SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL. (Hansard, 24 August 1907)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
expressed regret that the Small Holdings Commissioners to be appointed under Clause 1 were not named in the Bill. As that had not been done, he would like to call attention to the very great importance of the appointments which were to be made. These Commissioners were to have very large powers indeed; they might, subject to the approval of the Board of Agriculture, override the county councils, and they would have very large powers with regard to property all over the Kingdom. It was unnecessary to say that therefore the character and knowledge of the gentlemen who were to be appointed would be a matter of extreme importance, and it would be most undesirable if any persons were appointed to this office who were in any way connected with the question either on one side or the other. It was not for him to make any suggestion, but he believed many noble Lords would feel—he said this without the slightest disrespect to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill—additional confidence in the appointments if they knew that the Lord Chancellor had been consulted before the appointments were made. Of course, he did not ask the noble Earl to say he would consult the Lord Chancellor; but he would feel that the appointments would be unexceptionable if the Lord Chancellor had been called into consultation.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
asked what steps would be taken to publish the names of those who were to be appointed as Commissioners. Would their names appear in theGazette, or what means would the public have of ascertaining who were to be given these appointments?

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
also wished to put a question to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. In another place there was a considerable amount of discussion as to the probable number of these Commissioners, but no light at all was vouchsafed by His Majesty's 1474 Government on that point. The Bill simply said "two or more." He supposed nobody could imagine that two Commissioners would suffice to accomplish all the work imposed on the Commissioners under the Bill. On the other hand, 200 Commissioners—that number had been suggested in another place—would be absurd. Could the noble Earl tell the House the view of the Board of Agriculture as to the number of Commissioners they would appoint?

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON)
My Lords, in answer to Lord Camperdown I may say that, although I do not pretend that I am going to shut my eyes altogether as to the side of politics to which the Commissioners may lean and when they are appointed find out, at the same time I desire it to be distinctly understood that my object in selecting these Commissioners will be to get the very best class of men it is possible to obtain. I have had some very good names already sent in, and I think there will be great competition for these places. They will be places worthy of men of understanding, of culture, and of honour, and I pledge myself to do all in my power to get the best possible men for the business. As to the next point, I recognise that any man who has the approbation of the Lord Chancellor has the approbation of the whole country, and though I do not pledge myself to go in every case to my noble and learned friend, yet I think he would certainly be a person to be consulted if he would be good enough to give me the benefit of his advice. I think we might leave the matter in that position. In reply to the question put to me by the noble Duke opposite, these Commissioners will be civil servants and therefore, naturally, their names will not be published in theGazette. Then the noble Viscount asked me how many Commissioners would be appointed. I come from a commercial family, and in my early days my father tried to instil into me principles of economy. How far he succeeded I do not know; but it was from an economical point of view that I inserted in the Bill "two or more." I hope and believe that this measure will be a great boon to the 1475 country, its success depending a great deal, of course, on the Commissioners appointed. Though I have put down a small number to begin with, I can assure the House that I do not anticipate that the number of Commissioners will run into hundreds.

§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
My Lords, it requires great diligence to extract from the explanation of the noble Earl anything bearing at all closely upon the question which has been put to him. It really is not material for us to be told that these appointments will be the subject of keen competition, or that they will be worthy of men of understanding, culture, and honour. That is all extremely interesting, but it does not answer our question. I gather that the noble Earl is not in a position to say anything more as to the number of these officials, and no doubt it would be difficult for him to pledge himself at this moment on that point. With regard to their tenure, he tells the House that they are to be civil servants, with, I understand, ordinary civil service tenure and pensionable.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
Yes.

§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
Then I do not quite gather whether the public will have any opportunity of being made aware as to the individuals who may be selected. I cannot help thinking that in the interests of the noble Earl's Department it would be very desirable that some means should be taken of intimating to the public who these men of understanding, culture, and honour are who have been selected for these responsible duties. With regard to their selection, did I gather from him that they would be selected by his Department after consultation with the Lord Chancellor?

§ EARL CARRINGTON
As the responsible Minister I shall make the selection. I am absolutely and entirely responsible.

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
Then what was the reference to the Lord Chancellor in the noble Earl's statement?

§ EARL CARRINGTON
The noble Ear opposite, Lord Camperdown, wished distinct pledge that none of these appointments should be made without the consent of the Lord Chancellor. I could not agree to that. I am absolutely and solely responsible.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Surely it is not seriously suggested that my sanction should be asked in regard to appointments made by a responsible colleague of my own in whom we have every confidence. Such a suggestion would be impracticable.

§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
I would point out that I made no such suggestion.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
Neither did I. I did not use the word "sanction." What I said was that we would feel more happy if we knew that the Lord Chancellor would be consulted.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
pointed out that civil service conditions would involve a limit of age and a competitive examination. Did the noble Earl mean to bring in those things?

