Lords Sitting of 2 February 1894

PETITION.
Lord BALFOUR, OF BURLEIGH presented a Petition from inhabitants of the parish of St. Mary Abbot's, Kensington, in favour of excluding London from the operation of the Parish Councils Bill.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.—(No. 294.)

  COMMITTEE. [SECOND NIGHT.]
  House again in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 9 (Powers for acquisition of land).
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid, he had an Amendment for the purpose of limiting the objects for which the Parish Councils could acquire land compulsorily, but as the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) proposed to move an Amendment dealing more explicitly with the subject, he would ask leave to withdraw this Amendment until later, when the House would have decided upon the exact purposes.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAmoved to leave out the word "district" in Sub-section (2) and (3) and to insert the word "county," so as to substitute throughout the County Council for the District Council as the body to which a Palish Council should apply when it was desired to acquire land compulsorily. This would introduce a cheaper and safer mode of proceduce. He pointed out that under recent legislation the appeal was direct to the County Council, who would bring the matter before the Local Government Board; and he thought it would be more logical and advantageous that the same procedure should be adopted in this Bill. It was now proposed to eliminate the County Council altogether, and he could not imagine why that should be done. Under the Bill two inquiries would be necessary, one by the District Council and the other by the Local Government Board, which would
  1738
  involve considerable expense. His Amendment would cheapen the procedure under the Bill, as it would only require one inquiry by the County Council, which need not occasion any expense whatever, and the Local Government Board would merely discharge the Ministerial duty, which was at present imposed upon it, of presenting the Provisional Order to Parliament. The cost of presenting an Order of that kind was stated m the other House not to exceed in any case £14 2s. The Amendment was preferable, on the ground of the wider area comprised by the County Council, and it was more logical and natural, as allotment powers had already been conferred on the County Councils, to leave them under this Bill in possession of the field to carry out the provisions of the measure upon the application of the Parish Council.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 9 lines 13, 14, and 16, to leave out the word ("district,") and insert the word ("county.")—(The Earl of Winch Used.)
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he had an Amendment to the same effect on the Paper. The County Councils had very large powers conferred upon them by recent legislation in relation to these matters, and it would be more logical, and in accordance with the wish of Parliament, to leave them in the hands of those Councils. A better public opinion would thus be obtained, inasmuch as they covered a, wider and more liberal area than the District Councils, which would to a great extent be composed of the same elements as the Parish Councils. It would be a great pity to east aside the machinery already provided.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, the object of his Amendment was to secure that the initiative should rest with the Parish Council, but he agreed with this Amendment in regard to putting in force the provisions of the Act.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNthought it was very much better that the Parish Council should go to the County Council at once, instead of only appealing to that body under Sub-section (4), if it were dissatisfied with the decision of the District Council. In any case, the parish would be able to go on to the County Council, and the whole question was whether it was not more ex-

  1739
  peilient that the parish should appeal to that body at once, as it would be more likely to give a proper decision.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOK, in supporting the Amendment, said, there were in the West Riding of Yorkshire many small urban sanitary districts which would under this Bill become District Councils, and he considered that an appeal to such Councils would be unsatisfactory where the curious anomaly arose that the parishes were larger than the districts. As the Bill stood, the chairmen of the District Councils were to be Justices of the Peace, and considering how many of those small places there would be, not as large as the neighbouring parishes, this provision would be quite unsuitable for the case.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of Kimberley)said, the real question was whether it was desirable to pass over the District Council altogether, for by the clause as it stood there was always an ultimate appeal to the County Council. That body had discharged its duties with regard to allotments extremely well, but there were very many cases in which it was possible and desirable to settle the matter on the spot, without going to the County Council at all, and that might be done by the District Council. There could be no cause for complaint as to the way in which the County Councils had discharged their duties in this matter, but it should be borne in mind that this wan an onerous and difficult duty to cast, upon the County Councillors. There was no power to remunerate those who undertook the duty, and it was often a great hardship to call upon a gentleman to go some 30 or 40 miles to make a local investigation in reference to these allotments at his own expense. The result was that an independent opinion had in many cases to be obtained from some one living in the district. On the whole, he thought it would be better to adhere to the method of procedure contained in the clause. It would not be advantageous that the appeal should have to be made in all cases to the County Council, and the better course was to leave it to the District Council, with an appeal afterwards to the Local Government Board. This was not the proper time to make the great change in the
  1740
  Bill for application being made to Parliament instead of to the Local Government Board. He would only say now that to that proposition he would offer his most uncompromising opposition.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid, the noble Lord seemed to assume that the County Councils would be likely to neglect the duty of visiting these allotments in distant parts of the counties.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, his statement was that it was frequently found necessary to obtain assistance in the locality—not that the inquiry was delegated in all cases.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid that, wherever necessary, inquiries were made by the County Councils themselves through committees appointed for the purpose, in these letting matters. Members gave up their time to making local inquiries in distant parts of the county, sometimes spending the greater part of a day in doing so. Another reason why the County Council would be the better authority was that it was undesirable that matters of principle should be left to be decided entirely by people residing in the district where the question of allotments arose.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, the County Council had its Allotments Committee or Small Holdings Committee which had similar duties to perform, and they acted on some definite principle. If disputes arose they would be better able to settle them than an authority or the district itself, which might not have the advantage of having men experienced in the management of county business sitting upon it. Again, a parish might have to apply to the representatives of three or four parishes around it, forming the District Council, and some of these bodies would be ridiculously small. In these cases the skilled opinion and knowledge desirable would not be obtained. Until the boundaries of small districts were altered that point deserved consideration.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONcould not agree with the Leader of the House that there was any difficulty in the necessary inquiries being-made by the County Councils under the Allotments Act. Those bodies would be far preferable to the District Councils, comprising, as they did, men of experience in these matters.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, the noble Earl opposite had wrongly assumed that in any ease the parish must go to the County Council. By Clause 4, if the District Council failed to act they might go to the Comity Council, but that did not cover the whole case, and persons who were dissatisfied should be able to take the judgment of the more widely constituted and more experienced body.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the law at present provided for the case mentioned under the Allotments Act. In the first place, the Rural Sanitary Authority had to be applied to, and if they failed to do what was required the appeal to the County Council was provided for.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, it should not be forgotten that in these District Councils quite new bodies were being created.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYpointed out that they would be differently elected.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Marquess of RIPON)said, Lord Cranbrook had instanced Yorkshire. The area in the West Riding was very wide, and it was almost impossible for County Councillors to get to distant parts of it and back to Wakefield in the same day. In such circumstances, it seemed unreasonable to impose on County Councils duties in connection with these parish matters, which it was desirable therefore should be dealt with in the first instance by the District Councils.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOKsaid, the noble Marquess would find that in the neighbourhood of Huddersfield some of these urban districts were smaller than the parishes, and they ought not, therefore, to be made the Courts of Appeal.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEasked whether consideration had been given to the fact that the parishes had direct representation on the District and not on the County Councils? Members of the Parish Council might also represent the parish on the District Council, which would probably take the judgment of those persons as conclusive in the matters
  1742
  referred to it. On the other hand, if that opinion were not accepted by the majority there would still be an appeal to the County Council if the wishes of the Parish Council were not carried out. Those surely were reasons for preferring the County Authority in the first instance.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, the essence of an appeal was that it should lie made to a superior tribunal, but the District Councils would practically have the same chairman and vice-chairman as the Parish Councils. They would comprise precisely the same individuals, and their mental horizon would not be much larger. The natural tribunal, therefore, for the purpose was the County Council direct, with its larger assembly and larger interest; and under the clause as it stood the Parish Council, if it differed from a landlord, could appeal from the District Council to the County Council.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid, the whole point was whether the ultimate Court of Appeal, the County Council, was not undoubtedly the best tribunal for deciding questions of this sort.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, one point had escaped notice if this Amendment were carried. Under the present law the County Council could acquire land, and they would naturally transfer it to the Parish Councils. But, as a matter of fact, that was not always accepted. In Lincolnshire the Rural Sanitary Authority, having made default, the County Council had acquired land, which they had found it exceedingly inconvenient and annoying to have to manage in allotments in different parts of the county. It was essential, therefore, that the County Councils should have the right to divest themselves of responsibility and require the Parish Council to accept the land.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid, the point dealt with in his next Amendment was not of great importance, but in a Bill of this kind probabilities and possibilities should be as far as possible guarded against. This was with the view of making it clear that the Parish Council was only to be empowered to take land for the inhabitants making the representation to them, to that extent limiting the powers for the acquisition of land.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 9, line 18, after the word ("allotments ") to insert the words ("for inhabitants if the parish from which the representation is received.")—(The Earl of Denbigh.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he saw no objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENmoved to omit the word "proceed," for the purpose of inserting "apply to the Local Government Board." This was the first of three Amendments in his name affecting the procedure with reference to allotments, and there were similar Amendments in the names of other noble Lords to the same part of the clause, in-eluding one by the Marquess of Salisbury, to omit the words—
  "And the Order it' made by the Board shall not require confirmation by Parliament."
  This Amendment would, of course, be dependent upon whether the Local Government Board's Order was to be final or not.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 9 line 21, to leave out the word ("proceed,") and insert the words ("apply to the Local Government Board.")—(The Earl of Dunraren.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsuggested that it might be put off to the Report stage, as it would be altered by the Amendment of Sub-section (a), to the alteration of which Lord Kimberley had announced his "most uncompromising opposition."
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of Morley)supposed Lord Dunraven's three Amendments stood together.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, the next were simply consequential.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in moving an Amendment that the Order of the Board should not require confirmation by Parliament, said: The noble Earl opposite has taken the opportunity, and somewhat unusual course in Parliamentary procedure, of announcing his uncompromising opposition to the propositions in a Motion which was not then before the House.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The noble Earl had brought forward his pro-
  1744
  position, and it was necessary that I should deal with it, and in doing so I stated what my opinion was.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That lays upon me the necessity of troubling the Committee with a few arguments in favour of it. I shall argue together the question of referring to Parliament the allotments under this clause, which are allotments in fee simple, and the allotments under the next clause, which are under 14 years' leases. When the noble Earl to-night spoke of the constant duty which the care of these allotments would impose upon the County and District Councils, he showed his apprehension that the process to which it is now proposed to give validity will be one frequently resorted to. I do not think the Government have sufficiently considered how much the interest of the tenant farmer depends upon a just and equitable administration of this extraordinary power, and what serious apprehensions have been caused by the enactments to which the House of Commons has given its assent. I have received a great number of communications, pointing out to me the great danger the tenant farmers run and the need for additional and sufficient security. It is obvious that you cannot on a large scale take land from one occupier and give it, to another without seriously affecting the interests of the occupier from whom you take it. Some people seem to imagine that a farm is like a cake, and that you can take a piece out of it anywhere without seriously affecting the remainder, and that if you take 10 acres from a farm it is only so much less, and no difference is made to the farmer. But that is not at all the view taken by the tenant-farmers themselves. I have received the most earnest appeals showing the injury to which people will be exposed if this power be unwisely exercised. It is not only with reference to the stock-keeping operations of the farmer that the difficulty arises; but it is mainly so. I have received representations that in order to keep stock you must have food for them in summer and in winter. Feeding stock in summer is not a matter of difficulty; there is plenty of summering land. But feeding them in winter requires meadow land; it is essential to the working of the farm. If you take away half the meadow land which

  1745
  belongs to a farmer and leave him with his summering land, his operations of raising and fattening stock are absolutely paralyzed, and his farm is completely ruined. That is one of the apprehensions I find prevailing. If the grass land, which often lies temptingly near the town, and the cottages of the labourers be taken, as will be the case, the comparatively less valuable land, which is worthless for mowing, will lie left on the farmer's hands. Take another case. A great many farmers have taken to the dairy business; for the dairy business you must have a certain amount of plant corresponding to the herd you keep; corresponding to that herd you must have a certain amount of land on which to feed them. You cannot interfere with any one of these co-efficients of the manufacture of dairy produce without paralyzing all the remainder. If you take away from a man the very land on which his cows feed, the cows become useless, and the plant and buildings erected for them become useless too. Again, I have complaints that the dairy business will be arrested and farmers will be driven out of this business and ruined. Let me take another instance. Farmers tell me—and I have no doubt your Lordships who are familiar with agriculture will agree with this, that there is special value attaching to the home fields of a farm. They are of special value for two reasons—first, because they are under the immediate supervision of the farmer; and, secondly, because they can be manured more easily and at less expense. Therefore, a farmer will lie seriously hindered in the working of his farm if these fields are taken away from him. Then, profits on agriculture, if I may use the word "profits" at all, have been reduced to the finest point; and the slightest change from one side of the balance to the other may make the pursuit of the industry impossible. Let me take another case, that of a clergyman in a parish in which, unfortunately, there are acute religious differences. I readily admit it is not an ordinary case in the country, yet it is one which frequently occurs. He has right in front of his drawing-room window a meadow. He became the purchaser, because people of an opposite religion wanted it to annoy him by erecting an objectionable building in this meadow, which would have made life a burden to him. In order to protect
  1746
  himself, and at great sacrifice, being perhaps a poor man, he bought this field, so that this particular kind of warfare could not be carried on against him. Now lie fears that—
  "The first thing the Parish Council will do will be to take this field for allotments for people who may be my enemies, and the sole object for which I invested my money will be frustrated."
  There is yet another case I would mention which is of more general occurrence; it is the case of those who own laud near growing villages and small towns which is likely in a few years to be required for building purposes. A lady writes—
  "I am poor, and I have looked forward to the value this land will acquire as a support for my children, lint if this land is to be taken from me, and taken from me at the value of agricultural land, I shall be simply robbed of the resources to which I am entitled."
  That is a very serious injury. I want to draw your Lordships' attention to this— that all these things require not only close examination, but they require close examination with the eyes of people who know the country, who know the rural districts, and understand the bearings of the various considerations I have laid before you. Does anybody pretend that gentlemen from Loudon, Inspectors of the Local Government Board, will understand all these things? I cannot conceive why they should have been selected for the purpose. They have no real qualifications whatever, and are perfectly ignorant of these matters. These considerations would not press themselves upon their minds in the least. Therefore the farmers of this country are exposed, by the operation of this Bill, by those new and unexampled powers which have never had a parallel since our jurisprudence has existed, to action which may, without any fault on their part, suddenly ruin them, and ruin them without appeal. I do not say it is only the farmer who will suffer. In these days, if you lose a good farmer you do not get another easily, and probably the landlord will suffer too, because the farm will be thrown up. But the farmer will be the man who will be ruined in the first instance, and I say by this Bill, with its heedless, incautious clauses, the industry of farming, and the interest of every farmer in this country, is threatened. Well, what securities have you? As I have said, I entirely distrust the Inspector of the

