HL Deb 27 August 1907 vol 182 cc299-332

Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments and Commons reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments.

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

My Lords, in moving that the Commons Amendments to this Bill be considered, and speaking, as I hope the House will believe, in no provocative spirit, but in all earnestness, I have to say that the Government could not, and will not take the responsibility of a Bill which would not work effectively. The efficiency of a Bill of this character depends upon its simplicity, and the simplicity of the procedure by which it is to be carried out; and so far as Amendments may tend to make that procedure complicated and costly or dilatory the Government feel bound to resist them, even at the serious risk of losing the Bill, which, of course, we should very much regret. It would, however, be better in the opinion of the Government to lose the Bill than to pass it into law knowing that it was illusory.

Moved, "That the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments and Commons reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be considered."—(Earl Carrington.)

* VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

, as one who had taken a considerable part in the consideration of this Bill in Committee, repudiated altogether the suggestions of the noble Lord that any Amendment their Lordships had inserted in the Bill had been inserted with the intention, or with any idea, that it would make procedure complicated or costly or dilatory. They had only tried their best to improve the machinery of the Bill. They did not believe any Amendments inserted in the Bill were open to such adjectives as he had quoted from the noble Earl's observations, and he entirely repudiated anything of the kind.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

Your Lordships passed an Amendment to leave out Subsection (2) of Clause 5. The Commons disagree to this Amendment, but propose to amend the Bill by inserting, after line 24 of page 2, the following subsection: "Any order made by the Board directing the Commissioners to carry a scheme into effect shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made." I move that the Lords Amendment be not insisted upon, and that the Amendment of the Commons be agreed to. This matter has been thoroughly threshed out in previous debates, and I do not know that I need detain your Lordships at any length on the subject. It was fully discussed last night in the Commons House of Parliament, and I think I may say in a few words that the object of the subsection which the Commons desire to retain is to reserve the power of giving the county councils "all or none." If the county council help the Board of Agriculture with their machinery, well and good, and the Board would be pleased to help them in carrying out a scheme; but if they pursued a line of conduct actively hostile, the Government will carry it out, and I maintain that the Government are right in objecting entirely to the Treasury being made to pay in every case for what they do in the county councils' default.

Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)

* VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

said that when he moved the omission of this subsection he had no desire to erase it, but only to give the House of Commons another opportunity of discussing it. It was so discussed on the preceding night, he was afraid with no satisfactory result; but their Lordships had at all events done their best to ensure that the matter should be dealt with properly. He hoped the President of the Board of Agriculture, for the sake of the smooth working of the Bill, would be reasonably liberal in carrying out the powers given to the Treasury by this section, and would not attempt such an unpopular and unfair task as the imposing of burdens on the ratepayers against the will of their representatives.

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

said the noble Viscount opposite had secured his object and given the House of Commons another opportunity of discussing the relations of the Treasury with the county councils. It was not, however, possible at this stage for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make any further statement on the question. He felt perfectly certain that the assurances that had been given would be interpreted from the point of view of dealing as liberally as possible with the county councils.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

objected to the description of the clause given by the President of the Board of Agriculture. There was no question of the county council being "actively hostile." The power which the Government were taking for the central authority was the power to impose a rate compulsorily upon a county council which simply did nothing because it thought that nothing was required to be done.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

The Commons disagree to your Lordships' Amendment in Clause 6, page 4, line 32, after the word "to" to insert the words "purchase of," for the reason that it is undesirable to give compulsory powers where the object of the acquisition of land is the sale as distinguished from the letting of small holdings. I move that the House do not insist on the Amendment. As I have said before, the main principle of the Bill is that the county councils should let the land, as against peasant proprietary.

Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)

* THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH

said that as he was responsible for moving this Amendment in Committee, and as the triumph which he then experienced seemed likely to be short-lived, he would like to say a word before their Lordships finally left the subject. Referring to the description in another place of their Lordships' Amendments as nonsensical, mischievous, or introduced with the object of wrecking the Bill, he denied that this Amendment came properly under any of these descriptions. The complaint of their Lordships was that they had been unable to get definite explanations of the Bill. The courtesy of the President of the Board of Agriculture might be very soothing, but it was not satisfying. If the position of affairs had been reversed, and this Amendment had come up from the Commons and been refused by their Lordships, every Radical platform would have rung with denunciation. They would have been told they were endeavouring to introduce into the Agricultural system of England servile conditions like those of Chinese labour, and with a good deal more justification than in the case of Chinese labour. When they were told that the county councils were reasonable and that "Brutus was an honourable man," why did they not trust the county councils, and give them the option of purchase with all their boasted love of freedom and liberty. The Bill would restrict liberty and hold the county councils, the landowners, and the small holders in a rigid chain from which there was no escape. He was anxious to do nothing to wreck the Bill, and he left the Amendment in the hands of their Lordships.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

