HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, &c., BILL.

HL Deb 19 November 1909 vol 4 cc667-728

Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments and Commons Consequential Amendments and Commons Reasons for disagreeing to several of the Lords Amendments.

Moved, That the Commons Amendments and Reasons be considered.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I had hoped that as a first step in the proceedings of this afternoon the noble Earl the Lord Steward would have been good enough to have made some statement as to how your Lordships' House stands with respect to these Amendments, but I suppose he is reserving his eloquence for a future opportunity. Your Lordships are aware that this Bill has been the subject not only of very careful and elaborate consideration and discussion in your Lordships' House, but there have also been discussions outside, and as a result of those discussions your Lordships will see that a large number of Amendments stand in the name of His Majesty's Government upon the Order Paper. It may be asked whether some of us who sit on this Bench have been made aware of these Amendments. As a matter of fact, that is so. We have been made aware of them. The question may then be asked whether we are satisfied with those Amendments. The answer is emphatically in the negative; we are not satisfied. But before your Lordships come to deal with them, perhaps I might say one or two words as to what those Amendments involve.

As I have said, we are not satisfied in any degree with the Amendments which His Majesty's Government have offered us. The noble Earl and the other members of His Majesty's Government with whom we have come in contact have been, of course, as they always are, very courteous in their dealings with us, but they have not been very conciliatory—quite a different thing. The main feature of this Bill, with which many of your Lordships did not agree during the discussions on the various stages of the Bill, has been the supreme position which is accorded to the Local Government Board. In a large measure that supremacy remains but in certain particulars concessions have been made. In the first place, we have the important statement laid down by an Amendment moved from this side of the House and which is to be accepted, that in any housing scheme which is forced upon a local authority the Local Government Board shall have regard to the necessities of the case and the burden of the rates before they use their compulsory powers. But that is not the most important matter in respect of housing which appears upon the Amendments now before your Lordships. There is the fact that the Government concede that in respect of urban districts the powers of compulsory purchase shall only be exercised after an impartial inquiry, and that unless the Government agree with the findings of the impartial inquiry the matter shall be referred to the judgment of the two Houses of Parliament. That is a matter for which we contended very warmly, and which we have succeeded in obtaining. It is very substantial, because, as your Lordships know, "urban districts" is a phrase which covers a great deal more than the areas absolutely occupied by towns. The phrase covers not only the towns themselves, but the large country districts which surround the towns—namely, those districts in which a large part of the housing operations ought to and must take place; and within the whole of those areas the terms of your Lordships' Amendment on Clause 2 are, in all important features, accepted by His Majesty's Government.

That is an important matter in itself, but it is more important in its principle even than in its substance, because it is a confession by His Majesty's Government that what may be called "Small Holdings" terms are not of universal application. It admits that the ipse dixit of a Government Department is not sufficient to justify the taking of land in urban districts; that you cannot rely upon the impartiality of a Government Department in respect of urban districts. That appears to me to be a very-important admission, because it is rather difficult to see the actual position which His Majesty's Government henceforward occupy. A Government Department cannot be impartial in urban districts. Why, then, should they be expected to be impartial in rural districts? And if they cannot be trusted in the matter of compulsory purchase in urban districts as between themselves and the landowners, why should we be content to trust them to impose their will upon local authorities? The moment the admission is made which the Government have made, that small holdings terms are not of universal application, that the impartiality of a Government Department cannot be relied upon, then the position they occupy in forcing the wishes of Government Departments on local authorities in rural districts remains altogether without defence. That is a very important dilemma in which we have placed His Majesty's Government, and it will be very important when we come to consider precedents in the future.

Then there is the question of town planning. Now in respect of town planning, the Amendments upon the Paper now before us contain an admission that town-planning schemes shall not become law without having lain for thirty days upon the Table of the House of Commons and of your Lordships' House, during which time either House of Parliament may object, and, if they object, the town-planning scheme becomes null and void. I think that is a very important matter which the action of your Lordships' House has won in regard to this Bill, because in important town-planning schemes it will be a real, serious, and important check upon any action of which we might have to complain by the Local Government Board. I do not mean to contend that it is in any way equal to the careful inquiry which your Lordships would have wished to take place in a matter of this kind—I do not say necessarily by means of Provisional Order, but in some way or other there ought to be a detailed examination of these town-planning schemes. That has not been obtained, but one tribunal is permitted by the favour of His Majesty's Government to have control over town-planning schemes, and that is the tribunal of the High Court of Parliament. Whenever any town-planning scheme is proposed of which any persons have a right to complain, those persons can plead their cause through the mouth of a member of your Lordships' House, and if that advocacy prevails, then your Lordships will have it in your power to prevent such a town-planning scheme becoming law.

Those are important concessions, but there is another department in which I had hoped we should have been successful—namely, in securing to an aggrieved person who thinks he has a right to complain of the decision of a local authority in the matter of the provision of housing accommodation a full hearing by a Court of Justice. That the Government have refused. They show a remarkable reluctance to allow the matters which arise under this Bill to be tried by an impartial Court of Justice. I think that is one of the most striking developments of modern Liberal policy. I am not surprised, perhaps, that the Local Government Board, who naturally fight for their own end, should desire to make themselves supreme; but I confess it has been a shock to me that the head of the Judicature of this country should have been willing to allow the Courts of Justice to be superseded by an administrative Department. Not only will an aggrieved person not have a right to approach a Court of Justice—a cheap Court of Justice such as we had proposed—but the greatest pains had been taken by the Government, until your Lordships intervened, to eliminate any judicial element in what is being tried under the provisions of this Bill. Counsel are not to be permitted to plead before any tribunal, so far as the Government can prevent them. If the Government Department violate an Act of Parliament, the Government have inserted words to prevent that being brought before the highest Courts of the Realm. That has been done with the authority of the Lord Chancellor, and it has been a great shock to me to find he has so little confidence and faith in the great profession which he adorns and over which he presides that he has been a consenting party to this provision in the Bill.

But though we have not been successful in obtaining all that we desired, at any rate we have made a sufficient impression on His Majesty's Government to make the proceedings of the Local Government Board inspector, to whom these appeals must go, of a judicial character. That is a substantial matter, upon which I think your Lordships' House is to be congratulated. I believe I am entitled to say that the noble Earl the Lord Steward will make a declaration at the proper time in which he will state that the Local Government Board inspector will be publicly instructed to allow the parties as of right fuller opportunities than they would have under the ordinary procedure of a Local Government Board inquiry, and that the Local Government Board inspector himself will be directed to make an impartial inquiry. I think it is a striking circumstance that the Government should have been willing to direct the Local Government Board inspector to make an impartial report. One would have thought that that would have followed as a matter of course; but, at any rate, the Local Government Board inspector, when he has received this instruction, will no doubt feel that he must approach these particular inquiries in a different spirit from what he would under ordinary circumstances. I do not for a moment desire to say that Local Government Board inspectors are not men of the highest integrity. Of course they are. I have no doubt, whether these instructions were given them or not, they would do their best to fulfil their duty. But I think they will realise that the fact that these express words are laid upon them places these inquiries upon a different footing from the ordinary inquiries which they are called upon to carry out. Those are important matters. Upon betterment, what is called a compromise has been arrived at. Well, it is a compromise of a sort—that is to say, that whereas under the Government proposal all the benefit arising from a particular town-planning scheme was to have gone to the local authority, now it is to be divided in two parts, half to go to the local authority and half to go to the owner of the land, though half of what no human being has been able to make out, and the Government absolutely refuse to put in any words by which that particular fact can be arrived at.

I have ventured to sketch very briefly, and, of course, not by any means exhaustively, what is involved in the Amendments which the Government have tabled and which are now before the House. I do not ask your Lordships, as I have said, to be satisfied with what has been achieved, but I do think—and there I speak with great diffidence and ask your Lordships' pardon if I go beyond my duty in saying so—I do think your Lordships will be wise to consent to these Amendments as they stand. Why do I say so? I say so, in the first place, because of the substantial advantages which we have gained, and which I venture to describe; in the second place, because something has been gained by the debates which have taken place in this House beyond those substantial advantages—namely, a public testimony to the expert knowledge and care which your Lordships have brought to bear upon the discussion of these intricate subjects of social improvement; and, in the third place, because I think it is of the highest importance that no misunderstanding should exist in the public mind as to the sympathy of your Lordships' House with the great object of the better housing of the people and the better development of the great urban community of this country. We are all of us interested in this subject. It is a subject which has been made peculiarly the province of a Conservative Statesman in the past, and we should be false to the traditions left to us if we did not in our own time do our best ourselves to promote these great objects. Moreover, it is not merely that we desire to promote these objects. We desire that the people of this country should know that we have this ambition, and that they should realise the sympathy which your Lordships have with these objects. We are placed in this position. Undoubtedly if we refused these Amendments and this Bill were not to become law, it would be in many men's mouths throughout the country that your Lordships did not really sympathise with the better housing of the people and did not really desire to promote the proper extension of the great urban communities of this country. It would be a profound disaster if that belief became common amongst the poor of this country, and therefore I venture to think that we should be wise in accepting for what they are worth the substantial concessions which we have obtained, and in allowing our sympathy with these great objects which I have described to prevail over the natural indignation which we feel that the reasonable Amendments which we have put forward have not been accepted by His Majesty's Government.

I have only one word more to say. There is in my belief no finality in legislation. The subject of housing and town planning is not finished; it is only beginning; and at a future time, perhaps when other noble Lords occupy the Bench opposite, there will be an opportunity of reconsidering the decisions which your Lordships may arrive at this afternoon. If that be so and when that be so, I earnestly hope that the decision at which your Lordships will arrive will be more consistent with the traditions of legislation in this country, more consistent with the freedom of local government in the various counties, more consistent with the right of any aggrieved individual to go before and obtain justice from the Courts in this country.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE)

My Lords, I do not desire to follow the noble Marquess at any length in the general observations which he has made. The Amendments as taken one by one will speak for themselves, and noble Lords will be able to judge from the attitude of my noble friend behind me how far the noble Marquess was justified in stating that we had not shown a conciliatory attitude. The noble Marquess's idea of conciliation on the part of his opponents, as I have had reason to know on previous occasions, consists in a complete and abject surrender on their part to every proposal, however extravagant, which he may have thought it right to put forward. As a matter of fact, I think the House will realise, as we go through the Amendments, that my noble friend behind me and the Government have shown a desire to meet, so far as was possible without destroying the principles on which the Bill is based, the views of noble Lords opposite.

There is only one point of detail on which the noble Marquess spoke on which I should desire to say a word—that is with regard to the differentiation to which we have agreed for the treatment of land proposed to be taken in urban and in rural districts, what are known as small holdings terms being retained in our rural areas, and a further appeal to an outside authority being given in the case of urban districts. The noble Marquess made a dialectical point upon that which, I think, was hardly worthy of him, and which, although I dislike doing so, I am prepared to characterise as almost absurd. The noble Marquess said that this differentiation was a confession on our part that the Local Government Board could not be regarded as an impartial authority where it was a case of taking urban land for this purpose, although apparently we regarded it as impartial in the case of rural districts. That, if I may say so, is obviously a false point. It is not a question of impartiality on the one side or the other. It is a question of the possible magnitude of the transaction. We obviously are quite content, because we brought in the Bill in that form, to trust the impartiality of the Local Government Board either in town or in country. Noble Lords opposite, I understand, argued that the two things could not be considered as exactly alike, and that it was not the same thing to desire to take a considerable quantity of very highly priced land in relation to an urban scheme as it might be to take a few acres for rural housing. I do not propose to argue whether that is a sound distinction or not, but at any rate we have so far admitted that there may be something in it. But to speak of that as showing our mistrust of the impartiality of the Local Government Board is really not fair, because the proper analogy, of which countless instances could be given, is the well known one that in cases where large transactions are involved it is very frequent to give a further appeal, which is not given where only smaller matters are concerned.

