HL Deb 21 August 1907 vol 181 cc734-58

House in Committee (according to Order).

[The Earl of ONSLOW in the chair.]

Clause 1:

LORD HENEAGE

moved to substitute for the word "persons" the words "officers of the board." He wished to earmark these Commissioners as officials of the Board of Agriculture and to express in the Bill what was understood to be the intention of the Government. He thought the selection of the name "Commissioner" was very unfortunate, as it appeared to carry with it the germ and the bacillus of the Irish land system. Some more convenient name might have been used. If it were the 21st of June instead of the 21st of August he would have been inclined to eliminate the word "Commissioner" and substitute "the Board of Agriculture"; but to propose that now was impossible, as it would practically mean the redrafting of most of the clauses and a great many consequential and drafting Amendments. It had been proposed in another place that the title "Inspectors" instead of "Commissioners" should be given to these officers, but it had been said that that would be derogatory to these very superior persons. He was bound to say he did not think that a very good answer. The eminent inspectors of the Board of Trade, the Local Government Board, and the Home Office were quite as important persons as the Commissioners under this Bill were likely to be. Then, again, the Commissioners were really to be the leading actors under the Bill. The county councils and the Board of Agriculture were treated as secondary persons throughout. He would have thought that the county councils would have been put in the front rank, with the Board of Agriculture as the Court of Appeal; and that the officers of the Board of Agriculture would have been treated as subordinate to the Board and not put in the forefront of the Bill. Again, he was unable to see why the term "persons" should be used in reference to the Commissioners and "officers" in regard to the others to be appointed for the purposes of the Bill. Under the terms of the Bill the Commissioners were to be the persons to act; it was true they were to act under the direction of the Board of Agriculture, but they would only receive general directions, and would practically act in each case on their own initiative. What was the real reason for this rather confused drafting of Clauses 1 and 2? He thought it was to be found in the genesis of the Bill as described by the Prime Minister. The cry was "Back to the land," but the provisions in this Bill were absolutely impossible and hostile to the sitting tenants and the labourers. What were the real reasons for the depopulation of the rural districts? The first reason was that within the last fifty years the use of machinery had entered very largely into agriculture, and there had been less requirement for labour; the second was that bad times and small profits had forced farmers to be their own foremen and shepherds, and their sons to take over small farms, the consequence being that there had been less work for farm labourers; the third reason was that over a great number of years during the last century half a million acres of land had been alienated from agricultural purposes; and the final reason was that the wives and daughters of the labourers preferred town life. He wanted to know what there was in this Bill which was likely to affect any of these causes. He feared there was nothing. He hoped the Government would accept his Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 10, to leave out the word 'persons' and to insert the words 'officers of the Board.'"—(Lord Heneage.)

LORD BURGHCLERE

agreed that it was undesirable that the Commissioners should be independent of the Board of Agriculture and able to roam up and down the country on their own responsibility. That would undoubtedly be setting up a limited bureaucracy. Therefore with the spirit of the noble Lord's Amendment he was in complete sympathy; but he thought that if it were accepted it would go a great deal further than its mover wished. The Amendment was to substitute the words "Officers of the Board" for "persons," and the clause would then read— Shall appoint two or more officers of the Board possessed of knowledge …."; in other words, the Amendment would limit the choice of the Board of Agriculture to the present officers of the Board. He quite admitted that included among the present officers of the Board of Agriculture were many who would be well qualified to carry out the duties under this Bill, but he did not suppose for a moment that the noble Lord wished to limit the choice in this way. As to the other point, if the noble Lord would look further down in the clause he would see the words "and such other officers." It was quite obvious, therefore, that the Commissioners were to be officers of the Board.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON)

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I confine myself strictly to the Amendment. Whether or not this Bill has the germs of the Irish land legislation in it I will not venture to discuss, but I can assure my noble friend Lord Heneage that he is quite wrong in supposing that the Board of Agriculture will take second place. I am President of that Board, and so long as I am permitted to fill that office I shall not take a second or a third place, but shall always be found in the front. This Amendment was very fully discussed in the Commons House of Parliament and was negatived by 3 to 1. What is the proposal? It seems to me that the noble Lord wishes todénigrer, as the French would say, the position of these gentlemen. In the interest of the success of the scheme it is essential that the very best men should be selected to start it upon its career, and as the Amendment is an attempt to lower their officialstatus we cannot accept it. At the same time the Commissioners will, of course, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Burghclere, be officers of the Board.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

hoped the noble Earl would not meet every Amendment from the Opposition side with the statement that it had been discussed and negatived in another place. He thought their Lordships were entitled to have some independent opinion on this measure. With regard to the particular Amendment now before the Committee, it might of course be a question merely of name, but it might be one of substance. If it were a question merely of name he did not think it mattered in the least, except, perhaps, that there might be a point ofamour propre, the gentlemen concerned preferring the term "Commissioners" to "officers." The question was, Was there any point of importance in the Bill in connection with which the Commissioners were not under the direction of the Board of Agriculture? He had very carefully considered the matter, and, so far as he could judge, there was no such point. He hoped, therefore, the Amendment would not be pressed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:—