§ EARL CARRINGTON
No.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
Then it is erroneous to suggest that this will be a civil service tenure.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
moved to amend Subsection 1 of Clause 2 by inserting, after the words, "(1) The Commissioners, acting under the directions of the Board, shall ascertain the extent to which there is a demand for small holdings in the several counties," the words "or would be a demand if suitable land was available." He explained that this was a modification to some extent of an Amendment which their Lordships had agreed to in Committee on the Motion of Viscount Hill. The Bill originally provided, in the first two lines of Clause 2, that the Commissioners, acting under the directions of the Board, should ascertain the extent to which there was a demand, either actual or prospective, for small holdings. Their 1477 Lordships struck out the words "or prospective" because nobody understood what they meant, and they appeared to suggest a fishing inquiry to create a demand where no demand really existed. The Government resisted that Amendment, but he understood that they would be prepared to accept it if the words "or would be a demand if suitable land was available " were also inserted, so as to meet any case where such a demand had been prevented from occurring under the assumption that no land could be got.
Amendment moved— In page 1, line 25, after the word 'counties,' to insert the words 'or would be a demand if suitable land was available.'"— (Viscount St. Aldwn.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
This Amendment, if I understand it rightly, really expresses what we mean by "prospective " in better language than I was able to command myself. I shall, therefore, be very pleased to accept it, subject, of course, to reconsideration if necessary.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendment agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
moved to add, at the end of Subsection 1 of Clause 2, the words "and take such other steps as they think necessary." The subsection originally provided that the Commissioners might co-operate with "or employ " such other authorities, associations, and persons as they thought best qualified to assist them; but on the Motion of the Duke of Northumberland the words "or employ " were struck out in Committee. The clause as it now stood was not in harmony with the first subsection of Clause 23, which related to the case of allotments, because although the words "or employ " were left out the words in this subsection ran— Co-operate with such authorities, associations, and persons as they think best to assist them, and take such other steps as they think necessary.
The object of his Amendment was to add, at the end of Subsection 1 of Clause 2, words which would place the two subsections on the same footing. He understood that if these words were here in- 1478 serted His Majesty's Government were willing to agree to the Duke of Northumberland's Amendment leaving out the word "or employ," which Amendment they resisted in Committee.
Amendment moved— In page 2, line 4, after the word 'then' to add the words 'and take such other steps as they think necessary.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
The facts as stated by the noble Viscount are quite correct, and I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
said their Lordships would remember that on Clause 3 he moved an Amendment in Committee with the object of insuring that the county councils should be consulted before the Orders were made; but he withdrew the Amendment and agreed to the substitution of other words on the understanding that he would consider them when he saw them in print and recur to the subject if necessary. After reading the words of his noble friend he desired to say that they appeared very fairly to carry out his (Lord Camperdown's) intention, and that he did not therefore propose to raise any further question with regard to it.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said he raised in Committee the question of the vagueness of the word "localities" in Clause 3, and then suggested that the word "parish " might be inserted. Lord Fitzmaurice rather suggested that localities meant a group of parishes. He, therefore, now moved to leave out the word "localities" and to insert the words "parishes or group of parishes."
Amendment moved— In page 3, line 5, to leave out the word 'localities' and to insert the words parishes or group of parishes.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. This is one of those dreadful difficulties of the English language. One word is too vague and the other is too precise. I should much prefer to leave the wording 1479 as it is, and I hope the noble Viscount will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
moved to amend Subsection (3) of Clause 4, so that it would read— (3) The Board, after considering the objections and the Report of the person holding the inquiry (if any), may settle and confirm the scheme either without modification or subject to such modifications as the Board think fit, or may annul the scheme.":
Amendment moved— In page 4, line 5, after the word 'settle' to insert the words 'and confirm'; and in line 7 to leave out the words 'and may confirm.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
moved to leave out Subsection (2) of Clause 5. He said that this was an Amendment of form rather than of substance. He had no wish to deprive the Board of Agriculture of the powers which it would possess under this subsection—namely, of directing its Commissioners to carry a scheme into effect which a county council had refused to carry into effect; but what he desired to do was to enable the question of the cost of carrying out such scheme to be raised in another place in order that it might be fully considered there. It had not yet been so considered; and of course, the matter was not within the competence of their Lordships' House. He would like, very shortly, to state the history of this matter, because it was of importance, and he thought quite justified the proposition he was about to make. In the first place, the Bill was introduced with this subsection giving those very great powers to the Board of Agriculture of overriding county councils and enabling the Board to impose upon the rates of the county the cost of the scheme which the county council had refused to undertake without any appeal and without any provision that the Treasury should or might share any part of the cost of that scheme. That was an intolerable proposition. It was the more intolerable because, as the Bill then stood, the limit of rating imposed by the existing law on 1480 the expenditure of county councils in this matter was abolished, and any amount of expenditure might have been imposed by the Board of Agriculture on the unfortunate ratepayers of the county against the wish of their elected representatives. When it was considered, this proposition was felt to be intolerable, even by supporters of His Majesty's Government. He would have thought that the veriest Cockney who had been foisted by a political association upon a rural council would not take long to discover that he could not do anything that would more insure his rejection at the next election than to allow or support a proposal that the Government should impose such expenditure upon the ratepayers of his county against their will. This feeling was entertained at any rate by many supporters of His Majesty's Government on the Grand Committee to which the Bill was referred, with the result that one of them moved the following Amendment— Provided that if at the end of any year the county council can show to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the carrying into effect of any such scheme has involved a net loss to the council, the Board shall on demand, repay to the council a sum equivalent to two-thirds of such loss. That Amendment, in spite of the opposition of the Government, was only defeated by thirty-one votes to twenty-eight; and the opposition was such that the Minister in charge of the Bill was obliged himself to propose to the Committee the following clause— If it appears to the Board that proceedings under this section have resulted or are likely to result in a loss, the Board may, with the consent of the Treasury, pay or undertake to pay out of the Small Holdings Account the whole or any part of that loss. Even that did not satisfy the Committee, and on the Motion of one of its members an Amendment was inserted making the provision much more operative, and it was carried against the Government by twenty-two votes to twenty-one. The Bill then went down to the House of Commons, where it was felt that the question of the expense in the case of loss had been by no means satisfactorily settled. The point was again raised, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged to propose—again in order to meet the feelings of his own supporters— 1481 that a Treasury Minute should be issued in order to compel the Treasury to bear half of the loss which a county council might incur if it reasonably and properly carried out the scheme. That, again, did not satisfy the House of Commons, and there was a very general desire to raise the question on Report in order to compel the Treasury to bear the loss incurred by the Commissioners through carrying out a scheme which the county council had refused to carry out on account of the loss which they anticipated would result from it. But when the matter was raised, the Speaker ruled—no doubt quite properly—that it could not be considered on Report, and that the Bill must be recommitted; but owing to the hurry in which His Majesty's Government had been for the last month or so with regard to the legislation they desired to cram into the present session, the appeal for recommitment was refused. The case, therefore, remained in this way. The Bill as it stood did not carry out the proposed intentions of the Government in relieving county ratepayers of the cost to which he had referred. It enabled the Treasury to do what everyone felt ought to be done, but it did not impose upon them a burden which the Minister in charge of the Bill himself admitted should not be imposed on county councils in certain cases. He hoped he had shown sufficient reason for their Lordships making a formal Amendment in this clause in order that the House of Commons, with whom the financial powers rested, might have an opportunity of reconsidering the matter, and, if they chose, of inserting provisions to carry out what was declared to be the intention of the Government, and what he believed was the general wish of the House of Commons. Of course, if, after consideration, the House of Commons decided to leave the Bill as it was, they would not agree to their Lordships' Amendment, and when the Bill came back their Lordships would not dream of insisting upon the Amendment. He merely wished that the House of Commons should have an opportunity of properly considering a matter of finance, with which it was their province to deal.
Amendment moved— In page 4, lines 14 to 21, to leave out Subsection (2)."—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I quite understand the object of the Amendment which the noble Viscount has moved, but he has admitted that the clause as it stands enables the Treasury to do what is right. After all, the situation is very much changed from what it first was. The Treasury now has the power to do what is right, and, of course, it will do what is right.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS
Oh!