Then the noble Marquess spoke of our indifference to the claims of justice in the matter of the tribunal, and alluded in terms of depreciation to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack for not having stood up for the Courts of Law. My noble and learned friend thought, and I believe a great many other people also thought, that the tribunal suggested by the noble Marquess opposite—the County Courts—was a thoroughly unsuitable tribunal for the purpose; not that County Court Judges were incompetent men, but that you would get a great variety of decisions, which was highly undesirable in a matter of this kind, and also that the proper work of the County Courts would be seriously hampered by throwing these additional duties upon them. However, our attitude apparently caused a severe shock to the noble Marquess and his friends opposite. We also had a severe shock. It was a shock to us to find the apparent indifference shown by the noble Marquess and his friends to the rolling up of expenditure by elaborate procedure. That was a shock to us, and as we both received shocks on this subject, I think perhaps, as we have managed to survive them, we had better now proceed to the consideration of the Amendments one by one.

VISCOUNT CROSS

My Lords, I only desire to intervene for a few moments. It fell to my lot as long ago as 1875 to bring forward the Artisans' Dwellings Act, which I believe was the first measure which really took this matter in hand on anything like a large scale. An enormous difference has been made in London in consequence of the passing of that Act, and although I am quite aware that it has cost a good deal to the local authorities, the permanent advantages of that Act will remain for a long time to come. I only say that because I wish to add that I am delighted to see this Bill brought forward by His Majesty's Government. I think it would be a great calamity if it were not to pass into law, and I entirely agree with what the noble Marquess behind me said on that point. My advice I add to his, that these Amendments as they appear should be accepted by the Opposition in order that the Bill may pass without further delay.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, I desire to add one word only to what has been said by my noble friend behind me. These Amendments are, as he has explained to the House, the outcome of discussions which have taken place not in the House but outside it. As to this I may say the procedure which has had to be followed in the case of this Bill and also in the case of the Irish Land Bill seems to me in many respects a by no means satisfactory form of procedure. Those who are entrusted with the conduct of these negotiations are not plenipotentiaries. They have to assume very heavy responsibilities. They often find themselves exposed to a rather galling cross fire, directed at them partly by those who sit on the other side of the House and partly by their habitual supporters, who very naturally are not always able to see eye to eye with them with regard to the different proposals with which they have to deal. But this procedure is, I am afraid, inevitable under a system by which the work of this House is brought before it late in the session, and when our opportunities of examining much controverted Bills are as restricted as they are. It comes really to this, that unless the House is prepared to lose Bills of which in the main it really approves, and which it desires to see passed into law, it must consent to some rough and ready expedient for reconciling apparently irreconcilable differences between the two sides of the House.

I wish to take up one statement which was made by the noble Earl who addressed us just now. He spoke of our Amendments as being many of them inconsistent with the principle of the Bill. I do not think that any of the Amendments which we put on the Paper can really be so represented. Our Amendments—I do not wish to go over the ground again—our more important Amendments were all of them directed to one object, that of affording both to aggrieved owners and occupiers of land and also to aggrieved local authorities an adequate measure of protection from the arbitrary action of a public Department. And when I say the arbitrary action of a public Department, pray do not let it be supposed that I am imputing anything like improper partiality either to the Statesman who presides over the Local Government Board or to any of the colleagues of the noble Earl opposite. But our point is this, that these Ministers and those who act with them must, by the necessity of the case, be in a sense partisans. They are engaged in these long discussions preparatory to the preparation of schemes under this and other Bills, and it is impossible that at the last moment they and those who act for them should approach the question in an absolutely detached frame of mind and in a thoroughly judicial spirit. We are fighting for the old, old principle, that you should, as far as your opportunities permit you, separate judicial from executive and administrative functions, and therefore I repudiate the suggestion that we have been in any way opposing the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill is that we should do all we can to improve the housing accommodation of the working classes and to ameliorate the conditions under which our great urban communities are allowed to expand, and that principle is one which entirely commends itself to us, and which we have done and will do our utmost to support.

My noble friend has explained clearly the extent to which we have succeeded in effecting our purpose. At one point we have failed conspicuously—the point to which the noble Earl referred just now—I mean in obtaining access to the County Courts for persons aggrieved by housing or demolition schemes. The noble Earl told us that in his view the County Court was a very inappropriate tribunal to go to. Upon that our mind was quite open. We made it clear during the discussions that if noble Lords opposite objected to the County Court and would offer us any other form of procedure we would entertain the proposal with an open mind. I say that merely because I do not wish to appear as wedded to the County Court procedure. We got all that we could. We, of course, could not expect to remove all the blots which we detected in the Government's Bill. We accept the Bill as now proposed by noble Lords opposite, and I trust, although I have no right to commit those who sit behind me, that they will not disapprove of the arrangement arrived at. But I remain of opinion—and I trust noble Lords opposite will pardon me for expressing it strongly—that they have made a great mistake in not meeting us further than they have upon the points for which we principally contended. To me it has always seemed that in legislation of this kind, dealing necessarily with important interests—the interests not only of owners and occupiers but of great as well as small local municipalities—it was desirable, from the point of view of the Government themselves, that everything should be done that could be done to reassure the public and disarm the suspicions to which interference of the kind contemplated by such legislation as this must inevitably give rise. Some of those suspicions I trust we have been able to remove; some of them remain; and if they do remain the fault is not ours but that of noble Lords opposite.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN)

As it is desired to proceed to the consideration of the Amendments on the Paper I will only say one word, which is called for, I think, by the strictures of the noble Marquess who opened the debate with regard to my own attitude. The noble Marquess has an hereditary right to be jealous of the administration of justice in this country, and I join entirely with him in thinking that the administration of justice by the Courts of this country is pure and of the highest value to the State. I think, further, that it is one of the main bulwarks of the security and stability of this country. I hope that I would be one of the very last to question the competence or efficiency of those Courts. My reason for objecting to the criticism of the noble Marquess, which I do not think imputed so much malignity as improper judgment to myself, is that in the first place it is not the case that persons aggrieved are excluded from the Courts of Justice, as the noble Marquess will find if he will look at the Amendment on page 10. He will there find that on any point of law the person aggrieved is entitled to go to the High Court of Justice. Accordingly, I think, the foundation of his statement falls.

The real ground of criticism is that I have objected very strongly to County Courts being entrusted with the duty of saying whether a particular tenement is or is not fit for human habitation. That is not a point of law in any way but a question of fact, which is better ascertained by persons familiar with it than by a High Court Judge or a County Court Judge. The noble Viscount who just now interposed in the debate will remember his own social legislation, all of which was most admirable and excellent. I speak from memory, but the Public Health Act of 1875 is studded with provisions, as are his other Acts, to prevent the expensive and costly machinery of the law being invoked to settle questions of fact such as are contained in this Bill. The law is costly, and proceedings of this kind would lead inevitably to a breakdown of the system if you overburden it with legal expenses, and, above all, with the expenses of costly expert witnesses.

My Lords, practical wisdom in legislation depends upon the balance of two French proverbs. One is that the good is the enemy of the better, and the other that the better is the enemy of the good. Your Lordships have to apply good sense in determining which of those proverbs you prefer as the guide for your action in the particular cases that arise. In my own opinion it would be better on this occasion to get a tribunal of a practical kind—an inspector with practical experience—who can decide this simple thing instead of remitting it to the costly and dignified machinery of the law.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

[The references are to Bill No. (158.).]

Lords Amendment.

Clause 2, page 1, line 17, leave out ("and confirmed by the Board")

line 18, after ("Act") insert—

(2) If within the period prescribed by the Board no objection to an Order under this section has been presented to the Board by a person interested in the land, or if every such objection has been withdrawn, the Board shall, without further inquiry, confirm the Order either without modification or subject to such modifications as they think fit, but if such an objection has been presented and has not been withdrawn the Board shall appoint an impartial person not in the employment of any Government Department to hold a public inquiry on their behalf in the locality in which the land is proposed to be acquired, and the local authority and all persons interested in the land, and such other persons, as the person holding the inquiry in his discretion thinks fit to allow, shall be permitted to appear and be heard at the inquiry.

(8) If the person who held the inquiry reports, or if on considering his report, it appears to the Board that by reason of the extent or situation of any land proposed to be acquired compulsorily, or the purposes for which such land is used, or any other circumstances, the land ought not to be acquired compulsorily without the sanction of Parliament, the order of the Board shall be provisional only, and shall not have effect unless confirmed by Parliament.

(4) An order, other than a Provisional Order, made by the Board under this section shall come into force after it has lain for thirty days during the Session of Parliament on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, unless cither House during those thirty days presents an Address to His Majesty against the order, in which case no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of a new order.

The Commons disagree to these Amendments for the following reason:

Because they consider the procedure for the compulsory acquisition of land under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, is more appropriate.

THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAUCHAMP)

I beg to move that the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment, and I propose that the Amendments standing in my name on the Paper, with a few slight verbal alterations, be inserted in lieu thereof. The subject-matter, after the discussions that have taken place in your Lordships' House, is so familiar that it is not necessary for me, especially after what has fallen from the noble Marquess opposite, to say anything with regard to the principle of this Amendment. In these circumstances perhaps it will be unnecessary for me to do more than formally move.

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

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I refrained from saying anything upon the general question of the consideration of these Amendments, but I think I cannot allow this Amendment to pass without making some observations upon the nature of it. Surveying the Amendments which are going to be proposed by the noble Earl opposite and the number which he proposes that your Lordships should not insist upon, I am bound to say there seems to me to be a somewhat melancholy reiteration. One after another the noble Earl is going to move that your Lordships do not insist upon this, that and the other Amendment which you have agreed to at former stages of the Bill. The reason which has been given in many cases by the House of Commons for not agreeing to your Lordships' Amendments is that it is desirable to follow the precedent of the Small Holdings Act. Whether your Lordships agree to these Amendments or do not insist upon your own Amendments, I hope at any rate that you will not agree to that reason as the one for which you accept the Amendments put forward by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, because I venture to say that the precedent of the Small Holdings Act has been proved to be an extremely dangerous one to follow.

The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack a few minutes ago told us that there was a marked difference between questions of law and questions of fact, and that where questions of fact alone were concerned it was most unwise to invoke the expense of an appeal to a Court of Law. But the procedure of the Small Holdings Act, which is embodied in this Bill, and under which the main purchases of land will be effected, does two things to which I venture, not for the first time, to draw your Lordships' attention, because I really think they are a very serious danger in the machinery by which property may be compulsorily acquired. Your Lordships will remember that an Order of the Local Government Board is to be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act have been complied with, and that the Order is within the powers of the Act—that is to say, the Local Government Board are at liberty, unwittingly, perhaps, but certainly also wittingly, if they should so choose, to set at nought all the provisions contained in the Act and which they are bound by law to carry out; if any person is aggrieved and challenges the Order of the Local Government Board, he can only receive one answer from His Majesty's Courts of Law—that is, that the Order is to have effect as if it had been enacted in the measure which your Lordships are going to pass to-day. I venture to say that that procedure in the Small Holdings Act is an extremely dangerous one for your Lordships to follow.