, taking note of the reason given by His Majesty's Government, could not advise the House to insist on its Amendment. It would certainly be a strong order compulsorily to expropriate "A" in order to sell the land to "B," and it was not quite so strong to expropriate for hiring. With all deference to the view expressed by Lord St. Aldwyn he hoped their Lordships would not seek to add further to the powers of the Act of 1892.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I have never disguised from the House my own strong feeling that it is to purchase that we should look for the solution of the difficulty with which this Bill is designed to deal. I believe that the alternative of hiring, although, no doubt, in some ways it is tempting to His Majesty's Government as being amongst other things more economical, is less good both for the person who hires and for the landowner from whom the property is taken. But His Majesty's Government have made it plain to us that this Bill is based entirely on hiring; and I understand, from the remarks which the noble Earl in charge of the Bill delivered with so much emphasis at the commencement of the proceedings this evening on the Bill, he has committed himself so deeply to hiring as a solution that if your Lordships were to insist on this Amendment our insistence would probably be fatal to the Bill. In these circumstances, I think His Majesty's Government must take the full responsibilit of having driven out of the measure this very moderate instalment of purchase. I think they will find that when their conduct is thoroughly understood in the country, to many people it will come as a great disappointment that with the opportunity before them which the Bill presents they should have brushed on one side, almost with contempt, the one solution of the agricultural difficulty which many people believe to be, not only the most desirable, but the only permanent solution.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

called attention to the reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendment— Because it is undesirable to give compulsory powers where the object of acquisition of land is the sale as distinguished from the letting of small holdings. This was a very broad general statement, and he wished to ask if that represented the view of His Majesty's Government in all circumstances and for all time.

EARL CARRINGTON

The answer to that question is a distinct affirmative.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

The Commons object to Lord Jersey's Amendment in Clause 6, page 4, line 40. That Amendment runs as follows— (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 Commons disagree for the reason that it is undesirable that one county council should have power to hamper the operations of another. The Government adhere to the omission and cannot in any circumstances accept the Amendment.

Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

contended that it was necessary in the interest of the ratepayers in the second county, that some check should be put on these powers of outside acquisition. "Hamper" was a mild word to use, but it had application to the one county as well as to the other. What the objection to the Amendment really was they did not know. Without it, the second county might have its rates for police, drainage, and roads increased and a perfectly alien and, perhaps, very undesirable, population dumped down in its area. That was what the House of Commons thought was met by the use of the word "hamper." If a noble Lord, walking along the street, and feeling a man put his hand into his pocket, seized that hand, what would he think if a policeman came up and said, "Let that man go; it is undesirable that one member of the public should have power to hamper the operations of another?" But that was the the way in which His Majesty's Government looked at this matter. He moved as an alternative the following words as a fair compromise.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 40, to insert the words 'Where a county council desire to acquire compulsorily land without their county such council shall give notice in the prescribed manner of their intention to acquire such land to the county council of the county in which the land is situated, and if the council of that county object to such acquisition they may appeal to the Board, and the Board shall have power finally to determine all questions arising and to settle the terms of arrangements, if any, between the county councils of the respective counties.'"—(The Duke of Northumberland).

EARL CARRINGTON

I recognise the noble Duke's wish to put as little difficulty in the way as possible, but the principle is just the same, and we cannot accept his proposal. One result of such a proceeding would be to send up the price of land 20 or 30 per cent.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

Why?

EARL CARRINGTON

The moment a public body is supposed to want a piece of ground up goes the price. The only way of getting land at any sort of reasonable price is not to bring the county council into the transaction at all. I cannot accept the Amendment.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

was very much surprised at this reply, for he could not see how the proposal would add to the publicity that must accompany the procedure under the Bill. It was only reasonable that a county council should communicate its intention in order that any objection, if it existed, should be stated, and he hoped the Government would accept the Duke of Northumberland's Amendment.

EARL CARRINGTON

The noble Viscount puts his points so well that it is extremely difficult to argue against him, but I submit that in the Bill as it stands there is ample provision for notice being given to the council of what has been called the invaded county. I am sure that any decent county council would acquaint the council of the county in which they thought of taking land of their intention so to do. Under the Bill arrangements between the county councils are in no way prohibited, and might easily be made.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Will the noble Earl point to that particular provision in the Bill?

EARL CARRINGTON

I am afraid I cannot at the moment.

* LORD SANDERSON

thought the provision as to publicity to which the noble Lord had alluded was contained iu Subsection (1) of Clause 4. That subsection provided 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, and the draft scheme and any modifications therein which the Board may propose to make shall he published and advertised together with notice of the time within and manner in which objections are to be sent to the Board in such manner as the Board think best adapted for informing the persons affected and for insuring publicity.

LORD FITZMAURICE

doubted there was that antagonism between counties which noble Lords on the Opposition benches seemed to imply. All the Government desired was that there should be facilities for meeting cases which frequently occurred owing to the peculiarities of county boundaries by allowing the council of the county in which the main portion of the land was situated, to extend its operations into the adjoining county where necessary.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

supported the Duke of Northumberland's Amendment, and said it was bad policy to allow one county council to invade the territory of another. The proposal as it stood would very likely create friction, discord, and jealousy.

On Question, Motion, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment," agreed to.

On Question, Amendment moved by the Duke of Northumberland negatived.

EARL CARRINGTON

The Commons disagree with your Lordships' Amendments in Clause 7, page 5, line 2, by which after the first "for" you inserted "selling or," and after "and" you inserted "sold or." They disagree because these Amendments are consequential on the Lords Amendment to Clause 6, page 4, line 32, to which the Commons disagree.

Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendments."—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

In Clause 9, page 5, line 19, after the word "constituted" your Lordships inserted the words "under rules approved by the Board." The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—Because the consent of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries under the clause is a sufficient safeguard.

Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

The Commons disagree to your Lordships' Amendment in Clause 11, page 5, line 33, by which you inserted after the word "council" the words "as agricultural holdings;" but they propose to amend the Clause-by inserting after the word "council" the following words, "but so that the council shall not authorise more than one dwelling-house to be erected for occupation with any one small holding."

Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

Your Lordships adopted an Amendment, on the proposition of the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount St. Aldwyn), leaving out Clause 13. The Commons disagree to this Amendment, because it is inexpedient that an adjoining owner should have the right of pre-emption in the case of a small holding intended to be sold by the owner thereof.

Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)

* VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

Said he had not the least objection to this clause, and had only moved its omission as a matter of drafting. Clause 13 repealed a section of an Act which was also repealed in the schedule, and was, therefore, unnecessary, but if the Government insisted on restoring it he had no objection.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

I move that your Lordships do not insist upon your Amendment to Clause 21 (Amendments of Allotments Acts), leaving out the subsection which gives power for the erection of dwelling-houses on allotments, where necessary, to which the Commons disagree, on the ground that it may be desirable to erect a dwelling-house on certain allotments. The refusal to allow a cottage to be built upon an allotment would be a little hard, so the Government propose to give general power of erecting suitable buildings. As the allotments run to five acres, it will very likely be necessary to build a cottage on some. Therefore I hope your Lordships will not insist upon your Amendment.

Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)

* VISCOUNT GALWAY

pointed out that his object in moving this Amendment had been that the parish councils should not build cottages out of the rates on the very small allotments. It was true allotments could now be made up to five acres, but there was no limit in the Act about building cottages. He now moved to amend the Amendment by adding, "No dwelling-house shall be erected for occupation on any allotments of less than three acres."

Amendment moved— In page 10, line 16, to insert the words no dwelling-house shall be erected for occupation on any allotments of less than three acres."—(Viscount Galway.)

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

hoped the President of the Board of Agriculture would favourably consider the Amendment of the noble Viscount. The noble Earl appeared to suggest, in asking that the Amendment made by their Lordships should not be insisted on, that no cottage or dwelling-house could be erected by any public body on an allotment of an acre. That was contrary to the fact. A county council had ample power under this Bill, if it chose, to erect a cottage on an allotment of one acre. There was every reason why the county council was the better body to undertake such work. This clause dealt simply with the powers of parish councils; the powers of county councils were dealt with in another clause. Very few parish councils would be able to carry out a building scheme except at a great waste of public money, and with the probable result that the cottages would be very badly built. They had not the necessary knowledge and experience, and the result of an attempt on their part to carry out this provision would no doubt be a great burden on the rates of small parishes. The work of building houses was better undertaken by the county council than by the parish council. The parish council in this Bill meant, in very small parishes, the chairman of the parish meeting and a couple of overseers. Nothing would be more absurd than to entrust such a body with the power of erecting dwelling houses. He thought the suggestion of Viscount Galway a reasonable one.

EARL CARRINGTON

I hope the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment. Parish councils have done extremely well in days gone by in providing allotments, and they ought not to be shut out in this Bill. Besides, the county council would come to the rescue of the parish council in the erection of necessary houses, and would give them the advantage of their advice and their officials. In the name of the labourers of England, I would earnestly appeal to the noble Viscount not to press his Amendment.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

agreed with the noble Viscount that it would be detrimental that very small parish councils should possess this power. But he thought that in the case of the large and influential parish councils it should be given.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

We have heard no argument against the very reasonable proposal of my noble friend behind me. It has been suggested by Lord Kimberley that some parish councils are large and influential bodies. That may be the case; but the proposal of His Majesty's Government is not limited to the large parish councils. It extends to all of them, and it extends even to places where there is no parish council, and where these powers will be entrusted to two or three men. We all know how important it is that cottages should be built according to proper sanitary conditions, and how desirable it is that villages should be laid out on a proper basis; and to make a parish meeting, with perhaps a mason and a bricklayer as members of it, free to cover the place with buildings seems to me an absurdity for which I should not have thought room would be found in this Bill.

LORD FITZMAURICE

Said it was easy to conjure up visions of great danger in the case of very small parishes, but in reality the difficulties were of an exactly opposite kind. His experience of the very small parish councils, and of the still smaller parishes that only had parish meetings, was that there was great difficulty in getting them to do anything at all, and that if any member of these small councils came forward with anything approaching a building scheme, he would be turned out at the next election even if the scheme was a desirable one. This clause touched a question which came up in nearly every Bill relating to the local government of rural districts in England—the great difficulty caused by the existence of very small parishes. He held a view on this matter which he dared say would scandalise not only noble Lords opposite, but also some of his political friends; he would like to see some drastic Act of Parliament which would compel all these small parishes within a certain time to be amalgamated with their neighbours, so that all local authorities should be of a reasonable size. Minute parishes were an unmitigated nuisance, because they stood in the way of every public improvement.

On Question, Motion, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment," agreed to.

On Question, Amendment moved by Viscount Galway agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

In Clause 24, page 11, line 20, after the word "section" your Lordships inserted the words "and have refused to comply with the representation made by the council of the urban district or parish for the compulsory acquisition of land for allotments." The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the reason that the clause would not apply if an urban district or parish council were attempting to acquire land compulsorily for allotments.

Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment is a very short one; and, as I stated it to your Lordships at the time the House was considering it before, it will be sufficient if I merely remind your Lordships what it; amounts to to. According to the framework of the Bill as proposed by the Government, an Order may be made for the compulsory taking of land under certain conditions, and after this Order is confirmed by the Board it becomes final and can no longer be questioned by anyone or by any Court. Your Lordships inserted an Amendment in the place of that to say that the effect of this confirming Order should be only to empower the council to acquire lands "in accordance with the provisions of this Act"; and the effect of the Amendment your Lordships inserted was to leave it still open after the confirming Order for anyone to question in a Court of Law the validity of the Order. The Commons have disagreed with your Lordships' Amendment, and have supported the view of the Government, namely, that there ought to be an end of the thing after the Order has been confirmed by the Board, for the sake of avoiding litigiousness. I am afraid, my Lords, this is a very vital point of the Bill according to the sense and judgment of the Government; and I hope your Lordships will not insist upon your Amendment; for, after all, it is desirable to put an end to questionable points, and, after sufficient time has been given to make objections, that then no further objection can be made. Otherwise, there might be a sea of litigation.

Moved, "That this House do not insist upon its Amendment to Clause 26, 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.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)

* VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

said that this Amendment was moved by a noble and learned Lord who had great and deserved authority in that House, Lord Robertson. He had communicated with the noble and learned Lord as to whether he desired to press the Amendment, and was informed by him that he did not desire to ask their Lordships to insist upon it. Speaking for himself, he (Viscount St. Aldwyn) felt the force of the argument which had been used by the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack that it was desirable that the time should come, and come early, when legal proceedings should not delay any Order under this Bill. He understood from the noble and learned Lord that it would be possible for an injunction to be obtained against the Board of Agriculture before the Order was made if any person interested should think the Board of Agriculture were exceeding their powers. After the Order was made, if the words which their Lordships had struck out were restored to the Bill, the Order would be final and could not be questioned in a Court of Law. The owners of land in England would be placed in a less favourable position in the matter than owners of land in Ireland were recently placed. But, notwithstanding that, he felt that they, in England, had some confidence in the fairness of the Board of Agriculture; and he hoped that, as the noble Lord had often promised them, the Bill would be administered in that spirit, with a desire to do justice to all parties concerned. For his part, therefore, he would not press the House to insist on its Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

In answer to the noble Viscount, I ought to say this, in order to make quite clear what I think will be the law on the subject. If any land is taken which is land prohibited by this Act to be taken, in my opinion the Courts of Law could interfere to prevent it just as they would to prevent any violation of an Act of Parliament; but if what I propose is assented to then they would not be able to interfere after the Order is finally confirmed.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consequential Motions agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

We now come, my Lords, to the Amendment in Clause 30, page 15, line 27, with reference to the "home farm." I think the whole House was agreed on this point, and that we all wanted to carry out the same thing. The only difficulty was to find in the English language words to do it. We discussed the difficulties in reference to the words "home farm" and I suggested that we should add to those words "of any estate," and my noble friend (Lord Haversham) was quite content to agree to that. But it was decided—and I think very properly decided—that the words "of any estate" made "home farm" still more incomprehensible than before. Therefore we propose now to add some other words which I hope will be satisfactory to the critics in your Lordships' House, and the clause will read thus—"No land shall be authorised by an Order under this Act to be acquired compulsorily which, at the date of the Order, formed part of any park," etc., "or forms part of the home farm"—and then these new words—"attached to and usually occupied with a mansion house or that is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling-house." I hope those words cover everything that is wanted, so that under these words no part of any of your Lordships' home farms, or any farm that is part and parcel of any estate, shall be interfered with in any way. It would be a monstrous injustice to do so, and that is the last thing we wish to do under the Bill. I venture to hope that the clever heads which have at last got those words together will not have their labour in vain, and that their words may be accepted and put into the Bill. I move to disagree with the Commons Amendment to the Lords Amendment and I propose to amend the Lords Amendment in the way I have stated. I think that is very plain and the words proposed to be added "the home farm attached thereto."

Moved, "That this House do disagree with the Commons Amendment, and that the Lords Amendment be amended by the addition of the words 'attached to and usually occupied with a mansion house, or that is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling-house.'"—(Earl Carrington.)

* VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

After "pleasure ground."

EARL CARRINGTON

We keep all parks, pleasure grounds, amenities, pigsties—everything you can think of. All that is kept in, and after that we have the words "home farm attached to and usually occupied with a mansion house."

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consequential Amendment agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

The next Amendment is in Clause 30, page 15, line 28. Your Lordships agreed after the word "dwelling-house" to insert the words "or which is woodland not wholly surrounded by land acquired by a council under this Act." That was, I think, Lord Camperdown's Amendment. The Commons propose to amend the Amendment by inserting after the words "surrounded by" the words "or adjacent to," and I propose the Lords agree with the Commons Amendment.

Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

At Clause 30, page 15, line 31, we come to Lord Verulam's Amendment in reference to places of "historic and archaeological interest." There is again here the difficulty of the English language. The Amendment as passed by your Lordships was to insert the words "or includes the site of any ancient monument or place of historic or archæological in- terest." It has been now discovered that "places of historical interest" means battlefields, and under those conditions it would be impossible to accept the Amendment; so that I have ventured to alter the Amendment that I accepted from the noble Earl in the following words which I am told really do carry out the desired object. I propose to disagree with the Commons, but to amend the Bill by inserting after the word "undertaking" the following words "or is the site of an ancient monument or other object of archæological interest." I think that will be agreed to by the House, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After the word 'undertaking' to omit the words 'place of historic or' and insert the words 'is the site of an ancient monument or other object of.'"—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, insisted on.