§ * EARL CARRINGTON
Well, so long as the present Government remains in power. The noble Viscount has referred to his Amendment as a formal one. I would ask the House to consider what the Amendment is. It is to leave out Subsection (2), which reads— If the county council fail so to fulfil their obligations, the Board shall by Order, direct the Commissioners to take such steps as may be necessary for carrying the scheme into effect, and upon such Order being made the Commissioners shall for the purpose have all the powers of a county council in relation to small holdings under the small Holdings Act, 1892, and this Act, and those Acts shall apply as if references to the Commissioners were substituted for references to a county council. That is the genesis of the Bill, and with every desire to meet the wishes of noble Lords opposite it is absolutely impossible for us to accept this Amendment, as the omission of this subsection would in a sentence leave the whole thing in the air.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW
thought the noble Earl had entirely missed the point. The sole object of the Amendment was to afford the House of Commons another opportunity of considering the matter. If the House of Commons did not wish to make any alteration they would return the clause as it now stood and their Lordships would not insist on their Amendment. There was no desire in moving the Amendment to deprive the Board of Agriculture of their powers under this subsection.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW,
on behalf of the Earl of Jersey, moved to amend Subsection (2) of Clause 6 by omitting the words— No land shall be acquired by a county council without their county except with the 1483 consent of the council of the county in which such land is situate. A county council may appeal against a refusal to give such consent to the Board of Agriculture, which shall have power to decide the question and terms of arrangement, and inserting a new subsection to make clearer the object aimed at.
Amendment moved— In page 5, line 11, to leave out from the word 'land' to the end of the clause, and 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 such land is situate, provided that any county council aggrieved by a refusal to give such consent may appeal to the Board, and the Board shall have power finally to determine all questions arising under this subsection and to settle the terms of arrangement (if any) between the county councils of their respective counties.'"—(The Earl of Onslow.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
This provision was very fully discussed when the noble Earl, Lord Jersey, moved in Committee the insertion of the words which it is now desired to omit in favour of a new subsection. I do not think I need take up the time of the House in re-stating our objections to it. After all, it is the same man in a different coat. It is an attempt to control county councils in the acquisition of land outside the area of their own county, and that is a proposition which we cannot under any circumstances accept. I gave the reasons why it was impossible to accept the Amendment in the old words, and the objections apply equally to the new words now proposed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH
explained that the Amendment standing in his name to Clause 7 was consequential on that which was carried in Committee on on the Motion of Lord Dartmouth.
Amendment moved— In page 5, line 18, after the first word `for' to insert the words 'selling or' and after the word 'and 'to insert the words 'sold or.'"—(The Earl of Plymouth.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I opposed Lord Dartmouth's Amendment with all my power but with very little result, 1484 and I shall therefore oppose a consequential. Amendment to that Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN,
who moved in Committee the omission of Subsection (1) of Clause 20 and withdrew the Amendment on the understanding that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would confer with him on the matter, said the noble Earl had carried out this promise and he understood that in the opinion of the noble Earl there would be very grave objection to the omission of this subsection. He (Lord St. Aldwyn) had never in the least intended to limit the action of parish councils in the matter so far as the law conferred powers upon them. He understood that these councils had in many cases let allotments exceeding one acre and that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill thought there might be similar cases in future, and the Government had very strong feeling that it would not be desirable to interfere with those powers. On the other hand, he thought the Government were running considerable risk by the institution of authorities whose powers clashed in these matters, and it was for this reason that he moved in Committee to omit the subsection.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I am afraid it would still be impossible for us to accept such an Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said that as the noble Earl was still of opinion that it would be impossible to accept the Amendment he would not raise the point again.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
My Amendment to Clause 25 fulfils a pledge that was given in Committee by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. It appears to be in every way preferable to the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the Duke of Richmond, and I hope the House will accept it.
Amendment moved— In page 12, line 27, after the word 'acquired' to insert the words 'and every such order shall, if so required by the owner of the land to be acquired, provide for the creation of such new easements as are reasonably necessary to secure the continued use and enjoyment by such owner and his tenants of all means 1485 of access, drainage, water supply, and other similar conveniencies theretofore used or enjoyed by them 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 shall continue beyond the determination of such hiring.'"—(Earl Carrington.)

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON,
who had given notice of an Amendment to omit the present Subsection (4) of Clause 25— (4) An order under this section may provide for the continuance of any existing easement or the creation of any new easement over the land authorised to be acquired and to insert in its place the following new subsection— (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 shall continue beyond the termination of such hiring, said the words which the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture now proposed to insert on this point met his objections to the subsection as it stood, and in those circumstances he would not move his Amendment but would accept that of the Government.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendment agreed to.

* THE EARL OF ONSLOW
moved to insert a new subsection in Clause 26, which he explained was intended to take the place, or, at any rate, a great deal of the place, of the Amendment moved by Lord St. Aldwyn in Committee. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack then pointed out to the noble Viscount that if the Amendment were carried there would still be nothing in the Bill to prevent a county council commencing proceedingsde novo, and going through all the formalities required by the Bill in order compulsorily to hire the same land a second time. There was a strong feeling that where land was leased for so long a 1486 period as thirty-five years, the county council would, at the end of the first period of letting, have ascertained beyond doubt whether the letting of the land in small holdings was a success or not, and it would not, therefore, be any hardship upon the county council to ask them, if the landlord so required, to purchase the land. If the small holdings had been proved to be a success the county council ought, at as early a date as possible, to put itself in a position to sell the holdings to any of the small holders who wished to purchase; but that could not be done so long as the council only hired. He therefore had a double object in moving this Amendment.
Amendment moved— In page 14, line 5, after the word 'tenancy' to insert the following new subsection: '(2) Within three 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 may 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, provided that, upon receipt by the council of such notice from the landlord, the notice to renew the tenancy shall cease to be effective, and if within six months thereafter the council do not purchase the land, such land shall not thereafter be authorised by any order under this Act to be hired compulsorily by the council which has failed or refused to purchase under the provisions of this subsection.'"—(The Earl of Onslow).

§ EARL CARRINGTON
By this Amendment the noble Earl seeks to enact that within three months after the receipt of the notice the landlord might require the council to purchase the land, and if within six months thereafter the council did not purchase, such land should not thereafter be authorised by any order under this Bill to be hired compulsorily by the council which had failed or refused to do—what?—to purchase under the provisions of this subsection. Yet the whole Bill is framed on the supposition that the land ought to be hired and not bought. I would make an earnest appeal to the noble Earl not to press the Amendment. It would strike absolutely at the root of the Bill, and by it one of the fundamental principles of the measure would be entirely destroyed.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said he attached great weight to the authority of Lord Onslow in this matter, but hoped that, in the circumstances, he would not press the Amendment.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
agreed that it would be impossible to press the Amendment at this stage with any hope of success, but he trusted that, if it was withdrawn, it would be clearly understood that many noble Lords on that side of the House believed that in by far the large majority of cases the real hope of success of small holdings was to give permanency of title, and that security could be given to the small holder by purchase and purchase alone.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ * LORD BARNARD
moved to amend Subsection (1) of Clause 29— (1) No land shall be authorised by an order under this Act to be acquired compulsorily which at the date of the order forms part of any park, garden, pleasure ground, home farm, or is required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling-house, or is woodland or which at that date is the property of any local authority or has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking "— by omitting the words "authorised by an order under this Act to be," and inserting, after the word "compulsorily," the words "under this Act." He moved and explained the object of this Amendment in Committee and withdrew it on the understanding that His Majesty's Government would consider the point. The introduction of the words "authorised by an order under this Act" appeared to indicate the possibility or the intention of acquiring parks, gardens, pleasure grounds, etc., by some other means than the power under the Act. If not, there could be no objection to omitting the words.
Amendment moved— In page 15, lines 27 and 28, to leave out the words 'authorised by an order under this Act to be'; and in line 28, after the word 'compulsorily' to insert the words under this Act.'"—(Lord Barnard.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I said in Committee that I would examine the 1488 subsection and see whether I could detect any purpose such as the noble Lord appeared to apprehend, but I remain of the same opinion. It really does not matter whether the words are in or not. They certainly could not create other powers of taking, and I do not think they indicate other powers of taking.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
reminded the House that in Committee the word "woodland" was added to the descriptions of land which were not to be taken. Objection was raised at the time by several noble Lords, including the Lord Chancellor, on the ground that there might be certain small plantations comprised within the area to be taken, and which, by his Amendment, it would not be possible to take. He had since considered the matter, and now proposed to insert, after the word "woodland," the words "not wholly surrounded by land acquired by a council under this Act," which would save such cases as those mentioned by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
Amendment moved— In page 15, line 31, after the first 'or' to insert the word `which,' and after the word 'woodland' to insert the words 'not wholly surrounded by land acquired by a council under this Act.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

