Lords Sitting of 17 June 1892

HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF YORK.
The Lord Chamberlain reported. That the Lords with White Staves had (according to order) laid before Her Majesty their Lordships' Resolution of Tuesday last, relating to the place and precedence of His Royal Highness the Duke of York in this House; and that Her Majesty was pleased to say She would give directions for a chair or seat to be prepared for His said Royal Highness on the left hand of the Cloth of Estate.
His Royal Highness Prince George Frederick Ernest Albert of Wales, having been created Baron Killarney, Earl of Inverness and Duke of York, was introduced between His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod, the Gaiter King of Arms, and the Lord Great Chamberlain attending, and was placed in a chair on the left hand of the Throne.

SAT FIRST.
The Earl of Huntingdon, after the death of his father.
TOWN HOLDINGS.
Report, &c., from the Select Committee of the House of Commons: Communicated (pursuant to message of Monday last), and to be printed. (No. 188.)
METROPOLITAN HOSPITALS, &c.
Message from the Commons for Third Report, &c., of Select Committee: Ordered to be communicated accordingly.
JOURNAL COMMITTEE.
Report from, that the one hundred and twenty-third volume of the Journals (54th and 55th Vict., 1891), with an Index, was ready for delivery; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and the said volume ordered to be delivered in the same manner as the preceding volumes of the Journals have been delivered.

SMALL AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according toorder).
Clause 1.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: My Lords, I suggest that two words should be inserted in line 12 to make it clear that County Councils may hire land. By Clause 2 they are enabled to hire land, but according to Clause 1 they are only allowed to buy. I do not know whether the words I move to insert are necessary.
Amendment moved, page 1, line 12, after ("buy") insert ("or hire").—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): My Lords, it is quite true that this Bill provides for hiring as well as purchase, but the primary object of the Bill is purchase; that is to say, the object being to increase the number of occupying owners of land, it was not thought necessary to insert the words which my noble Friend proposes, because the main object throughout the whole Bill, as your Lordships will see, is purchase. There is undoubtedly one clause which provides for hire for letting under special circumstances; but for that reason it is not thought desirable at the beginning that the word "hire" should be put in on the same level as the word "purchase."
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, it seems to me a strange thing indeed that, where a Bill gives power by a subsequent clause to hire, it should not be mentioned in the first clause. I have no doubt it is not essential; but the Bill would be greatly improved, I think, by the introduction of these words, and it cannot alter the meaning of the Bill, because the first clause states the whole object. If the County Council are of opinion that there is a demand, they may buy land for the purpose of providing small holdings, and they may also hire.
EARL CADOGAN: There is no great objection to the words, but it is for the noble Lord to prove that they are necessary. The object of the Bill is, generally speaking, purchase. Undoubtedly, in a subsequent clause we provide

1395
for hiring; but we think misunderstanding might arise if, in the first clause, the words that my noble Friend proposes to insert were added; and I think it is for the noble Earl opposite to show the necessity for them.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I think the misunderstanding would be on the other side. It cannot possibly produce misunderstanding to mention hire in the first clause, when you are going to give power to hire afterwards. No doubt the main object of the Bill is to buy; but one of the objects is to hire, and, unless it is intended to strike out afterwards the clauses as to hire, I think it would puzzle any human being to explain why these words should be left out.
EARL CADOGAN: It is not a question whether the word "hire" is to be left out, but whether the word "lure" is to be inserted. It is one of the objects of the Bill undoubtedly; but the primary object is purchase; and, unless the noble Earl can show good cause, I do not see the object of inserting these words.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I venture to think that I have shown exceedingly good cause. Whether it is absolutely necessary from a legal point of view I do not assert; but I say it is highly desirable, and I have heard no reason from the noble Earl to the contrary.
LORD THRING: It is a perfect axiom in drafting that the first clause should state the object of the Bill. Now there are two principal objects of the Bill, and you state one without stating the other. Surely that is misleading.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I beg to differ from the objection taken by noble Lords opposite. I do not think the object of the Bill is to transfer land to the County Council; and surely it is not expedient that the County Council should take the place of the landowner in doing what the landowner can do as well as the County Council, and better. The object of the Bill is to create small proprietors, and, therefore, I think it would be trenching on the principle of the Bill to insert the Amendment proposed by the noble Marquess.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY): I do not think the discussion has applied itself to the real difference between Clause 1, in which this
1396
Amendment is moved, and Clause 2. The provision, in respect of which discussion has arisen, is for providing small holdings for persons desirous of buying, and who will themselves cultivate the holdings. It is true that there are afterwards provisions enabling them under certain circumstances to hire; but those are separate and distinct altogether from the buying; and the hiring spoken of in Clause 2 has reference to hiring by the County Council; whereas the buying spoken of is the buying in Clause 1; and the subject-matter dealt with afterwards, described by the noble Earl as hiring, is only hiring under certain provisions and conditions. Inasmuch as this is a controversy about drafting rather than about substance, I would suggest that the clearer mode is to have each of these cases separately dealt with, as they are separately dealt with in the Bill.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I should like to point out that, except as regards purchase money, all the conditions applying to purchase apply also to hiring by express statement in the Bill later on.
EARL CADOGAN: Not in the matter of limitation. My noble Friend will remember that the cases of hiring are limited to fifteen acres, or the value of £15.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: What the noble and learned Lord has said would be true, and I should entirely agree with him, if hiring were limited to Clause 2; but hiring is to take place under Clause 4.
EARL CADOGAN: That is letting.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not think the point is of great importance; I do not think we need waste time upon it; but I do not see why it is objected to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Your Lordships will see, I think, that this question of hiring is to be found in Clause 3, Sub-section 2. The very first mention there is of hiring is that the County Council may do certain things before selling or letting. Up to that point you have never heard of letting at all. For the sake of clearness surely it would be well to put in the words "or hire."
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): Does the noble Marquess withdraw his Amendment?
THE MARQUESS OF EUNTLY: I think it is harmless to show that the County Council may hire the land. Clearly under Clause 2 they may hire and let it.
LORD HERSCHELL: I think, my Lords, the point is worth considering again, because, if you look at Clause 2, which deals with hiring, it provides that the Council may hire "the land," which I suppose refers to the land dealt with in the earlier section.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): No, the land mentioned in the first line of Clause 2.
LORD HERSCHELL: I am not sure of that.
EARL CADOGAN: It is the land described in the first line.
LORD HERSCHELL: But Clause 1 limits the power of the Council to acquire land for the purpose of providing small holdings for persons who desire to buy; that is the only power given to them; and yet you deal with them in Clause 2 on the assumption that they have got land and are to be allowed to hire it. If Clause 2 is to operate, then ought to be power given to them to acquire land for the purpose of Clause 2, which is hiring and not buying. My Lords, I must call attention to the point a little more minutely. If Clause 1 is looked at it gives the County Council power to acquire. There is no power to acquire in Clause 2 at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is "subject to the provisions of this Act."
LORD HERSCHELL: I think it requires a little more consideration, if you look at Clause 3, Sub-section 2, the County Council may let land other than that they hire under Clause 2. If they only let the land they hire under Clause 1 it is all right; but they may let the land they acquire under Clause 2, and the only power to acquire land under Clause 2 is for the purpose of selling; and yet, as I understand, it is pare of the scheme that they may acquire land for the purpose of letting.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not understand whether noble Lords opposite wish to make an alteration of
1398
form or of substance. Up to the point of the speech of the noble Lord I understood that it was a question of form; the noble Lord opposite thought it would express the purpose of the Bill better to put in the word "hire." But now I understand him to alter substantially what at present is the enactment of the Bill. Is not the enactment of the Bill that the Council may buy land in order to sell it, and that the Council may hire land in order to let it? Is there any provision that the Council may buy land in order to let it?
LORD HERSCHELL: I do not understand my proposal to be a proposal of substance, but merely for carrying out what I understood was the intention of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: My Lords, I am perfectly willing to postpone this Amendment, if the noble Earl will take into consideration whether it is necessary. I only proposed it because I thought it was necessary to the Bill.
EARL CADOGAN: I am quite ready to consider it before the Report; but I do not think it is in any way necessary to the Bill. It may be that some explanatory words might be added. I will consider it.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
*LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, the next Amendment stands in my name, and it is, to alter the word "fifty" to "twenty-five" in line 16, practically making the holdings not to exceed between one acre and twenty-five acres; and I also propose, in line 17, that the rateable value shall not exceed £30. I was glad to hear from the noble Earl in charge of that Bill that the prime object of this Bill was purchase, because that makes the Amendment that I am going to move now more important. I assure the noble Earl I do not move it in any hostility to the Bill. I am quite willing to think that the Bill is to do all we are promised; and I had a message from my own woodman yesterday that he considered that this Bill was the finest thing that had ever been done for my estate. My Lords, I hope it will prove so. But we are always told that this Bill is an experiment, and because it is an experiment, which I hope and think may be useful and fruitful, I think we should subject it to a very close criticism.

