Lords Sitting of 31 July 1919

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, the LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

SEX DISQUALIFICATION (REMOVAL) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Removal of disqualification on grounds of sex.
1. A person shall not be disqualified by sex from the exercise of any public function, or from being appointed to any civil or judicial office or post, or from entering or assuming any civil profession or vocation, and a person shall not be exempted by sex from the liability to serve as a juror:
Provided that—

(a) notwithstanding anything in this section, His Majesty may by Order in Council authorise regulations to be made prescribing the mode of admission of women to the civil service of His Majesty, and the conditions on which women admitted to that service may be appointed to posts therein, and providing for the exclusion of women from admission to any branch of the civil service in any of His Majesty's possessions, or in any foreign country; and

(b) any judge, chairman of quarter sessions, recorder or other person before whom the case is heard may, in his discretion, on an application made by a woman to be exempted from service on a jury in respect of that case by reason of the nature of the evidence to be given or of the issues to be tried, grant such exemption.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD) moved, after "or from entering or assuming any civil profession or vocation," to insert "or for admission to any incorporated society (whether incorporated by Royal Charter or otherwise)." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is put down to meet a point which has been taken by certain persons interested in this question in Edinburgh. It was pointed out, and I think justly, that the words of the Bill would not ensure the admission of women to certain incorporated professional societies, such as the Faculty of Actuaries and the Society of Accountants in Edinburgh. On behalf of the former society this Amendment was asked for. The Scottish Office was consulted and they agreed. The words will of course, also allow the admission of women to similar English societies.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, after ("vocation") insert ("or for admission to any incorporated society (whether incorporated by Royal Charter or otherwise)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved, in paragraph (a), to leave out "His Majesty may, by Order in Council, authorise regulations to be made," and insert "in any regulations made by Order in Council." The noble Lord said: If the House should think fit to adopt the Amendments that I have to propose, subsection (a) of the clause would read—
"Notwithstanding anything in this section in any regulations made by Order in Council prescribing the mode of admission to the Civil Service of His Majesty, and the conditions on which persons admitted to that service may be appointed to posts therein, equal consideration shall be given to the suitability of both sexes, and provision may be made as to the admission of women," and so on.
The object I have in view is to introduce into this clause, and so to introduce into the Civil Service, the practice with regard to the appointment of women to posts in the service which was settled after a very serious debate in this House, and after several alternative suggestions had been made in the Ministry of Health Bill. Your Lordships will remember that some words were settled on that occasion, and they are the words which I have put down in this Amendment. The officers of the Ministry of Health will themselves be—many of them are—part of the Civil Service, and if

125
that was the right procedure to prescribe for that part of the Civil Service, it seems to me to follow that it would be right that that should be the proposal for the whole Civil Service. As the two noble and learned. Lords are not here who are proposing the omission of the whole of the subsection, I think I need not say anything about that, but merely submit to your Lordships that it is preferable to put these things upon one footing—one adequate and consistent footing—and that that would be better than to remove the proviso altogether as those noble and learned Lords propose. I beg to move the first amendment that stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 11 to 13, leave out ("His Majesty may by Order in Council authorise regulations to be made") and insert ("in any regulations made by Order in Council").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The clause if amended as the noble and learned Lord desires, would read as follows—
"Notwithstanding anything in this section in ally regulations made by Order in Council prescribing the mode of admission to the Civil Service of His Majesty, and the conditions on which persons admitted to that service may be appointed to posts therein, equal consideration shall be given to the suitability of both sexes, and provision may be made as to the appointment of women to any branch of the Civil Service in any of His Majesty's possessions or in any foreign country."
I do not think that even the noble and learned Lord himself would contend that the clause as I have read it out would be in a very satisfactory form. There are one or two expressions in it which I think a Court of law would find great difficulty in construing with precision, such an expression, for instance, as that "equal consideration shall be given to the suitability of both sexes." That is a phrase Which certainly seems to me to be a little lacking in precision, but I cannot help thinking that the House will on the whole come to the conclusion that the clause as it was drafted in the Bill really gives to women under this branch of their claim all that it would be reasonable to concede, and all that the efficiency of the Civil Service renders it right to concede.
