HL Deb 26 October 1909 vol 4 cc443-77

Amendments reported (according to order).

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

I have an Amendment to Clause 1, to leave out "or body corporate or incorporate" and to insert "corporate or unincorporated." I think in Committee I must have mumbled the words and they were wrongly inserted, because "unincorporate" is absolutely necessary.

Amendment moved— In page 1, lines 11 and 12, to leave out 'or body corporate or incorporate,' and to insert ' corporate or unincorporated.'"—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

I have another Amendment to leave out the words "or company." Those words are not wanted. The Amendment is consequential on Lord Derby's Amendment in Committee to leave out "or company" in Clause 1, page 1, line 11.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 22, to leave out 'or company.'"—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, in moving an Amendment in Clause 2, to leave out "the House of Commons" and to insert "Parliament," said that his Amendment had reference to the account and report certified by the Comptroller and Auditor-General being laid before the House of Commons by the Treasury on or before January 31 in the following year if Parliament be then sitting. He would like to know whether there was any special reason why the account should not be laid before both Houses of Parliament. He was aware that in the Act of 1866 establishing the Comptroller and Auditor-General the House of Commons was mentioned by itself, but at the same time the information contained in the account would be of great interest to their Lordships' House, and unless there was some special reason to the contrary he did not see why it should not be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 31, to leave out 'the House of Commons,' and to insert 'Parliament.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

EARL CARRINGTON

There is no special reason why the account should not be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and I offer no objection to the Amendment.

LORD WELBY pointed out that one of the great reasons why the House of Commons should be mentioned was that it enabled the House of Commons to refer an account of the kind to the Committee of Public Accounts. Apart from that particular reason, which he ventured to think was one of the very first importance, he did not know of any reason why the account should not also be communicated to their Lordships' House.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

The Amendment I now move to Clause 3, to leave out "and his successors," is consequential upon an Amendment of the Duke of Devonshire whereby His Majesty the King was put in instead of the Treasury. The words "His Majesty" include his successors under the Interpretation Act, so that those words are not necessary.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 5, to leave out 'and his successors.' "—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments agreed to.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE had given notice to move the deletion of subsection (2)—

2) Subject to the provisions of this section, the term of office of a Commissioner shall be ten years. One Commissioner shall retire every second year, but a retiring Commissioner may be reappointed. The order in which the Commissioners first appointed are to retire shall be determined by the Treasury. On a casual vacancy occurring by reason of the death, resignation, or incapacity of a Commissioner, or otherwise, the person appointed by the Treasury to fill the vacancy shall continue in office until the Commissioner in whose place he was appointed would have retired, and shall then retire, and to insert the following new subsections—

(2) The Commissioners shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure.

(3) Every vacancy occurring from time to time among the members of the Commission by reason of the death or resignation of a Commissioner or from other cause shall be filled up by His Majesty. He said that his proposal was intended as an alternative to the suggestion of the Government that the term of office of the Commissions should only be for the limited period of ten years or less. As, however, he gathered that the feeling of the House was that the time should be strictly limited, he did not move his Amendment.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE moved an Amendment to Clause 5 providing that an Order under the clause should not authorise the compulsory acquisition of mines or mineral rights. He said that in Committee he ventured to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill in what position coal and other minerals would be under the working of the Bill. As their Lordships were aware, certain classes of property were excluded from compulsory purchase under the clause—namely, any part of a park, garden, or pleasure ground, or a home farm, or land acquired by any corporation for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking. There was some uncertainty as to whether it would not be possible for the Commissioners under the Bill to acquire the surface rights and properties of companies or individuals connected with coal and other minerals. He did not think it was the intention of His Majesty's Government that property of that character should be acquired by the Commissioners, and he had only placed the Amendment on the Paper for the purpose of asking whether His Majesty's Government intended to allow coal and other mineral properties to be bought for the purposes of the Act, because it was not quite clear whether the Commissioners had or had not that power. If the noble Earl could give him an assurance that there was no such intention on the part of His Majesty's Government, he would not press his Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 35, after 'dwelling-house' to insert 'or which is being used for the purpose of working minerals by the owner of the minerals, or which a lessee under a mining lease is entitled to use for such purposes'; in line 39, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection—

'(3) An Order under this section shall not authorise the compulsory acquisition of any mines of coal, ironstone, slate, or other minerals under any land in respect of which an Order under this section is made, except only such parts of any such mines as shall he necessary to be dug or carried away or used in the construction of works for which an advance is made under this Part of this Act.' "—(The Duke of Devonshire.)

EARL CARRINGTON

I can assure the noble Duke that there is no intention of any kind on the part of His Majesty's Government to injure any property, and, least of all, such valuable property as includes mineral rights; but we see no reason why the same rule should not be enforced where land is acquired compulsorily under this Act as exists where compulsory powers are given in other cases. I think I ought to point out that if the proposed new subsection of the noble Duke is inserted it might prevent a light railway, which was desired and which would be of great service to a neighbourhood, from being constructed, because it might be absolutely necessary to acquire some small portion of the surface of land under which there were minerals. I do not think there would be any great danger in leaving the clause as it stands, because the amount of compensation to be paid would be a sufficient check to any unreasonable exercising of the compulsory powers. There is no intention at all on the part of the Government to seize any land under which there are minerals for the purpose of making money out of it or anything of that sort; the power is wanted in order that a scheme of great public benefit should not be prevented from being carried out simply and solely because there happened to be minerals under a particular piece of the land that was sought to be acquired.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE said that his Amendment related more to the surface rights which a colliery or other mineral company might be enjoying for the purpose of carrying on its operations, rather than to minerals under the ground. He did not see why a distinction should be drawn between a colliery company and a railway or dock company who acquired land for the purpose of their operations, but as the intentions of the Government appeared to be so excellent from his point of view and they did not intend that mineral rights should be acquired under the clause, he would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Drafting Amendment to Clause 8 agreed to.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved to omit from Clause 8 the words authorising the Board themselves to "construct and maintain" new roads, and to insert other words confining the Board to enter into contracts for the construction and maintenance of such roads. He said that when the question was discussed in Committee the whole point taken on his side of the House was mainly in regard to whether the Road Board should or should not have the power of constructing roads, or should only be able to operate through the local authorities. Where the road was within the jurisdiction of several authorities, he saw no reason why the Board should not have the power, but if the Board in order to do that had to keep up a large and expensive staff of its own, and to have a regular works department such as they had heard a great deal about in connection with some of the large municipalities, he thought there would be a great objection to it. He did not think their Lordships could have failed to note the increase in the course of the last few weeks in the number of commissioners and boards and staffs connected with those boards which had been set up almost haphazard, and which would add tens of thousands of pounds a year to the public charge. If those boards were to be set up, they must have an adequate staff of officials and clerks in order to carry on the work, and he thought they certainly ought to guard against the additional setting up of another great department with a large technical staff empowered to employ its own labour, which he was advised it would be permissible for them to do under the words in the Bill at present. As their Lordships were aware, in a great number of cases highway authorities at present kept up their roads by contract, and there were contractors in almost every district capable of carrying out such work economically. He was convinced that nothing could be more uneconomical than for the Road Board to keep up a large and costly staff for which employment would certainly have to be found, and generally uneconomical employment, because it was always urged that public departments ought not to turn oft their workmen. He had had great experience of turning off workmen in arsenals, and the present Secretary of State for War had had a unique experience in that respect also. He hoped that both sides of the House would be unanimous with regard to his Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 7, line 9, to leave out 'themselves to construct and maintain,' and to insert 'to enter into contract for the construction and maintenance of.'"—(Viscount Midleton.)