1399
Within certain limits I think it may be a good experiment; beyond certain limits it may be a bad one; and I think, by leaving this very wide definition of small holdings, you are about to do two very mischievous things. In the first place, I think you will sanction financial transactions in hard cash by the County Councils on a very much larger scale than was ever contemplated under this Bill, by which you will limit the operation of the Act in its useful and proper directions; and I also think that by those transactions you will establish a proprietary class of small capitalists on the land, which I do not think any of us ever meant to establish. No doubt your Lordships read the Times newspaper, and, if so, you can hardly have failed to notice a very long and interesting letter in last Saturday's Times, by Sir John Lawes, dealing with this whole question of allotments and small farms, in which he points out that an arable farm of the size proposed in the Bill cannot possibly be started, taking into account suitable land for agriculture, much under £2,400. I do not think the small holder, who can enter into the obligations which a purchase of that sort contemplates, is the kind of small holder you would wish to set up under this Bill. I think, if you had a valuation clause instead of an acreage clause, which was proposed and received some very sturdy support in the other House from the Liberal side, I should never have moved this Amendment; but the danger you are running into is the possibility of very much larger farms than twenty-five acres being bought on the guarantee of the ratepayers' money, and, consequently, the setting up of a class of proprietors which was never contemplated. The class of proprietors that you wish to establish is the best type of agricultural labourers, and also the small artisans in the towns; and, if you wish the operation of this Act to extend to that class, you had better keep the acreage smaller and the valuation lower than you have it in the Bill. The supply of land for the purposes of this Act must in the nature of things be limited, and if the small capitalists can come in and ask for a guarantee of the ratepayers' money to set them up in thirty, forty, or fifty acres, you, by that amount, diminish the quantity of available land for the purposes of this Bill.
1400
I therefore hope the size of these holdings may be reduced from one to twenty-five acres, and I think that, if the valuation is fixed at £30 instead of £50, you will at all events obviate, to some extent, the grisly possibilities held out to us in Clause 16, which the noble Duke pointed out to us the other night. I also think that if you at all offend, by what you are doing now, the instinct of self-preservation in the ratepayers, of which Sir John Lawes speaks, you will make what may be a very useful and very fruitful Bill unpopular.
Amendment moved, in page 1, line 16, to leave out the first ("fifty") and insert ("twenty-five"), and leave out the second ("fifty"), and insert ("twenty-five"). And inline 17 leave out ("fifty") and insert ("thirty").—(The Lord Ribblesdale.)
LORD HERRIES: I wish to support the Amendment proposed by my noble Friend. In one respect I differ from him, because the noble Lord said that on his property this Bill is supposed to be a great boon. I do not think myself that in my neighbourhood it will have very much effect, because small holdings exist to a great extent already on my own property; there are very few cottages to which there is not land enough attached to keep a cow. I was looking through the list of holdings in an adjacent parish, and I found that out of fifty-six, only one has not got three-quarters of an acre; the majority are from one to ten acres, and there are several of twenty and thirty acres. I think, therefore, I am able to speak with a certain amount of experience on the question of small holdings, and my experience is that, when you have a holding of over thirty acres, the fanner begins to think himself in a better position than he is in when he has less. I think less than twenty acres would be a still better Amendment. When a farmer has less than twenty acres, he is prepared to do a day's work for others, and so he has other means of supporting himself and his family; but when he has a larger holding, then he considers himself above doing work of that sort, and is obliged to support himself from what he derives from his own holding. I find that to be the case repeatedly. Whenever I have a holding below twenty acres to be let, I have a number of applicants; for a larger hold-

1401
ing there are very few. The answer will perhaps be that, if there is no demand for these holdings of fifty acres, then it will be a dead letter, and therefore we might leave it as it is. I would reply that there may be a demand in some parts of England for these holdings. There is always a tendency for men to apply for more than they can properly cultivate, and I feel sure that men, especially artisans, who have not had much experience in the cultivation of land, will be found prepared to ask for more land than they can properly cultivate. The result will be a very great danger of the County Councils losing their money—the land will be thrown upon their hands, and they will have to sub-divide it, and perhaps erect more buildings. But there is another reason for asking the Government to accept this Amendment. Under this Bill only a limited amount of money is available for the purposes of the Bill—a penny rate is all that is available. In my own county—the East Riding of Yorkshire—that, I think, would amount to £140,000 or £150,000. If you were selling nothing but these larger holdings at the price of £2,000 a piece, you would have only some seventy-five holders; and, in the interests of the masses against the classes, I say it is very much better for the small artisans and agricultural labourers to have more money at the disposal of the County Council, which will enable them to let small holdings to these poorer classes. It is from the small holdings that I believe great benefit will result. I am strongly in favour of the Bill, and I hope it will have great results. I do not anticipate great results from the purchasing clauses; I do anticipate some from the letting. I consider the greatest improvement introduced in the Bill was the power to let land to small cultivators, and I anticipate great advantage will accrue to the labouring classes of this country from the power the County Council will have to let land to these agricultural labourers. But, if you enable the County Council to spend money in buying land for large holdings, you will considerably diminish the amount of money which will be at the disposal of the County Councils for letting and for supporting these smaller holdings. For these reasons I ask the Lord Privy Seal to accept this Amendment. I am doing it in the interests of
1402
the Bill, and in the interests of the agricultural classes.
*LORD NORTON: I think your Lordships must consider this Bill in connection with the Allotments Act, in which the limit is one acre. When this subject was first brought before Parliament by Mr. Jesse Collings a few years ago, one Bill proposed to deal both with allotments and small holdings; but the two are distinct subjects; and, though having already the allotment subject dealt with, this Bill proposes to deal with the whole subject, that is to say, with allotments in duplicate legislation, and, in addition, with the new subject of small holdings. But the two should be kept distinct in our minds if we wish to deal with them properly. Allotments are meant expressly for the labouring classes who can go on labouring and yet manage a small piece of land. The object of this Bill is for a totally different class called small yeomen; and I must say, in passing, that it seems to me a most ridiculous idea that any social class can be created or recreated by Act of Parliament. These holdings may be hired or bought by a class who are to give up labour. Now the Amendment proposes to limit the area of small holdings I think exactly in the wrong way. The Allotments Act deals with small plots of land; and what we are now proposing is larger holdings which may be owned and which may be the support of a man and his family, passing away altogether from labour into a farmer class. What the limits of both should be is a difficult question. When a man can cease to be a labourer and begin to support himself entirely by land depends to some extent upon the nature of the laud; and that has not been sufficiently borne in mind in considering this subject; because either an allotment or a small holding in pasture is a different consideration from the same quantity of land in arable. An allotment in pasture is easily managed by the wife of the labourer; the labourer continuing at his labour and the wife managing the dairy. And the same may be said of these larger holdings; the size may safely be a larger one if in pasture. But it is the transition point between labour and ownership that is the difficulty. The Allotments Act limits the area for the labourer to hire at one acre; but, though that is the limit of the Act,

1403
the limit in practice is much larger. I have hundreds of allotments myself, varying from a quarter of an acre to fifteen acres, and I know exactly the difficulty of that transition point. There is a point at which farmers begin to complain that their labourers are out of the way when they want them, going to market to buy or sell a cow. The labourers also begin to complain at that particular transition point at having to pay rent for their cottages, because they say the farmers never pay anything for houses or buildings. But, my Lords, upon considering this question whether the limit of fifty acres is the right limit or not, let us remember that we are dealing with a larger holding than that contemplated by the Allotments Act, and let us bear in mind that the very complicated machinery of this Bill will not apply to very small allotments, nor to holdings of such a size as would justify, in any way, the introduction of a mischievous sort of middleman in the form of the County Council which will be an elected body. I can assure your Lordships, with my rather large experience of allotments, that I have found electioneering quite enough to deal with on the part of allotment leagues; and, when we come to small holding leagues, I fancy it will be a much more difficult, if not more dangerous action in the country to deal with.
*EARL FORTESCUE: Notwithstanding the very lucid and able speech of the noble Duke on the Second Reading, upon a subject on which he has almost unequalled practical knowledge gained by a series of Committees on Agricultural questions, he did not enlist me among the opponents of the Bill; but I think we cannot doubt that he triumphantly established the impossibility of reviving on any scale the class of British yeomen. The noble Duke showed that in England the course of events had caused the supersession of the yeoman. My Lords, differing from my noble Friend who has just sat down, I venture to think that the Amendment is a very desirable one; and very good, and, to my mind, conclusive reasons were given by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment against the County Council spending so large a proportion of the limited fund at their disposal for all the purposes of the Act, in
1404
establishing what cannot be considered such very small farms with all the necessary expenses so admirably and lucidly set forth by Sir John Lawes in his very able letter. As to the prospect of there being a number of possible purchasers of twenty-five acre holdings, that is obviously a very much better limit for the class of agricultural labourers and small artisans, for whom the Bill is particularly intended, than one of fifty acres. I have known various instances of quite small tenants on a chiefly arable farm, standing singly in their neighbourhood, prosper, because they could utilise on various kinds of jobs the horses which they had for periodical purposes on their farm, in excess of the habitual requirements of the farm; but those cases must be very few and far between in each neighbourhood. As regards dairying I believe this Bill will render a great service. We know from the late Lord Tollemache's experience that very small holdings in a dairy country may yield great benefits to great numbers, chiefly of the wage-earning class; but, for that purpose, it is not necessary to go as high as fifty acres. The figure of fifty acres and the limit of valuation of £50 is a sort of forlorn attempt to revive the British yeoman; and every good purpose of the Bill can be perfectly answered by fixing the limit respectively at twenty-five acres and £30. And it is far more likely to do extensive good, if so Large a proportion of the money of the County Council is not experimentally expended on holdings of fifty acres, and the loss liable to be incurred from un-prosperous tenants or failing tenants by the County Council—which is not the most desirable body to establish as an extensive land-owning and land-letting body—would be obviated. I earnestly hope that this proposed limitation may be acceded to.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I trust I shall not misinterpret the intentions of the noble Lords who have spoken if I say that, in the objections which they have advanced to this clause, I think they have rather intimated that they imagine that the effect in all cases would be that these holdings would be of an extent of fifty acres. Now, although your Lordships are aware of the fact, you will perhaps forgive me for reminding you that fifty acres is only a limit, and if,

1405
as the noble Earl who has just sat down has stated, holdings of a smaller character would be a greater advantage to districts and would be more availed of, surely then the limit of fifty acres would never be readied. There is nothing in the clause to say that the holding shall be large or shall reach fifty acres. All it says is that the limit shall be fifty acres. And the reason, my Lords, why we placed the limit of fifty acres in the Bill was because we wished, as much as possible, to draw the Bill on the lines laid down in the Report of the Committee on Small Holdings. And upon this subject perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read their recommendation, which is very strong—
"Your Committee understand, by small holdings, agricultural tenancies or cultivating ownerships not exceeding fifty acres in extent, or £50 annual valuation. Owing to the varying quantity of land, it is impossible to fix any particular average as sufficient for the support of a family, but your Committee believe that land of from £30 to £50 valuation will generally be adequate for that purpose. The value and national importance of small holdings is not, however, confined to those which provide for the entire subsistence of the cultivators. On the contrary, they are extremely useful in the case of village tradesmen and others who have some extraneous means of income, and employ their spare time on the land as a source both of recreation and income. For this class the holdings to be provided may be of any size, from one acre upwards."
And then they conclude as follows:—
"Your Committee recommend that in any legislation on this subject the term 'small holdings' should be interpreted to mean a holding from one to 50 acres, or not exceeding £50 in annual valuation."
The object of that alternative was that there is a variety of value of the soil, as your Lordships are aware, in various parts of the country—to such an extent that the value of 50 acres in one part of the country might be exceedingly great, and in another part of the country would not be sufficient to provide for the maintenance of a man and his family. There are cases well known to your Lordships in Scotland, or in the hills of Wales, in which it might be desirable to secure a larger holding, that is to say, a holding which, on such unprofitable land as that, would suffice for a man and his family. It was therefore provided not that the limit of 50 acres should be variable at will, but that there should be an alterna-
1406
tive that a holding might be created of the value of £50. I hope that explanation will be satisfactory to my noble Friend opposite. Considering the strong nature of the recommendation of the Committee on Small Holdings, and considering that 50 acres is merely a limit, and does not prevent a large creation of smaller holdings, I venture to hope my noble Friend will not press his Amendment.
*LORD RIBBLESDALE: I have quite understood all along that fifty acres is an elastic limit; but my contention is that it is a bad elastic limit, that directly you get beyond twenty-five acres you get into difficulties. I was certain, of course, that the noble Lord would refer me to the Report of the Small Holdings Committee, because it is exactly the same answer that was given in another place, where very much the same point was raised. But anybody reading this Report, instead of taking the view advanced by the noble Earl, would, I think, take the view that what was in the mind of the Committee was that a small holding was to be one of £50 valuation; and, if you had stuck to that, I should not have moved the Amendment. There is just I one thing I should like to point out which I did not before. We have been promised logically from the other side of the House, and we have been promised politically on this side, that we are to have compulsion later on. I do not know whether it is to be so or not; but if the noble Duke's logic is right, and if the politics of the noble Lords below me are right, you will have this question raised in a very much mere disagreeable form later on. My Lords, I am not myself against compulsion. I believe that if this Bill is to do all the good we are told it is to do, if it is to be the cornucopia, of civic and social virtues as we are promised, you must have compulsion; but I do believe that twenty-five acres might be a fair limit of compulsion under this Bill, whereas fifty acres would be a very unfair one. Of course, my Lords, "He, who complies against his will, is of the same opinion still"; and I hold these opinions much more strongly after I have heard the objections to my Amendment than I did before. I do not suppose there is any use in dividing on the question, and I

