SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL. (Hansard, 22 August 1907)

LORD MONK BRETTON
moved to insert a proviso that when a county council desired to acquire land outside its administrative area which was also desired by a county council administering that area, the county council administering the area should have the prior claim. It was, he said, quite possible that more than one county council might want to acquire the same land, and he hoped the Government would consider his 957 Amendment a reasonable one. It was a mere matter of justice that the home county should have the prior claim. The only argument that could be urged against the Amendment was that the Board of Agriculture would safeguard the contingency of the home county's being ousted. He thought such a contention proved the harmlessness of the Amendment, which had this additional advantage, that it would inspire in county councils the feeling that they were not under the heel of a militant bureaucracy. He understood that the point in this Amendment would be covered by another Amendment to be moved later, but which was not yet on the Paper. In that case if that Amendment were carried his Amendment would disappear; but he would like to see his Amendment inserted in case the one to he subsequently moved was not successful.
Amendment moved— In page 4, line 40, after the word 'land,' to insert the words Provided that when a county council desires to acquire land outside its administrative area which is also desired by a county council administering that area, the county council administering the area shall have the prior claim.'"—(Lord Monk Bretton.)

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES(Earl CARRINGTON)
I am afraid I cannot accept this proviso. It is one of those Amendments that would cause further complication. I do not honestly think that county councils are very likely to compete with each other for the same piece of land for small holdings, and if they did, it is more than probable that they would come to some friendly arrangement on the subject. Although I am very sanguine about the success of the Bill, such competition as the noble Lord anticipates is beyond my most sanguine hopes.

§ * LORD REDESDALE
could not, conceive that any harm would ensue from the adoption of the Amendment. On the other hand, it was conceivable that in the part of the country in which he lived the councils of four counties wight compete with one another for the same piece of land. It would lead -to the greatest possible difficulty, and, indeed, to disastrous consequences, if 958 county councils were to come to loggerheads over the same land. He hoped the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would reconsider his decision not to accept the Amendment

THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE)
said that where, owing to the peculiar nature of the county boundaries, the county authorities anticipated any practical and real difficulty in this matter, they had power under the Local Government Acts to rearrange their county boundaries. Speaking as one of the Boundary Commissioners of 1887, he said it was pointed out at that time, in regard to the very districts where Lord Redesdale's property was situated and where the counties were more mixed than in almost any other part of England, that inconvenience might probably arise, and it was a matter of regret that they did not adopt the suggestions of the Commission and put their houses in order. Therefore, if any difficulty arose, they would have brought the trouble on their own heads; but he did not think that in the matter of allotments any difficulty was likely to arise.

§ LORD HYLTON
supported the Amendment, and said the councils of counties near London should be protected from the competition of the London County Council in the matter of the acquisition of land.

* VISCOUNTGALWAY
suggested that Lord Monk Bretton might withdraw his Amendment and allow Lord Jersey to move his. Lord Jersey's Amendment gave a county council power to prevent what he might call marauders coming into a county and acquiring land against the wish of the county council administering the area.

LORD MONK BRETTON
understood that the Amendment which Lord Jersey intended moving was not the Amendment on the Paper. Would the noble Earl read to the Committee the Amendment as he proposed to move it?

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES(The Earl of ONSLOW)
said the noble Earl had just handed him the text of 959 the Amendment as he intended moving it. It ran— No land shall be acquired by a county council without their county except with the consent of the council of the county in which the land is situated.

LORD MONK BRETTON
withdrew his proposal in favour of this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* THE EARL OF JERSEY
then moved his Amendment in the terms read to the Committee by the Lord Chairman. He said the object of the Amendment was to enable a county council to know when another county council intended applying for land within the area of the first council. As the Bill now stood, there was no security that the county council administering the area in which it was desired to acquire land would be informed of such desire. It seemed to him a matter of ordinary courtesy that one county council should inform the other of their intention. He believed the small holdings part of the Bill would be a very great success, and he was sure that where there were big markets and towns the small holdings provisions would be taken up freely. According to the Bill, the Birmingham authority might acquire land in Kent and settle small holders thereon; but when once the small holders had been settled, the authority of the county in which the small holdings were situated would have to bear all expenses for education, policing, and such like. He happened to belong to the county of Middlesex, and he felt certain they were so well placed in that county for small holdings that the London County Council would desire to make use of the Bill; and it would be very inconvenient for the County Council of Middlesex not to be made acquainted with the proposals of the London County Council. Without some such provision in the Bill a natural claim of his own county might be "jumped" by the London County Council.
Amendment moved— In page 4, line 40, after the word 'land,' to insert the following new subsection:— (3) No land shall be acquired by a county council without their county except with the consent of the council of the county in which the land is situated.'"—(The Earl of Jersey.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I am very grateful to the noble Earl for the kind words he used about the Bill, and I wish with all my heart that I could meet him in regard to his. Amendment. But I am afraid that is quite impossible. The noble Earl said his desire was, that the council of the county in which the land is situated should be made acquainted with the intention of the outside authority to acquire it; but the Amendment goes further than that. The noble Earl proposes that no land shall be acquired by an outside county council without the consent—not the knowledge, but the consent—of the council of the county in which the land is situated.

* THE EARL OF JERSEY
said he was willing that, if the consent of the county council in whose area the land was situated was refused, there should be an appeal to the Board of Agriculture.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
Supposing Birmingham wanted to buy land in Worcestershire or in Warwickshire, it could not do so without the consent of those county councils. That is what the Amendment really means. And I would put it to the noble Earl that these small holdings and allotments are not exactly plague spots. I would cite my own experience on the housing committee of the London County Council to show that when it became known that the London County Council were buying land the price went up. Such bodies often have to buy, I will not say in an underhand, but in a quiet way. The noble Earl on the cross benches, Lord Rosebery, referred the other day to the acquisition of land near the Durdans for a lunatic asylum. These wretched lunatics had to be put somewhere. They could not be left in London; and I remember very well that at the time it was felt that the noble Earl had Mentmore and Dalmeny, and could not very well complain. I instance Lord Rosebery's grievance as showing what might be anticipated if knowledge of a county council's intention was known in advance. A gentleman who saw me the other day was full of complaint because an enormous reservoir had been put up before his house and had spoilt the amenities of the place. But somebody 961 must suffer for the public good, and knowing the difficulties in the way I am afraid I cannot accept the principle contained in the Amendment.

§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
The noble Earl who conducts this Bill with great good humour sometimes, I am sorry to say, lets fall observations which are not very relevant nor very well calculated to bring about an amicable adjustment of these matters. He suggested a moment ago that my noble friend Lord Jersey had argued as if these allotments were plague spots. Now nothing that fell from my noble friend suggested that idea in the least. My noble friend's proposal seems to me to be a very reasonable one. What he is anxious to bring about is that when one county council seeks to obtain land for allotments within the limits of another county, the second county council should have notice given to it. It is true that as the Amendment now stands it would make the consent of the second council necessary, but my noble friend does not wish to push that point so far as to allow of unreasonable exclusion. What would satisfy my noble friend, I understand, would be that the first county council should give notice to the second county council and that then there should be some appeal provided, perhaps to the Board over which my noble friend presides, with the object of settling which authority should prevail. That seems to me a most reasonable suggestion, and I must say I think there would be some hardship in allowing one county council, so to speak, to poach on the territory of another. I hope His Majesty's Government will consider the suggestion between now and the next stage of the Bill.

* THE EARL OF JERSEY
asked permission to amend his Amendment so that it would read— No land shall be acquired by a county council without their county except with the consent of the council of the county in which the land is situate. A county council may appeal against the refusal to give such consent to the Board of Agriculture, which shall have power to decide the question and the terms of arrangement.

§ LORD HENEAGE
pointed out that if the Amendment were agreed to in those 962 terms it would have the effect of preventing any landlord coming to a private agreement for the sale of land without the consent of the council of the county in which that land was situated. He did not think that was the noble Earl's intention.

§ LORD REDESDALE
supported the Amendment, and said that unless some such Amendment were passed the greatest possible hardship and injustice might result.

§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
I hesitate to suggest actual words, but I cannot help thinking that the noble Earl must see that there really is something in Lord Jersey's suggestion, and if he would undertake to consider the point and endeavour to bring up words on Report which would at any rate provide ample notice when `one county is going to invade the territory of another, I daresay my noble friend would be satisfied.

VISCOUNT HILL
asked who was going to be responsible for the carrying out of the scheme—the county council who bought the land or the council of the county in which the land was situated?

§ EARL CARRINGTON
The provision with regard to procedure as to schemes is that— A copy of any draft scheme under this Act shall, if prepared by a county council, be sent to the Board, and if prepared by the Commissioners be sent to the Board and to any county council concerned. Clearly the county council would be concerned if land was proposed to be taken in its county. I very much hope that the clause will be allowed to stand as it is.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:—

LORD KENYON
moved to add words providing that the associations to whom power was given to let small 963 holdings should be constituted "under rules approved by the Board." He did this in no spirit of hostility to these associations; they might be most valuable, but they would be entrusted with large powers, and care should be taken to ensure the proper carrying out of their obligations.
Amendment moved— In page 5, line 19, after the word 'constituted' to insert the words under rules approved by the Board.'"—(Lord Kenyon.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I understand that there is no wish to attack these associations. I think the noble Earl will see that this is, after all, only an additional complication, and is in no way necessary. The consent of the Board will be required, and, of course, the rules of the association will be asked for, and if they are not satisfactory the consent of the Board will not be given. I hope in these circumstances the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.

LORD KENYON
said that if it was the intention that the rules of the association would be examined by the Board, there could be no earthly reason why his Amendment should not be accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:—

§ THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND
moved to add the words "as agricultural holdings " to the power given to a county council to relax the condition in the Act of 1892 that only one dwelling-house should be erected on a holding, where such relaxation would be a benefit to that or an adjacent holding. He regarded these words as necessary in order to prevent what was intended to be an agricultural estate from becoming possibly an urban one. It was not desired to turn these small holdings into building lands.
Amendment moved— In page 5, line 32, after the word 'benefit' to insert the words as agricultural holdings.'" —(The Duke of Northumberland.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
It is, of course, absolutely essential that none of these agricultural holdings should be turned into building land. We all agree in that, but I hardly think the Amendment is necessary. As the noble Duke proposes to amend it, the clause would read— A county council may, if they think fit, relax the condition imposed by Section 9 of the Small Holdings Act, 1892, that not more than one dwelling-house shall be erected on a holding, if in their opinion such relaxation will be for the benefit as agricultural holdings of that or adjacent small holdings provided by the council.
I do not think the insertion of those words makes the clause read any better, and, as I have said, there is no intention to turn these estates into building lands. Every small holding must be cultivated; that is in the Small Holdings Act, 1892, Clause 9, Subsection 1, Paragraph (6). Therefore, it is an agricultural holding, and I do not think the words in the Amendment are necessary.

§ THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND
failed to see why an Amendment should not be inserted which made the intention of the Government plain.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
suggested that the words in the Amendment would come in better at the end of the clause.

§ THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND
said that it was a mere matter of drafting; but as it had previously been suggested to him that the words would come in better at the end he would move them in that form.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:—

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
moved to omit Clause 13. He hoped the President of the Board of Agriculture would not object to this Amendment as bringing about a crisis in the fortunes of the Bill; but it was no 965 good legislating twice on the same subject in the same measure. Clause 13 proposed to repeal words in Section 11 of the Small Holdings Act, 1892, and if the noble Earl would turn to the Schedule he would find the same words there repealed.
Amendment moved— To leave out Clause 13."—(—Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
The clause has been put in by those who have had the drafting of the Bill, and therefore I presume it is necessary. But I am entirely in the hands of the House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:—

§ EARL CARRINGTON
The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that the borough and urban district councils are acting as agents for the county council.
Amendment moved— In page 7, line 3, after the word 'district' to insert the words 'as agents for the county council.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
moved to amend the last line in the clause by substituting the word "such" for the word "the." This was, he explained, a drafting Amendment, the object of which was to show that it was the council last mentioned which was referred to.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
If it is merely a drafting Amendment I prefer the words in the Bill.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
said the noble Earl seemed to prefer what was undecided and indefinite.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
Which "the' is it that the noble Earl wants altered?

A NOBLE LORD
suggested that Lord Camperdown meant to alter the first "the" and not the second.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
said that, in the circumstances, he would withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:—
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21:—

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
moved to omit Subsection 1. He said that under it the parish council might provide allotments up to five acres in extent, though no duty was cast upon them to provide allotments of more than one acre. Small holdings which were of any extent from one acre to fifty acres were to be provided by the county council. He thought it would be better for the proper working of the Act, and the avoidance of clashing between the two authorities to limit the parish council to allotments of one acre.
Amendment moved— In page 10, lines 1 to 15, to leave out Subsection (1)."—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I do not quite understand the object of the Amendment. I am quite with the noble Viscount in everything he said as to the desirability of preventing the clashing of the different authorities, but I am afraid the Amendment as it stands would not meet the noble Viscount's wishes, because it would restrict the area of allotments to one acre. I am afraid that the Amendment would throw us back to where we were in 1887.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said this was not intended.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I am advised that that would be the effect.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
The county councils would provide the larger allotments; that is the only difference.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I would suggest that the noble Viscount should permit me to talk the matter over with him with a view to coming to an agreement on the point by the Report Stage.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said he was perfectly willing not to press the matter now if he understood that they were agreed as to his object.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* VISCOUNT GALWAY
moved to omit Subsection 2, which proposed that the powers of improving and adapting land for allotments should include the power to erect buildings and make adaptations of existing buildings by parish councils. In his view, the erection of buildings would transform the allotment into a small holding, and the rates might be increased enormously if power were given to erect a house for every allotment of five acres, and that this power ought not to be given to parish conncils.
Amendment moved— In page 10, lines 16 to 20, to leave out Subsection (2)."—(Viscount Galway.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I hope the noble Viscount will not press the Amendment. If this subsection is left out it would prevent houses being built on allotments of five acres. I cannot think that the noble Lord wishes that.

§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
The point raised by my noble friend in this Amendment seems to me to be closely connected with that which was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, a few moments ago, and which I understand is to be the subject of discussion between him and the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. There is a certain amount of confusion in the Bill between what, after all, are two different things—namely, allotments and small holdings. As I understand the Bill, you may have a small holding of any size from one acre to fifty, and you 968 may have allotments up to five acres. Under the subsection we are discussing, power is given to erect buildings on allotments; so that it comes to this, that you may have a holding of four acres with a building provided by the parish council which you will call an allotment, and you may have a holding say of two acres which you may call a small holding because it is under the direction of a different authority. I think that does point to undesirable confusion between what are, after all, two wholly different things.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
The Amendment, if it were carried, would create great difficulty in the working of the Bill, and I therefore hope it will not be pressed.

* VISCOUNT GALWAY
thought that even greater difficulties would be created unless it were inserted, and unless he received an assurance that the question would be considered he would press the Amendment.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I have made my protest, and, of course, I can do no more.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.
Clause 24:—

VISCOUNT HILL
moved an Amendment to confine the inquiries of the county council as to the extent of the demand for allotments to the existing demand, no "prospective" demand being taken into consideration. He explained that the Amendment was consequential on a similar Amendment in regard to small holdings.
Amendment moved— In page 11, line 4, to leave out the words 'either actual or prospective.'"—(Viscount Hill.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendment agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
moved an Amendment to include among the reasons for the transfer by the Board of Agriculture of the powers of the county council under the Allotments Acts to the Commissioners, a refusal by the county council "to comply with a representation made by the council of the urban district or parish for the compulsory acquisition of land for allotments." Under the Bill as it stood an unfair and considerable burden might be imposed on parishes which might already have sufficient allotments for their own purposes. Everybody admitted that parish councils had done their duty in providing allotments, although it was said that county councils had not. The subsection as he proposed to amend it would read— (2) If the Board are, in relation to any urban district (other than a borough) or rural parish, satisfied, after holding a local inquiry at which the county council and the council of the district or parish, and such other persons as the person holding the inquiry may, in his discretion, think fit to allow, shall be permitted to appear and be heard, that the county council have failed to fulfil their obligations under the Allotments Act, 1890, as amended by this section, and have refused to comply with a representation made by the council of the urban district or parish for the compulsory acquisition, of land for allotments, the Board may by order transfer to the Commissioners all or any of the powers of the county council under the Allotments Acts as amended by this Act in relation to the district or parish, and those Acts shall apply as if references to the Commissioners were substituted for references to the county council and with such other adaptations as may be made by the order.
Amendment moved— In page 11, line 20, after the word 'section' to insert the words 'and have refused to comply with a representation made by the council of the urban district or parish for the compulsory acquisition of land for allotments.'"— (Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
Subsection (2) provides that the Board of Agriculture, after a local inquiry, may order the 'Commissioners to step in and provide allotments in any parish where the parish council have declined to do so and the county council have failed to put pressure on them. The Amendment proposes that the Board of Agriculture should only have this power in the case where parish councils have applied for compulsory powers and been refused. The desire of the Government is to have the power 970 to take proceedings in cases where the parish council has declined to act at all and not only in cases where parish councils have applied to the county council for compulsory powers and been refused.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said that that was not the point. In the circumstances he had described he objected very much to a loss being thrown on parish councils. He could not raise the point except by moving this Amendment, which he thought would call the attention of the House of Commons to the matter.