EARL CARRINGTON

I am sure the noble Viscount will not wish me at this stage of the Bill to enter into any discussion with him as to whether or not haphazard boards should be created, but I confess I was this morning a little puzzled to know what this entirely new Amendment meant. We all know the drastic and resolute policy, if I may call it so, of the noble Viscount opposite with regard to the Works Department of the London County Council which resulted in three thousand workmen being dismissed from their employment and the breaking up of the department. I do not say a word on that subject, but the noble Viscount has a natural horror of any municipality doing work entirely on its own behalf, and seems to think that it would be to the national benefit to throw the whole of this work into the hands of contractors, who might form themselves into a ring, and, of course, command their own prices, as happened some years ago in the case of a particular work given out to contract by the London County Council. I would ask the noble Viscount and the House whether it is wise—whether you are going to exercise it or not is another question—to throw away the only possible means you can have of coping with a combination or ring of contractors? Again, my Lords, it is all subject to the approval of the Treasury, and it would be unlikely, in fact impossible, that the Treasury would sanction any huge universal Works Department. I earnestly hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment and throw us all back again absolutely into the hands of contractors, but that he will allow to remain in the Bill this power, which would be a most salutary and excellent check against any future ring or combination amongst contractors.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY was sorry that the Government seemed unwilling to accept the Amendment, which he should have thought was a quite reasonable one. The noble Earl seemed to make it a matter of complaint that the Amendment had only appeared on the Paper that morning.

EARL CARRINGTON

Not of complaint, of wonder.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said no one knew better than the noble Earl that they had to perform their work very often under a certain amount of stress. In the Bill before them there had been very little time between Committee and Report stage, and they had to make the best they could of the time at their disposal. He thought his noble friend had done very wisely in putting his Amendment in its present form, because it raised the point directly whether they were to have a repetition all over the country of the kind of scandals they had been familiar with in works departments nearer home. They on that side of the House were very averse to allowing the country to enter upon any such course. The noble Earl really had no argument to put forward against the Amendment of his noble friend except that he thought there might be a ring of contractors against the Road Board. He did not think there was the least likelihood of any such contingency arising. In many counties, as the noble Viscount had said, contract labour was employed to maintain the roads, and employed with the greatest possible satisfaction, no difficulty having arisen in the matter of rings; and the noble Earl, he thought, forgot that he took power in his own Bill for the Road Board to contract with county councils if they liked to do so. That would be quite a salutary check on any ring that might be formed. He hoped their Lordships would agree that he had completely demolished the one argument put forward by the noble Earl, and that they would accept the Amendment.

EARL RUSSELL did not know whether the noble Marquess was really of the opinion that there was only one argument against the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY pointed out that what he had said was that it was the only argument which the noble Earl in charge of the Bill had put forward.

EARL RUSSELL said that if the noble Marquess would allow him he would endeavour to put forward two or three others. Assuming that every contractor was perfectly honest and worked for the smallest fraction of profit, he really failed to see why it should be cheaper for the Road Board to do their work through a contractor than to do it themselves. If the Amendment was carried, the Road Board would be unable to lure a single road-sweeper or to direct a road foreman to go and inspect a particular piece of road and report upon its condition. The noble Marquess apparently thought that to insist upon a prohibition of that kind would be a gain to the public. It was a matter of astonishment to him, and he was quite unable to appreciate the point of the noble Marquess's argument. The noble Marquess said that a great many authorities contracted at present for the maintenance of their roads. He was of opinion that the majority of the main roads in the country were now maintained by the county councils direct, and that they found it paid them to do the work themselves. Then they were given the bogey, which they had often heard of, of huge works departments. The noble Marquess had referred them without any details to the scandals which they had heard of nearer home. He did not know exactly what those scandals were; but was it not ordinary common sense to suppose that the Road Board would act precisely as a railway company did when they had large works of construction to carry out—namely, that in a case of that kind they would employ a contractor after proper specifications had been prepared and after tenders had been received, and let the contractor carry out the work in the ordinary way in which such work was done by a contractor. But did the noble Marquess consider it necessary that every single piece of road was to be put out to contract, and that the Road Board was not to be able to employ a foreman or repair a particular piece of road and put down stones where necessary except through the intervention of a contractor who was making a profit out of the business? If that was what the noble Marquess wanted, how could anybody conceive that that was going to be a saving to the public and to the Road Board? Directly they came to a question of the Road Board, it seemed to be considered that they were not to be credited even with the ordinary degree of common sense and business ability. Why should it be supposed that the Road Board would adopt the least efficient manner of doing their work? If their Lordships took away the power which the Amendment proposed to take away, it would leave them hampered in many ways quite apart from the operation of rings.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU was bound to support what the noble Lord opposite, Earl Russell, had said, especially on the question of dealing with the abatement of dust. If the money coming to the Road Board was to be used largely in the abatement of dust, it seemed to him that nothing could be better than that there should be a trained squad of men in the employment and under the direction of the Road Board to carry out that work, and those men would be able to go about from county to county and perform their work—a work for which they must be specially trained. Surely they ought not to put it beyond the power of the Road Board to carry out their work in their own way without going to a county council or to a contractor? It seemed to him that that would be cutting out a valuable power in the Bill, the lack of which would take away a great deal from the useful character of the Board. He was sorry to find himself once more in opposition to noble Lords on his side of the House, but he trusted that their Lordships would not accept the noble Viscount's Amendment.

LORD BRASSEY said that the question of frugality and economic working all depended upon the ability and integrity of the surveyors employed by the Road Board; it was the surveyors upon whom they must rely for prudent and careful administration.

*THE EARL OF JERSEY was rather disposed to think that it would be better to give full powers to the authority in a matter like this. He recollected that his own district council used to do the work by contract and then after a good deal of trouble they undertook the roads themselves with a very great saving to the ratepayers, and he believed the wisest course to pursue would be to give the Board as full powers as possible.