I need hardly point out the supreme importance of reconciling the now universally admitted claims of women to certain considerations which are quite fundamental in dealing with the Civil Service. As I reminded the House on Second Reading,
126
there is a general rule in the Civil Service that women should retire on marriage. I cannot conceive that anyone would desire to alter a practice which is evidently in the interests of the women and their children, as well as of the Service. This is a clause which specially affects the Post Office, but the regulation which the Post Office makes—and, I think your Lordships would unanimously feel, necessarily makes—would become illegal at once if the procedure were omitted. I may mention that women who do retire under these circumstances receive a marriage bounty.
Another point is important and should be borne in mind. Candidates who pass the higher division examination of the Civil Service under the existing practice choose, in the order in which they are placed by the examiner, to which Department they will be appointed, Certainly, if the proviso had been omitted, I think probably under the Amendment of the noble and learned. Lord women might choose the Foreign Service, and the recent scheme of inter-changeability between the Foreign Office and the Diplomatic Service would be rendered nugatory by the extreme difficulty (I put, it very mildly) under existing circumstances, of sending women as Ministers and Ambassadors—and indeed to many of the other appointments—abroad. Under all these circumstances, it appears to me that your Lordships would be well advised at this stage not, to lend support to an Amendment which—as, indeed, I think the noble and learned Lord, after what have said will agree—I think should not be pressed.
I ought to add that I have been asked to receive a deputation, with Mr. Bonar Law as representing the Government in the House of Commons, by a large number of the important women's societies upon this very clause, and, if your Lordships thought that a convenient course, I think that such a deputation might be received and we might listen to what they have to say between the present time and the time when this Bill will fall for consideration in the House of Commons. Careful attention, of course, will be given to any representations that are made, and in these circumstances I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: With regard to these deputations I am well aware of them because, in fact, they asked me

127
to introduce them to the noble and learned Lord. With regard to the language of the Clause which the Lord Chancellor has criticised—" equal consideration shall be given to the suitability," and so forth, as I have said before, those are not my words. Those are the words which were settled in this House when the Ministry of Health. Bill was before this House. I thought, for reasons that I have also already stated, that it was desirable that the same practice should prevail in the Civil Service generally as was settled for that part of it which has been introduced into the Ministry of Health Bill. I need scarcely say that I shall not venture to press my Amendment against the views of my noble and learned friend.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As Lord Reading is absent, before we pass his Amendment, which stands next on the Paper, if any noble Lord, for the sake of a short discussion would move the Amendment, it would, I think, be an advantage. I do not know whether Lord Muir Mackenzie would move it?
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved, in paragraph (b), after "discretion," to insert "on an application made by or on behalf of the parties (including in criminal cases the prosecution and. the accused) or any of them, or at his own instance, make an order that, having regard to the nature of the case and the evidence to be given, the jury shall be composed of men only or of women only as the case may require, or may." The noble Lord said: I feel some diffidence in moving an Amendment for so high an authority as the Lord Chief Justice. But I have an Amendment of my own which covers a small part of the ground. I put down my Amendment before I had seen that of the Lord Chief Justice, but that part of his Amendment which agrees with my own, of course, I assent to. As for the rest, I think that his Amendment is much more comprehensive, and on the whole, is much better than my own, and it gives me great pleasure to move it.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 23, after ("discretion") insert ("on an application made by or on behalf of the parties (including in criminal cases the prosecution and the accused) or any of them, or at his own instance, make an order that having regard
128
to the nature of the case and the evidence to be given, the jury shall be composed of men only or of women only as the case may require, or may").—(Lard Muir Mackenzie.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment that stands in the name of the Lord Chief Justice, in my judgment, is an improvement on the Bill. There are certain cases in which, not merely in the interests of women, but equally in the legitimate interests of men, they would be unwilling to sit on what we may describe as mixed juries. It is unnecessary to give illustrations because too many of your Lordships are chairmen of Quarter Sessions. But there are such cases, and it is not a sex distinction at all. It is a question of a mutual and balanced sex consideration, and I think that the view of the Lord Chief Justice, who has very great experience in these matters, that it should be in the power of the Judge suo motu to take the initiative in a matter of this kind, is one that will probably appeal to the House as it certainly appeals to the Government. I therefore accept the Amendment.
