Lords Sitting of 6 June 1907

BARON HOOD.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of Grosvenor Arthur Alexander Baron Hood of Gathering ton, in the Peerage of Ireland, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland, has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with: —Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
London and North-Western Railway Bill—A petition of Messrs. Martin and Leslie, of 27, Abingdon Street, West-Minster, Parliamentary Agents, praying for leave to present a petition of the Middlesex County Council, praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No. 93, for presenting such petition has expire, read, and ordered to lie on the Table, and Standing Order No. 93 to be considered on Monday next, in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said petition.
Colne Valley Water Bill [H L.] — Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H L.]. —The Order made yesterday for the commitment of the Bill, discharged.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill [H L]; Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [H L]. —Committed for Tuesday next
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H L]; Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [H L.]. —Committed.
The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [H L.] —Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be road 3a on Monday next.
Canal Toll and Charges (New Junction Canal) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Education Hoard Provisional Orders Confirmation (Surrey, etc.) Bill [H.L] — Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Oregon Mortgage Company Limited, Order Confirmation Bill—To be read 3a on Monday next.
Metropolitan Water Board (Various Powers) Bill. — Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Craven be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Viscount Ridley; read, and agreed to.

RETURN, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Report and papers relating to the training. of teachers, for the year 1905–1906.

  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  Statistical tables for the year 1906.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  The Lords following were named of the Select Committee—

  L. Muskerry.

  L. Montagu of Beau lieu..

  L. Ellenborough.

  L Brassey.

  L. Ampthill.

  L. Joicey.

  the Committee to meet on Monday the 17th instant, at Twelve o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.

LORD PLYMOUTH AND SMALL HOLDINGS.
*THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I ask the indulgence of the House for a few moments in order to make a personal explanation with regard to a paragraph which appeared in a Paper recently issued by the Government referring to allotments and small holdings. I should like first of all to apologise to the House for not having been in my place on either of the two occasions when this question was raised by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition. On the first occasion I was out of England, and on the second I had a long-standing important engagement in the country, and so was unable to be here. Therefore it is that I ask your Lordships' indulgence to refer to the matter now by way of a personal explanation.
The paragraph in this Paper to which I allude was extracted from an appendix to the Minutes of Evidence which were given before the Committee presided over by my noble friend the Chairman of Committees, Lord Onslow. It appears at the top of page 13 of the Memorandum, and is as follows—

APPENDIX NO. XII
Report on the visit to various Small Holdings in Worcestershire, & c.
They (i.e. the Nail Makers at Catshill in Worcestershire) endeavoured to obtain land from a neighbouring landowner, but a rule on the estate was not to let more than a quarter of an acre to labourers; that was found insufficient.
What is the natural inference from that? I think the natural inference to be drawn from that statement is that a landowner in Worcestershire declined to cut up his lands into small holdings, and, moreover, made it a rule on his estate not to let more than one quarter of an acre to labourers.
The facts, briefly, are these. First of all I find on investigation that this application for land by the gentleman who gave the evidence occurred in 1889, or thereabouts, no less than eighteen years ago, so that it cannot be called up-to-date evidence. In the second place, it had no reference whatever to the whole of my estate, where I may say holdings have for a long time been encouraged, and are still encouraged but it referred specifically to
800
an isolated small piece of land, thirty-two acres in extent, at Catshill, inhabited by nailmakers, whose industry, I am sorry to say, is a decaying one. There was, and has been for a long time, a, large demand for garden allotments, and, in order to accommodate the greatest number of applicants possible, I have no doubt that in 1889 or thereabouts the answer was given to this gentleman that it had been found desirable on this particular piece of land of thirty-two acres to limit the size of holdings to a quarter of an acre. For fifteen years past, however, there has not only been no such rule on the estate, but there has been no limitation whatever on the thirty-two acres of land. On this piece of land there are now sixty-three tenants with holdings varying, I believe, from a quarter of an acre to three acres, by far the largest number holding a quarter of an acre, as it has been my policy to accommodate as many applicants as possible.
It is clear from these facts that if this case has any application at all in the present discussion and in the discussions that have taken place— and I confess I think it is a very remote one— it tells in exactly the opposite direction from that which is given to it in the Paper. It should, I think, really be quoted as evidence that a certain landowner in Worcestershire declined to allow his land for small holdings to be entirely absorbed by a few persons. We have been told that no attack upon landlords as a class was intended, but, in spite of this assurance, I am quite unable to persuade myself that the Worcestershire landowner whom I personify has not been very unfairly treated in this instance. My noble friend the Lord President of the Council—I am sorry the noble Earl is not now in his place, but I think I am referring correctly to what he said—protested against the Government being accused of unfairness in the compilation of this Paper; but I do think I have very good ground of complaint of the manner in which this extract has been made use of. An obscure portion of a paragraph of an appendix to a Blue-book was taken out in order, it appears, to justify a statement that had already been made, but I protest against this Laving been done