§ * LORD BARNARD
said that even where there were small plantations on farms they were never let with the farm, and the landlord had access to them though the rest of the farm was let to an agricultural tenant. He did not know what county councils proposed to do with woodlands—whether they were going to have shooting parties or go in for forestry. He preferred the words as they were.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
hoped the Amendment would be accepted. A landlord would have no object in retaining woodland in such a case.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to accept the Amendment provisionally.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
Certainly; but I would point out that the Amendment is in the noble Earl's favour.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF VERULAM
moved to add, at the end of Subsection (1) the words, "or includes the site of any monument or place of historical or archaeological interest." He thought it would be agreed that these valuable objects should be preserved to the nation.
Amendment moved— In page 15, line 34, after the word 'undertaking,' to insert the words 'or includes the site of any monument or place of historical or archaeological interest.'"—(The Earl of Verulam.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
It would be a grievous calamity if any such thing as the noble Earl fears should happen, but I think your Lordships can be certain that the Board of Agriculture would never make an order in these circumstances. Many things must be done before an order can be made, and any representation on this ground would certainly be favourably considered. I think it would be quite impossible for such a catastrophe as that anticipated to occur.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
hoped the noble Earl would reconsider his decision and accept the Amendment. He was sure there was no Member of their Lordships' House who did not take a deep interest in the great historic remains in question, round which more than usually prominent interest had centred owing to the entertainments that had taken place recently in all parts of the country illustrating the various scenes in English history. These sites and monuments were of enormous interest to historians, and the Government would be doing a graceful thing if they accepted the Amendment.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I sympathise entirely with the object in view and I do not think any danger need be feared. But if it is the wish of noble Lords opposite that these words should be inserted, I gladly accept them. 1490 On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD HYLTON
moved to amend Clause 32 by deleting the words "to the satisfaction of the Board," so that it would read "Where 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 be required by the landlord to be used for building, etc."—and reducing the period of notice from twelve months to six. The clause, if passed in its present form, would, he said, result in great loss and injury to landowners. There was a great deal of land which had at any given moment only a prospective building value and was let on an agricultural tenure, often at a low rent, in consideration of a clause giving power of resumption on the part of the landlord for purposes other than agriculture. These and similar lands were very likely, when this Bill became law, to be taken for the purpose of small holdings, and if there was great delay under the Act, as there would be unless his Amendment was accepted, in obtaining repossession on the part of the landlord for legitimate purposes of development, the landlord would be a heavy sufferer. He happened to have been for some years a trustee of a large charity, of which several Members of their Lordships' House were also trustees. That charity had very large property in counties in England, and the trustees in old days were in the habit of meeting only twice a year. A well-known firm of agents, who managed the business of the trustees, told him, before this Bill was on thetapis at all, that in those days it was almost impossible to get any development of the estates for building because prospective purchasers declined to wait six months for the trustees to meet, and so they passed on to the next owner. For the last few years the trustees had adopted a new scheme and met much more frequently, and there had since been a great difference in the development of the estates. This showed the advantage of being able quickly to resume possession of land. According to the clause as it stood in the Bill, the landlord 1491 would have to prove to the satisfaction of the Board that he wanted to resume the land for either of the purposes set forth. They all knew the long delays that ensued in dealing with a Government Department, and he did not think the officials of the Board of Agriculture, with the enormous amount of work which would certainly be thrown upon them under this Bill, were likely to prove less dilatory. Therefore, the practical result of passing Clause 32 in its present form would be that the power of resumption for any purpose of development would become a dead letter. This would not only be hard On the owner, but also against public interest, as it would prevent necessary development. When a person succeeded to land called prospective building land, but which was at present only agricultural land, the Inland Revenue put on an additional charge in respect of prospective building value; but if this clause remained as now, the landlord would be paving upon the basis of its being prospective building land, whereas it would remain agricultural land for ever. He would move, first, the omission of the words "to the satisfaction of the Board."
Amendment moved— In page 16, line 40, to leave out the words 'to the satisfaction of the Board.'"—(Lord Hylton.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
The noble Lord moves to omit the words "to the satisfaction of the Board." Therefore the clause would read— Where 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 be required by the landlord.
But to whom is it to be shown?

§ LORD HYLTON
said he recognised that the Amendment as it stood was rather awkwardly worded, but he would like to get some satisfaction on the point.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I suppose it would have to be shown to the satisfaction of a Court of Law. Here my commercial instincts again come in, for this idea would be certain to introduce litigation and expense, to avoid which is the great object of the Bill. We want to 1492 make the taking of land and all the consequent arrangements as straightforward and cheap as possible, and I still think that the Board of Agriculture would be the proper tribunal. We wish, of course, to safeguard in every way the rights of landlords; that is only proper. But I cannot see where the terrible delay which the noble Lord referred to is to arise. The noble Lord brought in the Inland Revenue. I cannot speak for that Department, but I can speak for the Board of Agriculture, and I can honestly say that I do not believe there is a lame duck in the whole of that office. They are all men who know their business and desire to transact it conscientiously and efficiently and with celerity, and I do not think there is any legitimate ground for the noble Lord's fears on this head. I therefore hope he will leave the words as they stand.

§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
I quite understand the wish of my noble friend Lord Hylton that it should not be left to the entirely unfettered discretion of the Board to decide whether land ought not to be resumed for a particular purpose, but I venture to think that what he desires is provided for in the Amendment which stands in Lord St. Aldwyn's name immediately below this Amendment on the Paper, and I would suggest that he might withdraw his Amendment and allow us to consider the matter on Lord St. Aldwyn's Amendment.