The noble Earl opposite said that some of the proposals put forward by my noble friend the noble Marquess were extravagant. I am bound to say the arguments which were adduced on this side of the House seemed to me to be absolutely conclusive, and certainly met with no answer from the Benches opposite. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has been most courteous. He showed a knowledge of the subject and a readiness in dealing with it which everyone in this House must have admired; but, at the same time, he had no answer to give to the arguments which were put forward from this side of the House except that the Local Government Board wished the Bill to stand as brought up to this House. As to the Amendment which your Lordships have now before you, if it is to be defended upon the grounds of consistency I confess I never saw an Amendment so absurd in its proposition. The proposition is that in London and in urban districts, you are to call in an independent arbitrator who is to decide certain things; but I think it is not unfair to assume that the intention is where the land is not situated in urban districts or in London, the Local Government Board should be free to make an Order for any lands, however unsuitable, and though they may be acquired with undue detriment to the persons interested or the owners of adjoining land. If it is not right that the Local Government Board should do that in one case, it cannot be right that they should do so in another.

After what has fallen from the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, I should, of course, not desire to offer any opposition to this Amendment and the others which are going to be proposed by His Majesty's Government; but I do say this, that I think that in this Bill and in the Small Holdings Act your Lordships' zeal for both of those subjects has, if I may say so with great deference and great respect, somewhat outrun your discretion. I am a strong advocate of small holdings; I am strenuously desirous of seeing the working classes of this country well and decently housed; but I cannot help feeling that in consenting to the procedure proposed by the Small Holdings Act and in this Bill your Lordships are going a long way to destroy confidence in the protection hitherto afforded by Parliament. I think that in the negotiations which have taken place the Government have been very well aware of the feelings which your Lordships entertain upon this point. They know full well that the Housing Acts are all the work of noble Lords who sit on this side of the House, and, most prominently, of the noble Viscount who addressed you just now. They knew quite well that noble Lords on this side would give up a great deal rather than see this Bill sacrificed. I believe, if your Lordships had said you would not accept these principles unless they were subject to considerable modification at the hands of His Majesty's Government, that His Majesty's Government would have been more ready to meet noble Lords on this side of the House than they have proved themselves to be.

I was very glad to hear what was said by the noble Marquess who spoke first in this debate. The noble Marquess said that this was not to be the last word upon this subject. He said that he hoped on some other occasion, when noble Lords on this side were occupying the Benches opposite, there might be further legislation. I venture to say that the whole question of the acquisition of land and of carrying out housing and town-planning schemes cannot be allowed to rest where it will be after this Bill has passed into law. It is impossible to say that for purposes of small holdings or of housing you shall be able to adopt a cheap and inexpensive way of obtaining land and that that method should be denied to the great railway companies and other corporations who have to obtain land equally for public purposes; and I venture to think the time must fast be approaching when your Lordships will have to take up this question in a broad and comprehensive spirit, and when you will have to consider whether the present Provisional Order system, the present Private Bill system, is not capable of some cheapening by the provision of some more easy method of obtaining land.

I have thought that for some time past, and although I believe that the utmost confidence is felt in the decisions of Committees both of this House and of the other House of Parliament, I still think that, having made this great inroad into the practice of Parliament in that respect your Lordships will have to consider the whole situation, and that at some time or other some independent tribunal will have to be established to deal with all questions of the compulsory acquisition of land.

THE EARL OF CROMER

I should like to make one observation on a matter of detail. I understand that the question of whether or not persons interested can be represented by counsel at the inquiry is to remain at the discretion of the person who holds the inquiry. I do not doubt that that will be more expeditious; but the question is which will afford the most ample guarantee against any abuse of power. The question of being represented by counsel or not ought to remain in the hands of the litigants and not of the person who holds the inquiry. If the litigants choose to pay for counsel, I cannot see why they should not be allowed to do so. I hope the noble Earl will tell us that that point has been considered.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

This seems to me to be a matter which ought to have been brought before your Lordships on the Committee stage rather than at this moment. I think it will be obvious to your Lordships that such a proposal as the noble Earl has just brought forward does run counter to one of the important principles of the Bill, which is to secure that this new procedure should be as cheap as possible. I think we all agree that the introduction of members of the legal profession does not tend to secure that object, and that is why it would be impossible for His Majesty's Government to accept such a suggestion.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The noble Earl has said that this matter is one which ought to have been brought forward at the Committee stage. We thought that the power to engage counsel ought to be the absolute right of these parties whenever they want to have counsel, and if the Government had accepted the Lords Amendments that would have been secured. I do not think that the taunt that we have forgotten our duty is fair from the Government. It is they who will not let us do our duty.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Amendments moved—

Clause 60, page 29, line 20, after ("land") insert ("situate in an urban district")

First Schedule, page 37, line 14, after ("shall") insert ("save as otherwise expressly provided by this Schedule.")

First Schedule, page 38, line 7, at beginning insert ("Where the land proposed to be acquired under the order consists of or comprises land situate in London, or a borough, or urban district, the Board shall appoint an impartial person, not in the employment of any Government Department, to hold the inquiry as to whether the land proposed to be acquired is suitable for the purposes for which it is sought to be acquired, and whether, having regard to the extent or situation of the land and the purposes for which it is used, the land can be acquired without undue detriment to the persons interested therein or the owners of adjoining land, and such person shall in England have for the purpose of the inquiry all the powers of an inspector of the Local Government Board, and if he reports that the land, or any part thereof, is not suitable for the purposes for which it is sought to be acquired, or that owing to its extent or situation or the purpose for which it is used it cannot be acquired without such detriment as aforesaid, or that it ought not to be acquired except subject to the conditions specified in his report, then the Local Government Board may either refuse to confirm the order in respect of that land, or part thereof, or, as the case may require, may confirm it subject to such modifications as are required to give effect to the specified conditions; in other cases the order shall be pro visional only, and shall not have effect unless confirmed by Parliament. Where no part of the land is so situate as aforesaid")

First Schedule, page 30, line 13, after ("Scotland") insert ("and for the reference to a borough or urban district there shall be substituted a reference to a burgh")

Sixth Schedule, page 43, line 12, at end insert ("In section eighty-five the words 'not exceeding three guineas a day'")—(Earl Beauchamp.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR indicated two or three points in the Amendments at which the noble Earl wished to make verbal alterations.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It is not very easy to follow the suggested alterations in an intricate matter of this kind. We must, therefore, rely upon the assurance of the Government. If the Government assure us that the alterations make no absolute difference in the sense of the Amendment, we will not question them.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

There is no difference whatever in the sense. I think your Lordships will see that as the Amendments stand on the Paper the drafting is obviously open to improvement, and it is simply with the idea of improving it and making it more intelligible that the verbal alterations have been suggested.

LORD EVERSLEY

Is it intended that in every single case there should be a second inquiry, no matter whether an objection has been raised or not? It seems to me that the proposal as it stands is unnecessarily wide, and that this second inquiry by an impartial person to be appointed by the Local Government Board should only take place in the event of an objection being raised by a landowner or a neighbouring landowner whose land is affected. As it is now, the second inquiry may take place in every case, which does not seem to me to be necessary.

LORD CLINTON

I should be obliged if the noble Earl would give us some information about the powers of the impartial person in Scotland. It is laid down in the Amendment that such person shall in England have for the purpose of the inquiry all the powers of an inspector of the Local Government Board. I should have presumed that in the Amendment it would have been stated what the powers are of the impartial person in Scotland, but I have discovered nothing dealing with that point.

THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND)

The explanation is this. As the noble Lord knows, there are no inspectors of the Local Government Board in Scotland. The impartial person, therefore, takes the place of the inspector. It is thought that the Scottish application clause is general enough in its terms to give precisely the same powers to the person holding the inquiry in Scotland as are given in England.

LORD CLINTON

He will have the ordinary powers of an arbitrator then?

LORD PENTLAND

Yes.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I think I ought to say in reply to my noble friend Lord Eversley, that there is nothing in this Amendment which will interfere with the present arrangement of taking land by agreement.

LORD EVERSLEY

The whole clause is to enable land to be taken compulsorily. In the first instance, the Local Government Board must hold an inquiry with a view of determining whether there shall be an Order, and as the clause now stands, immediately after that inquiry is held, even though no person may object to the Order, further inquiry must take place by an impartial person.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 10, page 5, line 17, after ("expedient") insert the following new subsection—

(4) An order relating to Part III of the principal Act made by the local Government Board under this section shall not take effect until a draft thereof has lain for thirty days during the Session of Parliament on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and if either House during those thirty days presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of a new Draft Order.

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because they consider that an administrative order should not require submission to Parliament and that it is inexpedient to adopt a procedure which might involve considerable, delay.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I move that your Lordships do not insist on the said Amendment, and I shall then propose in lieu thereof the Amendment on the Paper.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

I do not wish to re-argue this Amendment, but your Lordships should take note of the effect of it. It is one which does not affect the pockets of landowners, nor does it affect questions of law. It is the first time that your Lordships have been asked to consent to placing the great local authorities of the country entirely at the mercy of the President of the Local Government Board in matters of very great expenditure for housing. The effect of this Amendment will be that an expenditure of £2,000,000 on housing under Part III can be forced on the London County Council by the Local Government Board after the ratepayers of London have by a very large majority decided that economy should be made.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

We are not on that Amendment.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

I am taking the two Amendments together. The case of the larger municipalities is the more remarkable. Although the ratepayers may have by a large majority decided that they will not carry out a particular scheme, the Local Government Board will have power to enforce it. I think there should be an appeal. There is no appeal in this case. The Order may be laid on the Table of the House, according to the noble Earl's Amendment. The Order may be made in August and for six months the matter may have been running before it is possible that it should even be laid on the Table of your Lordships' House. All we ask in this case is that the Order should be laid on the Table for thirty days, and that opportunity should be given to Parliament to decide as between a great municipality and the Local Government Board as to which is in the right. Up to now there has been no authority over the great municipalities except Parliament itself, and they have relied on the authority of Parliament. If we are to take the Local Government Board as being above all criticism and as the sole judges of the need of housing and of the ratepayers' ability to pay, no doubt the noble Earl is correct in his Amendment; but I must honestly state that in the course of these discussions no remissness in the past in these matters has been urged to justify so gigantic a change. The change is contrary to precedent. His Majesty's Government have failed to support it by argument, and their support in the Division Lobby has been particularly scanty even among their own supporters. I am sure that if the noble Earl would take the opinion of the great municipalities he would find that they are practically unanimous against this proposal, which I hope will not long be allowed to stand on the Statute Book.

LORD STANMORE

I wish to say a word with regard to the first of the two Amendments on the Paper. The noble Viscount seemed to be considering the second. But with regard to the provision that an Order made by the Local Government Board under this clause shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, I would call attention to what seems to me to have been rather an optimistic view on the part of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, when he represented this as an important concession by the Government which would give to any aggrieved person the right of an appeal to this House, and that this House would be able, under that clause, to do him justice.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

In that portion of my observations I was referring to the town planning part of the Bill, and not to the housing part.

LORD STANMORE

I am speaking of the provision requiring the Order to be laid before Parliament. There is all the difference in the world between the provision here inserted and the provision inserted the other day on the motion of the noble Lord opposite.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Line 17, at the end, insert— (4) An order made by the Local Government Board under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 10, page 5, line 19, after ("mandamus") insert the following new subsection—

(6) For the purposes of this section, so far as it relates to Part III. of the principal Act, the expression ' local authority ' shall not include the London Country Council, or the council of any county borough.