LORD SHEFFIELD: As I understand, it will be only in cases where, having regard to the nature of the case and the evidence given, the Judge is of the opinion that it is a case which should be tried exclusively by one or the other sex.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: That is how I understood it.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I suppose that is intended to cover cases of rape, or indecent assault, which are disagreeable to deal with?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Or unnatural offences.
LORD SHEFFIELD: If it was left, first of all, to the prosecution or the accused—either of them—to take action and ask for a different jury, I do not see why in ordinary cases there should not be a mixed jury. My own opinion is that women require a much longer training in public affairs before they are fit to serve on juries. However, that is gone by. You have determined that that most embarassing of all public functions should be given to them. In ordinary cases I do not see why men and women should not sit together. As this Amendment is drawn it will have to be

129
either a jury of men or a jury of women. But I do not raise any objection.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Right of peeresses to writ of summons.
2. His Majesty may include in the letters patent for the creation of a peer of the United Kingdom a provision to the effect that where the bolder of the peerage is a woman she shall, if otherwise qualified, be entitled to a seat, place, and voice in the House of Lords.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE had on the Paper an Amendment, at the end of Clause 2, to insert "and in respect of any existing Peerage may, by warrant under the Great Seal, declare that any woman being or becoming the holder of a peerage shall be entitled to a seat, place, and voice in the said House, as fully as if a grant, to that effect had always appertained to that peerage."
VISCOUNT FINLAY: Before Lord Muir Mackenzie proceeds, may I say I was about to make a suggestion. It is that it might be convenient if the question of principle—the question whether anything of this kind should be carried—were determined first. That might be settled if the question were taken whether this Clause should stand part of the Bill. In the event of its being so determined I understand that the Government will be ready to move to re-commit the Bill in order that any necessary Amendments should be made.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I was a few seconds late in the House after three o'clock, believing that there was other business coming on. I was therefore not in a position to move the Motion which your Lordships have seen on the Paper.* If that Motion had come on, I think that the question would have been raised upon which the noble and learned Viscount has just spoken, because it began with the words, "That this House, not being un-
* The Motion standing on the Paper in the name of Lord MUIR MACKENZIE was as follows: On the Motion that the House do resolve itself into Committee, to move, "That as regards clause two, this House, while not unfavourable to the admission of women, is of opinion that the subject is so connected with the constitution of a Second Chamber, that it would be more conveniently discussed when proposals as to the constitution are before the House."
130
favourable to the admission of women." I should like to support the noble and learned Viscount in what he has proposed because I think it would be more satisfactory to have the details of this clause, considered carefully in some Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I welcome the suggestion made by the noble and learned Viscount, because it appears that it would be a very futile performance to discuss, perhaps in great detail, the circumstances in which Peeresses of one class or Peeresses of another class might sit in this House, if your Lordships were in the end to take the decision that no Peeresses of any class should sit here. If your Lordships should take the view that Peeresses in existing circumstances should be made eligible I will, if it meets your Lordships' approval, move to re-commit the Bill so that the Amendments can be reconsidered.
On Question, That Clause 2 be agreed to—
VISCOUNT FINLAY: I hope your Lordships will say that this clause should not stand part, and I desire to offer a few observations on the subject. I do not think it is desirable, particularly at the present time, that anything of this kind should be carried enabling a grant to be made to women to sit as Peeresses in the House of Lords. It will be said, of course, that they are now qualified to sit in the House of Commons and that judgment has been given Upon that point. Yes, but how has it worked? From the opinion of Parliament on the question whether women should sit in the House of Commons, there was an appeal at the General Election, and although there are an enormous number of women voters I believe I am right in saying that only one woman was returned to sit in the House of Commons. That lady was returned in somewhat special circumstances, and I think she has never taken her seat. The decision of the women, therefore, is adverse to women taking an active part in the Legislative Assembly.
