§ THE EARL OF SELBORNE had the following Question on the Paper—
§ To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings at the sale by auction of the Clowance Estate in Cornwall as reported in the Western Morning News of 29th October 1919; whether it is the fact that the auctioneer announced that two of the farms would be offered for sale on the understanding that the county council might eventually acquire them; whether, notwithstanding this announcement, a Mr. Rowe persistently interrupted the proceedings and stated that he had been sent to the sale as an official representative of the Small Holdings Committee of the county council; whether the Small Holdings Committees of the county councils do not practically act as the agents of the Board of Agriculture for the acquisition of small holdings; and whether he approves of such a course of conduct.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, the reason why I ask this Question—I may have to ask many similar ones—is that a very regrettable practice has grown up in one or two counties in the West of England in connection with the local branch of the National Farmers' Union. I wish to make it quite clear that, so far as I know, the National Farmers' Union Headquarters have no responsibility for such action on the part of the local branches, and have done nothing to encourage or countenance it. But the practice has been growing up of the local branches of the National Farmers' Union objecting to the 446 sale of estates by auction. It is not confined to cases, such as have unhappily existed, where the sale has been conducted without that consideration for the sitting tenants which we should always wish to see exercised, but it has also occurred in cases where every consideration has been exercised.
§ There is a case which I may have to bring before my noble friend where no notice was given to the sitting tenants, but they were invited to tender for their farms, and where the local branch of the Union made the sale impossible on the ground that farms ought not to be sold by auction. My Lords, for anybody in a fiduciary capacity an auction is the only course which is open to him. In fact Government Departments like the Charity Commissioners insist upon the land being sold by auction, or, if before that a private bid is made for the land, it has to be advertised in case anybody is inclined to give a larger sum for the property. Sale by auction is also a system which is invariably adopted by farmers in selling their own possessions, and therefore this action on their part is both regrettable and dangerous.
§ This particular case in Cornwall has been brought to my notice. It is really a flagrant case because the interruption of the proceedings was carried out by a gentleman who asserted himself to be acting as a representative of the Small Holdings Committee of the county council, and as this Small Holding Committee of the county council is in the matter of the acquisition of farms very often the actual agent of the Board of Agriculture, or practically the agent of the Board, I thought that this was a case which I would bring to the attention of my noble friend, and ask him what information he had on the subject and what view he took of such a proceeding.
§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAMWith regard to the opening observations of my noble friend, I am in entire agreement that it is not desirable that any class of his Majesty's subjects should set themselves up to interfere with what are perfectly legal proceedings by processes of demonstration and tumult. That is quite clear; but I am sure my noble friend will acquit me of any responsibility for the doings of local branches of the farmers' unions.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNENonewhatever.
§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAMI will, therefore, come to the particular case that my noble friend mentions in the Paper. He asks first of all whether my attention had been drawn to the matter. It had, but only by my noble friend being good enough to send me the local paper with an account of the proceedings. That was the first intimation that I had that anything had taken place. The second question is whether it is a fact that the auctioneer announced that two of the farms would be offered for sale on the understanding that the county council might eventually buy them. That is so. The account, which I assume to be correct, shows that the auctioneer made that announcement at the commencement of the sale. I may state, however, in regard to this particular case that it is not quite so straightforward a one as my noble friend supposes, because this estate had been recently sold by Sir Hugh M. St. Aubyn to a gentleman who acquired it for the purpose of speculation, and almost immediately after offered it for re-sale at largely increased prices. There appears also to have been this fact—though I have not yet been able to verify it—that there was a kind of clause in the contract of sale between Sir Hugh St. Aubyn and the purchaser to the effect that he could not attempt to sell or dispose of it again until the lands had first been offered to the lessees and tenants at fair and reasonable prices to be fixed under the advice of a certain gentleman named. It does not appear that that undertaking—if it was an undertaking—was properly observed, and that an advance in the prices over those at which the land had been purchased was fixed which made it impossible in most cases for the tenants to buy.
I think that my noble friend will find that there are peculiar circumstances which may have caused a great deal of bad feeling in the locality. That does not, of course, excuse violent proceedings at the sale. With regard to the action of Mr. Rowe I have nothing to go on except the newspaper report which my noble friend was good enough to send me, but I must at once repudiate any suggestion that Mr. Rowe was acting as an agent of the Board of Agriculture or was authorised in any 448 way directly or indirectly to act for the Board.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI did not suggest that for a moment. I happen to know that the Small Holdings Committees at present often act practically as the agents of the Board of Agriculture, and when a gentleman asserts that he is acting on behalf of the Small Holdings Committee I thought that indirectly that would bring in, however unwillingly, the Board of Agriculture.
§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAMI hope that I shall not be held responsible for the actions of gentlemen who are very remotely connected with our operations, and who suggest they are acting with our authority. Mr. Rowe was not authorised in any way. I would point out that the Small Holdings Committees are not really agents of the Board of Agriculture. Our action in the matter is merely that we control in the last resort the price that they pay when they are spending public money. That is the only extent to which we are concerned with the operations of the Small Holdings Committees. With regard to this particular gentleman, I know nothing of the circumstances except what appears in the newspaper report, and I rather hesitate to condemn him unheard, even though his action may on the face of it be both tactless and provocative of very undesirable results. I certainly do not approve of such a course of action.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEWill my noble friend make further inquiries?
§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAMCertainly.