At the same time, there is no justification for stopping in the middle of this Clause.
§ Lieut. - Colonel HENEAGEThe Minister is trying the House a little far. I will give him a personal reason why we should adjourn now. I had an Amendment down about which the Lord Advocate promised to communicate with me. Although I have been waiting for it, no such communication has been received. The right hon. Gentleman has not realised that this Bill is greatly unpopular in the country, that not a single association or body representing agricultural opinion has supported it. This Bill is a new step towards nationalisation while it is, as is not realised, the first step towards upsetting the Drainage Act.
§ Mr. O'CONNORMay I point out, as a reason for bringing the Debate to a termination, that we are discussing a Clause which is to involve an expenditure of £5,000,000 of national money, which represents the interest on one of the largest items of our National Debt. We have had a little over an hour and a quarter to discuss the whole question of land drainage for which the Minister takes power in this Bill. There has not been a single speech of an obstructive character. There is little chance even now of moving Amendments which will make the Clause workable. We are going to send it to the courts to be interpreted. The courts will wonder how Parliament could have passed such a Clause. That is the way the country's business is being conducted. It is a farce. It is a discredit to this assembly. It is bringing the prestige of this Parliament lower and lower—fiddling at this kind of discussion when what the country wants is radical methods of dealing with 2062 the serious economic problems which confront it. There was a gentleman who made a hobby of buying up national institutions and destroying them. That seems to be the process in which tile Government are engaged—sapping the confidence of the nation in its national institutions.
§ Dr. ADDISON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINAbout half-past twelve I moved the adjournment of the Debate in the expectation that the right hon. Gentleman would indicate a reasonable time at which he would adjourn the Debate. He indicated no particular point of progress in the Bill. He said that in about six hours would be the time he would probably discuss this matter again. The only reason he gave for his action was that since we had sat past the hour at which trams, omnibuses and trains moved, he thought it proper to call upon us to sit until they ran again. It was the only reason given, and it no longer holds good. He now keeps the House sitting because he and others behind him have lost their tempers. I have seen it happen before. Hon. Gentlemen behind the Minister are annoyed at having to sit up. They then encourage the Minister to be unreasonable in his conduct of the Bill. He refuses to accept Amendments he could perfectly well put into the Bill without injuring it from his own point of view. They encourage him in an attitude of stupid opposition and obstinate persistence. I do not think that any wise Leader of the House lends himself to being guided by that sort of pressure or encouragement. He ought to have more regard for the dignity of the House and for the conditions in which business can be satisfactorily conducted. He shows no regard for the Opposition. He offers reasons across the Floor which he does not hold by himself, and which he knows are an absurdity. Now he does not encourage the forwarding of business. No Government can be successfully conducted on these methods.
§ Dr. ADDISONSome hours ago I pointed out how useful it would be to make further progress with the Bill. I 2063 fully expected that we should have got very much further than we have got. The Bill has certainly been most meticulously discussed, but it is not Members on this side of the House who have taken up time. I would be very glad indeed if by some arrangement we could finish the Report stage by what will now be this evening. The first and third Clause contain the most important points. There is not much difference between hon. Members opposite and ourselves on other parts. If we cannot get an arrangement, it is inadvisable to stop in the middle of this Clause. I hope that the House will reject this Motion.
§ Mr. MARJORIBANKSThe Minister said it was not his side of the House which was responsible for this discussion. He could have accepted one Amendment long before he did. There is also the absolutely inexcusable example of
| Division No. 122.] | AYES. | [6.42 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Grenfcll, D. R. (Glamorgan) | McShane, John James |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Grundy, Thomas W. | Mansfield, W. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Marcus, M. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Markham, S. F. |
| Arnott, John | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Marley, J. |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) | Mathers, George |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Matters, L. W. |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Harbord, A. | Messer, Fred |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Hardie, George D. | Middleton, G. |
| Barr, James | Haycock, A. W. | Mills, J. E. |
| Batey, Joseph | Hayes, John Henry | Milner, Major J. |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, south) | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Montague. Frederick |
| Benson, G. | Herriotts, J. | Morgan, Dr. H. B. |
| Bowen, J. W. | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Morley, Ralph |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Hoffman, P. C. | Mort, D. L. |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Hollins, A. | Muff, G. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Hopkin, Daniel | Oldfield, J. R. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Horrabin, J. F. | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) |
| Burgess, F. G. | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) |
| Caine, Derwent Hall- | Jenkins, Sir William | Palin, John Henry |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Charleson, H. C. | Johnston, Thomas | Perry, S. F. |
| Chater, Daniel | Kelly, W. T. | Peters, Dr. Sidney John |
| Ciarke, J. S. | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Potts, John S. |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Kinley, J. | Pybus, Percy John |
| Compton, Joseph | Lang, Gordon | Quibell, D. J. K. |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. Georfld | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
| Daggar, George | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Raynes, W. R. |
| Dallas, Gtorge | Lawrence, Susan | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Romeril, H. G. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Lawson, John James | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Dukes, C. | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Rowson, Guy |
| Duncan, Charles | Leach, W. | Sanders, W. S. |
| Ede, James Chuter | Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwetlty) | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Shield, George William |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Logan, David Gilbert | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Elmley, Viscount | Lonqbottom, A. W. | Shinwell, E. |
| Freeman, Peter | Longden, F. | Simmons, C. J. |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lanes. Motsliy) | Lunn, William | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe) |
| Gill, T. H. | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Giassey, A. E. | MacDonald, Malcoim (Bassetiaw) | Smith, nennie (Penlstone) |
| Gossling, A. G. | McElwee, A. | Smith, Tom (Pontetract) |
| Gould, F. | McEntee, V. L. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | McKinlay, A. | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
| Gray, Milner | MacLaren, Andrew | Strauss, G. R. |
§ the right hon. Gentleman flinging across the Floor of the House the suggestion that an Amendment was inserted at the request of a Member on this side when the whole incident was found to rest in the imagination of the right hon. Gentleman himself. The right hon. Gentleman cannot escape from the charge of wasting a very considerable amount of the time of the House. He might have given himself two more hours in which to discuss his Bill if he had not been so extremely foolish as to waste two hours discussing the Noble Lord's Amendment and then giving way.
§ Dr. ADDISON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 162; Noes, 84.
| Sullivan, J. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) | Wellock, Wilfred | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Thurtle, Ernest | Westwood, Joseph | Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh) |
| Tinker, John Joseph | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Tout, W. J. | Williams, David (Swansea, Eatt) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Wallace, H. W. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) | Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Paling. |
| Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh) | Ferguson, Sir John | Ramsbotham, H. |
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Fison, F. G. Clavering | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Giyn, Major R. G. C. | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel t. A. |
| Bainiel, Lord | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Bird, Ernest Ray | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Savery, S. S. |
| Boyce, Leslie | Hartington, Marquess of | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Smithers, Waldron |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Butler, R. A. | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.) | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Chamberlain Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.) | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Christie, J. A. | Liwellin, Major J. J. | Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) |
| Clydesdale, Marquess of | Lockwood, Captain J. H. | Titchfleld, Major the Marquess of |
| Colvllle, Major D. J. | Lymington, Viscount | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | McConnell, Sir Joseph | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Warrender, Sir victor |
| Crchton-Stuart, Lord C. | Marjoribanks, Edward | Wells, Sydney R. |
| CroGkshank,Cpt.H.(Llndsey,Galntbro) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Ctrencester) | Windsor-Clive, Lfeut.-Colonel George |
| Cunliffe-Llster, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Muirhead, A. J. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Womerstey, W. J. |
| Davias, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) | O'Connor, T. J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert | Penny, Sir George | Captain Sir George Bowyer and |
| Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Captain Euan Wallace. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Debate be now adjourned." 162.
