SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL.

HL Deb 21 August 1907 vol 181 cc758-811

House again in Committee.

Clause 3:—

Amendment of the Earl of Camperdown proceeded with.

EARL CARRINGTON

The difficulty we felt was that we could hardly accept an Amendment which would lengthen the time—already very long—which must elapse between the inquiry by the Commissioners and the actual provision of small holdings. But I have a proposal to make to the noble Earl opposite. I am very anxious to meet his views if possible, and I propose in Clause 3, page 2, line 30, after the word "aforesaid" to insert "subject to such further modifications as the Board may make after considering any representations submitted to them by the county council." I do not know whether that would meet the noble Earl; but I am very glad to make that proposal.

EARL CAMPERDOWN

said that he was not quite sure that he had been able to follow the effect of the words. He felt that his noble friend and himself had the same object in view—they both wanted to get the county councils to co-operate, and they both wanted to be courteous to the county councils, but their methods of doing this differed. Tho noble Earl, as the clause stood, proposed to give them a report, and to say, "It is to be your duty to prepare a draft scheme to give effect to this report," and, as Lord Fitzmaurice had said, "if you subsequently object to this after you have drafted it, then you will have an opportunity of raising objections to it." His own plan was a different one. It was that when they had received the report of the Commissioners they sent the report to the county council and said, "Have you any observations to make upon it? If so, make them now, and make them before you draft your scheme." It seemed to him that that was a more civil way, and moreover, by adopting that course they would rather gain time than lose it, because, if they subsequently objected, there would be a local inquiry, and a great deal of time would be lost. But, as he understood, his noble friend to a certain extent met that, and as he did not wish to occupy the time of the House unnecessarily, he was perfectly willing to withdraw his Amendment at the present stage and to accept the noble Lord's suggestion, subject, of course, to reserving his right, when he saw the Amendment in print, to call attention to the matter again on the Report stage.

LORD FITZMAURICE

said that that arrangement was one which he hoped would meet with the concurrence of noble Lords opposite, and he thought his noble friend would see that if there was some little loss of time at the one end by accepting the modified edition of his Amendment, they would save time at the other end, and therefore, on the whole, the Government's great object would have been gained. What they were afraid was, as his noble friend and he had both pointed out, that the time, which was rather long as it was, would have been further prolonged; and they were rather jealous of doing anything of that kind, because they had been exposed to the criticisms, as no doubt the noble Lord himself was aware, that their machinery was too carefully guarded and too cumbrous. Noble Lords opposite were looking at these things from one point of view, and other critics were looking at them from another, and what the Government had to do was to try and satisfy both sets of critics, which was a rather difficult task.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

thought the words proposed would meet the views of his noble friend; and, at any rate, they might be inserted in the Bill now, subject to consideration on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 30, after 'aforesaid' to insert 'or subject to such further modifications as the Board may make after considering any representations submitted to them by the County Council.'"—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

I have now to move after the word "schemes" in sub-section (2) to insert the following new sub-section: (3.) A county council if they think It may, without recognising any such report as aforesaid, prepare one or more draft schemes for the provision of small holdings in their county. The object of that is that we think the county council ought to be able to prepare a scheme, without waiting for the report of the Commissioners. But a scheme of course must be prepared, otherwise the Board of Agriculture could not pay any of the loss, should there be any. You will find that under Clause 5, Subsection (3). Of course all schemes will require confirmation by the Board of Agriculture under Clause 4, and the provisions of Clause 4 will apply to such schemes. I think there was a complaint that this had been put down rather late; but I do not think we can be blamed for that, because it was only put down to enable the county council to prepare a scheme themselves, and thereby bring themselves within Clause 5. But there always has been power, and there is power now, to provide a small holding without any scheme at all. This clause, as I said, was not originally in the Bill, because Clause 5, Sub-section (2), was put in in Grand Committee in the House of Commons. It was in no way meant from any discourteous motives, and it was only put in so late for that reason.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 38, after 'schemes' to insert the following new sub-section; (3) 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."—(Earl Carrington.)

LORD BELPER

said that he quite absolved the noble Earl from any improper motives in putting down the clause so late. He must really congratulate the Government that at the eleventh hour, after the Bill had been through all its stages in the other House, they had at last given effect in the Bill to what were said to be the proposals of the Bill—that the county council should have the initiative administrative power for the purpose of forming schemes for small holdings. He would only say that the reason why this had been left out was in consequence of the way in which the Government had deliberately drafted the first clauses of the Bill. There were three clauses in the Bill dealing with all the powers of the Commissioners, beginning with the inquiries, coming down to their decisions, and ultimately coming down to calling upon the county council; then the over-riding of the county council, and then the Board of Agriculture directing the Commissioners to form a scheme themselves; and then at the fag end of this clause, was a sort of casual remark which the Government inserted to the effect that the county council might them selves, if they thought fit, of their own initiative produce a scheme. He would have thought that if the Government had wished to carry out what he believed were the intentions of a great number of the Members of the Government—to treat the county councils in a conciliatory manner and induce them to work cordially with the Commissioners—the framework of the Bill would have been that the county councils would have been put in the fore-front of it as the people who were in the first instance to produce a scheme. Then it could very easily have been said that if the county councils either neglected their duty or if the scheme they proposed was not such as the Commissioners, after inquiry, considered sufficient, the Commissioners could step in with a scheme of their own, the matter could be discussed between the county councils and the Commissioners; and in the last resort the Board of Agriculture could direct the Commissioners to over-ride the county councils in case they refused to give way. Instead of that, the position was that they had three clauses dealing with the Commissioners. The noble Earl himself, on the Second Reading of the Bill, had said that one of the objects of the Bill was to put pressure upon the county council, but he added with reason—at least, with reason from his own point of view, but not according to the Bill—"in case the county councils refused to do their duty." But in those clauses as they stood the county councils were never given an opportunity of saying whether they would do their duty or not. The Government produced their clause which went through the whole procedure to be followed by the Commissioners; and the county council had not a chance, until they were ordered to make a scheme on certain lines, of even suggesting that they might make a scheme at all, and it was only at this late hour, and in this casual way, that the Government recognised the county council. They said at last what they ought to have said in the first instance, that the county council, who were the real, major, principal administrative power under the Bill, should be directed under the Bill first to make their schemes. He only wished that all the nice things that had been said about county councils by his two noble friends on the Front Bench, and by Mr. Harcourt in the other House, had found some little expression in the Bill. But it was quite clear that the Bill had been drafted in a totally different spirit in the first instance, and if the county councils were at all suspicious of the action of the Commissioners, His Majesty's Government had only themselves to thank. As he had said, they cordially accepted, even at that late hour, even the small modicum which had been given them, but he regretted very much that the Bill had now reached a stage at which it was impossible to re-draft it in the manner which he suggested it would have been so easy to have drafted it in the first place.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

said that he was not sure that he quite understood the situation even now. The county councils, in the present state of the law, had power to make arrangements for the provision of small holdings; and he understood from what the noble Lord had said just now that the object of putting this clause into the Bill was to enable them to get compensation from the Government in case of the small holdings not paying. He would ask the noble Earl whether he was right in that supposition.

EARL CARRINGTON

Quite right.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

said that in that case it seemed to him that no county council would in future put its present powers into operation, but would always adopt this much more laborious, much slower, and much more difficult course, because by so doing they would guard themselves against loss. He did not think that was a very businesslike proceeding, or that it was the way to promote the easy increase of small holdings. In effect, although not of course in form, this clause repealed, for all practical purposes, the present powers of the county councils with regard to small holdings, and necessitated a slower method of procedure. He supposed the Government offices were very anxious for work. He had always thought that most Government offices were rather glad to have what they called devolution, but the present proposal seemed to him to be centralisation with a vengeance. Everything was to be done by the central office in the future, and nothing by the localities.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN ,

who had an Amendment on the Paper to substitute the word "parishes" for the word "localities," said he did not wish to press this Amendment, but what he really wanted was to extract some information—from the noble Earl as to what "localities" meant. A scheme might specify the various things that were put down under the headings (a), (b), (c), and (d). There was no provision that it should specify anything, and he supposed it might be necessary to leave that somewhat vague; but, if it specified anything, he assumed it would specify what was put under the heading (b)—the approximate quantity of land to be acquired and the number, the nature, and size of the small holdings to be provided in each locality. "Locality" could not mean "county"; and surely it must mean some limited area. It might mean parish, district, hundred, or anything else; but it would be very much better if it were possible that the area should be defined in such a way as to make it perfectly clear that what the Commissioners. meant, what the county council meant, and what the Board meant, was to institute small holdings in a certain particular area, and that the rest of the county should not be left in any uncertainty with regard to the area in which the scheme was to operate. If there was to be a scheme, there must be to some extent a definite area; and he would move the Amendment with a view to eliciting some explanation from the noble Lord.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 40, to leave out the word 'localities' and insert the word 'parishes.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

EARL CARRINGTON

I will do the best I can to explain it. I think "localities" would mean a sort of district or group of parishes. It is a sort of drafting word. It is very difficult to get the exact, proper, right word, I admit; but what we have to do is to get a word which expresses as nearly as possible a group of parishes or a large tract of land where this might be carried out. I think the noble Viscount will agree with me that it would be rather difficult to insert the word "parishes"; it might possibly be a better word, but there might be some difficulty about it, because you might be led into difficulties as regards the parish councils themselves. Would there not be the difficulty that they might perhaps ask to have a copy of the scheme sent to them, or power to hold an inquiry? They might make difficulties, and that is what we have to guard against; and therefore the word "locality" was put in, meaning a group of parishes, an undefined, large portion of land.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

said that he would make a suggestion to the noble Earl. Might he not accept "parish" or "number of parishes?" That, at any rate, would be definite, and would not give any particular reason for any particular parish having anything to say in the matter.