VISCOUNT HILL

moved to omit from the provision that the Commissioners should ascertain "the extent to which there is a demand, either actual or prospective, for small holdings," the words "either actual or prospective." The existing demand for small holdings was a fact, and therefore the demand for them should be easily ascertained. But the word "prospective" was an entirely different matter. The demand for small holdings would rest upon many different conditions, and he might mention two important ones, namely, the season, and the prices of agricultural produce. Two consecutive bad seasons, for example, would necessarily mean less demand for small holdings. Therefore they would have to consider the prospective conditions which would be favourable to agricultural small holdings. It appeared to him that His Majesty's Government were rather wanting to make allowances for a demand that did not exist, because if the demand existed there was no further inquiry wanted. If those words remained in the Bill it appeared to him that the Commissioners would have rather too much scope and freedom of action, because there would be nothing to prevent them roaming all over the country ad libitum, agitating for small holdings, which naturally would, to a certain extent, disturb tenant farmers and cause unrest among farmers and various other people in the community, and, he was afraid, create the possibility of a dangerous land speculation. If, as they were told by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, there was such a great demand for small holdings, the words as they stood in the Bill were in his opinion needless and most dangerous, and he trusted that the noble Lord would see his way to accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 1, lines 24 and 25, to leave out the words 'either actual or prospective.'"—(Viscount Hill.)

EARL CARRINGTON

I feel sure that the House will believe that these Commissioners are not to be appointed for the purpose of making allowances for demands that do not exist, or in order to roam over the country disturbing farmers and giving unnecessary trouble to landlords or anything of that sort. The reason the words "actual or prospective" are put in the Bill is because we want the Commissioners not to take too narrow a view of their duties, and to recognise that all the requirements in the county are to be considered. We have no wish to send down a lot of "spoil sports" or disturbers into the country to make mischief—far from it. I honestly feel that the Board of Agriculture might be trusted to act as sane and reasonable men, and that it ought not to be supposed that they will always be rushing into undertakings which to any extent go beyond the necessities of the case. The House has a guarantee that none of these "wild-cat" schemes will be initiated in the fact that the Board of Agriculture is to pay half the cost that may be incurred. I think that is a guarantee that the Commissioners will act as reasonable, practical and sensible men, and that there will not be any of those excursions and alarums in the country which the noble Lord oppisite seems to fear.

LORD BELPER

said that this was one of the Amendments approved of by the County Councils Association which were brought to the notice of Mr. Harcourt and considered by him. But he was bound to say that he had heard neither that night nor from Mr. Harcourt any argument which seemed to him to meet the case. What was a "prospective" demand? Could anybody in the world say what a "prospective" demand for small holdings was? He had been racking his brains to find out what demand could be said to be "prospective"; and whether there were any circumstances at all in human life where there was a certainty that there would be a demand in the, future. The only thing he could think of was that when one came down in the morning, one had undoubtedly a "demand" for one's breakfast, and there was a "prospective demand" for luncheon and for dinner afterwards; and no doubt the person took that into consideration and made his arrangements accordingly. But the requirements of possible tenants for small holdings would not work with the mathematical regularity of the human frame, where there was a vacuum at a certain time of the day as surely as the hour came round. If they were going to talk about a "prospective demand," it could only mean that the person inquiring had an idea in his mind that there might be a demand at some future time; it could not be anything more, because a demand which was not in existence was not a demand. Therefore, it could only be that the people who were considering the matter thought there would possibly be a demand at some future time. The noble Earl had said that he did not want the Commissioners to take too narrow a view of the question. Why should they take too narrow a view? If the words "actual or prospective" were left out the word "demand" would be left without any limitation; and he thought that would be quite sufficient. Of course if a man came to the Commissioners, and said "I cannot take a small holding in the next six months; but as soon as I have settled a certain piece of business I shall be in a position to take it, and you may certainly put me down as one who will take a small holding towards the end of the year," that might certainly be considered by any reasonable human being to be a "demand"; and he did not see that putting in the word "prospective" really added anything to the force of it, unless there was some gentleman with not a very great discretion who considered that he might, out of his own imagination, make up his mind that there were circumstances which would possibly lead to a demand twelve months or two years hence. He hoped that the Government would give way in regard to this Amendment, because it seemed to him that it was only turning the clause into good English. He had no wish in the world to fetter the Commissioners in saying whether there was a demand actually, either to-day or tomorrow; and the ordinary word "demand" would, he thought, cover the situation. He was quite certain that if the word "prospective" were left in, it would have the effect of leading someone or other to think that it might be considered that there was a demand merely from the idea that at some future date a demand might arise; and it seemed to him that it would be extremely dangerous for county councils to have to satisfy such a demand. If land was to be purchased on a "prospective demand," what would become of the security for no loss? It was extremely likely that there would be a loss. It might be thought at a certain moment that there was going to be a demand twelve months hence; but, supposing the circumstances changed, and that there was not such a demand? If land was purchased on such an idea, it might have to be got rid of. He was aware that under the Bill it could be got rid of at a certain time if circumstances changed; but, at the same time, it was certainly not desirable to have land purchased on a speculative basis, which was what he thought was likely to take place if the word "prospective" was left in.