1407
ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2.
*THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: I will not detain your Lordships very long in explaining the reasons why I have put the Amendments upon the Paper which stand in my name. On the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill the noble Earl who spoke third in the Debate (Earl Spencer) expressed a view, which I think is held by a great many of your Lordships, that more should be done under the Bill to let more land to the labourer. That I find is an opinion that is largely held out of doors. When this Bill was first introduced into the other House of Parliament, there was, I believe, a much more limited power given to the County Council to let small amounts of land than there is at present, and the extended power, as the clause now stands, was extracted in Debate in the House of Commons by extending the area to fifteen acres which the County Council might hire and let. But, along with that power which was given to them, there are some, as I think, absurd restrictions in the commencement of the clause, which I propose to leave out. Admittedly this Bill is an experiment. You are dealing with the class of agricultural labourers who are undoubtedly very poor,—certainly very few of them are able to find the one-fifth which it will be necessary for them to put down in purchasing the land; and you certainly will have more chance of enabling the agricultural labourer in rural districts to rise, if you could let the land to them at a fair rent and enable them to get something out of it before they purchase it. It is clear that the object of the Bill is that the labourers should purchase their holdings; but the question is, will the agricultural labourers be in a position to do so for a long time to come? My experience of allotments is that one-fifth of the allotments fall on your hands after two or three years, and you have to find fresh tenants; that very few of the labourers are successful even in cultivating allotments; and it is very rare indeed to
1408
find an agricultural labourer who will be able to put down the money to purchase his holding. One of the points made by the noble Earl in his speech on the Second Reading was, I think, a very good one; he said—
"It is no consolation to the labourer, who has worked all his life in his native village, to tell him that twenty, thirty, or forty miles away there is a plot of land he can hire."
Supposing in the centre of a large rural district the County Council were unable to purchase land in a village, but the labourers were wishing to hire land; the County Council would say:—If you go to the neighbourhood of Northampton, Welling borough, or Birmingham, you can hire land, because we will hire the land and let it to you; but in the rural districts we cannot. It seems to me that this clause is the strongest argument in favour of that migration to the towns, which it is supposed to be the object of the Bill to prevent. If you come to think of it you will see that this restriction on the power of the County Councils is most absurd. Why should the proximity to a town, or the suitability for building purposes, or any other special reason, be a restriction upon the County Council as to hiring land? If you have admitted the principle of the County Council hiring land if they think desirable, why do you not give them the right to do so? My Lords, yesterday you passed the Second Reading of an Act called "The Allotments (Scotland) Act," by which you are extending to Scotland the Allotments Act (England); but you are further giving the County Councils in Scotland absolute power to hire land as much as they like, to buy land as much as they like, to let it out in allotments as they like, and to do anything they like with the land. And you are allowing the parishes to elect the managers subject to rules to be passed by the County Council and approved by the Secretary for Scotland. The noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill deprecated the County Councils being placed in the position of middlemen; but that is what this Bill does. They are to buy land and to sell it again, and to borrow money for the purpose. What is the whole tendency of our Local Government legislation but to make the County Council the middleman? Now, my

1409
Lords, one word as to restrictions. Who is to decide, I want to know, whether land has a prospective value for building purposes? I, living in the midst of a rural district, might say that by the prospective advent of a railway, which might have a station in any village, the land might become valuable for building purposes. It seems to me that if you are dealing with this question, if you are bringing in the principle of letting, if you are giving power to County Councils to deal in this matter with letting holdings—and I may point out that by Clause 4 Subsection 2 you enable County Councils to buy land themselves and to let it out, but you do not enable them to hire land except it has a prospective value for building purposes—of all the absurd restrictions I ever heard of these certainly are the most absurd. My Lords, I do not suppose that reason will weigh upon the eve of a Dissolution—we have been told that this is a matter that ought not to be pressed for fear of endangering the passing of the Bill in another place; but knowing something of county government and management, I do not hesitate to say that to place such restrictions in a Bill dealing with county government is the most absurd thing that a dying Parliament can do. My Lords, I beg to move the Amendments which stand in my name.
Amendments moved,
In page 1, line 18, after ("and where"), leave out all the words down to and inclusive of ("desirable"), in line 21; and in line 21, after ("the Council") insert ("think it desirable they.")—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
EARL CADOGAN: I am afraid your Lordships will think me guilty of constant repetition if I say that I really believe the main answer to be given to the arguments of my noble Friend is the same that I had the honour of giving to the first Amendment moved to the first clause; but I cannot too emphatically repeat that the object of the Bill is purchase, and not hiring and letting. My noble Friend says that, in the speech I made on proposing the Second Reading of the Bill, I stated the various objections to hiring and letting, and that I also gave reasons why purchase was desirable. To every one of those reasons I still adhere. My
1410
noble Friend says that we have provided under the Bill for letting by the County Council, and therefore we stultify our own argument; but our argument is that this is a Bill providing for the sale of small holdings, and that under one clause, and under very exceptional circumstances which we enumerate, we have provided also for letting. But the object, apparently, of noble Lords opposite is to increase and widen that power of letting; and it is that object, I am sorry to say, which we feel it our duty to counteract. My noble Friend wishes to omit all the qualifying words in Clause 2 which limit the special occasions on which this hiring is to be carried out. I quite admit that, if hiring were the principal object of the Bill, those restrictions are valueless; but as, on the contrary, we wish this letting to be a very exceptional process, I am bound to say that I think they are in every way necessary. The noble Marquess has asked who is to be the judge of these special circumstances? My Lords, if you concede to the County Council the carrying out of this matter, you must leave to them, to a certain extent, the decision as to when and how this letting is to be done; and I cannot see anything in the clause, to which the noble Marquess has moved this Amendment, which would prevent the County Council from exercising a very reasonable judgment as to the time and occasion upon which hiring is to take the place of sale. I am afraid I cannot admit the argument of my noble Friend. The Government consider, as I said before, that it is very undesirable to make the County Councils middlemen. My noble Friend says we have done so under the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: In Clause 4.
EARL CADOGAN: But, as I said before, we have done so under very exceptional circumstances. I am afraid it is impossible for us to agree to extend the limit for hiring. My Lords, in connection with this Amendment, I should also like to call my noble Friend's attention to the fact that, if land is only hired by the County Council, it cannot be sold. I have said before what, I venture to think, has been lost sight of by noble Lords on both sides of the House, that the main object of the Bill is to increase the number of occupying owners; and,

1411
if you are going to make it into a Bill for hiring and letting, and practically to do away with sale and purchase, to that extent you will not increase the number of occupying owners, and you will not carry out the main object for which the Bill is intended. For these reasons, my Lords, I hope my noble Friend will not press his Amendments.
Amendments (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I have an Amendment on this clause which is merely to bring in an alternative of a £15 valuation. It is necessary to bring the clause into harmony with Clause 4, Sub-section 2, which allows a holding to be either of fifteen acres or of £15 annual value. The latter limit was inserted in Clause 4 in another place after Clause 2 was passed; therefore it is necessary in order to produce symmetry between the two clauses; and I hope your Lordships will consent to pass the Amendment.
Amendment moved, in page 1, line 23, to leave out ("not exceeding fifteen acres each"), and insert ("in accordance with the provisions of this Act").—(The Earl Cadogan.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4.
EARL CADOGAN: I have an Amendment to propose which is consequential, to bring the clause into symmetry with Clause 2. I hope there will be no objection to insert the words proposed.
Amendment moved, in page 2, line 27, after ("Act"), to insert ("or where the land has been hired by them on lease or otherwise.")—(The Earl Cadogan.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5.
LORD BASING: My Lords, I have put down a very short Amendment to line 13 of this clause, in order to elicit an explanation as to what is precisely meant by the enactment of the clause. Under Sub-section I it is evident that a Committee, which will be an important and powerful Committee of the County
1412
Council, is to be appointed to advise the Council whether or not the Act is to be put into operation within the county. Sub-section 2 provides that if any petition for a holding is received by the County Council they are to refer it to a Committee, and I want to know whether it is to be the same Committee alluded to before, or another and different Committee? It seems to me that we are rather tending to overload the Council by obligations to appoint many Committees, if another Committee is intended. Later on a third Committee is to be constituted, of a totally different character and complexion from these two, and with different provisions as to the persons to be added to it. I think all this would be extremely confusing and awkward, and that, if so many County Councillors are to be engaged in this work, they will be a little puzzled how to proceed. Surely it would Vie far better that one Committee should take this subject into consideration generally, and should advise the Council in respect of petitions which may from time to time come before them; that at all events is my notion of what would be the best proceeding; and, with that object in view, I propose the Amendment that stands in my name.
Amendment moved, in Sub-section (2), line 13, to leave out ("a") and insert ("the").—(The Lord Basing.)
THE MARQUESS OF BATH: I would only add to what the noble Lord has said that there is at present in the County Council a Statutory Allotments Committee appointed; and surely that Allotments Committee would be the Committee to whom this matter should, in the first instance, be referred.
EARL CADOGAN: The receipt of a Petition alone would render a Committee necessary, and, in the absence of any Petition, there might be no Committee at all. But I see no objection to the Amendment of my noble Friend, and I will accept it.
Amendment agreed to.
EARL CADOGAN: I have a drafting Amendment, in order to remove ambiguity and to make the language of the clause correspond with Clause 17, where the County Councillor representing the electoral division is constituted