LORD FITZMAURICE

said that both he and his noble friend Earl Carrington felt that there was a great deal in what had fallen from the noble Viscount. The only reason why the word "localities" had been used was that it was deemed desirable to make the scheme as wide as possible at this stage, before it came to the point of actually taking up definite lands, which came when the scheme was set in motion with the Lands Clauses, and all the other clauses of the consolidation Acts, incorporated. At the present stage they had not quite reached that point, and as he had pointed out earlier in the discussion, all the different stages, and the action to be taken at each of them, had to be very carefully considered. Be quite admitted that in proportion as they got nearer to the actual Order and final scheme precision of language became more and more important, and he thought that when they reached the later clause which dealt with the actual final scheme and with the Order, it would be found that the language was perfectly precise. At the same time he quite felt that those who were familiar with the operations of local government knew that parishes and groups of parishes were areas which were perfectly well known, and his noble friend permitted him to say that between then and the Report stage they would go into the matter again, and see whether it was necessary to use more precise words.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said that as he understood, the noble Lord's contention was that at this stage it was not desirable to define exactly what was meant. Perhaps the noble Lord would point out the clause he had been referring to as occurring later in the Bill, in which there was a definite statement.

LORD FITZMAURICE

said that Clauses 4 and 5, especially Clause 5, dealt with the Order and final scheme, and when they reached those stages there would be a notice to treat under the Lands Clauses Act; and then of course particular lands and particular parishes would be set out.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

wished the noble Lord to understand that he did not in the least desire so to define the area as to raise the price of the land before the Order came into force. He was quite willing to withdraw the Amendment now on the understanding that the subject would be considered, and something more definite put in on the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH ,

who had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the words "or other similar rights" in the subsection requiring a draft scheme to specify whether and to what extent grazing or other similar rights should be attached to the small holdings, said that the reason he had put down this Amendment was really for the purpose of asking for an explanation of the meaning of the words "or other similar rights." He quite understood the desirability of attaching grazing rights to small holdings, but he could not see what was meant by "other similar rights," and he thought the noble Lord in charge of the Bill might explain what those words really included, and what they were really meant to cover.

EARL CARRINGTON

I have a very difficult task before me again, because I have to explain really what;he English language means, and that is not a very easy thing to do. The noble Earl wishes to know why the words "or other similar rights" are put into this clause. I am told on the highest authority that "grazing rights" is a term which is not quite capable of exact definition. It is one of those English terms, I suppose, which is not very easily explained, and so, in order to protect ourselves as much as we can, we have tried to make the word a little more elastic, and have put in "or other similar rights." I am informed on high authority that that is the best way of explaining that phrase, which is not quite easy to understand, but, perhaps, these "similar rights" may include the cutting of bracken or fern for fodder, or similar commonable rights that could thus be protected. I am afraid I am in the hands of the noble Lord. I have not invented the English language, and therefore I am not responsible for it, but I hope he will see that there is no sinister motive at all in this, and that he will allow the words to stand in the Bill as those best qualified to judge think they would be really the best way out of the business so far as to ensure fairness to all parties.

* THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH

said it seemed to him that his noble friend, because he did not understand one element in the Bill, introduced other words even less easy to understand. What they on that side of the House—speaking for himself, at any rate—objected to was that there was so much elasticity in the Bill, and they wanted it a little more clearly defined, if it was possible to do it.

LORD FITZMAURICE

said he spoke no doubt, in the presence of noble Lords on the other side who were acquainted with the principles of legal interpretation far better than himself, but it appeared to him that it was simply a matter of ordinary legal construction of the words, "or other similar rights." Those word would have to be construed in accordance with the well-known legal principle ofejusdem generis. That was to say, if then were certain words in an Act of Parliament of a particular description, followed by other words of a slightly more genera character, they had to interpret the later phrase so as not to go beyond the general spirit of the earlier words, which were rather more precise. That was what was known as the principle of interpretation well known to lawyers asejusdem generis, and he thought the interpretation of the words as to which they were being pressed, although they might not be capable of exact definition, would come under that principle. It had been asked what the particular rights in question were. In the olden days those who had considerable rights in the country—those who had grazing rights—also had rights of "pannage"—of turning out a pig at certain seasons of the year. That was rather a common right in the New Forest, in the southern part of his own county, and that was, he was informed, precisely the kind of right which in certain districts would be attached to holdings of this kind. For example, in the debate on the Second Reading, the Lord Nelson had alluded to the small holdings which he himself had established on the borders of the New Forest. One of the reasons why small holders had survived in that part of the country was that they had on the edge of the New Forest the right of turning out pigs at a certain season of the year. That was the sort of thing that he thought was meant by these words, and he really could not see how—with every desire to meet the wishes of noble Lords opposite for more accurate definition—they could possibly use better terms than were used, because he thought that upon the principle he had quoted, those words were words which the Courts of law would have no difficulty in interpreting.

EARL CAWDOR

said they did not appear to be getting much nearer to any definition as to what the words really meant. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill had told them there was great difficulty in knowing what "grazing rights" meant. He thought they had better find out what "grazing rights" meant before inserting the words in the Bill. The noble Earl, in order to get over his trouble in not knowing the meaning of these words, was inserting other words the meaning of which neither himself nor the other noble Lord had any idea of. That was to say, he was curing one doubt by inserting some other words which no one could interpret. Surely it could not be right that they should put in more words which no one was able to explain, and he certainly thought they should limit themselves to the unknown words they had already got, and not put in others which were even more vague.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said the noble Lord had made out an admirable case, but he was afraid that he had forgotten the Small Holdings Act of 1892, in Section 14 of which the following words occurred— Where any right of grazing, sheepwalk, or other similar right is attached to land acquired by a county council for the purposes of small holdings, the council may attach any share of the right to any small holding in such manner and subject to such regulations as they think expedient. Therefore their Lordships would see that in drafting this clause the example of 1892 was followed.

EARL CAWDOR

said that might be so, but they had had the interpretation of that Act now from the noble Earl opposite, and the noble Earl opposite had told them that since 1892 they had not been able to find out the meaning of these words, and if, with all the enlightenment the noble Earl was able to obtain from his Department, he could not properly interpret the meaning of "grazing rights," he thought it was distinctly better not to add further and still vaguer words, and thus keep the admitted ambiguity on as small a scale as possible.

LORD FITZMAURICE

asked whether they were to infer that the noble Earl was able, from his own knowledge, to state that there had ever been any difficulty in the Courts in the interpretation of the words in question.

EARL CAWDOR

said that he was only quoting the noble Earl who had the conduct of the Bill, and who had said that it was not known what was the meaning of "grazing rights."

LORD FITZMAURICE

said that that was not what the noble Earl (Earl Cawdor had said before. When he said that there had been a difficulty in the interpretation, did he mean that the matter had been brought into a Court of law, and that there had been a difficulty on the part of the Judges in placing an interpretation upon the words? Every now and then some word of a rather general character was introduced into an Act of Parliament—like the famous word "place," which had given rise to an action which he believed had ultimately come to their Lordships' House as a Court of Appeal. If the noble Earl knew of any difficulty of this kind let him say so; but why did he imagine difficulties which had not arisen, and which, according to the view of the Government, were not likely to arise?

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

said that what was important in the matter was that those affected by the scheme should know definitely what scheme was proposed, and that afterwards, assuming the scheme to be carried into operation by the order of the Board of Agriculture, whatever "similar rights" might mean should be properly paid for by the council or by the Board of Agriculture upon taking the land. He thought that if they were to insert "grazing or other similar rights defined in the scheme," then at any rate those framing the scheme would have to say what they meant. He thought that the noble Earl might surely agree to something of that kind.

LORD FITZMAURICE

said that as he understood it the suggestion of the noble Viscount was that the words should be "similar rights to be defined in the scheme." Well, of course it was assumed that they would be defined in the scheme.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

I move that the words "to be defined in the scheme" be added after the words "or other similar rights."

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 5, after the words 'or other similar rights,' to insert the words 'to be defined in the scheme.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:—

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN ,

in moving an Amendment providing that the time when which notice of objection to a scheme could be given should be not less than thirty days after publication and advertisement of such scheme, said that if their Lordships would look at the clause they would see that the draft scheme was to be "published and advertised together with notice of the time within and manner in which objections are to be sent to the Board." The Amendment which he was about to move was to insert "being not less than thirty days after such publication and advertisement." Those words were intended to say that at all events the notice should be not less than thirty days, which he thought was a reasonable notice, and he hoped his noble friend might be able to accept it.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 24, after the word 'Board' to insert the words 'being not less than thirty days after such publication and advertisement.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

EARL CARRINGTON

I am afraid I cannot accept that for this reason—that if there is anything wrong, and people want to object, they would hardly be a month doing it. After all, it must be left to the discretion of the Board to fix the time within which the objection must be made; we must be given a little discretion in the matter, and there is not very much fear, I think, that the Board of Agriculture wants now, or ever will want, to act very harshly. It is not a very serious Amendment, I will admit, but it certainly does not show any very great trust or confidence in the Board of Agriculture, and on balance I think I must ask the House not to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BELPER

moved to add to the first sub-section:—"Provided that where a draft scheme is prepared by the Commissioners it shall not be published or advertised until any county council concerned has had an opportunity of stating any objections thereto to the Board, and until such objections have been considered by the Board." He said the Amendment was for the purpose of providing that before the scheme was actually advertised and made public an opportunity must be given to the county council to object, and for a public inquiry to be held, so that it might be ensured that the scheme was not published or advertised until the county council concerned had had an opportunity of stating any objections which they had to it, and until such objections had been considered by the Board of Agriculture itself. In a discussion with Mr. Harcourt this had been suggested by the county councils as an Amendment, and the County Councils Association had expressed then, as he wished to express now, that it was brought forward entirely in the interests of a conciliatory and practical arrangement being come to between the Commissioners and the county council. What they wished to avoid was county councils being placed in a position of public hostility to the scheme advanced until after they had had their objections fully stated and considered by the Board of Agriculture. He thought it would be found that so far from delaying any scheme, it would be likely to avoid a public inquiry at which the county council would have to appear in opposition to the scheme, and that, by discussion with the Board of Agriculture over the table, with the Commissioners present if necessary, an arrangement might at all events in some cases be arrived at which would avoid a public inquiry, which was the next process under the scheme. When they approached Mr. Harcourt about the matter he told them that the procedure which they desired was practically provided for in the Bill. But he had studied the Bill very carefully since then, and it was quite clear that it was not practically provided for in the Bill, and the county councils wished—and he presumed the Government would not object—to make it perfectly clear that the Board of Agriculture should give an opportunity for the county councils to state their objections, and to have those objections considered before the public inquiry was held. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 28, after the word 'publicity,' to insert the words 'provided that where a draft scheme is prepared by the Commissioners it shall not be published or advertised until any county council concerned has had an opportunity of stating any objections thereto to the Board, and until such objections have been considered by the Board.'"—(Lord Belper.)