EARL CARRINGTON

On Clause 30, page 6, line 4, we come to the question of the land 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," and so on. I do not think I need explain it again to your Lordships, because you know all about the farms of 150 acres which let at 5s. an acre, and so on. I propose therefore, at once that your Lordships do not insist on your Amendment, but that you agree with the Commons Amendment, which is to insert at page 16, line 4, after the word "extent," the words "nor any part of any such holding." I do not know if I have explained it sufficiently, but I think the House understands the Amendment of Lord St. Aldwyn very well, and with the leave of the House I will not say anything more about it. I beg to move.

Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)

* VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

said he had originally moved his Amendment with the object of assimilating the description of the small holding now in private occupation which was not to be taken by the Board or by the county council to the Government's own description of a small holding which they proposed to establish, which appeared in the interpretation clause of the Bill. It seemed to him that the two ought to be identical, and that it was better for every reason that they should be so. But he did not profess to think that the matter was one of very great importance, and as they were in process of argreement, and as the noble Lord and the Government seemed to attach importance to the clause remaining as it was, he did not press the Amendment.

EARL CARRINGTON

I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

On Question, Commons Amendment agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

The next is the Commons Amendment at Clause 33, page 16, line 36—I am not sure, but I think it was Lord Plymouth's Amendment.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

Yes.

EARL CARRINGTON

It had reference to the powers of resumption in the case of the making of roads, reservoirs, railways, or other similar works necessary for the improvement and development of an estate. The Government considered—and I think the House will agree rightly considered—that the powers asked for by the noble Earl were rather too large and too wide. We are anxious to meet the noble Earl in every possible way, and I propose, with your Lordships' leave, that the clause should run as follows: After the words "Where land is shown to be required by the landlord to be used for building, mining, or other industrial purposes,' to insert the words" or for roads necessary therefor." That is the Commons proposed Amendment, and I hope that that will meet the noble Earl's view. I beg to move to agree to the Commons Amendment.

Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

At Clause 35, page 18, lines 13 and 14, your Lordships Amendment was to leave out Subsection (4), which was that "Subsection (5) of Section 7 of the Allotments Act, 1887, is hereby repealed." The subsection repealed was to the effect that no buildings, otherwise than a tool-house, shed, greenhouse and so on, should be erected on an allotment. "Buildings" includes a cottage; and the effect of the Amendment would be to shut out a cottage from being built on a plot of land. "Stables, cow-houses and barns" were proposed to be erected under Clause 21, page 10, lines 16 to 20; but this is part and parcel of a previous attempt to cut out "buildings," which would include a cottage. I beg to move that this House do not insist upon its Amendment.

Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment is at Clause 43, page 20, line 39. Your Lordships, by your Amendment, provided that in cases where the Commissioners acting in default of a county council were authorised compulsorily to acquire land the arbitrator or valuer, instead of being required to be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice of England, should be so required "only in default of agreement between the parties." Agreement between the parties is of course very material in certain cases, but in this case that is not of so much importance, because the Commissioners themselves might, by refusing their assent, prevent the thing from coming into operation at all, and might require the Lord Chief Justice to appoint. I do not know if your Lordships think it necessary to insist upon this Amendment, but in this particular passage I do not think the provision would have any effect which could be objected to.

Moved, "That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment."—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

did not think the Amendment in this clause necessary.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment, my Lords, is different; it is an Amendment to the First Schedule, page 23, line 12, where provision is made for arbitration between the county council and the landlord; and your Lordships, by your former Amendment, provided that the parties—that is to say, the county council and the landlord—might agree to an arbitrator, instead of the Board appointing him. I submit to your Lordships that that is not a wise thing to do, for this reason: that they are not the only persons concerned; there are other persons interested, the Board is interested, and the Board may be put to expense in more ways than one, and may have to find the money. Where another party is interested, it does not seem to be desirable that the two parties should agree between themselves upon an arbitrator on a matter affecting the interests of others. That is the reason why I suggest that your Lordships should not insist upon this Amendment. It is regarded by His Majesty's Government as really a very vital matter.

Moved, "That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment."—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD CLINTON

said the object of the Amendment was to carry out the ordinary provisions of arbitrations which had always been enforced in agricultural districts to enable the parties to choose somebody with local knowledge. He and those who thought with him believed that local knowledge was of the greatest importance in the matters likely to be in dispute under this Bill. He admitted the force of the Lord Chancellor's views in favour of the parties paying the arbitrator choosing him; but he did not think it was of sufficient importance to override the other arguments—that the parties should have a choice in getting a man with local knowledge. He did not, however, wish to press the Amendment.

* VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Clinton). He did not wish to press the Amendment at that stage; but he thought the argument which the noble and learned Lord had used might have been met if the words "with the consent of the Treasury" had been inserted, by which it would have been made perfectly clear that the Treasury would have a voice in the matter. At the same time he did not wish to press the Amendment.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consequential Amendment agreed to.

LORD FITZMAURICE

called attention to the fact that their Lordships had made an Amendment to the First Schedule, page 23, line 33, leaving out certain words. That the Commons agreed to, but proposed to amend the Bill by inserting in the First Schedule, page 24, after line 2, the following new paragraph— (6) The arbitrator, in assessing the compensation to be paid for land compulsorily acquired, 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 income tax and rating.

* VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

Said those words were struck out of the Bill for a very good reason in Committee. The only guidance given to the arbitrator when considering the terms of purchase by the Bill as it came to their Lordships' House, were the words "the rent (if any) at which the land has been last let and the annual value at which the land is assessed for the purpose of income-tax and rating." Those words might be a very good guide when it was a question of hiring, and the words stood in the hiring part of the schedule and had not been objected to by their Lordships. Here, however they were distinctly misleading by themselves alone. In buying land there might be a question of minerals or of future building value and other matters of that kind which the arbitrator would have to consider, but which would not be pointed out for his consideration by simply inserting the words "as to rent or annual value." He hoped, therefore, their Lordships would object to the Commons Amendment which was now proposed. He begged to move.

Moved, "That this House do disagree" with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

The next Amendment is in the First Schedule, page 24, line 40, where your Lordships inserted after the word "aforesaid" the words— And (unless otherwise agreed) to pay all taxes, rates, and charges usually borne by tenants to insure the buildings, and to keep the buildings and premises demised in repair, 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 by him, of exclusive rights of fishing and sporting over the land. The Commons disagree to this Amendment; and they propose to amend the Bill by inserting in page 24, line 40, after the word "aforesaid" the words— And (unless otherwise agreed) to keep the buildings and premises demised in repair; and by inserting in page 25, line 21, after the word "severance" the words— the terms and conditions of the hiring, including any reservation of sporting or fishing rights. I propose that this House agree with the Commons.

Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons in their proposed Amendment."

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

wished for an explanation or definition of the words "including any reservation of sporting or fishing rights." The point was that where land was compulsorily hired the valuer or arbitrator in fixing the rent should have regard to the question whether or not the sporting and fishing rights were reserved to the landlord. If the sporting and fishing rights were to be reserved to the landlord the rent might be fixed by the arbitrator or valuer at a lower figure than if they were not reserved. The word "reservation" in that connection did not strike him as being quite clear. In the case of a farm over which the landlord had hitherto had the sole sporting and fishing rights, would the arbitrator or valuer understand by those words that if the county council took that farm and did not reserve the sporting and fishing rights to the landlord, he (the arbitrator or valuer) would have to fix a higher rent than the tenant had previously paid, and that if the landlord lost his sporting and fishing rights he ought to be compensated?

EARL CARRINGTON

I am very glad the noble Lord has asked that question, which certainly ought to be answered, and very plainly too. The answer to the noble Lord's question is, undoubtedly, yes. If the landlord gives up his sporting and fishing rights he ought to get more rent—there is no doubt about that—but one hopes that the county councils will not be foolish enough to take the sporting and fishing rights. We do not wish to put a lot of poaching and sporting tenants on the land, or to have a lot of areas all over the country planted with buckwheat so that pheasants may be poached; anything of that sort would be put down with a strong hand; and the Board of Agriculture would certainly not allow any proceedings of that description.

On Question, Commons Amendment agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

The next Amendment is in the First Schedule, page 24, line 42. Your Lordships Amendment was to leave out the words "that it can be so broken up without depreciating the value of the land or." The "breaking up," refers to the permanent pasture. Nobody would want to break up good old grass land; that would be a sin; but there is a great deal of land in England which has laid itself down to grass which might with great advantage be put into cultivation again. I move that the House do not insist on the said Amendment.

Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

Then in the First Schedule, page 25, line 5, after the word "allotments," your Lordships inserted the words "for which proper compensation shall be paid to the landlord"—that is, for minerals and clay. The Commons propose to amend that Amendment by substituting the following words— And except upon payment of compensation for minerals, gravel, sand, or clay so used.

Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment, which is to the First Schedule, page 25, line 16, is somewhat analogous to what has been already agreed to by your Lordships' House on this stage of the Bill. "Arbitration" was by your Lordships' House substituted for "valuation," and "arbitrator agreed on between the parties, or, in default of agreement" by someone else, was agreed instead of "valuer." The real point here is simply a question of cost. His Majesty's Government are of opinion that if, instead of "valuation," "arbitration" is inserted it will necessarily increase the cost of hiring land. That is familiar to all who are in the habit of observing these matters; and I trust your Lordships will not press your Amendment, but will allow the Commons' very strong objection to prevail in this matter.

Moved, "That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment."—(The Lord Chancellor.)

* VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

said the point which the noble and learned Lord had raised was, in his opinion, the most important point they had had to deal with that afternoon. It made a material difference to the parties interested whether the process under the first part of the schedule was one of arbitration or valuation. The Agricultural Holdings Act provided for arbitration in every conceivable case as between landlord and tenant by a single arbitrator, with such provisions as made the arbitration as cheap as possible; but at the same time that arbitration, like all other arbitrations, was a regular hearing at which the parties might be represented on both sides, and evidence might be taken on oath. The whole matter must be thoroughly considered by the arbitrator, who gave his decision, not on legal points, perhaps, but, at any rate, in a fairly legal form. There was no very great amount of cost incurred, according to the information which had reached him, in arbitrations under the Agricultural Holdings Act, and he did not believe there need be. At any rate, if that was the objection—and, so far as he understood what the noble and learned Lord had said, it was the sole objection which His Majesty's Government had to inserting "arbitration" instead of "valuer" in this schedule—he thought it would be perfectly possible, as he would proceed to show, to meet it. A valuer need not hear the case at all; he might simply go and look at the land—he would not take proper evidence, there would be no regular proceedings before him, and in his belief—although he was very sorry to differ from the noble and learned Lord—the matter would not be as well dealt with, either in the interests of the owner, or, what was of quite equal importance, in the interests of the occupying tenant, by a valuer as by an arbitrator. An occupying tenant of a large farm under this Bill might have half his farm taken away, and a question of severance of great value to him would at once arise. Was he to remain in his farm, or was he to leave it? The whole work of his life might, so to speak, be put an end to by the operations under this schedule, and was it not right that such a person should have, at any rate with regard to the question of severance and compensation for unexhausted improvements, the same protection by arbitration as he would have if his landlord had given him notice to quit, or if he himself had given notice to quit to his landlord? He hoped, in spite of what the noble and learned Lord had said, that His Majesty's Government would be prepared to reconsider this question. He suggested, in order to meet His Majesty's Government as far as possible, that their Lordships should agree to Amendments which would substitute "valuer" for "arbitrator" throughout this clause, but that at the end, before Subsection (7), they should insert the following new subsection— The matters to be referred to a valuer before the commencement of any tenancy created by compulsory hiring shall, on the application of either party, be ordered by the Board to be determined by arbitration instead of by a valuer, provided that any costs of the arbitration which the Board may deem to have been incurred by reason of such matters being referred to arbitration instead of to a valuer shall be paid by the party applying for arbitration. He thought their Lordships would see that that effectually safeguarded the parties to the case against the increased costs which were such a source of dread to His Majesty's Government, and it would result in this—that unless there was a really important case which the parties desired should be heard by an arbitrator, the valuer would still be employed. If either party was willing to risk the costs that would be incurred by requiring arbitration, and to pay those costs, then arbitration would be granted by the Board, but only in those cases. He thought this would be an ample safeguard against any increased costs through arbitration under this clause, and he hoped their Lordships would favourably consider the proposal.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

said the noble Lord opposite (Earl Carrington) had made several appeals to their Lordships upon other Amendments not to endanger or jeopardise the Bill, and he, for one, would be one of the very last persons to invite the House to agree to any Amendment which would be likely to have that effect But he really must appeal to the noble Earl, and to His Majesty's Government, to give very careful consideration to these Amendments, which covered the whole of Subsection (3). Subsection (3) provided for the determination of the amount of rent to be paid by the council, and under (c) the rent to be paid for the residue of the holdings after a part had been taken. But to his mind Subsection (b) was by far the most important of the three. It provided as to the "amount of any compensation to be paid by the council to any person entitled thereto"—not only the landlord, but also the tenant—"in respect of land or any interest therein, or in respect of improvements executed on the land or otherwise"—that was to say, all the interests of the tenant farmer in the holding which he occupied. To his mind, one of the worst points about the Bill was that the interests of the tenant farmer had been too much overlooked from beginning to end. Their Lordships had discovered many points on which the interests of the landowner had not been fairly and equitably considered, and undoubtedly (a) and (c) referred to the interest of the landowner. He was not pleading for him. "Suffering was the badge of all his tribe," and they knew quite well that they must not put forward too strenuous a plea in his favour. But he did put forward a very strong and a very earnest plea on behalf of the tenant farmers who might be dispossessed under the Bill. Last session the noble Lord had come with a big banner, which he had waved in their Lordships' House, of the "Tenant Farmers' Charter," and now he came down with a Bill under which a tenant farmer might be ousted from his holding, or a part of his holding, in a manner wholly different from that in which he could be turned out of it by his landlord. He might be turned out by the ipse dixit of a valuer who came down and walked over the farm, asking nobody's opinion, taking no evidence of any sort or kind, but writing to the Board of Agriculture and saying: "This is my award; take it, or leave it." That was eminently unfair to the tenant farmer, and he thought that, at least as far as the tenant farmer was concerned, their Lordships ought to insist that he should be so far protected as that his case might he heard before an arbitrator, and not before a valuer. He would not enter into the question of the difference between an arbitrator and a valuer, because he imagined that that was quite familiar to their Lordships, but whatever they might do with regard to the owner of land, they, at least, should give that amount of protection to the occupier.

EARL CARRINGTON

This raises a very important point indeed. We have been told that the interests of the tenant farmers have been overlooked, and an earnest plea has been made on their behalf. I think His Majesty's Government would be the last people who would wish to do anything that was inconsistent with fair play towards the British tenant farmers. The noble Earl opposite twitted me about the "Charter" that was passed last year, but I would remind him that in the Land Tenure Bill of last year compensation was only given for unreasonable disturbance. I was asked about this several times across the House, and I believe it was the consensus of opinion in this House that small holdings came under the category of "good estate management," and were not to be classed as "unreasonable disturbance," and therefore the tenant farmer was unable to claim compensation if a portion of his farm was taken off for small holdings if there was an absolute necessity for them in the district. As far as I understand it—the noble Viscount opposite will correct me if I am wrong—having read his proposed new paragraph very carefully through, it appears to me that all the three stages are to be determined by arbitration instead of by valuation. That I understand would be the case if the new paragraph stands as it is, but Lord Onslow has put, as far as I could gather, a new complexion on it altogether. He will correct me if I am making a mistake, but I understood him to suggest that arbitration instead of valuation should be confined to the sitting tenant when he goes out, so that a sitting tenant who had to go out on account of the action of a county council would be in exactly the same position as a sitting tenant who had to go out owing to the action of a private landlord. This, of course, is a new departure altogether, and at the moment it would be impossible for me to give an answer but I thank noble Lords opposite for the suggestion, and I may say that we will give it the most careful and earnest consideration. I cannot say more than that at present, but I am quite prepared to go as far as that.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

was afraid there was very little time for the noble Earl to take this matter into consideration, seeing that Parliament was to be prorogued to-morrow. He apprehended that the noble Earl would have to make up his mind with very little loss of time.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have not got before me the Amendment of the noble Viscount, but I followed it when he read it, and it appeared to me that it was one which substituted arbitration for valuation throughout the whole business, both for the sitting tenant, the owner, and everybody—it is to be a permissive arbitration in which the difference between the arbitration and the valuation costs is to be in the discretion of the Board for special reason shown.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