1413
a member of the Committee of Management, whose appointment is authorised under this clause.
Amendment moved, in page 3, line 18, to leave out ("part"), and insert ("electoral division").—(The Earl Cadogan.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I beg to move to leave out the words on page 3, lines 22 and 23, "all the costs of conveyance to the purchaser, including any," and to insert "the." The words proposed to be left out are rendered unnecessary by the insertion of Clause 10, which makes the registration of title compulsory.
Amendment moved, in page 3, lines 22 and 23, to leave out ("all the costs of conveyance to the purchaser, including any,") and insert ("the.")—(The Earl Cadogan.)
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I do not quite understand the reason for the scheme of the provision with regard to the registration of title. As I understand it, it is that the County Council may buy the land, and have the title investigated in the ordinary way by their own solicitor or legal advisers; they are not obliged to have it investigated by the Registry Office. But when they dispose of it as small holdings, then the small holding, which forms part of the land they bought, is to be registered in the Land Registry, without any investigation of title, with an absolute title.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I may tell my noble and learned Friend that there are Amendments to be proposed to Clause 10 which will get rid of that difficulty. I had observed the inconvenience and incongruity of those provisions, and I think the Amendment to be proposed will remove them.
LORD HERSCHELL: They are not on the Paper.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: They are not, but they ought to be.
Amendment agreed to.
LORD HERRIES: My Lords, in proposing the Amendment that stands in my name I must say that I rather hesitate, because the Lord Privy Seal has not, so
1414
far, shown himself malleable with respect to any Amendment. Whether for political or other reasons, it appears to me that this Bill must be considered as imperfect, and I think, if my Amendment is accepted, it will afford greater security to the County Councils to obtain any return for the money that they advance. As the Bill now stands, the purchaser is only required to pay down one-fifth of the purchase money; and, especially if you have a large holding, I think that sum is hardly sufficient to secure the County Council against the chance of loss. Besides, if you look through the Bill, you naturally would suppose it had been drawn up originally so that one-fourth should be the amount to be paid down; two-fourths may be secured on the holding; audit becomes rather an arithmetical difficulty how to make the difference after having paid the two-fourths and having paid down one-fifth. But there is another thing; if there is any failure to pay up the arrears, the loss will fall upon the county in many cases if the value of the land diminishes considerably. I know an instance of a holding of about sixty acres which was purchased a few years ago for over £2,000, and sold the other day for £900. Now, if the County Council had purchased that holding what a great loss there would have been! I think, under the circumstances, it is very important that we should, so far as possible, secure the County Council against any danger of loss. I daresay many of your Lordships remember that in 1846 Feargus O'Connor started a little company; he purchased three hundred acres which he divided into eighty-six allotments; the owner of each allotment had a cottage built for him and three or four acres, and each was given £7 10s. to start work. In a very few years they all failed; the property went into Chancery; and I believe only one or two of the original allottees remained on the land after a lapse of twenty years. My Lords, supposing in the place of Feargus O'Connor we had the County Council that had spent £5,000 in buying land, I do not think they would have been prepared to advance £7 10s. to each person who took land under them, and the loss to the ratepayers would have been very great. Therefore the more security you give to the ratepayers in this respect the

1415
better. For these reasons I move the Amendment that stands in my name.
Amendment moved, in page 3, line 29, to leave out ("one-fifth"), and insert ("one-fourth.")—(The Lord Herries.)
EARL CADOGAN: After the preliminary remarks of the noble Lord, I hardly dare to oppose any Amendment that he maybe likely to desire; and I feel that in this case certainly there is perhaps much to be said in favour of his argument; the more so that, as I have said, we have founded our Bill largely upon the Report of the Small Holdings Committee, which upon this subject says—
"It is essential that the purchasers of small holdings should provide in cash a proportion of the purchase-money, not less than one-fifth or one-fourth of the whole."
It is obvious that one-fourth would be a better security for the ratepayers than one-fifth. I am inclined to think the security which the noble Lord proposes would be adequate, and therefore I will accept his Amendment.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I regret extremely to find that the noble Earl is ready to consent to this serious alteration of the Bill. I believe it was originally one-fourth, and afterwards altered to one-fifth after full discussion in the other House; and certainly, to facilitate the action of the Bill, I think one-fifth is preferable. The object that we have is that the Bill shall have a real operation—I cannot help feeling that there will be great difficulties in bringing it into real operation—but, if you make this change, I think the result will be to stop the action of the Bill considerably.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord will see there are two dangers: there is the one he has pointed out, that the agricultural labourer will think that the price he has to pay is beyond his means and the Bill will not work; but there is also the other danger, that the County Council will think the operation is dangerous, and they will be afraid of burdening the ratepayers with it. This measure is tentative and experimental; and, though I do not profess any strong opinion as between one-fourth and one-fifth, I think the line of caution is better on the whole, and that it would be better to put the County Councils in a safe position.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am not convinced by what the noble Marquess has said; and, although it is not of much avail to oppose anything in the face of the Government, I must say "not-content" to the Amendment.
EARL CADOGAN: I may remind the noble Earl opposite that the Small Holdings Committee spent a great deal of time over this part of their Report, and, inasmuch as in their opinion one-fifth or one-fourth is equally good security, I dc not think great importance need be attached to it.
EARL SPENCER: There was a very strong expression of opinion in another place in favour of one-fifth, as giving greater facilities to labourers who might be in difficulties to avail themselves of the Act; and I attach very considerable importance to this Amendment. I am very sorry indeed that Her Majesty's Government should agree to alter what has been decided after full discussion in another place. With regard to the Report of the Small Holdings Committee, my noble Friend cannot argue that the Committee were in favour of one-fourth, because they said that either would do.
EARL CADOGAN: I did not argue that they were in favour; I said that they recommended either course; they gave no preference to either.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not feel that I have sufficient strength of conviction to attach any importance to the matter, and therefore, so far as I am concerned, I have no objection to let it go.
LORD HERRIES: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I have a series of Amendments, which are merely drafting Amendments, which I beg to move.
Amendments moved,
In page 3, line 37, after ("and") insert ("shall either"); line 38, after ("instalments") insert ("of principal"); line 40, leave out ("and") and insert ("or shall"); line 41, leave out ("shall"); page 4, leave out Sub-section (7).—(The Earl Cadogan.)
Amendments agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7.
EARL CADOGAN: This Amendment, my Lords, is purely verbal, to prevent conflicting with Clause 10.
Amendment moved, in page 4, line 19, after ("Act") insert ("except as otherwise provided").—(The Earl Cadogan.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8.
EARL CADOGAN: This, my Lords, is merely another verbal Amendment to leave out the word "register" and insert "list." The use of the word "list." might prevent confusion with regard to the provisions as to registration in Clause 10.
Amendment moved, in page 4, line 27, to leave out ("register") and insert ("list").—(The Earl Cadogan.)
Amendment agreed to.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I move to leave out all the words in line 30 after the word "let" to the end of the clause. These words were inserted in the House of Commons, but further consideration has led to the conclusion that they are unnecessary, and might suggest confusion with the provisions as to registration of title in Clause 10 again.
Amendment moved, to leave out all after ("let") in line 30 to the end of the clause.—(The Earl Cadogan.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, this is only a verbal Amendment. I think, if my wording were adopted, it would transpose Sub-sections (b) and (c).
EARL CADOGAN: Is my noble Friend moving both Amendments?
LORD RIBBLESDALE: Yes.
EARL CADOGAN: I am willing to accept them.
Amendments moved, in page 4, line 38, to leave out ("unless let with the consent of the County Council"); line 39, after ("owner") insert ("or occupier as the case may be").—(The Lord Ribblesdale.)
Amendments agreed to.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: In line 41 I move to insert after "sub-divided" the words "buy, sell, let, or sub-let."
EARL CADOGAN: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. I would point out to my noble Friend that the words "buy, sell" would restrict the prohibition against sub-division to one particular mode of sub-division; whereas we wish to extend the restriction or prohibition against sub-division to all sub-divisions. I cannot, therefore, accept the words "buy, sell"; and the latter part I think is unnecessary. The words "or sub-let" I think might be inserted if the noble Lord wishes to move the Amendment in that place.
LORd RIBBLESDALE: I quite accept that.
LORD HERSCHELL: I am sure that that is unnecessary, and it might create difficulty. "Sub-divide" would coverall my noble Friend desires—every form of sub-division, whether you do it by letting or sub-letting. Letting applies to the whole. You shall not sub-divide it by any means, nor, even if you sub-divide it, shall you let it.
EARL CADOGAN: I think it is necessary also to insert "or sub-let." You may obtain the consent of the County Council for letting, but, if you do not add the words "or sub-let," having obtained the consent for letting, the lessee might sub-let without the consent of the County Council. I venture to suggest that the words should be "shall not be sub-divided, let, or sub-let."
LORD HERSCHELL: Then I think you had better put in "assigned," otherwise the lessee might assign the whole of it, as well as sub-let it; and your object is that he shall not do that without the consent of the County Council.
EARL CADOGAN: Would my noble and learned Friend insert "or sub-let" after "assign"?
LORD HERSCHELL: Yes.
Amendment, as further amended, moved, in line 14 after ("sub-divided") to insert ("assigned, let, or sub-let").
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I have got a new subsection to propose to Clause 9, on page 5, after line 7, to insert: "(g.) In the case of any holding to which the County Council are of opinion that this condition ought to apply, that