| Division No. 123.] | AYES. | [6.50 a.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh) | Ferguson, Sir John | Ramsbotham, H. |
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Flson, F. G. Clavering | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall) |
| Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanat) | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Bainiel, Lord | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Greene, W. P. Crawlord | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Savery, S. S. |
| Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. | Hartington, Marquess of | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
| Boyce, Leslie | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Tntnes) | Smithers, Waldron |
| Brlacoe, Richard George | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Butler, R. A. | Henncssy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.) | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.) | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Christie, J. A. | Liewellin, Major J. J. | Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) |
| Ciydesdale, Marquess of | Lockwood, Captain J. H. | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Lymington, Viscount | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | McConnell, Sir Joseph | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Maedonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Marjoribanks, Edward | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Galnsbro) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Muirhead, A. J. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Davies Maj. Geo. F.(Somerwt, Yeovil) | O'Connor, T. J. | Major the Marquess of Titchfield and Captain Euan Wallace. |
| Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert | Penny, Sir George | |
| Dugdate, Capt. T. L. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Ammon, Charles George | Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Arnott, John | Barnes, Alfred John |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Aske, Sir Robert | Barr, James |
| Alpass, J. H. | Attlee, Clement Richard | Batey, Joseph |
§ The House divided: Ayes, 83; Noes, 162.
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Oldfield, J. R. |
| Benson, G. | Hoffman, P. C. | Oliver, George Harold (likeston) |
| Bowen, J. W. | Hollins, A. | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Hopkin, Daniel | Palin, John Henry |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) | Horrabin, J. F. | Perry, S. F. |
| Brown, Ernett (Leith) | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Peters, Dr. Sidney John |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Jenkins, Sir William | Potts, John S. |
| Burgess, F. G. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Pybus, Percy John |
| Caine, Derwent Hall- | Johnston, Thomas | Quibell, D. J. K. |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) | Kelly, W. T. | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
| Charleson, H. C. | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Raynes, W. R. |
| Chater, Daniel | Kinley, J. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Clarke, J. S. | Lang, Gordon | Romeril, H. G. |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Compton, Joseph | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Rowson, Guy |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Lawrence, Susan | Sanders, W. S. |
| Daggar, George | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Dallas, George | Lawson, John James | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Shield, George William |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Leach, W. | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Dukes, C. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) | Shinwell, E. |
| Duncan, Charles | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Simmons, C. J. |
| Ede, James Chuter | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Logan, David Gilbert | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Longbottom, A. W. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Longden, F. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Elmley, Viscount | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Freeman, Peter | Lunn, William | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley) | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Strauss, G. R. |
| Gill, T. H. | McElwee, A. | Sullivan, J. |
| Glassey, A. E. | McEntee, V. L. | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) |
| Gossling, A. G. | McKinlay, A. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Gould, F. | MacLaren, Andrew | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | McShane, John James | Tout, W. J. |
| Gray, Milner | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Wallace, H. W. |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Mansfield, W. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Marcus, M. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Grundy, Thomas w. | Markham, S. F. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Marley, J. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Mathers, George | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Matters, L. W. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) | Messer, Fred | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly) |
| Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Middleton, G. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Harbord, A. | Mills, J. E. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Hardie, George D. | Milner, Major J. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Haycock, A. W. | Montague, Frederick | Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh) |
| Hayes, John Henry | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Morley, Ralph | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Mort, D. L. | Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Paling. |
| Herriotts, J. | Muff, G. |
§ Original Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. GREENEOn a point of Order, I espy strangers.
Earl WINTERTONOn a point of Order. Your attention, Mr. Speaker, having been called to the presence of strangers in the House, is it not within the Rules of the House that you put the Question forthwith, "That strangers be ordered to withdraw"?
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSOn this point, I do not see why my hon. Friends should choose this time of the day to exclude the public from the Galleries of the House of Commons. I must appeal to the House to preserve the rights of the public on this particular occasion. [Interruption.] This is really most important. Is it not very—
§ Mr. E. BROWNOn a point of Order. Is it in order to debate this Motion?
Question, "That strangers be ordered to withdraw," put, and negatived.