EARL CARRINGTON

I can assure the noble Lord that we are the last people who want to add to any public hostility to any scheme. As I understand it, the noble Lord thinks that if we give way on this point it will make public inquiries less frequent—that it would facilitate matters at that stage. It seems to me, however, that the noble Lord rather wishes to introduce a fresh and unnecessary stage. We did what we could to facilitate matters a little while ago, and I must point out that the county councils have already had six months in which to place their views before the Board, and it seems to me that the Amendment would undoubtedly complicate and delay proceedings, and not really have the effect that the noble Lord thinks it would have. I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, but I am afraid I cannot give way upon this, and I must ask the noble Lord if he can see his way not to press the Amendment.

LORD BELPER

said he really had not heard any argument against his Amendment. He understood that Mr. Harcourt approved of it. The right hon. Gentleman told them that it was already provided for in the Bill, but having carefully looked through the Bill he had found that it was not provided for, and that was the only reason that he had moved the Amendment. The noble Lord seemed to be surprised that he should consider that a private conference might expedite matters by doing away with a public inquiry at which the county council might appear in hostility to the scheme; but it seemed to him only common-sense to have a supposition of that sort, because in talking matters over round a table one was often able to settle matters satisfactorily and to avoid what must be disagreeable to a county council and also disagreeable to the Commissioners—a public discussion over a point which might have been settled privately. Unless some further reasons were given for refusing the Amendment—which he had understood was looked upon favourably by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill in the other House—he could not withdraw it, at all events unless some arguments were produced against it, which at present had not been done.

LORD FITZMAURICE

thought there was less difference of opinion between the two sides of the House on this question than his noble friend seemed to think, and he was sure he would hardly need his assurance that any proposal of this kind moved by him—especially when he was moving, as at present, on behalf of the County Councils Association—would be received by his noble friend with the greatest respect. He would just like to ask his noble friend to look at his own words. His argument was—and it was one which he fully understood and appreciated—that it would be better to have a communication at this stage between the county council and the Board than to have that communication, as it were, at a rather later stage, when it might assume, at a public inquiry, a more litigious and therefore a more disagreeable shape than if it were to take place in the manner which was rather vaguely sketched by his noble friend in the words of his Amendment. His noble friend had said that prior to the publication of the draft scheme the county council was to have an opportunity of stating any objection thereto. How did the Local Government Board or the Board of Agriculture or any other public body ascertain whether a particular local authority or the public generally objected or did not object to some particular scheme? What was the manner in which they gave an opportunity for the stating of objections? It was by a public inquiry, and therefore in reality all that his noble friend was doing was to propose—in rather vague and ill-defined language—at a slightly earlier stage what His Majesty's Government proposed, in more precise language, at the stage immediately following. The Government thought their own machinery was better, simpler, and more precise than that suggested by his noble friend. But that was not at all the same thing as saying that there were no arguments for the proposal of his noble friend, because the Government quite appreciated the objects he had in view, although they thought they had obtained them by the next sub-section, and obtained them in a better manner. All that would arise if those words were inserted on the top of the Government proposal in the next sub-section was that a very considerable amount of time would be lost in rather vague communications, possibly by letters passing between the clerk of the council and the Secretary to the Local Government Board, and thus taking up a great deal of time—he would not say wasting time, but taking up a great deal of time in correspondence. Therefore it was very much better to adhere to the Government's proposal, and he was very anxious at this stage to press upon noble Lords opposite that the Government had already been exposed to criticism for having so guarded the machinery which they were bringing into operation for the creation of small holdings as that the machinery might prove so cumbrous as almost to render nugatory the objects in view. A member of the House of Commons, he was informed, had made a time-table by which he had shown that if everybody were to use all the different remedies which were given in the Bill to different parties to guard their interests against any kind of illegitimate interference or confiscation, it would take a period of at least two years from first to last under this machinery to create a small holding. It was unnecessary to assume that that time-table was quite correct; but even assuming that the period was only eighteen months, then the Amendment of his noble friend would add on still further stages and give still further opportunities for correspondence. All he could say was that if they sent back these clauses—possibly in a perfectly legitimate and reasonable shape—to the other House they would be so encrusted with securities and protections in addition to those which they already contained that they ran the risk of exposing themselves to a totally different class of criticism from that of noble Lords opposite, but one which would nevertheless be fatal to the Bill.

LORD BELPER

apologised for being persistent, but he did not think Lord Fitzmaurice, had appreciated his argument at all. His object was to avoid the further stage which was said by the noble Lord to be more satisfactory and more specific than his own. He did not want the public inquiry or the publicity, and he believed that by a few minutes' conversation with the Board of Agriculture it might very often be avoided. The noble Lord brought the accusation against his words that they were vague. He wished that half the words in the Bill were as specific and as clear as were the words he proposed to put in. He was of course entirely in the hands of the House as to whether he pressed his Amendment or not. He could only say that although they were always receiving assurances that everything that the County Councils Association said would be considered, yet there was a strange reluctance on the part of noble Lords to put words into the Bill which would cover the points which the county councils wanted to see made clear.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

said that his view of the Amendment of his noble friend depended upon what the meaning of the next sub-section was. He himself had given notice of an Amendment on that sub-section to enable persons affected by the scheme to be heard at the inquiry, but as he read the sub-section it seemed to him to be intended to be an inquiry at which only the county council was allowed to be present. If that was so, would it not be almost better that this inquiry should be given up altogether, and that his noble friend's Amendment should be accepted? If it was to be an inquiry really to go into the whole matter, and to hear the views and opinions of owners or occupiers of land or other persons who might be affected by the scheme, that would be a different matter altogether. He did not really understand what the Government meant by this proposal. Surely there ought to be some occasion when there would be a local inquiry at which the persons affected by their land or their farms being proposed to be taken, should have an opportunity of being heard before the Order was absolutely made binding and conclusive. Perhaps one of the noble Lords would explain precisely how the matter stood.

LORD FITZMAURICE

said he did not quite see where the vagueness was. The machinery was already familiar to the Committee. It was a machinery which was constantly used in the case of schemes issued by the Endowed Schools Commissioners, the Charity Commissioners, and others. There was a preliminary inquiry, such as was provided for in the earlier clauses of the Bill. Then there was the draft scheme. Then, when that draft scheme had been published, it was the invariable practice—and he thought they would be attacked, and justly attacked, if they did not follow it#x2014;to give an opportunity for the public inquiry which always arose upon objection. He saw no reason for departing from established precedent in these matters, and it seemed to him that the burden of proof was not upon them for following the general lines of inquiries in matters of this kind, which had now gone on for a period, from first to last, of something like 50 years, and not introducing a new set of conditions, more especially when it was borne in mind that, owing to the Amendment which had been inserted by his noble friend earlier in Clause 3—which was a modified edition of his noble friend Lord Camperdown's Amendment—they had gone very far indeed already to bring the county councils into line. And not even there was it done for the first time, because under Clause 2 the county council was to be consulted even before the report had been issued. So that now they were at the third stage in these transactions, and were getting near to the time when there would be proceedings under the finally approved scheme, and a notice to treat would have to be given eventually, when the scheme had ripened into an Order, and when the Lands Clauses Act might possibly have to be put into operation. The language, therefore, which they used at this stage was precise, and the opportunities given to the public body most affected were the ordinary opportunities. It might be a very fair thing to consider, when they got to the next sub-section, whether the right of attending the inquiry, and of having notice of that inquiry should be given, as the noble Viscount had suggested to other parties. He could not pledge the Government to agree to it, but he quite understood the suggestion, which, however, was a totally different suggestion from that made by his noble friend.

LORD BELPER

said he would not put the House to the trouble of a division, but he could not say that the arguments of noble Lords on the other side had convinced him in any way.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

moved an Amendment to provide that a public local inquiry should be held by the Board if "any person affected" objected to the scheme. Now that the way was clear, in the view of the Government, for a local inquiry he really thought that as this was the only inquiry, so far as he understood, at which the persons affected by the scheme in their own property or tenancies could possibly be heard, the persons holding the inquiry should not have the right to exclude them. He therefore proposed to insert after "Council" the words "or any person affected." If the noble Earl could show him that there was any other inquiry or means by which such persons could be heard before such Order was finally made by the Board of Trade under Sub-section 5 then that would be another matter, but so far as he could understand the Bill, this was the only opportunity. He begged to move.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 31, after 'Council' to insert 'or any person affected.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

EARL CARRINGTON

I hope the noble Lord will excuse me, but I do not quite understand the English of this Amendment, and I would like to ask what is the meaning of "any person affected." Would it mean any ratepayers in the county, or if not who would these persons be?

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

I explained what in my opinion it meant.

EARL CARRINGTON

Anybody affected by the scheme—any ratepayer?

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

Not necessarily a ratepayer.

EARL CARRINGTON

Not necessarily, but he may be.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

said he thought he had explained that what he meant by the words was an owner or occupier of land to be taken by the scheme. He supposed the scheme would be definite enough for that. If the noble Earl told him it would not be, would he tell him when and where it was proposed to make some such provision as he suggested?

LORD FITZMAURICE

rather thought, as he had said before, that they were getting a little at cross purposes. This was not the point where the person whose land it was proposed to take would come in. That person would come in when the Order was issued, and then there would be a regular inquiry. The Order would be issued and the proceedings would take place which were mentioned under the head "Acquisition of land" in Section 26.

EARL CARRINGTON

I now understand that there would not be any ratepayer, but only persons who might be occupiers and owners. We have got the words "persons affected" in page 3, line 28, and by that expression we mean clearly all county ratepayers within any wide district affected by the draft scheme. They clearly ought to have the fullest information. But I must point out that it is quite another thing to give these persons an absolute right to require that a public inquiry should be held, because if this Amendment is carried, really that is what it comes to. Schedule 1, part 2, paragraph 3, gives private owners a right of inquiry where their land is proposed to be taken, but that is a very different thing from an absolute requirement that a public inquiry should be held.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

apologised for interrupting the noble Earl, but he thought it would shorten the matter. He was satisfied, by the reference of the noble Earl to the Schedule, that there would be, before an Order was taken up, a public inquiry at which persons locally interested would be heard.