VISCOUNT HYLTON
gladly complied with the noble Marquess's request.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD HYLTON
then moved to amend the clause so that a landlord who required his land for building, mining, or other industrial purposes, could resume possession on giving the local authority six months previous notice in writing, and not twelve months as in the clause.
Amendment moved— In page 17, line 5, to leave out the word 'twelve,' and to insert the word 'six.'"—(Lord Hylton.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I am very sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment. Six months would be most 1493 inconvenient to the small holder. An agricultural tenant must have twelve months to harvest his crops.

§ LORD CLINTON
hoped the noble Earl would reconsider the matter. The noble Earl had stated that the Government wished to safeguard in every way the rights of landlords, but if landlords could not resume possession without giving twelve months notice they would be in a much worse position than under ordinary leases.

§ THE EARL OF HARROWBY
said that under the clause as it stood a landlord might have to wait in some cases two years before he could resume possession. He thought that would be a great injustice.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
sympathised with the view of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. He thought there would be considerable difficulties in resumption of the land with less than twelve months notice. Perhaps the insertion of the words "except in special circumstances " might be considered. He did not know whether that would meet Lord Hylton's point.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I will consider that suggestion, but I cannot give any pledge.

§ LORD HYLTON
argued that there would be no hardship to the tenant if his Amendment were carried, as compensation would, of course, be given. In letting this kind of land he invariably inserted a clause empowering resumption at three months notice, but always paid compensation to the agricultural tenant on resuming. The noble Earl seemed unaware of the great extent to which shorter periods than six months were inserted in leases all over the country.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I cannot give way on this point. I think it would be very unreasonable to give only six months notice.
On Question, Amendment negatived.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
moved to insert in the clause the new subsection referred to by Lord Lansdowne, and 1494 which he understood the noble Earl in charge of the Bill was prepared to accept.
Amendment moved— In page 17, line 10, after the word 'Board,' to insert the following subsection: 'Where the land has been hired compulsorily by the Commissioners acting in default of a county council, any quesion as to the right of the landlord to resume possession of the land or any part thereof under this section shall be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chief Justice of England.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I am prepared to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD KENYON
moved an Amendment in Clause 38 with the object of limiting the power of county councils to employ any co-operative society as agents for promoting small holdings or allotments. He thought "any society " was too wide; it might include political societies. He therefore moved the insertion of the words "such society as is mentioned in Subsection (4) of this section," which would exclude the possibility of political societies being employed.
Amendment moved— In page 19, line 37, to leave out the words 'any society,' and to insert the words 'any such society as is mentioned in Subsection (4) of this section.'"—(Lord Kenyon.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
There is no earthly desire on the part of the Government to employ any political society. This is a great national object, and I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity of pointing that out. I gladly accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
moved to amend Subsection (2) of Clause 38— (2) The county council, with the consent of, and subject to regulations made by, the Local Government Board, may for the purpose of assisting a society give guarantees or make grants or advances to the society, etc.— by omitting the words "give guarantee or," and inserting other words. The noble Earl said: The object of this 1495 Amendment is to meet the point raised in Committee by Lord Zouche of Haryngworth. We guarantee the advances that are made, but not the solvency of the society. I hope the House will accept the Amendment to omit the words "give guarantees or," and to insert, after the second "society," the words "or guarantee advances made to the society."
Amendment moved— In page 19, line 41, to leave out the words 'give guarantees or,' and in page 20, line 1, after the word 'society' to insert the words 'or guarantee advances made to the society.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ROBERTSON
moved to amend Subsection (1) of Clause 42— (1) All questions which under this Act are referred to arbitration shall, unless otherwise expressly provided by this Act, be determined by a single arbitrator in accordance with the Argricultural Holdings (England) Acts, 1883 to 1900. by inserting after the second "Act " the words "and subject to the provisions of Subsection (2) of this section." He stated that he withdrew this Amendment in Committee on the assurance of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that the matter should be further considered. He thought it would be as well again to explain his proposal. The general provision in Clause 42 was that where there was a case of arbitration the arbitration should take place under the Agricultural Holdings (England) Acts, 1883 to 1906, and the practical effect of that was that the arbitrator was nominated by the Board of Agriculture. But in Subsection 2 of the clause this was departed from, for the reason that the Board of Agriculture acting in the place of a defaulting county council would be one of the parties to the transaction. The courage of the drafts-man failed him at this point, for he saw that it would be impossible to allow the Board of Agriculture to nominate the arbitrator that was to decide in their own cause. But that argument equally applied to the first subsection, when it was remembered that the Commissioners might be a party, and the Commissioners 1496 were really the noble Earl at the head of the Department multiplied by two or three, or possibly 200. In these circumstances it seemed to him that fair play demanded that the nomination of the arbitrator should be taken out of the hands of the Board of Agriculture where the Commissioners were directly involved just as much as where the Board of Agriculture were directly involved. His proposal, in a word, was that in either case the parties,might be allowed to agree upon an arbitrator in the first instance, or, if they did not agree, that the arbitrator should be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice.
Amendment moved— In page 21, line 2, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'and subject to the provisions of Subsection (2) of this section.'"—(Lord Robertson.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
This Amendment has been considered. since the Committee Stage in accordance with the promise which I then gave to the noble and learned Lord. There can be no question that the matters which the noble and learned Lord has in view are covered without the necessity of adopting the Amendment. But there are points which are not covered, as in the case of arbitrations under the Agricultural Holdings Acts for determining the questions of compensation between the Board and the tenant. Under the Bill as it stands the ordinary arbitrators under the Agricultural Holdings Acts would be the persons who would have to determine them. We think that these matters ought to be settled under the Agricultural Holdings Acts as similar questions hitherto have been. Section 27 of the Patents Act enables the Crown to use patents, and the Treasury has to determine the amount of compensation. Confidence is always shown in the public Departments in matters of this kind, and I understand that those who are responsible for the Bill attach importance to maintaining this clause as it stands. If the noble and learned Lord presses his Amendment and the House desire that it should be inserted, it will have to come up for consideration elsewhere; but I am afraid the Government in another place would not be likely to assent to it.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said that if he rightly understood the explanation of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, the only arbitrations which Lord Robertson sought to include which would not be so included would be arbitrations as between landlord and tenant, the county council in this case being the landlord and the tenant being the ordinary agricultural tenant under the Agricultural Holdings Acts as they existed apart from this Bill. He did not imagine that the provisions of the Bill with regard to arbitration or valuation were ever intended to affect the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Acts as between landlord and tenant, and he did not quite appreciate the desire of Lord Robertson to include them.
On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD KENYON
moved an Amendment in Clause 45 providing that any notice required by the Bill to be served or given might be sent by "registered " post.
Amendment moved— In page 22, line 15, after the word 'by,' to insert the word 'registered.'