LORD FITZMAURICE
said that if this Amendment was the only way of bringing the matter to the cognizance of the House of Commons, that might be a legitimate argument, but he did not think the form of the Amendment was appropriate.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said that he only had time to consider this point last night. The statement that a parish would not be recouped in such a case, although a county council would be, came upon him as a great surprise. The intention of the Government was grossly unfair to parish councils. He thought this was the best way of raising it, and he trusted the Committee would insert the words now. He would reconsider them before Report, and, if he could suggest better words, he would do so. His object in this matter was solely to enable the House of Commons to reconsider the point, which unfortunately, owing to the rules of the House, could not be considered on Report there. He would not insist on the Amendment after the House of Commons had had an opportunity of considering the financial question.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26:—

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
moved the insertion of a proviso to the 971 effect that every order (for the compulsory hiring of land) should provide that within six weeks after the receipt of any notice to treat in respect of the hiring of any land, the owner might by notice in writing require the council to accept a conveyance of the fee simple of the land in consideration of a perpetual rent-charge to be fixed, in default of agreement, by arbitration, but in fixing such rent-charge the arbitrator should not make any allowance in respect of any use to which the land might otherwise be put, being a use in respect of which the owner of land compulsorily hired was entitled under this Bill to resume possession, but after such conveyance the land should be held by the council free from any such right of resumption by the owner under this Bill. This principle of compulsory hiring was a new departure which he viewed with considerable doubt and mistrust. He was certain that if it passed without objection it might be taken as a precedent in some future Bill relating to Scottish agriculture. The proposal in this Bill was not so bad as that in the dropped Scottish Bill. Here, at least, the landlord would have a substantial tenant, and if the land were thrown back upon his hands in an exhausted condition he would be certain of a remedy. But at the same time the bargain in this Bill was extremely one-sided. The local authority could hire the land compulsorily for fourteen years and could renew compulsorily if they wished, and if they tired of it they could throw the land back on the landlord. The owner, on the other hand, had no power of resumption of his property unless for certain specified reasons. He could not resume the land if he were not satisfied with the treatment of it. If the right of discriminating between good and bad management was to be taken away in that manner, he would rather have done with the whole thing and would prefer to have no responsibility for a tenant whose operations he could not in any way control. The provision in the Act was practically a sale for a perpetual rent-charge.
Amendment moved— In page 12, line 10, after the word 'schedule' to insert the words provided that every such order shall provide that within six weeks after the receipt of any notice to treat in respect 972 of the-hiring of any land, the owner may by notice in writing require the council to accept a conveyance of the fee simple of the land in consideration of a perpetual rent-charge to be fixed, in default of agreement, by arbitration,. but in fixing such rent charge the arbitrator shall not make any allowance in respect of any use to which the land might otherwise be put, being a use in respect of which the owner of land compulsorily hired is entitled under this Act to resume possession, but after such conveyance the land shall be held by the council free from any such right of resumption by the owner under this Act.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN)
I am afraid that this Amendment, if carried, would strike a deadly blow at the principle upon which the Bill is framed—namely, the principle of compulsory hiring, and I think that in the other House of Parliament this principle of compulsory hiring was frankly accepted and treated as being, as undoubtedly it is, the basis and foundation of the Bill. The proposal of the noble Lord is that when notice to treat in respect of hiring is served the owner of the land shall have the power to say, "No, there shall be no compulsory hiring; there shall be purchase." The whole purpose of the Bill is not to stereotype agricultural rents on the basis of existing prices, but that if there should be a renewal at the end of the first period, then the rent may be refixed having regard to all the conditions. It may happen, for example, that the landlord would be entitled to more rent owing to the land having become within the neighbourhood of a growing city, which fact would improve its agricultural value. In these circumstances why should not the landlord get the benefit? On the other hand, the circumstances may have diminished the value of the land, and in that case why should the landlord receive more than its real agricultural value? The effect of this Amendment would be to stereotype the rent-charge for all time. The noble Lord's Amendment would provide that the owner might, by notice, require the council to accept a conveyance of the fee simple of the land in consideration of a perpetual rent-charge to be fixed, in default of agreement, by arbitration. That goes against the whole policy of the Bill and prevents a reconsideration of the rent. Under the Amendment the rent once fixed would be 973 fixed for all time. There is another anomaly. The fee simple passes from the owner to the authority. In that case, how is it reconcilable that there should be, on the part of the owner, power of resumption?

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said the power of resumption was not reserved.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I think it is, because the Amendment proposes that in fixing the rent-charge the arbitrator shall not make any allowance in respect of any use to which the land might otherwise be put, being a use in respect of which the owner of land compulsorily hired was entitled under the Bill to resume possession. I gather that, by excluding from consideration the use to which the land might otherwise be put, the noble Lord means that the power of resumption should remain.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
said that that was not his intention. If the owner had forced a sale his intention was that he should not have the right of resumption. If the Amendment was not properly drawn to secure that he would have the words put right.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I, of course, accept that, and my observation on that point falls to the ground. But the other observation remains, that the scheme is that you should have compulsory hiring. That is the basis and intention of the whole Bill, and if you allow any owner to say there shall be no compulsory hiring, but that you must buy the land, although it be by means of a perpetual rent-charge, it strikes at the very root of the principle on which the Bill is based.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said he liked the principle of compulsory hiring as little as his noble friend Lord Balfour, but what he felt about this matter was that they were to some extent bound by the precedent of the Local Government Act. That Act certainly adopted the principle of compulsory hiring for allotments. He was not aware that it had led to any harm, and, though that was not a conclusive argument for extending it to small holdings, yet the 974 acceptance by Parliament of that principle was a very strong point in favour of the proposal of the Government. But he thought they might endeavour to get some kind of option at some time or other to compel the county council to say if they wished to go on with the hiring. Otherwise the county council might carry on the hiring for an indefinite time and deprive the owner entirely of the control of his property. If the owner could obtain, almost at any time, a perpetual rent-charge it would be a much more saleable article.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
said he was not at all sure that when they had had the principle of compulsory hiring admitted with a substantial county council as tenant, they would not have the same principle applied in the case of the unsubstantial individual tenant in the Scottish proposals another year. He had very considerable dread of what he called the germ theory of legislation. If he gave way now he hoped it would not be said another year that he had willingly accepted the principle of the individual tenant being foisted. on him.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I wil promise the noble Lord that I will not use that argument against him after what he has said, but I will reserve to myself when the question comes up the right to argue that the principle underlying this Bill and that underlying the Scottish Bill are substantially identical.

§ LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH
argued that any attempt to stereotype rents might lead to great injustice, owing to the fluctuations in letting values. He pointed out that rentals rose considerably between 1850 and 1871, whereas between 1871 and 1892 they fell. If, therefore, rents were stereotyped, injustice would be done to the landlord in the one case, and to the county council in the other.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
remarked that the outcome of the noble Lord's observations was that it would be very much better that the county council should buy the land instead of hiring 975 it, and there was no time when county:councils could buy on cheaper terms than now.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
said he was not in the slightest degree hopeful of ever getting an increase of rent out of a county council. If there were a rise in value at the end of fourteen years, the county council would put in a plea that it was their improvements that had caused it. He would very much rather take the rent at the lowest time and have it settled than take the risk of fluctuating.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ROBERTSON
moved an Amendment, the effect of which was to give an appeal against any action of the Board of Agriculture not in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. He said the clause provided that an Order when confirmed by the Board shall— Become final and have effect-as if enacted in this Act, and the confirmation by the Board shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act have been complied with, and that the Order has been duly made and is within the powers of this Act. He proposed to omit the words quoted and to substitute for them the words, "empower the council to acquire the land in accordance with the provisions of this Act." The provision as it stood in the Bill precluded anyone from challenging an injustice which might be done by an Order of the Board. In Clause 30 restrictions were imposed on the acquisition of land. But in the event of the council and the Board authorising the taking of any of the prohibited land mentioned in the clause, that was sanctioned by the provision that confirmation by the Board should be conclusive evidence that the requirements of the Bill had been complied with, and that the Order had been duly made and was within the powers of the Bill; so that it would really be in the power of this administrative Board to do anything it liked under cover of an Act of Parliament. The Government proposed that they should accept the infallibility of the Board, that there should be no opportunity of going to a Court of law, and that everything 976 should depend on the assertion of the Board. With them everything was well with the best of all possible Boards.
Amendment moved— In page 12, line 16, to leave out from the word 'shall' to the end of Subsection (3), and to insert the words empower the council to acquire the land in accordance with the provisions of this Act.'"—(Lord Robertson.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I am glad to be able, at least in one thing, to agree with the statement that has been made by my noble and learned friend. It is quite true that if no steps are taken to dispute the legality of the proceedings until the final Order is confirmed no objection can be afterwards taken. After all, the operations under this Bill will not be on a very large scale and there is every security that a proper price will be paid for the land taken.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
There is no desire to have an appeal on price.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I quite understand that; but it seems to me that in a matter of this kind you have to choose between accepting the final order as final or encumbering the Bill with possibilities of litigation that would seriously hamper its operation and make its cost uncertain. The machinery as it exists at present is sufficiently cumbrous. It is essential that the machinery should be cheap, although not cheap, of course, to the extent of injustice. In the first place there is the Provisional Order, then there is the inquiry, and then confirmation by the Board of Agriculture. The opportunities for inquiry before the final Order should, in our opinion, obviate any such injustice as that referred to.

§ LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH
At what point of the transaction does the appeal come in?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I will tell the noble Lord how I understand it. If any land is scheduled which ought not, according to the provisions of this Bill, to be scheduled, it would, in my view, be possible to go to the Court for a prohibition or an injunction; 977 but, even if that were not so, it would not affect my opinion that it is better to run even a little risk of land being in good faith taken which ought not to be taken under this Bill than to have the machinery of the Bill overburdened.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said he had heard with great regret the reply of the noble and learned Lord. The Bill contemplated a very great change, and it had been extolled by its author and others as a measure really likely to change the face of the rural portions of the country. If anything of that sort happened, or anything near it, it was certain that the purchases or hirings must be very numerous and must relate to transactions infinitely more important than anything that was possible under the Allotments Act. That was one reason for requiring an appeal in this Bill which was not given in the Allotments Act. Further, why were English landlords to be treated worse than Irish landlords? In the Evicted Tenants Bill, which forbade parks or gardens to be taken for the purposes of the Bill, the Government had conceded an appeal from the Land Commissioners to a Judge on that very point. There would be few appeals, but the knowledge that there was an appeal would keep the tribunal entrusted with the administration of the Act straight. The appeal asked for was confined to the point whether the instructions of the Act had been adhered to. He hoped the Amendment would be pressed.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
pointed to the procedure proposed under the Bill. Subsection (3) of Clause 27 provided that an Order under this section should be of no force unless and until it was confirmed by the Board, and the Board might, subject to the provisions of the First Schedule, confirm the Order either without modification or subject to such modifications as they thought fit. If their Lordships would refer to the First Schedule they would see that Subsection (1) provided that the Order should be in the prescribed form; Subsection (2) that it should be published by the council in the prescribed manner; Subsection (3) that if an objection had been presented and had 978 not been withdrawn the Board should forthwith cause a public inquiry to be held in the locality in which the land was proposed to be acquired; Subsection (4) that before confirming the order the Board should consider the report of the inuiry and all objections made thereat. They might then confirm the Order. Throughout all this there was nothing which provided for the question being raised in the Courts even before the final Order.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
It is not necessary to put in any Act of Parliament authority to the Courts to prohibit anybody from doing something which is outside the powers created by the Act. When you have an Act of Parliament saying you may take, for example, land in Yorkshire, it is unnecessary to put in h clause that the Courts may prevent land being taken in Lancashire. I know my noble and learned friend Lord. Atkinson, in a similar case, differed from me, but I hold the opinion that until the confirmation by the Board it would be competent for a Court to prevent any land being taken which the terms of the Bill prohibit from being taken. But I do not entirely rely upon that. I say that the provision in the Bill is necessary in order to prevent the machinery being encumbered by litigation. I would point out that in the Allotments Act of 1894, the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882, the London Government Act of 1899, and in the Light Railway Act of 1897, there are expressions similar to that which the noble and learned Lord wishes to expunge. The fact is that Parliament does not assume that when you tell these responsible bodies that they are not to take this kind of land or that kind of land they are going to violate that instruction. It is better to trust the Government Department and the local authorities, with the knowledge that the owner will be properly paid for any land taken.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
asked if the Lord Chancellor held that during the time of the incubation of the Order it would be within the option of a person interested to appeal to the Courts if anything illegal were done.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I believe that to be so, and that there would be power to grant an injunction.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
moved to omit Subsection (4) and to insert in its place a new subsection. He said that the Amendment was necessary to clear up a point which was at present by no means clear. Under the subsection at present in the Bill some doubt might arise as to the position in which an owner might find himself in the event of certain rights of way being created under the operations of the Bill. For instance, where a number of small holdings were created it might be necessary to give to those in the backblocks access across other small holdings; but there should be the proviso that no new easement created by or in pursuance of an Order of the Board over land hired by a Council for this purpose should continue beyond the termination of such hiring. The landlord, when he resumed the land should resume it free from any such encumbrances.
Amendment moved— In page 12, lines 20 and 22, to leave out Subsection (4) and to insert the words:—(4) All land acquired under an Order under this section shall be held by the council subject to all existing easements, and every such Order shall provide for the creation of any new easements necessary to secure the continued use and enjoyment by the owners and occupiers of adjoining lands of all conveniences theretofore used and enjoyed over the land to be acquired, provided that notwithstanding anything contained in this subsection no new easement created by or in pursuance of such order over land hired by a council shad continue beyond the termination of such hiring.'"—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I think three points arise upon the Amendment of the noble Duke. The first is that all land acquired under an Order shall be held by the council subject to all existing easements. An acquisition would be subject to all existing easements as far as they affect other persons than the owner of the land, but it might be desirable that those easements should be bought up. For that reason I hope the noble Duke will not press that part of the Amendment. The second point in the Amendment is a 980 more serious one; it is that every such order shall provide for the creation of any new easements necessary to secure the continued use and enjoyment by the owners and occupiers of adjoining lands of all conveniences theretofore used and enjoyed over the land to be acquired. I am prepared, I will not say exactly in those words, but in spirit, to accept that part of the Amendment. It would, for example, be unreasonable to take part of an estate which would prevent the access of an owner to a road from the other part and not give him a new easement. If the noble Duke will consent that this matter shall be dealt with on Report we might be able to suggest words which would carry out his object. Then as to the proviso that notwithstanding anything contained in this subsection no new easement created by or in pursuance of such Order over land hired by a council shall continue beyond the termination of such hiring. I think that is desirable as a rule, but the Amendment could not be accepted in the form proposed. Perhaps the noble Duke will consent to postpone these matters until Report stage.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said he was quite satisfied with the statement of the noble and learned Lord, and would withdraw his Amendment for the present.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
asked the Lord Chancellor whether the provision for the creation of any new easement over the land authorised to be acquired would terminate at the end of the tenure or not.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
It would depend upon the Order. The Order might be for a limited period or it might be permanent; but it could not be permanent except with the consent of the owner of the land.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* VISCOUNT GALWAY
moved to omit Subsection 5, which provided that in determining compensation no allowance should be made on account of compulsion. He desired some explanation of the subsection, as it had always been 981 usual for this point to be taken into consideration in transactions of this kind.
Amendment moved— In page 12, lines 23 to 25, to leave out Subsection (5)."—(Viscount Galway.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
The reason why this subsection was put in was to show that we cannot recognise the claim for moral or intellectual damage, and we have plenty of precedents for that. Precedents for the subsection will be found in the Parish Councils Act, a Liberal measure; in the Metropolitan Water Act of 1902, a Conservative measure; and in the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, which was also brought in by a Conservative Government. I think my noble friend ought to be satisfied with that answer.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27:—

§ LORD CLINTON
moved to substitute "arbitration" for "valuation by a valuer appointed by the Board" for the determination of rent on renewal. This variation from the method followed in previous Acts was no doubt to save expense, an object he sympathised with, but there were other things more important than the cost. It was important for the smooth working of the measure that there should be full confidence in the person called upon to adjust the conditions and the amount of rent when land was compulsorily taken for a long term. The fixing of rent by the Board on the sole judgment of a single valuer appointed by the Board upon sworn evidence was closely akin to the setting up of a Land Court for fixing rents This section did not deal only with the fixing of rents. There were other and much more difficult matters to be dealt with. Subsection (2) provided that in assessing the rent the valuer should not take into account any increase it the value of the holding—

Due to improvements in respect o which the council would have been entitles to compensation, if instead of renewing the tenancy the council had quitted the land on the determination of the tenancy, or
982
Due to any use to which the land might otherwise be put during the renewed term, being a use in respect of which the landlord is entitled to resume possession of the land under this Act, or

Due to the establishment by the council OT other small holdings or allotments in the nighbourhood, or any depreciation in the value of the land in respect of which the landlord would have been entitled to compensation if the council had so quitted the land as aforesaid,'

also any depreciation which may have been brought about by any other cause. He believed those were all matters which required very careful weighing of evidence by an expert, trained man, and were not suitable in any way to be adjusted by any ordinary valuer.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
There is no doubt this is a very important Amendment. May I be excused for travelling into the field to which the noble Lord referred—viz., the similarity or difference between fixing a rent by an arbitrator or by a Land Court. The principle that he espouses is the fixing by an arbitrator—I am afraid of mentioning the words "Land Court" in that connection—but whether it be by a valuer, an arbitrator, or a Land Court, I am not able to perceive any very great difference in the principle. In the Bill it is proposed that there shall be a valuer; while in the Amendment it is proposed that there shall be an arbitrator. The noble Lord has been perfectly accurate in describing the substantial difference between the two methods of procedure. An arbitrator has to observe all the formality of a legal proceeding—of a litigation—and is governed substantially by the rules that guide litigation. A valuer, on the other hand, may act upon his own information—upon inspection. Of course it is his duty to act in good faith, but he may act upon his own information, and is not obliged to hold what is called a litigation. He may call the parties if he likes and he may let them call witnesses if he likes. That is the substantial difference between the two proceedings. Of course valuers are used for some purposes; and it seems to me that his it a very suitable purpose for a valuer, and not for an arbitrator, because your Lordships will please to bear in mind that here it is the second term, so to speak. Nothing can be considered in 983 regard to prospective value—that is excluded, because, from the nature of the lease, it is only to be treated as agricultural. The terms upon which land is to be taken are settled by the inquiry and by the Order that follows on the inquiry; and really there is nothing to do except to value the rent. In case of many arbitrators they have complex questions to consider and complex conclusions to arrive at. In this case it simply is the value of the rent, and nothing more. I submit that that is sufficient ground for treating this as a suitable subject for a valuation as opposed to an arbitration. I do not wish to repeat myself—I have said it many times—but our purpose is to avoid if we can litigious proceedings from the conviction I have already expressed—that if you multiply litigation you defeat your measure.

§ LORD CLINTON
said that the noble and learned Lord had drawn a careful distinction between the two forms of procedure, and had said that valuation might be perfectly fair if the rent only was to be considered. But in this case there was something more than rent. As he understood, the noble and learned Lord said that when the lease was first taken out there was a prospective value to be considered, but that that was not so in the case of the second term.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I do not think there has been ever a prospective value, and certainly not on the second occasion.

§ LORD CLINTON
said he understood the noble and learned Lord to say that when the first lease was taken there was something else to be considered, but that in the case of a renewal there was nothing else to be considered. But he thought that in the case of a renewal there was something else to be considered. Under Subsection (2) (b) the arbitrator had to consider the future value due to any other use to which the land might be put during the renewed term, and that was a case in which evidence had to be given, and probably sworn evidence. He did not think that was a case for an ordinary valuer. Again, even supposing it was a fair thing for a valuer 984 to decide, why should not the parties in dispute be allowed to have a choice in appointing the valuer? That was done in other cases, and he did not know why it should not be done in this.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I am sorry if I did not adequately answer the noble Lord. I will endeavour to deal with the two points he has put. In the first place I will deal with the last point. The proposal is that the valuer shall be appointed by the Board when the Board is not interested; but if the Board is interested, then the proposal is that he shall be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice of England.