No; they are to be paid by the person asking for the arbitration.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If the Board thinks them excessive.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

Yes.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Viscount will sec the difficulty: who is to say that the hearing of witnesses is necessitated by arbitration as opposed to valuation? Valuers can hear witnesses if they like, just as well as arbitrators. Therefore the complexity and difficulty of the Board having to decide between the two is absolutely insoluble, and besides, it strikes at the whole principle of the Bill, or I may rather say at that condition under which alone the Bill could possibly work, namely, a condition of strict economy. Another alteration was suggested by the noble Earl, namely, as I understood him, that if the sitting tenant was dispossessed by reason of the operation of the Act he should be able to take advantage of the arbitration under the Agriclutural Holdings Act in regard to such things as were covered by the Agricultural Holdings Act.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

And severance.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I did not understand the noble Earl to suggest that.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

Certainly.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

All I can say is—and I think that is what my noble friend said—that the Bill, in considering what could be done, could only suggest arbitration in the case of a sitting tenant in regard to those things which under the Agricultural Holdings Act would entitle him to compensation. In other words, so far as the Agricultural Holdings Act is concerned he would be treated as having been an outgoing tenant under that Act, though he was dispossessed by virtue of his land being taken under this Act. Otherwise I am afraid there is an irreconcilable difference between us, because the Government cannot possibly accept the idea of arbitration as opposed to valuation.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

spoke with much diffidence as against what had been said by the noble and learned Lord, but it occurred to him that if a landlord required a tenant to give up part of any farm, as the county council could require him to give up any farm under the provision of this Bill, under the Agricultural Holdings Act the question of severance would in some way or other arise. He could not imagine that it would be possible for a landlord to do such a thing without the Agricultural Holdings Act applying to the new circumstances in which he would put the tenant by his action. He could only suggest under the circumstances that they must press this matter, even in order that His Majesty's Government might be able to carry out what—after what the noble Earl had said— he might accept as their own suggestion. Therefore he would propose that their Lordships' should insert this new subsection, and then His Majesty's Government would consider what they could offer to them in its place.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I only wish to say one sentence, and that is that if a man has half his farm taken he would be entitled under this Bill to compensation for severance under the Act, but he also would be entitled to compensation for loss of improvements for the lands taken away from him growing crops, and so forth. What is meant, as I understand, is that only those subjects which would come under the Agricultural Holdings Act should become the subjects of arbitration in accordance with the principles of the Agricultural Holdings Act.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Will the noble Viscount move his Amendment now?

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

thought there were other Amendments before his. The new sub-section he proposed would come in before the last sub-section of the First Schedule.

Consequential Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

With regard to your Lordship's Amendment to the First Schedule, page 25, line 21, namely, to leave out the words "rating or taxation" and insert the word "income-tax, the terms and conditions of the hiring," the meaning of that was that the "terms and conditions of the hiring" were to be considered in fixing the rent, all of which is reasonable enough. The Commons, however, propose to amend this Amendment by substituting "or rating" for "the terms and conditions of the hiring."

Moved, "That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment."—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Your Lordships left out paragraph 6 in the First Schedule, page 25, lines 33 to 40, which provided that any person interested in any valuation should give the valuer assistance and information, and should give him access to books, accounts, vouchers and so on. An apprehension arose in your Lordships' minds that access to title deeds might under this clause be required, and accordingly your Lordships struck the clause out. The Commons do not assent to that, but they propose to amend the Bill by leaving out the word "require" at page 25, line 37, and inserting the words "reasonably require for the purposes of valuation,' so that the documents which must be produced are such documents relating to the land compulsorily hired as he may reasonably require for the purposes of valuation.

Moved, "That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment."—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

submitted that the words as they stood were rather too wide, and that the words "except documents of title" ought to be inserted before the words "as he may reasonably require for the purposes of valuation." He understood His Majesty's Government to agree to that for obvious reasons.

Amendment moved— In Schedule 1, page 25, line 36, after the word 'hired,' to insert the words 'except documents of title.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

On Question, "That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment," Motion agreed to.

On Question, Amendment proposed by Viscount St. Aldwyn agreed to.

Commons' Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved to insert after Subsection (6) of Part II. of the First Schedule the words he had already read.

Amendment moved— In the First Schedule, page 25, line 40, to insert the following new paragraph:—'The matters to be referred to a valuer before the ending of any tenancy created by compulsory hiring, shall, on the application of either party, be ordered by the Board to be determined by arbitration instead of by a valuer, provided that any costs of the arbitration which the Board may deem to have been incurred by reason of such matters being referred to arbitration instead of to a valuer shall be paid by the party applying for arbitration.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

In the Second Schedule, page 26, line 9, your Lordships left out "Subsection (5) of Section 7." The Commons disagreed to this Amendment, because it is desirable that there should be power to erect on allotments buildings other than a tool-house, shed, greenhouse, fowl-house, or pig-sty. I beg to move that the House do not insist upon its Amendment.

Moved, "That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

A Committee appointed to prepare a reason for the Lords disagreeing to one of the Commons Amendments: The Committee to meet forthwith.