I submit-that the present is a singularly inopportune moment for altering the constitution of the House of Lords. We are face to face with a proposal for the reform of this House. When such proposal is dealt with, let us deal with the subject as a whole and not tinker with alterations

131
which interfere with the state of things that has existed so long, I personally believe to the general advantage of the House and, through the House, of the country. No one proposes, as I understand it, that there should be perfect equality of the sexes with regard to the rights of Peeresses to sit in the House, that they should descend to all the children born irrespective of sex and in order of date of birth. No such proposal has been made, and I do not think that if it were made it would be regarded as workable. Then with regard to the House of Commons, a woman, of course, has to run the gauntlet of a constituency before she can sit there. However, why should we, when the whole thing must be overhauled at no distant date, alter things in a matter of detail of this kind and also on a matter in regard to which opinion is very much divided? My opinion is that it would be inconvenient, that it would do no good, and that it would be much better that the clause should be left out of the Bill. Therefore I move that this clause do not stand part.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2.—(Viscount Finlay.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My proposal is to insert a clause which merely gives to Peeresses, who are Peeresses in their own right, a seat in the House of Lords. The noble and learned Viscount says it is inopportune to take any steps because at no distant date there will be a complete reform of your Lordships' House. Ever since I can remember anything I have always been told that your Lordships' House is going to be reformed; but I do not think it will be done in a great hurry. It is about the biggest alteration of the Constitution which you can possibly effect, and when it comes—well, it will come. At the present time the great thing is to know whether your Lordships wish to give those Peeresses—there are not many of them—the right to sit in the House who are Peeresses in their own right. The Amendment standing in my name on the Paper is to omit the clause in the Bill and to insert another clause which will give to Peeresses in their own right a seat in this House, to Irish Peeresses the right to vote for the representative Irish Peers or to be elected direct, and the same with Scottish Peeresses. Therefore I should like to ask your Lordships to adopt my proposed clause instead of the clause in this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I ought to say a word on behalf of the Government in relation to this proposal, although I made it plain on the Second Reading that every member of the Government could vote as he pleased and, of course, the Government Whips would not be employed. If the decision were taken, as it may be, that this Clause at the present stage should not find a place in the Bill, it ought I think to be made clear that your Lordships are not pre-judging the ultimate and extremely important question which will have to be faced one day as to whether or not women are to be made eligible for such Second Chamber as may take the place of this. I think your Lordships would be very reluctant to reach any conclusion in arriving at which it was not made plain that you were alive to the movements and changes which have taken place in the last ten or fifteen years, and that you were prepared to consider with a completely open mind when the time came the arguments which won acceptance in the House of Commons. Also that your Lordships take the view—at a time when it is plait that in the near future considerable proposals for amending the constitution of this House will be forthcoming—that you are fully entitled to a say if all-round changes are about to be introduced within one, two, three, or even five years—because that period is small in comparison with the 600 or 700 years in which we have lived under the old conditions. With that observation, in order that our attitude may not be misunderstood outside the House, I repeat that the members of the Government will vote as they may be advised.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: I should like to say a word, in response to what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, as one of those who have given a most constant and firm opposition to the proposal of including women in the franchise at all. I believe that we ought not to apply that principle in the case of this House; in fact, I endeavoured to convey that view when speaking on the Second Reading. I think that the vote now given will not be given with any view at all in this House towards the permanent exclusion of women, but merely as a statement that we do not consider this an opportune moment, as the noble and learned Viscount has observed, for making a change.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I am sorry to trespass upon the time of the House again upon this Bill, but I should like to say that I am very much obliged to the Lord. Chancellor for what he has said about it being thoroughly understood that this is not giving a decision against the admission of women into this House. The reason why I put down a Motion on going into Committee was to try if possible to get rid of that situation; but if it is perfectly understood that we are not in fact voting against the exclusion of women by leaving out the clause which provides for their inclusion, it seems to me that the proposal of the noble and learned Viscount May very well be adopted.
LORD EMMOTT: I do not want to detain the House, but I should like to add one word. It seems to me that the House is going to vote for the exclusion of this clause. I know of no sufficient reasons why woman should not be qualified even as art interim matter. At the same time I do not consider the matter to be one of great importance, and I do not want to detain the House in argument.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: There are very few of your Lordships here, and therefore I shall not offer any opposition to the exclusion of the clause.