§ LORD CLINTON
said that that was the arbitrator.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The valuer too. That sounds fair, I think; neither party selects the valuer; and after all, if you go to the Board when it is not interested, and to the Lord Chief Justice of England when it is interested, you get as near fair play as, I think, you are likely to get in any Bill. In regard to the second point, I was putting to the noble Lord that the real thing to be considered was the rent, and nothing more, in the second valuation. I will not enter upon the question of the first term, we are now dealing with the second, and therefore, after all, it is substantially the rent and nothing more. I did not wish to distinguish between the two, but, as I am doing so, let me apply my observations to the second term. In the second term the valuation is, I think, substantially of the rent, and nothing more. The noble Lord points me to Section 27, Subsection (2). (b). That amounts to this, that— In assessing the rent to be paid under this section the valuer shall not take into account any increase in the value of the holding due to any use to which the land might otherwise be put during the renewed term, being a use in respect of which the landlord is entitled to resume possession of the land under this Act. I think, if I remember rightly, building is one—he is not to put on a building rent—it is negative—he is to put a rent upon the land substantially as agricultural land; and, that being the measure, as I read it, of his duty, it seems to me the valuation is appropriate.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
asked what about the first term. The valuer or the arbitrator, whichever he was called, had a great deal to do in fixing the rent of the first term, because he had to decide, not merely on the rent to be paid to the owner for the land taken, but also upon what compensation might be due to the owner for severance, and further, which was equally important, what compensation might be due to the tenant for the land taken away from him, which might be very difficult indeed to decide when the farm was badly cut up by the change. Considering that in all matters the Agricultural Holdings Act insisted upon an arbitrator to decide between landlord and tenant, surely in a case like the present, where land was to be compulsorily hired, and taken not only from the landlord, but from any existing tenant, and questions of compensation to both might arise, his noble friend was well advised in asking for an arbitrator, and he hoped he would press for a division.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
It is quite true that on the first term the question of severance comes in.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
And compensation to the tenant.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Yes, and compensation to the tenant, no doubt. But this clause is dealing with the second term.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said that in the schedule it was "valuer" too.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I am now dealing with the Amendment of the noble Lord. I am quite prepared to deal with the question of severance when that question arises, but it does not arise on this Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
confessed that he felt the Amendment of his noble friend applied much more to the first hiring than to later hirings. Would not the noble Lord consider whether he could not accept an arbitrator for the first hiring?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I should wish to consult with my colleagues upon a matter of that sort. The present Amendment, it appears to me, deals only with the second hiring; and it is not easy or convenient for me to give any sort of promise about a perfectly different clause and a perfectly different Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ * VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
moved an Amendment to give the landlord, on receiving notice from the council of a renewal of the hiring, the option of requiring the council either to purchase the land or to take it on lease at a perpetual rent-charge. He said that this Amendment was one which had already been discussed to a certain extent, and he therefore did not wish to trouble their Lordships with many remarks upon it. The noble and learned Lord, he thought, had objected rather, in the remarks which he had addressed to the Committee before, to a perpetual rent charge—almost to the extent that he would prefer purchase. He only wished to give an option to the council of one or the other. Speaking as a landlord, he thought one would much sooner have purchase outright than a perpetual rent-charge. But, at any rate. he thought it was not quite fair that in cases of hiring the landlord should be compelled to part with his land in such a way that the council might hire it for fourteen years, and that then again it might be hired for another fourteen years, and so onad infinitum, without any power on the part of the landlord to select the tenant of the land, or any control over it at all. He begged to move.
Amendment moved— In page 13, line 40, after the word 'tenancy,' to insert the words, '(3) Within six months after the receipt of the notice mentioned in Subsection (1) of this section, the landlord may, by notice in writing, require the council to purchase the land, and thereupon the council shall purchase the land as if they had obtained an order authorising them to purchase the land and had served upon the landlord a notice to treat in respect thereof, and thenceforth the land shall be held by the council free from any right of resumption by the landlord under this Act; but if the council so elect the consideration for such 987 purchase shall be a perpetual rent-charge payable by the council of an amount to be determined in default of agreement by arbitration, but in determining such rent-charge the arbitrator shall not make any allowance in respect of any use to which the land might otherwise be put, being a use in respect of which the owner of land compulsorily hired is entitled under this Act to resume possession, and Section 44 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, shall apply to every such rent-charge.'" —(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Although the noble Lord, I am sure, quite loyally accepts the principle of compulsory hiring, I do not think, if I may say so, that in his innermost heart he very much likes it. But that is the principle of the Bill, and I think it is a principle that the House has given its approbation to. As regard this particular Amendment, there are two criticisms I would venture to offer upon it. The first is applicable to the way in which the Amendment is put. I think it is a criticism which would be inevitable with regard to any Amendment of the like sense, but at all events it is applicable to this Amendment. The Amendment would defeat its own purpose, because, if the council was liable, upon giving notice to renew, to be confronted with a demand for purchase, what they would do would be, not to give notice of renewal, but to allow the tenancy to lapse and begin again either with that or with some other land. So that it would prevent the operation which the noble Viscount told us was necessary, namely, that the landlord should have an opportunity of demanding purchase at the beginning of the next term. So that you will not catch your fish in this net. That is the first observation which I respectfully submit to the noble Viscount. But the second observation I make is, that after all we are dealing now with thirty-five years hence. There is plenty of time to watch the operation of the measure, to see what is going on, and to make the necessary arrangements beforehand. For my own part, I hope that the noble Viscount and myself, thirty-five years hence, may be considering what may be the best way of dealing with this difficulty in the light of our experience.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said it was impossible to resist the noble and learned Lord. He was afraid that the noble 988 Lord's first objection was fatal to his Amendment and he could only ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD CLINTON ,
who had a consequential Amendment on the Paper to leave out "valuer" and insert "arbitrator," said that, having regard to the course pursued with reference to his previous Amendment, he would not move it.

VISCOUNT DOWNE
moved to insert words providing that the valuer "shall not reduce the rent in consequence of any depreciations in the value of the land in respect of which the landlord would have been entitled to compensation if the council had so quitted the land as. aforesaid." He hoped the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would not consider that he was actuated by any capricious spirit in moving this Amendment, but it seemed to him that the clause as it stood was not very clear. He understood that if the council gave notice that they would renew the tenancy a valuer would be appointed; but this valuer seemed to him to be in rather a curious position. He was not to take notice of any improvement there might be. He would not allude to that, because he was quite sure there was no fear of his raising the rent. But, on the other hand, although he might find the land very much deteriorated, they were told he was to take no notice of that. He thought it would be more satisfactory that they should not only think of his taking no account of it, but that they should express in words that he was not to lower the rent in consequence of that deterioration. He hoped the noble Earl would be able to accept those words.
Amendment moved— In page 14, line 14, to leave out the word 'or,' and to insert the words 'and he shall not reduce the rent in consequence of.'"—(Viscount Downe.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
The insertion of the words of my noble friend would make the clause read thus— And he shall not reduce the rent in consequence of any depreciation in the value of the-land in respect to which the landlord would. have been entitled to compensation, 989 and so on. The effect of the clause as it now stands is that the valuer is not to take any such depreciation into account in fixing the new rent on renewal. But after all there is not very much difference between us and my noble friend, it is only a question of drafting. The words of the Government draftsman are, of course, more agreeable to me; but we both really mean the same thing.

EARL NELSON
said it might be owing to his stupidity, but there was one thing which he did not understand. The clause said that— In assessing the rent to be paid under this section the valuer shall not take into consideration any increase in the value of the holding or any depreciation in the value of the land. Turning to the provisions as to compulsory hiring of land by a council in Part II. of the Schedule, Paragraph 2, he found that it was particularly laid down that the— compensation for any depreciation of the land by reason of any failure by the council, or any person deriving title under them, should be taken into consideration. In the one case the valuer was not to think of depreciation, and in Part II. of the Schedule, Paragraph 2, it stated that they were to take notice of depreciation.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I should like to point out to the noble Earl that the provision is that the valuer shall not take into account any increase in the value of the holding due to those three paragraphs, or any depreciation in the value of the land in respect of which the landlord would have been entitled to compensation if the council had so quitted the land as aforesaid. I do not think the two things run together.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 28 and 29, agreed to.
Clause 30:—

§ * LORD BARNARD
moved the omission of the words "be authorised under this Act," so as to widen the scope of the restrictions on the acquisition of land. He said that the marginal note to Clause 990 30 indicated very clearly its object. It imposed certain restrictions on the powers conferred by the Bill to take land compulsorily. The words which he proposed to omit would seem, at any rate in his judgment, to minimise or reduce the value of that restriction. He had not been able to satisfy himself as to what the meaning of the words "be authorised by an Order under this Act" was, unless they indicated that there might possibly be cases other than those which came under Orders under this Act in which land might be compulsorily taken for the purpose of small holdings. If that were so, he thought they ought to be told quite clearly what powers, if any, existed for that purpose. He was very much afraid that his noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture would complain, as he had done in the case of several other Amendments, that he was too suspicious; but he did not mind confessing plainly that, though he was most heartily in favour, like most of the noble Lords, he believed, on that side of the House, of the principle of small holdings and allotments, still several of their Lordships had expressed in regard to previous clauses—and he certainly expressed with regard to this clause—some considerable suspicion, unless it was made perfectly plain what the meaning of the words he had read was that they were going to provide some kind of loophole by which the apparent restriction could be removed.
Amendment moved— In page 15, lines 24 and 25, to leave out the words be authorised by an order under this Act.'"—(Lord Barnard.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
As I understand the Amendment of the noble Lord, I think the question is whether the land proposed to be acquired is "part of any park, garden, pleasure ground, or other land required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling-house." That question must be raised, in the Bill as it stands, before, and not after, the Order is made. In most cases that is a question, I suppose, that most men of common sense could answer at once, but there might be a doubt, or a question, and as we have tried to make 991 the Bill as plain and as straightforward as we possibly can—though it is not a very easy thing to do—this must be settled before the Order is made. Therefore I hope that Lord Barnard will not press the Amendment.

§ * LORD BARNARD
regretted very much that he had not made himself understood. He had, perhaps, been stupid in not sufficiently explaining himself, but it appeared to him that if the words he proposed to omit were omitted the clause would then read, "no land shall be acquired compulsorily"; and he could not understand in what way the addition of the words he proposed to omit added to the value of the clause. He therefore desired to press his Amendment.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I think it only means that no land can be acquired except by an Order, and the way in which it is drafted is that no Order is to be authorised which acquires compulsorily any land. I do not see that it makes much difference. I am not aware of any subtlety lying hidden in this language, and I think the wording of the Bill does not mean any danger to anybody.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said there was a point arising on this which perhaps the noble and learned Lord would examine. He thought the Bill repealed the hiring section of the Allotments Act of 1854, but he was not sure that it repealed the purchase section, and, if those words were left in, he understood the point of his noble friend (Lord Barnard) was that the land might be acquired compulsorily under an Order made under some previous Act, and not under this Act. He believed His Majesty's Government desired that any land to be acquired compulsorily in future should be acquired under an Order under this Act. He hoped that point would be examined for the purpose of seeing that previous Acts did not apply.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
Perhaps I might be allowed to look into that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH
moved to omit the words "for the purposes of small holdings or allotments." This Amendment was somewhat similar to the previous one; it was merely to ensure that "any" land taken should be subject to the restriction of Clause 30. If there was no other land which could be acquired under this Act except land required for the purposes of small holdings and allotments, then, he contended, the words "for the purposes of small holdings or allotments" were unnecessary. If, on the other hand, there was any other land which could be acquired under the Act besides that required for the purposes of small holdings and allotments, then, he contended equally, it ought to come under the restriction of the clause.
Amendment moved— In page 15, lines 25 and 26, to leave out the words 'for the purposes of small holdings or allotments.'"—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I am very pleased to be able to agree to the noble Lord's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ * LORD HAVERSHAM
moved to substitute "home farm" for "pleasure-ground." He said that in doing so, he appealed not only to his noble friend's sense of justice, but also, as he thought, to his sense of consistency. He held in his hand a copy of the Evicted Tenants Bill, dealing with the same matter, and in Clause 6 of that Bill he found the words— No untenanted land shall be acquired compulsorily under this Act which is or forms part of any demesne, home farm, town park, garden, pleasure ground and so on. And again— The Estates Commissioners shall, in the case of untenanted land, avoid all interference with the demesne and amenity of residence of the owner of the land, or with any home farm or land immediately adjoining and customarily occupied with his residence. It was difficult to see, at first sight, why evicted tenants should be warned off the home farm, while the allotment holder was allowed to come on. Of course it was not necessary to waste time in pointing out to their Lordships, 993 who were so much better aware than any other assembly of how much a home farm added to the amenity of demesne, and how much it added to the convenience, by supplying a great many articles to the household. But there was one consideration which he did not think had been put forward, namely, that if this proposal was carried out, and his noble friend brought a lot of allotment holders on to the home farm, they would displace rather more labourers than they would put on. These labourers would be men whom the landlord had a special interest in looking after; many of them would be married men with cottages, and these men, who had a special claim to be looked after by Members of their Lordships' House, as being immediately round their residences, would be left out in the cold. He could not understand any object in putting allotment holders upon a home farm, because, in addition to the drawbacks to the owner himself, there was all the inconvenience to the labourers in being removed from where they had been brought up for, perhaps, generations. He sincerely hoped his noble friend would see his way to make the Bill consistent with the Evicted Tenants Act in that respect, and that he would accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved— In page 15, line 27, to leave out the words 'pleasure ground,' and to insert the words 'home farm.'"—(Lord Haversham.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
pointed oat that the noble Lard's speech was not quite in harmony with his Amendment on the Paper. He thought that very likely he did not mean what was on the Paper. His Amendment, as printed, was: "To leave out the words 'pleasure ground' and to insert the words 'home farm'" while in his speech he had given some very good reasons for leaving i a the words "pleasure ground." He mentioned the matter because he himself had an Amendment later to very much the same effect, and he apprehended that the noble Lord meant the same as he did.

§ LORD HAVERSHAM
said he did not mean to leave out "pleasure ground."

* VISCOUNT GALWAY
said he had an amendment that covered very much the same ground, and which it would not be necessary for him to move if Lord versham's Amendment was passed in such a way as properly to exempt the come farm.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I understand that my noble friend leaves out "pleasure ground"?

§ LORD HAVERSHAM
No, I keep "pleasure ground" in.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I am very pleased to hear that. The difficulty of this term "home farm"—indeed, the difficulty we have all through the Bill—is to know what on earth the English language means. Everybody in your Lordships' House knows what a "home farm" is. I happen to know what a "home farm" is, for I farmed 1,000 acres for several years, and lost £1,000 a year. This difficulty about the meaning of the words "home farm," leads us into a fresh difficulty. Of course, I am most anxious—as anxious as any noble Lord in your Lordships' House—not to do anything to interfere with the amenities and pleasures of country life; but then comes in the meaning of the words "home farm." Now, what does "home farm" mean? A "home farm" is supposed to be a certain farm attached to a mansion or dwelling-house in the country, which is a sort of playground of the owner, which he cultivates more or less—at least, I suppose some people do—at a profit. The other day, when the farm of Lord Ashtown was mentioned, and it was stated that his farm was—I am speaking under correction, from memory—6,000 or 7,000 acres in extent, Lord Inchiquin said, "Oh, that is nothing. My farm is 8,000 acres." And, of course, there comes in the difficulty of the English language. But if my noble friend would consent to the addition of the words "of any estate," so that it would read" the home farm of any estate," I am assured by those who are better judges than myself that people engaged in the law would' be able to define what a "home farm" is. If my noble friend will accept those 995 wards "home farm of any estate," I be very glad to accept the Amendment.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
said that the noble Earl was continually reminding them of the difficulties of the English language; but what about "home farm of any estate"? Did he call that the English language? To his mind the words did not convey any particular meaning. He knew that in the other House this Amendment was proposed, but it was objected to there on a different ground, namely, that it would be included in the words "or other land required for the amenity of a dwelling house." What was "the amenity of a dwelling house"? "Amenity" happened not to be English, but Scottish, and it was a very difficult thing indeed to say what exactly an "amenity" included and what it did not include. With regard to "home farm," he thought that was a very well understood expression, and it certainly was preferable to "home farm of any estate," because he did not know what "any estate" meant. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Earl would see his way to accept the Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said he could not quite understand why the noble Earl considered that "home farm" was susceptible of interpretation in Ireland but not in England. The words he thought were very easy to understand. He rather understood the noble Earl to suggest that a "home farm was a farm on which the unfortunate owner lost several hundreds a year. He hoped that was not the experience of their Lordships, and he could hardly believe that it had really been the experience of the President of the Board of Agriculture, who was himself so successful an agriculturist. He thought that the noble Earl, in making that remark, had merely been fulfilling his role as President of the Board of Agriculture by doing a little grumbling.

§ LORD BURGHCLERE
said that as had already been pointed out the words in question occurred in an Irish Bill. He admitted that the English language might have its difficulties, but he sup- 996 posed that, under those circumstances, the Evicted Tenants Bill was written in Irish, because it seemed to be accepted by the Government as defining what they meant by "home farm." He certainly would not have imagined that a "home farm" was a "pleasure ground," because he knew that some of his noble friends would be very willing if the home farm was left out if it were acquired by the local authority at a proper price. As the "home farm" was mentioned in the Evicted Tenants Bill, and as that definition was accepted by the Government draftsman in the Bill, he thought his noble friend might take it in this Bill also.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I must remind the House that these words are in the Scottish Land Bill. I hope noble Lords will permit these words to stand for the present, we will consider them later.

§ LORD HAVERSHAM
I have no objection.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
But I have a very considerable objection. If that is accepted by my noble friend, I will move to amend the Amendment by leaving out the words "of any estate."