EARL CARRINGTON

They can insist upon that.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

agreed that under these circumstances his words would not properly come in at that point, and therefore he would withdraw them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT HILL,

in moving an Amendment providing that "persons who have duly lodged an objection," should be permitted to appear and be heard at the public local inquiry, said that the object of his Amendment was to elicit from the noble Earl opposite why he objected to people who were affected being heard at the local inquiry. Under Sub-section (1) it was proposed that the Board should give them every opportunity of making objections. They advertised in the papers, and did everything possible to elicit objections, but yet, when the local inquiry was heard, the objectors were not to be heard. It seemed to him rather hard that after giving the people all the trouble of making objections they should not be heard at the inquiry itself.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 34 after the word 'council' to insert the words 'persons who have duly lodged an objection.'—(Viscount Hill.)

EARL CARRINGTON

I think the House will admit that this Amendment goes a very long way. As I understand Lord Hill, this Amendment will give the right to any person who has lodged an objection to the scheme to be heard at the public inquiry. That would inevitably make the inquiry a very long and expensive one; and we are anxious upon all sides to make it as inexpensive and economical as possible. But I will admit at once that this economy ought not to be secured at the expense of fair play, and I may point out that the person holding the inquiry may be a Commissioner, and he ought to be given a discretion to decide who, besides the county council, should be heard. I honestly think that Viscount Hill's Amendment goes too far, and I am sorry we cannot accept it.

VISCOUNT HILL

said that he had no wish to cause any extra trouble or expense at the local inquiry, but it certainly seemed to him rather unfair that these people should be given all the trouble of making objections and so forth, and then, when the local inquiry came, should have no right to say a word.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

thought there was one person who had been overlooked, and who might reasonably make an objection to the scheme. He did not see where the persons who were desirous of having small holdings came in. Supposing a scheme recommended small holdings on ground which was entirely unsuited to the uses of those who desired to have them and supposing that persons of that kind objected and wished to be heard at the inquiry, surely one of the objects of advertising was that people who had that kind of objection to raise should be heard; it seemed to him that anyone who made a reasonable objection ought to be heard at the inquiry.

EARL CARRINGTON

I think anyone who made a "reasonable" objection would be heard; it is in the discretion of the person holding the inquiry.

LORD CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH

asked, if that were so, what was the objection to saying so.

LORD FITZMAURICE

said it ought not to be assumed that these Commissioners—who were going to be, as his noble friend had stated on the Second Reading, men of experience in agriculture—would always act improperly. Surely it was not a fair thing to discuss this Bill, or any Bill, upon the assumption that everybody would act unreasonably.

* LORD BARNARD

said that if a Commissioner was to hold an inquiry he might possibly be the person who had promoted the proceedings from beginning to end; therefore he might at the same time be the judge and one of the parties to be heard, and he would have the power to shut out people whom he would have known from the first would be in opposition to him.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said that the next Amendment standing on the Paper was in the name of the Viscount St. Aldwyn, but his noble friend had asked him to move it. It was very nearly a pure drafting Amendment. If their Lordships looked at the sub-section they would see that the Board might settle the scheme or annul the scheme. What was the meaning of the words "settle the scheme"? He only remembered that being used once before, and that was in a Bill introduced this year; and when the question was asked what those words meant it was stated that they meant "settle the terms of the scheme." "Settle the scheme" here must necessarily mean much more than that; it must mean "confirm the scheme." And if that were so, he thought it would be an obvious improvement of the clause to put in the words "and may confirm"; because in the first place it would settle the terms of the scheme, and then they might either confirm or annul it. Amendment moved— In page 3, line 40, after the word 'fit' to insert the words 'and may confirm.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

EARL CARRINGTON

I really do not think there is much in that. It seems to me that if a thing is "settled," it is not necessary to "confirm" it. Everybody understands what "settling" a thing is; and I really hope that this Amendment will not be pressed.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

asked if the noble Earl would kindly explain to him, in clear words, what "settling" a scheme meant.

EARL CARRINGTON

"Settle" means "confirm."

LORD BARNARD

It is a term used, by counsel constantly in the sense of finally determining the terms of a contract, deed or document, but it does not—seal it, or establish it, or make it operative in any way whatever. The term "settle" merely means what Lord Camperdown has said—to settle the terms.

LORD FITZMAURICE

said he really did not think that there was any importance in this Amendment.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Them why not accept it?

On question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:—

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

said he proposed to substitute the word "may" for the word "shall" in line 8. As the Bill stood, the assumption was that the scheme had been practically rejected by the Council, and Sub-section (2) of this clause provided that the Board should direct the Commissioners to take such steps as might be necessary for carrying the scheme into effect. It might be perfectly possible that after the council had raised objections to a scheme of that kind and declined to carry it out Sub-section (2) might come into force; and if the word "shall" stood in the subsection the Board, as he understood it, would be obliged to carry out that schemeliteratim et verbatim without any possible alteration, although they might themselves desire to make some kind of alteration, possibly to meet the objections of the county council, or for some other reason. Surely the word "may" was quite sufficient direction to a Government official as to what that meant.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 8, to leave out the word 'shall,' and insert the word 'may.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

EARL CARRINGTON

This Amendment was moved in Committee in the House of Commons, and there was a division upon it. I will not say what the figures were—but it was not carried. I should like the House just for a moment or two to consider what the state of things is now at which we have arrived. The Commissioners have conferred with the county councils; then they have reported to the Board of Agriculture; then that Board has sent reports to the county council; six months or more have been granted to prepare a scheme; the scheme has been prepared and published; a public inquiry has been held, objections have been considered, and the Board has settled the scheme which the county council have failed to carry out. And now it is seriously proposed to raise the point as to whether the Commissioners should be ordered to carry out the scheme or not. I suggest that this is a point which it is perfectly impossible to entertain; we must resist this; it is a crisis in the Bill; and I must absolutely refuse the Amendment.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

said he was sorry the noble Lord did not quite appreciate what he meant; there was really no crisis in the matter at all. If the Board of Agriculture wished to bind themselves to carry out a particular scheme without giving themselves an opportunity of altering one word or letter in the scheme, then, of course, if the noble Earl, as head of the Department, said they must be in that position, he really would not care to divide against it; but he would ask the noble Lord—because he himself had had some experience of administration—if he could not accept this Amendment, at any rate, for the sake of his own Department, to put in such a variation of this clause as to enable them to vary, if they wished, the draft scheme which the county council had refused to adopt. He was quite certain, from an administrative point of view, that it would be perfectly safe to do that.

EARL CARRINGTON

If the noble Viscount will allow me, I will consider that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

moved to insert a new subsection requiring that, before any order under this section was made by the Board, the draft thereof, together with a minute stating the circumstances under which such order was proposed, or intended to be made, should be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days during the session of Parliament. He said that this was a somewhat important Amendment, and he hoped their Lordships would allow him to occupy a little more time in stating its merits than he should otherwise have wished to do. He was obliged to refer again to the "Farmers' Charter." That charter took away from the tyrannical landlord the power of evicting his tenants and safeguarded the holding of the holder, and within nine months the power to evict any tenant all over England was assumed by the President of the Board of Agriculture. He ventured to say, although no tenant liked being evicted, any tenant would greatly prefer being evicted by his own landlord—a man he knew and had some confidence in, who knew the circumstances of the case individually and probably knew the tenant personally—to being at the mercy of an abstraction, as the President of the Board of Agriculture was mainly to the tenants of England. He had no doubt, from letters he had received, and from what he had heard from others, that the unpopularity of this Bill among the tenant classes in the country would very much surprise the President of the Board of Agriculture if he realised it. He (the Duke of Northumberland) did not care whether it was popular or not—that was more a concern for the Government than for him—but he asked their Lordships to remember what that power amounted to. For the first time in the history of England, as far as he knew, a Government official was to come down and forcibly evict any tenant he liked from his holding. Hitherto that power had been confined to Parliament, and, in giving this power, they were putting the Minister of Agriculture in the position of Parliament. Hitherto, if they wanted to take a man's property, or to evict him from his holding, it had been necessary to introduce a Bill into Parliament, fight it before a Committee, and take compulsory power to do it, and there was every opportunity for witnesses to appear and for the whole case to be heard. Now the power was transferred to the Board of Agriculture, and could be exercised if the President of the Board of Agriculture pleased, although it was only, of course, to be exercised when the county council refused to act. They were informed the other day that it was very seldom that these compulsory powers would be put into force. The noble Earl had assured them that they really need not be in the least jealous about them, for it would be the very rarest thing in the world that they would be exercised. He did not think that if such drastic powers were only to be exercised very exceptionally it could do much harm to guard them very carefully, and his proposition was that when land was proposed to be taken compulsorily the scheme should be laid before Parliament for a certain time, so as to give opportunity for objection, if need be. That seemed to him to be a fair proposal, and he pressed it upon their Lordships. He anticipated one objection, and that was that it would cause delay. Lord Fitzmaurice had told them that a calculation had been made that under the Bill it would be possible for parties interested, if they put all the powers into force which they were given under the Bill, to delay a scheme eighteen months or two years. He would like to have a little fair play in this matter. The President of the Board of Agriculture was always telling them about his good intentions, and saying to them "Why do you object to my having these powers? I assure you I am going to use them most carefully; I should be the last man to abuse them" They accepted that entirely, but why, on the other hand, should it be supposed that the county council was going to use all the powers it could possibly bring to bear in order to delay these proceedings? Was that a fair way of treating the county council? It was all of a piece with the policy of the Government—absolute distrust of the democracy they were supposed to admire. They had the most democratic system they possibly could have, and they imputed to them the very motives which they indignantly repudiated the bare possibility of being influenced by themselves, and took away every power from them which they could possibly take. He thought that was a sufficient case for calling in Parliament in circumstances in which it was necessary forcibly to over-ride these public bodies, and to over-ride for the first time, as he had said before, the rights of property. He did not know what objection might be made to his Amendment except that of delay, and he pressed upon the House that in these cases—which they were assured would be rare—it was worth while even that there should be some delay, if that delay resulted in securing a fair hearing for those who were the elected representatives of the ratepayers and of the people, and who, according to the Government's own theories of democracy, had every right to be heard. He had only one more word to say. Lord Fitzmaurice had said the other day that this power of over-riding local authorities was no new one, and that they on that side of the House entirely misinterpreted the theory of local government if they imagined that an unrestrained opportunity was to be given for the expression of the wishes of the people. He spoke under correction, for he knew the noble Lord was far better able to speak than he was on local government, but he submitted that the very rare cases in which a central authority could over-ride a public body such as a county council were confined either to cases of a very urgent character, such as matters connected with sanitation, where unless the power was promptly put in force, great evils would ensue, or else to cases of some wilful neglect. He did not know of any such instances except, as he had said, in the case of sanitation, which was altogether a peculiar instance and stood alone because of its urgency as well as of its importance. He did not know of any case where a duty which might be said to be a duty not of omission but of commission was forced upon a county council—a popularly elected body—by the central body. He believed that this was the first time it had been proposed, and it was noteworthy that it was now proposed by a Government which was supposed to have an exceptional respect for the wishes of the people.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 24, after the word 'council' to insert the following new subsection: '(3) Before any Order under this section is made by the Board, the draft thereof, together with a Minute stating the circumstances under which such Order is proposed or intended to be made shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days during the session of Parliament."—(The Duke of Northumberland.)