  1747
  Local Government Board. I distrust him in the first instance because he is incompetent, and knows nothing of the subject; in the second instance, because he is appointed by a politician, and his very official existence and promotion depend on the good-will of that politician. In many parts of the country differences run high, and it is a curious fact that, wherever there is any dividing line separating classes, be it a dividing line of class, or creed, or race, it is always apt to take hold of the land as the subject of difference which these divided classes fight out. Now the Parish Council will set this in motion. Over a vast area of the country the Parish Council will consist of five persons. Of those five persons three will be a majority. They will probably be agricultural labourers. Is it a very extravagant supposition to think that a farmer may occasionally be so unpopular that those three men will come to the vote with considerable prejudice against him? Is there any one of your Lordships who would like his property to be at the mercy of the votes of three men whom lie has possibly been obliged to discharge the winter before because he could not keep them at work? That seems to me a very serious danger to expose the fanner to, and wherever farmers and labourers are not in good accord—I freely admit that does not describe the great mass of the country— in those places the Parish Councils, which will be Councils of labourers, will be hardly a fair body to have the whole decision of the farmers' future in their hands. Then it goes to the Inspector of the Local Government Board. I say he is incompetent, and that he depends upon a politician. In parts of the country there are strong divisions of race and creed, and if feeling runs high, and if there is pressure put upon the chief of the Local Government Board, again, I say, you are exposing the landowners and the farmers of this country to a danger to which you have no right to expose them. If we are told, as the noble Lord told me, that Presidents of the Local Government Board are invariably men of honour, and you can always trust to absolute justice of their decision, I reply that that is not the principle on which we have been accustomed to deal with the interests of the people. We are bound to look to the fact that human
  1748
  nature is not perfect, and though nine out of ten Presidents of the Local Government Board may be all you could wish, you may come across a tenth which may do great injustice. Then, why should you depart from the system to which you have hitherto trusted and which has answered its purpose so-well? Why depart from the system of Provisional Orders? It is rapid, and in 99 cases out of 100 is exceedingly cheap. Where it is not opposed it is a cheap and easy system. At all events it is impartial, it is competent. You know how Committees of the two Houses are appointed. You know the care the Committee of Selection take to keep off any one on whom a suspicion of partiality could rest. You know how easy it would be in both Houses of Parliament to provide Committees thoroughly acquainted with rural matters, and capable of coming to a just and intelligent decision. What, then, is the objection? There is but one objection— namely, that where there is opposition there might be great expense. I freely admit that in Private Bills that is the case. But it is not a new difficulty in the administration of our law, and we have been accustomed to meet it by the simple plan of awarding costs against the person who has made an unreasonable opposition. This difficulty is that up to this time costs have not covered the whole expenditure, because it is an evil practice in our Law Courts, which, I am afraid, has extended to the Committee-rooms, that costs are measured on a scale which is called between party and party, and which is very far indeed from covering all the expense which has been incurred. I am assured, by professional persons who should know, that by the provision which I have placed on the Paper, costs shall be from henceforth in these cases as between solicitor and client, those costs will cover the whole legitimate expense which could be incurred. Therefore, if one party is unreasonable and resists, costs given against him will prevent the Parish Council from suffering. That removes the entire objection on the ground of expense. And I have, ex abundante cautela, also inserted a proposal—though I do not believe it will he necessary — that the County Council should be able in particular cases to defray the expenses where the costs

  1749
  are insufficient. The advantage of continuing the system of Provisional Order is that the system is unquestionably fair: that it brings the question before a competent tribunal; and that, with such provisions as I have suggested, you can ensure that no excessive or undue expenditure shall fall upon any person who behaves reasonably—that the whole cost will be put upon the unreasonable party. The matter standing like that, I confess I am very loth—indeed, I may use the phrase of the noble Lord opposite—I am uncompromisingly opposed to surrendering the interests of the tenant-farmers and the landowners of the country to tribunals which are not adequate for the purpose, surrendering the guarantees which properly has always had, and doing that without any adequate cause or conferring any advantage on the litigants in the case.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 9, lines 27 and 28, to leave out the words ("and the Order if made by the Board shall not require confirmation by Parliament"). —(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, a large part of the argument of the noble Marquess seemed to me to be directed against the policy of allotments altogether.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I said no such thing.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Because the noble Marquess pointed out in great detail the numerous instances in which the provision of allotments would inflict grievous hardship to tenant-farmers.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Might do so.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: So numerous were the instances given by the noble Marquess that I will venture to say, if you acted upon the principles laid down in his speech, extremely few allotments would ever be distributed at all. I would ask this question however— What was the intention of the noble Marquess, and the Government of which he was the head, when he carried through Parliament the original Allotments Act of 1888? Did they mean or not that the compulsory clauses in that Act should be effective? I cannot suppose they meant that those clauses should be illusory, but, its a matter of fact, everyone knows that
  1750
  those clauses as they stand in that Act have proved illusory. I entirely admit the argument which has been constantly used by the supporters of that Act that indirectly it has had considerable effect, and it would be quite unjust to measure the effects of that Act simply by the cases where compulsion has been exercised. There is no doubt that under that Act, and impelled by the pressure of that Act and others, illusory allotments had been given voluntarily to a considerable extent throughout the country, and the case should not be judged by the fact that that Act has not been recognised. But the Act of 1888 certainly contemplated cases where owners or occupiers would act so unreasonably that without compulsion they would not give land for allotments. I know many cases where private individuals have found it necessary to exorcise compulsion themselves upon tenants who refused to give upland they could well spare to the labourers. I live in a, county where, unfortunately, we are well acquainted with the working of the Act of J 888. Your Lordships know the celebrated case of the St Faith's allotments. Unfortunately, I have not the figures by me at this moment, but the amount paid acre by acre for these allotments under the Provisional Order system and an appeal to Parliament was so enormous as to make the Act wholly illusory, and to make it impossible altogether to purchase these allotments, the costs which fell on the unfortunate litigants being crushing in amount. Not only labourers and owners, but the County Council itself has come to the conclusion that it is absolutely useless, as I know, speaking from my own knowledge in the County of Norfolk, to apply the compulsory clauses of the Act of 1888.
  LORD DE RAMSEY: The noble Earl has forgotten to say that in the case cited a lady of foreign extraction in Norfolk was fined, practically, £1,000 for her unreasonable conduct.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: That makes no difference; the parish where these labourers lived had to pay a large sum in order that these labourers might obtain allotments. No doubt the lady had to pay a considerable sum, but that is no consolation to those who have had to pay sums so large that practically the parish where those labourers live has to

  1751
  pay an enormous fine in order that the labourers may obtain allotments. Now we have to look broadly at the policy of the Act. When Parliament embarked upon an entirely new policy, that of requiring land to be given up for a certain purpose, it meant the requirement to be effective and real; and I say if you offer to the labourers allotments with the one hand, and if you so frame your Act that practically where there is this kind of opposition, which the noble Marquess has described as very strong—
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What I described was a great apprehension that the Act would be inequitably applied. I never suggested that there was strong opposition to the granting of land for allotments, or that there wore not large stretches of land over which the provisions of the Act could be applied.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Then by the noble Marquess's own statement it may be expected that those persons, apparently so numerous, will take advantage of the power of opposing the Order, and so practically prevent the acquirement of allotments. Because when it is known that you are ready to oppose and to have the matter sent before Parliament, to be there dealt with under our Provisional Order system, it will be felt that it is quite useless to attempt to apply for allotments at all. Therefore, in effect, you nullify your Bill before you have passed it. I do not assert that there will not be cases of hardship under the provisions of this Act. You cannot pass any Act with compulsory powers that will not in some cases work hardship. That was inevitable under the Act of 1888. Your Committees no doubt are excellent and impartial, but even they sometimes may err and sometimes may not do complete justice to all parties. The noble Marquess seemed to be under the impression that these Provisional Orders would pass unopposed, but there is no necessity unless there is opposition. If there is no opposition the mater is done by agreement. What I intend myself is to offer an uncompromising opposition to this proposal, because if your Lordships insist that all these matters are to come before Parliament you will take a very long step to wards making the Act a dead letter so far as this question is concerned. I will
  1752
  not be a party to the passing of Acts which, I believe, will be a dead letter. Noble Lords opposite have just carried an Amendment which requires, in the first instance, that all these questions should come before the County Council, and when the noble Marquess speaks of such persons as knowing nothing about these questions he forgets that the County Council must, in the first place, be a consenting party to a Provisional Order. At all events, it has local knowledge and must be familiar with the conditions under which it is obtained. As for the Local Government Board, I am not concerned to enter into a defence of every person in political life at the head of or connected with it; but I have had a long experience of its administration, and I should be very 10th to believe that it would deal unfairly or unjustly with questions of compensation such as might come before it under this Act. If your Lordships make up your mind to secure allotments to the labourers you must provide some easy, simple, and cheap mode of acquiring the land, or else your policy is one which will hold out to the ear something which in reality would not be worth having.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, if the evils which had been pointed out against proceeding by Provisional Order were so great, how was it that the compulsory acquisition of land had been carried out under that system in very numerous cases without difficulty? The noble Earl had apparently based his support of this great change in the law of the land respecting the compulsory taking of property upon one case which happened in his own county. If their Lordships were to be guided by that single case the noble Earl's argument came under the objection well known to all lawyers that "Hard cases make bad law." Hitherto an appeal had lain to Parliament in cases of compulsorily taking land, and this Bill involved a very serious departure from the principle which hitherto had been acted upon. He happened to be on a Royal Commission with regard to mining royalties, and complaints as to the mode in which way-leaves had to be acquired were brought before them. The Commission was asked to suggest some summary way of obtaining way-leaves by compulsion without the necessity of an appeal to Parliament.

  1753
  A gentleman whose authority would not he disputed by any Member of their Lordships' House was examined before them—he meant Sir Joseph Warner— who for 21 years had been counsel to the Chairman of Committees of the House. Sir Joseph Warner told the Commission that—
  "Parliament never gives power to take lands or easements compulsorily, unless an opportunity has been afforded to the owners, lessees, and occupiers concerned, of being heard before a Parliamentary Committee. The single exception is the power of a Local Authority, under the Public Health Acts, to carry sewers or water-mains, if, on the report of the surveyor, it appears necessary to do so, into, through, or under any land within their district. This power, as regards England (except the Metropolis), dates from 1818, and was re-enacted in 1875. There are corresponding powers in the case of London. Scotland, and Ireland. Such powers are important in the interest of the public health, scarcely capable of abuse, and primâ facie beneficial to the landowner. No such general powers have been given, so far as I am aware, by any other Acts, public or local, during the present century. I should add that under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act of last Session power is given to the authorities of the burghs which are within the Act, to take land compulsorily for street improvements, water supply, and sanitary purposes by an application to the Sheriff, and that the appeal is to the Secretary for Scotland, not to Parliament."
  He had quoted Sir J. Warner's evidence in order to satisfy their Lordships that, rightly or wrongly, they were now asked to make a complete change in the principle upon which land was for the future to be taken compulsorily. In support of this great change the Government said that the compulsory powers under the Act o f 1887—not 1888, as his noble Friend had stated—had not been largely used; but the reason of that was because the Act had enabled voluntary arrangements to be easily made. In his-own county the County Council passed resolutions that it was desirable to exercise these compulsory powers, and by the mere passing of those resolutions the allotments were obtained, and it was not necessary to carry those compulsory powers into effect. The Government had not shown the existence of any great grievance to justify this change in the law. The noble Earl had given the single Norfolk case. As to the expense of an appeal to Parliament the Act of 1887 contained special provisions giving the Committee which had to deal with the matter the power to order costs against the party
  1754
  which had made to it an unreasonable application. The proposal in the Bill went far beyond allotments. It extended to any land which, under another clause, the County Council was enabled to take compulsorily. For example, suppose a parish room was to be erected, power was given to take laud compulsorily for that purpose. Their Lordships might compare that situation with the situation of a great borough. Some few years ago Portsmouth built a very maguificent Town Hall, and he supposed it had to get the land by agreement. So he apprehended there would be no difficulty in Parish Councils obtaining their land in the same manner and at a fair price. There was another matter to which their Lordships' attention had not been hitherto directed. By it subsequent subsection allotments as defined in the Bill might extend to four acres of pasture or to one acre of arable land and three acres of pasture, while under the present law the allotments were limited to one acre. That was a very large increase in the extent of the allotments to be obtained by compulsory powers. He agreed with the noble Marquess that there were many cases in which the whole value of a farm might be destroyed by taking the pasture land near a village for these small holdings. In the South of England such a power might subject the farmers to very great injury. It seemed to him that Her Majesty's Government had not given adequate attention to the introduction of this new principle. He believed there would be no difficulty in obtaining allotments without this great change. He should support the Amendment of the noble Marquess opposite.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that he agreed to a considerable extent with the spirit of the argument of the noble Marquess—namely, that it would be very unjust if property were taken away from any person without the owner having an appeal, and that appeal tribunal ought to be of a judicial character. He thought it would he most unsatisfactory that a man's property should be taken away by the decree of an Administrative Body, such as the Local Government Board, without an appeal being allowed. The only difficulty he felt was as to the expense of such an appeal. An appeal ought to be as cheap as possible. He had placed upon the