THE EARL OF ONSLOW
I think the better course would be to leave the Amendment as it stands on the Paper, and then the noble Lord can afterwards move to add the words "of any estate."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD HAVERSHAM
I beg to move to add the words "of any estate" after "home farm."
Amendment moved— After the words 'home farm,' to insert the words 'of any estate.'"—(Lord Haversham.)
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Amendment moved— In page 15, line 27, after the word ground,' to insert the words or home farm,' and to leave out the words 'other land,' and to insert the word `is.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD HENEAGE
moved to insert after "dwelling house" the words" or is adjacent thereto." He said he did so in order to raise the specific point of what was the meaning of the words required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling house." They could all understand what was meant when it was a question of a house standing in the middle of a park, a pleasure ground, or even in the middle of a home farm, but there were a number of dwelling houses which were on the outside of a park on one side, although they might have the park all round it on the other three. That was the case more especially in Lincolnshire, where all the houses had been built within 100 or 200 yards of the high road. He wished to ask his noble friend whether these words would cover the case of a house about 100 or 200 yards from the high road, where, on the other side of the high road, there was a quantity of really good grass land which, whilst required to be kept as grass land for the amenities of the estate, was let to other tenants, and was not in the occupation of the owner himself. He was very doubtful whether land let to other tenants—good grass land—in order, perhaps, to improve their poor farms, and not kept in the hands of the owner, would come within the meaning of the clause as being an "amenity.' He proposed to add the words, 'or is adjacent thereto," because he did not want to extend the clause any more than was absolutely necessary. He had looked out several words to see which were best. In the Irish Acts the words were "or immediately adjoining," but he thought the form he had adopted was better. In the dictionary the words "adjacent thereto" were defined as "closely contiguous, but not exactly touching." Felds adjacent to a load exactly fitted that, and it was such fields within, say, 200 or 300 yards of the high road, that he wished to include in the amenity of the place. It was entirely a question of law whether the clause included such fields or not, and he would therefore ask the noble Ear in charge of the Bill, or the Lord Chancellor, to tell him whether, according to his construction, the words as they stood covered that, or if not, whether the Government would either accept his 998 words, or propose some other words to carry out their object.
Amendment moved— In page 15, line 28, after the word 'dwelling house,' to insert the words or is adjacent thereto.'"—(Lord Heneage.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I have high authority for stating that all the amenities of an estate would be protected under the Bill as it stands. One quite sees that in such country houses as those described by the noble Lord, of which there are many in Lincolnshire, where, as the noble Lord said, the road runs just in front of the house, and probably the road would run one side of the lawn-tennis ground, which is exactly in front of the house, and then at the other side of the road, which is protected by iron hurdles, is a park or park-like grass land with fine trees, it naturally would be impossible to contend that that was not one of the amenities of the place. I do not think there would be any difficulty at all about that. But then, on the other hand, it might be that with regard to land adjacent to a house it might be useful, and would really cause no annoyance or harm at all. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will accept my assurance—which is not mine only, but is backed by a very good opinion—that the amenities of a landowner, which we all wish to preserve, are entirely protected under the Bill, and that he will not insist on these words being added, which might cause some difficulty and complication.

§ LORD HENEAGE
said that after the assurance of the noble Lord that the case he had mentioned was included in the clause as it now stood, he would not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
moved to insert after the word "dwelling house" the words "or is woodland." He said it was obvious that "woodland" was not fit ground for small holdings, and this was a provision which was inserted, not infrequently, in Bills. 999 Amendment moved— In page 15, line 28, after the words 'dwelling house,' to insert the words ' or is woodland.'"— (The Earl of Camperdown.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I do not think that any county council would schedule any small copse or plantation with ornamental timber, as such plantations would naturally come under the amenities of the place, and in fact might be the great ornament of the property, the taking off, of which would naturally very materially diminish the value of the property itself. I think also that these plantations must and would come under the amenities of the place exactly in the same way as in the case of the Amendment of my noble friend (Lord Heneage) which we have just discussed. Still less is it likely that a county council would be anxious to acquire woodland. The land would have to be cleared, and that is a very expensive operation, and a county council naturally would not wish to buy any large tract of woodland. But I think I ought to point out to the noble Lord that the Amendment as it stands would make it impossible to acquire any piece of land with any bunch or lump of trees upon it, however small, and I do not think the noble Lord wishes that. I hope he will consider that the amenities —the proper amenities—of a landlord would be properly preserved under the Bill as it stands, and that he will consider it unnecessary to insert these words.

§ * LORD BARNARD
hoped the noble Lord would press his Amendment. He had taken a great interest in the subject of forestry, and in everything that was being done at the present time to promote it, and he thought that anything which tended towards the increase of woodlands in this country ought to be protected by every possible means. He would like to draw the attention of the House to another fact. The noble Lord evidently had in his mind woodland which formed part of the amenities, but his noble friend Lord Camperdown proposed to put in the words "or is woodland," after the "amenities" were finished with altogether, so that they would apply to woodlands generally 1000 all over the country. He hoped the Amendment would be persevered with.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
As a practical matter, I may point this out. You might require to take a farm of, say, 500 acres, and there might be various woods in it amounting to four or five acres, or ten or twenty acres. Surely it will not be contended that the whole farm should not be taken, and that the owner should have left upon his hands a small wood of four or five acres isolated in the middle of his farm.

§ LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH
asked whether the noble and learned Lord would say how such woodland could be utilised for the purposes of allotments.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I do not say that it should be utilised for the purposes of allotments, but I say that you might, in taking a farm of 500 acres, very legitimately be expected to take four or five acres of woodland in the middle, in fairness to the landlord.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
thought there was great force in the appeal made by his noble friend Lord Barnard. Surely it was a matter of great public interest that owners of land in all parts of the country should be encouraged to plant, and if there was a possibility that a county council, or the Board of Agriculture, might come down and take plantations which had been planted at a very great expense, what landlord in his senses would ever plant any more? That really was a public matter which he thought His Majesty's Government ought to consider. The objection of the noble and learned Lord would be perfectly met if "woodland exceeding five acres,' or something of that sort, was put in.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ EARL FORTESCUE
moved to except from the operation of the clause as amended woodlands exceeding 10 acres. The point raised by the Lord Chancellor was not a fanciful one, as he could say from his own knowledge of the West country, and he thought it would cause great inconvenience if the 1001 public authority, in acquiring a farm, were obliged to leave out a few acres of wood right in the middle of it. He begged to move.
Amendment moved— In page 15, after the words last inserted to insert the words exceeding ten acres.'"—(Earl Fortescue.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The 10 acres would be better than nothing. The Amendment having been carried, it would be better to have 10 acres than to have no limit. But of course the Government will have to consider what view they will ultimately take with regard to this Amendment.

§ LORD BELPER
pointed out that there would be no real difficulty in the case of a small piece of woodland in the middle of a large estate which had been taken compulsorily, because, although there was power to take it compulsorily, if the county council wanted to buy it and the landlord wanted to sell it, he could sell it voluntarily.

§ LORD REDESDALE
said that small woodlands of the kind under discussion were often of exceeding value as a protection to crops from wind, and he thought it better to leave the Amendment of Lord Camperdown as it had been passed, without addition. Supposing a county council took a piece of land with a small, narrow copse which might be hardly 5 acres, it might be of the greatest possible value in protecting the farm on the other side of those 5 acres; and very great hardship might be inflicted on the farmer occupying the land on the other side if that copse was done away with. He hoped their Lordships would let the Amendment of Lord Camperdown stand as it was without the addition proposed.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
My Lords, with the leave of the Committee, I should like to say one word. It seems to me that really we are endeavouring to legislate in a hurry, and I would venture to make an appeal to the noble Lord as to whether it would not be better to wait until the Report Stage of the Bill to decide what form his Amend- 1002 ment should take. Is it really right to take 10 acres, 5 acres, or some other size? I think the matter ought not to be decided in a hurry, and I venture to suggest that the noble Lord should withdraw his Amendment, and consider what should be the proper form of words before the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH
moved to omit the words "so far as practicable" from the provision, in Subsection (2), that the Council on the Board of Agriculture should avoid taking an undue or inconvenient quantity of land from any one owner or tenant. He said he did not quite understand what the words "so far as practicable" were really intended to mean. The clause read— The Council, in making, and the Board, in confirming, an Order for the compulsory aquisition or land shall have regard to" (certain things) "and shall, so far as practicable, avoid taking an undue or inconvenient quantity of land from any one owner or tenant, or displacing any considerable number of agricultural labourers, and so on. He wished to ask, first, under what conditions they might be allowed to take an "undue" quantity of land, or an "inconvenient" quantity, or to displace "any considerable number of agricultural labourers." What was the qualification that those words brought with them? Perhaps his noble friend Lord Beauchamp might think it would be quite sufficient to discover that these words were used in other Bills. It was possible that they were, but he would like to ask what qualification it was intended that they should carry, especially as the noble Earl (Earl Carrington) in his next Amendment, repeated the phrase— So far as practicable avoid displacing any considerable number of agricultural labourers or others employed on or about the land.
Amendment moved— In page 15, lines 36 and 37, to leave out the words so far as practicable.'"—(The Earl of Plymouth.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I will do my best to explain it. I think it is pretty clear. Subsection (2) was inserted to prevent a county council acquiring any 1003 land which was required for the convenience of a country dwelling house, which might easily give rise to a very heavy claim for severance, and would make the transaction very costly, and a losing concern all round. We therefore put in the words "so far as practicable." The Board would be bound to consider all the objections made by an owner or tenant before confirming an Order, and if the words "so far as practicable" are left out, the county council might choose to take land which was necessary for the convenience of a dwelling house, which we should very much regret, and which we want to prevent as far as possible. That is the reason why these words are put in, and also to prevent any very heavy claim for severance, which of course would be a necessary corollary to doing such an unfair thing, and which would naturally make the transaction a losing one. I hope I have made the case clear, and have shown that these words are put in really for the protection of the public and of the landowner himself.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
in moving to insert the words "and shall also, so far as practicable, avoid displacing any considerable number of agricultural labourers or others employed on or about the land," said: This is a purely drafting Amendment, the object being to transpose certain words in the middle of the clause. An Amendment was moved in another place which, sandwiched in those words in the middle of the clause, made it read very badly. Therefore, I ask leave instead of having those words in the middle of the clause to put them at the end of Subsection 2 after the words "land available for occupation therewith," on page 16.
Amendment moved— In page 16, line 3, after the word 'therewith,' to insert the words and shall also, so far as practicable, avoid displacing any considerable number of agricultural labourers or others employed on or about the land.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
moved to amend Subsection 3 of the clause which provides that "no holding of 50 acres 1004 or less in extent shall be authorised by an order under this Act to be acquired compulsorily for the purposes of small holdings or allotments," so as to make it read "No holding which either does not exceed fifty acres, or, if exceeding fifty acres is of an annual value for the purposes of income-tax not exceeding £50, nor any part of such holding, shall be authorised by an order under this Act to be acquired compulsorily for the purposes of small holdings or allotments." He said that the object was, of course, that there should not be compulsory acquisition of one small holding in order to make another, but the words were not consistent as they stood with the definition of "small holding" in the Act, which ran as follows— An agricultural holding which exceeds one acre and either does not exceed fifty acres, or, if exceeding fifty acres is at the date of sale or letting of an annual value for the purpose of income-tax not exceeding £50. He thought the Bill ought to be consistent with itself, and the description of small holding in the third subsection of this clause ought to be the same in the interpretation clause. He therefore begged to move the Amendment in his name.
Amendment moved— In page 16, line 4, to leave out the words of fifty acres or less in extent,' and to insert the words 'which either does not exceed fifty acres, or, if exceeding fifty acres, is of an annual value for the purposes of income-tax not exceeding £50, nor any part of such holding.'" —(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
The subsection itself was a concession to Mr. Hicks Beach in another place. It was his wish that this subsection as it now stands in the Bill should be put in in Committee; it is a distinct improvement, and I think was considered so all round. I am speaking from memory, but I think it was accepted without a division. But the words which the noble Viscount wishes to put in, I submit with all respect, go a great deal further, because the noble Viscount wishes that any farm whose annual value for income-tax purposes is £50 or under shall be exempt.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said he took the definition of "small holding" from the Bill.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I must remind the House that there are some very poor farms in Essex and elsewhere which are very lowly rented, and after all, the annual value for income-tax is about two-thirds of the rent, so that a farm of 150 acres at a very low rent. would at once be barred from the scope of the Act, and I do not think that would be a very desirable thing to do. I hope the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said that if a farm were of such small value as the noble Earl suggested, it was of that value owing to the poverty of the land, and it was no good to take from somebody else land such as that to constitute small holdings, unless it was taken of the same size as now. That was the definition of "small holding" by His Majesty's Government, and it seemed reasonable to expect that the Bill should be consistent with itself.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I think there is some misunderstanding—perhaps on my part—but under the Amendment of the noble Viscount it would be possible to take land under one acre.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
Oh, no.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Yes—that is this way it reads— No holding which exceeds one acre and either does not exceed fifty acres, or if exceeding fifty acres.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
Those are not my words as they are printed in the Paper.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I see. The Amendment has been slightly altered.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I cannot agree to that Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ EARL CARRINGTON ,
who had an Amendment, on page 16, line 4, after the word "extent" to insert the words "nor any part of such holding," said it was unnecessary now for him to move it.

§ * LORD BARNARD ,
who had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the words "be authorised by an Order under this Act to," so that Subsection (3) would read "No holding of fifty acres or less in extent shall be acquired compulsorily for the purpose of small holdings or allotments," said that if the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would give the same assurance as he had done in regard to his previous Amendment, it would not be necessary for him to move the Amendment.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
Certainly.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31:—

§ LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH ,
in moving to insert the words "subject to the restrictions by this Act imposed," said the Amendment was one which might be rendered unnecessary by the alterations made in Clause 30. The only object was to make the restrictions imposed by the Bill upon the compulsory taking of land apply also to land taken under Clause 31. He thought the best way would be for him to move the Amendment, and, if the alterations which were to be made in Clause 30 appeared to render it unnecessary, he would then move that it be omitted again.
Amendment moved— In page 16, line 8, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words subject to the restrictions by this Act imposed.'"—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
submitted that his noble friend's Amendment would be necessary under any circumstances, because as Clause 31 stood it provided that— The powers of a council to acquire land for small holdings or allotments shall include power to acquire land, and so on. That was to say, that under the clause as it stood, the council might acquire any land. The Amendment of the noble Lord limited that by saying "subject to the restrictions by this Act imposed," and the "restrictions by this Act imposed" were contained in Clause 1007 30, which exempted "any park, garden, pleasure-ground," and so on. If the Amendment of the noble Lord were not inserted, then it would be quite possible to take a piece of a park or any of the other things which had been specially forbidden to be taken, and therefore he hoped his noble friend would insist upon his Amendment.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I am very glad to be able to say that I accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33:—

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH ,
in moving to include as land which might be resumed under the Act, "land required for the making of roads, reservoirs, railways, or other similar works necessary for the improvement and development of the estate," said that he very much hoped the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would be able to accept this Amendment. He did not think it could be the intention of the Government not to include in this clause certain works which might be required for the improvement and development of an estate. It did not really matter in whose hands the estate was, whether it was in the hands of the landlord, as at the present moment, or whether it passed into other hands —into the hands possibly of a public authority. It seemed to him desirable that certain works, such as roads, reservoirs, connected with water supply, railways, or other similar works necessary for the improvement and development of an estate, should be included, and that words covering works of that description should be inserted in addition to those which existed in the clause as it now stood—that the landlord should be able to resume possession if it was shown to the satisfaction of the board that the land required was land to be used for building, mining, or other industrial purposes. This was only a very small addition to what he conceived to be the intention of the clause, and it provided for certain other things which were 1008 necessary for the improvement and development of an estate. He had put in the words "roads, reservoirs, railways, or other similar works," to show that it was intended to refer to works of that kind; and that it was not to be considered that "the improvement and development of an estate" carried with it merely the amenities or other considerations of that kind—for instance, that severance would be against the improvement of the estate. He did not wish to include that the least in the world, but only such works as roads railways, etc., which were necessary for the development and improvement of the estate.
Amendment moved— In page 16, line 36, after the word 'purposes,' to insert the words 'or for the making of roads, reservoirs, railways, or other similar works necessary for the improvement and development of the estate.'"—(The Earl of Plymouth.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
The noble Earl says this is a very small addition, but I am informed—and I am afraid, too—that if these words are agreed to they will render the tenure of the county council still more insecure and may materially increase the cost of providing the holdings. The powers of resumption, as the noble Earl correctly said, are limited to building, mining, and other industrial purposes, but the purposes that the noble Earl suggests should also be added, are of such a character as cannot be taken into account in fixing the rent to be paid under Part II. of the Scheme, so that I am afraid, as far as the Government is concerned, we cannot possibly agree to the noble Earl's Amendment, though I am very sorry for it.

* VISCOUNT GALWAY
wished to remind the noble Lord that it was necessary to obtain the approval of the Board of Agriculture, and if the Board of Agriculture were satisfied that not only the estate, but the whole district, was improved by reason of the waterworks, railways, or making of roads, he would have thought the Board would have had sufficient control over it to allow the noble Earl to put the Amendment in.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
asked whether the noble Earl would accept the Amendment with the omission of "other similar works," which was a rather vague phrase. He thought the noble Earl who had moved the Amendment had already named the most important works.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I am afraid I must resist the Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
Does the noble Earl move the whole Amendment?

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH
Yes.

§ * VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
moved the insertion of a proviso that where land had been hired compulsorily by the Commissioners acting in default of a county council, any difference arising between the Board and the landlord as to the right of the landlord to resume be possession under this section should determined by arbitration. He said that the Amendment carried out a principle which was already accepted in the Bill—that when the Board was a party to the case the Lord Chief Justice and not the Board should appoint the arbitrator or valuer. If His Majesty's Government could suggest any other mode of determining the matter in the event of the Board differing from the landlord as to his right of resumption of his property, under such circumstances he would be quite willing to accept that; but surely in so important a point as the consideration of the right of the landlord to resume for the purposes named—the decision should not be left solely with the Board as to whether the landlord had the right to require such resumption. He merely wanted some tribunal or other to settle the matter as between the parties to the case. He begged to move.
Amendment moved— In page 17, line 13, after the word 'Board,' to insert the words Provided that where lam has been hired compulsorily by the Commissioners acting in default of a county council, any difference arising between the Board and the 1010 landlord as to the right of the landlord to resume possession under this section shall be determined by arbitration.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I am not sure whether I quite appreciate the point, and I am not quite sure whether I am accurate in my view of what the clause does. Therefore, I hope the noble Viscount will be indulgent to me if I am wrong, but, as I understand, here the landlord has the right in law to resume possession.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
At his own will?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
At his own will. Surely it is so. May I read the clause to the noble Viscount and see— When land has been hired by a council compulsorily under this Act or the Allotments Acts, and the land or any part thereof at any time during the tenancy thereof by the council is shown to the satisfaction of the Board to be required by the landlord to be used for building, mining, or other industrial purposes, it shall be lawful for the landlord to resume possession of the land and so on. It is the case undoubtedly, when you look at that, that the Board has to be satisfied that it is required.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
Yes, but has the Board to be satisfied merely that the landlord requires it, or that it ought to be required?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I think it is quite open to the interpretation that it means that it is needed—really needed—and if that is so, the noble Viscount would be right in his view that the Board decides the question. I think there is certainly ground for saying, if you look at the wording of the clause; that it is open to that construction. If that is the case all I have to say is that it must be remembered that the Board is not itself interested in it—it is the council which is interested, and the Board is acting as an arbitrator in every real sense of the word, because the council which has hired the land on the one side, and the landlord on the other side, dispute as to whether the land is required for one of the purposes specified. The Board has to decide between them, and the Board is really acting as arbitrator in.;a, matter in which it is not interested.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said that with all deference to the noble and learned Lord that was a principle which His Majesty's Government had already felt to be untenable. Why otherwise had they allowed the Lord Chief Justice to appoint an arbitrator or valuer in cases where the Board was on the one side acting in default of the county council?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
It is quite true that the Lord Chief Justice does appoint a valuer where the Board itself is interested. That, in substance, is the effect of the Bill. As I understand, the noble Viscount wishes that where the Board is itself interested it shall not be the judge as to whether the land is really required. That seems to be the substance of it. Will the noble Viscount allow us to consider that between now and the Report stage, and see what can be done?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ * LORD HYLTON
did not know whether it had been considered at all, but there was one point at any rate which had not yet been moved by any noble Lord, but which he considered might have a very grave and serious importance. Taking the case of land which had a prospective building value, and was within a comparatively short distance of any large town, at present, until that prospective value became real it would be let for agricultural purposes, and all agreements to let any such land at present had what was called a resumption clause, giving, as a rule, power to the landlord to resume within three months for purposes other than agricultural, he paying to the tenant, proper compensation under existing Acts. He wanted the noble Earl to be good enough to consider, between then and the next stage of the Bill, whether he could not see his way to reducing the term of twelve months named in the clause to a much shorter period where the landowner found that a general demand for building had sprung up and he was willing to pay his tenants the same compensation as he would have paid under existing Acts. Why should the landowner be put in a 1012 worse position with regard to prospective building land after the passage of the Bill than at the present moment? At present he was able to resume land for other than agricultural purposes in three months' time, but under this Bill he would be unable to do so within a maximum of two years and a minimum of one year. He would also like to ask the noble Earl if he would consider whether the words "shown to the satisfaction of the Board," in line 4 of the clause, might not also give the landowner considerable difficulty in dealing with the prospective value of his land. Their Lordships must be well aware that if builders found they were hampered and there was a difficulty in getting land from one owner, they very often left him and went to the next. He hoped the noble Earl would carefully consider this matter, for he thought that if the clause was passed in its present form it was really one which would very considerably injure owners of prospective building estates all over the country.

LORD FITZMAURICE
understood that the noble Lord's Amendment was not upon the Paper.

§ * LORD HYLTON
said he had not been able to put an Amendment on the Paper. He only asked the noble Earl if he would be good enough to consider by the next stage whether some arrangement of this sort could be come to—otherwise he would put an Amendment upon the Paper.

LORD FITZMAURICE
said shat if he was able to follow twhat had fallen from his noble friend it substantially covered the same points as were covered in the reply of the Lord Chancellor to another noble Lord. It seemed to him it was a little difficult to follow further suggestions which were not placed on the Paper, but if the noble Lord would communicate with his noble friend who was in charge of the Bill, and if it was found that the point came within the same rule as that which the Lord Chancellor had laid down, every attempt would be made to deal with the point.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to. 1013 Clause 34:—

§ * LORD HAVERSHAM ,
in moving to substitute the word "on" for the word "and," said he had only put this Amendment down in order to ascertain from his noble friend what was intended in the case of a labourer turned out of his employment and for whom no employment could be found in the same locality. Was it intended that the county council should pay him compensation for his loss of employment and also pay his expenses of moving to another locality where he would be able to obtain employment? If it was intended to do both, that would meet the whole justice of the case, but he thought it would be very unfair to give such labourer only the first named form of compensation and to cut him off from receiving his expenses of removal.
Amendment moved— In page 17, line 10, to leave out the word 'or,' and to insert the word 'and.'"—(Lord Haversham.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I am very happy to be able to inform my noble friend that we wish in every way to deal as liberally as possible with the labourer, but the details must of course be left to the discretion of the authority. I must ask my noble friend not to press his Amendment, because the result of putting in the words proposed would be that the labourer would not be able to get any compensation unless he removed from the village. Our object is to allow the county council to pay compensation either for loss of employment or for the expenses of removal from the land, or, if there was a very hard case, we should very likely see our way to help him in both ways.

§ * LORD HAVERSHAM
said that as he was satisfied that the noble Lord intended both considerations to be taken into account he would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35:—

THE EARL OF POWIS
moved to amend the second paragraph of Subsection (2) 1014 so that it would read: "Provided that, in the case of land hired compulsorily, the amount of the compensation payable to the council for those improvements shall be such sum as fairly represents the increase (if any) in the value to the landlord and his successors in title as he or they may then require to use the land and which is due to those improvements." He said there were two Amendments, one following the other, standing in his name. The first was merely a drafting Amendment consequent on the second, the point of which was to leave out the words, "of the holding," and to insert, "as he or they may then require to use land and which is "—and then the clause would go on—"due to those improvements." He felt sure that His Majesty's Government only wished to treat everybody fairly in this matter of compensation, but as he read the clause, it seemed to him that the county council were to get compensation, and the small holder was to get compensation, but the one person with regard to whom it seemed rather doubtful whether he would get real compensation was the landlord. It seemed to him that under the clause as it stood the landlord might be called upon to pay in thirty-five or seventy years' time for something which was of absolutely no value to him when he got it. He thought if their Lordships would consider for a few minutes they would agree that there were many places which had grown up within their recollection in thirty-five years which would have rendered a small holding absolutely useless, and if at the end of thirty-five years the landlord was to be called upon to take over buildings, which might be very nice and excellent buildings as far as the small holding was concerned, but which were absolutely useless to him in the state of the surrounding country, then it would indeed be hard upon him, and he felt sure that if His Majesty's Government realised the point which he hoped he might be able to make clear to them, they would be willing to accept the Amendment standing in his name. He would give one or two instances of what he meant. There were many places to which his contention would apply in the north of England in the coal-mining districts, or in Cheshire, 1015 where they extracted brine from the land, or even, to take another case, in places where a large town had sprung up on land what was formerly an open bit of country suitable for small holdings. In the case of a mineral country, the subsoil might have sunk all away, and it might be practically dangerous to go on the land, and although the buildings might still be standing there, all the surrounding country might be falling away. He remembered once, when he had had the pleasure of hunting with a gentleman's hounds in the north of England, after a long run he stopped, and the whip immediately called out to him: "For goodness sake do not stop there, my Lord, you will go through." Under those circumstances he did not think that buildings on a small holding would be of much use to one if one might "go through." And the same sort of thing occurred also in the brine districts of Cheshire. Then in a large populous area which had sprung up, they often saw a whole country perfectly waste round some of those mining towns, and they could not possibly grow anything upon it, and though the buildings in themselves might be perfectly good, provided they were going to be turned into small holdings, they might be perfectly useless to the landowner to whom the and was handed over. Again, if they wanted to develop a building estate, a small holding with pigsties might be very detrimental to the adjoining estate—the fact of pigsties having been on the place during the last twenty years might prevent a man from developing his estate, and the fact of small holdings having been on the estate might mean a deterioration of all the surrounding property, With regard to that point, he would venture to mention what Mr. Harcourt had said in Grand Committee that— The landlord was only to pay for those improvements if they were of value to him as a landlord. That was all he asked—that landlords should not be asked to pay for anything that was not of value to them as landlords. The right hon. Gentleman went on further to say— Of course, they were acting under compulsion, and it would, therefore, be impossible to obtain the consent, and they had to assume the 1016 consent by Statute, but they did not proceed to charge the landlord with improvements which were not of value to him as a landlord. That was exactly his point, and he hoped that His Majesty's Government might be able to concede it. He might put one other point to noble Lords opposite. In the case of a very small landlord—a man who perhaps had only one set of farms—if he was asked to pay for buildings on a small holding, the cost of which perhaps would be £600, and which would be of absolutely no value to him, it might mean ruin. He begged. to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
Amendment moved— In page 18, line 5, to leave out the words 'of the holding,' and to insert the words 'as he of they may then require to use the land and which is.'"—(The Earl of Powis.)

LORD FITZMAURICE
did not think there was really any difference of opinion between his noble friend who had moved the Amendment and the Government, because the language of the Bill as it stood quite sufficiently, he thought, covered the point. The point had been very clearly stated by his noble friend, who had stated that he wished, when there had been a case of this kind of resumption, that the landlord should not, as it were, be charged with the cost of what might be called a "white elephant." He thought if his noble friend would look at the words he would see that what was there named was not the expenditure which might have taken place, but the " value of the holding to the landlord and his successors in title." If he correctly understood those words, and they seemed to him tolerably clear, no advantage would be gained to his noble friend by the Amendment which he had moved. But in addition to that he must say that from the mere point of view of drafting he could not think that his noble friend's words were very fortunate even in carrying out his own meaning, because the clause would then read— Provided that in case of land hired compulsorily the amount of the compensation payable to the council for those improvements shall be such sum as fairly represents the increase (if any) in the value to the landlord and his successors in title as he or they may then require to 1017 use the land and which is due to those improvements. That was not very clear; on the contrary, it seemed to him to make the meaning of the clause more doubtful.

THE EARL OF POWIS
did not think the noble Lord quite grasped his point. Reading the paragraph as it stood, it said— The value to the landlord and his successors in title of the holding due to those improvements. He would point out that they might be improvements in the holding, if it was a small holding, but if it was no longer a small holding they might be no improvements at all.

LORD FITZMAURICE
said it was a question of legal interpretation, and he would much prefer that the House, if it was desirous of doing so, should hear his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who would speak with much greater authority than himself. But his view was that the words of the clause would cover the point raised by his noble friend. He had stated exceedingly clearly that he did not wish the landlord to be charged with the cost of a "white elephant." The tenant spent money on certain improvements, and when the tenant handed over the holding to the landlord, the latter found that those improvements were of no use. The words were: "to the landlord and his successors in title." Those were vital words; and his learned friend had said that he would leave out those words.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said the noble Lord had rather invited the House to hear the opinion of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, and he thought it would be satisfactory to his noble friend who had moved the Amendment if the noble and learned Lord would give the House his opinion.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I will do so with pleasure. I think "the value to the landlord and his successors in tit'e of the holding due to those improvements " means, not the value of the improvements, but the value to him, and I think they are the most 1018 apt words to express the very distinction which the noble Lord wishes to draw.

THE EARL OF POWIS
said that after what the noble Lord (Lord Fitzmaurice) and the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) had said, he was quite satisfied to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said that he had already tried to improve the drafting of the Bill; and he now begged to move, to leave out Subsection 4, which was already covered by the preceding clause.
Amendment moved— To leave out Sub-section 4."—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I am in the hands of the noble Viscount, but I do not agree with him.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said he would prove it. "Subsection (5) of Section 7 in the Allotments Act, 1887, is hereby repealed." If the noble Lord would look at the Schedule——

LORD FITZMAURICE
Yes, that is SO.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
After Clause 35:—

VISCOUNT DOWNE
moved the insertion of the following new clause: "Whereland has been hired by a council for small holdings or allotments, the council shall give reasonable consideration to objections stated by the landlord to any applicant, and, so far as may be, shall give a preference to applicants preferred by the landlord."He hoped their Lordships would attach some importance to the new clause which he proposed to insert. He could not claim any originality for it, because he had borrowed it from the Scottish Bill; and he trusted, therefore, it would receive tender treatment from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. When he first 1019 received the Bill he looked carefully through it, first from beginning to end, and then from the end to the beginning. He found in it a great deal about county councils, parish councils, valuers and landlords, but nothing about the tenants of these holdings, Yet surely those tenants were a rather important part of the Bill. He fancied that the noble Earl would say that the landlords had nothing whatever to do with the future tenants—that all they had to think of were the county councils who were to take their land from them. But, if the Bill was to be a success, it would require the co-operation of everybody, and in that co-operation surely the poor landlord must take some part. It seemed to him there were certain objectionable classes of people who might be dumped down upon the landlords, and who would do nothing to help the locality in which they were placed. He would give their Lordships two instances. He knew of a case of a man who got two children out of his own daughter. The landlord knew nothing about the first child, but when it came to the second, and he heard of it, he thought it time to interfere. Their Lordships would admit that that man was a very undesirable neighbour, and it was perfectly possible that from spiteful motives he would wish to be reinstated on the very property from which he had been evicted. He did not think noble Lords would say that such a man would be an acquisition to any locality. He would give another instance. He knew of a case of a labourer who liked to work only when he chose, and to do nothing when he chose. He got an old truck moved into the middle of a farm. The farmer did not mind employing him, for he was a very good workman, and the farmer employed him because he was able to get the man's services for very much less money than the ordinary run of labourers. The man lived there with an old woman, who was not his wife, or even his deceased wife's sister; and those two used to collect all the riff-raff of the country, and to carry on their orgies on Saturday night and Sunday night. Surely such a person as that would not be a great acquisition to any locality. He could go on multiplying instances, but he thought that he had said enough 1020 to persuade the noble Earl that there were certain men who would be decided nuisances. He quite accepted what the noble Lord had said, that somebody must suffer for the good of the community, and in this Bill no doubt it was the landlord who took that part. But all must co-operate if the Bill was to be a success; and though part of his land would be taken from him, still the landlord would remain rather an important factor in his district. Surely these new tenants would have a greater chance of success if they were on good terms with the landlord, instead of on bad terms. He trusted the noble Earl would see his way to accept the proposed new clause.
Amendment moved— After Clause 35, to insert the following new clause: 'Where land has been hired by a council for small holdings or allotments the council shall give reasonable consideration to objections stated by the landlord to any applicant, and so far as may be, shall give a preference to applicants preferred by the landlord.'"— (Viscount Downe.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
This is another case of the Scottish Bill. I must say that I have listened to the noble Viscount's speech with some sort Of wonder, because I cannot conceive any county council in its senses, with even the most spiteful motive ever placing on the ground such very objectionable people as the noble Viscount has mentioned. I think I can reassure him upon that point. I do not think there will be the smallest fear that any county council will ever put such people on anybody's property. The noble Viscount has stated that the words were taken from the Scottish Bill. That is perfectly true, but then the circumstances there were entirely different. In Scotland, where the land was taken compulsorily, the tenant pays his rent to the landlord direct; the landlord is the man who will receive the rent from these people who are proposed to be put on his property; and, therefore, naturally it is perfectly right that he should have the right to object to anybody that he does not conceive to be either a solvent or a desirable person to put on the holding. But here in England I must point out 1021 that the case is entirely different. Practically the county council is the tenant of the landlord, and responsible for the rent; and the county council being responsible for the rent, surely they ought not to be interfered with in any way by the landlord as to whom they think right to put, or not to put, on the land. The landlord is absolutely secured in regard to his rent, and after all, county councils are human beings, and have a certain sense of right and wrong. The landlord has a perfectly solvent tenant in the county council, and I think the county council, in all fairness, must be allowed a free hand as to the tenants they may think it right to take. I hope the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said the noble Earl seemed to be imbued with the idea that a landlord cared nothing about his land so long as he got his rent from it. That was a view he could not share, and he did not believe that the noble Earl, as a landlord himself, really thought that. But he quite admitted that the noble Earl had some ground for objecting to this proposal. He (Viscount St. Aldwyn) did not think that a landlord whose land was compulsorily hired—perhaps for a century together—by the county council, ought to be responsible for the tenants whom the county council placed there. The county council must be responsible. And, although his noble friend's Amendment would enable a landlord to have his say in the choice of the tenants, it would have no effect whatever on their continuance in the holdings, whatever their conduct might be. So that he really did not think the Amendment would effect the end his noble friend had in view, and he thought it would impose upon the landlord a responsibility which he ought not to have to bear.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36:—

§ EARL CARRINGTON
moved the insertion of the following subsection: "Where any receipts or payments of money under this Act are entrusted by the county council to the small 1022 holdings and allotments committee, or any sub-committee thereof, the accounts of those receipts and payments shall be accounts of the county council, and made up and audited accordingly." He said. that the Amendment was introduced in deference to the wishes of the Local Government Board. It was a question of audit only, and the Local Government Board wanted to have it made clear that the small holdings accounts were subject to Government audit. He thought it was a good Amendment, and hoped it would be accepted.
Amendment moved— In page 19, line 3, after the word 'Acts,' to insert the following new sub-section: '(3) Where any receipts or payments money under this Act are entrusted by the county council to the small holdings and allotments committee, or any subcommittee thereof, the accounts of those receipts and payments shall be accounts of the county council, and made up and audited accordingly.'" —(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 37 and 38 agreed to.
Clause 39:—

LORD KENYON
moved an Amendment providing that the co-operative societies which the county council might promote or assist should be those whose "principal" object was the profitable working of small holdings or allotments. He said that this was rather a corollary to the Amendment which he had moved a little while previously. Clause 39 provided that these associations and co-operative societies should have for their objects, or one of their objects, the provision and profitable working of small holdings and allotments. He thought that should be their principal object, and therefore he moved the words standing in his name. It was quite possible that an association or co-operative society might fail in some of the other undertakings with which they were connected, and in such failure they might cause the failure of the particular branch which dealt with allotments and small holdings, with the result that the county council and the ratepayers would suffer. He thought it was 1023 only fair and right that their principal objects should be the objects connected with this Bill. Their Lordships were probably aware that there were various associations and societies, such as those at Letchworth and Ealing, where there were other undertakings. He thought at Letchworth there was a printing undertaking connected with the association. He would be very sorry if anything he were to put in prevented these associations from undertaking subordinate operations, and, therefore, he had put in the word "principal."
Amendment moved— In page 19, line 24, after the word 'their,' to insert the word 'principal.'" —(Lord Kenyon.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I quite understand the wish of the noble Lord in the matter, but is it not rather a difficult thing to define what is the "principal" object? We have in these clause, taken up the idea of the recommendation of the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman, and it must be remembered that some co-operative societies have other objects besides small holdings, and we do not want to deprive ourselves of the powers of assisting those societies. There are safeguards, as the noble Lord knows, in Subsection (2), whereby the Local Government Board may prescribe conditions as to audit, and whereby they have a right to inspect books, or to make any other provisions that they may think necessary. I hope the noble Lord will not think it necessary to press the insertion of the word "principal."