801
and a Worcestershire landowner being pilloried in this way without any further investigation
It is perfectly true that I am not mentioned by name, but that really has nothing whatever to do with the point. I have no objection whatever, nor has any noble Lord an objection, to being mentioned under these circumstances by name so long as the facts that are given are correct. I do not deny the accuracy of the evidence quoted. This gentleman may have asked at that time for more land than I was able to give him, but, after all, it is a common experience of us all to ask on some occasions for more than we can get. I think even His Majesty's Government know what it is to ask for more than they can get. I complain that this quotation as it stands in the Memorandum—and it is in very much larger type in this Paper, I may say in passing, than in the Blue-book from which it is extracted—set out with some pomp and circumstance, is exceedingly misleading and inaccurate; I complain that it is evidence eighteen years old, and therefore not up to date, and [submit that if it has any application at all in the discussion with regard to small holdings and allotments it tells in exactly the opposite direction from that which is given to it in this Memorandum. I thank the House for the indulgence they have accorded me in allowing me to make this personal statement.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am, of course, responsible for all that appeared in the Blue-book to which the noble Earl has referred, and more particularly for the, appendix from which this extract has been made. It is a report of a visit which I made, in company with other members of the Committee, to these particular small holdings in Worcestershire; and I think it shows how hard up His Majesty's Government must have been for evidence to support their case that they should have extracted this particular isolated paragraph. All that was said was that Mr. Ambrose Waldron, one of the tenants, and formerly a nailmaker, had stated—his evidence of course, could not be tested—that—
"they had endeavoured to obtain land from a neighboring landowner, but a rule on
802
the estate was not to let more than a quarter of an acre to labourers; that was found in sufficient."
When I saw the quotation I wrote at once to the Chairman of the Small Holdings and Allotments Committee of the Worcestershire County Council, Mr. Frank Smith. Mr. Smith was returned as a member of that council expressly on the platform that he would do all he could to obtain small holdings for these nailmakers, and I venture to say that if there is one county council in the whole of England that does not need the ginger which His Majesty's Government propose to apply to the county councils it is the Worcestershire County Council, and more particularly can this be said of the chairman of the Small Holdings and Allotments Committee of that council. Mr. Frank Smith sent me a reply, from which I will read to your Lordships an extract—
"They were put out as allotments, some of them, I think, as little as plots of one-eighth of an acre. This portion was put out by the present Earl's grandmother, Baroness Windsor, many years ago. It was and still is the cheapest allotment land in the neighbourhood. I do not think the rents have ever been increased since they were first fixed, when allotments wore not as valuable as they are now, nor so much thought of. I am speaking of thirty to thirty-five years ago, perhaps longer. The Birmingham market was very different then from what it is now, as well as the whole of our neighbourhood."
I leave it to your Lordships to judge as to how far this justifies the statement that there has been in all parts of the country a "blank denial" of land to those who sought it.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): My Lords, I have only one or two words to say in reply to the speeches we have just heard, as I believe there is nothing before the House at the present moment. I must express regret that the letter from Mr. Frank Smith was not put into our hands previously, in which case there would have been no reason to put the information in question in the Memorandum.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The letter was the outcome of what appeared in the Memorandum.
EARL CARRINGTON: With the information now available I must