  1755
  Paper an alternative proposal, by which the appeal should be to the Privy Council instead of to Parliament. That was the procedure adopted under the Labourers' (Ireland) Act. It was cheaper than the system of Provisional Orders, and he understood that it had been found to work satisfactorily. With regard to the merits of the question, he entirely shared the opinions expressed by Lord Northbrook.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAthought some protest should be made against the unfair and uncandid attack made upon the noble Marquess by the Leader of the House, which he could only attribute to the noble Earl's recent illness. He seemed to have forgotten that the noble Marqness was the author of the Allotments Act of 1887. When the noble Earl spoke of the effect of that Act as having been indirect and, therefore, not of much value, be supplied a confirmation of the noble Duke's remark on the subject.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he had not made that statement, but had expressly said that great results had followed the Act.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAsaid, that was not what noble Lords on that side of the House had understood. The noble Earl appeared to think that the amount of compulsion which had been applied was the measure of the valuable results of that Act. He gave one unique and solitary case of a parish and a landowner having been put to expense—the case of St. Faith's. The lady in that case was heavily mulcted, and the fact of her having been placed in that position was not an encouragement to landowners to appeal unreasonably. He hoped he should not be misunderstood. He was as desirous as anyone that labourers should have allotments in every place where they could be justly given to them, but he could not disguise from himself the feeling of grave apprehension that existed in the minds of the tenant farmers that if the Bill passed as it stood they might be inequitably treated.
  LORD MONK BRETTONsaid that, as an old President of the Local Government Board, he desired to deal with that part of the noble Marquess's speech in which he declared that the Inspectors of the Local Government Board were incompetent.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I said incompetent for this particular purpose.
  LORD MONK BRETTONsaid, that many of the Inspectors of the Board were most competent to form an opinion upon agricultural subjects and to conduct these inquiries. He would give an instance— Mr. Henley. The noble Marquess said that these Provisional Orders constituted a cheap way of getting these matters settled. He regarded Provisional Orders as a very cumbrous way of arriving at a decision. They involved a threefold inquiry—the first being one in the locality, and subsequently one before Committees in each House of Parliament. This could hardly be said to be a cheap process, and he preferred the suggestion of the noble Earl, that the appeal should be to the Privy Council, as had been pointed out by his noble Friend was done in the case of the Labourers (Ireland) Act.
  LORD CARRINGTONsaid, that it would be impossible to exaggerate the feeling of disappointment that would be created among the rural population if this attack on the principles of the Bill by the whole strength of the Conservative Party, including the Marquess of Salisbury and the Duke of Richmond, should prove successful. What was proposed by the Amendment of the noble Marquess? It was simply the status quo ante which the noble Marquess described as having worked so well. Had it worked well? In six and a-half years he believed only four Provisional Orders had boon applied for throughout the whole Kingdom, and the cause of this was the great expense those Provisional Orders entailed. He knew that there were many noble Lords present who had done much in the way of providing allotments, but could any one of them say that the demand for these holdings had been satisfied? The parish of Holbeach, for example, comprised over 21,000 acres. Though there was great demand for allotments at the present time in that large parish, there wore only 64 acres of land under allotment cultivation. The case of Holbeach was by no means an unusual one, and he ventured to present it to the attention of the House as an instance of the necessity which existed for some drastic alteration in the law. In the parish of Gosberton labourers had been applying

  1757
  for allotments since 1888. In 1891 they applied to the County Council to help them; but under the existing law, under the most favourable circumstances, the labourers could not get on the land, even if the Provisional Order was unopposed, till 1895, and yet the Marquess of Salisbury said the Act worked well. He appealed to the right rev. Bench to help the Government to do the best they could in bringing the Bill through the House in a workable form, and not to allow it to lie made an absolutely useless and inoperative measure.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREasked, before the discussion proceeded further, for the purpose of making it a little clearer, exactly what was the position in which the matter stood before their Lordships. The Amendment of the noble Marquess was merely to omit the words at the end of Sub-section (a) with regard to the Order of the Local Government Board requiring confirmation by Parliament. He understood the noble Marquess proposed to leave in the earlier words of the sub-section, substituting the Local Government Board for the County Council. As an Amendment had already been passed substituting the County Council for the District Council, were those words wanted at all?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYdid not think they were. It was his own mistake.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid that, with a view to promote allotments as much as possible in his own part of the country, he selected a field upon his home farm and put up a notice-board, stating that allotments would be granted upon application being made at the estate office. In the result he had not a single application, and the only use that was made of the notice-board was by boys, to throw mud and stones at, He believed that where the labourers were provided with good cottages and gardens, as they were in his own neighbourhood, they did not desire land for allotments.
  VISCOUNT HAMPDENwished to know whether a refusal of the County Council to sanction the hiring of laud in any particular place for allotments was to be a final decision? Referring to the speech of the Lord Chamberlain, he stated that applications for allotments were, in his belief, generally and practically, and, he would even add,
  1758
  generously, met; though in this class of legislation, generosity meant, in the view of some persons, freedom in dealing with the property of other classes of persons. He could give an illustration of the evil result of careless and what he would term "generous-minded legislation," giving authority to one set of persons to deal in a free-handed manner with the property of another. In Essex he had set out allotments, which people used for a time and then gave up, because they said they were not sufficiently favourable in regard to situation, and they desired instead a certain old pasture field. But if that field were taken for allotments he could neither sell nor let his farm, and no jury would assess compensation which would adequately pay for the severance. There ought, in his view, to be power given to the arbitrator to say that, for cogent reasons, the value of any particular piece of land could not be properly assessed for allotments. If the County Council were I to decide the matter finally, be, for one,; would be quite content to rest the justice of the case in the hands of the Local Authority.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): The cases in the Bill with regard to purchase and hiring differ. As regards purchase, the County Council can, under the Bill, refuse to proceed, and there is an end of the matter. The case stands thus: Under the Amendments now passed the Parish Councils cannot take an inch of land. All that they have power to do is to make a representation to the County Council, and the crucial question is, How far are you prepared to trust the County Council? As matters now stand, the County Council require to be satisfied of two things: first, that it is a case in which land cannot be obtained by agreement for allotment purposes on any reasonable terms; and, secondly, that it is a case in which it is desirable for them to proceed. If the County Council are not satisfied that both these conditions are fulfilled, there is an end of the matter, and nobody's laud can be taken. You have there a very great safeguard; but there is yet another. You must satisfy the Local Government Board that a particular Order ought to be made in respect of a particular piece I of land. That is the next step. It is, I know, suggested by some that the Local Government Board being a Government; Department cannot be trusted and may be

  1759
  actuated by political motives. But in these matters one has, I think, a right to appeal to the experience of the past, and I have to this day never heard a suggestion or even a suspicion that the Local Government Board or the Board of Trade have abused the powers entrusted to them by employing these powers for political purposes. I hope that such a charge is still far distant. The Local Government Board would consider representations addressed to them in regard to the proposed compulsory acquisition of any particular piece of land for allotments, and I maintain that you ought to trust that Department in the matter. That is the crucial point between us. If it is found to be just and proper to proceed in any particular case, then it will be for the arbitrator to determine the question of compensation. I believe that in a case of this kind you are much more likely to obtain a just and impartial determination by means of a tribunal such as the Bill proposes to provide than by referring such matters to a Joint Committee. Are the Committees of the two Houses absolutely free from political influences? I do not believe that any greater security would be ensured by that plan, which, it is further urged, is one which has hitherto been universally adopted. I cannot admit that. I think that the expense of obtaining the right to take land that is absolutely necessary for public purposes has often been crushing and outrageous, and has made the cost to the public utterly unreasonable and unjust. To those who advocate the advantages of the retention of that plan, I would say that my experience is all the other way. The money has conic out of the pockets of the public and has gone, for the most part, into the pockets of the lawyers and expert surveyor witnesses. To ask me to admit that this is a system which is free from objection is to ask me to admit that which I know to be not so. There may, I concede, be nothing unreasonable or objectionable in the plan in cases where it is adopted for the purpose of acquiring land for large commercial enterprises, but that is quite a different thing to its application in small matters of public policy. If you are dealing with the case of taking land for a Railway Company with £500,000 sterling, or more, the addition of a few thousands of pounds to the total cost may
  1760
  not be a matter of very great importance. But where you are proposing to take a small portion of land in a county for purposes of allotments and where you have the same machinery employed, as in the case of a large Railway Company, then, I say, you are adopting, in respect of matters where you ought to keep the expenditure as small as possible, a system in the employment of which it is impossible that the expenditure should be anything but large. These are the reasons why it seems to me that, unless there is some strong reason to the contrary, we ought now to adopt a cheaper and less cumbrous method. Some suggestion as to costs was made as a means of punishing unreasonable opposition to the acquisition of land in particular cases; but the noble Marquess himself has had some experience of persons being ordered to pay costs and the costs not being forthcoming. A man who opposes unreasonably will probably not have much money in his pocket. It is nothing to say that such a man is to pay costs as between solicitor and client instead of only as between party and party. No indemnity will be obtained. Again, I would point out to those who advocate the present system that Committees of the two Houses have not always been in complete harmony as to which party, promoters or opponents, is to pay the costs in a particular case, and have sometimes, indeed, taken diametrically opposite views as to whether the opposition has been reasonable or unreasonable. All the contingencies as to costs have to be borne in mind by those who think of applying for a Provisional Order. Many a man has even been deterred from prosecuting a perfectly just and large claim through fear of the chances and of the costs. I maintain that the system which has been adopted in the past is a cumbrous and expensive one, and leads to a burden of costs wholly out of proportion to the subject-matter to be acquired. It is, therefore, a great public duty to alter that old method, if this can be done without injustice. I should feel quite safe in leaving such matters in the hands of a great Public Department like the Local Government Board, quite regardless of the political views of the President for the time being. The noble Marquess says that hiring and purchase stand on the same footing, and, for this

  1761
  purpose, I admit that they do. I would, however, ask my noble Friend Lord Northbrook to note that Parliament passed the Crofters Act, under which it was possible to take laud by compulsory lease, to be determined by the Crofter Commission, without coming to Parliament at all. That is a case strictly analogous in principle in the 10th clause of the Bill, and it cannot, therefore, be said that we have in the present instance introduced a principle which Parliament never recognised before. The noble Duke asked whether the whole of Subsection (a) should not be left out. The fact is, that as the matter stands in the clause the District Council is substituted for the Rural Sanitary Authority, and the provision is that the District Council shall proceed for an Order under the Allotments Act. Their procedure would be to get the County Council to apply for a Provisional Order.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The County Council has been substituted throughout.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What I am calling attention to is that under Section 3 the Rural Sanitary Authority is the body which obtains the Provisional Order. It says here that "the County Council" shall proceed for the Provisional Order. It was all right when the District Council had to proceed for it, but, as it stands now, the County Council has that duty. Unless you have some body to proceed for it like the Local Government Board there is no sense in it at all, because they cannot "proceed" to themselves.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHpointed out that the Amendment with regard to those words had been postponed, and the question could be brought up again on Report.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the matter stands now, as I understand it, if you leave out the Local Government Board it will not be clear what is to be done at all.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYdid not think that the calm judicial argument of the noble and learned Lord should cause the House to overlook or forget the impassioned speeches of the Lord Chamberlain and of the Lord President. Noble Lords opposite had insinuated that there was a conspiracy on the part of land-
  1762
  owners to prevent labourers from getting land for allotments and small holdings.
  LORD CARRINGTONdenied that he said anything of the kind. There had been no suggestion made of any such conspiracy.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYwas exceedingly glad to hear that denial.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he must make the same disclaimer. He had, in fact, rather gone out of his way to state that under the Act of 1887 a large number of allotments had been applied for.
  THE EARL OF HARROWRYsaid, that he was glad to receive those denials. There was, he asserted, no reluctance on the part of those who held the land to give the labourer the advantages of obtaining it. In fact, there was a general desire to meet the wishes of the labourers in this respect. He protested strongly against the tone of the two noble Lords opposite, who had spoken as if their Party were the sole champions of the rural labourers. They ought to remember that when they were formerly in Office they did nothing to promote either allotments or small holdings, and that the only serious attempts to provide them were made during the tenure of Office of the late Unionist Government. The whole success of the movement would depend upon the maintenance of a good feeling between laud-lord, labourer, and tenant; and if the landlords and farmers were to be the only class placed under exceptional legislation with regard to their laud, a feeling of deep and real wrong would be created and a serious grievance would arise, a feeling which had always been found to produce the worst results. He hoped their Lordships would forgive him for Inning made this protest against the present Government being considered the sole friends of the agricultural labourer.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, inquiry had shown that the difficulty in obtaining allotments had arisen, not because of the want of laud, but because the labourers said they could not get it in the right place or at the right price. They wanted what was known as accommodation land, and that was far too valuable to the farmer to allow of his cutting it off from his farm and letting it to the labourers for allotments at the price at which they could make it pay. If such laud were