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because they consider that the provisions in question should apply to the London County Council and county borough councils as well as to other local authorities.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 13, page 6, line 23, after ("purposes") insert ("unless after a local inquiry the county council are satisfied that it is just to limit the charge for the whole or part of the expenses so incurred to the rural district or to some contributory place or places therein, in which case they may order that any such expenses shall be so charged")

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it alters the incidence of rates; and the Commons consider it is unnecessary to offer any further reason, hoping the above reason may be deemed sufficient.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

Here we are dealing with the incidence of rates, and in view of the reason given by the House of Commons I hope your Lordships will not insist on the Amendment.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

The noble Earl very prudently omitted to tell the House what the reasons alleged by the House of Commons were. This Amendment is objected to on the ground that it is an infringement of the House of Commons privilege. It is one of those cases of extreme and violent assertion of House of Commons privilege which should never be allowed to pass unnoticed in this House. A county council is empowered, under Clause 13, to incur certain expenses and charge them on the general rate. What we proposed was that the county council should be allowed to vary the incidence, not the amount, of the rate, so that instead of falling on the whole county it should fall on a certain area within the county. There is no interference there with the authority that levies the rate and there is no interference with the amount of the rate. It is a simple and narrow question of local administration, and if this view of the House of Commons privilege is to be adopted, your Lordships' House will never be allowed to have a word in any case where the smallest question affecting the incidence of local rates arises. That, as I said before, seems to me to be a violent and unreasonable application of the House of Commons privilege, and we desire, although we do not wish to divide the House against the clause, to place on record that we regard the contention as an unreasonable one and that we do not admit it.

THE EARL OF CREWE

It is important to bear in mind the distinction which has sometimes on previous occasions been pointed out to us by the noble Marquess. There have been cases where, on the merits, the noble Marquess has held that the Government in another place ought to move to waive the privilege of the House of Commons because the Amendment was intrinsically reasonable. That, I understand, is not argued on this occasion. What the noble Marquess does now is to object to the assertion by the officers of the House of Commons of the existence of privilege in this case. That, of course, is entirely another matter, and is one which in no way concerns His Majesty's Government. I wish to draw that distinction, because when we have these privilege discussions in this House the two things are not always kept entirely apart.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The distinction which the noble Earl draws may be a valid distinction in point of logic, but I do not think it improves the case for the Government. If it is the fact that the Government have refused to waive the Commons privilege on a perfectly reasonable Amendment, then I do not think that the Government are entitled to any credit for so doing. They ought to have urged the House of Commons to waive privilege in this case, and they ought to have agreed to this Amendment. If, on the other hand, this is not a question of House of Commons privilege, then the noble Earl ought to be the first to vindicate the privilege of this House as against the House of Commons.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

The treatment of this Amendment throws a striking light on the methods and mental operations of His Majesty's Government. This Amendment is manifestly a just one. There can be no doubt whatever about its justice, and the noble Earl in charge of the Bill never said for one moment that there was any argument against it, except that of the privilege of the House of Commons. Allow me, without going into the arguments we have just heard, to show what this really means. I ventured to mention it in Committee and I will repeat it. I take the instance of my own county, the county of Northumberland—a very large county with a populous urban district in one corner of it and a large and very thinly-populated rural district north of it. Supposing a town-planning scheme is carried out, as is likely, in the thickly-populated district. According to the Bill the ratepayers on Tweedside, forty or fifty miles away, are to pay the rates incident upon that action. It is not only in the case of town planning. It runs through the Bill. That is manifestly unjust. The ratepayer in the rural district will get no benefit whatever. I see the noble Earl opposite turning over the pages. I think he has possibly caught me in a technical error. It might not apply to every part of the Bill. I anticipate that objection, and I say that my main argument is this, that it does throw upon the rural ratepayer expenses by which the urban ratepayer alone benefits. That is a manifest injustice, and the Government answer that not by argument but by the plea of privilege.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I beg the noble Duke's pardon. The Government do nothing of the kind. We have not said a word about privilege.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

I think I am correct. It is stated on the Paper that— The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason: Because it alters the incidence of rates. Why should that be an objection if privilege is not claimed?

THE EARL OF CREWE

The House of Commons raises that objection, not His Majesty's Government.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

We all know that the House of Commons makes the objection. We also know that the House of Commons is not allowed to do anything except what His Majesty's Government think fit.

THE EARL OF CREWE

The assertion of privilege by the other House in a matter of this kind is in no way affected by its being waived. If the noble Duke's arguments in favour of the Amendment are correct, it is quite fair to argue that the Government ought to have been convinced and to have waived privilege. But that would have been no use to the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, for what he objects to is the raising of the question of privilege.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

I am not referring to the argument of my noble friend, who is perfectly able to defend himself. My argument is my own, if the noble Earl will kindly listen to it. It is this, that the House of Commons, when a case of great hardship is put before them, instead of giving reasons which they think justify that hardship or why they think that hardship should be inflicted, shelter themselves behind the objection that the privileges of the House of Commons are interfered with. I think I am right in saying that. We are often told in these days that the people of this country are not very tolerant of privileges. That is rather a two-edged argument. I have no doubt that the people of this country will support the privileges of the House of Commons as long as they find those privileges asserted in defence of the interests of the people; but if they find, as the Government are teaching them now, that from an overweening desire to preserve and enlarge as far as possible those privileges the real benefit of the country is sacrificed, and injustice such as I submit is imposed by this clause is put upon the ratepayers of the country, I venture to say that the people will not have much respect even for the privileges of the House of Commons.

LORD BELPER

In view of what has been said from the Government Bench, I would point out that in moving that these Amendments be disagreed to Mr. Burns said in the other House— This is not the time for waiving our privilege, and upon that this Amendment was passed over without any discussion. The passing over of this Amendment in that way will have a very bad effect on the working of the Bill, because this clause provides that where the council of a county are of opinion that for any reason it is expedient that the council should exercise, as respects any rural district in the county, any of the powers of a local authority under Part III of the principal Act, the council, after giving notice to the council of the district of their intention to do so, may apply to the Local Government Board for an order conferring such powers on them. But if the county council are of opinion that it would not be fair to charge the cost as a rate upon the whole county they are perfectly certain, as the provision stands, not to take any action under the clause at all. No county council would consent to spread over the whole county a rate for work carried out in one corner of the county. Therefore the result of the action of the House of Commons in deliberately making use of the plea of privilege for not considering this Amendment will have a very bad effect on their own Bill, and prevent the county council stepping in in many cases where it is desirable that they should do so.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

In the opinion of His Majesty's Government there is a good deal to be said against the Amendment on principle. I endeavoured to explain those objections when the House was in Committee. Clause 13 contemplates that a county council may exercise in a rural district the powers of a local authority under Part III of the principal Act without there being any default on the part of the district council. In such a case it would not seem right that the county council should be able to embark upon an expensive scheme at the cost of a rural district or parish in the county. Lord Belper may very fairly say that in the converse case it would be hard on the county council. His Majesty's Government have tried to meet that case in Clause 10, subsection (1) (a). In cases when there is a default on the part of the rural district council the county council can complain to the Board, and in those cases the expenses would be borne by the rural district or such part as was affected. I think noble Lords will see that there is a point of substance in the objection to this Amendment.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 14, page 7, line 5, after ("pounds") insert ("there shall be implied a condition that the house is at the commencement of the holding in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation, but the condition aforesaid shall not be implied when a house or part of a house is let for a term of not less than three years upon the terms that it he put by the lessee into a condition reasonably fit for occupation")

The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by inserting after the word ("years") in line 6 the following words ("and the lease is not determinable at the option of either party before the expiration of that term")

Moved, That the Lords agree with the Commons in the said Amendment to the Lords Amendment, but that the words inserted be inserted at the end of the Lords Amendment instead of at the place where they were inserted by the Commons.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 15, page 7, line 10, after ("habitation") insert ("but nothing herein contained shall make it obligatory on the landlord to remedy any defect caused by the act or default of the tenant or occupier, or any person for whom the tenant is as between himself and the landlord responsible.

"(2) The landlord or the local authority, or any person authorised by him or them in writing, may at reasonable times of the day, on giving twenty-four hours' notice in writing to the tenant or occupier, enter any house, premises, or building to which this section applies for the purpose of viewing the state and condition thereof")

The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by leaving out the words inserted before the new subsection.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I move that your Lordships agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. The Amendment originally proposed by your Lordships' House deals with two points. The first is the question of injury wilfully done by the tenant. That is the part which in another place has been struck out. Perhaps I might point out that this clause only applies to future contracts, and that in those future contracts the landlord will be able to protect himself by inserting a clause to determine the tenancy at once or in seven days if notice under the clause has been given by the local authority showing that the house has become insanitary under these circumstances. Noble Lords have urged that it takes a long time to eject these persons, but an individual who has a considerable number of these properties assures me that he has not found it necessary to invoke the assistance of the law in a single case in fifteen years experience; he has always got the tenant out within fourteen days. It is quite true that when resort has to be made to the Court and the rent is 7s. 6d. a week or less the period of ejectment is five weeks, but, as a matter of practice, although that may be the law, the period is not nearly so long as is there provided for. In those circumstances I hope that noble Lords opposite will consider that the landlord is sufficiently protected. After all, a great many of these houses are held under short agreements, and it will be perfectly easy for a landlord to turn out a tenant of this kind in a very short period. The clause will apply largely to the very worse kind of property that exists in the slums of our great towns, and it is very important where the tenant is found of an undesirable kind really doing damage he should be turned out at once.

Moved, That the Lords agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The noble Earl has done the best he could with this Amendment, but I am sure your Lordships will have realised what a poor figure the Government cut in respect of this proposal. Here is a proposal under which it is expressly laid down that the tenant may be in fault but the landlord is to bear responsibility. That is manifestly unjust. Your Lordships altered that; it went back to another place, and there the representative of the Government said "If the landlord does not like to be made responsible for another man's sins he can turn the tenant out." It was pointed out to the Government that that was a difficult process. One would have thought that the Government would have grasped at the opportunity of enabling the procedure to be more rapidly carried into effect, and of making it as easy as they could for the landlord to turn out such a tenant, but they would not look at the Amendment. The truth is that the Government were afraid to insert such an Amendment; they were afraid of their friends in the House of Commons; and I do not think they present a particularly dignified appearance when they ask your Lordships not to insist on this Amendment for those reasons.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 15, page 7, line 33, after ("Board") insert ("or the county court of the district")

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because the county court is not a tribunal suitable for the purpose.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

We now come to the question of the County Court, and I move that your Lordships do not insist upon your Amendment. I shall propose in lieu therefore certain Amendments on the Paper; and there is also a further consequential Amendment which is in the charge of my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland. Perhaps it is only right that I should explain the reasons why His Majesty's Government were unable to meet the wishes of noble Lords opposite. It did not seem to them, as the House has already heard from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that the County Court was a suitable authority to deal with matters of the kind involved. Having once reached that conclusion the question was whether any alternative was possible. The Government considered whether there was in existence some tribunal which would meet the case, but there were so many objections against the other tribunals suggested as alternatives that the Government were unable to agree to them. In the circumstances they propose two Amendments which I hope will go some way towards meeting the wishes of noble Lords opposite. The Government have accepted in another place an appeal on points of law from the Local Government Board to the High Court; and, in the second place, we propose to insert words in Clause 40 to the effect that under the clause all inquiries should be public. Your Lordships will see that I have given notice of an Amendment to that effect. Perhaps it would be convenient that I should point out now that as we insert words in Clause 40 providing that the Board shall not dismiss any appeal without having previously held a public inquiry, the provision in Clause 17, subsection (7), which requires the Board to hold a public inquiry in the case of a closing order becomes unnecessary, because under Clause 40 every inquiry held by the Local Government Board becomes a public inquiry. The President of the Local Government Board also wishes the statement to be made that instructions shall be given to inspectors to hear, at any inquiry or appeal to which Clause 40 applies, all parties interested who claim to be heard; to visit the premises and invite the parties to accompany them; and to submit a full and impartial report to the Board of the evidence given and the result of their own inspection. The inspector will be empowered to take evidence on oath, and will be instructed to do so if circumstances make it desirable. These instructions will be published; and I hope this assurance on the part of my right hon. friend will meet, at any rate to some degree, the objections of noble Lords opposite.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