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ * LORD BARNARD
called attention to the fact that Subsection (5), of Clause 45, had nothing whatever to do with the other part of the clause, and suggested that it should be set out as a separate clause.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
agreed that the subsection in question should appear in the Bill as a separate clause.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I quite concur. That is a matter which can be put right at the Table, and does not require a Motion.

§ * LORD BARNARD
moved to leave out the first paragraph of Part II. of the First Schedule, which ran— (1) The Board shall make regulations for the purpose of carrying the order into effect and of protecting the council and the persons in- 1498 terested in the land, and the order shall incorporate such regulations, together with such provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts and of Section 77 to 85 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, as may, subject to the prescribed adaptations, appear to the Board necessary or expedient for that purpose. The Schedule itself had to be read with Subsection (2) of Clause 25, which provided that where a council proposed to hire land compulsorily, the council might submit to the Board an order for the compulsory hiring of the land, and the provisions of Part of the First Schedule should apply to the order, with the modifications set out in Part II. of that Schedule. If their Lordships would refer to the first paragraph of Part I. of the First Schedule they would see that it was, with the exception of verbal alterations, practically the same as the one which he was now moving to delete, but it did not give the same wide discretion to the Board. It incorporated regulations made by the Board, and he submitted that the paragraph which he proposed to omit was not needed at all. All that was necessary was provided for by Paragraph 1 of Part I., and it did not contain the objectionable words "appear to the Board necessary or expedient for that purpose." Perhaps the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would be able to reassure the House on this point. He expressed some misgivings as to the great powers which were given in the measure to a Government Department, and said they must not overlook the fact that Government Departments sometimes made use of their administrative powers in a manner that was never contemplated, as had been illustrated recently in the case of the Education Department. He expressed the hope that the House would have some reassurance that the Board did not intend to make any further alterations in the Lands Clauses Acts in these particular cases than were absolutely necessary to meet the circumstances of the case.
Amendment moved— In the first Schedule, page 24, lines 23 to 29, leave out paragraph (1)."—(Lord Barnard.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
A similar question was raised in the Committee Stage, and I am able to reassure the noble Lord. As a matter 1499 of fact, he has made a general and also a particular criticism. In his general criticism the noble Lord complained of the tendency in modern legislation for Departments to frame by-laws and regulations. That tendency has no doubt been very common, for reasons into which I do not enter. The reason why it is provided that adaptations may be prescribed is that the Lands Clauses Acts are not framed for the purpose of dealing with compulsory hiring, but with compulsory purchase. If, therefore, you apply the Acts to hiring, it is needful to make a certain adaptation, and the words here criticised are intended to enable the Board to make these adaptations. The same words have been employed before for a similar purpose in regard to the same Acts, and I would refer my noble friend to Section 10, Subsection (8), of the Local Government Act of 1894. There is really no other method of dealing with the question. You must either enumerate or schedule the adaptations, or adopt the more flexible method of delegating power to the Government Department concerned.

LORD ROBERTSON
said that the explanation of the noble and learned Lord was sufficient for the purposes of the present occasion, and his noble friend had rendered a service by calling attention to the subject. The Lord Chancellor had produced what was, he thought, a perfectly applicable precedent, but he was bound to say that he thought it would be for the consideration of Parliament afterwards whether that was a precedent that ought to be carried further. He could not advise his noble friend, however, to do more than enter his protest.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
moved an Amendment providing, in the schedule relating to the provisions as to the compulsory hiring of land by a council,that the order authorising the land to be hired compulsorily should not, "except with the consent of the landlord," confer on the council any right to fell or cut timber or trees, etc. The noble Earl said: This Amendment was moved in Committee by Lord Camperdown and I 1500 accepted it, but it is not in the Bill as it stands. I, therefore, move to insert the words "except with the consent of the landlord."
Amendment moved— In the first Schedule, page 25, line 2, after the word 'not' to insert the words 'except with the consent of the landlord.'"—(Earl Carrington.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
said the noble Earl was not correct in stating that the Amendment to insert the words was carried in Committee. He moved their insertion, but withdrew the Amendment on the understanding that the words would be considered by the Government.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendment agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said a difficulty arose in connection with Subsection (2) of Part II. which provided that— The order authorising the land to be hired compulsorily shall determine the terms and conditions of the hiring other than the rent, and in particular shall provide for the insertion in the lease of covenants by the council to insure to pay all taxes, rates, and charges usually borne by tenants to cultivate the land in a proper manner and (unless otherwise agreed) to keep the buildings and premises demised in repair and to pay to the landlord at the determination of the tenancy, on the council quitting the land, compensation for any depreciation of the land, and so on. The whole of the latter part of that portion of the subsection which he had read appeared to be governed by the words "unless otherwise agreed." He did not think that was intended. In his opinion, the words "unless otherwise agreed " were only intended to apply to the keeping of the buildings and premises demised in repair. He proposed to amend the subsection so that it would read— …shall provide for the insertion in the lease of covenants by the council to cultivate the land in a proper manner and to pay to the landlord at the determination of the tenancy on the council quitting the land, compensation for any depreciation of the land by reason of any failure by the council, or any person deriving title under them, to observe such covenants or by reason of any user of the land by the council or such person as aforesaid, and then would come in the words— and (unless otherwise agreed) to pay all taxes, rates, and charges usually borne be 1501 tenants, to insure the buildings and keep thy buildings and premises demised in repair, leaving the last-named matters, which were not so important as the others, and which might be fairly agreed upon, to be matters of agreement.
Amendment moved— In page 24, line 33, to omit the words 'to insure to pay all taxes, rates, and charges usually borne by the tenant.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved— In page 24, line 34, to omit the words '(unless otherwise agreed) to keep the buildings in repair and.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved— In page 24, line 40, after the word aforesaid, to insert the words 'and (unless otherwise agreed) to pay all taxes, rates, and chargee usually borne by tenants, to insure the buildings and keep the buildings and premises demised in repair.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
moved an Amendment providing that the Order should confer no right to take, sell, or carry away any minerals, gravel, sand, or clay, except so far as may be necessary to adapt the land for small holdings or allotments, and "for which proper compensation shall be paid to the landlord."
Amendment moved— In the first Schedule, page 25, line 6, after the word 'allotments' to insert the words 'for which proper compensation shall be paid to the landlord.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I am prepared to agree to the Amendment if the noble Viscount will substitute the words "and I except upon such terms as to payment to the landlord of the value of the minerals, etc., as shall be inserted in the Order."