LORD BELPER thought the difficulty had arisen from the words in the clause "themselves to construct and maintain any new roads." What he took it a highway authority should have power to do should be to construct either themselves or through somebody else. If they were going to make a through road he quite agreed that the most convenient way in many cases would be for the Road Board to do it by contract with the local authorities for the part that went through their districts. They would have their staff on the spot and could do it perfectly well. He was not at all sure that doing it through contractors was always a satisfactory way of carrying work out. As far as maintaining roads was concerned, if the Road Board was to be an authority at all they must have some officers under them, and it probably would be cheaper and more reasonable for them to maintain the roads themselves than to hand them over to a contractor. The discussion, he thought, had been very useful, but he was bound to say he rather agreed with his noble friend Lord Jersey that the Road Board should have the widest possible powers either to construct roads themselves or to do the work in any other way; but he would have liked to have seen some other words employed in the Bill to cover that, because the words "themselves to construct" seemed to suggest that they were to do everything themselves.

THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH thought the noble Viscount's Amendment went beyond what he intended, and in view of what had fallen from noble Lords opposite he thought it would be better to keep the words in as they stood in the Bill, because otherwise the Road Board would be practically powerless to employ a proper engineering staff and other necessary officials. It had been suggested that a, central body of the kind would be necessarily expensive, but he thought the example which had been set to them by France controverted that idea. The central body in Paris, which controlled the great national roads of France so well and so economically, had a staff of competent engineers, such as it would be almost absolutely necessary for the Road Board in this country to have, and if the power of constructing and maintaining roads was taken away from them they would be shut out from employing persons of that character. Perhaps it would be wise, however, to adopt the alternative of the noble Lord, Lord Belper, and to say "themselves to construct and maintain any new roads, or to enter into contracts for the construction and maintenance of such roads."

VISCOUNT MIDLETON suggested that if the word "themselves" were left out it would meet his point, as that would leave it to the Road Board to maintain and construct by contract or otherwise. The words as they stood in the Bill, however, were almost a direction to the Board to themselves undertake the work.

EARL CARRINGTON

If the noble Viscount is content with that, I should be very glad to omit the word "themselves."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— In page 7, line 9, to leave out the word themselves.'"—(Viscount Midleton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

The noble Lord opposite has met me so handsomely that I am very pleased to be able to say that I can meet the wishes of the noble Lord, Viscount St. Aldwyn, by the Amendment I now move to this clause. I propose to leave out the words "Provided that it shall not be the duty of the county councils and other local authorities to maintain any roads constructed by the Road Board."

Amendment moved— In page 7, line 11, to leave out from ' traffic ' to the end of subsection (1)."—(Earl Carrington.)

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN agreed that this met his wishes.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— In page 7, line 14, to leave out 'in making advances,' and to insert' where advances have been made.'"—(Lord Clinton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

With regard to the three Amendments standing in my name to Clause 9, might I be permitted to take them together, and to read the clause as it will stand when all the Amendments have been embodied in it? This is to ensure that the Road Board should be absolutely obliged to carry out the maintenance of any new roads. Clause 9, as amended, will read as follows— Every road constructed by the Road Board under the provisions of this Part of this Act shall be a public highway, and the enactments relating to highways and bridges shall apply to such roads accordingly, except that every such road shall be maintainable by the Road Board, and for the purpose of the maintenance, repair, improvement and enlargement of or dealing with any such road, the Board shall have the same powers (except the power of levying a rate) and be subject to the same duties as a county council have and are subject to as respects main roads, and may further exercise any powers vested in a county council for the purposes of the maintenance and repair of bridges, and the Road Board shall have the same powers as a county council for the preventing and removing of obstructions. I have been told that there is an objection on the part of noble Lords opposite to the word "maintainable," and with the permission of the House I would be willing to meet that point.

Amendments moved— In page 7, line 35, at the beginning of the clause, to insert 'Every road constructed by the Road Board under the provisions of this Part of this. Act shall be a public highway, and the enactments relating to highways and bridges shall apply to such roads accordingly, except that every such road shall be maintainable by the Road Board, and'; in lines 36 and 37, to leave out 'road constructed by the Road Board,' and to insert 'such road'; in page 8, line 2, to leave out from 'bridges' to and in line 5."—(Earl Carrington.)

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN suggested, in order to meet the point between "maintainable" and "maintain," the insertion of the words "except that the cost of the maintenance of every such road should be borne by the Road Board."

EARL RUSSELL asked whether the noble Viscount had considered what the insertion of those words would mean. It would mean that the Road Board must pay the whole of the cost of the maintenance of all new roads, whereas, as he understood, the Road Board under the Bill would have power to make arrangements or bargains with local authorities as to maintenance, and he could conceive some bargains being made by which the Road Board would not have to pay the whole of the cost. The words suggested by the noble Viscount would prevent any such arrangement being come to.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said he wanted to protect local authorities from being squeezed into making contributions towards maintenance, and he therefore moved to insert the words he suggested.

Amendment moved to the Amendment— To omit the words of the Amendment, 'except that every such road shall be maintainable by the Road Board,' in order to insert, 'except that the cost of the maintenance of every such road shall be borne by the Road Board.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL, in moving to insert in Clause 9 a new paragraph to the effect that the Road Board might make by-laws for regulating the traffic on roads constructed by them and impose a penalty for any breach thereof, said that, although he did not actually move his Amendment before, he recognised that it had been discussed in the House on a former occasion, and he should not have ventured to present it again except that he wanted to give the noble Earl in charge of the Bill an opportunity of reconsidering the question. He did not quite know how far the noble Earl had been able to carry that reconsideration, and he did not feel that he ought to trouble their Lordships by repeating the arguments he used before on the subject. There was only one point to which he wished to call attention, and that was that their Lordships had already given this power to the City of London; and if it was not inserted in the Bill now there would be no other opportunity of doing it. He therefore formally moved it, and would be glad to hear whether the noble Earl could accept it.

Amendment moved— In page 8, line 20, after 'authority,' to insert the following new paragraph— '(c) The Road Board may, subject to the approval of the Treasury, make by-laws for regulating the traffic on roads constructed by them, and may by such by-laws impose a penalty not exceeding forty shillings enforceable on summary conviction for any breach thereof.'"—(Earl Russell.)