Original Question again proposed.
§ Mr. BARROn a point of Order. I trust the withdrawal of strangers will not mean, what we had on the last occasion—that the Official Reporters had to withdraw, that there were no reporters, and that no report was given.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Question was put and negatived.
§ Mr. HALL-CAINEOn a point of Order. A stranger was taken out a few minutes ago.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGErose—
§ Mr. HALL-CAINECan the stranger be brought back?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGESurely it is the fact that the stranger removed himself, and was not removed?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think all this is contrary to the dignity of the House.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSThe Amendment under discussion is one of considerable interest, and no little importance. It is one which I cannot say has very much good in it. The only thing I can say in its favour is that it would make the Bill less bad than if it were not accepted. The Amendment is, I think, a perfectly genuine attempt on the part of the Minister to amend one of the weaker parts of the Bill. I do not wish in any way to make out that the Minister has not done his best to try to meet a definite grievance on this matter, but the trouble is that, as far as I read the Amendment, I am not quite certain what it means. Hon. Friends whom I have asked for a legal interpretation give me to understand that at least one or two of the most acute brains in the House have not been able to explain what this Amendment means. Take the first word—" reasonable." That word in connection with the Minister is almost contradictory. Does the insertion of the word "reasonable" in any way give the owner further power for making these improvements? Obviously, there are, many handicaps in the way of an owner making improvements which are perfectly legal—in the way of leases and so on—but which are not always reasonable handicaps.
This is a complicated and difficult point, bound to be decided sooner or later in the Law Courts. If any of my legal friends could interpret the position as regards this important point, I would very much like to hear what the position is. The main idea lying at the back of this Amendment is that the Minister is dealing with this question of an owner getting his property into order, and, having sent his notice to the owner, trying to come to that point where he may or may not have to force his powers on the owner. The main part of the Amendment is helpful in this matter, but when you have an Amendment which has a very direct and varied bearing on the lives of a great many people, there must be much greater clarity, and some better definition from the Minister of what he 2070 means by "reserve or enforce any right for securing." It seems to be a phrase of the worst type of English which could have been chosen, and it ought not to be here. It would be much better if one of the other Amendments on the Order Paper had been accepted, or if the Minister had kept the original words and put in "reasonable" before "any." If the Minister had dealt with it in that way in Committee, he would have avoided bringing it on the Floor of the House. Unfortunately, he has not the cast of mind which enables him to help these things through in an easy way. Although it is better on the whole, the Minister has failed, as before, to make matters perfectly clear so far as this Amendment is concerned, and it is therefore not one which we can accept.
§ Captain BOURNEI believe that this Amendment was put down by the Minister in consequence of one I raised in Committee. The case in my mind is where, owing to the occupier, drains, hedges and ditches get out of repair, and the land gets into a state of bad cultivation. Under the existing law, practically the only remedy the landlord has is to apply to the agricultural committee for a certificate of bad husbandry. If he did not get that, he would not be in a position to enforce his covenants against his tenant. [Interruption.] The tenant would have a very good ground for defence in the county court because he could point out that the landlord had applied for a certificate of bad husbandry which had been refused. How far does the Amendment cover these cases? I am very doubtful whether they are covered. Since the law has given the tenant very strong protection and security of tenure under the Agricultural Holdings Acts, it should not penalise the landlord because owing to that security of tenure, he cannot enforce the obligations of tenure in the same way.