I cannot help calling attention to the comic situation in which the Government are placed. Here is a Government looking about for a tribunal to which aggrieved persons who are ordered by a Government Department to do something which they think they ought not to be ordered to do may appeal, but they cannot think of any tribunal except the Local Government Board itself. Are we really to believe that statesmanship has fallen so low? Are we really to believe that with all the talent which the Government have at their disposal it is impossible to find a tribunal to which to appeal? The truth of the matter is that His Majesty's Government are determined to create a powerful bureaucracy which will change the legislation of this country. This will mean that henceforth we are not to have an appeal to law or to impartial tribunals, but that we are to be entirely at the mercy of Government Offices. They have to a very great extent succeeded in their desire, and they say that what they have done they have done on the plea of economy. I venture to think that the sacrifice of liberty for the sake of economy is very bad statesmanship, and I do not know whether I shall receive the condemnation of noble Lords opposite if I say that I would rather that the procedure of this country was just than that it was cheap, although, of course, I quite admit that cheapness is a very great object. Then, my Lords, the final comedy is found in what the noble Earl has just told us are the intentions of the Local Government Board. First of all, allow me to say that I believe entirely in the good faith of the President of the Local Government Board and his full intentions with regard to these regulations, and I have no doubt that he will carry out both in the letter and in the spirit all of them. But may I remind the noble Earl that the President of the Local Government Board is not there for ever, and that he cannot bind his successors? The final comedy is arrived at when we are actually assured that the inquiry shall be an impartial one. Was there ever a Government who thought it necessary to come down to this House and to assure the House, when rejecting so many of our Amendments, that there should be an impartial inquiry as if it was a great gift that they were giving us or a great concession that they were promising?

EARL BEAUCHAMP

Might I explain to the noble Duke that there is no doubt on the part of the Local Government Board or on the part of His Majesty's Government that all these inquiries will be impartial, as they have been in the past. It was only to meet the wishes of noble Lords opposite that that assurance was given.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 10, leave out lines 14 to 16. Insert at the end of the Commons amendment to page 17, "line 29, ('and (b) the rules shall provide that the Local Government Board shall not dismiss any appeal without having first held a public local inquiry ')"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

Is there not some verbal mistake here? I do not find any subsection (a) in the clause, and I do not know what the words "and (b)" mean.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

As far as I can see, the print on the Paper before your Lordships is erroneous in inserting the words "and (b)" That, I think, can be put right as a matter of printing; but it is erroneously stated upon the print before your Lordships.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 15, page 7, line 38, after ("Board") insert ("or the local authority")

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it is consequential on the Amendment to page 7, line 33.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 15, page 8, line 2, after ("lets") insert ("to a tenant for his own habitation")

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because they consider it unnecessary, and that it might lead to evasion.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I beg to move that your Lordships do not insist on the said Amendment. The noble Duke opposite will remember that this was an Amendment which he proposed to deal with cases of collieries with which were let a number of houses. He thought, and quite rightly thought, that it was not desirable that the over landlord should be required to step in and look after those cottages, and the question was how such a thing was to be prevented. I did my best to assure your Lordships that that was provided for in the Bill, but the noble Duke was not satisfied with that assurance and moved an Amendment to the effect that the words "to a tenant for habitation" should be inserted, and then at the last moment he went further and proposed that we should also put in the words "his own." I was quite willing, if the Amendment was insisted upon, to agree to the words "to a tenant for habitation," and said so at once, although we thought it was quite unnecessary; but in consequence of the further Amendment of the noble Duke to insert the words "his own," when the Bill as amended went down to another place it was agreed, I think by people on both sides of the House, that the Amendment as amended would allow evasion of the clause, and that was really very undesirable. In these circumstances I hope that your Lordships will not insist on the Amendment. I should like to refer the noble Duke for a third time to Clause 15, and to express for a third time the hope that he will be re-assured by the terms of that clause, and really feel satisfied that in the circumstances which he had in his mind the landlord would not be required to effect these alterations. I think there is really no doubt at all that the letting of a colliery under the circumstances which the noble Duke referred to would not be treated as a letting within the meaning of Clause 15, and therefore the Amendment is really unnecessary.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

I am much obliged to the noble Earl, but he has not pointed out to me what the words are that be refers to in the clause. I would like to remind him, also, that I was supported in asking for the insertion of these words by a distinguished legal authority.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

May I say that His Majesty's Government would not mind the insertion of the words which the noble Duke originally proposed, "to a tenant for habitation." The objection is to the addition of the words "his own." I am quite willing to assent to the insertion of the words "to a tenant for habitation," although in the opinion of His Majesty's Government those words are unnecessary.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

Very well; if the noble Earl will do that, I gratefully accept it.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I now move that we amend the Amendment by leaving out the words "his own," so that it runs "to a tenant for habitation."

Amendment proposed—

Clause 15, page 8, line 2, after ("lets") insert ("to a tenant for habitation").—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 16, page 9, line 3, after ("authorities") insert ("and the provisions of subsection (6) of the last foregoing section with respect to an appeal against any notice requiring the execution of works and any demand for the recovery of expenses and against any order made with respect to those expenses under this section")

The Commons disagree to this said Amendment for the following reason:—

Because the case is not one in which there is any necessity for an appeal.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 17, page 9, line 26, after the first ("Board") insert ("or the county court of the district") and after the second ("Board") insert ("or the local authority")

Clause 17,Page 10, line 11, after ("Board") insert ("or the county court of the district")

Clause 17,Page 10, line 12, after ("Board") insert ("or the local authority")

The Commons disagree to these Amendments for the following reason:—

Because they are consequential on the Amendment to page 7, line 33.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 17, page 10, line 28 to the end of line 4 on page 11, leave out paragraphs (d), (e), and (f), and insert— (b) does not comply with such regulations as the local authority with the consent of the Local Government Board may prescribe for securing the proper ventilation and lighting of such rooms, and the protection thereof against dampness, effluvia, or exhalation: Provided that if the local authority, after being required to do so by the Local Government Board, fail to make such regulations, or such regulations as the Board approve, the Board may themselves make them, and the regulations so made shall have effect as if they had been made by the local authority with the consent of the Board.

Provided that a closing order made in respect of a room to which this subsection applies shall not prevent the room being used for purposes other than those of a sleeping place

The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by inserting at the end thereof the following words ("and if the occupier of the room after notice of an order has been served upon him fails to comply with the order, an order to comply therewith may, on summary conviction, be made against him").

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I beg to move that your Lordships agree with the Commons in their Amendment to your Lordships' Amendment. It is for the purpose of securing a suitable means of enforcing the closing order.

Moved, That the Lords do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. (Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 18, page 11, line 34, after ("works") insert ("Provided that where the local authority refuses to postpone the operation of an order under this section the owner may appeal to the county court of the district by giving notice of appeal to the local authority within fourteen days after such refusal")

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because they consider that there should not be an appeal against a refusal to grant an indulgence.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendments.

Clause 18, page 11, line 38, after ("Board") insert ("or the county court of the district")

Clause 18, page 11, line 39, after ("Board") insert ("or the local authority")

Clause 21, page 12, line 11, at the beginning of the clause insert ("a county court shall be substituted for a court of summary jurisdiction in")

Clause 21, page 12,line 13, leave out ("shall cease to have effect")

The Commons disagree to these Amendments for the following reason:—

Because they are consequential on the Amendment to page 7, line 33.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendments.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Page 13, leave out Clause 24.

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because they do not consider that confirmation by Parliament is required in the cases referred to in the clause.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I move that your Lordships do not insist on this Amendment. Your Lordships will see that Clause 24 deals with the schemes relating to insanitary areas or houses, and there does not seem to be any really valid reason why owners of houses dealt with by schemes in these areas should be more carefully protected than the owners of land required for re-housing.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Although it is quite true that there would require to be some words inserted in place of Clause 24 in order to assimilate the acquiring of land otherwise than by agreement under Parts I and II with the procedure under Part III, that is precisely what the Government have not done. Under Clause 2, as your Lordships have agreed to it this afternoon, the Government have allowed in urban districts an impartial inquiry, and they propose to put Clause 24 back into the form in which it originally reached this House when there was no impartial inquiry. If an impartial inquiry in the case of urban districts is considered right, I fail to see why it is not considered right in other cases. This is another of the many inconsistent attitudes which His Majesty's Government have taken up in respect of this Bill. I do not intend to question it further.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendments.

Clause 32, page 15, line 6, leave out ("general") and insert ("special")

Clause 32, page 15, line 7, after ("Acts") insert ("but shall be charged on the whole area of such authority")

Clause 32, page 15, line 9, after ("as") insert ("general expenses or")

The Commons disagree to these Amendments for the following reason:—

Because the effect, of these Amendments is to alter the incidence of the rates; and the Commons consider it unnecessary to offer any further reason, hoping the above reason will be deemed sufficient.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I move that your Lordships do not insist on these Amendments. The matter is considered in another place to be one of privilege; but quite apart from that, on their merits, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government these Amendments are very much open to objection. As, however, your Lordships have discussed this both in Committee and on Report, perhaps it will be unnecessary for me to go into the matter on this occasion.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendments.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Page 17, after clause 38, insert the following new clause A.—

A.—(1) In the administration of the Housing Acts it shall be the duty of the local authority to secure as far as practicable that dwelling accommodation provided for the working classes under those Acts is occupied exclusively by persons of the working classes, and other things being equal, the local authority shall give priority to applications made by British subjects belonging to the working classes for such accommodation.

(2) The local authority shall cause a list to be kept showing particulars of the accommodation comprised in every dwelling provided by them in the exercise of their powers and duties under the Housing Acts and of the rent, and such list, so far as it relates to dwellings vacant or about to become vacant, shall be open at all reasonable times, and subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by the local authority, to the inspection, without payment, of ratepayers in the area and of persons of the working classes who desire to apply for dwelling accommodation provided by the local authority under the Housing Acts.

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because they consider that it is undesirable to impose a duty on local authorities which would be unenforceable.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I move that your Lordships do not insist on the said Amendment. It is the Amendment dealing with the working classes, and the giving of priority to British subjects. In the opinion of His Majesty's Government the proposed clause was drawn, and necessarily drawn owing to the difficulties of the subject, in such very vague terms that it is thought to be, useless and would merely have the effect of hampering the local authorities. It seems undesirable to impose a duty on local authorities which cannot be readily enforced, and therefore I venture to hope your Lordships will not insist upon it.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendments.

Clause 40, page 17, line 22, after ("Board") insert ("or a county court")

Page 17, line 23, after the first ("Board") insert ("or the authority having power to make "rules of practice under the County Courts Act, "1888,") and after the second ("Board") insert ("or the court")

Page 17, line 29, after ("Board") insert ("or the court") and after ("just") insert—

(2) The decision of the judge of county courts of the district on any appeal to the court under this Part of this Act shall be final.