EARL CARRINGTON

I hope the noble Duke will not think it discourteous on my part if I confine myself entirely to his Amendment. It is evident that we cannot possibly accept it. It is another Amendment which will ensure delay, and although perhaps I ought not to say it again, it is one of those Amendments which shows a want of confidence in the Board. I firmly believe that cases where compulsion will be necessary will be very rare, and I say again, and I always will say, that we shall spare no pains to bring about a friendly settlement. But how much less easy would it be to bring about a friendly settlement if a direct opportunity is given for Parliamentary controversy I may also say that there is an additional objection to the Amendment, and to my mind it is a very serious one: it must be "not less than thirty days during the Session of Parliament." If Parliament is not sitting, that means a delay of six months or more. I feel sure that the House will see that it is practically impossible for me to accept the Amendment of the noble Duke.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

did not quite understand whether the objection of the noble Earl was solely to the proposition that the Order should be laid before Parliament while Parliament was sitting, and that there should be a delay of thirty days to enable either House of Parliament to take exception to the Order, or whether he objected to the Order being laid before Parliament at all. If the latter was the case, he would venture to refer the noble Earl to what was at the time called "the charter of the villagers," the Local Government Act of 1894, in which, as noble Lords were well aware, there were powers given to a parish council, through a county council, to obtain lands compulsorily for allotments. Then, if the county council refused to make the Order desired by the parish council, the parish council had to petition the Local Government Board, and that Board, after a local inquiry, might, if it thought proper, make the Order over the heads of the county council. Then the subsection went on— Any Order made under this subsection overriding the decision of the county council shall be laid before Parliament by the Local Government Board. He thought it was a very serious matter for the Board of Agriculture to override the authority of the county council; and he did not see any argument that His Majesty's Government could adduce when such a case happened—which, as they themselves had said, would be very rarely indeed—why the Order should not be laid before Parliament, so that Parliament might at any rate, if it could find an opportunity, take cognizance of the matter. He thought that was a point His Majesty's Government really could not object to; and his object in raising it was, to ask whether at any rate His Majesty's Government would go as far as that in accepting the Amendment of the noble Duke.

EARL CARRINGTON

I am afraid I cannot possibly do it. We object to the whole Amendment of the noble Duke. I am very anxious to meet noble Lords on the other side of the House in every way I possibly can, but this is an Amendment that I cannot possibly accept.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

wished to know what the noble Earl's objection was. The only objection he had made when replying to himself was the delay which it would cause. But the noble Viscount (Viscount St. Aldwyn) had suggested an Amendment of the Amendment which would avoid that delay. What then was the objection of the noble Earl? Was it—because that was really the only inference they could draw—that he was afraid of the scrutiny of Parliament into the actions which would take place under this clause?

EARL CARRINGTON

I am absolutely unable to accept the Amendment; I cannot accept it in any shape or form, and I have already explained the reason why.

LORD BELPER

suggested that it might be possible to put the Amendment in such a form that no objection could be taken to it. No answer had been given to the argument which had been used by Viscount St. Aldwyn. He had prepared a form of words which seemed to him perfectly reasonable, and which covered the same procedure as was pointed out with regard to the former Allotments Act, and would not cause any delay whatever. He proposed that the Amendment should read— Where any Order is made under this subsection, a copy thereof, together with a Minute stating the circumstances under which such Order was made, shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as possible after the Order has been made. That would not cause any delay—it would only inform Parliament of what had taken place. And, as this was a totally novel procedure, it was desirable that Parliament should know in what way the Commissioners were carrying out the Act. He did not know whether the noble Duke would withdraw his Amendment in favour of the one he had suggested, and, unless he was willing to do so, he did not, of course, wish to put it forward.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

said it was merely a question of words, and, up to a certain point he preferred his own words. He was prepared, however, to withdraw them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 24, after "council" to insert the following new sub-section 'where any Order is made under this sub-section a copy thereof together with a Minute stating the circumstances under which such Order was made shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as possible after the Order has been made.'"—(Lord Belper).

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

thought that the words "made or intended to be made" were necessary.

LORD BELPER

pointed out that an Order was supposed to have been already made.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

Very well

On Question, "That those words be there inserted,"

their Lordships divided: Contents, 135; Not-Contents, 27.

CONTENTS.
Argyll, D.	Lauderdale, E.	Amherst of Hackney, L.
Bedford, D.	Londesborough, E.	Ampthill, L.
Northumberland, D.	Malmesbury, E.	Ardilaun, L.
Richmond and Gordon, D.	Manvers, E.	Balfour, L.
Sutherland, D.	Mayo, E.	Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk).
Wellington, D.	Morley, E.	Barrymore, L.
Ailesbury, M.	Morton, E.	Basing, L.
Camden, M.	Mount Edgecumbe, E.	Belhaven and Stenton, L.
Exeter, M.	Munster, E.	Belper, L.
Hertford, M.	Nelson, E.	Blythswood, L.
Lansdowne, M.	Onslow, E.	Bolton, L.
Salisbury, M.	Plymouth, E.	Borthwick, L.
Zetland, M.	Powis, E.	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
Albermarle, E.	Radnor, E.	Cheylesmore, L.
Ancaster, E.	Scarborough, E.	Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)
Bradford, E.	Stanhope, E.	Clifford of Chudleigh. L.
Camperdown, E.	Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Clinton, L.
Carlisle, E.	Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]	Clonbrock, L.
Cathcart, E.	Westmeath, E.	Cloncurry, L.
Cawdor, E.	Wharncliffe, E.	Colchester, L.
Clarendon, E.	Wicklow, E.	Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)
Dartmouth, E.	Churchill, V. [Teller.]	Digby, L.
Doncaster, E.(D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Falmouth, V.	Douglas, L. (E. Home.)
Eldon, E.	Goschen, V.	Dunboyne, L.
Feversham, E.	Halifax, V.	Ebury, L.
Fortescue, E.	Hampden, V.	Ellenborough, L.
Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)	Hill, V.	Elphinstone, L.
Hardwicke, E.	Hood, V.	Estcourt, L.
Harewood, E.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)
Harrowby, E.	St. Aldwyn, V.	Forester, L.
Jersey, E.	Addington, L.	Heneage, L.
		Inchiquin, L.
		Kenyon, L.
Kesteven, L.	Monbray, L.	Seaton, L.
Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)	North, L.	Sherbone, L.
Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)	Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)	Sinclair, L.
Lamington, L.	Penrhyn, L.	Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Lawrence, L.	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough
Leconfield, L.	Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)	Stuart of Castle Stuart, L. (E. Moray.)
Leigh, L.	Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)
Leith of Fyvie, L.	Rathmore, L.	Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)
Lovat, L.	Redesdale, L.	Templemore, L.
Ludlow, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.	Teynham, L.
Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)	Robertson, L.	Waleran, L.
Middleton, L.	St. Oswald, L.	Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)	Saltoun, L.	Wynford, L.
Monk Bretton, L.	Sanderson, L.	Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Crewe, E. (L. President.)	Blyth, L.	[Teller.]
Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)	Burghclere, L.	Hamilton of Dalzell, L.
	Colebrooke, L.	Haversham, L.
Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)	Courtney of Penwith, L.	Hempill, L.
Carrington, E.	Denman, L. [Teller.]	Herschell, L.
Craven, E.	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)	Lucas, L.
		Stanley of Alderley, L.
Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)	Farrer, L.	Tweedmouth, L.
	Fitzmaurice, L.	Weardale, L.
Airedale, L.	Glantawe, L.	Welby, L.
Allendale, L.	Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

On Question, that Clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill,

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

said that, before passing from the clause, he thought it necessary to trouble their Lordships with a few observations, which he would make as brief as possible, upon the financial provisions which were contained in the clause, in the hope that he might be able to extract from His Majesty's Government something more than they had yet been able to extract upon that very important subject. As the clause stood it read— Provided that such expenses of the Commissioners as the Board certify to have been incurred by the Commissioners in the exercise of such powers in relation to any scheme and to be properly payable by the county council shall, on demand, be repaid to the Board by the county council in default out of the county fund. There was inserted Subsection (3) providing that if it appeared to the Board of Agriculture that the carrying out of a scheme under this Act had resulted or was likely to result in a loss, the Board might, with the sanction of the Treasury, pay or undertake to pay, out of the Small Holdings Account, the whole or any part of the loss. They had a promise, and he wished it could have been redeemed before they had to deal with this Bill, that the Treasury would lay upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament a Minute by which they would explain how and in what circumstances they proposed to repay half the loss in the case of a county council which carried out a scheme of its own free will, and they had it in so many words from the Minister who conducted the Bill through the House of Commons, that in his belief it would be impossible for the Government to carry out the powers conferred upon them by the second subsection of this clause, and to obtain from a defaulting county council any loss which might be incurred by the Board of Agriculture in carrying out the scheme which the county council itself had declined to carry out because it anticipated a loss from it. That, he under stood, was the position of His Majesty's Government, but that was not the provision of the clause. The clause in itself did not lay any obligations upon the Treasury whatever under any circumstances. Yet they had been assured that this was a Bill so absolutely perfect that it was practically incapable of amendment. He tried the other day in the discussion on the Second Reading, and so also did Lord Belper and other Members of their Lordships' House, to obtain something more definite than they had hitherto had upon this subject, but all they got was a statement by the President of the Board of Agriculture, who had practically contradicted the statement to which he had referred by the First Commissioner of Works as to the enforcement of the claim of the Government upon the county council where a scheme had been carried out by the Board of Agriculture at a loss. He could only say that even now he hoped His Majesty's Government might be able to reassure them upon this most important point. He could not himself see that any Government could force a county council to repay them the loss incurred in such circumstances, but, if that was so, why on earth did they not put it in the Bill? If they could get nothing more than they had yet had, he thought they ought to consider very carefully whether on Report they ought not to strike out Subsection (2) of the clause in order, at any rate, that the House of Commons might have the opportunity of reconsidering whether it ought not to make the clause carry out what the Government said was their intention and belief.