EARL CARRINGTON

This point has been carefully looked into, and I am very sorry to have to tell the noble Earl that I cannot modify my previous attitude of opposition to his proposal. We regret that we are not able to meet the noble Earl, and we hope he will not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*THE EARL OF JERSEY moved to insert words in the same clause providing that the approval of the Treasury of the construction of a new road should not have effect until it was confirmed by Parliament by way of Provisional Order. He pointed out that under the Bill the right of absolute veto had been taken away from the local authority and quite rightly, because that right of veto had been the cause of a good deal of difficulty in the past. His Amendment would not in the least restore the right of veto but it would give the county councils an opportunity of feeling quite sure that its objections had been entertained and considered by the Treasury. One knew when objections were sent in that it was common form on receiving them to say that they had been received and would be duly considered, whether they were considered or not was another matter. Under his Amendment, supposing there happened to be a difference of opinion between the Road Board and the county authority, the Treasury would have to decide between those two, and the Treasury might decide without giving the reasons for their decision. But if an opportunity were given of bringing in a Provisional Order in a case where there was a difference of opinion between the Road Board and a county council, he thought it was then quite certain that the Treasury, before they decided, would be very careful in considering the objections, and probably would see some representatives from the county council on the matter. He quite admitted he did not think as the Bill stood that anything very serious would happen, because they must assume that the road authority would be composed of sound practical men who were not likely to go and force roads upon a district where they were not wanted. At the same time, it was possible that there might be a clashing of opinion between the two bodies, and it would seem to be desirable that the county council, which, after all, did represent the public in the matter, should not be absolutely overruled by the Treasury in the circumstances he had mentioned.

Amendment moved— In page 8, line 28, after 'authority,' to insert 'and if, notwithstanding an objection made by a county council within such area, the Treasury consider that the construction of the proposed road should be proceeded with, the approval of the Treasury shall not have effect unless and until, after submission to Parliament, by way of Provisional Order, it is confirmed by Parliament.'"—(The Earl of Jersey.)

EARL CARRINGTON

At first sight there seems to be a great deal in the noble Earl's Amendment, but perhaps I might be permitted to read a portion of the clause. Subsection (2) runs, "Before the Treasury approve of the construction of a new road by the Road Board they shall consult with the Local Government Board and shall satisfy themselves that notice of the intention to construct the road has been sent by the Road Board to every highway authority in the area of which any part of the proposed road will be situate, and shall consider any objections to the proposed road which they may receive." I think your Lordships will agree that this seems to be almost enough protection for everybody. The new proposal is, of course, to put the Road Board to the expense, which will be very considerable, as your Lordships know, and the delay of a Provisional Order. As the noble Earl opposite has pointed out, this would only be in a case where the Road Board and the county council disagreed, and where the. Treasury backed up the Road Board in opposition to the county council; but the noble Earl himself said that was a thing that would be very unlikely to happen, and I hope he will not think it necessary to press his Amendment.

*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH said it did seem to him desirable that the various authorities should be consulted where there was a proposal for a new road, more especially as regarded the expense which might be entailed on the rates in some form or another. He had himself an Amendment on the Paper a little further on very much on the same lines as that of the noble Earl's, which would give power to the various local authorities to lodge objections to a proposed road or to a proposed grant being made on the ground of a great additional burden being thrown upon the rates; and he was bound to say that if the present Amendment were carried, although it did not go quite so far as he was going to ask the House to go, it would meet a serious objection. A disagreement would not very often take place, but occasionally there might be considerable hardships put under the Bill upon local authorities, who might receive a gift in one hand and have to pay out more than they gained with the other. If there were power to have that objection, supposing it was a serious one, brought within the purview of Parliament, he thought that would be a fair way of settling what might in many cases be a very serious objection.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY did not know what steps the noble Earl in charge of the Bill had taken to ascertain the feeling of the great local authorities in respect to the particular provision. Here was a proposal, which in principle their Lordships' House had assented to, that the Road Board should have the right of making roads through any county in England without the consent of the county authority. He wanted their Lordships to recollect that the county councils were very important bodies; they had proved themselves now for many years to be bodies upon whom the greatest reliance could be placed. They did not act obstinately or in any intemperate manner, and were very moderate, judicious, and conciliatory. Further, they were representative of their county; they fulfilled all the canons of democratic government, and were called upon by Parliament to be responsible for the good government and good administration of their counties. He did think, therefore, that they were entitled to a very emphatic voice in every proposed change in their counties, including the provision of roads. There were a certain number of persons who had a conception of great new roads being made in England like the French roads, going through the country from one end to the other. That might be a good thing or it might not be a good thing; but as to the route they were to take and the conditions attaching to them, surely the county councils should have an important voice? They might wish that the roads should pass through certain villages and the Road Board might think otherwise; they might think that there were certain amenities in their county—and some counties had great amenities—which would be destroyed and public feeling outraged if a particular route were selected. It seemed to him, therefore, that the county councils should have a great voice.

What had Parliament done in similar cases? Take the Housing Bill, which had just passed through their Lordships' House. The borough councils were not to be subject to any coercion with regard to town planning under that Bill, and a similar rule ought to apply in this case. In those circumstances some of their Lordships on that side of the House had thought it right to do what he did not think the noble Earl in charge of the Bill had done, and that was to consult, so far as the limited time at their disposal enabled them to do so, the local authorities. Consequently a communication had been sent to the chairman of the highways committee of every county council throughout England and Wales asking him whether, in his opinion, the separate road making authority of the Road Board was a good thing; and, secondly, if he thought it a good thing that power should be given to the Road Board independently of the consent of the county council. Those who made that communication had received a great number of replies. In twenty-seven cases—that was to say, from the chairman of the highways committee of twenty-seven English and Welsh counties—they had received a reply to the effect either that they objected to this power being vested in the Road Board at all, or that if it was vested in the Road Board it should only be exercised subject to the consent of the county council. In only eight cases—and that was the outside number because some of the answers were not absolutely clearly expressed—was the proposal as advocated by His Majesty's Government approved.

In those circumstances they had behind them a great body of public opinion on the point, and they submitted, therefore, that the Amendment of the noble Earl ought to be inserted. Even if it was granted that the county council were likely to prove unreasonable, the only power that was asked to be given to them, after all, was merely that they should have an opportunity of appealing from the Road Board to Parliament. That was the general policy which their Lordships pursued in the Amendments they inserted in the Housing and Town Planning Bill—namely, that when dealing with important authorities they should be given the power of an appeal to Parliament itself. That was all that the Amendment of the noble Earl proposed. Such a power was not in the least likely to be exercised unreasonably. It was only likely to be exercised in important cases, because the Road Board and the county council would probably be perfectly sensible bodies, and they would come to an agreement immediately. But in the very rare case where there was a decided difference of opinion, then, and then only, these important authorities in relation to this matter would have a right to come to their Lordships' House on an appeal from the Road Board.

EARL CARRINGTON

I must plead guilty to not having consulted the county councils, but I think the reason is not far to seek. It is because we have sitting amongst us the spokesman of all the county councils, Lord Belper. He speaks for all the county councils; so that that must be my excuse for not having troubled the county councils with any questions on the subject. I think I ought also to say that, after all, there will be no charge cast on the rates now that all the expense of these new roads and of the maintenance of them is thrown on the Road Board.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU said that was the very point he would have made himself, if the noble Earl opposite had not already put it to the House. In addition he would point out that it was very unlikely that great trunk roads, say from London to Edinburgh, would be made in preference to short pieces of road round towns and villages, because, to begin with, the funds at the disposal of the Road Board were absolutely inadequate for any such purpose. Secondly, it would be the policy of the Road Board not to make any new roads out of funds provided by one small class of traffic only. He saw no reason whatever why the county councils should not be consulted in the matter; he thought that was the right thing to do, because they had done a great and good work in the past towards fitting the roads for the new traffic that was now in the habit of using them.