On Question, Amendment to delete Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Title:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have a formal Amendment in the Title involved in the decision which the House has readied.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, delete the words ("and with respect to the rights of peeresses").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to
House in Committee accordingly
[The EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
THE EARL OF MAYO: Lord Oranmore and Browne will be here in a moment I beg formally, on his behalf, to move at the end of subsection (2), to insert "or for giving effect to any provisions of this Act." I think the words speak for themselves and do not require any explanation.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, after ("scheme") insert ("or for giving effect to any of the provisions of this Act").—(The Earl of Mayo.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There seems to be no objection to this Amendment, but it would require to be modified without altering its sense. If the noble Lord will move it in the form after "this" insert "part of this" it would carry out his purpose and would be unobjectionable.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I accept that.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next is only a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, after ("scheme") insert ("or part thereof").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 26, after ("and") insert ("the payment of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 5 and 6, leave out ("the scheme requires that provision shall be made") and insert ("in the opinion of the Local Government Board it is necessary that provision should be made by the scheme").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, after ("land") insert ("or such part thereof as is specified in the notice").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 29, after ("like") insert ("compensation for the land of which possession is taken and") and after ("awarded") insert ("as would have been payable if those enactments had been complied with").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 22, after ("purchase") insert ("by") and after ("lease") insert ("to them").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO had on the Paper an Amendment to insert the following new clause—
".No land which is or forms part of a home, farm, park, garden or pleasure ground or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling-house shall be included in any petition for an order authorising the compulsory acquisition of land for the purpose of Part III of the Act of 1890, if sites not less suitable can be obtained on other land."
The noble Earl said: This clause is really to enable those who live in their homes in Ireland to enjoy, without undue interference from the local authorities in building houses, the amenities of those homes. The words "park, garden or pleasure ground or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling house" are words taken from the Act of 1905, Cap. 44, Clause 45, and they come in at the end of the clause. The only word that is added to them is the word "home farm." The home farm means, of course, a livelihood to the person who lives on the farm and it would be a very serious matter if houses were placed on a home farm, because that might interfere with the agriculture of the farm if the Local Government Board exercised inordinate powers. Therefore, I hope that the Government will accept this new clause.
I want to say something with regard to the drafting of the clause. As it appears on the Paper there is a comma after the word "home" and that makes it read differently from the way in which it should read. There ought to be no comma after the word "home." The two words "home farm" ought to read practically as one word. It is a term well understood in Ireland. At the end of the clause I suggest to the Lord Chancellor that, instead of the words "if sites not less suitable can be obtained on other land," there should be placed the words "if suitable sites can be obtained on other land." I think that would make the clause read better. However, there is nothing much in that, but it is important that the words "home farm" should be taken as one. I do not think there is anything more to say beyond this—that that end of the clause is a saving matter. We do not seek to exclude the local authorities from any parts of the park or home farm that are mentioned if suitable sites cannot be obtained on other land. If they cannot be obtained they must step in and take the land, but we wish to be protected to a certain extent.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
".No land which is or forms part of a home farm, park, garden or pleasure ground or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling-house shall be included in any petition for an order authorising the compulsory acquisition of land for the purpose of Part III of the Act of 1890, if suitable sites can be obtained on other land."—(The Earl of Mayo.)
LORD SHANDON: I would ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment and I shall explain why. The Act of 1890 has been in operation since that year in Ireland. Section 57 of that Act which, of course, will be incorporated in the present Act, provides that any land which forms part of any park, garden, pleasure ground, or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling-house is excluded. The same section applies to England. It has been in operation in England and has been found sufficient from 1890 to the present time. Accordingly, unless, by some curious construction of the Statute, that section is not carried over into the present Bill, there does not seem any necessity for the alteration. If there be any question as to that, then the remedy is to incorporate Section 57 of the

137
Act of 1890 expressly, but that would also be necessary in the case of the English Act and no one has raised the question. So that, the defect, if defect there be, exists in both Acts.
The Amendment proposed differs in terms from the terms of the existing Statute. It introduces a word which in Ireland has a somewhat undefined meaning. "Home farm" there is not exactly the same as "home farm" in England. Very frequently it is almost the same as a small domain, but, be that as it may, if it is a very small place, it is amply covered by the provision with regard to any land which forms part of any park, garden, pleasure ground, or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling house; and, if it is a large park, it is covered by the existing provision. In addition to that, in the actual draft the clause would seem even to cut down the provision under the existing Act because, even as altered, it introduces the words "if sites not less suitable can be obtained on other land." The exclusion under the existing Statute is perfectly clean cut. Why there should be a distinction made between England and Ireland it is very difficult to see, when the provision, which has been in force in England and Ireland for nineteen years, has been found ample.