EARL CARRINGTON

I can only repeat what I said in answer to Lord Onslow on the 19th of August. Lord Onslow then asked me whether His Majesty's Government would lay on the Table of the House the form of the Treasury Minute promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to relieving the county council of half of the amount of any loss incurred in carrying out any scheme under the Small Holdings Bill when passed into law, and, when the county council is over-ruled by the discretion of the Commissioners, the whole of that loss. As regards the first there is a pledge to relieve the county council of half of any loss incurred by any county council in carrying out a scheme under the Small Holdings Bill when passed into law, but on the second point I can give no pledge. The decision must depend on the circumstances of each case, Clause 5, Subsection (3), provides that if appears to the Board that the carrying out of the scheme under this Act has resulted, or is likely to result, in a loss the Board may, with the consent of the Treasury, pay out of the Small Holdings Act the whole or any part of that loss The noble Lord opposite said that it had been promised that the Minute should be laid on the Table, but the terms of it require such careful consideration that it is not possible to issue it before the end of the session. That Minute will not deal with cases in which the Board are acting in default of the county council. These cases will be dealt with on their merits by the Board and the Treasury under Subsection (3), and there is no intention to make good any loss on allotments incurred by the parish councils. I am afraid that is all I can say to the noble Viscount. It is what I said on the 19th August, and I am afraid it is all the information I am able to give him.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

asked if the noble Earl really meant that where a parish council, which was a democratic body, did not require to acquire compulsorily or to hire land for allotments, the need being probably already satisfied, it was to be compelled by the Board of Agriculture to do so against its own will and against the will of the council of the county, and that, even if in such a case any loss was incurred by what he might call the tyrannical proceedings of the Board of Agriculture, the Treasury would not pay a penny to that parish towards that loss.

LORD BURGHCLERE

pointed out that the President of the Board of Agriculture would be responsible for this action, and that therefore it would be in the hands of the House of Commons and of Parliament to point out that the action of the President had been wrong. The answer of the noble Earl was thoroughly unsatisfactory. The case they put was not an exceptional one, and it was admitted that it was about as strong a case as could possibly be made. It was a case where a county council, acting in their own discretion, refused, after proper discussion, and despite its wishing to do its duty, to agree to a scheme because they thought it was not safe, and where they were overruled by the Commissioners of the Board of Agriculture, and a scheme was, in spite of their objections, forced upon them and a loss incurred. Regarding that in any way, could there be a stronger case? What was the good of the clause if the Government would not make good the full amount of the loss incurred by the action of the Commissioners and of the Board of Agriculture in such a case? It rather looked like taking back with one hand what they were giving with the other. He did not think it was possible to conceive any case that could put the point more strongly, and he thought they should have some assurance that that was a proper case in which the whole loss would be refunded and not charged upon the rates, or at least that it was a case which His Majesty's Government would favourably consider.

* THE EARL OF ONSLOW

hoped the Government would give this matter careful consideration, and that they would give them an answer to the questions addressed to them repeatedly both before and during the progress of the debate on the Bill. He believed the Government had clearly got in their minds the course they intended to pursue, but they had never told them what it was. His Majesty's Government meant that wherever a county council had honestly tried to carry out the Act, and the result had been a financial loss, to give them some relief and to do it by Treasury Minute, and that in other cases where the Board of Agriculture, acting through the Commissioners, had carried out the scheme, and that scheme had proved to be a loss, despite the representations made to them by the county council the Board of Agriculture should abandon its powers under the Acts to recover from the county council the amount of such loss. If that was the intention of the Government they should say so. He thought that before the Bill left their Lordships' House they were entitled to have some explanation of what the Government really meant to do. Owing to circumstances arising in another place which he need not now recapitulate, and owing to the fact that that House was unable to deal with the financial clauses in the Bill, they had not yet got what was really the intention of the Government, and he asked them to make some statement in addition to that they had made, and which they had repeated that night.

LORD FITZMAURICE

said the point which was raised by the noble Viscount about the parish councils really arose more properly on Clause 24 Sub-section 2.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:—

* THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH

proposed to add to the second line in the clause the words "purchase or." They had accepted the avowed objects of the Bill and he thought they might say that they had adopted them readily, and his only desire was to make the measure as useful and as comprehensive as possible. In his opinion, the addition of the words he proposed would add to its usefulness and comprehensiveness. Legislation dealing with matters of this kind, to be effective, and to make small holdings really useful, ought to give an alternative to enable the cultivator under certain conditions to become the owner of the soil he tilled. He believed that to be a cardinal point. It was rather the fashion in some quarters to laugh at what Mr. Jesse Collings was doing, but he had a very vivid recollection of the Government in 1885 being turned out on the Amendment to the Address dealing with three acres and a cow, and, whatever they might think of Mr. Jesse Collings now, they must admit that he had never deviated an inch from the position he then took up in advocating the establishment of a peasant proprietorship. If he could do anything to support that view, he would be glad to do so. It was a matter of common knowledge that, when a man was working for himself, he would do better than if he was working for a particular landlord, even if that landlord happened to be a parish or a county council. A similar Amendment had been moved in another place. They had heard a good deal about Amendments in another place and that a majority of them had been defeated. He admitted that this Amendment was defeated, but they could not overlook the fact that it was moved by a strong supporter of the Government, that it was spoken to and supported by other supporters of the Government, and that a pathetic appeal was made to the Minister in charge of the Bill to allow the Members to vote as they pleased. That was refused, and the Amendment was naturally defeated. The Government gave two reasons against the proposal. The First Commissioner of Works objected to any extension of the principle of purchase, because, he said, it would complicate his Bill; but on the other hand the Solicitor-General said that what those who supported the Amendment wanted was given under the Act of 1892. If the Solicitor-General was right and there were those powers, the addition of these words would not complicate the Bill, and there was no apparent reason why they should not be included. They, however, thought that the powers under the Act of 1892 were not sufficient, and it was because they thought this that they proposed to introduce these words here. He hoped he would be correct in his description of the meaning of the two Acts. He might possibly make a mistake, but so far as he understood, whilst the Act of 1892 gave the power to acquire land which could be either hired or sold by arrangement, this Act, though it gave compulsory powers to acquire land, only allowed it to be used for the purpose of leasing. It was because they wanted also to include the powers of purchase that he proposed his Amendment. The noble Marquess, the Leader of the Government in their Lordships' House, seemed somewhat surprised that on the Second Reading of the Bill there was not much attention paid to the difference between purchase and leasing, and one of the reasons he gave them why purchase was not considered desirable was the introduction of the money lender. That, no doubt, was a strong argument against compelling the tiller of the soil to purchase. But they did not suggest in their proposal that it should be made compulsory. They only asked that there should be the option of purchase it a suitable man was there and everyone wished it. They might admit, though he did not know that he personally was quite prepared to do so, that under most circumstances leasing might be desirable, but it was a fact that in some districts purchase was the better system, and he hoped they would make this a thoroughly comprehensive measure and not bar the do[...] to agricultural labourers, in whose interests he supposed it was introduced, if they de sired to purchase, and if the circumstances were suitable. There was one class which strongly objected to private ownership of land, and it was that class in favour of the nationalisation of land. He did not take it that their Lordships would be likely to agree with those views, but so far as he could make out it was the only class of any weight which objected to this proposal. One of the objections that had been taken to the Amendment was that if a small holder purchased his holding, he became rooted to the soil; but he could remember the time when almost the whole of the Liberal Party were in favour of rooting the agricultural labourer to the soil. However that might be, he understood that the First Commissioner of Works objected that if a man became the owner of his small holding he would be rooted to the spot and would have no hope of further advance. He did not, however, think there was anything in his Amendment to prevent that. He gathered that the ultimate views of the First Commissioner of Works was that the small holder would begin with a holding of 50 acres, go on to 100 acres, and advance until he became a large holder. Then, he supposed, he in his turn would be expropriated for a new generation of small holders. One Member of Parliament had said their desire was to see the agricultural labourer walking erect. He was afraid that if they took that description literally, neither he nor they would see the agricultural labourer walking erect until we had that universal military training of which they heard so much. They all wished to see the agricultural labourer walking erect, and there was nothing in his Amendment to prevent it. He was fully in agreement with his noble friend in the desire to make this a useful and comprehensive measure, and he therefore begged to move the Amendment of which ho had given notice.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 32, after the word 'to' insert the words 'purchase or.'"—(The Earl of Dartmouth.)

LORD NELSON

reminded their Lordships of the interesting statement he was able to make on the Second Reading of the Bill. The freehold of 47 acres of land was sold under Lord Salisbury's Act to eleven people, and now, so far from the possession of the freehold preventing them from disposing of it and going up higher, a great number of the original purchasers had sold their land or done something else with it. At the present time, at the end of nineteen years, these freeholders had spent about £3,475 on the land, including the purchase price, draining, and the building of seventeen houses, and it was estimated that the rental now received from the buildings and allotments was £276. Did they for one moment believe that that expenditure would have been made if they had been under a lease? He earnestly hoped there would be no impediment, but that some encouragement would be given to those who wished to purchase.

EARL CARRINGTON

This is perhaps as important an Amendment as can possibly be moved on the Bill. Lord Dartmouth has stated his case with great good humour, with fairness, and with moderation. He tells us that his anxiety is to make the Bill more useful and comprehensive. We are very much obliged to him for that. It is the wish of everybody, though we may rather differ as to the way in which it is to be carried out. In mentioning Mr. Jesse Collings, he said that some people rather laughed at him. I am not one of those.

* THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH

May I interrupt the noble Earl for one moment? I can tell you exactly where it took place. It was at that meeting at Birmingham at which the noble Earl was present. It was not him, but a good many did speak of Mr. Jesse Collings in a way hardly fair.

EARL CARRINGTON

I do not remember it, but, if they did, I must entirely dissociate myself from anything said, and I am exceedingly sorry that it happened. I have known the right hon. Gentleman a great many years, more than I care to remember, and I have the greatest possible respect for him. In the old days when we were Radicals together we sat together on Radical platforms, and I always looked upon him, and I now look upon him, as the pioneer and the chief representative of rural reform on the side of the House on which he sits. My right hon. friend is very fond of one expression. He uses it very often, and he firmly believes in it. It is "the magic of property." I am not quite so certain that the magic of property has the significance that he applies to it. What the people really want is security of tenure, and I venture to think security of tenure is attained under this Bill. I may perhaps be permitted to remind the House that the main principles of the Bill are letting land on lease with security of tenure at a fair rent, as against the establishment of a peasant proprietorship. We are told that in this Bill there is very little security to be found, but I venture to point out that the tenants will live, not under a private landlord at all, but under a council which will be elected by themselves, and that, more important still, the burdens and conditions under which they will live will be settled by rules confirmed by the Board of Agriculture. I venture to think that under those conditions there will be practically very good security of tenure for the tenants. The main principle of the Bill, as I have said, is county councils letting land on lease, land that they can purchase or hire, as against peasant proprietorship. The point was argued at considerable length on the Second Reading. I do not want to trouble the House again with a Second Reading speech, but I tried to show that the disadvantages of peasant proprietorship were fully made out by numerous authorities whom I quoted at the time. Perhaps I may, if I am not troubling the House too much, say one word about the great instance of successful purchase in a place called Catshill, which is invariably quoted, as it is the trump card that is always used by speakers when they are advocating peasant proprietorship. No doubt the scheme has been a great success. Only one man has had to be got rid of for not cultivating his land properly, and I believe there are no arrears in the payment of half-yearly instalments. When the land was divided into thirty-two holdings, and when the time came for the payment of the first instalment of the purchase money, it was found that only one half of them could pay it. It was therefore arranged that the other half should be taken on as tenants for three years till they had saved enough money to pay the first instalments (one-fifth of the purchase price and expenses). When they had done that the land was conveyed to them. The scheme has been a great success, and I am not going to argue that it has not. What I should like to point out is that people purchased that land and were glad to do so, but that they could not get away from being first compelled to lease it. There is a village near Evesham called Littleton, and about twelve months ago a petition was presented by thirty-six men asking the county council to buy a farm of thirty acres which was then in the market. The petitioners stated the amount of land they wanted and the rent they could pay. The county council eventually bought about sixty acres, and when they approached the petitioners they found that only four out of the thirty-six could provide a fifth of the purchase money. Advertisements were therefore inserted in the local papers, and all the land has now been sold. But the thirty-two petitioners, although well qualified and having sufficient capital to work it as tenants, were unable to pay down the instalment for purchase, and are deeply disappointed at not being allowed to hire the land. At Fairfield, another village near Catshill, the county council agreed to buy eighty acres with the idea of selling it to men who, as tenants of the parish council of Belbroughton, had saved enough to provide the fifth of the purchase money. A deputation of these men, however, waited on Mr. Impey and asked him to petition the county council asking them to postpone action till after the passing of the Small Holdings Bill, so that they might become tenants of the land instead of purchasers.

* THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH

May I interrupt. We are not suggesting that you should compel these people to buy. In your own Bill you give the opportunity of leasing, and all we ask is that they should have the option of leasing or purchasing as they desire.

EARL CARRINGTON

They have the option now under the Bill of 1892.

* THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH

Not of purchasing the land which is compulsorily taken in this way. They have the option where it is done by arrangement, but not where the land is taken compulsorily.

EARL CARRINGTON

If the Act of 1892 was the success some people tried to make out it was.

* THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH

I do not care twopence about the Act of 1892 now. Under the Act of 1892 you can purchase by arrangement, but under this Bill in which you give powers to take land compulsorily you may lease compulsorily but you may not purchase.

EARL CARRINGTON

That is the Bill and that is the scheme.

* THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH

Then I hope it will be altered in my direction.

EARL CARRINGTON

That is the Bill and that is the scheme, and I have to say it is absolutely impossible to accept the Amendment.

LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH

said the noble Earl opposite had referred to the historic provision beginning in 1885 when the Government of which he was a member was turned out. He (Lord Courtney) took part in that division and voted with the minority. He gave that vote, not with reference to the question which occupied the minds of many members at the time, the grave constitutional question which afterwards became of paramount importance, but with a view to the merits of the Amendment itself, because he then believed, and he still believed, that the policy of Mr. Jesse Collings was not the policy which deserved the support of Parliament and which was really to the benefit of the agricultural labourer. He had never himself desired to see the agricultural labourer rooted to the soil, in the sense in which those words had been employed, and it was in perfect consistency with the vote he then gave that he now supported the Bill as it stood against the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite. As the case now stood, land could be acquired by purchase by agreement, and the tenant could become the purchaser by agreement. What the noble Lord wished was that the labourer should be able to purchase the land which the county council might, under this Bill, acquire compulsorily. The real question was whether it was convenient and expedient to use the extraordinary powers of compulsion, in order to make the agricultural labourer the absolute owner instead of his being a leaseholder under conditions of perfect security, and under conditions prescribed by the Board of Agriculture. He ventured to say that all the conditions of successful holdings would be attained by the security which the tenant would obtain under the lease granted to him, and that if they added the power of purchase, they would probably land him in embarrassment, and reproduce the spectacle so constantly presented to them in countries where there was a peasant proprietary of embarrassed owners, overcome with debts and in constant difficulties in consequence. Lord Nelson, who had supported the Amendment, made a speech to which he had listened with the greatest interest and attention on the Second Reading. He referred then, as new, to an instance where land had been acquired by agricultural labourers, but he proceeded to say that the original purchasers had passed away. They found that they could not retain the land, and it had now passed into the occupation of other persons. In the course of that speech the noble Lord made one statement which was most valuable as expressing the experience which he, with his long knowledge of the subject, had a right to express with the authority to which he was justly entitled. He adjured their lordships to realise the truth that any person who started as a small holder in debt was in a hopeless position. Any person who started as a small holder in debt was in a position of the greatest peril and danger, and the objection to the proposal made was that they were proposing, for the sake of an advantage which could be secured by an agreement, to exercise the power of compulsion in order to enable a man against his own interests to start in a position of embarrassment and debt. This was an experiment, which they were now instituting, of the greatest interest, and they all viewed it, not only with sympathy, but also with anxiety. They wished, if possible, to plant a larger number of small holders throughout the country, but the thing he was sure they all desired to avert, and which they would all deprecate, was the establishment of an indebted peasantry, a peasantry in a hopeless position. They could not do the best to the land which they occupied, they were agriculturists impaired in the conduct of their holdings, which would become deteriorated. He suggested that they might well be satisfied with the commencement of an experiment which they had in the Bill. Let them try how it worked with compulsory leasing, and not embarass it with compulsory purchase which entailed the starting of a man in his new career with a debt and all the difficulties with which they were familiar in the experience of other countries. The Leader of the House, in an interesting speech at the close of the debate on the Second Reading, had referred to his own experience as Viceroy of India, where the indebted peasantry had dispelled from his mind views which had been instilled in it as a young man by the teachings of John Stuart Mill. That experience of the noble Marquess derived from India, fortified the appeal which he (Lord Courtney) made to their Lordships to he content with the Bill as it stood and not to embarrass the experiment by entering upon the field of compulsory purchase with the dangers attendant thereupon.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

claimed to speak on behalf of the agricultural labourer. They were told, he said, that the Bill was an Agricultural Labourers Bill. He had had a large experience in developing his properties in small holdings, and he quite agreed with Mr. Jesse Collings that there was great feeling on the part of agricultural labourers that they should be allowed to acquire and hold the land themselves. The noble Lord who had just spoken talked about a small holder starting in business with a heavy debt, but he maintained that by getting his money from the county council and consequently paying a comparatively low rate of interest, he would be in a better position and would pay less, notwithstanding the interest, than he would otherwise pay in the shape of rent. Only a week ago he created some small holdings a mile and a half from Grantham in order to test the demand. He had no applications for out and out purchase, but he had several applications for purchase if he could spread the payment over a series of years, and he had no hesitation in saying, having studied the question and supporting the Government in their desire to plant more families on the land, that, if only Lord Dartmouth's scheme of allowing labourers to purchase their holdings was adopted, it would be met by extreme appreciation from all parts of the country.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

said that if he had agreed with his noble friend who had just spoken he would have been quite content with a silent vote, because he was afraid he had had to trouble their Lordships many times on this Bill, but he confessed personally—and he spoke for himself alone—that he would prefer the Bill as it was. It was a serious thing to give the wide powers of hiring in the Bill, and he thought that would be felt by every noble Lord on that side of the House; but those powers were in some measure limited by the fact that they could only be given when persons could be found who were willing to hire the land as tenants under the county council or the Board of Agriculture. It might, of course, be said—and he had no doubt that his hon. friends who had addressed their Lordships would say—that if they were to give compulsory powers of purchase and hiring as against the person owning the land and in favour of the county council or of the Board of Agriculture, there was no reason why they should not also give them in favour of other persons who desired to acquire the land of those who were to be compulsorily expropriated. He thought, however, there was a difference between the two, and he confessed that in spite of what had been said he did not believe small holders, if established as owners, were likely to succeed. He agreed with what had been said by Lord Courtney. He voted with him in those days against Mr. Jesse Collings' Amendment. He would like to ask their Lordships whether it was not a fact that many years ago there were a large number of small holders in England, and whether during the last fifty or perhaps 100 years these small holders had not one after another disappeared. Why had they disappeared? They had disappeared because they could not continue to exist under the changed conditions of agriculture in this country. Their holdings became mortgaged, they became burdened in all kinds of ways, and they were unable to find capital on reasonable terms for the cultivation of their holdings. The equipment of their holdings, the house and the buildings, cost them so much that they found it absolutely impossible to maintain their position, and they one after another saw their holdings swallowed up by the large landowners, and let either as large farms or in small holdings to persons who held them under more favourable conditions. That was a fact which he did not think anybody could dispute. Supposing under this Bill or under any Bill they were compulsorily to acquire a large area of land now held by large owners, and were to split it up into small freeholds, would not the same thing happen again? He could not believe, so far as he could see, that under any conceivable fiscal system in this country under which they could not have protection, and a very heavy protection, small holdings would prosper any more in the future than they had in the past. If that was so, would their Lordships be justified in inserting the Amendment which would give compulsory powers, compelling one man to sell his land in order that it might be handed over to another. Of course, if it was for the good of the State and the community generally, there would be a case for it. He spoke for himself alone, and he was very sorry to differ in opinion from his noble friends on that side of the House. But he could not say that it would be for the good of the community at large to try to establish a large system of peasant owners again in this country, because he was honestly convinced that such a system could not be maintained.