1419
no dwelling house shall be erected on the holding without the consent of the County Council." I need hardly remind your Lordships that the Bill, as originally introduced in another place, contained a provision that no house should be built unless the holding is of the annual value, for the purpose of the income Tax, of not exceeding £25. It was found that some restrictive condition of this kind would be necessary, and I hope your Lordships will consider it reasonable.
Amendment moved,
In page 5, after line 7, to insert: "(g.) In the case of any holding to which the County Council are of opinion that this condition ought to apply, that no dwelling house shall be erected on the holding without the consent of the County Council."—(The Earl Cadogan.)
LORD BASING: Will the noble Earl explain what is the condition referred to in the Amendment?
EARL CADOGAN: I do not think the drafting is very clear, but the condition of the new sub-section that I am now reading is the sub-section itself.
LORD HERSCHELL: If instead of "this" you put "such a," I think it would be clearer.
EARL CADOGAN: The real meaning is this, if I may so read it—
"In the case of any holding to which the County Council are of opinion that the condition ought to be applied that no dwelling house should be erected on the holding without the consent of the County Council, no dwelling house shall be erected on the holding without the consent of the County Council."
LORD BASING: The question of erecting dwellings is the subject of several of these sub-sections. I think a good deal of confusion may arise.
EARL CADOGAN: If there is any doubt upon the point I will consider it and bring it up on Report.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10.
EARL CADOGAN: My Amendment is to leave out all words after "but" in line 7 to end of line 9, and to insert—
"Any person claiming by a title paramount to the title of the County Council shall be entitled to damages against the County Council for loss of the land."
1420
It is thought better to guard against any possible hardship, rather than to provide a remedy for the real owner against damage owing to any flaw in the title of the County Council.
Amendment moved,
In page 6, leave out all after ("but") in line 7 to the end of line 9, and insert ("any person claiming by a title paramount to the title of the County Council shall be entitled to damages against the County Council for loss of the land.")—(The Earl Cadogan.)
LORD HERSCHELL: This now raises the point that I thought was going to be met.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble and learned Friend will forgive me for interposing. The real truth is that some persons have been endeavouring to mend two totally different sets of provisions without quite appreciating what has been the effect of either—namely, Clause 6, sub-section 7, and this Clause 10. I anticipate that my noble and learned Friend will object to the words "without further inquiry" in this clause; and so I shall too; but, if those words are left out, it will be seen that the purchase is to be registered in the ordinary way by the ordinary means, and by inquiry in the Land Transfer Court. That is what I propose should be amended. Then, I think, there will be no difficulty in working the land transfer system as applicable to this Bill. I agree with my noble and learned Friend that it would be impossible to say that you should register a holding without any special inquiry by the public officer whose duty it is to see that it is registered properly.
LORD HERSCHELL: I understand my noble and learned Friend to take out the part about effecting a remedy; because, if the land is registered with an absolute title, that title is absolute against all the world, and nobody can have a remedy against the County Council or anyone else.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is true; but what has been attempted to be done is that, when the County Council have purchased the land and let it to somebody else, somebody else shall have an absolute title against all the world; but it was not intended to leave the County Council liable in damages against the person whose land they had taken.
Further Amendments moved, in page 6 line 4, omit ("without further inquiry").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Amendment agreed to.
LORD HERSCHELL: Then do you want these words—
"Any person claiming by a title paramount to the title of the County Council shall be entitled to damages against the County Council for loss of the land."
I do not see how there would be any claim against the County Council?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Leaving out the words "without further inquiry" merely says that, either with inquiry or without, they shall be registered.
LORD HERSCHELL: Then the Land Transfer Office will make the ordinary inquiry, and after they have registered with an absolute title, that title is absolute against all the world, and nobody could have a claim against anybody.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But the Land Office are authorised to register after their inquiry, no matter what the effect of the inquiry were to be.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: That will produce a singular state of things. I have a vivid remembrance of the Committee that sat for so long a time, and, though I am not competent to give a legal opinion, it seems to me a curious thing that we shall have an absolute title registered in the Land Office which in point of fact is not absolute in one sense; because, if anybody protested, they would have a remedy against somebody, and that would be a very strange contradiction. I do not see how it is to work.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think a great deal of the confusion arises from a misapprehension of the circumstances under which both clauses were originally introduced. The noble Earl knows that this was not part of the original Bill; it was put in the Bill in another place and accepted hastily, without thinking of the rest of the framework of the Bill. I think the difficulty arises from the use of the word "shall." If my noble Friend at the head of the Government is right in his construction, what he means is that, although the Land Office might make inquiry, it would be a very otiose proceeding, because they must register notwithstanding. I do not so under-
1422
stand the draftsman. What is meant is that, if there is a good title, they should register it, and, if there is not a good title, they should not register it. I agree that it ought to be made much plainer than it at present is.
THE EARL OF MORLEY: Does the noble and learned Lord propose to add the words in the noble Lord's Amendment?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No; leave them as they are.
THE EARL OF MORLEY: I understand the Lord Privy Seal withdraws his last Amendment.
EARL CADOGAN: Yes.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
*LORD THRING: My Lords, the object of my Amendment is of a different character, although it is connected with the registration law; and I have very little doubt the Lord Privy Seal will assent to it. My objection to the clause is that it throws upon the County Councils the obligation to appoint local agents for the purpose of registration, and also to pay the expense of such agents. I think, as the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) said, it arises from a misapprehension altogether of the working of the Registration Act. At the present moment there is an office in London, which is very little known, for the registration of title, called the Registration Office; and it is the duty of that office to register estates all over the country on application, and to employ the necessary local agents for the purpose. There is, therefore, not the slightest necessity, or reason, why the County Council should either appoint local agents or pay them. Supposing the County Council of Surrey appoint a local agent at Chertsey, that man is, in fact, not the local agent of the County Council—he is practically the local agent of the office in London. Again, why should they pay the expenses? The expenses of the registration are supposed to pay the expenses of agency, and the costs of that registration are paid at the head office in London. The effect, therefore, of this clause will be to make the County Council pay part of the expenses of the head office in London. I have very little doubt that this has been introduced under a misapprehension,

1423
and that the Lord Privy Seal will be good enough to see that it is corrected.
Amendment moved, in page 6, line 13, to leave out ("on the application and at the expense of a County Council").—(The Lord Thring.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think my noble Friend does not quite understand the object of the clause. Originally the proposition was that there should be a land registry in every county. That would have involved one of two things: either a complete staff, such as there is in the Land Registry Office in London, for the purpose of examining title, and establishing an extremely expensive machinery which might have been unnecessary; or the chief officer of the Land Registry going down from time to time to places where these different small holdings were purchased. That was thought to be inconvenient, and it was suggested that, instead of doing that, if there was a mere agency in the county, for the purpose, practically, of transmitting the applications to London to be dealt with there, that might properly be done; and that it was part of the natural work of the County Council to do that. I myself thought it was a very undesirable thing to establish, unnecessarily, different little registries all over the country, and I think the noble Earl, who served with me on that Land Transfer Committee, would concur that it would be a very unnecessary and improper expense.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Hear, hear!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: But, the agency then being established, the question was, who was to pay for it? As to that I think a constitutional question arises. If it is not to be paid for under the circumstances suggested by the clause as it stands, it strikes me that this House may have a difficulty in maintaining that they have a right to impose a tax on anybody else.
*LORD THRING: Unless you can bring it home to the working man that he can buy land here or there the Bill will be no use. I have learned from various Committees upon which I have sat, relating to the habits of the working classes, that it is idle to offer them any benefit unless you go to them and tell them of it. I believe that the institution of local agencies and centres for sale
1424
is essential to the Bill; but, in my opinion, with great deference to the noble and learned Lord, it would be unfair to throw that burden on the County Council, or to throw upon them the responsibility; because the local agents, when they are appointed,, in fact, bring grist to the mill in London. The Land Office is paid out of the costs it charges upon the estate. The local agent cannot act as agent for the County Council; he must act practically as agent for the chief office; otherwise business cannot be conducted. All I ask is that the expenses of this agency should be allowed to go on as they would without this clause at all. If this clause is not inserted, the chief office in London will have ample power to employ local agents, and I think would be able to give them instructions to tell people in their neighbourhood what lands are on sale.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I may misunderstand my noble Friend behind me, but I cannot help thinking that he has not quite apprehended what the object of the clause is. It is not by way of giving information, or diffusing amongst the labouring classes the knowledge what lands are for sale; it is a portion of the system of registration. The County Council is the purchaser, and it was thought that the operation of registering these purchases might be facilitated by the appointment of these local agents. I agree with the noble and learned Lord opposite that it would have been better to have left it to the Registration Office to deal with it, and I have some doubt whether these local agents would be of great avail; but, if this Amendment might endanger the framework of the legislation, I cannot think there is sufficient importance in it for us to pursue the matter.
LORD THRING: It is useless for me, of course, to insist against the opinion expressed on both sides of the House, but I believe the Amendment could not possibly endanger the Bill, as it proposes no new tax whatever.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11.
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, this clause begins with an

1425
ambiguity for which the Government draftsman is not responsible; and, if Her Majesty's Government were to accept my Amendment, I should have no objection to it; but, as the clause now reads, all freeholds in the country under fifty acres would be changed in their tenure, because the words restricting it to holdings under this Act which I imagine the Government intended to put in are left out. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill quoted from the Report of the Select Committee on Small Holdings, to the effect that the creation of small holdings is of national importance; and the noble Marquess at the head of the Government said much the same thing—although he said that he feared that political economy might be against them. There are some difficulties in the way of small freeholds which the Government could not obviate; but there are others which are artificial, and could be removed by the Government. No doubt what has led to the diminution of small freeholds has been the concurrent increase of rates and taxes along with the diminished value of agricultural produce. Some of your Lordships, may have read an able article in Blackwood of April last on the history of small holdings, which shows that, so far from this complaint being new, the small holdings began to decrease in number from the time of the Civil Wars in the fifteenth century; and as early as the reign of Henry VII. Acts were passed to keep up the small farms; and other Acts have been passed successively until 1750, when, owing to the agricultural depression caused chiefly by bad seasons, the same complaints began to be made of migration. My Lords, not only in England have complaints been made of rural migration, but Virgil and Horace are full of complaints, and of requests to the people to remain in the country. The low price of corn, caused by importation from Egypt and Libya, affected the Latian labourer as the low prices now affect the wheat lands of Great Britain. I must take exception to the assertion made by my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Kimberley) in reference to this Bill that France is a Protectionist country. Although France levies a duty of eight shillings and nine-pence a quarter on imported wheat, this does not raise the price of bread, nor
1426
does it keep out American corn. About three years ago there was great excitement at Rennes because the French Government had bought American wheat instead of the wheat of the district for their military stores, and the people of Rennes offered to sell their wheat at the same price as the Government would have to give for the American wheat. My Lords, the Amendment that I have moved has for its object the liberating of small holdings from paying Succession Duty, and that increases the expense of every transfer, since inquiry has I to be made whether Succession Duty has been paid. If the Government are sincerely anxious to increase small holdings in number and to perpetuate them, why do they not reduce the stamps upon the transfer of portions of land under fifty acres, which stamps now amount to half the cost of the conveyance? I move the Amendment that stands in my name.
Amendment moved, in page 6, line 20, to leave out ("or exempt it from succession duty.")—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
EARL CADOGAN: I am sorry I cannot agree to the noble Lord's Amendment, though it undoubtedly would have the effect of making small holdings exceedingly popular, because it would exempt them from all Death Duties whatever. But I think it right in saying this to say, further, that this is not a matter with which this House is empowered to deal.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, I have very few words to say upon the subject of this clause, which I shall ask your Lordships to omit from the Bill. I see nothing in the nature of a small holding which makes it different from other land in the country, and it seems to me that it would be very inconvenient, to say the least of it, that a fifty acre small holding should be taken off part of a farm and should rank as personal property, while the land over the hedge ranks as real property. It seems to me also that, supposing the land was re-sold to the original owner, the fifty acres re-sold to him would have become personal