  1763
  taken compulsorily, the labourers would have to pay a very much higher sum for it than they could afford to give.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYwished to answer his noble Friend the Lord Chamberlain's assertion that the Allotments Act had not worked well. If lie had read Mr. Jesse Collings's paper, The Rural World, he would have learned that in all parts of the country allotments were being obtained without recourse to Provisional Orders, and there had been only one case of a lady in the Eastern Counties where the whole strength of the Statute had to be applied, and she had to pay the whole of the costs. The Lord Chamberlain was Chairman of the Welsh Laud Commission, and he was sure the noble Lord could not say that any evidence had come before him showing that any difficulty existed in Wales in getting allotments. On the contrary, the members of the Commission must be pretty well satisfied that in that part of Great Britain small holdings were the rule and were easily to be had. The Lord Chancellor had spoken about the great expense entailed; but if the owners were willing to go to that expense, it surely proved they considered they were justified in doing so, to resist unreasonable demands. All along the London and North Western line there were numbers of allotments now in existence which did not exist four or five years ago.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, a material difference had been made with regard to this question by the substitution of the County Council for the District Council as the authority to which representations with reference to the acquisition of land for allotments was to be made. The question now appeared to be reduced to this—whether they had sufficient confidence in the County Council to give that body final authority in the matter, subject to au appeal against its decision in favour of compulsory powers. In all probability the County Council would have better means of understanding the question and exercising a sound judgment than either the Local Government Board or a Parliamentary Committee. The Lord Chancellor had made a speech well deserving of serious consideration on the question of expense. That expense would, of course, fall ultimately on the
  1764
  ratepayers; and even supposing the landowners were mulcted in part of it, the ratepayers would still have a good deal to pay. Their Lordships seemed to admit that there might be cases requiring the exercise of compulsory powers on some terms or other, and, if so, they should be obtained with as little expense as might be practicable, with due regard to substantial justice. He believed the County Councils in most places would deserve confidence, and the power of the Local Government Board would only be to allow or disallow what they had done.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, if the County Council were a much older body of which they had had full experience, it would not be impossible to place that confidence in it which would justify them in taking the view of the noble and learned Lord. But when the noble and learned Lord asked them absolutely to trust in every County Council he would exhort noble Lords not to think of their own particular County Council invariably, because, no doubt, there were a great number of these bodies that could be trusted. But let them think of the case of Wales, and, having seen something of the operation of the County Council in that Principality, consider how far it would be fair to the landowners and larger farmers to trust their interests entirely to these bodies. He thought that the time bad not come when they could safely depart from the guarantees which had hitherto been preserved for protecting the interests of the owners and occupiers of land.
  LORD KENSINGTONsaid, protests had been made from the other side against what had fallen from his noble Friends Lord Kimberloy and the Lord Chamberlain, and he wished to protest as strongly as possible against what the noble Marquess had said. With regard to the Welsh County Councils, he was the Chairman of a Welsh County Council, and he repudiated the suggestion that that body had ever dealt unfairly with the property of other people. He was certain that whatever powers were conferred upon County Councils by this Bill would be exercised to the satisfaction even of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition.
  LORD SWANSEA, as the Chairman of the largest County Council, desired to repudiate the insinuations of the noble Marquess in regard to the judicial

  1765
  character and fair dealing of the County Councils of Wales. The County Council of Glamorganshire, which represented pretty well one-half of Wales, could be trusted as implicitly as any County Council in England, even the County Council of Hertfordshire. He desired to enter his protest against any insinuation that those County Councils would act in any way showing that they were not judicially minded.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNdesired to ask whether the Government would accept the Amendment the House had already made in substituting the County Council for the District Council, as the Lord Chancellor had based a good deal of his argument upon the altered clause? He gathered from the stress laid by the noble and learned Lord upon that alteration that the Government was disposed to accept it as far as they could.
  THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid, the speech of Lord Selborne had reminded him that there was a safe way of protecting property without going to the great expense of Provisional Orders. They were all agreed that there were many cases in which compulsion ought to be used; and if they could find a cheap and speedy way of preventing injustice being done they ought to adopt it. If they could not trust County Councils he should like to know what body of men they could trust? County Councils represented landlords as well as tenant farmers; and, after all, the final decision would not rest with them, but with the Local Government Board, who would act after due inquiry and consideration of the interests of the respective parties concerned. Therefore, he was unable to support the Amendment of the noble Marquess.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL), in reply to the question that had been addressed to the Government, said it would be impossible for them, without consulting their colleagues, to give a pledge on a matter of that kind. The present Amendment depended upon the clause as it stood. If the other House should disagree to the Amendment which had been made, substituting County Council for District Council, of course the matter would be in their hands.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEXsaid, that their Lordships had here, on the one
  1766
  hand, the great principle that Parliament acting directly could dispossess any man of his property; but, on the other, this appeared to be a case in which it might be well to depart from that principle, and that Parliament should devolve its power to another body. The House was anxious that the demand for allotments should be satisfied as far as possible; and that being so, he thought the proposition of the Earl of Camperdown to refer the matter to the Privy Council had not received the attention it deserved. The only practical difference would be that there would be only one Petition necessary to the Privy Council, while two Petitions might be required to Parliament, one to each House. He should be glad if Her Majesty's Government would consider the desirability of limiting the compulsory powers to the acquisition of land for allotments only.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREsaid, the Amendment which had just been made would involve the making of other changes in the Bill, and he could quite understand the unwillingness of noble Lords representing Her Majesty's Government to commit either themselves or the other House of Parliament to acquiescence in it. The appeal as it stood in the Bill was to the Local Government Hoard, which might be a competent tribunal to decide an appeal against a District Council, but it could hardly be said that a Local Government Board Inspector was a competent Court of Appeal against the decision of a County Council. If the Government considered that procedure by Provisional Order was cumbrous and expensive it might consider some other alternative such as that suggested by the Earl of Camperdown. Subject to any proposition the Government might make at a later stage and until its plan was before them, he should vote for the Amendment of the noble Marquess.
  On Question whether Sub-section (a) shall stand part of the Clause? their Lordships divided:—Contents 54; Not-Contents 150.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that that decision of their Lordships got rid of his next Amendment in regard to petitioning the Local Government Board and the Privy Council.
  THE DIKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONmoved to omit the provision

  1767
  (Sub-section b) that in determining the amount of disputed compensation the arbitrator must not make any additional allowance in respect of the purchase being compulsory. Unless this provision were omitted grave injustice would be done to landlords whose land was purchased compulsorily, and he could not think it was seriously intended that when such grievous injury was done to a person as to take away his land by compulsion he should have no compensation. Hitherto it had been considered that an additional 10 per cent, ought to be allowed in such cases, and the practice had been recognised by Mr. Justice Hawkins, Mr. Lloyd, and other high authorities.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 9, line 29, to leave out Sub-section (b)—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, that it must be assumed that where land was taken compulsorily the owner would receive its full value. Why should he be given more than its value? The compulsory purchase of his land for purposes admitted to be for the public interest did not confer any legal right to money in addition to the value of the property. It was, in his opinion, an abuse that anything was ever added to the price of land in respect of its compulsory purchase. He did not know exactly bow the practice of adding 10 per cent, originated, but believed it was due to arrangements made between the surveyors and experts who were employed by one side and the other in cases where compulsion was resorted to. If their Lordships passed this Amendment they would encourage landlords not to sell voluntarily, for owners would know that the result of their holding out and insisting upon the application of compulsion would be that they would get more than the full value of the laud. He therefore resisted the Amendment in the public interest.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHcould conceive nothing more just than that some amount should be paid to a vendor on account of compulsory purchase. He therefore supported the Amendment, on the ground that a landowner was entitled to compensation for losses which he might suffer in connection with the
  1768
  compulsory acquisition of his property. He might lose, for example, through unavoidable delay before he could reinvest satisfactorily the purchase-money paid to him.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid, he had an Amendment later on bearing on the subject which would be cut out if the present Amendment were accepted by their Lordships. He would not support the whole of the 10 per cent, which was generally given in practice, nor would he support an unlimited amount, but he objected strongly to the assumption that a man whose land was taken from him compulsorily suffered no loss for which he had a right to compensation. A man in that position might be put to considerable expense in making out his title, and in making arrangements with other people having an interest in the laud. There was also the loss incidental to re-investment which the noble Marquess had mentioned. The principle that a man who was turned out of his property had a right to compensation in respect of the compulsory disturbance could be traced back to the days when Naboth's vineyard was compulsorily acquired. This principle ought not to be abandoned, but be did not say that the amount that could be awarded ought to be fixed at 10 per cent. The only reason he could imagine why this proposal was supported by Her Majesty's Government was that there was a kind of civil duty thrown upon the unfortunate individual whose land was required for public purposes, and that he alone, therefore, should bear the cost of having his land taken for somebody else's advantage. Though there was a public advantage involved here, it was really a very limited public advantage, because the actual purpose for which these allotments were sought (this, of course, had no reference to buildings) was the private advantage of the individuals obtaining them. The advantage arising was, therefore, only semi-public.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYdid not think that the Lord Chancellor was justified in saying that surveyors were responsible for the practice of awarding 10 per cent, for compulsory purchase. The arbitrators were really the responsible parties. The Opposition were being perpetually lectured by the Government for not trusting this person or that per-

  1769
  son. He would in his turn counsel the noble and learned Lord to trust, the arbitrators. If the arbitrators had always awarded 10 per cent., ought it not to be presumed that they had done it for some good reason? When that set of authorities, who were, like all Judges, bound to be impartial between disputants, had for 50 years uniformly recognised a particular practice as equitable, be was inclined to believe that it was equitable. At all events, he would like to hoar what the arbitrators had to say in their own defence. Where loss was inflicted upon a vendor in consequence of the application of compulsion, arbitrators ought to be able to award more than the mere value of the land; and that there might be special loss had been shown by previous speakers. Some words ought to be inserted pointing out to the arbitrator that their Lordships did not mean to deprive the vendor of that which was his right, or of compensation arising to him, not for the sale, but for the compulsory sale, of his land.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, the great difficulty in the way of inserting words assuggested by the noble Marquess was that if land was taken for the purposes of a railway, or some other purpose of a speculative character, by which it was hoped to make money, they would give the owner something added by way of compensation, but not where the land was taken for a general public purpose approved by Parliament. In regard to the 10 per cent., his experience bad been that arbitrators took first everything it was possible to take, and then added 10 per cent, upon that into the bargain.
  LORD BELPERthought that some such words as had been suggested by the noble Marquess should be added. Nothing could lie fairer than that where loss occurred from compulsory sale compensation should be paid for that loss.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, the clause was supposed to provide compensation, which meant, giving the man the equivalent for what was taken; but if those words were inserted, they would be assuming that they were not giving compensation.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid, it was not compensation for what was taken, but for the trouble, inconvenience, and damage done in taking it;
  1770
  and unless something was done in that direction it did not appear to him that they were meeting the justice of the case.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid, there was a difference between the taking of hind by a parish and taking it for a railway or other public purposes. Where land was taken for a railway the owner received the whole of his purchase-money; but if the land was taken for a parish purpose, in many cases the owner would have to pay a considerable amount of his own purchase-money.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will noble Lords opposite compensate for that?
  On Question whether Sub-section (b). shall stand part of the Clause? their Lordships divided:—Contents 114; Not-Contents 21.
  On the Motion of the Marquess of Salisbury, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  In page 9, line 33, after Sub-section (c), insert a new sub-section: —
  "Costs awarded under the said Act shall, unless the committee otherwise1 order, be costs us between solicitor and client."
  On the Motion of the Earl of Dun-raven, Sub-section (4) was omitted.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYmoved to leave out from page 10, line 18 the word "district," and to insert the word "county." He explained that it was a purely consequential Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: The County Council being inserted in place of the District Council, I do not see how the County Council will be able to recover the money, and therefore I move to insert these words:—
  "And the District Council shall raise and pay the same to the County Council accordingly."
  But now that the District Council has been done away with, does not Subsection 6 go out altogether?
  Amendment moved,
  In page 10, line 21, after ("1887"), to insert the words ("and the District Council shall raise and pay the same to the County Council accordingly").—(The Earl of Dunrawen.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not think it is wanted at all. It goes out.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: But it has just been amended by the noble Lord opposite substituting "county" for "district."
  THE EARL OF CRANRROOK: It will now have to be altered in some way, to make the Parish Council raise the money that the County Council will have expended.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: If noble Lords do not object I think it would be better to let it stand over for Report. There must be an alteration, but one cannot devise the alteration without consultation.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Leave the sub-section in, then?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Yes, please; with the alteration of "county" for "district" in line 22.
  Verbal alteration made.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether noble Lords will allow me to take this next Amendment as a consequential one. It is that the County Councils shall have power to defray the expenses.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 10, line 22, to insert Sub-section (7) —("It shall be lawful for the County Council, if they think fit, to defray, in whole or in part, the expenses incurred in any particular case in obtaining power to acquire or hire laud otherwise than by agreement").—(The Marqucss of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I think the noble Marquess will see that this will be a distinctly privileged clause. It will put it in the general rate of the county. It is so directly a now taxing arrangement that I think it would be better not to press it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Very well; then I do not press it.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  LORD DE RAMSEY: Before your Lordships pass Clause 9 I wish to ask the Government a question. How are we to know what is an allotment, and what is a small holding? I think we ought to have some definition of an allotment and small holding. The Allotments Act of 1887 limited the allotment to one acre, but in this Bill it is put at four acres.
  [No answer was given.]
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Hiring of land for allotments).
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYmoved—
  In page 10, line 26, after the word ("case") to leave out to the end of the sub-section and insert ("to the District Council, and the same proceedings shall take place as are authorised in the last section for the purpose of acquiring land otherwise than by agreement, provided that the Local Government Board shall not make a Provisional Order for hiring land for jess than 14years."
  He said, that it was necessary to surround the power of hiring land with sufficient guarantees that injustice would not be done to the tenant farmer or owner.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, he could not admit that the case of hiring compulsorily was on all-fours with purchase. There was a very considerable difference between purchase and hiring, and the object of allowing hiring was to save expense in various ways. The case of purchase had been fully discussed, and therefore he would content himself with saying "Not-Content" to the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There are four acres concerned instead of one.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: No doubt you are confined to one acre in the case of purchase under the existing law; but if the noble Marquess will look at page 11, Sub-section (4), I think lie will see that the limitation to one acre in the case of purchase is to be removed.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I read the words differently, but I will not fight it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEICHmoved to add words to the Marquess of Salisbury's Amendment, providing that the Local Government Board should not make a Provisional Order for hiring laud, "unless with the consent of the owner, for more than 21 years." Although the time was limited for which a lease was to exist, there was no limit the other way as to the length of it. It could not be less than 14 years, but it might be 99. This might be a serious drawback to the landowner. With a lease of 14 years