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
said that this would leave it open to the Board of Agriculture not to insert in the Order any provision on the matter, and that 1502 clearly would not be right. Perhaps the noble Earl would accept the Amendment now, subject to further consideration.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD CLINTON
moved to leave out Subsection (6) of the first Schedule This was, he said, purely consequential upon the Amendment made in Committee by which arbitration was substituted for valuation. Now that valuation no longer appeared in the Schedule, he thought this subsection unnecessary.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Is it the case that all reference to valuation has disappeared? I should have thought that this subsection was very useful for those cases of valuation which still remain provided for in the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord will let this matter stand over till the Third Reading, and we will consider whether the Amendment is purely consequential.

§ LORD CLINTON
said that, as he understood the Third Reading was to be taken immediately, he would let his Amendment go to the Vote.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended),
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(Earl Carrington.)

§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
My Lords, before the Third Reading is tarried, I desire to express the feeling which I think is prevalent among noble Lords who sit round me of deep regret that so important a Bill should have come to the House in the last days of August. The Bill has quite lately been described by the Prime Minister as the most ambitious and greatest change in the agricultural system that any country has put forward in recent years. That description seems to me, in some respects, 1503 inflated. I agree that the Bill is ambitious, because it contains many new principles hitherto unknown to our legislation. But that it will effect a transformation of the agricultural system of the country I very greatly doubt. If the Bill does merit the description of the Prime Minister, is it not—I was going to say "outrageous " that it should not come under the notice of the House until the very last expiring days of the session? I press that point, because I shall always insist that this House has very special qualifications for dealing with measures concerning the agricultural interests of the country. When we are dealing with Bills affecting legal questions, we pay the greatest attention to the opinion of the great lawyers who sit in the House. If we deal with military and naval questions, we are glad to be guided to some extent by Members of those great services. Surely, then, in this House, where so large a number of its Members have an unrivalled acquaintance with the practical side of agriculture, when agricultural legislation is proposed, it is reasonable that we should have the fullest opportunity of considering it. In those circumstances, it is very hard that not only should the Bill come to us in the last days of the session, but that we should be warned by the Prime Minister that we are not expected to touch a single line of its more important provisions. I am not going, at this moment, to review the Bill. I only wish to say for myself that I am one of those who ungrudgingly accept the policy of extending small holdings; and I am quite ready, though perhaps not quite so ungrudgingly, to admit that compulsory powers should be resorted to for this purpose. Not that I believe there is any great need for them. I am under the impression that without compulsory powers you could have obtained almost all that was necessary. But I feel that there may be here and there cases in which such powers are useful, and also that unless such powers are included in the Bill it will always be open to those who criticise the class which is so largely represented in this House to say that, if the policy of the country in regard to small holdings has miscarried, it has been due to the obstruction of interested persons belonging to that class. 1504 Of the Bill itself I will only say that to my mind it has two serious blots. The first is the subordination of the local authorities to the central Department at Whitehall. It is quite true that those authorities are not entirely ignored in this Bill, as they were in the Scottish Land Bill, but throughout they are put in the background and the officials of the Board of Agriculture are put in the forefront. Hitherto, where the interference of a central Department has been admitted, it has been admitted because the local authority failed to perform its duties. As I read the Bill, theroles of the Commissioners and the local authorities are inverted. The Commissioners are given the duty of putting pressure on the local authorities before the local authorities themselves have had a full opportunity of dealing with the question. The other blot is the unfairness of the terms under which owners of land are to be compelled to hire it. The lessor is to be compelled to grant a lease which is renewable for ever, on terms axed for him by others, under conditions from which he cannot extricate himself, but from which the lessee can extricate himself at recurrent intervals. That is a thoroughly one-sided bargain.
I must add that on this side of the House we are far from satisfied with the manner in which the discussion of the measure has been conducted by noble Lords opposite. Throughout these debates—I hope the noble Earl will permit me to say so—the President of the Board of Agriculture has not as a rule addressed himself very closely to the arguments put forward from these Benches, but has been content to appeal to his own sincerity, which none of us question, and to the uprightness and high character of the officials to whom the administration of the Act is to be entrusted. That is, to my mind, not quite enough. But I should not have pressed that point if it had not been that I wished to say this—that I take the statements of the noble Earl seriously and as having been made in perfect good faith. We shall, however, watch the manner in which the Act is administered; and we shall ask ourselves, as time goes on, whether it is being administered in the considerate, scrupulous, 1505 and accurate manner which the noble Earl leads us to expect. If it is to be so administered, may I suggest that some little alteration in the point of view of the noble Earl might not be undesirable, because throughout the debates he has constantly used language which did not seem to be very conducive to such a good understanding as I hope will prevail in regard to the administration of the Act. The noble Earl has used phrases of this kind—"The agricultural labourers of this country live in fear of confiscation of what belongs to them "; "they exist in a state of degradation"; "under this Bill, for the first time, they would be able to walk upright," and so forth. Language of that kind, even on a political platform, is scarcely excusable. If the noble Earl desires his Act to be a success, he and those who will take their instructions from him should endeavour to deal with all the classes which the Act will affect, whether owners of land, farmers, or labourers, in that just and considerate spirit which he has told us, again and again, we might expect from him and his officials.

§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM
My Lords, the noble Marquess opposite stated, not long ago, that his ideal of a prosperous agricultural community was one in which you had large farms of from 300 to 400 acres, smaller farms of from 40 to 100 acres, and also small holders. My Lords, we have that ideal in North Yorkshire—we have those various classes on the land there. They have lived with their landlords in perfect harmony and peace. The relations between the various classes have been most happy, and I regret that there should be any necessity for such a Bill as this. What takes place in North Yorkshire can take place anywhere else in the country. You have only to imitate, and if any noble Lord comes down to North Yorkshire he will, I think, come to the same opinion—that there could not be a better state of things than exists in this country. Then where is the necessity for this Bill? Why bring in these compulsory powers? Nobody that I know of has ever refused to give small holdings. Nobody has refused allotments. I have given small holdings and allotments myself. We 1506 have plenty of cow-keepers and other men ready, as the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) has said, after a life of industry and thrift, to go up into higher stations and to become first small holders and then small farmers. What, then, is the necessity for this Bill? The fact is that this Bill in principle is one that is antagonistic to the general feeling of the country. If there is one thing which is characteristic of Englishmen more than another, it is their love of independence and their self-reliance in managing their own affairs. This Bill violates that principle. The agricultural interest does not want to be governed by a Government Department. We do not want our affairs interfered with by a bureaucracy, as I must call it, and in this way the Bill interrupts, in my humble opinion, the general happy state of the agricultural interest.
Then, again, there is another principle to which the noble Marquess has just alluded—the principle of over-riding the county councils, popularly elected bodies, by a Government official. What can be more prejudicial to the interests of local government? It is surprising that such a principle should be brought forward by the present Government. What happened last year on the Education Bill? We were told that we must take popular control. Fault was found with the system of management of schools, because they were not under sufficient popular control. Popular control was all very well with regard to that, but why are we to have this popular control—this body elected by a Liberal suffrage—overruled by a public department? Why violate that system of popular control which last year we were told was the great principle and policy of the Liberal Party? I protest therefore against this principle. I thank your Lordships for listening to me for so long, and I will not detain you further at this late hour. I agree with the noble Marquess that it is most melancholy, to say the least of it, that this important Bill, affecting the rights of property and the interests of the landed proprietors of this country, should be brought in at the very fag-end of the session, and hurried through all its stages within two Sundays. I think that is not the way in which we ought to legislate, or to administer the 1507 affairs of the country. This is a Bill against which I protest as being an unfair and unnecessary attack upon the rights and privileges of the landed interests of this country.