§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS
said he had been asked to call their Lordships' attention to this clause, but not in the sense in which it had been dealt with by Lord Kenyon, who wished the operation of the clause to be limited to those associations having small holdings. He (the Earl of Wemyss) took exception to the whole clause—to the principle of it. That principle was an absolutely novel one—that a co-operative society, no matter for what object, was to he supplemented by public funds, whether from the rates or not. The small traders objected very strongly to this, and he heartily agreed with those who had written to him on the subject. There 1024 were the Launceston District, Peterborough, the Manchester, Salford, and District Association, and the Central Agency of Traders' Defence Associations, all of whom objected very strongly, and he thought rightly, to public money being spent to help these co-operative societies who were competing against private traders. He thought the principle was absolutely wrong, and if anybody would give him any support, he would move the rejection of the clause altogether. All its provisions were in the same category — they were operating against the private trader with the assistance of public money. It was all very well to laugh, but public money was to be given for the first time to corporate bodies to help them to compete with individuals engaged in trade. He thought the thing was absolutely wrong and immoral, and ought to be rejected. He would move the rejection of the clause.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
I would point out to the noble Earl that the proper time to move the rejection of the clause will be when the question is put whether the clause stand part of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD KENYON
said he would not move the consequential Amendments which stood in his name.

* LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH
moved an Amendment with the object of putting some limit on the powers of the county council under Local Government Board regulations of assisting co-operative societies by guaranteeing or making advances. He said that the Amendment was in the main suggested by one of the co-operative societies interested in agriculture, and which was, therefore, one iof the co-operative societies alluded to in the Bill. He was advised that the objection to the word "guarantee," as it stood in the Bill, was that it was somewhat too vague and sweeping, because it opened the door to the danger of inadvertently giving the guarantee of the county councils generally as to stability and so forth, and as to the 1025 financialstatus of these societies. This might possibly produce a wrong impression, and induce people to put their money into these concerns as shareholders, when perhaps a company or a society happened to be not very desirable. That was to say, the county council might possibly be deceived by not looking very carefully into the nature of these co-operative societies, and might in perfect good faith give a guarantee which would produce a wrong impression, thereby giving the idea of guaranteeing a company which was in reality a not very stable one. Then it was suggested that if the expression "guarantee " came a little later—that they might guarantee or make advances to the society—there would not be the same objection, because in that case the expression "guarantee" would cover advances, and would not be such a general term as that contained in the Bill. It was also suggested that possibly the word "guarantee," as used in the Bill, might go beyond what the Government themselves intended, which was that there should be a provision for a properly formed co-operative society to be helped by the county council, but that the county council should not in any way be led into the position of giving a guarantee for a company or a society which might turn out to be of a character not sound or desirable. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
Amendment moved— In page 19, line 32, to leave out the words 'give guarantees or,' and after the second word or,' to insert the words 'guarantee or make.'" —(Lord Zouche of Haryngworth.)

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
holed His Majesty's Government would give some consideration to the Amendment of the noble Lord. These clauses, he believed, were really essential to the working of the Bill, because without some assistance from co-operation in some form or other, he very much doubted whether small holdings could really hope to be a success. Therefore, he did not at all wish to object to the principle of the clause in any way, although he was bound to say it seemed to him rather a dangerous proposition for a county council to 1026 enter upon credit banking, which was an extension of the ordinary duties of a council scarcely contemplated by the Act which constituted those bodies. But of course the whole thing was subject to good sense and wishes of the county councils themselves, and one must hope that they would not go beyond the proper point in their philanthropic efforts to benefit small holdings. He thought the noble Lord had raised a point of some importance, if he rightly understood the wording of the clause. It surely would be a mistake that county councils should be allowed to guarantee any of these societies. That they should give advances to the societies was quite another matter, but that they should guarantee their stability,permanence, and solvency might lead to very dangerous misconceptions on the part of the public, and possibly involve the county councils in considerable liabilities. He hoped the Government would consider whether some safeguard might not be found against those dangers.

§ LORD BELPER
said that this was a totally novel power given to county councils. He did not wish, for that reason, to oppose it, but it was perfectly clear that if the power was unlimited, as it was now, it depended very much upon what discretion the Local Government Board exercised with regard to giving their consent, and with regard to the regulations which they might make. The amount that the county council might subscribe or guarantee was perfectly unlimited. So far as he could see, there was no condition with regard to the society—whether it was abona-fide society or whether it was managed in such a manner as to make its funds secure. Although the power given to the county council was an optional one, their Lordships should remember that although there might be a perfectly good financial control in the case of those councils where there was a strong feeling in favour of economy, and where they looked very closely into the expenses of the council, yet in those councils—although he did not know that he could name any—that were most slack, and where there might be some inducements to do a "job," there would be a fear that they might be spending the 1027 money of the ratepayers for purposes for which at all events their money was not properly secured, and where there might be some risk of their suffering a loss. He would like to know what it was proposed that the Local Government Board should do in this matter. Were they going to inquire which of these societies were perfectly good,bona-fide societies, and managed in a proper financial manner? Were they going to do that, and be the security to prevent the county councils subscribing to those which were not so managed? Were they going to make regulations with regard to the amount that might be given by the county council for this purpose, and the conditions under which it was given? He thought if they passed a clause of this sort as wide as it was now it would depend very much on the way the discretion was exercised by the Local Government Board whether it was desirable that the county council should have these powers or not. He had no fear with regard to his own council. He himself happened to be chairman of the Finance Committee, and he knew that the other members of that committee would watch very jealously over any expenditure of money for a perfectly novel purpose, and where there might be any chance of loss. But there might be some cases in which members of the county council who were interested in one of these societies, and anxious to keep it on its legs, might get a grant or a security by the county council for these purposes, and in such cases it would be very undesirable that the county council should pay any of the public funds for the purpose of bolstering up a private co-operative society. He wished it to be perfectly understood that he entirely approved of the work that the good co-operative societies were doing, and no doubt the Agricultural Organisation Society was an extremely valuable body to farmers —not only to small holders, but to other farmers as well, and, therefore, as far as his sympathy went, it was entirely in favour of the county councils being able to help these societies, but the proposal was a somewhat novel one, and it was rather a dangerous step to take without any limitation being put into the Act of Parliament.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I do not suppose there is really much difference of opinion as to what ought to be aimed at. As I understand, it is not disputed that there ought to be every facility for making grants and advances to these societies, and also guarantees for those grants or advances.

§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS
asked if there was any precedent.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I must confess I have not searched for a precedent. I am sorry I have not done so, and I am also sorry if the noble Lord does not agree with me. I think the general sense of the Committee is that there should be power to make grants and advances, and also to give guarantees for the advances, but it is apprehended that the term "guarantee," if left in the air, so to speak, may import a right to guarantee the solvency of the society, come what will and do what they please. Now I am sure that that sense is much wider than is contemplated by the Bill, and I would suggest that we should consider, between now and the next stage of the Bill, whether any limitation can be placed on the wording of the Bill, so as to prevent the possibility of its being treated as a perfectly wide and definite guarantee of the solvency of the society in all its transactions.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
asked whether the noble Lord would undertake to bring up words on Report to meet the point.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
We will consider it with the desire of preventing the power being liable to the abuse indicated by the noble Viscount.

LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH
said that after what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord, he would beg to be allowed to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill,"

§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS
said that it was of no use his moving the omission of 1029 the clause, because everybody seemed in favour of it. He would read the last proviso— The Board, with the consent of the Treasury, may out of the small holdings account make grants upon such terms as the Board may determine, to any society having as its object or one of its objects the promotion of co-operation in connection with the cultivation of small holdings or allotments. When his noble friend the Lord Chancellor was speaking just now, he had ventured to ask him if he knew of any precedent, and he had replied that he was not aware of any. Here was a new novelty, introduced into legislation for the first time, and when such a seedling was once planted, it was surprising how quickly it would grow. However, nobody would vote with him, so it was no use to trouble their Lordships to go into the Lobby. He was glad of the opportunity of entering his solemn protest against the principle involved in this clause—that public money was to be granted at the will of the Board, with the consent of the Treasury, to help and sustain co-operative societies which were to find food or other things wanted for the people. Why not carry it a little further and fix the price as well? That would not be more unreasonable than the other proceeding, and ultimately they would be bound to do so. The next thing would be a Bill to fix prices, and if nobody else would bring in that Bill he would probably have to do it himself. That was the principle of this legislation, and he solemnly entered his protest against it as being contrary to all proper principles, and especially in the present case, where by establishing these small holdings they were revolutionising property, and handing it over to those who were such weaklings that they were obliged to give money to associations to feed them and keep them going. That was the whole story.

§ LORD BELPER
said he did not want to prolong the debate, but the Lord Chancellor had given him no answer to the questions which he asked with regard to how the Local Government Board proposed to exercise their powers, and whether they proposd to inquire into the stability of these societies, and to forbid the paying of money to them unless they found they were sub- 1030 stantial bodies which could be safely contributed to by county councils. He would like also to ask a question with regard to the first subsection of the clause—as to whether the words "assist societies on a co-operative basis" meant giving funds, or if not, what was the meaning of the word "assist"? He did not rightly gather what was the intention of the Bill with regard to this. He took it that the second clause was meant to meet cases where funds were contributed, or a guarantee given, by the county council, but would the word "assist" enable the county council to do anything in the way of giving funds? because if it would, that subsection was not governed or limited by the regulations which were made by the Local Government Board, or by the consent of the Local Government Board. He would like to know what the distinction between those two clauses was, and whether in any case the county council would be enabled to give funds without even the consent of the Local Government Board.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
No doubt it would include moral assistance—advice and so forth. So far as pecuniary assistance is concerned, I think that where Subsection (2) was present in the Bill the pecuniary assistance would be governed by the limitations contained in Subsection (2). Then the noble Lord asks what the limitations are. That depends upon what regulations are made by the Local Government Board. They make regulations and conditions according to their sense of business and their sense of prudence. Of course I cannot foretell what the regulations will be, but with regard to the question whether they will be so made as to enable the county council to guarantee the solvency of an insolvent society, I have already indicated in regard to the Amendment of the noble Lord that I think it would be desirable to place some limitation in order to prevent the abuse of facilities which under the present reading of the section may be too loosely phrased.

§ LORD BELPER
was very much obliged for the answer of the noble and learned Lord, but he thought that it only proved that the clause required re-drafting, because, although it was quite clear that 1031 under the second section the county council might contribute money, it was not clear that they could only do so under the regulations and with the consent of the Local Government Board, and in the first subsection it was clear that they could do it without such regulations or consent. Therefore it seemed to him that the clause was not one which could be safely made use of.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 40, 41, and 42 agreed to.
Clause 43:—

LORD ROBERTSON
moved to insert the words "and subject to the provisions of Subsection (2) of this section." He said the Amendment related to the important subject of arbitration, and he could not think that that was a controversial subject. The point was this. The first subsection of Section 43 purported to refer all questions requiring arbitration to a single arbitrator, in accordance with the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1883 to 1906. For the purpose of what he had to say it might be taken that that meant that the arbitrator should be appointed by the Board of Agriculture He suggested that it was inappropriate. and perhaps unseemly, that the Board of Agriculture should have the authority to appoint an arbitrator where it was really their promoting and stimulating influence in the movement which gave rise to the arbitration. Their Lordships would observe that when they came to the second subsection a consciousness of that seemed to animate the draftsman, because that subsection said— Where an Order has been made and confirmed authorising the compulsory acquisition of land by the Commissioners acting in default of a county council, the arbitrator or valuer, as the case may be, shall be appointed by the Lord Chief-Justice of England instead of by the Board. The reason there was this delicacy in the second subsection was merely that the Board of Agriculture had naturally confirmed the Order of the county council, under which the arbitration arose, and he did not think he was going too far in saying that it would be a downright scandal that in a case of that kind the 1032 Board of Agriculture should appoint the arbitrator. But then exactly the same considerations applied when they remembered that in all the other proceedings under this Act the people who took the initiative were the Commissioners—with regard to whom the President of the Board of Agriculture was so proud to acknowledge that they were his officers—that it seemed, therefore, a little pedantic to suggest that a distinction could be drawn, when they were in the region of equity and fair play, between the case of arbitration set afoot where the Commissioners, who were the officers of the noble Earl, were in play, and the case where the noble Earl himself had actually to set the seal to the transaction out of which the arbitration arose. That, in short, was his case, and. he appealed to the noble and learned Lord as to whether he had not made out a case for amendment. His Amendment, put in a short sentence, was this—let the arbitration in all cases be by agreement between the parties, or, failing that, by nomination of the Lord Chief Justice.
Amendment moved— In page 20, line 33, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'and subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of this section.' In page 20, lines 36 and 37, to leave out the words 'an order has been made and confirmed authorising the compulsory acquisition of lands by.' In page 20, line 37, to leave out the word acting,' and to insert the word 'act.' In page 20, lines 38 and 39, to leave out the words the arbitrator or valuer, as the case may be, shall be,' and to insert the words' all questions referred to the decision of an arbitrator under this Act shall be determined by an arbitrator agreed upon between the parties, or in default of agreement.'" —(Lord Robertson.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The fact is that it was not the draftsman, but the House of Commons that inserted "the Lord Chief Justice" in this particular case. Originally, I believe, the Bill was drawn so that the Board of Agriculture appointed the arbitrator in all cases. Then it was pointed out that in some cases they might be said to be interested, and accordingly the Lord Chief Justice was put in. Of course the interest of the Board was in some sense technical, but I understand the sensitiveness of the noble Lord, and I share 1033 that sensitiveness—that wherever in any way the Board can be treated or considered as being parties, they ought not to be the persons to appoint the arbitrator. I think that, as the Bill is now drawn, where they are in any real sense at all interested, the Lord Chief Justice appoints. This Amendment was not upon the original Paper of Amendments, and I will look into the framework of the Bill, if I may be allowed, and see whether it can properly be said that the Board are themselves parties in any cases beyond those provided for in Subsection (2). I will do that if that will suit my noble and learned friend.

LORD ROBERTSON
said that he would not have addressed the House unless he had first carefully looked into the matter. That he had done, and had found, on adequate information, that there were cases—and he would give an instance—in which the Board of Agriculture were interested. The Commissioners had power to take land compulsorily, and there might be disputes arising out of that between the Commissioners or the Board of Agriculture and other parties. That was a case were arbitrators were wanted, and that was a case which did not fall under Subsection (2), but which did fall under Subsection (1).

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
If I may look into it before the next stage of the Bill, I hope to be able to give a more satisfactory answer.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
asked the noble and learned Lord also to look into the point raised by an Amendment which he had upon the Paper a little lower down, which covered really the same point. At line 40, after the word "Board," he proposed to insert— And where an Order authorises the compulsory hiring of land by the Commissioners acting in default of a county council, the terms and conditions of the hiring shall, subject to the provisions mentioned in Paragraph (2) of Part II of the first schedule to this Act, be determined in default of agreement by the arbitrator appointed under this sub-section. The point was this: that under Part II. of the first schedule, in the case of 1034 compulsory hiring by the Board of Agriculture or the Commissioners in default of the county council, the Board would by order settle the terms and conditions of the hiring, which was a matter of the greatest importance, obviously, in face of the fact that the Government insisted upon the hiring being practically perpetual, and there would be no appeal from their decision as to the terms and conditions of the hiring. The rent, of course, was one thing, but the terms and conditions of the hiring were another, and might be really quite as important as the rent. It would not be fair or equitable that in such a case where the Commissioners and the Board of Agriculture were acting on one side they should absolutely settle the terms and conditions of the hiring for the other side. He ventured to say that no such case was known to the law. Wherever there were two parties to a bargain there was either agreement, or, in default of agreement, arbitration, and there ought to be some provision that in such a case they should go to arbitration, and that the arbitrator should be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice of England.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
It seems to me that these cases are not on the same footing.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said that in that case he had better perhaps move his Amendment at the proper time.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH
moved an Amendment to provide that the arbitrator or valuer, "in default of agreement between the parties," should be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice instead of by the Board. This was only a drafting Amendment. The words he suggested were sure to come in in some form or another, because an arbitrator was not wanted, of course, if the parties agreed.
Amendment moved— In page 20, line 39, after the word 'appointed,' to insert the words in default of agreement between the parties.'" —(The Earl of Plymouth.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I think it is only verbal.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
moved to insert in the subsection providing for the appointment of the arbitrator or valuer, as the case might be, by the Lord Chief Justice the following words: "And where an order authorises the compulsory hiring of land by the Commissioners acting in default of a county council, the terms and conditions of the hiring shall, subject to the provisions mentioned in Paragraph (2) of Part II. of the first schedule to this Act, be determined in default of agreement by the arbitrator appointed under this subsection." He said that he had already made all the observations which he desired to make to their Lordships, and he would not detain them further. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) would state his views on the Amendment. He begged to move.
Amendment moved— In page 20, line 40, after the word 'Board' to insert the words 'and where an Order authorises the compulsory hiring of land by the Commissioners acting in default of a county council, the terms and conditions of the hiring shall, subject to the provisions mentioned in Paragraph (2) of Part II. of the First Schedule to this Act, be determined in default of agreement by the arbitrator appointed under this sub-section.'" —(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
It is certainly novel as far as this Bill is concerned, and of course the Bill itself is in many respects novel. It is one of a triology of Bills, of which one has been unfortunate, and I hope the other two will be more prosperous, but no doubt they all have novelty in them. It seems to me that it would be unfortunate that the "terms and conditions of the hiring" should be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chief Justice instead of by the order itself. The purpose of the Bill is to leave the administrative scheme, for this is an Act of administration, to an administrative board; and I think it would not only be contrary to the scheme but introduce more complication into that which is sufficiently complicated already if there was an arbitration, not as to values, 1036 nor as to rent, but as to "terms and conditions." I cannot help thinking that it would be a perfectly different thing from the comparatively simple mechanism—I do not care to call it simple, but the comparatively simple mechanism—of the Bill if the "terms and conditions of the hiring" were to be made the subject of arbitration; they might be the subject of endless and costly inquiry.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said he hardly knew what to do, because he really did not want to put the House to the trouble of a division, yet the matter was of real importance. There was arbitration in any case for compulsory purchase, and practically he thought satisfactory arbitration, although of course there might be points of detail which required notice. But if the Board of Agriculture, in a case in which they were parties to the dispute, so to speak, were to settle for themselves the "terms and conditions of the hiring," subject to the provisions of the schedule empowering them to make a man rent his land practically on any conditions they liked, was that really fair? There were, of course, matters dealt with in the schedule which were to be dealt with in the agreement; but it was not, and it could not be, laid down in the schedule precisely how those matters should be dealt with. He did not say that the particular proposal to refer it to arbitration was the best one—indeed, he quite saw that there might be a difficulty—but he thought the matter was one which ought to be considered by His Majesty's Government.