§ Mr. W. S. MORRISONThere is one matter on which I wish the Minister would enlighten the House and myself. There is a case of a particular landowner which has troubled the House for some time. Does this provision, as amended, affect that particular case? If so, we ought to have more information from the Minister as to that case and the difficulty that has arisen, so that we can see if the proposed words will meet that case with- 2071 out hardship to any other individual. We ought to be particularly careful that no tyrannous powers are taken by the Minister to get over the obstinacy of one individual. We take different views of obstinacy according to whether the party concerned is opposed to us or not. The House ought to have some more information about the particular difficulty that has arisen. We must take care there is no tyrannous action on the part of the administration against the wretched individual who has been singled out for the purpose of having a section of this Bill drafted to overcome him. We ought to know whether the words chosen are suitable for the purpose. In view of the previous course of this Bill, this vigilance on our part, is more than ever necessary. We used to hear hon. Members below the Gangway speak of getting
| Division No. 124.] | AYES. | [7.21 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Marley, J. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Mathers, George |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Matters, L. W. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) | Messer, Fred |
| Alpass, J. H. | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Middleton, G. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Harbord, A. | Mills, J. E. |
| Arnott, John | Hardie, George D. | Milner, Major J. |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Haycock, A. W. | Montague, Frederick |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Morley, Ralph |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Herriotts, J. | Mort, D. L. |
| Barr, James | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Muff, G. |
| Batey, Joseph | Hoffman, P. C. | Oldfield, J. R. |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Hoillns, A. | Oliver, George Harold (likeston) |
| Benson, G. | Hopkin, Daniel | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) |
| Bowen, J. W. | Horrabin, J. F. | Palin, John Henry. |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Paling, Wilfrid |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Jenkins, Sir William | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Perry, S. F. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Johnston, Thomas | Peters, Dr. Sidney John |
| Caine, Derwent Hall- | Kelly, W. T. | Potts, John S. |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Pybus, Percy John |
| Charleson, H. C. | Kinley, J. | Quibell, D. J. K. |
| Chater, Daniel | Lang, Gordon | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
| Clarke, J. S. | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Raynes, W. R. |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Compton, Joseph | Lawrence, Susan | Romeril, H. G. |
| Daggar, George | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Dallas, George | Lawson, John James | Rowson, Guy |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Sanders, W. S. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Leach, W. | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Dukes, C. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Duncan, Charles | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Shield, George William |
| Ede, James Chuter | Lloyd, C. Eills | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Logan, David Gilbert | Shinwell, E. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Longbottom, A. W. | Simmons, C. J. |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Longden, F. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Elmley, Viscount | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Freeman, Peter | Lunn, William | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley) | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Gill, T. H. | McElwee, A. | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
| Glassey, A. E. | McEntee, V. L. | Strauss, G. R. |
| Gossling, A. G. | McKinlay, A. | Sullivan, J. |
| Gould, F. | MacLaren, Andrew | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | McShane, John James | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Gray, Milner | Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Mansfield, W. | Tout, W. J. |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Marcus, M. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Markham, S. F. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
§ the land for the people. Now they are supporting a Measure which aims at taking away the land from the people and giving it to the Civil Service.
§ Mr. PYBUSIn view of the hon. Gentleman's statement about the Liberal party, may I say that he evidently does not understand the Bill?
§ Mr. MORRISONI did not speak in regard to the Liberal party. That would require a tongue more ambiguous than I can command.
§ Dr. ADDISON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 162; Noes, 77.
| Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Khondda) | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly) | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Wellock, Wilfred | Williams, T. (York, Don valley) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| W cat wood, Joseph | Wilson, J. (Oldham) | Mr. Hayes and Mr. Ben Smith. |
| Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) | |
| Williams, Davld (Swansea, East) | Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh) |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | Ramsbotham, H. |
| Ailen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh) | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Ailen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Ferguson, Sir John | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Fison, F. G. Clavering | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Bainlef, Lord | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. | Hartington, Marquess of | Stanley, Lord (Fyide) |
| Boyce, Leslie | Harvey, Major s. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Butler, R. A. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.) | Liewellin, Major J. J. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.) | Lockwood, Captain J. H. | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Christle, J. A. | Lymington, Viscount | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Ciydesdale, Marquess of | McConnell, Sir Joseph | Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Marjoribanks, Edward | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro) | Muirhead, A. J. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | O'Connor, T. J. | Major Sir George Hennessy and |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Sir George Penny. |
| Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put accordingly, and negatived.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Captain BOURNEI beg to move, in page 5, line 15, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that a notice under this sub-section requiring any person to execute works of maintenance shall not be valid if and to the extent that it requires such person to execute works the execution of which is rendered impossible by the subsidence of any land or the blocking of out-falls which are not under the control of that person.The object of this Amendment is a very simple one. It is to meet the case where flooding takes place and where land gets into a waterlogged condition owing to subsidence of land not under the control of the owner, but subsidence further down over which the owner has no control whatsoever. It is quite a reasonable condition that the owner should not be held responsible for that over which he has no control. I believe that this problem is a very serious one in many parts of England where the real trouble is due to mining subsidence.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSI beg to second the Amendment.