§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF RIPON)
My Lords, I am not at all surprised by the opening remarks of my noble friend the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne). I quite admit this is a late period of the year for the consideration of a Bill of this kind. I have had often to say lately, as well as in former times, that I have very little belief in the possibility of remedying difficulties of this kind. I hope that it may be found in future sessions more easy to do so than it has been in this session, but I very much doubt, from my experience of Governments of both Parties, whether it will be easy so to arrange the business of the session as that there may not be a considerable overcrowding of measures during the last few weeks that the session lasts. I am perfectly willing to apologise to the House and to my noble friend for the circumstances under which this Bill has arrived here, but I am bound also to say that it appears to me that it has received a great deal of very careful and intelligent—if I may be permitted to use the word—consideration from your Lordships' House, and that you have shown that great knowledge of questions relating to the land which my noble friend has claimed for you. But, my noble friend has no right to claim that the Members of this House represent the great agricultural population, or the agricultural needs of this country, except in one direction. They represent a certain class deeply interested in the, agricultural arrangements of the country, but they represent one class only, and therefore. I think they can claim no right to have exclusive authority over questions of this kind.
My noble friend consents to the Third Reading of the Bill, and he even went so far as to say that he wished success to the system which is going to be established under it. I have not the least doubt that my noble friend is perfectly sincere in that expression of his desire for the successful and widespread establishment of small 1508 holdings throughout the country, and I only hope that when the Bill has become law, as I trust it will, it will receive the practical support—locally as well as generally—of my noble friend opposite, and of his friends. I do not think the best way of making this Bill a success is to decry it just at the hour of its birth, but I have no doubt that it will be taken up and received with encouragement by those who sit opposite to us on this occasion.
A great deal has been said by my noble friend to-night, and a great deal has been said also in the course of these discussions, with respect to the interference with county councils and other local bodies, and my noble friend particularly seemed to think that the Commissioners to be appointed under this Bill would make themselves exceedingly troublesome to county councils, and take every possible opportunity of interfering with them. The first duty of those Commissioners, as I understand it, will be to inquire into and ascertain the state of things which exists, and where county councils have been doing their utmost to make use of the Acts which already are in existence, and of that Act of 1892 which has been in existence for fifteen years, I do not think they will be much troubled by these Commissioners; and I am quite sure that my noble friend behind me (Earl Carrington) will take care that these Commissioners, being his officers, and he being responsible to Parliament for their action, shall not unnecessarily interfere with local bodies who are doing their duty. But, when we recollect that, as I have just said, it is fifteen years since the Act of 1892 was passed, and when we look at the very small and limited results that that Act has hitherto produced, and when we see how impressed the late Government was by that fact—because they established a Departmental Committee to inquire into the whole subject—I think your Lordships cannot be surprised that His Majesty's Government, taking a deep interest in this subject, believing that the extension of small holdings is a very important matter, should have felt it their duty to pass a Bill which gives sufficient powers to secure that the delay which has taken place between 1892 and the present time should not be continued. 1509 When we hear these complaints about steps which may be taken to require county councils to discharge the functions entrusted to them by Parliament, I would venture to remind your Lordships, as you have been reminded before in the course of these discussions, that these powers are not novel, that powers of this kind have been entrusted to public Departments in dealing with great representative local bodies before now, and that we are not in fact assuming any undue central authority over local bodies of this kind. Our object is this. We believe that it will be a very valuable improvement of the agricultural organisation of the country if we are by this measure, or by any other measures, enabled to retain upon the land any considerable number of those who are now flowing year by year from the land into the large towns. I confess that like my right hon. friend who had charge of the Bill in the House of Commons, I do not myself expect that the result of this measure will be to bring back to the land many of those who have left it, but what I do believe is that it may have the effect—I hope it will have the effect—of retaining upon the land men who might otherwise be inclined to pass into the great towns. That I believe to be a great public and national object. I believe it to be an object fully justifying the large powers—for large powers I admit them to be—which are taken in this Bill for the purpose of securing the objects which it has in view. Your Lordships may not like those powers. We all of us like to have the unfettered management of our own affairs. I sympathise, and sympathise greatly, with the feelings of many noble Lords opposite, but what I do feel is this—that there is here before us a sufficient national object to justify us in calling upon the landlords of this country to lay aside many of their own personal feelings, as I believe they will do, for the purpose of bringing about this great object that we have in view.
My noble friend seemed to doubt—I do not exactly know why he should have doubted, but he seemed to doubt—that my noble friend behind me, the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, would sincerely 1510 carry out the promises which he had made in this House.

§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
No—on the contrary, I said I did not question my noble friend's sincerity.

§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPON
At any rate, what the noble Lord did was to give broad hints to my noble friend as to how he should carry out his undertakings. I have no doubt—your Lordships have no doubt—that my noble friend behind me will do that which he has told your Lordships he intends to do, and will administer this Bill, if it becomes law, in the spirit which he has told you he intends to be guided by. My noble friend will no doubt have a great and serious responsibility. The inauguration of a new system of this kind must always put a very serious responsibility upon any Minister who is charged with it. But I have no doubt that my noble friend will remember in administering this new law that, while his first duty and his first object will be to see that the new Act is successful in carrying out the operations which it is intended to effect, he is charged with the interests of the three great divisions of the people who dwell on the land—the labouring classes, the farmers, and the landlords. And I would wish to express one opinion which I entertain upon this subject—that of those three classes, the one that will make the largest call upon my noble friend behind me for his consideration is the farming class.
I believe that I have answered the remarks which fell from my noble friend. I thank him for the tone of the observations which he has made, and I earnestly believe that this measure will be one which will improve the condition of the great mass of the people in the rural districts, and if it be successful in that great object, it will be a cause of pride to all those who had a hand in carrying it out.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.

§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
My Lords, in Committee my noble friend Lord Galway succeeded in inducing your Lordships to omit what was then the second sub-section of Clause 20, which enabled parish councils to build dwelling houses. In doing so, I think my noble friend forgot that the effect of the Amendment which he carried would be to abolish the powers given by the Act of 1894 to parish councils to erect on allotments stables, cow-houses, and barns, and I wish to move an Amendment in the Bill to make it clear that those provisions will still remain in force.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons, and to be printed, as amended. (No. 212.)