LORD FITZMAURICE
thought their Lordships would all agree with the noble Viscount that this was a very important matter. He hoped the noble Viscount would not think that what had been said by his noble and learned friend (the Lord Chancellor) was at all an off-hand answer given merely on the spur of the moment. That, he need hardly say, would under no circumstances be able to be said of any answer given by him, because he always addressed the House with such great care and therefore with such great authority. Bat this, as the noble Viscount had said. was really very 1037 important, and those who had framed the Bill had considered it from the beginning, and had arrived at a well-considered conclusion. The noble Viscount himself acknowledged that there might be some slight connection with previous points raised, but this was a far larger point. The question really was whether all those matters which were dealt with in Part II. of the Schedule, par. 2, referred to the framework of the Order itself—at any rate some of them—or whether practically all of them were to be referred to the machinery laid down in Part II. where it was decided that they were to be dealt with in the terms of the Order itself, leaving the question of rent, and rent alone, to be determined by a valuer. All those facts were to be dealt with by an arbitrator appointed as the case might be in the manner determined in Subsection (2). That would be an enormous change in the Bill, and he could assure the noble Viscount that it had been carefully considered, and it was really not a point on which the Government felt that they could give way.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
May I say one word which I omitted on the point of fair play? It is true the terms and conditions would have to be fixed by the Order, and they may be increased or not, but they are administration matters to fix. If they are onerous the rent has to be fixed in relation to them, and, accordingly, the landlord will be paid having regard to the terms and conditions.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
asked if the noble and learned Lord would agree to the insertion of some words in the schedule making that clear. That would have a double effect. It might be fair compensation to the landlord for onerous conditions, and it also might deter the Board of Agriculture from placing onerous conditions in the agreement.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I think it is, when we come to the schedule.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
Then I beg to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
This Amendment makes it clear that the redemption money is to be treated as part of the cost of acquisition. I move.
Amendment moved— In page 21, line 30, after the word 'council' to insert the following new subsection:—'(3) For the purposes of the Small Holdings Act, 1892, the Allotments Acts, and this Act, any expenses incurred by a council in the enfranchisement of any land acquired by them for small holdings, or allotments, or in the purchase or redemption of land tax, or any quit rent, chief rent, tithe, or other rent charge, or other perpetual annual sum issuing out of land so acquired, shall be deemed to have been incurred in the purchase of the land.'" —(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ EARL CARRINGTON ,
in moving a new subsection, said this subsection enabled all notices required to be sent legally by post; they need not legally be served personally. Notices of withdrawal to the county council within six months and notices of renewal under Section 27 need not be served personally, but may be sent by post. Section 26 of the Interpretation Act gives the proper procedure. I move.
Amendment moved— In page 21, line 36, after the word 'parish" to insert the following new subsection:—`(4) Any notice required by this Act to be served or given may be sent by post.'" —(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ROBERTSON
said he had one or two comments to make on the schedule, and perhaps the Lord Chancellor would give him his attention as the matter was highly technical. He wanted to put his objection plainly. He suspected the schedule of being directed towards enabling the Board to cook and 1039 edit the Lands Clauses Act and to leave out such parts as in their mature and, as they had seen, infallible judgment were too drastic. He desired, on behalf of his noble friends on that side of the House so far as he could speak for them, to have the whole benefits of the Lands Clauses Act in this case as in all the other cases to which Parliament had directed that statute. The first instance where his suspicions were aroused was in Clause 9. The order was to be in the prescribed form, and would incorporate, subject to the necessary adaptations, the Lands Clauses Act. He wished to know what was supposed by the Lord Chancellor to be the exact effect of that, and how far it gave discretion to the Board and its Commissioners to alter the Lands Clauses Act. That was the plain English of it. They did not desire that there should be any relaxation in favour even of the noble Earl at the head of the Board of Agriculture of those clauses which had been found just and equitable in the general administration of affairs. There was another instance, to which a subsequent Amendment of his referred, where there was some nice language used as to the standard adaptation which the Board considered necessary or expedient for the purpose. He wanted something a little more stringent than that. This might be the last occasion on which he would address their Lordships on this stage of the Bill, and he therefore desired to pay his ultimate and final salaam to the noble Earl at the head of the Board of Agriculture, though, perhaps, the least appropriate place for this was the schedule. At the same time, however, he was not going give way on any interests which were substantial.
Amendment moved— In page 23, first schedule, line 9, to leave out the words `subject to the necessary adaptations.'" —(Lord Robertson.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I assent to the proposition that if compliments are to be passed the schedule is about the last place where they should find expression. Really I think I may allay the apprehension of the noble Lord. The language which appears ominous in his mind is: "The order shall incorporate, subject to the 1040 necessary adaptations, the Lands Clauses Acts." If the words he proposes to leave out were omitted, the enactment would be that the order shall incorporate the Lands Clauses Acts without anything more; they would be incorporated quite bodily. That would have effects which I do not think he contemplates, because, as he is aware, the Lands Clauses Acts provide for various alternative methods of determining value or matters of difference. They provide for a jury, or two arbitrators and an umpire, or for a single arbitrator. The object of this Bill is that there shall be a single arbitrator. Accordingly, if we bluntly and nakedly incorporated the Lands Clauses Act we should not only have a single arbitrator, but we should also have the option of a jury or two arbitrators and an umpire. These mysterious words which have so perturbed my noble friend's mind merely mean that the adaptations necessary shall be made to provide that there shall not be either a jury or two arbitrators and an umpire. The word "adaptations" is used, not "modifications." "Modifications" would be alterations. The only modifications will be those expressly specified in the schedule.

LORD ROBERTSON
thought the explanations given were satisfactory, but he considered it was well they should have been made. They would allay some suspicions which had been prevalent.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD CLINTON
moved to insert after the word "arbitration," the words "agreed upon between the parties, or in default of agreement." When he moved an Amendment somewhat to the same effect at an earlier stage in the Bill he withdrew it, but not because he was convinced, if he might say so with the utmost respect, by the reply which the noble and learned Lord gave him. He accepted that reply partly because the question at that moment was not of the first importance, and partly because he was exceedingly anxious not to do anything which under that particular clause might add to the expenses of carrying out the measure. He believed, however, that the arguments he then used applied 1041 with equal or even greater force to the case under this schedule. Under the schedule they altered the system of arbitration to which they had been accustomed on a matter which was of far greater importance than that they had discussed before. It was of greater importance because the issues involved were much greater. It was not merely a question of rent, but it was a question of all the provisions that the Board might prescribe for the purpose of carrying into effect the order for the compulsory acquisition of land. His Majesty's Government proposed that the Lands Clauses Acts and certain sections of the Railways Consolidation Clauses Act, 1845, should be modified so that all questions of disputed compensation should be decided before a single arbitrator appointed by the Board. On the face of it, he did not see any possible reason why the ordinary methods of arbitration, in which both parties to the dispute had some power in the choice of the arbitrator, should not be employed here. In this particular instance the alteration he proposed would not increase the cost of the Bill in any way. It was not the substitution, as it was before, of arbitration for valuation. It was merely that both parties to the dispute should have a voice in the selection of the arbitrator. It appeared to him that in this instance the Board of Agriculture were a particularly unwholesome sort of men. There was no appeal whatever from their decision. He could not understand why the parties should not have a choice, and, although they had been asked on many occasions whilst the Bill had been under discussion to trust the Board of Agriculture, he was certainly not inclined to trust them or anybody to place a value upon his land when he knew they were exceedingly anxious toobta in it. As a matter of fact, it was their duty to obtain the land at the lowest possible price. He thought their Lordships would decide that it should be distinctly stated in the schedule that the arbitrator should be appointed by the parties or, failing an agreement, by the Board of Agriculture. He moved.
Amendment moved— In page 23, first schedule, line 12, after the word 'arbitration' to insert the words 'agreed upon between the parties, or, in default a agreement.'" —(Lord Clinton.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Nothing sounds more reasonable, if I may say so, than that the parties might be allowed themselves to agree upon the person who is to solve the dispute between them, but the only objection to it is that the Treasury are the people who pay for the cost of the arbitration, and there is an old familiar adage that those who do not pay the piper are not the persons to call the tune. The piper is paid in this instance by the Treasury, and it might be, if the parties appointed an arbitrator, that they agreed upon some great personage—there are great personages who discharge the duties of arbitrators and expect other people to pay for it. That I am told is the sole reason. There is nothing behind it that I know of.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said that with all deference to the noble and learned Lord he could not think it was sufficient reason. He had not been able to put his hand upon them, but he believed there were provisions in the Bill by which the Treasury was to fix the fees of the arbitrators appointed. The Treasury, of course, would fix a scale of fees, and the arbitrator would have to accept them, even if he was an arbitrator agreed upon between the parties. If he would not accept those fees, all that would happen was that they would have to seek another arbitrator. Why in the world should not the parties be allowed to choose the arbitrator themselves? If the county council of his own county were anxious to take his land, he knew the man the county council would accept, and whom he would readily accept. He was certain he did. It would be the case in most instances. He could not see any objection to the provision.

§ LORD CLINTON
said he was not quite convinced by the noble and learned Lord's reply. They had no objection to the Treasury paying for their arbitrator; they were quite willing to accept payment from the Treasury, but he could not see why the Treasury should object to an arbitrator appointed by either of the parties. If the reason given was the only one for not altering the words as he had suggested, he thought the noble Earl, the President of the 1043 Board of Agriculture, might very easily give way. It could not affect the purpose of the Bill, and it would satisfy a very large number of people particularly interested in the subject.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD KENYON
moved to leave out in Subsection 5 the words— And shall take into consideration the rent, if any, at which the land has been let, and the annual value at which the land is assessed for the purposes of rating. The words, he believed, had not been usually inserted in any clause dealing with the value of land compulsorily purchased. The history of the words was interesting. They were not originally in the schedule, but they were introduced by a Member of the House of Commons in Committee, and Mr. Harcourt said he did not think they were any use, but he thought they could not do any harm. He quite agreed that they were not of any use, but he totally disagreed they were not of any harm. The very people who would be hit by the sentence were those landlords who let their land at a low rent. If the low rent was taken into consideration they would get a low price for their land, whereas the people who exacted a high rent would, if that rent was taken into consideration, no doubt get a higher price for their land.
Amendment moved— In page 23, first schedule, to leave out from the word 'experienced' in line 33, to the word 'but:' in line 36. " —(Lord Kenyon.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I rather take the same view, I am glad to say, as my right hon. friend, Mr. Harcourt, and all that I will say to the noble Lord is that the Bill as it stands does not make these words conclusive. It does not say that it shall be conclusive. It says they shall consider these elements, and I really do not see why we should not say that they shall be considered.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said the answer was that there might be a prospective value, mineral or something of that kind, which had nothing whatever to do with the rent. It was putting forward one condition, when it was by no means the only condition.

LORD FITZMAURICE
said he would point out that the words were not exclusive. They were not in the original Bill. They were moved in the House of Commons, as an Amendment, and the Government accepted them, not thinking they made any material change He understood that the noble Viscount by his argument pressed upon them the danger that mentioning one thing amounted to the exclusion of another. He was pressing the argument very strongly, but the information they had was that the words would not be open to that danger, and as they were placed and under the circumstances, they really thought it was just as well to leave them in. They would not do a great deal of good, but they could not do any harm.

LORD KENYON
said the only other direction to the arbitrator was that he should act on his own knowledge and experience.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD KENYON
moved to leave out the words— But shall not, except in such cases as the Board may otherwise direct, hear counsel or expert witnesses. He quite understood that the words might have been put in in order to save expense, but he felt that under the Bill large parcels of land might have to be taken and large money transactions might ensue. Surely it was unreasonable to say that neither counsel nor expert witnesses should be heard. He would like to know what expert witnesses were in this particular case. Would, for instance, an agent who happened to be a solicitor be an expert witness If so, the man who knew the property best might be excluded from giving evidence. Again, supposing an estate had been valued for probate or for some other reason, and the landlord, wishing to prove the value of it, called that particular valuer to give evidence, would he, being an expert witness, be thereby ruled out? He did not in the least wish to add to the expense of the inquiry, but he felt that those people who were best qualified to give evidence should be allowed to do so in 1045 cases where a large transaction might have taken place.
Amendment moved— In page 24, line 1, to leave out from the word 'witnesses' to the end of Paragraph 5.—(Lord Kenyon.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
An "expert witness" is not a term which permits of strict legal definition, but it is generally understood, and I think a good many of us have a fair acquaintance with the meaning of the words. I have not a word to say against the many excellent and very able men who appear before this and the other House, and before arbitrators on questions of compensation, but they are multiplied often in hearings, and I am quite certain, as everyone knows, that they are a very great source of expense. They are very expensive witnesses, and they are often multiplied to two or three or even four, and all differ. I think all these things are very well known to your Lordships. I need hardly say I have nothing to say against counsel. I have been one my- self, and I am now a member of the Bar, but counsel would import the aspect of a regular litigation intothe proceedings, and one of the most expensive kinds of litigation, viz., litigation in regard to value before a tribunal hearing expert witnesses. I ought to say—and I am sure your Lordships will all feel it—that, if that kind of process is applied to this Bill it will not do what we all want it to do—produce a real effect in the rural parts of England. It will wreck, it will choke the Bill absolutely if we have this. The noble Lord said with justice that there might be large properties taken for this purpose. I suppose there may be undoubtedly in some cases. If so, the Board may make an exception and state that counsel and expert witnesses shall be heard in any particular case if they think fit. It seems to me it is best to leave it elastic in that way, and to assume that the Board of Agriculture will be sensibly managed.

LORD KENYON
asked if the noble and learned Lord would assure him that his agent, who happened to be a solicitor, would not be deemed an expert witness.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I think it is perfectly clear that a solicitor proving facts would never be treated as an expert witness.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said they ought to try and make the schedule reasonably perfect, especially after the view expressed by His Majesty's Government as to the Board of Agriculture inserting in the Order the terms and conditions of the hiring without arbitration against it. His proposal was to insert in the schedule what was invariably inserted in every lease that he had heard of, viz.— The tenant shall pay all taxes, rates, and charges usually borne by tenants, and insure the buildings. There was nothing in the schedule at present to carry that out.
Amendment moved— In page 24, first schedule, line 35, after the word to to insert the words pay all taxes, rates and charges usually borne by tenants, to insure the buildings to.'—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The proposal is that every Order shall provide for the council to insure and pay all taxes, rates, and charges usually borne by the tenants. No doubt that would be the ordinary course, but it might be that it would be advisable in exceptional cases that that should not be the course. If so, it is quite obvious the rent would have to be made higher in proportion. It is quite obvious that either in meal or in malt the thing must be paid. Who pays the rates will, of course, be the very first consideration in fixing the rent. It seems to me that it does not matter one way or the other, except that it is better to leave it a matter of discussion. It is obvious the landlord would not be prejudiced by the scheme of such a covenant, because the rent is to be fixed in view of the terms and conditions.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said it was invariably the case that the tenant paid the taxes, rates, and charges, and, that being so, why should it not be 1047 inserted in the schedule just like the other conditions?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I will not make any difficulty about it. There may be some unknown difficulty to me.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said he wished also to move to insert the words "and premises demised." These words also appeared in tenants' covenants.
Amendment moved— In page 24, line 36, after the word 'buildings' to insert the words 'and premises demised.' —(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
There may be some objection which I do not appreciate at the moment, but if it is put in we will see to it.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said his next Amendment raised the question of sporting rights. The landlord might desire to reserve the sporting rights over the land hired by the county council or the Board of Agriculture. If he should so desire, surely he ought to be allowed to reserve them. The sporting rights might,so far as game was concerned, be of very small value in the case of small holdings, but so far as fishing was concerned, tiny might be of very great value indeed, and he did not see that it would be any good to anybody that such rights should be taken away from the landlord by the county council. There was a precedent for his Amendment in Irish legislation in the case where land was sold. Here the land was only hired, possibly for fourteen years, and it might seriously affect the sporting rights over the rest of the property if the landlord could not reserve them over that part of the property which was compulsorily hired. He hoped the noble Lord would not object to the Amendment.
Amendment moved— In page 24, line 40, after the word 'aforesaid' to insert the words 'and shall, if the landlord has given notice in the prescribed manner that he so desires, provide for the reservation to him, and persons authorised 1048 by him, of exclusive rights of sporting and fishing over the land.'—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I should be the last person in the world to try and stop any amusement or sport in the country. In most cases no doubt it would be expedient to allow the landlord, if he wished it, to reserve his sporting rights, but I must ask the House to leave this question open as one of the terms and conditions of hiring which ought to be settled according to the circumstances of each case. I think the House will agree that it would be an absolute obstacle in the way of market gardening if the landlord in every case had the right to keep the sporting rights. I think noble Lords will agree with me that it would be absolutely impossible for a man who had a lot of market gardens together, and I am sure landlords would not wish it, to carry on his business if they were to allow gamekeepers to trample over those market garder s looking for eggs, and to see what they could find. That must cause endless friction to those market gardeners, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment in every case, but that he will allow the matter to be left open as one of the terms and conditions of hiring. I am sure the county council in no way would wish to curtail the pleasures of country gentlemen. There are a great many country gentlemen on county councils, and they would look after their own interests, but there are cases when it would really be a hardship on the market gardeners. It might cause endless friction, and I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

VISCOUNT GALWAY
said the noble Lord seemed to think that every bit of land taken was going to be a market garden. He understood that some of them were to be small holdings. It was always a condition of leasing that the sporting rights were reserved, and there was nothing extraordinary in putting it in a lease to a county council.

§ THE EARL of HAREWOOD
said he would be the last to insist on any extreme sporting rights, but there might be some of their Lordships who had riparian rights and who would appreciate that if 1049 only a few yards of the river were not reserved, a great source of income and enjoyment would be taken away and considerable pecuniary damage inflicted.

THE EARL OF POWIS
urged the noble Viscount to adhere to his Amendment, and pointed out that if a strip of land was taken across a valuable sporting estate for the purposes of small holdings, though he did not anticipate that it would be of very much value to the owner of the estate for sporting purposes, yet it might be turned very greatly to the detriment of that sporting estate. The smallholder might easily—he did not say he would, but there were such things done very frequently in this country—sow buckwheat all over his small holding, so that nearly all the game from the neighbouring property would congregate on it and might easily be netted or taken. He very much hoped the noble Viscount would press his Amendment.