Page 17, line 31, after ("Board") insert ("or a county court")

Page 17, line 38, after ("Board") insert ("or a county court")

Page 17, line 39, leave out ("to them")

Page 18, line 1, leave out ("by them")

The Commons disagree to these Amendments for the following reason:—

Because they are consequential on the Amendment to page 7, line 33.

The Commons propose to insert after "just") on page 17, line 29, the following words ("Provided that the Local Government Board may at any stage of the proceedings on appeal, and shall, if so directed by the High Court, state in the form of a special case for the opinion of the Court any question of law arising in the course of the appeal.")

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I move that the Lords do not insist on the said Amendments, and agree with the Commons' Amendment. His Majesty's Government are of opinion that these Amendments are consequential. In addition to that your Lordships will see that in the Amendment suggested we propose to insert a concession which we hope will be accepted by noble Lords opposite, giving an appeal on matters of law to the High Court.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendments, and agree with the Commons Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendments.

Clause 42, page 18, line 14, leave out ("or the service of notices")

Clause 42, page 18, line 15, leave out ("or "served")

Clause 42, page 18, line 17, leave out ("or "service")

Clause 42, page 18, lines 20 and 21, leave out ("or the notice is required to be served")

Clause 42, page 18, lines 22 and 23, leave out ("or the service of other notices")

The Commons disagree to these Amendments for the following reason:—

Because it is desirable to retain the power of dispensing with the service of notices in proper cases.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I move that the Lords do not insist on the said Amendments. These Amendments deal with the power to dispense with the serving of notices in certain cases. His Majesty's Government desire to retain the power of dispensing with the service of notices in proper cases, in order really to meet cases where there has been a substantial, but perhaps not a literal, compliance with the terms of the Act as regards advertisements and notices. In these circumstances I hope your Lordships will agree not to insist upon the Amendments. Perhaps I might direct the attention of the House to subsection (3), which requires that care should be taken by the Board to prevent the interests of any person being prejudiced by this power of dispensation.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendments.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

May I venture to make a suggestion which I think will be acceptable to your Lordships at this hour? I fully appreciate the extreme courtesy of the noble Earl and his desire to give your Lordships all the information in his power, but I really do not think it is necessary for him to go through each Amendment separately and explain it, except where your Lordships ask him to deal with any particular one. If your Lordships adopt that course, I think it might shorten the proceedings.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

Certainly.

Lords Amendments.

Clause 44, page 19, line 4, leave out from ("of") to ("placed") in line 5, and insert ("houses")

Clause 44, page 19, line, 7 leave out ("several tenements") and insert ("houses")

Clause 44, page 19, line 9, leave out ("in every tenement")

The Commons disagree to these Amendments for the following reason:—

Because it is undesirable to facilitate the provision of back-to-hack houses.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendments.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Page 10, after clause 47 insert the following now clause C.—

C. The expression "working classes" in this Act shall include mechanics, artizans, labourers, and others working for wages, hawkers, costermongers, persons not working for wages but working at some trade or handicraft without employing others except members of their own family, and persons whose income does not exceed an average of thirty shillings a week and such persons as may be residing with them.

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because the absence of a definition of the "working classes" applicable to the general provisions of the Housing Acts has occasioned no inconvenience, and it is inexpedient now to introduce such a definition.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 50, page 20, line 16, after ("acre") insert ("Provided that the estimated annual value of such garden shall not exceed three pounds")

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it is undesirable to insert a limitation on the annual value of a cottage garden.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 53, page 23, line 23, after ("Board") insert ("or county court of the district")

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it is consequential on the Amendment to page 7, line 33.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 53, page 23, line 23, after ("that") insert ("the reference in section seventeen to a public local inquiry shall not apply and provided further where an appeal is competent under any of these sections an appeal shall not be competent under section thirty-five of the principal Act, and provided also that the power to make rules under section thirty-nine of this Act shall be exercised by the Court of Session by act of sederunt")

The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by inserting after ("sederunt") in the last line, the following words ("and the appeal in section forty shall apply with the substitution of the Court of Session for the High Court")

LORD PENTLAND

I wish to move that the words "in section seventeen" be left out of the Lords Amendment, in consequence of the omission in an earlier portion of the Bill which had reference to a public inquiry. This would make the words general.

Amendment moved—

To amend the said Lords Amendment by omitting the words "in section seventeen."—(Lord Pentland.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Moved, That the Lords disagree with the Commons Amendment to the Lords Amendment, but in lieu thereof propose the following Amendment— Page 23, line 23, after ("Board") insert ("and" of the Court of Session for the High Court").—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 54, page 24, lines 24 to 39, leave out subsections (4), (5), and (6).

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it is consequential on the new clause D. with which the Commons disagree.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I move that your Lordships do not insist on the said Amendment, and I shall then propose in lieu thereof the Amendments standing in my name on the Paper.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Amendments moved—

Clause 54, page 24, line 25, after ("by") insert ("order of")

Clause 54, page 24, line 28, after ("impose") insert ("Provided that before a town-planning scheme is approved by the Local Government Board, notice of their intention to do so shall be published in the London or Edinburgh Gazette, as the case may be, and if within twenty-one days from the date of such publication any person or authority interested objects in the prescribed manner the draft of the order shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days during the session of Parliament, and if either of those Houses before the expiration of those thirty days presents an address to His Majesty against the draft, or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, without prejudice to the making of any new draft scheme")

Fifth Schedule, page 41, line 38, at end insert as a new paragraph— (d)Publication of notice of intention to approve scheme and the lodging of objections thereto.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 54, page 25, line 3, leave out from ("not") to the end of the clause.

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it is desirable to provide how the question whether land is likely to be used for building purposes or not should be determined.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Page 25, after clause 54 insert the following new clause D.—

D.—(1) A town-planning scheme prepared or adopted by a local authority shall be submitted to the Local Government Board and shall be supported by such evidence as the Board by their regulations require.

(2) If, on consideration of the scheme, &c.

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it would entail such delay and expense as to render Part II. of the Bill nugatory.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 55, page 25, line 14, leave out ("approved by the Board") and insert ("confirmed")

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it is consequential on the new clause D.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendments.

Clause 55, page 25, line 18, after ("apply") insert ("including a schedule showing each parcel of land which it is proposed shall be affected by the making of the scheme, together with a map or plan") and after ("and") insert ("specifying")

The Commons disagree to these Amendments for the following reason:—

Because the matter is one which should be dealt with by regulations.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendments but propose in lieu thereof the following Amendment:—

Page 25, line 17, after ("defining,") insert ("in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations under this Part of this Act "—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 55, page 25, line 29, leave out from ("scheme") to the end of the subsection,

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it is consequential on the new clause D.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendments.

Clause 55, page 26, line 5, after ("duties") insert ("Provided that no local authority shall be authorised, except as a constituent of a joint body constituted as aforesaid, to enforce the observance or the execution of a town-planning scheme under this Part of this Act in respect of any land within the area of another local authority, unless such other local authority is not prepared to carry out a town-planning scheme for the area in question")

Clause 55, page 26, line 6, after ("Provided") insert ("also")

The Commons disagree to these Amendments for the following reason:—

Because it may be desirable that a load authority should be responsible for enforcing the observance of a town-planning scheme outside the district of that authority.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendments.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendments.

Clause 56, page 26, lines 14 and 15, leave out ("obtaining the approval of the Board to") and insert ("the submission to the Board of")

Clause 56, page 26, line 17, leave out "or the" approval")

Clause 56, page 26, line 18, leave out the second ("the") and insert ("a")

Clause 56, page 26, line 19, after ("scheme") insert ("when confirmed")

The Commons disagree to these Amendments for the following reason:—

Because they are consequential on the new clause D.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendments.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 57, page 27, line 13, leave out from ("work") to the end of the subsection, and insert ("the matter may be referred for decision to the county court of the district in the same manner and subject to the like provisions as an appeal to that court under Part I. of this Act")

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it is consequential an the Amendment to page 7, line 33.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment, but propose in lieu thereof the following Amendments—

Page 27, line 14, after ("and") insert ("shall unless the parties otherwise agree, be determined by the Board as arbitrators, and")

Page 30, line 23, after ("shall") insert ("except as otherwise expressly provided by this Part of this Act"), and after ("elect") insert ("or are required")—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendments.

Clause 58, page 27, line 20, leave out ("approval") and insert ("confirmation")

Clause 58, page 27, line 31, leave out ("approval" and insert ("confirmation")

Clause 58, page 27, line 38, leave out ("approval") and insert ("confirmation")

The Commons disagree to these Amendments for the following reason:—

Because they are consequential on the new clause D.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendments.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 58, page 27, lines 41 and 42, leave out ("the amount of that increase") and insert ("such proportion of the expenditure of the authority as, failing agreement, in the opinion of the arbitrator has increased the value of such "property").

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because the expenditure of the local authority has no necessary relation to any increase in the value of land attributable to the making of a town-planning scheme.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment, but propose in lieu thereof the following Amendment—

Clause 58, page 27, line 41, after ("value" insert ("one-half of").—(Earl Beauchamp.)

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

It would be interesting to know why His Majesty's Government have inserted "one-half" as the proper compensation.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I think this is one of those Amendments which was dealt with rather fully on a previous occasion. The view of His Majesty's Government was that the whole matter was surrounded with a great deal of difficulty, and that under the circumstances to put down "one-half" was to make one of those compromises which are so dear to the hearts of our countrymen, and one that we hoped would prove acceptable to your Lordships' House. It gives, on the one hand, half the profit to the local authority and the other half to the individual concerned. I do not pretend to put it forward to your Lordships as a proposition which is in the abstract perfect. There is a good deal in this Bill which in the abstract is not perfect, owing to the fact that we have had to make so many concessions to noble Lords opposite. Naturally, His Majesty's Government would have preferred the Bill as it was originally introduced, but in view of the objection taken by noble Lords opposite we have inserted this with some hope that it will not prove entirely unacceptable.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I have been lost in admiration of the skill and courage which the noble Earl has displayed in defence of this Bill right through these proceedings, but I think he has surpassed himself in the observations he has just made. He says that the Government would have preferred the original form of the Bill. All I can say is they have concealed that preference until this moment, because they have never uttered one word in defence of the original form in which the Bill reached your Lordships' House in this respect. I should have thought, therefore, that the suggestion of the noble Earl was quite indefensible, but apparently he has had concealed in his breast a love for the proposal which he preferred to keep out of sight. However, your Lordships now know that His Majesty's Government would have preferred that the whole of the profits arising from these improvements should have gone to the local authority. I hope the noble Earl will pardon me when I say that I cannot take this observation of his quite seriously—he knows I always treat him with the greatest respect—and that in my opinion His Majesty's Government have adopted this one-half compromise on the principle of any port in a storm, and on no other. They have not been able to defend the fraction of one-half which they have arrived at, nor have they been able to explain to your Lordships' House what it is a half of. The result of this is only to illustrate further what I ventured to put to your Lordships at an earlier period of this afternoon's proceedings, that there can be no finality about this Bill, and that this particular proposal for settling the betterment question can only be taken to be a provisional arrangement. If it turns out by good luck to work well perhaps it will remain, but I do not think that His Majesty's Government will be able to take any credit for it if it does work well.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 58, page 28, line 7, leave out from ("by") to the end of the subsection and insert ("arbitration under this Act in accordance with the first schedule to this Act")

The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by substituting for the words proposed to be inserted the following words ("the arbitration of a single arbitrator appointed by the Local Government Board, unless the parties agree on some other method of determination")

Moved, That the Lords agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 59, page 28, lines 23 and 24, leave out ("reasonably have been inserted in") and insert ("be enforced by")