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

The noble Earl in charge of the Bill let fall an observation just now which seems to me to entirely justify my noble friend in moving his Amendment. The noble Earl told us that we were not to regard the proceedings of these Commissioners with too much apprehension. He said, "Do not suppose that it will be the business of these gentlemen to consider a demand which does not exist." My Lords, a "demand which does not exist" is a "prospective demand"; and therefore I appeal to the noble Earl to agree to this very reasonable suggestion.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

pointed out that assuming the Commissioners went down into a county and found that there was a demand for small holdings, that was well and good. But supposing they found there was a "prospective demand" for small holdings in that particular district, what would be the effect of their report? Was the land to be scheduled as adaptable at some future time for small holdings, and would the owner in consequence be unable to deal with it? Otherwise, unless there was some drastic measure of that sort contemplated in delineating a "prospective demand" for small holdings, he failed to see the use of the word at all.

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE)

thought the observations which had fallen from the noble Duke, following those which came from his noble friend the Marquess of Lansdowne, rather showed that the discussion was being carried on, on the part of noble Lords opposite, under, for the moment, a rather mistaken apprehension as to the exact stage of the Bill which had been arrived at. If they had been discussing the later clauses where they would arrive at the stage of "Schemes and Orders," he thought the observations which had just fallen from the noble Duke would have been perfectly to the point.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

asked what part of the Bill the noble Lord was alluding to?

LORD FITZMAURICE

said that he was referring to Clauses 3 and 4. When they arrived at those clauses, they would be dealing with schemes, and with Orders for carrying out schemes. The clause which they were now on related simply to the preliminary inquiry and report, arid had been framed with the object of giving as large a latitude as possible to those preliminary inquiries. He could understand that a certain amount of quite legitimate criticism and good humoured cavilling might be indulged in about the word "prospective." They might be asked what was actually meant by a "prospective demand." He would suggest that a "prospective demand" meant a probable demand, and that the Commissioners in going round would inquire into the general circumstances of the district. They would not be inquiring, or pro- ceeding at that stage to make an order in regard to any particular parcel of land, but they would be taking the whole circumstances of the case into consideration. No doubt their Lordships might go on almost for ever refining upon the sort of facts which might or might not occur to the Commissioners as justifying or not justifying a report stating that there was a "prospective demand," just in the same way as the theologians of the 17th Century used to burn one another about distinctions relating to "actual" and "prevenient" grace; but he did not think that kind of very subtle discussion, which interested persons with what might be called a metaphysical mind, were really worthy, at the present stage, of taking up any very great amount of time. He was not for a moment saying that the criticisms and questions were not perfectly legitimate; but, looking at the question from a common-sense point of view, and bearing in mind—because that was what he particularly wanted to urge upon the Committee—that they were now on the stage of an inquiry and report by the Commissioners he thought the word could not possibly do any harm.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