You must also remember that there is a Government official who intervenes between the scheme and any person who is aggrieved in any view of it, and that official may presumably, even though he is an Irish official, be allowed to be desirous of preventing anything which would be unfair or unjust. I understand that a proposition of this nature was suggested in another place and that it did not meet with approval there, and I would suggest that really, even in those interests which the noble Earl has at stake, it would be better not to press this Amendment, because it might, certainly not be agreed to. The only Amendment if it be necessary—and I certainly doubt it—would be the incorporation of the existing provision of the Statute of 1890.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: The argument of the noble and learned Lord would certainly be on the side of satisfaction to my noble friend, I am sure, if it could be held to be absolutely correct; but, although I cannot profess to be able to interpret the law as the noble and learned Lord can, all
138
the advice I have taken has gone to the opposite view. That is to say, that the section of the Act of 1890, to which the noble and learned Lord alluded, is not incorporated in this Bill—
LORD SHANDON: Well, incorporate it.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON—and if these words are not read into this Bill, it is quite certain that some provision of this kind is specially called for.
LORD SHANDON: I agree. If it is not incorporated introduce the existing words.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I would remind the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill of the great change in Ireland since the 1890 Act was passed. The transfer of a very large portion of the country to the tenants of course minimises the amount of land that can be available, except that which has a tenant right upon it. All public bodies are naturally anxious to take land which has no tenant right upon it, even though their own personal predilections did not lead them to go on the land. It would be really intolerable that the actual surroundings of a dwelling house should be taken.
My noble friend has carefully omitted the word "domain," on which there was a good deal of discussion in another place, as being a word perhaps of wider interpretation. But with regard to the home farm, the park and immediate fields, which are really part of the dwelling house, we feel we have a right to protection, and I hope the noble and learned Lord will see his way to tell us whether the view which Lord Shandon has taken is a correct one. In any case, if we incorporate that section of the Act of 1890 into this Bill, I think the words "home farm" must be added, because, as noble Lords from Ireland know, the protection of the word "farm" is not the same in Ireland as in this country.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This matter requires to be a little carefully considered, because an Amendment similar to, though not verbally identical with, that which has been moved by the noble Earl, was moved by the Chief Secretary in the House of Commons, and meeting with very general opposition was ultimately withdrawn. It was opposed on the Nationalist side, on the Irish Unionist

139
side, both from Ulster and other parts of Ireland, and also by a number of British members. It was withdrawn on the statement by the Chief Secretary that he would issue a Regulation to the following effect, not of course tying himself to the exact words—
"In the selection of sites due regard shall be paid to the importance of interfering as little as possible with the amenities of any private residence or land, and care shall be taken that such amenities shall not be injuriously affected by any scheme if suitable sites which are unobjectionable are obtainable."
I agree entirely that noble Lords who come from Ireland are entitled to point to the circumstances, notorious to all of us, which prevail in Ireland to-day, and they are entitled to claim that they must not be treated in their relationship with the local authorities in the same way as noble Lords who come from Scotland, from England, or from Wales. It is a reasonable claim which nobody can disregard, and before a conclusion is reached I will indicate one or two observations which do not leave out of sight that consideration. There is, in the first place, very considerable protection (which the noble Earl would do well to consider whether it is adequate or not) against the improper exercise of a local authority's powers. Suppose a local authority, in which by reason of its constitution the noble Earl and the noble Viscount have lost confidence, proposes to acquire land compulsorily. The first necessary step is for a local inquiry to be held by an inspector of the Local Government Board, who hears all parties interested. The inspector is bound to consider all objections, and he may alter the proposal as he thinks fit. If he makes an order confirming the proposal any person interested has the right of appeal against the order to the Local Government Board or to the county court judge. It is a little difficult to say what further protection can be given. These are the provisions of the Labourers' Act 1906 as applied by the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Act 1908.