803
honestly say that I think the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, was quite justified in bringing the case before the House and making the statement to which we have listened. I do not think I need go again into the question of the alleged attack on landlords, the House having already generously accepted the statement of my noble friend the Leader of the House, who said that no attack was intended on landlords as a class. I am quite sure my right hon. friend Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman had no intention whatever of attacking landlords. I will read to the House, from Hansard, what the noble Earl the Lord Chairman of Committees said, on 25th April, in the debate on small holdings which was initiated by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. The noble Earl then said—
"The document deals with the Report of my Committee, and quotes this extract from my report on a visit to the small holdings in Worcestershire, viz.:—the men endeavoured to obtain land from a neighbouring landowner, but a rule on the estate was not to let more than a quarter of an acre to labourers.' "
That is not my statement. That is the statement of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees. The noble Earl proceeded—
"I do not wish to mention names, but I may say that that landlord is Lord Plymouth. The ruling referred to is well known on the estates of many of your Lordships, but it does not follow from that that my noble friend Lord Plymouth was unwilling to let land in larger portions for small holdings on other parts of his estate."
Nobody has ever said that the noble Lord was unwilling. The only thing I quoted, and I accept the entire responsibility for it, was the statement of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees that the rule on the estate was not to let more than a quarter of an acre to labourers. I honestly think I was justified in bringing forward that evidence, which I thought was pretty strong evidence, and which had been already included in a Parliamentary publication on the authority of the Chairman of the Small Holdings Committee, who went down accompanied by two of his colleagues and got the information himself at first hand. Nobody regrets more than I do that there should be any unfair accusation against any Member of your Lordships' House,
804
and I protest against any charge being made against the Government that we have in any way strained anything or tried to take an unfair advantage against any noble Lord.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I should like to ask the noble Earl a question, but if he wishes for notice I shall be glad to repeat it another day. It is whether, having regard to the discussion of the other day, the personal explanation to-night, and the statement the noble Earl has made, he will not now favourably consider the propriety of issuing an amended copy of his Memorandum which will give not, as he says, an ex Parte statement, but a complete statement of the facts in question.
EARL CARRINGTON: I have answered that question before and my answer must be the same as before.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for resuming the debate on the Motion for the Second Reading.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, having moved the adjournment of the debate the other day I wish to say a word or two with reference to the Memorandum which has been laid on the Table and for which I asked. This Memorandum, I presume, is intended as an explanation of the contents of the Bill, but I would call the attention of the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, who is responsible for the Memorandum, to the fact that it does not correctly represent the contents of the Bill. It is stated in this Memorandum that—
"Any Provisional Order will require confirmation by Parliament, and the parties interested in the river will therefore, in addition to the consideration of their views by a Government Department, have as a further protection the right to petition against the Order and appear before a Committee."
From that, of course, one would naturally suppose that the Provisional Order would have to be presented, and that the parties objecting would have an opportunity of being heard, but that is not what is in the Bill. If your Lordships will look

805
at Clause 4 of the Bill you will see that it provides that—
"The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, if they consider that a prima facie case is made out by the applicants for the making of an order under this Act, shall hold a local inquiry (of which due notice shall be given) by an inspector or other officer of the Board, who shall report the result of his inquiry to the Board, and the, if satisfied of the propriety of making an order, shall prepare a draft, and shall once in each of two successive weeks notify the making of the draft order in some newspaper in general circulation within the area to which the draft relates, and the notification shall specify the place where copies of the draft can be inspected and obtained, and the time within which and the manner in which notices of objection to the draft are to be sent to the Board. The Board may, if they think it expedient, hold a local inquiry—
that is a second local inquiry—
"by an inspector or other officer of the Board with respect to any objections made to the draft order, and shall, after considering all such objections, and the report of the officer who held the inquiry (if any) thereon, settle the order."
That gives to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries absolute power to settle the Order in any way it likes. Clause 5 of the Bill proceeds—
"The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may submit to Parliament for confirmation any provisional order made by them in pursuance of this Act."
Then it is provided by Subsection (2) that if, while the Bill confirming any such Order is pending in either House of Parliament, a petition is presented against any Order comprised therein, the Bill, so far as it relates to such Order, may be referred to a Select Committee. But a person objecting to the Provisional Order will have absolutely no power in the matter. In the first place it rests with the Board itself as to whether a Provisional Order is introduced at all, and if it is introduced, the Board may place it before Parliament and Parliament may appoint a Select Committee. The noble Earl will sec that that is entirely different from what is stated in the Memorandum. I merely call attention to this now because in Committee, if nobody else does, I shall move the insertion of words to put that right.
EARL CARRINGTON: I think I can explain the matter to the noble Earl. The Bill will work in this way. Under Clause 3 there is an application to the
806
Board for a Provisional Order. Then comes a local inquiry, which is followed by the preparation and deposit of the draft of the Provisional Order by the Board, thereby affording opportunity for objection. Then there is a further local inquiry, if necessary, to consider objections.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: But it is permissive.
EARL CARRINGTON: After that there is the completion of the Provisional Order and its submission to Parliament. Of course, if any objection is lodged the same procedure is followed as usually applies to opposed private Bills. I have spoken to the draftsmen on the point raised by the noble Earl. Though it is a little difficult to understand, if there is a Provisional Order the people concerned will be protected in exactly the same way as in ordinary cases. The provision that the Board may submit a Provisional Order to Parliament for confirmation secures that if they do submit a Provisional Order the parties are protected in exactly the same way as in ordinary cases.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: But supposing they do not?
EARL CARRINGTON: There is nothing new in this. It works out exactly on the old lines. But if the word "shall" were substituted for the word "may," as the noble Earl wishes, it would be compulsory to have a Provisional Order in all cases.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Then the statement in the Memorandum is not correct?
EARL CARRINGTON: Yes, it is perfectly correct.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Then I do not understand it, but I will raise the point when we reach the Committee Stage.
On Question, Bill read 2, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.