  1773
  there would lie a chance of revision, but with a 99 years' lease there would be no chance of a man revising it in his lifetime; and if it turned out onerous, and he could get a better rent for his land, be had no remedy. The land might be in the neighbourhood of a large and prosperous town, and might be required for building. Under this clause very considerable injustice might be done to the owner of the land, which might be applicable for building or trade purposes, if he was obliged to let it for agricultural purposes with no chance of realising at a much higher value. An Amendment of this nature was necessary to carry out the whole principle of hiring as against purchase.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 10, line 29, after the word ("years") to insert the words ("nor unless with the consent of the owner for more than 21 years, and subject to a power on the part of the owner to determine such hiring in case the owner may require the land for building or trade purposes, on such notice as may be fixed by agreement, or in default of agreement by the arbitrator").— (The Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, with regard to the limit of 21 years without consent, the Government would prefer the Bill as it stood, but the Amendment was not one of very great importance. With respect to the latter part of the proposal, it was impossible for him to agree. This was a question of hiring, and for a limited period to be fixed in the lease, and to be approved by the Local Government Board. Of course, the Board would take into consideration such questions as the laud attaining to a much greater value in the future. As it was a lease for a limited time, it seemed to him that the owner might fairly wait until that period had expired. At the end of the time a renewal of the lease would have to be considered on its own merits, and having regard to the circumstances at that time. If he let land on lease as agricultural land, and in the course of the lease the laud improved in value, he could not turn out his tenant, but must wait until the time was up.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: But if my compulsory lease is for 99 years, that is not of very much good to me. I cannot wait until the 99 years are up.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: To that part of the clause I will say "Not-Content." The other is a different matter.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: I withdraw the latter part of my clause.
  The following words were inserted:—
  "Nor unless with the consent of the owner for more than 21 years."
  LORD DE RAMSEYmoved an Amendment, the object of which was to provide that the Parish Council should have the area of the parish as the limit from which they might take hind compulsorily.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONthought the matter might better be dealt with on the Report stage.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYmoved an Amendment to Sub-section 3, providing that the arbitrator to be appointed in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Allotments Act, 1887, shall have power to determine any question
  "as to compensation for any injury or inconvenience in respect to the management of the farm or the occupation of the dwelling-house belonging to it. As to any compensation due to the occupier for improvements under the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1883, or under any local custom."
  It seemed to him that although there was sufficient protection for the landlord there was hardly sufficient for the tenant. Injury and inconvenience might be inflicted upon the occupant of the laud or dwelling-house taken. The tenant had as much right to compensation as anybody else, especially as it might be a tenant under a very long lease. The same compensation was due to an occupant under the Agricultural Holdings Act. In the other House of Parliament an offer was made to meet this difficulty, and the result was a very brilliant suggestion. It was to alter the rent which the tenant would have to pay for the remainder of the laud. That was the celebrated Rigbian achievement, and he did not expect to hear a defence from noble Lords opposite. It would be a very gross injury to the occupier if these two provisions be proposed were not inserted.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 11, after line 2, to insert ("As to compensation for any injury or inconvenience in

  1775
  respect to the management of the farm or the occupation of the dwelling-house belonging to it. As to any compensation due to the occupier for improvements under the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1883, or under any local custom.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONthought the noble Marquess had overlooked the fact that by the Allotments Act, 1887, provisions were made which prevented any Order being made for taking land required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling. This Bill applied that clause, and therefore it appeared that the application of that clause of the Allotments Act met the case with regard to dwellings.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The word "amenity" is not one of which I know the precise meaning of.
  THE MAKQUESS OF RIPON: I should have thought that anything which would injure the amenity or convenience of a House would come under that clause, and it might apply to any field, although not close to the house.
  THE MAKQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he had carefully considered the matter, and must insist on his Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARE OF WINCHILSEA, who had given notice of an Amendment to leave out Sub-section (d), said he should move his Amendment later on. In his view the clause by a side-wind proposed to set up nothing less than a Land Court. He could understand the arbitrator having power to fix the rent of the land taken by the Parish Council, but he did not understand how he could have power to fix permanently at least the rent of the land retained by the tenant. Was the arbitrator to have power to override a yearly agreement, which was the usual form of agricultural holding? He proposed to move words which would make it quite clear as to what was intended. He fancied the intention of the Government was that the tenant should, during the existence of any agreement between himself and his landlord, pay the rent of the land left after taking the allotment, and that the parish should pay the rent of that which was taken; but some more definite words were required in the section.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHasked for information as to whether, when a portion
  1776
  of a farm where there was an existing tenancy was taken compulsorily, the contract between the landlord and the tenant would be broken? If a landowner let a farm of 400 acres he had to covenant to let the tenant have quiet possession and enjoyment of that farm. Unless care was taken with this Bill the tenant would say—"In consequence of your having taken so many acres from me for allotments, you have disturbed me in my holding, and the contract is no longer binding on me." There ought to be powers to ensure the maintenance of the contract between landlord and tenant, notwithstanding the loss by the tenant of a certain number of acres.
  LORD HALSBURYthought the Government did not appreciate the point that by taking away a portion of a farm it might make the farm unworkable as a farm. What, then, was to become of the contract between landlord and tenant? A reduction of rent would not satisfy the tenant, because he might say—"I would rather not have the farm; without these pasture fields it is unworkable." This question was not one of law, but of common-sense.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAbelieved the Allotments Act, 1887, distinctly provided that allotments taken under that Act should not he construed as a breach of contract between landlord and tenant.
  THE DIKE OF RICHMONDand GORDON pointed out that there was no Amendment before the Committee.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA, to put himself in Order, formally moved his Amendment.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 11, line 4, to leave out Sub-section (d).—(The Earl of Winchilsea.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, his view with regard to what had fallen from Lord Halsbury was that this Bill would leave the landlord and tenant in the same position, and with the same liabilities as at the present time; but, of course, the tenant would be relieved of part of his land.
  LORD HALSBURYremarked that it had been contended that Sub-section (d) provided for the case of some portion of the land being taken from an existing tenancy. If the rent was to continue as it was before, he could quite understand

  1777
  that the apportionment provided for under the sub-section would satisfy every point. But when a particular portion of land which had been hired under a lease was compulsorily taken, the tenancy might become valueless to the tenant, because the farm could not be worked without so much pasture land. Was the contract between the landlord and the tenant at an end, and was there to be any compensation to the landlord or tenant in respect of the unworkable character of the remaining farm? Was there any provision in the Bill for a condition of things such as he had intimated?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in reply, said, that supposing a certain portion of the land was taken, and the rest deteriorated in value, he apprehended it would be necessary that the rent should be so apportioned that no more should be demanded of the tenant than the value of the land retained by him. A comparatively high rent would have to be put on the land taken. The question whether the contract between landlord and tenant would hold good was, he thought, a legal one.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): I think it is perfectly clear that under this Bill it does not determine the tenancy. Of course, with a yearly tenancy, it might be very soon put an end to by the tenant, but with a lease, of course, it would not be determined so quickly.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that when the question came before the County Councils, if they should have to determine the question of the Local Government Board, it would be their duty clearly to consider whether the circumstances were of that extreme nature which Lord Halsbury had suggested. Of course, he did not say that would ensure justice being done; but any fair-minded County Councillor, or the Local Government Board, would say that this was not land which ought to be taken by compulsion.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOKasked the Government to consider a case where 25 people wanted four acres each; that 100 acres might be taken out of a farm of 120 acres. Was it not intolerable that the farmer should be left with 20 acres of land when he had contracted for 120 acres?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYremarked that it was very easy to put extreme cases. The object of a Bill of this kind was to put a certain amount of trust in the Local Bodies who would have to deal with these matters. They must fall back upon the fact that in extreme eases justice would be done by the authorities.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOKsuggested that in cases of the kind he had mentioned power might be given for the whole of the land to be taken, and the farmer let free. The County Councils ought to have means of setting free the tenancy on terms which would be just to the landlord also.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am not able to say absolutely whether this would he done, but I know that in practice it is frequently done. When a man has asked for seven acres out of a Held of 12 I have known eases where there has been a refusal to take that piece of land. The authorities have said—"No; that land is not to be taken; or, if taken, it must be on higher terms."
  LORD HALSBURYwas under the impression that a more just proceeding would be to leave the tenant power to terminate the arrangement. It would be rather hard that the tenant should be obliged to continue on terms which he had never agreed to, and would not have agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): You might have a ease where the tenant held land under a lease, and he would make the deprivation of a portion of his tenancy a pretence for throwing up the whole.
  THE DUKE or RICHMOND AND GORDON: The greater hardship would be to make him work out the remainder of the land during the whole of his lease.
  EARL SPENCERthought the result would be that the County Councils would refuse to take land under such circumstances. The Councils had acted on this principle—that if so much of a farm was taken as would make the farm worthless they would not take compulsorily. That was the answer to the rather extreme cases put by noble Lords opposite.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  LORD DE RAMSEYmoved an Amendment with the object of securing

  1779
  that no one landowner in a parish should have an undue amount of land taken from him. He wished to prevent any particular owner being victimised; and, therefore, he wished the arbitrator to take into consideration the amount of land already provided by the owner for allotments or small holdings.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 11, line 5, after the word ("or") to insert new sub-section—"(As to amount of land already provided by any one owner for allotments or small holdings; or").—(The Lord De Ramsey.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does not the Amendment make the work of the arbitrator simply historical?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): I do not think it would have any effect. The arbitrator would determine how much had been taken, but it does not bring the judicial character of the arbitrator into question.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  On the Motion of the Earl of ONSLOW, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  In page 11, line 6, to leave out the word ("taking") and insert the word ("living").
  THE EAEL OF CRANBROOKmoved to leave out the words at the end of the clause enacting that—
  "The arbitrator in fixing the rent shall not make any addition in respect of compulsory hiring."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)explained that the meaning of the provision was this—that the arbitrator was not to award compensation over and above what was otherwise justly due simply because the land was taken compulsorily. Otherwise it might be assumed that something was to be added to the compensation on account of the compulsion alone.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBUBYasked how the Lord Chancellor knew what the arbitrator was going to do, considering that no arbitrator yet had to deal with this clause? It was rather an odd proceeding to single out one particular error which arbitrators in the past had fallen into, and while putting that into this Bill leave out all the others.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, this seemed to him a very anomalous sort of legislation. He was not aware of any existing law which required any addition to be made for compulsory taking or hiring. It had been the habit of arbitrators to make an addition of 10 per cent, on the ground of compulsion. But if prohibitory words of this kind were put into a Bill on a matter which bad never been defined by law before, the risk would be run of things being supposed to be excluded under these words which on every principle of justice ought not to be excluded. The arbitrator might, for instance, think he was not at liberty to take into account the damage which the landlord would sustain by having the rest of the farm thrown upon his hands.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, he could not help thinking that the words, if retained, might very seriously affect the arbitrator and induce him to refuse things which he ought to allow.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)remarked that in the Artizans' Dwellings Act passed by noble Lords opposite words were introduced providing that nothing should be given for compulsory hiring.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsuggested that the words, if retained, should run—
  "The arbitrator in fixing the rent shall not make any addition in respect only of the hiring being compulsory."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): I have not the slightest objection to that.
  The words were retained in the Bill, with the alteration suggested by the Earl of Selborne.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYmoved, in page 11, line 11, to leave out the paragraph beginning
  "Any compensation awarded to a tenant in respect of any depreciation," &c.,
  in order to insert—
  "The arbitrator shall, if requested to do so by the owner, fix the selling value of the property; and the rent awarded shall in that case be interest upon the said value at the rate of 3 per cent."
  He said, that if they took a bit of land near a town the first question for the arbitrator would be what rent would be given on a 14 years' lease for land of the kind? He did not suppose that in

  1781
  these days anybody would take a 14 years' lease, so the question would probably come to nothing. The next question would be, what would this laud fetch if let upon a yearly tenancy? The answer would be, something in excess of the rent of the agricultural land outside. But it had a very much higher value. It was capable of being sold as building land in perhaps two or three years, and when sold the purchase-money would bring in an interest, taken at the lowest in Consols, very much higher than the rent of the agricultural land in the neighbourhood. If, therefore, they said that for 14 years a man should be shut out from the right of selling his land and getting interest upon the purchase-money, they would inflict upon him a very gross and indefensible confiscation. For 12 years or so he would have the rent of agricultural land, Whereas if he sold the land he would get a price the interest of which would be very much greater. They had no right, in pursuing this object of public policy, to take that income out of a man's hand. And they must not run away with the idea that they were doing this for the rich man. This was usually regarded as a rich man's question, but it was very often a poor man's question. Now, he proposed that the arbitrator should be called upon to decide what was the selling value of the land, and that the interest, on that value at 3 per cent, should be the rent of the land. He begged to move the Amendment.
  Amendment moved.
  In page 11, line 11, to leave out paragraph to line 20, and insert ("The arbitrator shall, if requested to do so by the owner, fix the selling value of the property; and thereat awarded shall in that ease be interest upon the said value at the rate of 3 per cent").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, as he understood the Bill, the arbitrator was bound to take the question raised by the noble Marquess into consideration.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the practice was absolutely new, and there would be no precedents to guide the arbitrator. Therefore, they were bound to say in the Bill what, he should do.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)remarked that he did not think it would be in the interest of the
  1782
  owner to say that he should get 3 per cent, on the value of the land. The mode in which compensation was to be given was as far as possible provided for. The proposal might be in the interest of the owner in the case of land of high value, but in the case of low-priced land the owner would not require the arbitrator.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I leave it to the owner to decide. It is only to be tit the request of the owner.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): But, the noble Marquess has not said what is to be done when the request is made. This does not seem to be a substitute for the paragraph in the Bill.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, the paragraph which the noble Marquess proposed to omit was not a desirable provision; it was so extremely vague.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, it provided the mode in which the compensation was, so far as possible, to be provided. The object was to avoid, wherever possible, paying money down.
  EARL STANHOPEhad never heard of such a system of compensation before. It would raise the hiring price of allotments beyond the means of those who desired to have them. He trusted that the clause would be left out in order that the Marquess of Salisbury's proposal could be put in. The only alternative would be that the Government bring up a new clause.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps it would he better if I began by moving the omission of the standing clause, and afterwards move the insertion of new words.
  On Question whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:—Contents 18; Not-Contents 104.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Now I want to urge the question of payment for land that has a prospective value. That is the whole point. The Lord Chancellor says the arbitrator will take it into consideration. As this is entirely new, and we have no precedents whatever to guide the arbitrator, there is great danger that the arbitrator will simply give the value of the neighbouring agricultural land. Therefore, I press