said that the speech they had just heard had alarmed him immensely; and he could not help asking what had become of the "Farmers' Charter"? Last year they passed an Act of Parliament limiting landed proprietors' discretion for dealing with their tenants, because there were supposed to be in the country some landed proprietors who so interfered with their tenants that their security was a very bad one. Now they were to erect the President of the Board of Agriculture into a landlord who was to have the power of turning out any tenant in any part of the country. That was the effect of the Bill. And they were told, by way of cheering the farmers, that the Commissioners were to go down to report, not only on actual demands for small holdings but—he thought he was quoting the actual words of the noble Lord (Lord Fitzmaurice)—the probable demands for small holdings. They were to tell certain districts that there was every probability that they would be disturbed, if not immediately, in the very near future. The noble Lord had especially pointed out that because they had not yet got to the later stages of the Bill they were not to do that which would be, to a certain extent, fair, namely, to indicate which farmers were to be disturbed and what position the individuals would be in, but they were to have the power of unsettling the minds of a whole lot of tenants in a district as to a probable demand in the future. He thought that was not a thing which their Lordships ought to sanction. It was bad enough, in his opinion, to erect the President of the Board of Agriculture in the place of the landlord with power to turn out tenants. He said nothing about the present holder of that office, who, as their Lordships knew perfectly well, was an excellent landlord, and one who had the utmost sympathy for the farmers; but he asked their Lordships to consider one thing at the very commencement of the debate. Let them not be led away by the assurance of the noble Lord that it was not intended to do this, that, and the other—that he had no idea of doing so and so. He gave the noble Lord every credit for the "best intentions," and would not say a word about the rest of the quotation, but the noble Lord was only the temporary holder of his office; and they could not tell who might succeed him. He would make him a present of the fact that his successor might be a Unionist, but at the same time he might not be a gentleman as well qualified as himself to judge what was the proper way of treating tenants. And with all respect to their Lordships, he would say that they were bound, in passing legislation of this kind, to see that powers were not given to the President of the Board of Agriculture—speaking of him as an abstraction and not as a noble Lord opposite—which it was possible for him to abuse in a way which they would all regret.

EARL CARRINGTON

I should like to say something upon that. It is perfectly true that last year we passed an Act to prevent unreasonable disturbance, and I was asked—I am not certain whether or not by the noble Duke opposite—whether or not it would be consistent with "good estate management" to take a portion of a farm for small holdings, and whether, under those circumstances, it would be right or just that the tenant farmer should be able to get compensation for disturbance. It was agreed to on both sides of the House—I said it myself more than once—that it would be consistent with good estate management to do that; and I believe that was the general consensus of opinion of the House of Lords. This is a different thing altogether. We are working, or we are trying to work, in a perfectly legitimate and straightforward way on the lines of good estate management. We do not want in any way to disturb or unsettle the minds of farmers, and if some very active gentleman should try and do such a thing, when we get a little further on in the Bill it will be seen that the interests of farmers and landlords are protected. After the great compliment the noble Duke was kind enough to pay me, he reminded me that after all I was only a temporary holder of the office. I suppose that is perfectly true, but I must remind him that probably when I am suceeded, I shall be suceeded by a Minister of the Crown, and people who are put into such positions are supposed to be upright and honourable men, and I have not the smallest idea that any successor of mine would ever act in any other way than I should myself, or in the exercise of his office do anything unfair to any person.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

said the observations of the noble Earl seemed to him to add strength to the arguments in favour of the Amendment. He quite agreed with the noble Earl that it was a general understanding in the House last year that it would be consistent with good estate management for a landlord to take away part of a large farm in order to establish small holdings; but then that was the very reason why, if such a very indefinite idea was given of what constituted a "demand" as was involved in the word "prospective," that might unsettle the tenants of a whole countryside without any benefit at all. He did not think that point need be dwelt upon at any length, and he hoped they might be allowed to go to a division, and that the Amendment would be carried.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HAVERSHAM ,

in moving the insertion of the words "England and Wales" after the word "Counties," said that this was merely a verbal Amendment, the object of which was to make it clear on the very forefront of the Bill that its operation was limited to England and Wales, and was not to include Scotland, instead of one having to hunt through the whole of the Bill and then finding in the very last clause that it was limited, and did not include Scotland. But there was another reason for moving the Amendment, namely, that the Act with which it was to he construed, the Small Holdings Act, 1892, was not limited to England and Wales, but included Scotland. And as the two Acts—if the present Bill became an Act—were to be construed and read together, he thought it important that that should be made clear in the forefront of the Bill.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 25, after 'Counties' to insert the words 'England and Wales.'"—(Lord Haversham.)

EARL CARRINGTON

I have carefully considered this matter, and have taken the best advice, and as it is simply a question of drafting I think I should ask as a favour that the noble Lord would not press his Amendment. It is supposed to be best to provide in the usual way that the Act shall not apply to Scotland or Ireland. As the noble Lord says, that is provided for in the 47th Clause, which is certainly very late in the Bill, and I would ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment.