LORD BELPER said he merely wished to disavow that he had any mandate or power to speak on behalf of the county councils. Of course, the whole matter had been before the County Councils Association, and he spoke as representing them, but on these matters of detail with regard to road management, everybody must be free. He did not for a moment pretend that his view expressed that of every county council, but he had endeavoured to express his opinion as far as he could in consonance with their general views.

EARL RUSSELL said he did not think the noble Lord could expect any other answer than the one he had received from the chairman of the County Councils Association. If they asked any authority whether they would like to have additional power conferred upon them, the chances were that the answer would be "Yes." Everyone must agree that local authorities and county councils must and should be consulted. It was also clear that the proposal, should it unfortunately happen that there was a difference of opinion, must necessarily add very largely to the expense. He did not know whether a county council would have a locus standi if it was proposed to place a railway track through their county.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Yes.

EARL RUSSELL said he was not sure whether they would or not, but the case was very similar, because a road had to go through their county for the purposes of traffic. If a county council could compel the Road Board to go to Parliament, he did not know whether the Treasury would back up the Board or not. There was a good deal to be said against having appeals to Parliament in all these cases unless there was some real necessity. It they had a body in whom they had confidence—they had not got the names of the Commissioners yet, although the noble Marquess had asked for them—surely they ought to leave to them the arrangement of these concerns, subject to all the checks which already existed in the Bill.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND did not quite agree with the doctrine just laid down, that if they had confidence in the Board which would be appointed by His Majesty's Government, that Board was to be allowed to over-ride all representative governments on the particular question referred to it. Surely that was an extraordinary doctrine. They might have confidence in the Board without wishing to do away altogether with Parliamentary and local representation. As to railways, he, was under the impression, although he might be wrong, that a county council would have a locus standi, but whether they had or not, there was a great difference between the two cases. A county council was not the railway authority for a county, but it was the highway authority, and one of the strongest speeches in favour of the Amendment was that delivered by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, who pointed out that this sort of case would be very unlikely to arise. Therefore this proposition was, as had been said, almost academic; but the noble Earl also pointed out that when the Road Board had come to a decision there was under this Bill no appeal whatever against it. That was surely a very undesirable thing. He agreed that if they were asking that every urban district authority or parish council should be able to compel the Road Board to go for a Provisional Order, such a proposal might reasonably be objected to; but the case put in the Amendment was that of a whole county, as represented by the county council, rejecting the proposition of the Road Board. Surely they should have an opportunity of coming before Parliament. The fact that such a case would be rare was, in his opinion, an argument rather in favour of the Amendment than against it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Verbal Amendment to Clause 10 agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to amend subsection (1) of Clause 11, which was as follows, "(1) Where the Road Board propose to construct a new road under this Part of this Act the Board may acquire land for the purpose." He moved to alter the subsection to read, "Where the Treasury have approved a proposal by the Road Board to construct a new road under this Part of this Act the Board may acquire land for the purpose."

Amendment moved— In page 9, line 7, after the word 'the,' to insert the words 'Treasury have approved a proposal by the,' and to leave out the word 'propose.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

EARL CARRINGTON accepted the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH moved an Amendment in subsection (5) of Clause 11— (5) Where the Road Board or any highway authority are unable to acquire by agreement on reasonable terms any land which they consider necessary, they may apply to the Development Commissioners for an order empowering them to acquire the land compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act. The noble Earl moved to leave out the words "which they consider," and after the word "necessary" to insert the words "for the construction of a new road." He said that this Amendment was in no sort of way one of those Bill-wrecking Amendments which they were supposed to be so fond of on that side of the House. His Amendment did not in any way affect the principle of the Bill, nor would it prevent the making of a road, but it drew a distinction between what was necessary and what might be considered necessary. It was obvious that in the making of a road they should only take what was really necessary for the purpose.

Amendment moved— In page 9, line 28, to leave out the words 'which they consider,' and after the word 'necessary' to insert the words 'for the construction of a new road.'"—(The Earl of Dartmouth.)

EARL CARRINGTON

I am sorry I cannot accept the noble Earl's Amendment, though I do recognise that it is in no way a wrecking one. At the same time it would entirely prevent the compulsory purchase of land for improvement, and confine it to the construction of new roads. There would be no possibility of improvement in the widening of roads and the cutting off of corners. Even if you put in the word "improvement," it would be better to leave the Bill with the same language as in Clause 5, subclause (1), which defines the conditions under which an application for an order may be made. The Commissioners are clearly the proper persons to determine whether the land is absolutely necessary or not, and I hope that in the interests of the Bill my noble friend will not press this Amendment.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN did not think this Amendment was as important as his noble friends seemed to imagine, because it did not matter what the Road Board considered. The question was what the Commissioners considered; it rested with them to make an order, and if they did not think the land necessary they would not make the order.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL CARRINGTON moved a drafting Amendment to subclause (5) to give the Commissioners power to make an order for the compulsory acquisition of land where the Road Board or any highway authority were unable to acquire it by agreement on reasonable terms. This Amendment was to meet a point raised in Committee by Lord Camperdown.

Amendment moved— In page 9, line 31, after the word 'Act' to insert the words 'and the Commissioners shall have power to make such an order.'"—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to insert in Clause 11 a new subsection providing that where, by the approval of the Treasury of the construction of a new road, any property was increased in value the Road Board or the highway authority, as the case may be, "shall be entitled to recover from any person whose property is so increased in value such proportion of the expenditure of the Road. Board or the highway authority, as the case may be, as failing agreement in the opinion of an arbitrator, such person should pay, having regard to the improvement in the value of such property."

Their Lordships would remember that when this Bill was last under consideration there was a discussion rather late at night over an Amendment relating to what they knew as the strips of land on either side of the road. It was proposed by His Majesty's Government that the Road Board should not only have authority to buy land compulsorily for a roadway, but also to buy strips of land on either side. When that part of the Government's proposal was under discussion and one of his noble friends moved to leave out the latter power, the noble Earl the Leader of the House taunted them with being most impracticable people, who would never agree to make provision for any form of betterment or recoupment in return for an expenditure of public money which was likely to improve the value of property. He could not compliment His Majesty's Government upon their efforts to solve this very difficult question. In the Housing Bill they made a proposal which nobody, not even themselves, could defend, by which the whole of the profit which might arise after an improvement was to go to the local authority. On the same principle, if one man made a road to another man's mine, and gave access to it, he ought to have the whole value of what was got from the mine handed over to him. That proposal of His Majesty's Government was, however, rejected.