The Commons propose to leave out the word ("could") in line 23 and to amend this Amendment by substituting for the words proposed to be inserted the following words ("would have been enforceable if they had been contained in")

Moved, That the Lords agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 59, page 28, line 24, after ("authority") insert ("or are similar in effect to any enactment which would have been in force within the area to which the town planning scheme applies but for the operation of such scheme")

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it is unnecessary, and might throw doubt on the effect of the Bill.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 59, page 28, line 34, after ("purpose") insert ("Provided that if it shall appear to the arbitrator that such provisions are unusual and impose excessive restrictions upon the use of the property, and that under all the circumstances compensation should be awarded, he may, notwithstanding anything in this subsection contained, award such compensation as as he may think just")

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because the matter will have to be settled by the scheme and ought not to be subject to revision by an arbitrator.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

With your Lordships' permission, I desire to say a word with regard to this. I think that this particular Amendment was moved by the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury. I wish to say, on behalf of the President of the Local Government Board, that he has given every consideration to the point which is dealt with in the Amendment. I think it has not been realised that all the provisions contained in a town-planning scheme with reference to the limitations of buildings, and so on, are not necessarily to be regarded as affecting properties injuriously with regard to compensation. The point will be made clearer by an example. A local authority might in their scheme propose that on a particular area not more than a certain number of houses should be erected. The Board might agree with the proposal as being in the best interests of the amenity of the district, but might consider that the limit was not reasonable so far as it prevented the payment of compensation, and they would then insert a higher limit which would be reasonable. The lower limit would stand as to the number of buildings to be erected on the area, but in considering the question of compensation the higher limit would be taken as reasonable for the area, and as between the two limits the owner would become entitled to compensation. If the owner disagreed with the Board as to what was reasonable, he would no doubt object to the scheme, and, if so, he has his remedy under the proposal which has been agreed to by noble Lords opposite, as the scheme would have to lie on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for thirty days.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

What really emerges from the observations of the noble Earl is that the Government realise that the subsection as it stands goes beyond what ought fairly to be enacted, but they shrink from putting any Amendment in to cover the point—I do not quite know why. They have, therefore, adopted the expedient of leaving the words as they stand, and explaining them in such a way as to remove part of the harshness of their import. I do not admire that method of legislation. It is bad enough to have an obscure clause, but it is worse to have an obscure clause which is the subject of a further obscure explanation. If the noble Earl tries to explain away the plain meaning of the words of a clause, naturally enough the form that explanation takes cannot be a very clear one. Apparently there is to be one standard of reasonableness from the point of view of the local authority and another standard of reasonableness from the point of view of the landowner in regard to these conditions of amenity, but what would be perfectly reasonable to impose from the point of view of the local authority might be very unreasonable from the point of view of the landowner to accept. I understand that the Local Government Board wish to assure us that if it is unreasonable from the point of view of the landowner they will see that the question of compensation is left open, and if the clause is worked on that principle no doubt that will be a considerable modification of its effect. I hope that in the instructions which no doubt the Government will issue upon this subject they will make the meaning of the clause, according to their interpretation, clear to those who have to interpret it, because I am afraid, however clever those gentlemen may be, they will not arrive at that conclusion unless the Government explain how the clause ought to be read.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendments.

Clause 61, page 29, line 39, leave out ("imposed") and insert ("inserted")

Clause 61, page 30, line 2, leave out ("for the approval of") and insert ("to")

Clause 61, page 30, line 4, leave out ("imposed") and insert ("inserted")

Clause 61, page 30, line 7, leave out ("approve") and insert ("make an order sanctioning")

Clause 61, page 30, lines 10 and 11 leave out ("and approved by the Board")

The Commons disagree to these Amendments for the following reason:—

Because they are consequential on the new clause D.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendments.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 62, page 30, line 20, after ("mandamus") insert the following new subsection—

(4) For the purposes of this section the expression "local authority" shall not include the London County Council or the council of any county borough.

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it is desirable that the provisions of the clause should apply to the London County Council and county borough councils as well as to other local authorities.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Leave out clause 62 and insert the following new clause E.—

E. The procedure of the Local Government Board, upon an application in respect of any matter which they are authorised by this Part of this Act or by any scheme made thereunder to determine, shall be such as the Board may by rules determine, and on any such application the Board may make such order in the matter as they think equitable, and any order so made shall be binding and conclusive on all parties.

The Commons disagree to this Amendment, but propose the substitution therefor of the following Amendment:—

Clause 62, page 30, line 29, leave out from ("aforesaid") to the end of the clause.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment and agree with the Commons Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 65, page 31, line 14, after ("Acts") insert ("provided that in the case of a rural authority such expenses shall be levied in such manner and by such separate rate and subject to the same exceptions and provisions as are applicable under the said Acts to special expenses")

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because the effect of the Amendment is to alter the incidence of the rates, and the Commons consider it unnecessary to offer any further reasons, hoping the above reason may be deemed sufficient.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 66, page 31, line 25, after ("shall") insert ("except as otherwise expressly provided")

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it is consequential on the Amendment to page 30, line 20.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 68, page 32, lines 38 to 41, leave out subsection (2).

The Commons agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, but propose to insert the following additional Amendments:—

Clause 68, page 32, line 37, after subsection (1) insert the following new subsection:—

(2) The duties of a medical officer of health of a county shall be such general duties as may be prescribed by order of the Local Government Board and such oilier duties as may be assigned to him by the county council.

Clause 69, page 33, line 36, leave out ("duties") and insert ("general duties prescribed by the Local Government Board")

Moved, That the Lords agree with the Commons in the said Amendments, but propose the following additional Amendments—

In the first of the Commons Amendments leave out ("general") and after the first ("by") insert ("general")

In the second of the Commons Amendments leave out ("general")

Clause 68, page 33, line 25, at end insert as a new subsection:—

(8) An order under this section prescribing the duties of medical officers of health of a county shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after the order is laid before it praying that the order may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the order and it shall thenceforward be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

LORD BELPER

I wish to call attention to Clause 68, because it is one of the important clauses that the County Councils Association were very anxious to have dealt with. The alternative subsection will to a certain extent make the clause perhaps a little better than in the form in which it originally stood, but I am bound to say it does not touch the point which we wish to press on the Local Government Board. The form in which they have put the clause is, we consider, really a direct attack on local government, because it is not in conformity with the system of local government that any authority should prescribe duties for, or have direct control over, a person who is appointed and paid solely by the county council. I am very much surprised that the Local Government Board should not have consented to deal with the county councils in the way that every other Government Department deals with them, and to communicate their wishes and their views with regard to any important measure which they have under their control direct to the county council, either by memorandum or circular or letter, as is done by all the other important Departments, including the Home Office, the Board of Education, and the Board of Agriculture. I am quite aware that, under present circumstances, with the number of members now in the House, and after what has been said from our own Front Bench, it is impossible for me to press this matter. I will say that I think the additional subsection which it is proposed to move is a considerable alleviation of the position, because at all events it ensures, whatever the duties prescribed by the Local Government Board, that we shall have an opportunity in Parliament of considering them. The order prescribing these duties will have to be laid before Parliament, and therefore we are assured that at all events there will be nothing contained in the prescription of those duties which the Local Government Board have not a just right to prescribe and put upon the county council. I have not the least fear that the present President of the Local Government Board would be inclined to do anything of that sort, but, as has been said before, you have to guard against the future as well as against the present, and it is very desirable that we should have some certainty with regard to the regulations which are to be imposed. Let me only suggest one very small Amendment to the subsection (8) which it is now proposed to add. These papers were issued yesterday, and therefore I have only seen the terms of this new subsection for a very short time, but it does seem to me that what I am about to suggest would meet the point I have raised, that the communications of the Local Government Board should be direct with the county councils and not with one of their officers. I think it would in that way be more in conformity with local government. The words are, "An order under this section prescribing the duties of medical officers of health of a county." I think the words "by the Local Government Board" ought to be inserted after the word "order," because this refers to the duties prescribed by the Local Government Board and not the duties laid down by the county council. However, that is a matter of drafting. The words I wish to have inserted after "shall be" are "communicated direct to the county council" and then go on "and shall also be laid before Parliament." It is more a technical point than anything else, but it will at all events go some way to relieve the feeling of county councils with regard to the present form of this Amendment, because it will give them an assurance, which we should be only too glad to have, from the Local Government Board that they will always communicate with us direct and do what they can to assist us in carrying out our duties. We shall be only too happy to co-operate with them in taking care that any arrangements they make with regard to the important matters with which they have to deal shall be carried out.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

His Majesty's Government would have no objection to accepting part of the Amendment suggested by the noble Lord. We should be glad to insert the words "shall be communicated to the county council and shall be." I am not quite sure what the meaning of the word "direct" is. I do not think that the Local Government Board generally corresponds with the county councils except directly, and as it is very desirable, especially at this stage of the Bill, not to introduce words about which there could be any doubt in the future, I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord.

LORD BELPER

I am quite satisfied with that, on the understanding that communications should be between the Local Government Board and the county councils through their clerks. I think that it ought to be "county councils," in the plural, because these are general orders. I move that those words be inserted.

Amendment moved to the Amendments—

After "shall be" to insert "communicated to the county councils and shall be."—(Lord Belper.)

On Question, That the Lords agree with the Commons in the said Amendments—

LORD BELPER

I cannot allow the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to put the Amendment to Clause 69 at this stage without making the strongest possible protest. There is included here an Amendment to Clause 69, which is in no sense consequential on the Amendment to Clause 68, and the only reason why it is included here is that it is said to be a consequential Amendment on the omission of subsection (2) of Clause 68. That subsection provided that the Local Government Board might prescribe the duties of medical officers of health. When that Amendment went back to the Commons, the Commons accepted our Amendment but put in other words which made the clause wider, because they stated— The duties of a medical officer of health of a county shall be such general duties as may be prescribed by order of the Local Government Board and such other duties as may be assigned to him by the county council. The subsection in Clause 69 which it is now proposed to amend is as follows— The medical officer of health of a district shall give to the medical officer of health of the county any information which it is in his power to give, and which the medical officer of health of the county may reasonably require from him for the purpose of his duties. We entirely agree with that clause in every way. It is absolutely necessary that the minor medical officer should give to the medical officer of the county such information as he can with regard to matters in the county, because the medical officer of the county has the control, not only of matters under this Bill, but he is responsible to a large extent for the pollution of rivers, and so on, and must be communicated with in regard to sanitation schemes. It is proposed, with regard to the medical officer of the district giving information to the medical officer of health of the county, that his duties should be limited by the addition of the words "general duties prescribed by the Local Government Board," so that the medical officer of health of a district is only to assist and give information to the medical officer of health for the county with regard to matters which are prescribed by the Local Government Board. So far from it being a consequential Amendment it is exactly the opposite, and I hope that the Government will consent to leave the Clause as it stood originally, which was perfectly clear, and no objection was taken to it in this House. Therefore, as far as I can see, there is no ground for altering it in any way whatever.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I am afraid, in view of the fact that the Local Government Board are not able to meet the washes of the noble Lord, that he will hardly find my answer satisfactory. The point is that the Amendment to Clause 69, line 36, is consequential on an Amendment to Clause 68, subsection (2), which enables the county council to impose duties on the county medical officer in addition to those prescribed under that subsection by the Board. That, I think, was a subsection which was put in in the hope of meeting the wishes of those noble Lords who were interested in the views of the County Councils Association, and I think, from what fell from the noble Lord earlier in the course of the proceedings, he is satisfied so far as that provision goes. Then, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, it would not be right that the medical officer of health for the district should be required to furnish information to the county medical officer on any matter which the county council might choose to assign as a duty to their medical officer. It is perfectly true that the limitation which the noble Lord has spoken of has been inserted regarding the medical officer of health for the district being required to give information to the county medical officer of health; but if the noble Lord will be good enough to look at line 33, on page 33 of the Bill, he will see there that the medical officer of health for the district must give to the county medical officer any information which it is in his power to give. Under these circumstances I am not without hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with the concession which we have tried to make. The Board have received representations from district councils in favour of some such Amendment as that which has been inserted, and therefore as it is also an attempt, however unsuccessful, to try and meet the wishes of the noble Lord himself, I hope that he will withdraw his objection and allow the Amendments to go in.