  1783
  this particular remedy as being to my mind the best I can devise.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My belief is that the matter will he taken into consideration not merely by the arbitrator, but by the County Councils and other authorities before whom the question will come. It will be very difficult to devise words which will not limit the matter in an inconvenient way. That is my opinion. I know the noble Marquess is not satisfied, and will perhaps press his Amendment. That there is something in the point I do not deny.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 11, line 11, to leave out paragraph to line 20, and insert ("The arbitrator shall, it requested to do so by the owner, fix the selling value of the property; and the rent awarded shall in that case be interest upon the said value at the rate of three percent").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he would put it to the noble Marquess whether, in the present state of agricultural affairs, 3 per cent, was not a little too high? Was land worth 3 per cent.?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the percentage did not depend upon the value of the land. Money could be invested in Consols, and investments in Indian securities would realise 3 per cent.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, he desired to move—
  After line 20, to insert—"(4.) Provided that if the land hired under this section shall at any time during the tenancy thereof by the Parish Council largely increase in value (by reason of circumstances arising subsequent to the award of the arbitrator and not taken into consideration by him) it shall be lawful for the landlord for the time being of such land to resume possession thereof upon giving to the Parish Council 12 calendar months' previous notice in writing of his intention so to do, and upon such resumption the landlord shall pay to the Parish Council and to the allotment holders of the land for the time being such sum by way of compensation for the loss of such land for the purposes of allotments as may be agreed upon by the landlord and the Parish Council, or in default of such agreement, as may be awarded by a single arbitrator to be appointed in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Allotments Act, 1887, and the provisions of that section shall apply to such arbitrator.
  (5.) The word 'landlord' in this section means the person for the time being entitled to receive the rent of the land proposed to be hired or (as the case may require) of the laud hired by the Parish Council."
  1784
  The Amendment covered different ground from that of any proposal brought before their Lordships hitherto. It contemplated the contingency of laud improving largely in value. Their Lordships wore aware that hind often did improve greatly in value from circumstances unforeseen tit the time the arbitrator made his award. He quite realised that where land was let on lease for a term of 14 or 21 years, or whatever the, term might be, the lessor took into consideration the possible increase in the value of the land. If it increased he was the loser, and if it decreased he was the gainer by it. But it seemed to him that the question of compulsory hiring stood on a different footing. If they went to a man and said, "We insist on your land being taken for 14 years on the basis of present value," it was only fair, if a railway were made close to the land, or if valuable minerals were found, that the landlord should have the power, after definite notice, and on payment of adequate compensation, to resume possession. The onus would rest on the landlord to show that the increase in value had not been slight and trifling, but had been really considerable, and that it was such as could not have been foreseen and provided for by the arbitrator at the time he made his award.
  On question, that those words be there inserted?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he did not see the necessity for the Amendment, which to his mind would introduce an element of uncertainty in the tenure of the allotments. He did not think it desirable that after the whole thing had been settled, and the allotments were under cultivation, notice should be suddenly given by the landlord to resume possession. It was contrary to the usual practice to allow possession to be resumed where land was let for a certain time, and he did not see why Parish Councils should be put under this special obligation. The adoption of this principle would interfere with the due enjoyment of allotments.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he admitted there was a difficulty, and it was this: there was no power in the Parish Council to get rid of the 14

  1785
  years' lease. A private person could give up a 14 years' lease, but a Parish Council would have no such power, and. come weal or woe, the 14 years would have to run out under the Statute. That was a very unnatural state of things, and he could not help thinking that the power of breaking a lease ought to reside in somebody.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, he was not clear that there was anything in the Bill to prohibit a Parish Council from surrendering a lease. It was true the land was hired by compulsion; but when it was hired it was under a 14 years' lease, and unless there was anything in the Act actually prohibiting surrender, it could, if necessary, be surrendered.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, he doubted if there was power in the Bill to take the hind from the Parish Council.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, he understood the noble Marquess to put the ease of a Parish Council willing to surrender.
  Question put, and negatived.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the next Amendment which stood in his name was merely for the preservation of the award of the arbitrator, he would frankly say that it was not his own suggestion, but had been put into his hands by a person skilled in these matters. He did not, however, imagine that the Government could take objection to it. There was no harm in it.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 11, leave nut lines 21 to 23, and insert ("The award of the arbitrator or a copy thereof, together with a Report signed by him as to the condition of the land taken by the Parish Council, shall be deposited and preserved with the public books, writings, and papers of the parish, and the owner for the time being of the land shall at all reasonable times he at, liberty to inspect the same and to take copies thereof").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, there was no objection to these words.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the question he now had to raise wits with regard to what would happen when, under the Agricultural Holdings Act, a landlord was bound to pay compensation to his tenant on the determination of the tenancy by a kind of deter-
  1786
  mination that the landlord had never contemplated. It had been reported to him that in addition to losing his land the landlord might have to pay his tenant compensation. Ought not that compensation to be paid by the Parish Council?
  Amendment moved, after the words last inserted, to insert—
  ("Where any compensation is payable under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, or otherwise by the landlord to the tenant of any land on the determination of his tenancy, and such determination has arisen by reason of the land being taken compulsorily by a Parish Council under this section, the amount of such compensation shall be paid to the tenant by the Parish Council, and the landlord shall not be liable for payment of any such compensation as aforesaid").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, the point now raised would have been met, he imagined, under the Bill by the clause which the noble Marquess so much objected to, and had induced their Lordships to reject.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he did not know that he fully apprehended the effect of the Amendment. Did it mean that if a whole farm should for any reason be given up then all that might be due from the landlord would have to be paid by the Parish Council?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No; obviously not. I refer to the hind actually taken by the Parish Council.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that that which it was proposed to cover would come in under the general question of compensation. Should not those who take the laud be obliged to take it with the liabilities? He should have thought so.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he wanted to make it clear that the landlord was not liable for an action on this account.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he would suggest a little Amendment in line 6, which would make the proposed words read—
  "The amount of such compensation shall be taken into account in determining the compensation to be paid to the tenant by the Parish Council."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not care how the Amendment was framed, so long as the last two lines were in.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, the Amendment would be just, and would not cause inconvenience.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, if the noble and learned Lord preferred it he would bring up the Amendment on Report.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
  In line 6, after the words ("shall be"), to insert the words ("taken into account in determining the amount of compensation of").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, he could not help thinking that the point was covered by Sub-section (c) at the top of page 11, the words being—
  "As to the compensation to any tenant upon the determination of his tenancy."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he wished to make it clear that the tenant had not a double right of action. If he had that right the question of compensation in respect of the remainder of the farm would be raised and the compensation which the tenant might claim to be due to him might be brought up as a set-off against any claim by the landlord, and the landlord would be exposed to an action which he thought he ought not to be exposed.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAsaid, he had intended to move an Amendment which would have confined an allotment to four acres of pasture and one acre of arable land, but he did not now mean to do so. He should like to point out, however, that throughout the whole of this clause, although they professed to be considering the question of allotments, they were not considering allotments at all, but were giving the name "allotment" to that which had never been called so before. There was nothing in the clause to indicate—indeed, there was a great deal in this sub-section to indicate the contrary—that in the definition of allotments they followed the definition of the Allotments Act of 1887. The difference between an allotment and a small holding was always well worth bearing in mint by those who had to legislate on these matters. To legislate for allotment under the guise of small holdings intro-
  1788
  duced a great fallacy into the question. An allotment he should define as that quantity of land which a labourer was able to till advantageously in his spare time; but when they got beyond that—when they got beyond four acres of grass land or three acres of grass laud and an acre of ploughed land—they were not dealing with allotments. He wished their Lordships to consider that under the clause as it stood there was nothing to prevent a Parish Council letting to a tenant under the name of an allotment 50 acres of ploughed land or 50 acres of grass land if they so desired. They might turn out one small tenant, and give the land to another. He thought it would be convenient if some words could be introduced to show that their Lordships had considered the difference between the one thing and the other, because there was a danger that if they went further than an allotment such as was proposed under this clause—namely, four acres of pasture or three acres of pasture and one acre of arable land—they would be putting the labourer in possession of more land than it would occupy his spare time to cultivate. They would withdraw him from his labour on the farm, and, at the same time, not give him enough land on which to make a living. He hoped there would be some limitation—he would not say what—introduced to show that they took cognisance of the fact that there was a difference in principle between allotments and small holdings. If they did not do that, then they must recognise the fact that there was no limit in the Bill to the amount of land the Parish Council might take.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Does the noble Earl move his Amendment?
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAsaid, he moved that Amendment. He thought that if they were to allow the erection of any building at all on an allotment they ought to permit a pig-stye to be put up.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 11, line 34, to leave out the word ("or"), and after ("barn") insert ("or pig-stye").—(The Karl of Winchilsea.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, this was provided for in the Allotments Act.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAdid not know that it was provided for in the case of grass land.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Why should there not be a pig-stye on grass land?
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA: That is my point. Why should there not be?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was not aware that there was any limitation in the Allotments Act. The Act said that pig-styes might be erected on the allotments.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAsaid, that in the Allotments Act there was a different definition of an allotment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, that Sub-section (4) of the clause said—
  "Save as hereinafter mentioned, Sections 5 to 8 of the Allotments Act, 1887, shall apply to any allotment hired by a Parish Council in like manner as if "
  it were an allotment under the Allotments Act.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  LORD WANTAGEsaid, the Amendment next on the Paper was in his name, as follows:—
  After ("landlord"), in line 37, to insert as a separate paragraph: ("(d.) May not take otherwise than by agreement grass land in such parishes as may provide open pasture land suitable for the purpose, on a system of letting for grazing, and in proportion to the number of persons requiring grass allotments").
  He hoped he should be able to commend this proposal to their Lordships, who, like himself, took a deep interest in the question of allotments. He believed that great advantage would result from if. Nobody could be more interested than they were in seeing a good Act of Parliament placed upon the Statute Book with regard to the question of allotments. He had made some endeavours and some sacrifices towards bringing the poorer class of agricultural labourers and the smaller artizans into more effectual and complete touch with the cultivation of the land, and, so far as the Bill went in that direction, he entirely approved of it. But he must frankly own that those portions of the Bill which were compulsory did not commend themselves to him. He did not think they were necessary; he did not think they were called for. That being so, he should he glad to
  1790
  see Parliament allow those persons or those parishes offering advantages equal to, or perhaps even superior to, those which were given in the Bill to contract themselves out of these provisions. He thought that his proposal would be more beneficial to the classes to which he referred than the granting of plots. It would he a great advantage to the villager or cottager to be able to run his cow upon open pasture laud. He was aware that common lands had not been regarded with much favour of late years, owing probably to the extraordinary manner in which certain rights in relation to them had been dealt with—rights of getting turf and gravel, of lopping trees, and so forth. Common lands had become very much less valuable from an agricultural point of view than they were formerly. Still, he looked upon these lands as extremely valuable. He believed that if they could return to the system of common open lauds great benefit would accrue to the small cottier. He therefore thought that in cases where landowners or land occupiers let to the Parish Councils land to be used as common land with the restriction imposed that that hind should not be broken up those parishes should be exempted from the clause. He thought there was no worse mode of cultivating a field than by breaking it tip into small patches and allotments of three acres. Such division was the most uneconomical mode of dealing with laud which could be adopted. The old practice in this country, and in every country in Europe where animals, and particularly cattle, were pastured, was to allow them to run in herds over large tracts of grass land. But if land was to be divided into small pieces for grazing purposes the cost would be most prodigious in separating them by fences and providing water. The cost would be so great that hardly a labourer that he could think of would be able to pay the expense of hiring one of these small plots. He was, therefore, afraid that the object of the Bill in which they all had so great an interest would be defeated and the agricultural labourer would be deprived of benefit unless this clause were amended in the manner he proposed. There were parishes where at present pasture lands were used with great advantage, and he believed that if they were more extensively used—as he