When they came to deal with the Development Bill, the Government thought they would try their hand again, and they attempted a totally different proposal, which was called recoupment. They proposed that the Road Board should have power to purchase compulsorily these enormous strips of land. The Government did not seem to think that there was any objection to allowing the Road Board to be a land speculator on a large scale. They thought that the experience which local authorities had had from this device was so encouraging that they might follow it in this case. One of the most disastrous failures of this principle was to be seen in London. Their Lordships had only to walk down Kingsway to see what was the result of this effort to buy strips of land on either side of a road for recoupment. It had cost the London ratepayers enormous sums annually, and the difficulty did not appear ever likely to be solved. Their Lordships very wisely refused to allow the Road Board to enter upon any such wild-cat speculation as buying these strips would have involved, and that was cut out of the Bill. But the noble Earl the Leader of the House complained that they had made no proposals to meet the difficulty. Here was public money being expended which might enhance the value of property, and they made no proposals, either by way of recoupment or betterment, to make good to the spending authorities the cost to which they had been put. That taunt he (Lord Salisbury) was now doing his best to meet.

The Amendment seemed rather formidable, but when he told their Lordships that it had already been discussed at very great length a few days ago in that House they would not be terrified. It was exactly the same proposal, mutatis mutandis, as that put into the Housing Bill—that was to say, they proposed that the expenditure of public money where it improved property should be met, as far as the out-of-pocket expenses of the Road Board were concerned, by contributions from the landowners whose property had been enhanced in value. That appeared to be a perfectly fair proposal, and it should be borne in mind that the public would be the gainers by the increased rateable value which would be caused by the improvement. Ex hypothesi the property was to be improved in value, otherwise there would be no betterment. The rateable value would rise, and therefore in exact proportion as the landowner benefited so the public would benefit. To use a common expression, the landowner and the rating authority would be in the same boat. If they added to that increased value the out-of-pocket expenses which the public authority was to be reimbursed to the extent to which it improved the land, then it appeared to him they had covered all the reasonable claims which the public might make in a matter of this kind. He did not pretend that in a matter so subtle and so difficult as betterment his humble effort was perfection. He was very diffident about it, and he knew it was open to a good deal of question. All he could say of it was that it was far better than either of the two plans which His Majesty's Government had proposed. Neither of them would hold water, and therefore, to use an old phrase, the plan he submitted held the field. It had already been sanctioned by their Lordships' House in a very important Bill, and he thought that was sufficient ground for hoping it would be sanctioned a second time in the Development Bill.

Amendment moved— In page 10, line 2, after subsection (6), to insert the following new subsections— '(7) Where, by the approval by the Treasury of the construction of a new road under this Part of this Act, any property is increased in value, the Road Board or the highway authority, in cases where a highway authority are authorised to construct a new road under this Part of this Act if the Board or the highway authority, as the case may be, make a claim for the purpose within three months of the approval by the Treasury of the construction of the road, or of an Order made by the Development Commissioners authorising the acquisition of land for the purpose of the road, whichever be the later, shall be entitled to recover from any person whose property is so increased in value, such proportion of the expenditure of the Road Board or the highway authority, as the case may be, as failing agreement, in the opinion of an, arbitrator, such person should pay having regard to the improvement in the value of such property. (8) Any disputed question as to whether any property is increased in value within the meaning of this section or as to the amount and manner of payment, (whether by instalments or otherwise) of the sum which the Road Board or the highway authority is entitled to recover, shall be determined by arbitration under this Act in accordance with the First Schedule to this Act.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

EARL CARRINGTON

I have heard the speech of the noble Marquess with the greatest possible pleasure and satisfaction, but I am sure he will not expect me to follow him in dealing with the details about other Bills. It is difficult enough to get one Bill through the House at a time. As regards Kingsway I do not want to argue that except to say that if the proposals of my friend Mr. John Lewis and other Progressives on the London County Council had been accepted by the Progressive Party, I do not think Kingsway would have been the horrible howling wilderness it is to-day. I am only sorry that my noble colleague the Leader of the House was not here to hear the noble Marquess's speech, because the respectful remonstrance which the noble Earl addressed to your Lordships opposite seems already to have borne most excellent fruit. The proposal of the noble Marquess is a distinct step in advance of the proposal made the other night, which I must say filled me with consternation, and was to the effect that the landlords should have the entire unearned increment of these new roads. I cannot agree with the noble Marquess that his proposal at the present time holds the field, but I do congratulate him on the great advance which he has made. I do not for one moment wish to oppose the Amendment, though I should prefer, like everybody else would, to have my own way, and I still honestly think that our plan is the best means of securing to the public the value of these improvements. In the circumstances, however, I do not wish to oppose the proposal of the noble Marquess, of course reserving to myself and my colleagues all liberty of action at a later stage.

LORD ALVERSTONE said that local authorities had never got anything out of betterment yet. He congratulated the noble Marquess upon having put forward some logical scheme by which a local authority might get a fair return. He thought that this clause was even better than the one which the noble Marquess had induced the House to include in the Housing and Town Planning Bill.

*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said he noticed that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill had welcomed the proposal of the noble Marquess, but he did not think that the noble Earl had sufficiently considered how generous his noble friend had been. The Bill had proposed that 250 yards on each side of a road might be appropriated by the Road Board when they made the road. That was by way of betterment, or to prevent the landowners obtaining the benefit of the new Toad without paying anything for it. But there was no such provision with regard to roads made by highway authorities, and so far as they were concerned the landowners were allowed to take the whole benefit. The noble Marquess had suggested a great improvement in the Bill from the point of view of the Government by extending the betterment to the highway authorities as well. He thought when the Government had fairly considered this they would not only accept the Amendment but thank his noble friend for having improved their Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to amend Clause 12 (Expenses and Receipts of Road Board) so as to provide that the account of the receipts into and issues out of the Road Improvement Grant, with the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report, should be laid "before Parliament," instead of merely "before the House of Commons."

Amendment moved— In page 10, line 23, to leave out the words 'the House of Commons.' and to insert the word 'Parliament.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

I have an Amendment to Clause 16 which is not on the Paper and which has been sent in from the Scottish Office. It is only a drafting Amendment. The first part of the clause reads, "This Part of this Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications: The expression 'highway authority' means a county council or a town council, and the expression 'road' means any road or street maintainable at the cost of a highway authority." I propose to leave out the words "'road' means," and to insert the words "'roads and main roads' means."