LORD HAVERSHAM

said that if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill objected, and thought there was any reason against his Amendment, he certainly would not press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

moved to amend that part of Clause 2 which provided that the Commissioners "may employ or co-operate with" authorities, associations and persons, by leaving out the the words "employ or." He said it was not a very large point, but it was one which was not altogether unimportant. As the clause stood, it provided that the Commissioners should confer with the County Councils and "may employ or co-operate with such other authorities, associations and persons as they think best qualified to assist them." Their Lordships would see that the words were large—"authorities, associations, and persons." He did not suppose that any of their Lordships would object to the Commissioners co-operating with anybody they chose, and he could quite well understand that there were associations in the country which might be very usefully used in that way in co-operating with the Commissioners. But it seemed to him that "employ" carried with it payment, and if it was intended that the Commissioners should enter into pecuniary transactions with "authorities, associations and persons," he thought the power was a very dangerous one. It was quite evident that the Commissioners, with all the talents which the noble Lord assured them they would possess, could not know very much about the districts they went to—they would not know whom to trust, and whom not to trust; and they were extremely likely to get into hands which they had better not get into if any pecuniary advantage was in prospect from dealing with them. He hoped the noble Lord would not object to his proposition. It was not a serious Amendment. He could not help thinking that the noble Lord would himself see the disadvantage of putting it in the power of anyone to say that undue motives had been employed in order to induce the views of the Commissioners to take effect; and he thought that any danger of that sort would be most safely removed by leaving out the words "employ or."

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 3, to leave out the words "employ or."—(The Duke of Northumberland.)

EARL CARRINGTON

I agree with the noble Duke that this is not a very serious question. The noble Duke is quite right in saying that the word "employ" carries a money payment; but in this case it really is a very small thing. As the noble Duke said, it would be a great disadvantage to put it into the power of any man to go and offer a bribe and to say, "I will give you so much money if you will push the idea of small holdings." I need hardly say that we have not the smallest intention of doing such a thing as that. But it was felt that it might be necessary to employ certain persons. As the noble Duke said, a Commissioner might be sent down into a district; and, he being a stranger in that district, it might be necessary for him to employ people, for instance, to obtain information as to valuation, or as to the number of small holders in a parish, or to obtain copies of the Poor Rates, or small things of that sort, which might very fairly and reasonably require a small money payment. I think I may perhaps re-assure the noble Duke if I remark that all payments must receive the sanction of the Treasury. Certainly, the Treasury are very hard taskmasters, and they would not sanction the employment of persons save for these very minor and accidental expenses. I am glad the noble Lord does not put much stress on this Amendment, and I hope that under the circumstances he will not feel disposed to press it, but will allow the words "employ or" to stand part of the clause.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

observed that the noble Earl had said that the Board of Agriculture would be obliged to obtain the sanction of the Treasury for any employment, but he did not see that that was provided for in the Bill. Would the noble Earl have any objection to the insertion of the words "and may, with the sanction of the Treasury, employ"? He thought that those words would put a very different complexion upon the clause, and he should propose to insert those words after the present Amendment was disposed of.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

thought that perhaps it might meet the noble Lord's (Earl Carrington's) views if the words "authorities and associations" were left out, or at any rate the word "associations," which he considered the most dangerous. What he feared was that they might have some of the co-operative associations, which were very often excellent institutions, but which competed to a certain extent with one another, and he thought it would be a very bad thing and would get them into many difficulties if one association was employed by the Commissioners, and another was not. If the noble Lord would move some Amendment limiting the effect of the word "employ" to "persons," which was really what he imagined the noble Lord intended, that would meet his point to a great extent.

LORD AMPTHILL

suggested that the words should read "and may co-operate with such other authorities and associations, or employ such persons as they may think best qualified to assist them." He thought that would meet the object in view, and it was merely a matter of transposing the word "employ."

LORD FITZMAURICE

again called the attention of the Committee to the fact that at this stage of the Bill they were only dealing with the preliminary report and inquiry, and not with the actual issue of either the draft scheme or the final scheme, much less the Order, and that therefore although these words might seem extensive and even alarming at first sight, they were not capable of leading to the dangers indicated by the noble Duke—at least he thought not. It would be well if the noble Duke would bear in mind that the powers given by the sub-section simply related to the preliminary stage, when the Commissioners would be holding a general inquiry in certain districts, and were empowered by these words to co-operate with associations or other bodies which they thought might give them useful information, such for example as a co-operative society—although there were not many co-operative societies in agricultural districts—and if necessary they might employ such persons as they thought fit for carrying out these preliminary inquiries. In regard to what had fallen from the Earl of Camper down he believed he was right in saying that the financial clauses of the Bill made it perfectly clear that all the expenditure under the Act might be sanctioned by the Treasury, but no doubt if the point required further elucidation it could be very easily gone into and set right at a later stage.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW)