2074 This question is one of considerable importance, and the Amendment is one which, I think, the Minister will find it almost impossible to refuse. This matter of subsidence is not merely a question of drainage, and this Amendment is intended to deal definitely with the case of subsidence due in some cases to old mines. In Cornwall there are some areas which it is never really possible to keep in proper order. In Cheshire also, where you have salt mines, you have cases of subsidence and difficulties in connection with the land which would clearly make it quite unfair to bring these powers into action against an owner. Where you have such cases it is not practicable for the Minister to interfere. I hope that on this occasion, as we have tried to approach the Minister with every sort of reasonableness, courtesy and brevity, he will accept the Amendment.
§ Dr. ADDISONThis Amendment is unnecessary, because, in the first place, it clearly would be unreasonable if the Minister should require any person to execute works the execution of which is rendered impossible by something or other. It would clearly be unreasonable to ask somebody to do something which, in the nature of things, is impossible. That particular case is covered by Subsection (5), which says: 2075
In the event of any dispute between the Minister and any person"—on the ground that"—"any requirements of the notice are unreasonable."There is another provision which also covers that case. In this particular case, the execution of works made impossible by subsidence of land not under the control of the person concerned, would be another reason why it would be unreasonable. Hon. Members should also look at paragraph (b), Sub-section (5).
§ Sir A. LAMBERT WARDThe right hon. Gentleman has rather skated over the difficulties of this Amendment. Of course, there are cases in which it is obviously impossible for the work to be done, and they are covered in another part of the Clause. There are many cases where it is not absolutely impossible for the work to be done, and it would be difficult, and in the long run doubtful, whether it would be worth while to do the work. I have in mind a place like Doncaster where the subsidence is very serious, and I am not sure it would come in, in regard to being "impossible." There are some areas where flooding is caused partly by the surrounding country and partly by the breaking of the brick drains by the sinking land. It is possible to replace the drains, but it is not proved that the subsidence has ceased. I maintain that this case is covered by the Clause, but there may be cases where an Order may be made although the actual work is not really worth doing. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has been rather unreasonable.
§ Mr. TURTONI will ask the Minister to deal with a point which has not been dealt with in the Amendment. Under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, Section 35, a
| Division No. 125.] | AYES. | [7.53 a.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Christie, J. A. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh) | Colville, Major D. J. | Greene, W. P. Crawford |
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Courtauld, Major J. S. | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. |
| Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Cranborne, Viscount | Gunston, Captain D. W. |
| Balniel, Lord | Crichton-stuart, Lord C. | Hartington, Marquess of |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro) | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon. Totnes) |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft. | Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.) |
| Boyce, Lesile | Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) | Lamb, Sir J. Q. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert | Liewellin. Major J. J. |
| Butler, R. A. | Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | Lockwood, Captain J. H. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Lymington, Viscount |
| Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.) | Ferguson, Sir John | McConnell, Sir Joseph |
| Chamberlain.Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.) | Fison, F. G. Clavering | Margesson, Captain H. D. |
§ person having control of the bed of a river is under an obligation to clean it out, and if he does not exercise his obligations and floods occur on adjacant land, will the owner of that land be under an obligation under this Clause or not t Perhaps the Minister will consider that point.