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH moved the insertion, after Clause 18, of a new clause with the object of giving power to rating authorities to offer objections to new schemes on the ground that those schemes would place a burden on their rates. He said that this Amendment to some extent covered the same ground as the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Jersey. It was difficult to sketch out in exact detail how this extra burden would always be laid upon the rates. Sometimes a burden might directly or indirectly be laid upon the rates. Clause 1 of the Bill contained very wide powers. It enabled advances to be made to "a public authority, university, college, school, or institution, or an association of persons," any of whom might be concerned with rates already levied by a county council or some other rating authority. It was quite possible that a gift of money might be made to an authority on the one hand, but the authority might lose upon the other. The authority might have more expense in upkeep than they would gain in the way of improvement. He did not know whether His Majesty's Government thought the Amendment went too far in taking in all rating authorities, and whether they would consent to its being applied only to a county council area. He might give one instance where a burden might be placed upon the rates. A giant of money might be made to a new harbour upon the sea coast. That undertaking was of a speculative nature, and should the harbour turn out to be a failure, it might depreciate the rateable value of the area surrounding it. In that case the burden would fall upon the rates, and he thought the Amendment worthy of the consideration of their Lordships.

Amendment moved— To insert the following new clause— '19.—(1) Before an advance under this Act which may involve a charge upon any local rate is made, notice of the proposal and of the intention to make an advance in connection therewith shall be sent by the Development Commissioners or the Road Board, as the case may be, to the rating authorities of the area concerned, and if an objection is lodged by those authorities or any of them to an advance being made for the purpose of the proposed undertaking on the ground that a charge would be thereby imposed upon a local rate for the raising of which the authority lodging the objection are responsible, such advance shall not be made unless or until the proposal has been so modified as to meet the objections of such local authority. (2) The expression "local rate" means a rate the proceeds of which are applicable to public local purposes, and which is leviable on the basis of an assessment in respect of the yearly value of property, and includes any sum which though obtained in the first instance by a precept, certificate, or other instrument requiring payment from some authority or officer is or can be ultimately raised out of a local rate as before defined.'"—(Lord Zouche of Haryngworth.)

EARL CARRINGTON

I am afraid I cannot possibly accept this Amendment. It goes further than Lord Jersey's Amendment, and it means that if a county council applies for an advance the Development Commissioners or the Road Board would have to send a notice to every parish in the county. Has the noble Lord considered that?

LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH explained that what he had in his mind was that advances could be made under Clause 1 without any question of a county council being asked about it, quite independent of any consent being given, or whether they thought it a good scheme or not.

EARL CARRINGTON

Then I take it that the noble Lord does not press that part of the Amendment with regard to having notices sent to every parish in the county. The noble Lord said that a grant might be made for a new harbour, that the harbour might be a failure, and that in that way it would depreciate the rateable value of the locality. I honestly think that is rather far-fetched; and it would be almost legislating for rather far-fetched instances. I am afraid I cannot possibly accept this Amendment, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press it, because as notice would have to be sent to the overseer of every parish in the county any overseer by objecting might prevent an advance being made.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD CLINTON moved an Amendment to Clause 19 (Provisions as to commons and open spaces), to exclude from the operation of the provision requiring an order of the acquisition of a part of any common or open space to be confirmed by Parliament before it had effect "any common land for the purpose of the construction of a new road or the improvement of an existing road within a rural district."

Amendment moved— In page 12, line 6, after the word 'Parliament,' to insert the words ' but this provision shall not apply to the acquisition of any common land for the purpose of the construction of a new road or the improvement of an existing road within a rural district.'"—(Lord Clinton.).

EARL CARRINGTON

I can accept the noble Lord's Amendment.

LORD ASHBOURNE said his noble friend Lord Meath, who took a great interest in this question, was not able to be present, but he was anxious that this Amendment should be fully considered before their Lordships accepted it. They would see by the early part of Clause 19 that it was prescribed that in the case of an order being made by the Development Commissioners for the acquisition of land that formed part of a common or open space, it should be provisional only, and was not to have effect without an Order in Parliament. His noble friend Lord Meath was of opinion, and he agreed with him, that no change should be made in the policy of the Bill as set out in the earlier part of this clause because it was clearly an interference with commons. It might be interfering with the general use of a common by people who had heretofore used it and enjoyed it. Why should this particular method of interfering with commons be made an exception from the general rule laid down requiring Parliamentary sanction? It might be that the making of a new road would be a valuable improvement and might be a great convenience, but it required grave consideration, because it might interfere with the use and the amenity of commons.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN did not think that Lord Ashbourne or Lord Meath, whose opinion on this matter he would receive with every respect, had sufficiently considered the needs of a rural district. It would be absurd to require the Road Board or a county council or highway authority to go to Parliament to ask to be allowed to make a road or to improve a road that ran over a common which was within a rural district. The Amendment could not possibly hurt anybody, and could not interfere with the amenity of the commons. He hoped their Lordships would agree to the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON moved to delete from Clause 19 the following subsections— (2) Before giving any such certificate of equality of exchange the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries shall give public notice of the proposed exchange, interested to make representations and objections in relation thereto, and shall, if necessary, hold a local inquiry on the subject. (3) Where any order of the Development Commissioners authorises such an exchange the order shall provide for vesting the land given in exchange and shall afford opportunities to all persons in the persona in whom the common, open space, or allotment was vested, subject to the same rights, trusts, and incidents as attached to the common, open space, or allotment, and for discharging the part of the common, open space, or allotment acquired from all rights, trusts, and incidents to which it was previously subject.

The noble Earl said: This is a matter of drafting, and is consequential on Lord Monk Bretton's Amendment. I should like to be allowed to say, however, that I must not be understood as agreeing with the principle of Lord Monk Bretton's Amendment to which this is consequential. I only move this to make the Bill read properly.

Amendment moved— In page 12, lines 15 to 28, to leave out subsections (2) and (3)."—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

In the Schedule,

EARL CARRINGTON moved an Amendment to Clause 1, which provided that where a Government Department, body, or persons proposed to purchase land compulsorily they might submit to the Development Commissioners "an order" putting in force the provisions of the Land Clauses Act. The noble Earl moved, instead of the word "an" after Commissioners, to substitute the words "a draft," so that the phrase would read "may submit to the Development Commissioners a draft order putting in force," etc.

Amendment moved— In page 13, line 6, to leave out the word ' an ' and to insert the words 'a draft.'"—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, on behalf of the DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE, an Amendment to Clause 2 of the Schedule. The clause provided that Sections 77 to 85 of the Railways Clauses Consolidated Act, 1845, should be incorporated in the Bill. The Amendment proposed that "Section 78" should be substituted for "Section 77."

Amendment moved— In page 13, line 13, to leave out the words 'seventy-seven,' and to insert the words 'seventy-eight.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON moved an Amendment to paragraph (c) of Clause 2 in the Schedule. The paragraph provided that the arbitrator should have regard to the extent "to which the remaining and contiguous lands and hereditaments belonging to the same proprietor may be benefited or injured by the proposed work or road," etc. The noble Earl moved to leave out the words "or injured." He said: Viscount St. Aldwyn moved these words tentatively on the last occasion, and I explained then that we did not think that they were necessary, as the Land Clauses Act gave a right to compensation where land was injuriously affected. That is in Section 62 of the Act of 1845. The matter has been thoroughly considered, and I think I may say that this is absolutely correct.