1427
property, and it would be mixed up—part of the property would be personalty and part would be realty. That, I confess, to my mind would be a very inconvenient arrangement. And, if this Bill is to have a large effect, as the promoters hope it will — and I am sure I hope it will myself—there will be a very large portion of land throughout the country, part of which will be personalty and part of which will be realty—a state of things which, I think, everyone must admit would be most inconvenient. I will take the case of a small holding—and I fancy that those who propose this measure are against the sub-division of land—I will take the case of thirty acres, the owner of which dies intestate, and leaves a widow and four children. By this clause the widow would take ten acres and each of the four children would take five acres. That seems to me a state of things which is most undesirable. For these reasons I ask your Lordships to omit the clause from the Bill.
Amendment moved, to leave out Clause 11.—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot help thinking that the framer of this particular clause had not in his mind an Act passed in 1890. The object of the clause is to make the piece of land divisible according to the Statute of Distributions, and to make it personalty subject to that Statute. I think my noble and learned Friend opposite introtroduced a Bill in 1890—which is now indeed an Act—by which, if an intestate estate does not exceed £500 in value, whether it consists of money or land, the widow takes the whole. I do not think that the person who drew this clause had that in his mind. According to the ordinary principles of law, wherever this clause applied the Intestate Estates Bill would be pro tanto repealed. I do not think that could have been intended. And certainly the operation of it upon small holdings would be very considerable indeed. Your Lordships are aware that the provisions with regard to the law of inheritance and land transfer, which I introduced into this House, indicate that I am not averse to devolution of property according to the Statute of
1428
Distributions; but, to introduce it in this way partially and as applicable only to particular pieces of land, seems to me an extremely undesirable thing. It is absolutely essential, I think, that the land should be sold, and, if sold, I do not see how the small agricultural holding is to be maintained.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: I understand that the Act to which the noble and learned Lord refers does not apply to Scotland, whereas this Bill refers to the United Kingdom.
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: A paper has been circulated to your Lordships by a Mr. Henry Oust, in which there is a heartrending description of a widow being deprived of all her property and becoming penniless, in consequence of her husband having died intestate, and the land passing to a nephew; but the person who drew up the paper appears to be quite unconscious of an Act that was passed the year before last by Lord Bramwell, which gives to the widow of every person who dies intestate, without issue, at least £500 from whatever property he may leave.
LORD HERSCHELL: I have not in my mind the exact provisions of the Act to which my noble and learned Friend refers; I do not know whether it provides only for the widow; but supposing there was no widow left, then of course the heir-at-law would take all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly.
LORD HERSCHELL: However that may be, my Lords, certainly it is in the case of small properties that the change in the law which many have advocated seems to be desirable, because very great hardship arises when a person has invested all his savings in the purchase of a small piece of land, and at his death the whole of the land goes to one member of the family, the others being left absolutely without any provision; and it is in the case of these small properties that persons generally die intestate. Large owners of property generally dispose of their property by will, and therefore the person to whom it goes is indifferent; but I had occasion to observe, when I was a Law Officer, that in cases where heirs could not be found (and there were a very large number of such cases—it was those persons who had small properties who appeared to die in-

1429
testate. There is, therefore, this to be said in the case of such a provision relating to small holdings: that it is in the case of small holdings that the present law presses most hardly, and that if the system is unjust, it is in the case of small holdings that that injustice is most felt. That seems to me a great justification for having some such provision as this in the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 negatived.
Clause 12.
EARL CADOGAN: I have merely a verbal Amendment to propose to this clause.
Amendment moved, in page 6, line 34, to leave out ("or sell.")—(The Earl Cadogan.)
Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: There is one slight point to which I wish to call your Lordships' attention in Clause 12, line 30, which says that Sections 127 to 130 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act are to apply. I do not know whether it is clear that Section 130 is included, and I suggest that the word "inclusive" should be inserted after "130," because the section is a special one which provides for the appointment of an arbitrator to determine the price, and I do not know whether the noble Earl's attention has been called to the fact that Section 128 is not to apply when such land is built upon or used for building purposes. I imagine that there may be some buildings upon those small holdings, and I do not know whether that would rule them out of that section, and it is very important that it should not do so.
Amendment moved, in page 6, line 30, after ("thirty"), insert ("inclusive")—(The Viscount Galway.)
EARL CADOGAN: There can be no objection whatever to add the word "inclusive." It is a question whether it is necessary, but as a matter of fact the section, which applies to arbitration, is included. With regard to the other point, I will look at it before the Report.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13, 14, and 15 agreed to.
Clause 16.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I will only detain you a few minutes in moving the Amendment that stands in my name, but I confess that I think it is a very important one. As the clause stands at present, the Council, having obtained land, may exchange it, or erect buildings on it, or execute any works to enable them to sell it without loss. When a small holding is let off near a town, in course of time the town may increase, and the small holding may be surrounded with buildings; or, the adjacent land being used for sanitary or other purposes, the holding may become useless as an agricultural holding. The County Council then have the power to sell, and by Sub-Clause 3 the right of pre-emption comes in, and they have to offer it to the original proprietor of the land or to those who have lands adjacent; but I think it is very improbable that the County Council, having acquired land at a fair agricultural rent, will ever offer it back to the original landlord at the same sort of rent; they are absolutely certain to ask for the value of it as building land or feuing land. I really think this is a thing which ought to be provided against, and that is the object of my Amendment. If it is accepted, it will have the effect of making landowners more ready to give facilities to the County Council for obtaining land for the purposes of this Act—that is to say, land near a town—whereas if the clause stands as it is, it will be a great hindrance in the way of giving facilities for establishing small proprietors at all. I trust the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved,
In page 7, line 11, to leave out Clause 16, and insert the following clause in lieu thereof:—" If a County Council are of opinion that any land which they may have acquired under this Act is not needed for small agricultural holdings they may sell or let the same, but they shall before doing so offer the holding for sale, first to the person or persons (if any) then entitled to the lands from which the holding was originally severed, and then to the person or persons whose lands immediately adjoin the holding; and the County Council shall not sell or feu for building purposes land acquired solely for small agricultural holdings under this Act."—(The Lord Saltoun.)
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot accept the alternative

1431
clause proposed by the noble Lord. So far as I understand him, his object is that in case of any land being, in the words of the marginal note, "unsold, superfluous or unsuitable land," the County Council should be compelled to sell the land back, either to the previous owner or to anyone else, not at its value at the time, but at its value when acquired. In the first place, the right of pre-emption to the owner from whose land the small holding was originally severed, and, failing him, to the owner of the adjoining land, is given by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, which is incorporated in the section; and as regards the provisions contained in the latter part of the noble Lord's clause, if those rights of pre-emption were not exercised grave complaints would arise if the County Council were debarred from realising the full value of their land. The clause as proposed by us contains provisions as to the exchange of lands and the erection of dwellings and the temporary management of the holdings, which the noble Lord's clause does not provide, and which are essential to the proper carrying out of the Bill. The clause as it stands also puts in the forefront the obligation to sell or let as small holdings any land acquired under the Act. All these provisions have been left out of the clause proposed by the noble Lord, and therefore I am afraid the Government cannot accept the clause which he proposes as an alternative.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: Do I understand that before the County Council offer back the land to the original owner they may erect any buildings they like upon it, in order to increase its value? That I think would be a very serious thing.
EARL CADOGAN: The answer to that would cover a great many objections of a similar nature—namely, that as the County Council are responsible to the ratepayers, they are not likely to spend the money of the ratepayers in order to enhance the value of the land. It is quite true that under the clause they could do so, but I do not think any case has been made out against the clause on that account.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It may not be possible to accept the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord
1432
opposite, but I think that one of the objects of the clause is a matter which does deserve the consideration of the House. The clause as it stands enables the County Council to buy land, and on their finding that the land is not suitable for agricultural holdings then there is nothing to prevent the County Council from putting it on one side, and, if it be in the neighbourhood of a town, ultimately using it for the purposes of building, just as any private owner might. I apprehend that that is not the intention of the Bill, which is to provide agricultural holdings, not to enable County Councils to purchase properties for purposes which might be termed speculative. Although the Government are not willing to accept the Amendment, I would ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he would not on their part introduce words which should provide that if the County Council find that the land purchased is not suitable for agricultural holdings, there should be some obligation upon the Council to re-sell the land, and that it should be re-sold at what its value was at that particular time, which probably would be a date not long before the re-sale. I think in that way you might meet an objection which undoubtedly does exist at the present time.
EARL CADOGAN: I think the point is certainly worthy of serious consideration, and I will consider it before the Report.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17.
EARL CADOGAN: The Amendments I have to propose are merely verbal, to make it more clear that different Committees may be appointed for different sales of holdings.
Amendment moved, in page 7, line 34, to leave out ("the") before ("holdings") in each place where it occurs, and insert ("any.")—(The Earl Cadogan.)
Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, the next Amendment stands in my name, and is rather an important one. I would like to call your Lordships' attention to the constitution of the Committee under Clause 17, which is