§ * EARL FORTESCUE
said he did hot suppose anyone wished that gamekeepers should go hunting for eggs on market gardens. He thought a compromise might be effected if the right of the landlord to reserve the sporting rights were restricted to cases where the tenant was not entitled to claim compensation under the Market Gardeners Act.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said the Bill provided that pasture might be broken up, but that the Order should not authorise the breaking up of pasture unless the Board were satisfied that it could be done without depreciating the value of the land or that the circumstances were such that small holdings could not otherwise be successfully cultivated. He quite accepted the view that there might be circumstances in which pasture land might be taken, and where it might be necessary for the cultivation of small holdings that part of it at any rate should be broken up. Of course, there would be compensation if it were broken up, although it would be £Extremely difficult to compensate anybody for the breaking up of good pasture. He did not know why the words were inserted leaving it to the Board to be 1050 satisfied that it could be broken up without depreciating the value of the land. The Board was not the arbitrator in the matter. If there was an arbitrator it was considered in fixing the rent or before settling the compensation. It might affect the action of such an arbitrator, especially if he was one commonly appointed by the Board of Agriculture, if he was told that the Board had settled that the land would not be depreciated by the pasture being broken up. It was very undesirable for farming generally that good pasture should be broken up where it could be avoided, and this was not a matter which ought to be left to the Board as between the parties.
Amendment moved— In page 24, line 42, to leave out the words 'that it can be so broken up without depreciating the value of the land or.'—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I quite agree that it is a terrible thing to break up pasture. It is such a serious thing to do that I venture to think the words ought to be left in, and that the Board themselves ought to be satisfied that it can be broken up without depreciating the value of the land. It is a very important thing, and I should like them to remain in for this reason. On the Crown lands there is a very large farm belonging to a Mr. Crawley. It was over 1,100 acres, and when we sent down to examine this farm we found that some of the grassland was in a terrible state. There were mole hills all over, and it had been very much neglected. That was a case where grass land might be broken up with great advantage to the farm. With this gentleman's consent, we left him 366 of the best acres of the land, his farm houses, his buildings, and all his amenities, and he has got as much land as he can conveniently do with. The rest of the 1,100 acres was given over or let to the county council, and it is all let to small holders, a certain amount of grass land having been broken up to the great advantage of the farm. I feel, with the noble Viscount, the danger that people might run in the breaking up of old pasture which, of course, would be very valuable to the tenant for some years, but I respectfully ask to be allowed to have these words left in the 1051 Bill so that no pasture could be broken up unless the Minister for Agriculture himself is satisfied that it can be so broken up without depreciating the value of the land. It is in the interests of the landlord and the farm that those words have been inserted.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said that in opposing his Amendment the noble Earl had given an instance where part of a farm was taken away by the consent of the tenant, it being a Crown farm. It was obvious that under the provisions of the Schedule as they stood it was necessary to break up certain pasture, because otherwise small holdings could not be successfully cultivated. Such a case would not be interfered with by his Amendment. Why the Board should be the persons to decide this matter he really did not know.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
moved to amend the clause so that it would run thus— And shall not confer on the council any right without the consent of the landlord,' to take sell, or carry away any minerals, gravel, sand, or clay except so far as may be necessary or convenient for the purpose of erecting buildings on the land or otherwise adapting the land for small holdings or allotments. The reason for this was, he thought, very clear. This was a question of hiring, and why should the council have any right to take for any purposes whatsoever, any minerals, gravel, sand, or clay—things which when taken from the land could not be replaced? What they hired was the use of the land for agricultural purposes, that was the surface of the land; when they proceeded to take away, he did not care whether it was for erecting buildings or for any other purpose, gravel, sand, etc., they were clearly taking away property for which the landlord had a right to receive a return in money, and it, therefore, seemed to him only fair to insert the words that these things should not be taken away without the consent of the landlord.
Amendment moved— In page 25, line 2, after the word 'right' to insert the words 'without the consent of the landlord.'—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I am not quite sure that I apprehend this. May I read the clause as it stands? The clause says— It shall not confer on the council any right to take, sell or carry away gravel, sand or clay except so far as may be necessary or convenient for the purpose of erecting buildings on the land or otherwise adapting the land for small holdings or allotments. I do not know whether the noble Earl proposes to leave out those words.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
said Lord St. Aldwyn proposed in a subsequent Amendment to leave out those words, but apart from that he did not think they ought to have the right to take any minerals, gravel, sand or clay, without the consent of the landlord.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The words which the noble Viscount has an Amendment to deal with would naturally go out if the noble Lord's Amendment is accepted.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said that what he had in his mind was this, and he thought it was clear: As the words now stood, the county council or the Board of Agriculture would be able to utilise the stone, sand, or clay which the holding might produce for buildings on the land. Those things were the landlord's property, and not included in the hiring, and yet at the end of the hiring they would come upon the landlord and ask him to pay compensation for buildings erected with the very stone and clay taken out of his property. That was the effect of the Bill as it stood, and it could not be fair. He would not object to the county council being allowed to utilise anything of the kind on the holding, provided they paid compensation. That was the point. They certainly ought to pay compensation if they took it.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Elementary justice would require that, when, you are paying a landlord rent for agricultural land for thirty-five years, you should not be entitled to take gravel, sand, clay, and so forth, for your own purpose without paying for it. If that is the effect of the Bill, I feel quite 1053 sure it must be an undesigned effect, and, if the noble Earl will allow it to stand till the next stage, we will look into it.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
said he was quite willing to allow the words to stand, but he had another Amendment with regard to trees which he would like to move.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
said he proposed to insert the words "fell or cut timber or trees," because there was nothing said about timber or trees in the Bill, and he thought it was desirable, as they were merely hiring land, that they should have no right to cut trees or timber or anything of that kind. All they wanted or professed to want was to hire land for agricultural purposes, and, as they knew, no ordinary tenant had any right to cut timber or trees. There was, therefore, so far as he could see, no reason why the county council or its tenants should be allowed to cut the trees.
Amendment moved— In page 25, line 2, after the word 'to' to insert the words fell or cut timber or trees, nor to.' "—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
We will consider that, if we may, as part of the previous Amendment.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
said he was afraid he had a very positive opinion here. He did not know whether his noble friend was conversant with agriculture, but if he was, and if he had an equal misfortune with some of them, he must know that the cutting of timber and so on was invariably prohibited. He did not think that with regard to this matter there could be ally doubt whatever, and he was therefore afraid that he must insist on his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD CLINTON
moved. to leave out the word "valuation" and insert the word "arbitration," and to leave out the word "valuer" and insert the words 1054 "arbitrator agreed on between the parties or in default of agreement." The clause would then read— Shall in default of agreement be by arbitration by a single arbitrator agreed on between the parties or, in default of agreement, appointed by the Board. He said he would probably be told. that this was merely a question of rent, and that therefore the valuer could do the duties required of him, and that the expenses of arbitration were unnecessary. He would, however, like to remind the noble Lord that this was a rent payable for a term of possibly thirty-five years with the right of renewal for another term of thirty-five years. That was so long a period that he thought in drafting such a lease it was essential that they should at all events have a right to see that the amount of the rent was not left merely to the assessment of an ordinary valuer. There were other questions that might arise as to the value of the land which might not be apparent at the time of letting, but which might evolve during the period of the lease. There might be, for instance a development of a town nearly up to the place taken in the lease. That naturally would cause a large increase in the agricultural value of the land taken. It was a matter on which evidence, and probably sworn evidence, ought to be taken and it was a perfectly fitting case for arbitration. The matter of cost need not be considered, because the Treasury were prepared in certain instances to pay the costs, as the noble Lord had told them.
Amendment moved— In page 25, line 16, to leave out the words 'valuation' and 'valuer' and to insert the words 'arbitrator agreed on between the parties, or, in default of agreement.' "—(Lord Clinton.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I am not going to say, as the noble Lord has apprehended, that it is a mere question of rent, because the first term is not merely a question of rent. The first term, as will appear in the Schedule, refers to the amount of rent, and also to compensation, and I quite agree that it is a different point. The ground upon which I should deprecate, and do deprecate, the Amendment, is that if you have a scheme which you want to 1055 work (but which really cannot work if it is overloaded) and if you have got a valuer who is fairly appointed, or, if he is not fairly appointed, then, providing he shall be fairly appointed, 1 would say leave it to him to settle the amount of rent. I do not think there is any real risk to any interest concerned in it, but otherwise I am afraid that by departing from the comparative simplicity of the scheme as it is presented to the House you will run the risk of making the scheme unworkable. That is the real and sole reason. It is a balance of disadvantages. If the noble Lord takes the one view, I hope I may be allowed to take the other. It is better to run a little risk which will be inappreciable than to take the heavy risk of overloading the Bill.

§ LORD CLINTON
said the question of overloading appeared to him to be only one of cost, and he thought it was obvious that there were things of a great deal more importance than costs. It was necessary that they should have confidence in the tribunal appointed, and it was exceedingly important that they should know that the rent for the land for a very long period during which the owner was deprived of his rights of ownership would be essentially fair. There was another question which he would like to ask. What were the exact legal rights of a valuer? He had no doubt the noble Lord would correct him if he was wrong, but, so far as he knew, those rights were not defined in any Act of Parliament. The valuer would be simply a paid servant of the Board of Agriculture and would do exactly as the Board told him. There was no legalstatus about a valuer.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
It is perfectly certain that no Act of Parliament defines the position of a valuer, but I certainly do not think it is the case that he will do what he is told by the Board of Agriculture. If you were to get the Board of Agriculture to tell him. something wrong, I am sure he would not do it. The man would do his duty. The risk is that he might make a mistake, but it is quite certain that under the Bill honourable valuers 1056 will be appointed. The only danger is the danger of an error of judgment on their part. I have often observed myself, if you have had a tremendous litigation about values, you come to pretty much the same thing as one sensible man told you before the litigation commenced.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
pointed out that the owner was not the only person to be considered. The tenant also had to be considered. It might make all the difference to him whether he was able to remain on the farm or not. What was done in this Order? The farm might be so cut up that he had practically to leave it. It might be entirely taken away from him. If that happened by the action of his landlord under the Agricultural Holdings Act, he would be entitled by law to an arbitrator. Everything went to an arbitrator under that Act. Where this was done in the case as between tenant and county council instead of as between tenant and landlord, should not the tenant have the same protection as was given him under the Agricultural Holdings Act?

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
pointed out that in Part 1 of this very schedule an arbitrator was appointed, and he had to consider questions of compensation, and so on. If an arbitrator was necessary for that purpose, why did they draw the line and say an arbitrator must not be appointed under Part II?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
If the noble Earl looks he will find that part of the schedule which provides for an arbitrator is the part which provides for purchase under the Lands Clauses Acts.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
Certainly.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
When you purchase you have an arbitration. It is, of course, a more expensive proceeding.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
It is not only purchase, it is acquisition.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Acquisition of the fee simple of the land.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
Oh, no, purchase or hiring.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
No, if the noble Earl will excuse me. In the case of hiring the valuer is appropriate, as the arbitrator is appropriate to the purchase. That is the scheme of the Bill. I make no concealment of it, but it is entirely owing to the desire to make the thing cheap and simple and to make it work.

LORD KENYON
said that, so far as the owner of the holding was concerned, the question of compulsory hiring or purchase did not make much difference. He practically parted with all his interest in the holding when it was hired just as much as when it was purchased.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved— In page 25, line 18, to leave out the word valuer and to insert the word 'arbitrator.' "—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ST. ALDWYN
said that in another part of the Bill the annual value at which the land was assessed was not settled as for the purposes of rating or taxation but for the purposes of income tax. It would surely be better that the same value should be taken in both places, and he would propose, instead of the words "rating or taxation," that they should insert the words "income tax.' That was generally a much better value as everybody who was familiar with the rating system knew.
Amendment moved— In page 25, line 21, to leave out the words 'rating or taxation' and insert the words 'income-tax.' "—(Lord St. Aldwyn.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Unless there is some objection I do not know of, I do not think we need oppose the Amendment. I should have thought that it was very much the same thing. The assessment for the income-tax is 1058 usually a very fair one, but there may be some reason unknown to me why it should not be taken.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said that in dealing with the previous clause he understood that the noble Lord agreed that anything onerous in the terms and conditions of agreement might be made the subject of consideration in the amount of rent that would have to be settled by the arbitrator or valuer as the case might be. He had drafted some words. He did not know whether they would meet with the view of the noble Lord, but they expressed what he meant. He wanted to ensure that allowance should be made by the arbitrator or valuer in fixing the rent for any onerous conditions of tenancy, and he suggested that after the words "rating or taxation," or "income-tax," as they now were, they should insert the words "any depreciation in the rental value of the land due to the terms and conditions of the agreement."
Amendment moved— In page 25, line 21, after the words 'income-tax' to insert the words any depreciation in the rental value of the land due to the terms and conditions of the agreement.' "—(Lord St. Aldwyn.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
It is quite certain that what is intended is that whatever the terms or conditions are they shall be taken into consideration in fixing the rent. That is all the noble Viscount wants. It might be their appreciation or it might be their depreciation, but, whatever they were, they ought to be taken into consideration in fixing the rent. If the noble Viscount said "the terms and conditions of the hiring" I should have thought that that would have been sufficient.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said he would be prepared to accept the noble Lord's suggestion and substitute the words "the terms and conditions of the hiring."
Amendment, by leave of Committee, withdrawn. 1059 Amendment moved— In page 25, line 21, after the words 'income-tax' to insert the words 'the terms and conditions of the hiring.' " —(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD EBURY
wished to call attention to the language of Paragraph 5. It ran as follows— (5) Any compensation awarded to a tenant in respect of any depreciation of the value to him of the residue of his holding caused by the withdrawal from the holding of the land compulsorily hired shall, as far as possible, be provided for by taking such compensation into account in fixing the rent to be paid for the residue of the holding during the remainder of the term for which it is held by the tenant. That was an instance of one of the vague expressions of which there were too many in the Bill. It would be quite compatible with that, and possible, to fix the rent for the residue at a peppercorn rent. He supposed they would be told that that would be impossible, because the successors of the noble Earl, the President of the Board of Agriculture, would not compare unfavourably with him. He declined to accept that guarantee, if he could get anything better. What he wanted by his Amendment was to dispel that which was vague and to replace it with that which was plain and fair, and for that reason he proposed at the end of the clause to add the words he had put down. They were simple words with none of the intricacies of language which proved so discomforting to the noble Earl opposite, and they appeared to him to involve so very reasonable a proposition that he thought they should commend themselves to the House generally.
Amendment moved— In page 25, at the end of Subsection (5), to insert the words: But so that in any case where part only of a holding is hired the rent to be paid for such part shall, with the rent to be paid for the residue of such holding, be not less than the rent theretofore paid for the entire holdings.' " —(Lord Ebury.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
In the first place, I think, as regards Subsection (5), that it really is not inequitable as the noble Lord seems to suppose. 1060 The provision really amounts to this—that, where a farmer has part of his land taken away from him, the compensation which is to be paid for the severance is so far as possible to be paid in the form of consideration in the rent.

§ LORD EBURY
Yes, it comes out of the landlord's rent.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
No, I do not think so at all. That is not the meaning in the least. It means that, if he suffers by reason of the severance, he may be paid either in cash or in the diminution of the rent. The preferable method is that he should be paid in diminution of the rent. It is not to come out of the landlord's pocket. The landlord is to be compensated as well. Everyone has to be compensated fully. All that it means is that the compensation is to be given in an annual form instead of in a capital form. As regards the Amendment of the noble Lord, it would, if I understand it rightly, really nullify what he himself desires. He desires that there should be payment of compensation in capital, but his Amendment would prevent that being practicable, because he requires— In any case where part only of a holding is hired the rent to be paid for such part shall, with the rent to be paid for the residue of such holding, be not less than the rent theretofore paid for the entire holding.
Supposing he was paid in capital it manifestly might be unfair that the whole of the previous rent should be paid. If you pay a man down in cash, you cannot always require that he should receive the same amount in rent. I really do not think his Amendment carries out his object. I have not all the clause of the Bill in my mind, but the provision is that full compensation should be paid, and if it is not given in the form of rent, it must be given in the form of money.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I think the noble Lord can be satisfied. He wants to insure that the rent of the two halves shall be equal to the whole. That is what it is, and I fancy myself, when we get into working order, the amount will be a bit higher. We have cut up a farm of 1,100 acres, and have left 366 to the tenant and have given the rest to small 1061 holders. The rent the tenant paid for the 1,100 acres was £1,000, and the new rents for the first year were £1,190, for the second year £1,340, and for the third year they will be £1,480. Tne money is paid by the parish council and by the tenant who remains on the farm.

THE EARL OF POWIS
Would they pay for the upkeep of the buildings?

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I have always been told that the tenant farmer is supposed to keep the farm in tenantable repair.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
asked the noble Lord to clear up another point. The Bill said that the compensation to be paid to the tenant was to be taken into account in fixing the rent to be paid for the residue of the holding. The rent the landlord would receive in regard to that portion which remained would be reduced by the amount of the compensation he obtained. In what part of the Bill was it clearly stated that the landlord, whose rent had been cut down in respect of that part of the farm he still continued to let, was to receive compensation for that part which had been taken out of his hands.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
In answer to that, in the first instance, that, with all the other terms or conditions, would have to be taken into consideration in fixing the rent payable to the landlord. In the second place, if the noble Earl will kindly look at Page 25, he will find in the schedule these words— (b) The amount of any other compensation to be paid by the council to any person entitled thereto in respect of the land or any interest therein, or in respect of improvements executed on the land or otherwise; and other things also shall, in default of agreement, be fixed by valuation by a single valuer appointed by the Board.
It is payable. It is quite obvious you may pay this man partly in rent and partly in money down, but whatever happens all persons have to be fully compensated for their interests.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
Lord Ebury's Amendment exactly puts into words those two things.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I do not think it does. Of course, it is obvious if it is all payable in rent that two new rents would be quite equal to the old rent, but it does not follow it will all be paid in the form of rent. If it is paid partly in cash down, then it would not follow that the two new rents would be the same as the old rent.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved— In page 25, line 43, after the word shall to insert the words 'in default of agreement.' "—(Lord St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule:—

* VISCOUNT GALWAY
said he had a consequential Amendment to move. In consequence of having left out Subsection 2 of Clause 21 it would be advisable not to repeal Subsection 5 of Section 7 of the Allotments Act of 1887, by which it was provided that the only buildings on an allotment should be those of a tool house, shed, and greenhouse. If that subsection was left out it might cause some confusion.
Amendment moved— In page 26, line 9, to omit the words 'Subsection 5 of Section 7.' " —(Viscount Galway.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved— In Second Schedule, page 26, to leave out line 23, and insert Section 4, from the words 'and in the application of Subsection 6' to the end of Paragraph (d).' " —(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Committee negatived.
Report of Amendments to be received on Saturday next and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 200).