Amendment moved— In page 13, line 37, to leave out the words 'or injured.'"—(Earl Carrington.)

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

I am quite content.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON moved an Amendment to Clause 3 of the Schedule with regard to the publication of the "order," etc. He moved that the words "the order" be altered to "the draft order."

Amendment moved— In page 14, line 1, after the first 'the,' to insert the word 'draft.'"—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON moved an Amendment to provide that notice of such an order should also be given "in the case of land forming part of a common, open space, or allotment to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries." He said: This is a new Amendment to give notice to the Board of Agriculture, which is charged with the duty of protecting commons. We think they should have notice of any application for a compulsory order in regard to any of the commons.

Amendment moved— In page 14, line 4, after the word 'prescribed,' to insert the words 'and in the case of land forming part of a common, open space, or allotment also to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.'"—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON moved to insert words to provide that where land was acquired compulsorily the order might provide for the continuance of any easement or the creation of any new easement over the land. He said: This is a power that can be usefully exercised to diminish the damage done to a landlord if his land happened to be compulsorily severed, and it has been found to be of great use in the Small Holdings Act.

Amendment moved— In page 14, line 16, at the end of the line to insert the following new paragraph: '(5) An order may provide for the continuance of any existing easement or the creation of any new easement over the land authorised to be acquired.'"—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT HILL moved to add to the last Amendment words securing "the continued use and enjoyment by such owner and his tenants of all means of access, drainage, water supply, and other similar conveniences theretofore used or enjoyed by them over the land to be acquired." The noble Viscount said they had had a long discussion over this in reference to the Small Holdings Act, and after considerable debate it was agreed to. It was most necessary in the case of tenant farmers, and also in the case of small holdings, that these easements should be granted.

Amendment moved— In page 14, to add to the previous Amendment, after the word 'acquired,' the following words: 'and every such order shall if so required by the owner of the land to be acquired provide for the creation of such new casements as are reasonably necessary to secure the continued use and enjoyment by such owner and his tenants of all means of access, drainage, water supply, and other similar conveniences theretofore used or enjoyed by them over the land to be acquired.'"—(Viscount Hill.)

EARL CARRINGTON

I am bound to say that these words are not considered necessary, and they might in some circumstances create difficulties; but I am not prepared to oppose the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved an Amendment to Clause 6 of the Schedule to make it clear that "easements" should be defined in Scotland as "servitudes." He said that the word "servitude" was the Scottish equivalent to "easement."

Amendment moved— In page 14, line 32, after the word 'easements' to insert the words 'or in Scotland servitudes.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to order), and dispensed with.

EARL CARRINGTON

I move that this Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl Carrington.)

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU appealed to the Government, before the Bill was read a third time, to give the House one bit of very important information. He quite saw that it might be difficult for them to give their Lordships the names of the whole of the Development Commissioners, but he thought they ought to have some information on the subject. The Development Commissioners and the Road Board were going to be very important bodies, and if their Lordships read this Bill a third time without ascertaining the names of the Commissioners, or, at any rate, the chairman and the vice-chairman of the Road Board, they would have no other opportunity of getting the information from the Government. He pleaded especially in the case of the Road Board to the Government to let them know whom they proposed to appoint chairman and vice-chairman. It was a matter of vital interest to a great many people to know that, and it was a piece of public information that the Government ought to give at this stage.

EARL CARRINGTON

I very much wish that I could meet my noble friend's desires on this point, but I have had no information given to me upon it, and therefore I am unable to say anything definite. But I hope my noble friend will not stop the Third Reading on that account. I am certain that the names of the Commissioners will be announced as soon as possible, but I must again urge that these Commissioners ought not to be appointed in a hurry, as if the wrong people were appointed through any insistence great damage to the Bill might ensue.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN thought their Lordships would be far from satisfied with the reply of the noble Earl. There had been no hurry in this matter on the part of His Majesty's Government. It was a long time since the Chancellor of the Exchequer made known to the public generally the provisions of this Bill in bringing in the Budget, and it was some time since the Development Bill was laid before the House of Commons. They had asked more than once for some information with regard to the composition of these important bodies, and they had had nothing but the noble Earl's very courteous replies that he was afraid he could not say anything at the time, but that he hoped to be able to say something some time or other. This Bill would return to another place, and perhaps in a fortnight hence or more their Lordships might be asked to consider the provisions of the Bill again. Surely by that time, at any rate, His Majesty's Government would be able to put Parliament and the public in possession of the names of those whom they intended to appoint on these important boards.

THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, so far as the present and past actions of the Government are concerned, I think noble Lords have no just grounds of complaints. Noble Lords will remember what happened. It was suggested, and was strongly pressed by the noble Viscount opposite, that the Commission should assume an entirely different character from that which we intended it should assume, by having the Road Board amalgamated with it. That proposal, I am glad to think, was not adopted by your Lordships' House, but it might have been, and what would have happened afterwards when the matter came up for discussion as between the two Houses of Parliament it is impossible to say. But I think noble Lords will agree that in those circumstances it would have been difficult for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to offer to certain gentlemen an appointment of the ultimate nature of which he could not himself be certain. As regards the further request of the noble Viscount, we will, of course, convey it to my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I shall be glad myself if it is possible to meet the wishes of noble Lords opposite, although I cannot profess to be sufficiently acquainted with all the circumstances of the case to say whether it may be possible by the time the Bill comes back to us for the names to be announced.

On Question, Bill read 3a.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND said, with regard to the Schedule, that the noble Earl had that evening inserted an Amendment providing that notice of an order should be given to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. Surely a similar notice ought to be given to the Lord of the Manor and the copyholders, who were interested in the commons. If it was difficult to get at the copyholders, as he believed it was sometimes, notice should be given to the steward of the manor. He did not know whether these would be included in the owners, lessees, and occupiers of the land, as mentioned in the Schedule; but, if not, he proposed an Amendment to the noble Earl's Amendment so that it would read as follows: "And in the case of land forming part of a common, open space, or allotment, also the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and to the Lord of the Manor and copyholders."

Amendment moved— After the words 'Board of Agriculture and Fisheries,' to insert the words 'and to the Lord of the Manor and copyholders.'"—(The Duke of Northumberland.)

EARL CARRINGTON

The Board of Agriculture is a sort of god-father in respect of commons. We are in communication with the worthy persons mentioned by the noble Duke, and I do not think these words are necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL CAERINGTON

I move that this Bill do now pass.

Moved, That the Bill do pass.—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Bill passed accordingly, and returned to the Commons and to be printed as amended. (No. 211.)