  1791
  thought they might be, owners and occupiers being willing to provide them—it would tend hugely to the advantage of the labouring class.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 11, line 37, after the word ("landlord") to insert as a separate paragraph: ("(d.) May not take otherwise than by agreement grass land in such parishes as may provide open pasture land suitable for the purpose, on a system of letting for grazing, and in proportion to the number of persons requiring grass allotments").—(The Lord Wantage.)
  EARL NELSONsaid, he had promised his noble Friend Lord Wantage to say a few words in support of his Amendment. If he understood it rightly the proposal was to create common lands, and it would be impossible to do that unless they were dealing with at least 50 or 60 acres. That would be the smallest size they could make these commons. The arrangement would be permissive. For more than 20 years he had let grass lauds near a village in plots of two or throe acres to small cultivators with a cow. The system had always been successful. The tenants had always paid their rent, and had never asked him to replace the cow. At the same time, it must he remembered that for the "three acres and a cow" system to succeed they must have common land to help them, and he had had the advantage of a large common near the village of which he spoke on which these cow-landers had the privilege of running their cows. These people made it pay by turning their cows on to the common in the summer whilst they grew a crop of hay on their cow-land. How the system would act where there was no common to make use of was another thing altogether.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid, this was a subject he had taken a great deal of interest in. He endorsed everything which had fallen from the noble Lord with regard to the great advantage of grazing cows on commons. For four or five years he had let a grass farm to a committee of labourers. It was grazed as a, common, and lot out in shares. He could only say that he hoped that by the present Amendment, or in some other way, something would be done to encourage cow-commons in the villages, because it was undoubtedly a much more useful thing to let grass-laud to a man
  1792
  with a cow, and with a wife and family to look after that cow, than to let arable land. He had had some experience of the "three acres and a cow" system by letting out a large number of small fields. Where they had not got small fields it was difficult to give the labourer a start, because he could not find sufficient money to stock a large field. When they had not got small fields at hand they must sub-divide in the costly and inconvenient way mentioned by the noble Lord, or else they must have a common in which the labourers could take shares. As he was convinced of the advantage of the system proposed to the agricultural labourer, he hoped some practical good would come of the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he admitted that the noble Lord who had moved the Amendment was an admirable authority on allotments, and he did not think anybody in the country had done more to promote them. He would not dispute with the noble Lord, who was a higher authority than he was, as to the advantages of open pasture, for no doubt the system was an extremely good one; but the question was not whether it was better than enclosed fields, but whether a, special prohibition was to be inserted in the Bill. Such a proposal as this seemed very unnecessary, because in a parish where there was sufficient open pasture to meet the wants of the labourers it might be reasonably expected that no other demand would arise. The noble Lord had pointed out that there was great expense attending the enclosing of small pastures, and that the labourers should have all the advantages flowing from open pastures. If this were the general opinion in the country, probably no other system than that of open pasture would be tried; but he did not think it expedient to insert a prohibition in the Bill. Some persons might not share the views of the noble Lord, and he thought it should be left to the village to say what system it preferred. It would be contrary to the general principle of the Bill to adopt this proposal. The open pasture system might be a good one, but it was not desirable to take it under the special protection of the Act. It seemed to him that the Amendment was unnecessary and might give rise to discontent in some localities.
  THE EARL OF WLNCHILSEAsaid, he understood the noble Lord to fear that the prohibition of the Bill would make it necessary that the Parish Council should enclose all these separate three acres for the benefit of those who took them. He took it there was nothing in the Bill to prevent a common tenancy, even in enclosed land, to prevent a Parish Council letting a large field to several labourers. The question raised by the noble Lord vent far beyond the question of open pastures.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that in villages he was acquainted with separate holdings were not fenced off. He did not imagine that there would be any difficulty in bringing together a number of small holdings for the purpose of common grazing if the holders desired it.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD DE RAMSEYsaid, he wished to move an Amendment to which he attached a great deal of importance. Everyone who had had anything to do with allotments looked on the question of their sub-division as one of great importance. He hardly knew whether the land dealt with in the Bill was to be called allotments or small holdings. Three hours ago he had appealed to Her Majesty's Government to give some definition as to what an allotment or small holding was under the Bill. The Earl of Winchilsea had done the same, and they were still waiting for an answer. With regard to this sub-letting, it was unnecessary for him to enlarge upon it. If the sub-letting or sub-division of small holdings and allotments were allowed, it would virtually institute the middleman, would abolish the large amount of good that would arise from the division of land amongst the many, and was altogether contrary to the principle upon which Parliament acted when the Allotments Act of 1887 was passed. This Amendment was moved in another place, and the answer given was the very extraordinary one that the existing machinery was sufficient. He had, however, been advised that the existing machinery was nothing like sufficient. Even if Her Majesty's Government thought that it was sufficient, he hoped that they would sec that the matter was so important that some additional safeguard might be introduced.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 11, line 37, after ("landlord") to insert as new sub-section: ("(d.) Shall not permit sub-letting or sub-division").—(The Lord De Ramsey.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the Amendment was entirely unnecessary, because one of the sections of the Allotments Act precisely provided that allotments should not be sub-let, and that law would apply to the allotments under this Bill.
  LORD DE RAMSEY: Which section?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Subsection (3) of Section (7) of the Allotments Act of 1887. It is there expressly provided that no allotment shall be sub-let.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he was not sure that the word "sub-let" was sufficient, to grasp the evils referred to by his noble Friend. It was true that Subsection (3) of Section (7) of the Allotments Act said there should be no subletting, but there was nothing said about sub-division; and it might be possibly competent for a man to allow the subdivision of his holding, say among his friends and relations, without sub-letting. It would be safer and wiser to put in express words to prevent the possibility of any sub-letting or sub-division under the Bill.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that if the labourer's friends and relatives came to help him to cultivate the land, what did it signify? If he chose to make a private arrangement of that kind it would hurt no one, and there would be only one holder and one person responsible for the rent.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEasked if the Government had considered what would happen in the case of a person dying intestate or leaving his estate divisible amongst several children? If an allotment were so sub-divided, it would not be sub-letting but sub-division.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, there would be no greater difficulty in such a ease than there would at present in the case of an allotment under a landlord. In the event of death the allotment went to those entitled to succeed, and he had never heard that practical difficulty was caused. The executors carried the allotment on in the first place

  1795
  and then, if there was a tenant, he carried it on.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that if the letting was in writing, he had no doubt the terms would he carefully considered by the lawyers, who would exclude the possibility of sub-division as well as sub-letting. They might do it by saying—"There shall be no parting with possession." But with regard to the ordinary case of letting by parole and without written agreement, he (Lord Selborne) supposed the landlord's remedy would be this: that he would look to the executors as his tenants. In the case of these small tenants there might be no executors or administrators. The family would divide among themselves according to the shares to which they might be entitled by law.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 126: Not-Contents 42.
  THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid, he wished to move to omit Sub-section 6, which provided that—
  "On the determination of any tenancy created by compulsory hiring, the landlord shall not be required to pay compensation for improvements,"
  in order to insert as a new sub-section—
  "On the determination of any tenancy created by compulsory hiring, a, single arbitrator, who shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Allotments Act, 1887, shall have power to determine as to the amount due by the landlord for compensation for improvements, or by the Parish Council for depreciation."
  In some eases where the law was improved the Parish Council might desire to renew the lease, and there might be cases where for some good reason or other the Parish Council would, before the end of the tenancy, determine upon giving up the lease, and the land might be run out during the last two or three years. It would be hard for the landlord to have it thrown back on his hands without compensation for deterioration.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he would move to leave out Subsection (7), which was as follows:—
  "(7.) The Order for compulsory hiring may apply, with the prescribed adaptations, such of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts (including those relating to the acquisition of land otherwise than by agreement) as appear to the Local Government Board sufficient for carrying
  1796
  into effect the Order, and for the protection of the persons interested in the land and of the Parish Council."
  The question was not one of large principle, but of how far they ought to provide for compensation to injured interests by enactment, and how far they might leave everything to the Local Government Board. This sub-section was on a parallel with the Act of Parliament which enabled Henry VIII. to make his proclamations law. It would give the Local Government Board the power of determining whether the provisions that the Legislature had enacted in the Lands Clauses Acts should be applied to the tenants or not. It appeared to him that the Lands Clauses Acts should apply. If there were any clauses in them which should not apply those should be cut out, but the thing should not be done in a hugger-mugger fashion by leaving the Local Government Board to act.
  Amendment moved, to leave out Subsection (7).—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, the noble Marquess seemed to forget that the Order must now be a Provisional Order, and that the matter would have to be settled by Parliament. It would be Parliament that would be applying the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act.
  THE MARCHESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not think it necessary to divide on the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the contention of the Government was that whoever the authority was the clause was necessary.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHmoved—
  In Sub-section 9, to leave out from ("nothing") to the word ("minerals"), and to insert instead ("No hiring of land compulsorily under this Act shall be deemed to include any minerals under such land, or any rights with respect thereto ").
  He proposed the Amendment in order that the rights as to minerals might be safeguarded more completely. The words proposed to be substituted for the words proposed to be left out wore originally proposed as a part of an Amendment, which in other respects was accepted in the House of Commons. They were added on the Report stage principally

  1797
  with a view to meet a difficulty, but he had the opinion of a very eminent authority at the Chancery Bar to the effect that they did not meet the difficulty, and he was advised that the best way to meet the case was by the adoption of the Amendment he now proposed. By English law "land" included as well as the surface minerals under it. An impression was abroad that unless some saving clause of this sort was inserted the right to hire the land would, by implication, confer the right to hire and work the minerals also. He had been advised that such words he proposed to insert were necessary so as to make the distinction clear; otherwise serious difficulty might arise hereafter, which would seriously injure the development of minerals. In the event of mines extending underland taken by compulsory hire by a. Parish Council, the occupier of the land would, in default of any special clause denying him the right of support, be able to obtain an injunction stopping the mining in the case of subsidence or injury done to the tillage of the land.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 12, lines 14 and 15, to leave out from the word ("nothing") to the word ("minerals"), and insert ("No hiring of land compulsorily under this Act shall be deemed to include any minerals under such land, or any rights with respect thereto").—(The Earl of Denbigh.)
  The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, he had great respect for all members of the Chancery Bar, and, therefore, for the unknown authority who advised the noble Earl opposite; but he could not agree with that authority's opinion. It seemed to him the case was dealt with by Sub-section 9—
  "Nothing in this section shall authorise the compulsory hiring of any mines or minerals; or the hiring of any land which is already owned or occupied as a small holding within the meaning of the Small Holdings Act, 1892."
  He could not imagine that when the Parish Councils hired land for allotments they would desire to hire the minerals under the land, and he considered that under the clause as it stood the minerals were excluded. No doubt "land" would include minerals, but that was safeguarded in the 9th sub-section.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHasked if clay would be included in Sub-section 9?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, that all that was commonly covered by the words "mines and minerals" would be included.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, that it was most essential that brick earth should be included; therefore, he thought words ought to be inserted so as to cover surface minerals. In certain districts, in close proximity to towns and large villages, and especially in the neighbourhood of Windsor, there were very large areas of brick earth, and the land with such earth was also most suitable for allotments. It would be extremely unfair to owners of the land that they should be compelled to let the land at the price of agricultural land if the hiring was to prevent working the brick earth. It would prevent the owners extending their brick fields from time to time in a neighbourhood, which might be growing rapidly. He therefore moved to insert the words "or surface minerals" in the Amendment, so as to make the matter perfectly clear.
  Amendment moved to the proposed Amendment, after the word ("minerals") to insert the words ("or surface minerals").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he desired to say a word in favour of surface minerals or rather of gravel. As he understood the clause, the allotment holder might remove the gravel at half-a-crown a yard and make himself a nice little nest-egg, and leave the land worthless to the owner.
  A noble LORD: Does the 9th subsection include china clay?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): I should say yes, certainly.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, he did not differ from the noble and learned Lord. The word "land" went down to the centre of the earth in some countries; but he was bound to admit, that, having regard to the purpose for which allotments were held, it would be idle to suppose that it was the intention of the Act to include minerals of any sort or kind. At the same time, he thought it would be desirable to introduce some words to remove any doubt. The noble and learned Lord would remember that the question of what did or did not constitute "mines or minerals" had been the

  1799
  subject of long debate in that House. He was also bound to remind the noble and learned Lord that their Lordships' opinions on the question had not been harmonious. He rather thought his noble Friend was in the minority on that occasion. However that might be, there was one thing that they were obviously all agreed upon; and that was, that it was never intended to include mines and minerals in an allotment for the purpose of giving them to the allottee. No doubt it would be well to amend the clause, but he doubted very much whether the words suggested were the best that could be inserted, and he suggested that the matter might be dealt with on the Report stage.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, the law on the subject of mines and minerals had been put by a later decision of the House than that to which the noble and learned Lord opposite had referred, and he (the Lord Chancellor) had been in the majority on that occasion, and had occupied a clearly satisfactory and intelligible position.
  LORD HALSBURYdoubted whether the House had authority to cut down a previous decision of its own.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, the noble and learned Lord would find that in the case to which he originally alluded it was difficult to say whether anything, and if so what, was decided.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he did not entertain the least doubt that the effect of the words in the Bill as they stood would be exactly the same as the effect of the words moved by the noble Earl opposite (Lord Denbigh).
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid, he had never said anything about the Parish Council having the power to hire the minerals. The fact was, however, that while the clause as it stood in the Bill excluded minerals as such in giving the Council power to hire land compulsorily, if no mention was made of minerals the impression would be that mining rights would be affected.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, that the Bill, though it gave the Parish Councils power to hire land compulsorily, did not give them power to hire mines and minerals.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, that a Parish Council might hire land
  1800
  that might become necessary for the proper working of minerals, and as a result the owners might have to pay way-leaves.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid, that great importance was attached to this matter in the mining districts. He should be sorry to enter upon a legal dispute with the noble and learned Lord opposite (the Lord Chancellor), as he was sure he should get the worst of it, whether be was right or wrong. But he hoped the Lord Chancellor would agree to the insertion of the suggested words, if he had no particular objection to them, because, while they would not hamper the Bill, they would remove the existing apprehension that a tenant of a small holding might be able to obtain an injunction to restrain the working of minerals under his land if mines in the neighbourhood were extended under that land, and there should happen to be a subsidence and damage done to a pig-stye.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, that as regarded the Amendment, the last Division had shown them that even where there was no question of principle involved, and the Government had right on their side, there was a large majority against them. Time was now very valuable, and the Government would not divide against, the present proposal. They would let anything be put in.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he thought the use of the word "surface" was a mistake. What was the use of the land if the occupier was not allowed to use the surface?
  THE EARL OF DUNEAVENsaid, he would propose to add to the Amendment—
  "or any land necessary for the working of such minerals or surface minerals."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, that if that proposal were accepted, although surface laud would be hired, it would not include land necessary for working surface minerals. If they did not hire the land it would not be hired; but if they did hire it they were not to have it, and yet to pay for it. He did not see how the proposal would work.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, they appeared about to put words in