I think under the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House, although temporarily occupying the Chair, I may, with the leave of the Committee, address the Committtee from my own place in the House, and I beg to ask the leave of the Committee to say a few words upon this Amendment. I very much hope that the Amendment will be passed, and the reason I say that is that I think there is grave danger in giving authority to the Board of Agriculture to employ "persons" as well as cooperative and other associations in making these inquiries. Your Lordships have struck out the words "prospective demand," but I am not at all sure that when the Bill passes into law those or similar words may not be found to have been re-instated in it, and if so I think a very serious danger will arise, because what I foresee is that when these inquiries are made there will be some person who will say, "If you will only give me a small sum of money I will undertake to go down into such and such a village, and I think I shall be able to find that if there is not an `actual' there is at any rate a 'prospective' demand for small holdings." I have no objection whatever to the co-operation of the Board of Agriculture with any association or with any person who will give their or his services voluntarily, but I think there is a grave danger in giving authority for the Board to pay money to any person to go and get up an agitation in any particular part of the country in favour of small holdings.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

pointed out that under the provisions of the clause all the expenses incurred by the Commissioners and officers in the execution of their duties under the Act—such amount as might be sanctioned by the Treasury—might be defrayed. That clause would really Cover all the kind of payments that the noble Earl alluded to when he addressed the Committee, and to go beyond that, and to add what the Lord Chairman add just objected to would, it seemed to him, be liable to very grave danger, and would very likely result in the Commissioners obtaining very inaccurate information.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HAVERSHAM ,

who had an Amendment to insert "in England or Wales" after the word "parish" said that he did not wish to move it, as it was merely consequential upon the previous Amendment which he had withdrawn. He would, however, move the other Amendment which stood in his name—namely, at line 21 to substitute the word "council" for the word "councils" and to make certain other small verbal alterations. He thought there was some slight mistake in that draft of the Clause, and the Amendment which he had put down would bring the clause exactly into the same terms as in line 6, so that it would run "the council of the county, borough, district or parish concerned." As the Bill stood, it read "councils of the county." He did not know what "councils of the county" could mean. There was but one county council, and he thought that the alterations he suggested would probably be agreed to. Then, again, why was the rural district left out? He thought the Amendment he had put down would make the matter right. He begged to move.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 21, to leave out the word 'councils' and to insert the word 'council,' and to leave out the words 'and of the,' and to leave out the word 'urban.'"—(Lord Haversham.)

EARL CARRINGTON

Subsection 4, I think I can assure my noble friend, is correctly drafted. Information may have to be sent to more than one council, so that the plural in that case is correct. That is the answer to that.

LORD HAVERSHAM

said that in that case it ought to be the same in the former part.

EARL CARRINGTON

No, only in Subsection 4. If "urban" were omitted, information would have to be sent to the rural district councils, but these councils no longer possess any allotment powers or duties. They are taken away under the Clause 20. That is the reason why the word "urban" is put in. I think the noble Lord will see that the clause is correctly drafted, and I hope that he will not press his Amendment.

LORD HAVERSHAM

asked whether the noble Lord meant that the word "councils" would include cases where there were two councils as in Suffolk—two joint councils.

EARL CARRINGTON

Information might have to be sent to one or more councils, and therefore the word is put in the plural in this subsection only.

LORD HAVERSHAM

said in that case he was willing to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD FITZMAURICE

said there were a great number of geographical counties which were divided into one or more administrative counties, and he thought it would be useful to leave the clause in the way in which it now stood.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY

moved an amendment to insert at the end of the clause a new subsection providing for the Commissioners to confer with the county councils as to what, if any, provision was made in elementary and continuation schools in rural districts for instruction in rural industries. He said he might be told that this subsection was rather out side the duties of the Commissioners, but where a body of Commissioners had to confer with county councils and the authorities of the counties as to every matter in connection with the demand for small holdings or allotments, the first thing he would imagine that they ought to take into account was whether there had been any system of education in that county with the object of bringing up the youth of the district to take an interest in, and to fit themselves for, the cultivation of allotments. It was always said, and he had thought it was true, that this was not a country which compared well with other countries as to the number of small holdings. But he thought probably many of their Lordships would have read a very interesting paper by Colonel Craigie, late an officer of the Board of Agriculture, in which he showed conclusively that that was a great mistake, and that England was very largely composed of small holdings, and compared in that respect favourably with most countries on the Continent. The experience of those who had knowledge of small holdings was that most of them were tenanted by people who were carrying on a struggling existence, mainly from their ignorance of the elements and foundations of the science of agriculture. He thought any noble Lord who had an estate would say that that was his experience. The result of that had been that from the time of the passing of the Education Act, for twenty-five years in the rural schools no interest whatever was taken in agriculture, and in the teaching of agriculture or in what he would call rural instruction. As he had said the other night, happily a new era had dawned at the Board of Education and now these subjects were taught. It surely was of the greatest importance that the Commissioners should be able to inquire of the county authority as to what steps were being taken to educate the youth of the county in these subjects, and he hoped noble Lords might see that it was not outside the duty of the Commissioners to accept the responsibility of making a report on this subject to the Board. In the case of the Scottish Bill, which was in a state of suspended animation, the duties which in that Bill were put upon the Commissioners were to be of a very much larger scope than those proposed to be given under the present Bill. In the Scottish Bill they were charged with the general duty of promoting the interests of agriculture and of rural industries, the preparation of statistics relating to those subjects, and other matters, and he thought that if the Government considered it necessary in Scotland to put these duties upon the Commissioners, he was not asking too much in asking that under this sub-section the same power should be given in regard to England.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 22, after 'concerned' to insert the following new sub-section: '(5) In the course of their inquiries under this section in the several counties the Commissioners shall take steps to ascertain whether any, and, if so, what provision is made in elementary and continuation schools in rural districts for instruction in rural industries, and for this purpose the Commissioners shall confer with the county councils and they shall report to the Board the information acquired by them respecting any county." (Marquess of Huntly.)