§ Mr. ATTLEEI think that the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) was arguing against the Amendment. In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member who spoke last, my right hon. Friend will certainly look into this matter.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEThe Government do not., I think, understand the point of this Amendment. Doncaster is hopelessly muddled by the Land Drainage Act. I think that the Government find the rates in Doncaster cast more to collect, than the actual money received. In my part of the country We have got two specific instances where, I think, this will be of use. One is a case where the Ministry stepped in and put an extraordinary dam at the mouth of a river, probably in War time, but it caused a great deal of silting-up of mud. I agree that the owners of that dam might be made responsible for clearing that river. The second case is higher up where there was a very severe flood and great loss of life. I think that that was not due to anything but an act of God, but there was one case where the owner might have been prejudiced, and I suggest that if the Minister accepts, this Amendment, he will do a very good' thing.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 73; Noes, 159.
| Marjoribanks, Edward | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart | Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) |
| Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Smithers, Waldron | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Muirhead, A. J. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Stanley, Lord (Fyide) | Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George |
| O'Connor, T. J. | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Penny, Sir George | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur | Womersley, W. J. |
| Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Ramsbotham, H. | Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) | Major Sir George Hennetsy and |
| Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of | Captain Sir George Bowjrer. |
| Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Todd, Capt. A. J. | |
| Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Harbord, A. | Morley, Ralph |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hardie, George D. | Mort, D. L. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Haycock, A. W. | Oldfield, J. R. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Oliver, George Harold (liketton) |
| Alpass, J. H. | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Herriotts, J. | Palin, John Henry |
| Arnott, John | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Paling, Wilfrid |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Hoffman, P. C. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hollins, A. | Perry, S. F. |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Hopkin, Daniel | Peters, Dr. Sidney John |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Horrabin, J. F. | Potts, John S. |
| Barr, James | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Pybus, Percy John |
| Batey, Joseph | Jenkins, Sir William | Quibell, D. J. K. |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
| Benson, G. | Johnston, Thomas | Raynes, W. R. |
| Bowen, J. W. | Kelly, W. T. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Kennedy, Rt. Hon, Thomas | Romeril, H. G. |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) | Kinley, J. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Lang, Gordon | Rowson, Guy |
| Brawn, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Sanders, W. S. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Caine, Derwent Hall- | Lawrence, Susan | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Shield, George William |
| Charieton, H. C. | Lawson, John James | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Chater, Daniel | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Shinwell, E. |
| Clarke, J. S. | Leach, W. | Simmons, C. J. |
| Cocks, Frederick Saymour | Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Compton, Joseph | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Daggar, George | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Dallas, George | Logan, David Gilbert | Smith. Rennie (Penlstone) |
| Dalton, Hugh | Longbottom, A. W. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Longden, F. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Dukes, C. | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Strauss, G. R. |
| Duncan, Charles | Lunn, William | Sullivan, J. |
| Ede, James Chuter | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bastetlaw) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty) | McElwee, A. | Tout, W. J. |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | McEntee, V. L. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Elmley, Viscount | McKinlay, A. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Freeman, Peter | MacLaren, Andrew | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton) | McShane, John James | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Gill, T. H. | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thamptsa) | Westwood, Joseph |
| Glassey, A. E. | Mansfield, W. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Gossling, A. G. | Marcus, M. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Gould, F. | Markham, S. F. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Marley, J. | Williams, T. (York. Don Valley) |
| Gray, Milner | Mathers, George | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Matters, L. W. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Messer, Fred | Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh) |
| Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Middleton, G. | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Mills, J. E. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Milner, Major J. | Mr. Hayes and Mr. Thurtle. |
| Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) | Montague, Frederick | |
| Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. |
§ Dr. ADDISONI beg to move, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
Perhaps I might mention that an understanding has been reached in regard to the future progress of the Bill, which is, in effect, that we meet this day to continue the consideration of the Report stage, when we shall not, be re- 2078 quired to sit unreasonably late. The final stages of the Bill will be concluded on Tuesday evening by Eleven o'clock. That is the arrangement.
Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
2079 Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.
§ The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
2080§ It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at Five Minutes after Eight o'Clock a.m.