  1801
  which nobody understood, and which somebody—like the noble and learned Earl (Lord Selborne)—thought most undesirable. He thought they ought to pause before they inserted words of this consequence, which some noble Lords considered undesirable. For himself, he could give no opinion upon the matter.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think Lord Selborne said anything about this.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, the noble and learned Earl (Lord Selborue) had not dealt with this point. It might be impossible to work minerals, because of the hiring of adjoining land; and, therefore, he proposed to add words which would enable access to be secured to minerals.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, that what the noble Earl wanted was a substantive enactment to the effect that land of this description should not be allowed to be compulsorily hired, but that would not work in with the provision to which it was proposed to tack it, which was a definition of what land compulsorily hired should include. They could no say it should not include surface land which had been compulsorily hired.
  A noble LORDsaid, there was no such thing as "surface minerals." Would it not be better to specify what they meant—say "brick earth" and "gravel." Brick earth and gravel were not generally included in "minerals."
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Is there any Amendment before us?
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: No; the discussion is somewhat irregular.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid, he would move to amend Subsection (9) by providing that land already owned or occupied as a small holding within the meaning of the Small Holdings Act, 1892, "whether acquired under that Act or not," should not be compulsorily hired. He was not sure that this was the best way of meeting the point he wished to raise. That point was that the Bill as it stood said that—
  "Nothing in this section shall authorise the compulsory hiring of any mines or minerals; or the hiring of any land which is already owned or occupied as a small holding within the meaning of the Small Holdings Act, 1892."
  1802
  When they turned to the definition in the Act of 1892 they found it stated that "small holdings," for the purpose of the Act meant land acquired under the powers and for the purpose of that Act, and which exceeded one acre and did not exceed 50 acres. It seemed to be unfair that, while a man who had acquired his land under the Small Holdings Act should be protected, a cultivating owner who had purchased his holding should be subject to the provisions of the Bill with regard to compulsory hiring.
  Amendment moved.
  In page 12, line 17, after ("1892") to insert the words ("whether acquired raider the Act or not.")—(The Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the noble Lord could scarcely see the effect his Amendment would have. It would be that no part of any holding which amounted to 50 acres could be taken. It was clear that there might be many places where it would be impossible to get land without touching such holdings, therefore to exclude them would not work. The expression "small holding" was defined in this way—
  "A holding which exceeds one acre and either does not exceed 50 acres or if exceeding 50 acres is of an annual value of not exceeding £50."
  If, therefore, holdings of 50 acres could not be touched they would rind themselves in great difficulty.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that as the matter now stood, there was a privilegium in favour of those who got land under the Small Holdings Act, and those who did not want to come under the present measure would avoid it by getting themselves put under that Act.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that very few holdings had been obtained under the Small Holdings Act.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid, the argument of the Government went to taking small holdings out of the exception altogether. If they protected one class why should they not protect the other? The small owner who acquired land under the Act was as much in the way as he who happened to have bought his holding. The one was no more an obstruction than the other.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that whether or not it would be right to deprive those who had obtained small holdings under the Act of what the noble Marquess called their privilegium was one question. That was a different matter from what he understood the Amendment proposed, which was to extend that privilegium to all occupiers of 50 acres. That he thought would be inconsistent with the purpose of the Bill. To extend the privilegium to all holders of 50 acres would in some villages make it impossible to obtain allotments at all.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, that there were villages in the country where there was hardly an allotment of under 50 acres—or only one or two which were of 60 acres or more. The result of adopting the Amendment would be to make those particular persons who had holdings of above 50 acres the only persons in the parish who could be brought under the operation of the Bill. That would create an inequality which would be intolerable.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid, he desired to move to insert the following sub-section:—
  "Provided always that the owner of land proposed to be hired by a Parish Council under tills section shall be entitled to require the Parish Council to purchase instead of hiring the land."
  He had put the Amendment down with the view of giving a certain amount of protection to the small occupying owners of whom they had heard so much. On the Second Reading the noble Marquess had stated that this compulsory leasing would not hurt landowners, because they would be glad to see their land leased for 14 years, and he instanced the tenant-farmers its being, perhaps, the only persons who would be injured. But he (the Earl of Denbigh) suggested that the small occupying owners were a class entirely apart from the ordinary landowners, and that they were the class who must be most seriously injured by the passing of the Bill. He had put down the Amendment to give them the option of demanding that they should be bought out. He believed that it had been the policy of the Liberal Party—they had claimed it as their policy exclusively, but that he denied—to increase
  1804
  the number of holders of land. It had always been the cry on Liberal platforms that the land of the country was held in too few hands, and that the desire of the present Government was to see it more largely distributed. But he must say that the policy the Government appeared to he pursuing of taking away laud was a curious way of encouraging people to invest their money in it. He suggested his Amendment with the view of removing hardships. He did not suppose that in some cases it would be availed of, but in other cases it would be. Many small proprietors finding themselves deprived of a considerable part of their holdings would prefer to part with the whole, so that they could clear out altogether.
  Amendment moved,
  At end of clause to insert the following subsection:—(11.) "Provided always that the owner of land proposed to be hired by a Parish Council under this section shall be entitled to require the Parish Council to purchase instead of hiring the land."—(The Karl of Denbigh.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would submit that it was hardly in order to tack on to a clause for compulsory hiring by a public body a proviso enabling the owner to compel that body to purchase.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid, he did not care where the Amendment came in, so long as it came in somewhere.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he had thought of moving an Amendment to provide for the payment of purchase money in instalments spread over it long series of years, but he had not found the unanimity he expected in support of that proposal. He disliked the clause as it stood, but he quite admitted that the Amendment made a considerable draft on the patience of noble Lords opposite.
  Amendment negatived.
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill "?
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Before we finally part with this clause, I should like to be allowed briefly to appeal, as earnestly as I can, to Her Majesty's Government to consider whether it is not possible to accept the clause substantially in the form in which it has passed through Committee in this

  1805
  House. I am quite aware that in consequence of the hurried way in which it has been dealt with some further Amendments may be absolutely necessary in order to tit it, into the scheme of the Bill; but what I desire to ask is, would it, not, be in the general interest, and especially in the interest of the acquisition of allotments by labourers, to pass the clause substantially as if now stands? I think Parliament—not this House alone, but the other also—has been placed in an unfortunate position by the necessities, I will not say the electioneering necessities, because I do not wish to say anything aggressive on this occasion, but by the political necessities of the Government. I do not think the course the Government have had to take in endeavouring to engraft upon this Bill, which is one for the establishment of Parochial and District Councils, a new Allotments Bill has been a course calculated to promote the increase of allotments. It is quite evident from the discussions in both Houses that there is a general desire among all Parties to increase the number of allotments. Opposition is no longer made even to compulsory powers of acquisition, and even compulsory hiring is conceded. Both Parties have endeavoured to a certain extent to extend the allotment system. Her Majesty's Government desire to remove obstacles; the noble Marquess opposite has made proposals the object, of which is to diminish the cost of procedure. In my opinion, there is something a great deal more essential than cither of these proposals, and that is the method of working these Acts. It seems to be absolutely necessary that that should be simplified, so that all may know clearly and distinctly what are the powers and rights of the various persons whose interests have to be dealt with. After the Bill has been passed—whether as introduced into this House, or as amended in this House it is impossible to say—by those who will have to administer it,—namely, the members of the new Parish Councils, a reference to three or four previous Acts which will be imperfectly known and understood will be necessary. It seems to me that if the Government really desired, apart from political motives, to do what would be best to increase the number of allotments
  1806
  the course they would have taken would have been to have created Parish Councils, which will be largely representative of the agricultural labourers, to have transferred to them the power of taking the initiative under the existing Allotments Acts, and then, after a year or two's experience of the new system, they would have been able to see in what way these popular bodies found their powers insufficient, and could have introduced a consolidating Act which would have embodied in a simple code the powers deemed necessary, which would have been understood, by all parties, and which would have greatly facilitated and simplified the administration of these Acts. I do not pretend to know precisely the effect of all the Amendments which have been introduced to-night; but I believe that, substantially, as these two clauses leave this stage, that is practically what has been done. The initiative in setting in motion the existing powers for the compulsory acquisition of allotments has been placed in the hands of the Parish Councils. The remainder of the principle remains very much in the condition in which it was before. We have added also certain powers, under which laud may not only be compulsorily bought but also compulsorily hired. It seems to me that in doing that the Government have already accomplished a great deal; and I think it would be most unfortunate if, in consequence of any pressure that may be put upon them by their supporters in another place or in the country, they sacrifice the great, advantage which has already been gained for the sake of amending the Allotments Acts in a manner which cannot be complete and final—if they were to sacrifice the advantages which would be gained by a year or two's administration of existing Acts by the new body about to be set up. I believe no authority on this subject is greater than that of Mr. Jesse Collings, and certainly there is no one in the House of Commons who for a long series of years has taken a greater interest in it. He has expressed the opinion that this Bill will be a gigantic disappointment to the agricultural labourers; that it will lead to the acquisition of allotments in a comparatively small number of cases; and that where it does enable the exercise of compulsory powers it, will be at very considerable

  1807
  cost. It seems to me it would be a great deal better that we should endeavour to gain a little more experience of the working of these Acts under the new authority before we attempt to do what we are practically incapable of doing under present circumstances—of drawing up a complete, clear and distinct code of laws which is to regulate these transactions in future.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): I confess I do not quite understand the object of the appeal of the noble Duke or on what basis he makes it. His appeal amounts to this—You, the Government, have introduced a Bill with certain provisions. Those provisions, as amended with your agreement, have obtained the assent of a majority of the other House, and because this House, disagreeing with the Government and with the House below, has made certain Amendments, the noble Duke appeals to us immediately to put aside our opinions and those of the House of Commons and accept, as though by doing so we achieved some triumph, Amendments all of them carried against our opinions and arguments. On what does the noble Duke base his appeal? What has been the concession which, with all respect to the noble Duke, has given him any right to make this appeal? We have used on certain points strong and, as we think, conclusive arguments; yet the noble Duke has always voted in the opposite Lobby. The arguments, although they have had no effect on the noble Duke, have had an effect on many noble Lords who were not our ordinary followers. On many of the matters which have divided us tonight we have carried with us many who thought the House of Commons and we were right, and yet he appeals to us to forego the conclusions at which we have arrived, because we have been defeated by greater numbers in this House. What does the noble Duke suggest is to be gained by it? Why should we yield to his appeal? Why should we say the other House is not to have the right to consider these questions and adhere, if it thinks fit, to the decision at which it arrived, especially when we believe those decisions to be much more advantageous? The noble Duke says the Bill has been so altered that it will work more easily. We do not think so, and, at all
  1808
  events, we are entitled to hold our opinion that, by reason of the changes now made, it will work much worse. I have already given my reasons for thinking that some of those changes will involve vast and useless expense. The noble Duke has read us a lecture. He has pointed out how much better he would have drawn the Bill. It is very possible; but we cannot be expected immediately to accept that and to give up our own opinions. And, finally, the noble Duke tells us—and that ought to be conclusive—that Mr. Jesse Collings, who has great knowledge on this subject, says that the Bill as drawn will be a gigantic failure—
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Disappointment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Well, disappointment. Does he suggest that it will be less a gigantic disappointment after the Amendments which this House has made to night?
  A noble LORD: Yes.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: A noble Lord says "Yes." I should like to hear his reason for saying that. I will tell my noble Friend why the opinion of Mr. Jesse Collings does not weigh with me on such a point as this. It is, because I am satisfied that if we had introduced the Bill as altered tonight or in any other form, simply because it was introduced by Her Majesty's Government, Mr. Jesse Collings would have uttered the very same prediction. I have watched a good many of Mr. Jesse Collings's utterances, and I say deliberately that that is the conclusion at which I have arrived. I mean no disrespect to the noble Duke; but really I do not understand what is the meaning of the appeal made to us except that, because we have been beaten by the majority of this House, we are to forego our opinions and to say that we no longer hold them.
  THE DIKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I did not anticipate that the appeal I addressed to Her Majesty's Government would have had such au irritating effect. I have no doubt the reason is that I failed adequately to explain my meaning, and therefore the grounds on which I made my appeal I will repeat once more. In my view the experience of the Government, not only in this House but in

  1809
  the other House, has proved that it is a mistake to attempt to engraft in this Bill a new Allotments Bill; that it would he a mistake to sacrifice what has been gained in the shape of a. large increase in the number of allotments. I admit that the allotments law will be incomplete, but much may be gained by experience under the new authorities, and the initiative is still left with the agricultural labourer to put the compulsory clauses into motion. The course which has been taken in the House of Commons has been to introduce first one and then another set of propositions, and to withdraw some of those propositions at almost a moment's notice. Notwithstanding the great length to which the discussion reached in another place, it must he admitted that some of these clauses received very imperfect and inadequate discussion. I say that you are not making real progress with the amendment of the law relating to allotments when you attempt to engraft this complicated and difficult subject on a Bill which really has no connection with the matter. I say if you attempt to amend the law with respect to the compulsory acquisition of allotments without satisfying the popular desire, and if, when you can avoid it, you sacrifice the great amount of good which it is in your power to accomplish by accepting the clauses as amended, you will raise an illusory hope of incorporating in this Bill a reform of those allotments clause- which is absolutely impossible.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not quite sure that even now I understand my noble Friend. I could understand him if he asked us to drop the clauses; but what I do not understand is, admitting that we are to have these clauses, that he should ask the Government to surrender their opinion as to the best form of drafting them, when he thinks one way and the Government another.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I say that the Government have secured the power not only of compulsory purchase but of compulsory hiring, and I suggest to them that they should be satisfied with that, without attempting to make a complete and thorough reform of the allotments clauses.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, they had now arrived at a clause which related to a, separate subject, that of the finance of the Parish Councils. He would suggest that at this hour (25 minutes after 11) it would be well to adjourn, so that they could commence the fresh subject on Monday.
  House resumed, and to he again in Committee on Monday next.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.