LORD BELPER

said he was entirely in sympathy with the noble Marquess in his wish to give rural teaching in elementary schools, but he thought there were practical difficulties in endeavouring to do it in this way. In his own county they were already doing a good deal—

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I was on the point of interrupting the noble Lord who preceded him. I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Bill is a Bill for the provision of small holdings, so that I think the question of education scarcely comes within its provision. No doubt a very interesting discussion might arise upon it, but I do not know what view other noble Lords may take. I think it is very doubtful whether the matter could advantageously be discussed now.

LORD BELPER

said he did not know whether the Amendment would be withdrawn for the reasons mentioned by the Lord Chairman. But at all events he wished to point out that the Commissioners would be brought into contact with committees of small holdings and those committees would know nothing about rural education.

EARL CARRINGTON

I quite agree that this is somewhat outside the duties of the Commissioner. We should be very glad to do all we could to promote agricultural education, yet I quite agree with the Lord Chairman that this is going a little outside the four corners of the Bill. Allusion was made to the Scottish Bill. I hope I may be forgiven if during the debate to night I stick wholly and entirely to the English Bill which is before the House. I may point out that if Lord Huntly's wishes were carried out, the Commissioners and the school inspectors would, of course, overlap to a certain extent and that would cause confusion and perhaps even friction. Besides that, any information that was obtained by the Commissioners would fall upon the Board of Agriculture. I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:—

* LORD BARNARD

moved to omit the words "modifications or" from the prescribed procedure under which the Board would forward the report of the Commissioners to the county councils. He pointed out that the clause prescribed that the Board "shall forward the Commissioners' report to the county council." If they gave the Board power to introduce modifications into that report, no man could tell—the county council would not be able to tell—how far it was or was not the report of the Commissioners. He thought it would he far better that the report should be forwarded intact as it came from the Commissioners. That would still leave the Board power under the clause, as it was drawn, to add to the report any observations they might think proper for the information of the county council.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 27, to leave out "modifications or."—(Lord Barnard.)

EARL CARRINGTON

The Board, after all, is responsible for the report, and it would be impossible for them to be tied down to the exact words of the Commissioners. I may again take this opportunity of saying that I consider these Commissioners to be under the Board and that they are not in any way to dictate anything to the Board. They will send their reports to the Board, and when a report is sent to the county council that report must be a report that the Board of Agriculture can approve of. I must have a perfectly free hand to amend anything that I may not happen to agree with. I hope Lord Barnard will be satisfied with that, and will not press his Amendment.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

thought the objection of the noble Earl was a fair one. He did not wish to give the Commissioners any authority apart from the Board of Agriculture which would seem to give them aquasi independence.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

moved the omission of the words in the first subsection which required the county council, on receipt of the modified report, to prepare a scheme, in order to insert:—"and shall take into consideration any observation of the county council thereon and also any alternative proposals which may be made by the council, after which the Board shall forward to the council a statement of their final decision, and it shall he the duty of the council to give effect to such decision." He said that in order to explain his Amendment it was necessary to look at the procedure proposed under the clause. The clause provided that: "The Board after considering the report"[...]"shall forward the report of the Commissioners to the county council, and it shall be the duty of the county council to prepare one or more draft schemes to give effect to the report" and so on. Under the clause as it stood, therefore, all that the Board had to do was to forward the report as finally approved, and the county council, as the clause stood, had no right whatever to make any observations or anything of that kind, but were obliged to prepare a draft scheme to carry out that report. He thought that was hardly courteous to the county councils, and he doubted whether it was his noble friend's intention. He therefore proposed to move the Amendment, the object of which was to enable the county council to make observations, and he hoped the noble Lord would think that that Amendment rather improved the procedure under the clause.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 28, to leave out from 'council' to the end of subsection (1), and insert "and shall take into consideration any observations of the county council thereon and also any alternative proposals which may be made by the council, after which the Board shall forward to the council a statement of their final decision, and it shall be the duty of the council to give effect to such decision."—(The Earl of Camperdown).