1433
a very important Committee, because if your Lordships will turn on to page 8 you will see these words—
"In the construction of this Act reference to the County Council shall in their application to the powers so delegated include any such Committee";
and therefore for any such purposes the Committee is to be the Council. The provision of the clause is this: that where the County Council provide small holdings they may delegate the powers with regard to the adaptation of the land for holdings and the letting and management of the holdings, with or without restrictions, to a Committee, consisting of five persons, who are subsequently named. My first objection to that clause is that for the first time, so far as I know, Parliament ties the hands of the County Councils with regard to the number and composition of the Committee which is to represent the County Council. That, however, my Lords, is not my principal reason for objecting, which is that this Committee is to be limited to five. It is a Committee "consisting of"—which means "shall only consist of"—the County Councillor who represents the electoral division in which the holdings are situate, two other members of the Council, and two of the allotment managers. So that your Lordships will see at once that the locality in which the holdings are situate has the majority upon that Committee. But that is not the only objection, because it is not only probable, but it is extremely likely, that there will be small holdings in several different parts of the county, and therefore this Committee will vary in different parts of the county, because the three members, namely, the majority, would be different in different parts of the county. Then it may be said that the objections I have raised are met by the words "with or without restrictions." If the County Council delegates its powers to the Committee without any restriction, the Committee is omnipotent, and is for that purpose the Council; but if the County Council imposes certain restrictions upon the Committee, it places them in this ungracious position: that when any finding, which is the finding of the Committee the majority of which is nominated by the locality, wines up on Report, then the Council is placed in the invidious position of
1434
being obliged to override the finding of the Committee. The proposal that I have to make in lieu of that is a very simple one. I do not propose to do away with the representation of local feeling at all, because I propose to leave the County Councillor of the electoral division, and also to leave the two allotment managers as proposed in the Bill; I merely propose to change the words "consisting of" into "which shall include," which leaves it in the hands of the County Council—being instructed by Parliament to appoint those three men representing local interests—to appoint additional members of the committee as they choose, and does not restrict them as the Bill does to the number of two. That is the Amendment which I shall ask your Lordships to accept.
Amendment moved, in page 7, line 35, to leave out ("consisting of") and insert ("which shall include"); leave out line 38.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, the objection that my noble Friend takes to the effect of the clause, as I understand, is that, inasmuch as the committee is to consist of two Councillors, and one County Councillor representing the locality to which the matter under discussion specially refers, and two allotment managers, therefore there will be on that committee always a majority of those possessing local knowledge. I am bound to say that I adhere to what I ventured to say on the Second Reading. I think it would be an advantage that we should encourage, as much as possible, local knowledge and influence in the provision of these small holdings, and I myself should be sorry to see any Amendment carried which would minimise that local influence on these committees to which the County Council is to delegate its powers. I may point out, moreover, to my noble Friend that the appointment of these committees is entirely optional, and to that extent he has not perhaps considered the power that the County Council has of protecting itself. If the County Council has reason to think that these local members would use their influence in a manner which would be objectionable, it is always in its discretion not to delegate its powers, and not to appoint a committee at all. I think the County Councils, therefore, are in a posi-tion

1435
tion to protect themselves, and in these days when we hear so much of the desirability of establishing Parish Councils, and of the strong desire that there appears to be to decentralise as much as possible the operation of bodies connected with Local Government, I am bound to say that I am strongly of opinion that the clause should be allowed to remain as it is. I trust therefore for these reasons my noble Friend will not think it necessary to press his Amendment. I think he will see that, with the special powers which are entrusted to the County Council, the serious results that he apprehends will not arise.
LORD BELPER: I hope the noble Lord will give way to some extent on this clause. It seems to me that the principle of the clause is totally different from the principle that is adopted in all other County Council committees, as to which the County Council have a discretionary power, according to the subject with which they have to deal, of appointing the number of members they may think desirable. The point of getting local knowledge is of course an extremely important one, but that is a practice which is largely adopted in the case of County Council committees. With respect to the Technical Education Committee, where local or special knowledge is required, they appoint sub-committees—at least we do—with gentlemen outside the Council to assist them on those special subjects. It is said also that this power is optional; but if the Council are to do the work properly they must appoint a committee. Dealing with land and selling land cannot be done by the Council as a whole. By this clause you say that the committee is to be limited to five members, and under all circumstances there is to be one County Councillor for the division and two members with local knowledge outside. I must say that I think more latitude should be given to the County Councils to appoint the number they require, and if the Amendment of the noble Lord below me is accepted, then they would still obtain the local knowledge that is absolutely necessary, and at the same time you would give the County Council that discretion which in the case of all other committees they already have. I think the clause as it
1436
stands would lead to great hardship and inconvenience.
*EARL STANHOPE: There is great force in my noble Friend's objection to the composition of this committee, but I think the opposition to this clause would be removed if the Lord Privy Seal would allow the addition of one very small word—namely, in line 35, to say that the letting and selling and value of holdings shall be delegated to a sub-committee. Then a sub-committee would not have unrestricted power to sell or manage holdings without reference to the authority of the Council; and inasmuch as there is a great preponderance of local members for the districts where the small holdings are to be provided by the Bill, it would be fair and right that there should be a sub-committee, and not merely a separate committee to manage these holdings.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I hope the Lord Privy Seal will maintain the clause; I think the reasons he gave for it are very conclusive. Noble Lords will observe that it is not compulsory on the County Council. Certainly they will have to appoint some committee to do the business under the Act, but they win only delegate their powers, which is a totally different thing, if they appoint the committee under this clause. They can appoint a committee which can do a variety of acts to be afterwards sanctioned by the County Council, but this clause goes I think rightly further, and says they may delegate all their powers, so that the committee may be able to act without any reference to the County Council; then, having done that, no doubt this committee would be able to do whatever they thought right. But I apprehend that the County Council would not delegate their powers unless they had satisfied themselves that it was a right and proper thing to do. I do not see, therefore, any danger in the clause, and I think it would be found exceedingly expedient that the County Council should by the Bill be instructed, whenever they find that there are local committees in which they have confidence, to appoint them; and, if those local committees are to be efficient under the Bill, they must be composed essentially of local men; and, if the local men are to be swamped by members of the County Council from

1437
other parts of the county, I am certain that this clause will not work.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: I am entirely in favour of what has been said by the noble Earl who has just sat down, and I trust the Government will maintain the clause. I agree with the noble Lord as to the inconvenience of having a committee which will have to report to the County Council; it, might take some considerable time before conclusions could be arrived at, and I see no possible harm in appointing a Committee in the manner proposed to be done by the Bill.
THE EARL of FEVERSHAM: I am sorry I cannot agree with the noble Duke altogether. I do not think it would be advisable to delegate to any committee such large powers with regard to the transfer of land and so forth as this clause proposes to do. What would be the result? Perhaps some enthusiastic members of the Council would be appointed on the committee with more zeal than discretion, and the chances are that they might exercise their powers in an objectionable manner. I think the County Council should have complete control over the action of their committee, and it is a bad principle to allow any committee to act independently of the County Council.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know if I rightly understand my noble Friend, but I think he did not understand the precise issue that we are discussing. The question I understand is how is this committee to be constituted, —not whether there shall be a power of delegation or not. As to the question how this committee is to be constituted, I have great sympathy with my noble Friend in desiring to avoid the predominant influence of these theoretical persons; but it is precisely because there may be two or three of those persons who may put themselves upon this committee, and carry everything in their own way, that I should like to be consigned to the far better informed, and I hope tenderer mercies of the local people, who, at all events, would have the advantage of all the knowledge that their acquaintance with the locality would furnish. If you allow the committee of the County Council to swamp the local people, then you may be delivered into the hands of the
1438
very theoretical people that you are afraid of.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: After what has been said I will not divide the Committee; but I wish to point out that, what this clause does is to say for the first time, if the Council appoints a committee at, all, it must necessarily appoint a committee with only a certain number of the Council on it. I have never known any such proposal in any Local Government Act; but, after this expression of opinion, I shall not divide the Committee.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
Clause 20.
LORD BASING: This clause contains the borrowing powers of the Bill, and it will be observed that the second line of the clause imports into it the provision of the Local Government Acts and other Acts which would require the consent of the Local Government Board before any money could be borrowed under this Act; which means that, after the County Council, to whom those large powers are entrusted, has appointed a committee and decided that the Act shall come into operation, and that the Petition shall proceed, and have gone on to negotiate with the landowner for the purchase of his property, they are to be pulled up and the whole proceedings are to be consequently delayed, and possibly set at naught, by the Local Government Board, acting through Inspectors who are very few, and whose authority in matters of this kind is not to be compared with that of the County Council to whom these powers are entrusted. And, my Lords, there is a security beyond that of the Government, Department—namely, the security that the money is to be borrowed from the Public Works Loan Commissioners at a low rate of interest to be secured in a manner satisfactory to them. I am a member of the Public Works Loan Commission, and, though I do not very frequently attend, I know enough of the Commission to know that they take care that money is advanced on proper security. Again, the Bill itself makes careful provision that, the money borrowed by the county shall not exceed