THE MARQUESS of LONDONDERRY

said he had had no intention whatever of addressing their Lordships at any period or stage of the measure, but he felt bound entirely to differ from the view put forward by his noble friend behind him. He did so with the greatest regret, because he had had during the whole of his political career a close connection, and he might say an affectionate connection, with him, and to differ with him must necessarily be to him a source of sincere sorrow. He could not, however, follow the arguments he had put forward against the acceptance of the Amendment. He himself considered that the proposition of Lord Dartmouth was one which would commend itself to their Lordships for the simple reason that there was no compulsion about it. It merely proposed to give a man who was to obtain the land he wanted the option of purchasing it if he wished to do so. He always thought there was a misnomer used with regard to the transfer of land. There was not in England or Ireland any question of compulsory purchase. It was a question of compulsory sale. The people were not compelled to buy, but the owner was compelled to sell if it was considered necessary to make him do so. He spoke for himself, and he did not hesitate to say that he always regretted that there should have been introduced in the Bill the question of the hiring of land. He should have liked to have seen the purchase and not the hiring of land, for the simple reason that he thought in the end the question of hiring would be extremely detrimental, not only to the man whose land was taken, but also to the man who acquired it. The noble Lords who had spoken had entirely ignored the position of the persons from whom the land was taken. He thought it was very hard upon him if he was compelled to sell his land and got fair compensation for it, but what would be his position at the end of the period of so-called hiring? It might be that the person who had hired it on terms which very likely the owner thought most unsatisfactory would return it to the unfortunate owner in a state absolutely different from the condition in which the small holder acquired it, and the owner would have no compensation paid to him. He would have had his land more or less ruined before his eyes, and he would have to take it back and return it to its original condition, with perhaps a further chance that it would be taken again for hiring. He thought purchase should have been the main object of the Bill. He had had no intention of addressing their Lordships, and he could therefore only speak from memory, but he thought that a short time ago he read a speech which the Duke of Portland addressed to his tenantry at Welbeck in which he declared he had given a large number of acres for the purpose of small holdings, and that, although he equipped and stocked them, and started the people on them with no debts whatever, yet in a few years he found them in the unfortunate position of being absolutely ruined, and had to take back the holdings. He had risen to explain why, for the first time in his life, he differed with his noble friend behind him, and why he most cordially supported the Amendment.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON)

The noble Marquess who has just sat down has admitted that he has no individual or personal knowledge on the question, such as that obviously possessed by the noble Viscount who preceded him. The speech of the noble Marquess himself was sufficient to convince us of that. The noble Viscount, on the other hand, has evidently thoroughly studied the question, and thoroughly understands it. On my property in Yorkshire there are, on the edges of the moors, a considerable number of small farms and small holdings. Amongst them there are several freeholders holding about fifty or sixty acres, and in the forty years or so that I have possessed the property almost all those persons have been obliged to sell because they found, under the altered circumstances of agriculture, they were obliged so heavily to mortgage their holdings that they had no alternative. That is definite proof. That is a case which has come under my own individual knowledge, and it is one of the reasons which have induced me to lay aside the opinions I once held, and to believe that you would not do any real good to the labourers or to other persons who desire to obtain these small holdings if you were to encourage them to obtain them as freeholders. I believe that that system would turn out to be highly unsatisfactory and highly unsuccessful. It is for that reason that His Majesty's Government have preferred the system of hiring which does not involve these responsibilities. If you are to take any kind of protection against what may happen to these small freeholders, you will not give them anything that can be properly be called a freehold. You will give them land of which they will be the nominal owners, but they will be under all sorts of restrictions as to mortgaging, as to dividing, and as to the powers of sale, or even as to the powers of willing. That is not giving them "the magic of property." When we hear of "the magic of property," I suppose what is meant is the pride any man feels in being the possessor of a small property with which he can do what he pleases. You eannot, unless you want to establish a thoroughly unsatisfactory system, give these men complete and absolute disposal of the land. Therefore, my Lords, you had better not speak of them as persons in the character of real and substantial freeholders.

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I desire to say one word, because I do not entirely agree with either of my noble colleagues who have addressed your Lordships.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

I wish I had waited.

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I desire to express my entire agreement with the noble Viscount behind me in what he has said as to the great difficulty, I may say the impossibility, of creating wholesale and all over this country a great system of small owners of land. It is perfectly true that owing to natural causes small owners in this country have gradually disappeared, and, so far as I have had personal experience, the attempts to create small ownerships have not been particularly encouraging. I am not going to inflict on the House my personal experience, but Lord Onslow's Committee had before it a very full account of an experiment of that kind in a part of England with which I am concerned. I should deprecate any attempt to create a system of small owners on a large scale, but that is not what Lord Dartmouth proposes. My noble friend suggests that in cases where land is taken compulsorily there should be the alternative of purchase, and I am in favour of that, because I am under the impression that if a small owner is to succeed he can only do so by an amount of hard work, and, indeed, drudgery, greater than any cultivator of the soil is ordinarily willing to undertake. The only incentive to exertions of that kind is to be found in the sentiment of ownership and in that feeling of responsibility which belongs to the man who knows that he has to sink or swim according as he makes his holding a success or not. There is another reason why I lean towards the Amendment of my noble friend. It is only by the creation of actual ownership that you will extricate

yourselves from that web of complications which must be the inevitable accompaniment of a system of hiring. As long as you have merely a system of hiring, so long you will have claims and counter claims, arbitrations, and appeals, and all the restrictions and reservations of which we so much desire to get rid. All this would disappear with actual ownership.

I will only say one word more before I sit down. I have a suspicion that his Majesty's Government prefer hiring, because they prefer to throw on the shoulders of others the responsibility they really ought to assume themselves. They are not going to put their bottom dollar on a system of small holdings; they want to put somebody else's bottom dollar on it. I venture to think that in that fact is to be found one explanation of the marked preference they have given to hiring. I shall vote for the Amendment because I wish to see the experiment of purchase as well as hiring tried under the Bill.

On Question, "That those words be there inserted,"

their Lordships divided: Contents, 116; Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS.
Argyll, D.	Mount Edgcumbe, E.	Barrymore, L.
Bedford, D.	Munster, E.	Basing, L.
Richmond and Gordon, D.	Nelson, E.	Belhaven and Stenton, L.
Wellington, D.	Onslow, E.	Belper, L.
	Plymouth, E.	Blythswood, L.
Ailesbury, M.	Radnor, E.	Bolton, L.
Camden, M.	Scarbrough, E.	Borthwick, L.
Hertford, M.	Stanhope, E.	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
Lansdowne, M.	Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Cheylesmore, L.
Salisbury, M.	Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]	Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)
Zetland, M.	Westmeath, E.	Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
	Wharncliffe, E.	Clinton, L.
Albemarle, E.	Wicklow, E.	Clonbrock, L.
Ancaster, E.		Cloncurry, L.
Camperdown, E.		Colchester, L.
Carlisle, E.	Churchill, V. [Teller.]	Digby, L.
Cathcart, E.	Falmouth, V.	Douglas, L. (E. Home).
Cawdor, E.	Goschen, V.	Dunboyne, L.
Clarendon, E.	Halifax, V.	Ebury, L.
Dartmouth, E.	Hampden, V.	Ellenborough, L.
Eldon, E.	Hill, V.	Elphinstone, L.
Fortescue, E.	Hood, V.	Estcourt, L.
Hardwicke, E.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough- more.)	Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)
Harewood E.		Forester, L.
Harrowby, E.		Heneage, L.
Jersey, E.	Addington, L.	Inchiquin, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Amherst of Hackney, L.	Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)
Londesborough, E.	Ampthill, L.	Kinnaird, L.
Malmesbury, E.	Ardilaun, L.	Lamington, L.
Manvers, E.	Balfour, L.	Lawrence, L.
Morley, E.	Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)	Leith of Fyfie, L.
Morton, E.	Barnard, L.	Lucas, L.
Ludlow, L.	Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)	Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
M ldrum, L. (M. Muntly.)	Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)
Middleton, L.	Rathmore, L.	Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)
Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)	Redesdale, L.	Templemore, L
Mowbray, L.	Robertson, L.	Ventry, L.
North, L.	St. Oswald, L.	Waleran, L.
Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)	Saltoun, L.	Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Panrhyn, L.	Sinclair, L.	Wynford, L.
Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough	Stanley of Alderley, L.	Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Crewe, E. (L. President.)	Blyth, L.	Haversham, L.
Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)	Burghclere, L.	Hemphill, L.
Exeter, M.	Colebrooke, L.	Herschell, L.
	Courtney of Penwith, L.	Kenyon, L.
Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)	Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)	Kestever, L.
Carrington, E.	Denman, L. [Teller.]	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Craven, E.	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)	Leconfield, L.
Feversham, E.		Lovat, L.
Powis, E.	Eversley, L.	Manners, L.
	Farrer, L.	Monk Bretton, L.
Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)	Fitzmaurice, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
St. Aldyn, V.	Glantawe, L.	Sanderson, L.
	Granard, L. (E. Granard) [Teller.]	Tweedmouth, L.
Airedale, L.		Weardale, L.
Allendale, L.	Hamilton of Dalzell, L.	Welby, L.

House resumed and to be again in Committee to-morrow.