EARL CARRINGTON

I understood the noble Earl to say that the county council cannot make observations.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

As the clause stands.

EARL CARRINGTON

I can assure the noble Lord that the last thing in the world we want to do is to show any want of courtesy whatever to the county councils. We are perfectly aware that if the Bill is to be the success which we hope it will be, we must have the co-operation of the county councils, and we hope and believe that they will meet us in a generous and in a proper spirit. But I must point out to the noble Earl that the Commissioners will of course have consulted with the county council under the first section, subsection (2), before making their report, and any observations or alternative proposals that the county council might choose to make to the Board would receive the most earnest and the most courteous consideration. But Lord Camperdown's Amendment would, I am afraid, do the very thing which he wishes to avoid, namely, cause delay and complexity—and as it does not seem absolutely necessary, I hope, in the interests of the Bill that the noble Lord will not press it.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

said that as the Bill now stood it provided that when the report of the Commissioners, with such modifications or observations if any) as the Board thought desirable had been received by the county council "it shall be the duty of the county council to prepare one or more draft schemes to give effect to the report with such modifications (if any) as aforesaid." They were bound absolutely by the words of the clause to the report of the Commissioners, with any modifications inserted by the Board of Agriculture, in preparing their scheme. The noble Lord objected to delay, and wanted to co-operate with the county council. Would it not be very much better that if the county council did not quite like the report or the modifications suggested by the Board, they should be able to vary their scheme in some form or other from the report and its modification? It would be much more agreeable to them and he believed also it would be a much more satisfactory conclusion to arrive at. Even if the noble Lord could not accept Lord Camperdown's Amendment—which he would be very glad to support—he would suggest that some such words might be inserted as "or as they may think desirable," so as to give the county councils some power to vary their own schemes in accordance with their own views.

EARL CARRINGTON

Is it not safeguarded in the Bill? The county council are to undertake this duty within six months after receiving the report, or within such extended time as may be allowed by the Board. There is no wish to override the councils; they have got six months.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

feared he had not explained himself sufficiently. As the words now stood, the county council were bound by any modifications in the preparation of their scheme. They could not vary, or go beyond, or diminish, or do anything of their own free will. Surely it would tend to agreement between the parties—the Board of Agriculture and the county council—that there should be such power, and the county council would be much more likely to act rapidly under those circumstances.

LORD FITZMAURICE

pointed out that there was an Amendment later on to add certain words which would go very far in the direction proposed. He wished especially to call the attention of the noble Viscount to the fact that not only had the county council been taken into conference by the Commissioners at the time of the inquiry and report, but that the county council came in again under Section 4(2) where all the provisions were set out for having a draft scheme and if necessary a public inquiry after advertisement, according to the same procedure as existed in other matters with which the noble Viscount was quite familiar, such as proceedings before the Charity Commissioners, the Enclosures Commissioners, and the Endowed Schools Commissioners.

LORD BELPER

said it was not very convenient to have to discuss under the present Amendment an Amendment which was coming up later. The noble Lord had referred to an Amendment of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to the effect that "a county council if they think fit may without receiving any such report as aforesaid prepare one or more draft schemes for the provision of small holdings in their county." As he understood, that Amendment was to enable the county council,propria mote, without any consideration or report, to prepare a draft scheme themselves quite independently of the Commissioners. It seemed to him, therefore, that some such words as those proposed by Lord Camperdown were absolutely necessary if Lord Carrington's Amendment was to be passed, for the reason that there would be possibly two schemes on thetapis—the scheme suggested by the Commissioners and the scheme suggested on its own initiative by the county council. It seemed absolutely necessary to put in, therefore, some words not only allowing the county council to put their observations before the Board, but also any alternative proposals which they might make, and that they should be considered by the Board with the other scheme. If that were not done the scheme of the county council, if it touched upon the same ground, might be a better proposal than the one put forward by the Commissioners, and there might be considerable difficulty in arriving at the best solution of the question. He was afraid it was a little irregular to him to discuss a clause which was not reached, but as he concluded that Lord Carrington's suggested clause was sure to be accepted, he thought it rather important that they should consider it, and also consider what relation it would have on the clause now before their Lordships.

EARL CARRINGTON

I am informed there is a Royal Commission at half-past seven, and I beg to move that the House do now resume.

House resumed.

Forward to