1439
a certain amount. Is it wise in this Bill, so secured in its operation, by entrusting to the County Council the policy of proceeding with it, to hang up the decisions at which they may have arrived, and even the negotiations which they may have entered upon, until an Inspector of the Local Government Board has gone down, we do not know after what delay, to examine into the situation and to say whether the Council may be permitted to borrow money or not? It seems rather a serious drawback to the action of the Bill and a reflection upon the policy which puts into the hands of the County Council a very new and important power, if, after all, they are to be hampered in carrying it into execution. I hope before the Report stage some attention may be given to this, and that, if possible, more direct communication between the County Council and the Public Works Loan Commissioners may be arrived at.
EARL CADOGAN: I have every faith in the discretion with which the County Council will exercise their powers. At the same time, I think, if the noble Lord will consider it, he will see that it is absolutely necessary that some check upon their borrowing powers should be enacted, as in this clause. No doubt it would to some extent delay the operations of the County Council. As my noble Friend has said, there would, I imagine, be a certain number of preliminary steps to be taken before the authority of the Local Government Body was sought; but, as the section is drawn, the intention is that it would be the duty of County Councils to apply to the Local Government Board for sanction before they can obtain any loan which they may require. It should be remembered that these loans may and will constitute debts which will have to be paid, or the interest on which will have to be paid, by posterity, and it is the duty of a public office like the Local Government Board to see that some limit is put to these debts being cheated, which our descendants will have to pay for without having any control over their being incurred.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I have to move an Amendment, the object of which is to make it clear that the expres-
1440
sion "county elector" as used in Clause 5 includes a burgess of any borough whether a county borough or not.
Amendment moved, in page 10, lines 8 and 9, to leave out ("and the expression 'county elector' shall mean burgess"); after line 8 insert as a new paragraph: ("The expression 'county elector' shall include burgess.")—(The Earl Cadogan.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22.
*LORD WATSON: Following the lines of Amendments just made, I have to move that the Amendments on the Paper should be made upon Clause 22.
Amendment moved, in page 10, line 30, after ("Scotland"), insert ("in lieu of subsections four and five of section six of this Act.")—(The Lord Watson.)
Amendment agreed to.
*LORD WATSON: I move to leave out, in line 33, "an annual feu duty or ground annual," and insert "a perpetual rent charge which shall be a real burden affecting the holding." I may explain my reason for proposing the Amendment. By constituting the charge a feu duty or ground annual you place the County Council in the position of superiors having a feudal estate which will endure as long as the feu duty is payable, and when it ceases to be payable there will remain what is called a mid superiority for the extinguishment of which no provision has been made. Instead of that I propose to strike out those wordsand to make the County Council mere encumbrancers, which brings the clause into harmony with the English clauses of the Bill.
Amendment moved,
In line 33, to leave out ("an annual feu duty or ground annual") and insert ("a perpetual rent charge which shall be a real burden affecting the holding.")—(The Lord Watson.")
Amendment agreed to.
*LORD WATSON: My Lords, I beg to move the other Amendments that stand in my name.
Amendments moved,
In line 38, leave out ("feu duty or ground annual") and insert ("rentcharge"); and in lines 40 and 41 leave out ("feu duty or ground annual") and insert ("rentcharge.")—(The Lord Watson.)
*LORD WATSON: My Lords, I have a further Amendment to move which is not on the Paper, in order to bring the clause into conformity with Clause 6 as it has now been altered in Committee. I move in the first line on page 11 after "and" to insert "shall either," and in the same line after the word "instalments" to insert "or principal"; in line 4 delete the word "and" and insert "or shall," and in the same line to delete the words "shall be repayable" and insert "be repaid."
Amendments moved,
In page 11, line 1, after ("and") insert ("shall either"), and after ("instalments") insert ("or principal"); line 4, delete ("and") and insert in lieu ("or shall"); and delete ("shall be repayable") and insert in lieu ("be repaid.")—(The Lord Watson.)
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, passed.
Clause 24.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with any remarks on this Amendment, because the same remarks that I made upon Clause 11 would apply to this clause. This clause is, in point of fact, translating into the Scotch language what is English in Clause 11. I shall, therefore, ask your Lordships to omit Clause 24 of the Bill.
Amendment moved, to leave out Clause 24.—(The Duke of Richmond and 4 Gordon.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I take this opportunity of asking the Lord Privy Seal exactly how we stand with regard to Clause 11, which has been struck out, and this Clause 24, which is to the same effect. On a former night I understood the noble Earl to say that the Government thought Clause 11, as it stood, was defective, that it would require amendment, but that they were of opinion that with reference to the Privileges of the House it would not be possible to amend the clause here, and that the only course that could be taken was to throw out the clause, in which case possibly the other House might send up an amended clause. That being the case, and it being quite obvious to us on this side of the House that the clause was extremely defective,
1442
we could not support the clause as it stood; but I shall be glad to know whether I am right in supposing that the Government contemplate bringing back the clause to this House, if the other House agree to such a course, in any other form? Otherwise I think we should be disposed to submit an amended clause on Report, in order to get the opinion of the House upon it.
EARL CADOGAN: The noble Lord has stated accurately what I said the other day. It is difficult for me to give any direct pledge as to what will happen when the Bill returns to another place.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Of course.
EARL CADOGAN: I endeavoured, to the best of my ability, to give the arguments for the clause that were used in the other House, and then I proceeded to show how, in the opinion of the Government, when we came to consider the clause, it was impossible that it could be passed in its present form. I then also stated that we were advised that it was impossible for us to amend it so as to render it acceptable, or such as would be possible for the House to pass. Now with reference to what is to come I can only say, as I said before, that in our opinion it is absolutely necessary that the clause should be thrown out, inasmuch as it cannot be amended, and I have every hope myself, speaking individually, and I believe I may speak also for my colleagues, that, having sympathy with the object of the promoters of the clause, it may be possible that some clause may be provided which may be without the objections entertained to the present clause, and which may secure the object in view, without its being put into a form that it is absolutely impossible for us to adopt. Further than that we cannot go. We cannot amend the clause ourselves, but we hope that an amended clause will be sent back to us. That, I think, fairly and fully expresses the position we take up.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not quite apprehend the position of the Government in the matter. I wish to know whether the Government intend to propose an amended clause in the other House?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is a question, I think, which had better be asked in the other House. The noble Earl will remember that the clause was not originally a Government clause; it was a clause brought up very late, and the structure of it is so faulty that I observe even the noble and learned Lord (Lord Herschell) did not defend it. And the absurdities which would arise if it were passed into law must, I think, be evident to every lawyer. Whether it is possible to pass any clause, without much more careful investigation, which will produce the precise effect desired by the promoters of the clause—which, as I understand, is practically to protect the widow—I do not know. We do not pledge ourselves at all. I have not had an opportunity of communicating sufficiently with my right hon. Friend to be able to answer that question; but if the widow can be protected, without producing any of the terrible anomalies that this clause presents, I shall be very glad. I confess I object to the clause, not only on account of those anomalies, which would be very serious, but because I think the distinct effect of it as it stands now would be, as fast as you create the holdings, so far as intestacy operates, to sink them back into the masses of large properties around them; and that I do not think is a desirable object.
LORD HERSCHELL: It does not depend only on intestacy; the effect would be the same if a will were made. That is provided against by a previous provision, that whether by the intestacy, or will, or in any other way, a certain course shall be taken. Supposing the intestate left daughters only, the holding would be sub-divided at once, because the daughters would be co-parcellors, and one person would not succeed. All that is provided against by a previous clause. But, my Lords, inasmuch as it is not clear that the Government do intend to propose a new clause, I shall venture, on Report, to propose a clause in lieu of Clause 11, which has been struck out, and that will, of course, distinctly raise the question in a form upon which we can express our opinion.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 negatived.
Clause 25.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I move to leave out of line 36 the words "in the opinion of the Sheriff." I cannot conceive why the County Council are not fit and able to appoint a person to carry out these duties without the interference of the chief Law Officer.
Amendment moved, in page 11, line 3(5, to leave out ("in the opinion of the Sheriff.")—(The Lord Saltoun.)
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, this is a matter which I really think should be left to the opinion of noble Lords from Scotland. The Amendment is one which, to the English lay mind, appears wholly unobjectionable, and I should be prepared to accept it; but I should be glad to hear the opinion of noble Lords from Scotland, especially that of my noble Friend (Lord Watson).
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, I confess that, upon looking at the matter first, I rather shared the opinion of my noble Friend behind me who has moved this Amendment; but, inasmuch as very important questions of law are to be decided, it is obviously very necessary that the person who advises the County Council in this matter shall be fully qualified, and a person of some experience in law. Therefore I am inclined to think that in the interests of the public, and to secure that everything should be done in a proper and legal manner, it is better to leave the words in the clause as they stand.
*LORD WATSON: I understand, my Lords, that the view taken by the noble Marquess whose Amendments I have moved to-day was that the effective operation of the Bill in Scotland, more especially of such clauses as may be in the future added to it, will depend very much upon the legal gentlemen who are employed to register titles under the Act, and that it will require on their part very special knowledge of conveyancing. I am not at all sure that the County Council, however fit they may be for other functions which they have to perform, are the best judges of the man best fitted to conduct these legal proceedings. If the conveyancing is to be properly conducted, and the Act carried out well, I think the precaution which the other House has taken, of re-

1445
quiring the opinion of the Sheriff so as to see that the person appointed for the purpose is well qualified, is a most useful adjunct of the Bill.
Amendment negatived.
Clauses 25 and 2C agreed to.
Clause 27.
EARL CADOGAN: The Amendment I have to move is to postpone the coming into operation of the Act in order to enable the County Councils to make preliminary arrangements.
Moved, after Clause 27, to insert as a new Clause. "This Act shall come into operation on the first day of October, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two."—(The Earl Cadogan.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 200.)

NAVAL KNIGHTS OF WINDSOR BILL.
COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to order).
LORD ELPHINSTONE: My Lords, when this Bill was before your Lordships yesterday, the noble Earl (Earl of Camperdown) raised certain objections to those provisions, which I promised I would refer to the Department for consideration, and I have brought some Amendments before the House which I hope and trust will meet the objections raised by the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN": My Lords, I may say that I have seen the Amendments which have been prepared by my noble Friend, and am perfectly content with them; they effect the objects that I wish to see effected.
Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, this is a Bill which is intended to supplement a measure which was passed two years ago, in order to protect life at sea, by diminishing the chances of overloading. That Act provided for the fixing of a load-line, which I believe has worked, on the whole, very satisfactorily; but it is found that the penalties imposed by the Act are not sufficient, really, for the purpose of enforcing it, and that they would be more effectually enforced by giving certain powers of detention to the Board of Trade. The Bill, which I now ask your Lordships to read a second time, has had the support of the President of the Board of Trade in the other House, and, although there were difficulties about some parts of it as originally introduced, I may say that it finally passed, in the form in which now ask your Lordships to read it a second time, with general assent. There is another provision in the Bill which has reference to the inspection of the food provided for sailors on board ship, so as to see that it is in a fit condition and not adulterated. That also is a matter that has been passed with the assent of those interested in shipping, as well as with the hearty and1 cordial support of those who have specially advocated the cause of the protection of those employed at sea, under circumstances in which it is impossible for them to obtain any complete protection for themselves, inasmuch as they are unable to provide other food for themselves if the food provided for them on board ship is of an unlit character. I trust your Lordships will have no difficulty in giving your assent to the Bill.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Herschell.)
LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has, as one would have expected, correctly explained the provisions of the Bill, and I do not propose to offer any objection to it on behalf of the Board of Trade.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

FISHERY HOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
THIRD READING.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, there is one Amendment I have to propose the object of which I feel bound to state to the House. The Bill itself provides for the constitution of a new Fishery Board to come into office on the 1st January next; the existing Fishery Board would naturally go out of office in October, and the effect of the Amendment is to secure that the present Board shall remain in office from October to January, so that there shall not be a gap between the expiry of their powers and the coming into operation of the new Board.
Bill read 3a accordingly; Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
FORGED TRANSFERS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order): An Amendment made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
ALKALI, &c. WORKS BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
PARLIAMENTARY DEPOSITS AND BONDS BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION OF EXCHEQUER BONDS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
POST OFFICE ACT (1891) EXTENSION BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
TAXES (REGULATION OF REMUNERATION) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 2a on Monday next.
BILLS OF SALE BILL [H.L.]
Bill read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 189.)
CASUAL WARDS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next (The Lord Hartismere [L. Henniker]). (No. 190.)
GALWAY INFIRMARY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next (The Lord Privy Seal [E. Cadogan]). (No. 191.)
LAND COMMISSIONERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 192.)
NATIONAL DEBT (STOCKHOLDERS' RELIEF) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next (The, Marquess of Salisbury). (No. 193.)
NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next (The Lord Privy Seal [E. Cadogan]). (No. 194.)
PUBLIC LIBRARIES LAW CONSOLIDATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 195.)
RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 196.)
SUPERANNUATION ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next (The Marquess of Salisbury.) (No. 197.)
WITNESSES (PUBLIC INQUIRIES) PROTECTION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 198.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 199.)
MARRIAGES ABROAD BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendments to be considered on Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (BATHGATE WATER) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
ALLOTMENTS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (MORTON FEN) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7.) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
COLONIAL STOCK ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order): An Amendment made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
TECHNICAL AND INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments to be considered on Monday next.
TELEGRAPHS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 202.)

MILITARY LANDS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next (The Earl Brownlow). (No. 203.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.