LORD BELPER

I certainly will if the noble Earl will make the Amendment in conformity with his explanation. I understand he says that by the first part of the clause the district officer has to give any information which it is in his power to give; and if he will put in, instead of the word "and," the words "as well as those" which the medical officer of health of the county may reasonably require from him, it would carry it out.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I am afraid I must ask the noble Lord to excuse me from making any further Amendments at this stage.

LORD BELPER

When I have an assurance from the noble Earl that that is the intention of His Majesty's Government and I can get no promise of an Amendment from him to insert words to carry out the intention, I am bound to say that I am surprised.

On Question, Amendment to the Amendments agreed to.

On Question, Motion and Amendments, as amended, agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 68, page 33, lines 9 to 11, leave out subsection (5).

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because, as recommended by the Select Committee on the Housing Bill of 1906, it is desirable that county medical officers of health should be removable only with the consent of the Local Government Board.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

LORD BELPER

I wish to say a word on this Motion, although, having moved what in my opinion was a perfectly reasonable Amendment with regard to which I have had no satisfaction, I have not much hope of getting any in this case. I regret very much that the Government have not thought it well to accept the Amendment inserted by this House, which I think was a very reasonable one. In my opinion subsection (5) is an attack upon local government, and I do not think its omission would have had any deleterious effect upon the Bill.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I am sorry I do not see my way to meet the noble Lord on this point, as I think it is well known to every member of your Lordships' House that from the very beginning of the proceedings on this Bill we have always stated that this was a section to which we attached considerable importance. That being so, I am not sure that it is much use delaying your Lordships at this hour with any further discussion upon it. I only wish to add how disappointed I am that the attempts which have been made by the Local Government Board to meet the wishes of the noble Lord have not met with more success.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 70, page 34, line 7, after ("or") insert ("except subsection (3) of section seventy to")

The Commons agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, but propose the following consequential Amendment:—

Clause 70, page 34, line 7, after ("London") insert ("and in the application of the said subsection to London, the reference to a medical officer of health of a district shall be construed as a reference to the medical officer of health of a metropolitan borough")

Moved, That the Lords agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 74, page 30, line 2, after ("confirming") insert ("or sanctioning")

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it is consequential on the new clause D.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

First Schedule, page 37, leave out lines 11 to 18.

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it is consequential on the Amendments to page 1.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

On this Motion I should like to put a question to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack if he will allow me to do so. I am not trying to lay a trap for him even if I were capable of succeeding in any such attempt. The noble Lord told us just now, when we complained that the power of appeal to the Law Courts was taken away from us in the Bill, that on points of law that right was preserved to us. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord how the words which it is proposed to re-insert here agree with that statement, because these words say "The confirmation by the Board shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act have been complied with, and that the order has been duly made and is within the powers of this Act." Whether it is within the powers of the Act or not is surely a legal question, and that is put entirely at the disposal of the Local Government Board.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

As I understand it, the First Schedule relates to the compulsory acquisition of land by a local authority, and says this— Where a local authority propose to purchase land compulsorily under this Act, the local authority may submit to the Board an order putting in force as respects the land specified in the order the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts"— that is the Act of 1845 which has been worked on ever since, and under which an arbitrator without the smallest supervision, except on matters of law, decides the value. Then it says— An order made under this schedule shall be of no force unless and until it is confirmed by the Board, and the Board may confirm the order either without modification or subject to such modifications as they think fit, and an order when so confirmed shall become final and have effect as if enacted in this Act; and the confirmation by the Board shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act have been complied with, and that the order has been duly made and is within the powers of this Act. The effect is to make an order under the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, final and conclusive. It is the order of the Board that is made final and conclusive that the requirements of the Act have been complied with—that is to say, that the formalities have been complied with. Speaking from memory, my recollection is that that is the procedure under the Small Holdings Act. I hope I shall be excused from vouching that I am right, because really it is almost impossible to give an opinion on a point of law of this kind without having had notice of the question.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

Perhaps I may be allowed to apologise to the noble and learned Lord for not having given him notice, but my question arose out of a remark which fell from the noble Lord in the course of this debate.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am sorry the noble and learned Lord has not had notice of the question. All I can say is that in the observations which I addressed to your Lordships this morning—I am afraid at much too great length—this was one of the matters to which I referred. It seems to me it is another example of the extraordinary indifference displayed by the Government to the authority of the Courts of Law, to the absence of any jurisdiction of a Court of Law where a person thought himself aggrieved, for these drastic words appear in the Schedule that the confirmation of the Local Government Board is to have the force of an Act of Parliament and to be unquestionable as to its validity by any Court in the realm. It ill becomes me to bandy words with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on points of law, and I would not venture to do so for a single moment if it was not quite evident that the point had been brought before him at a moment's notice. This is one of the matters that has been most carefully considered and canvassed throughout these debates, and yet it is only now, on the consideration of the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments that for the first time the attention of the highest legal authority in the country, the Lord Chancellor, has been called to one of the most drastic changes introduced by this Bill. So that, my Lords, it appears to be the procedure of this Cabinet not to consult the Lord Chancellor on an important point of law of this kind. I have long suspected that the highest legal authority in the country has had no hand in the drafting of this Bill, and the noble and learned Lord hears now for the first time that when an order is confirmed under the Schedule by the Local Government Board—an administrative Department administered by a Parliamentary chief—no Court in the realm would be able to question it. The High Court cannot question it, the Court of Appeal cannot question it, and your Lordships' House sitting in a judicial capacity cannot question it. Whatever the Local Government Board chooses to decree is the law; once they have confirmed the order, no one can question it. The noble and learned Lord says this is under the Lands Clauses Act. It might as well be under an Act containing only one word, "Abracadabra," and leave it to any one to interpret it. I earnestly hope at this last stage of the Bill that the country will realise how it is being governed, and what the kind of procedure must be that is adopted by the Government when such a clause can pass into a Bill without the Lord Chancellor being aware of it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Marquess has completely misconceived every thing I said on this point. When I spoke before, I referred to what had been dealt with on page 10—namely, that the Local Government Board might at any stage of the proceedings on appeal state a special case, and so anybody is entitled to go to a Court of Law. Now, as regards this particular clause, let me say, in the first place, that when I said I had not heard of this point before, I naturally referred to the point before the House to which the noble Duke drew attention. That was the point that was new to me, and however much I should like to answer the noble Duke, it is quite impossible, without the Statutes before me and without more than one minute's consideration, to give a definite answer in law, and I should be doing wrong, with the responsibility I have, if I did more than try to indicate what the point was. The noble Marquess suggests that I have in some way admitted that the Cabinet proceeds without consulting me, and that I am disregarded and not consulted on these matters. My Lords, if that was true I would not remain in such a Cabinet for twenty-four hours. As a matter of fact, everything in this Bill was put before me and before my colleagues, and we had the fullest opportunity of considering it. It never occurred to me that there was any improper or unusual or unconstitutional exclusion of the Courts of Law, and if anything of that kind had existed I should have objected to it. I am only too pleased at any time to answer any question, and I am sure the noble Duke would be the first to admit that I cannot be expected to answer a question of law at a moment's notice.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

The Motion before the House is, I think, to reinstate subsection (2) which was in the Schedule of the original Bill. Surely, my Lords, the Government must have considered that subsection when it was in the original Bill, and surely the noble and learned Lord's attention must have been called to this when the Schedule was originally inserted in the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

When we struck it out.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Yes; that is exactly what I wanted to convey. Surely the attention of the Government must have been drawn to subsection (2) because it was struck out, and it was struck out, if I remember rightly, on account of the extremely arbitrary power which it gave to the Local Government Board to decide what the law was. I must confess that it seems to me very doubtful indeed whether, under the circumstances, it ought to be reinserted if we do not really know what the effect of inserting it is.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

First Schedule, page 37, line 31, after ("appointed") insert ("by the parties, or in default of agreement")

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it is desirable to follow the precedent of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

First Schedule, page 37, line 34, after ("accordingly") insert ("provided that where the Board has declared a local authority to be in default, and in pursuance thereof an order has been made and confirmed authorising the compulsory acquisition of land, the arbitrator shall be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice of England instead of by the Board")

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because there seems no reason to draw a distinction between cases where the Local Government Board has declared a local authority to be in default and other cases.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

First Schedule, page 37, line 39 to page 38, line 15, leave out paragraphs (6), (7), and (8).

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it is consequential on other Amendments with which the Commons disagree.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

First Schedule, page 38, line 23, after ("unnecessarily") insert ("Except with the leave of the arbitrator not more than one expert witness shall be called by any party appearing on an arbitration under this schedule")

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it is desirable to follow the precedent of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendments.

First Schedule, page 39, line 8, after ("arbiter") insert— (c) for the reference to the Lord Chief Justice there shall be substituted a reference to the Lord President of the Court of Session;

First Schedule, page 39, line 13, after ("Scotland") insert ("Provided that for the words where the Board has declared a local authority 'to be in default' there shall be substituted the words 'where the Board has made an application to the Court of Session '")

The Commons disagree to these Amendments for the following reason:—

Because they are consequential on the Amendment to page 37, line 34.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendments.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Second Schedule, page 39, line 25, after ("Board") insert ("the county court of the district")

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it is consequential on the Amendment to page 7, line 33.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Fourth Schedule, page 41, leave out lines 11 and 12.

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it is desirable to enable general provisions to be made applying enactments with the necessary modifications.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendments.

Fifth Schedule, page 41, line 30, leave out ("approval") and insert ("confirmation")

Fifth Schedule, page 41, line 39, leave out ("approval") and insert ("confirmation")

Fifth Schedule, page 41, line 40, leave out ("approval") and insert ("confirmation")

Fifth Schedule, page 42, line 6, leave out ("circumstances so require") and insert ("scheme" as confirmed so requires")

The Commons disagree to these Amendments for the following reason:—

Because they are consequential on the new clause D.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendments.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Sixth Schedule, page 42, line 17, leave out from ("six") to the second ("subsection") in line 22.

The Commons disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment, but propose to substitute the following Amendment:—

Sixth Schedule, page 42, line 19, leave, out from ("nine") to the second ("subsection") in line 22.

Moved, That the Lords agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Sixth Schedule, page 42, leave out lines 24 and 25.

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—.

Because it is consequential on the omission of clause 24.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Sixth Schedule, page 42, leave out lines 37 to 50.

The Commons disagree with the Lords in this Amendment, but propose to insert the following Amendment in lieu thereof:—

Page 43, line 19, column 3, at end insert "In subsection (3) of section ninety-seven the words the time allowed under any order for the execution of any works or the demolition of a building or")

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment and agree with the Commons in their Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Sixth Schedule, page 43, lines 30 and 31, leave out ("paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of section five, section six, and") and insert ("section")

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it is consequential on the omission of clause 24

Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Bill returned to the Commons.

House adjourned at twenty minutes past Three o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.