I think perhaps the noble Lords were under a slight misconception as to the non-exclusion of domains and home farms in the present Bill. I have been reading the noble Viscount's speech on the Second Reading and he said that for the first time in an Irish Act protection had not been offered to the domain or the home farm. It is true that the present Bill gives no
140
powers of compulsorily acquiring land. Powers were given by the Act of 1890, and it is to that Act one would naturally look for any exception to this clause provided that any such exception was then considered necessary or proper. I have never heard that any inconvenience or hardship has been occasioned by the fact that no such Amendment as is now recommended was put forward in relation to that Bill on which it would have been relevant and proper. In this case it is hardly consistent with its general objects. I hope for these reasons noble Lords will think that there is adequate protection, but I shall be glad to hear their views as it is the desire of the Government to recognise that they are in a special position and one which requires every degree of reasonable protection. The suggestion I make is, that they are already protected.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: I am sure your Lordships will hear with great pleasure the opinion of the Lord Chancellor that your Lordships who live in Ireland, and anyone who owns land, is sufficiently protected under the Act of 1890, but I cannot help thinking, I may be wrong, that the Amendment which has been moved protects us a bit more. Your Lordships know well the condition of Ireland at the present moment, and it is quite possible that some individual, through vindictiveness, might attempt to get the better of someone who is his enemy for the time being and who possesses land. For that reason the Amendment I believe protects the holder of land a little better than is provided for in the Bill. It is to the interest of everyone to-day to try and induce as many people to remain in Ireland and farm as possible, and many of the domains to-day are farms. If the words "home farm" are introduced into the Amendment, and into the Bill, they would assist to protect those lands. So far as the local authority is concerned I think the owner is amply protected by the last words in the Amendment. As the Lord Chancellor has said he could appeal to a higher authority. On the other hand the local authority is protected, and I would therefore like to support the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is, of course, not the same Amendment as that which was put forward in the House of Commons and subsequently withdrawn. It is an Amendment which meets some of

141
the criticisms which were made in the House of Commons, and the last words "if sites as suitable can be obtained on other land" does, I think, meet some of the difficulties that were felt, I gather that those of your Lordships who have special knowledge of Ireland are of opinion that this Amendment would be of value and I will therefore adopt this course, if it is convenient I will not finally bind myself to accept it now, but I represent to those who have more direct responsibility than I have in this matter the course of the debate and the view I have formed about it. I will not resist the Notion to insert this Amendment at this stage.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I understood the noble and learned Lord to use the words "suitable sites" instead of "not less suitable."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl made some slight alteration. Perhaps he would be good enough to read out the words he proposes.
THE EARL OF MAYO: "If suitable sites can be obtained on other land."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Those are the words I meant to put in.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHANDON LORD SHANDON moved to insert the following new clause:
".When it is proposed to take lands compulsorily for the purposes of the Act of 1800, and it shall have been proved to the satisfaction of the arbitrator or other authority appointed to assess compensation, that for a period of twelve years prior to the hearing of the claim, such lands or part thereof have been permitted to remain derelict such arbitrator or authority shall award as compensation for purchase of such lands or part thereof as aforesaid, a nominal sum only. Lands shall be deemed to have remained derelict if having been originally occupied by dwelling-houses such houses have been permitted during such period to remain in a ruinous condition unoccupied as dwellings and unproductive."
The noble Lord said: Although I have put down this Amendment, I am not at all pleased with the phraseology of it. It is framed to meet a real difficulty, but it is very hard to frame in suitable language the necessary clause. I should explain, my Lords, how the matter arises. The city of Dublin is a city which is unfortunately to a great extent, so far as its houses are concerned, falling into decay, by reason of
142
the departure for residence to the suburbs of the people who formerly lived in houses within the city boundaries. Unfortunately the trade of Dublin has not, as in the case of London, required the use of the sites which are thus abandoned for trade purposes. The position in Dublin is this. There is a certain class of buildings dating from the eighteenth century, and others of the cheap buildings at the beginning of the nineteenth century. These have been allowed to fall into worse and worse repair. They go through all the stages of decay—first as cheap lodgings, then as tenement houses, and then the time arrives when you read in the newspapers of a house collapsing. At the present time—the figures are somewhat extraordinary—there are over 1,000, as I understand, of those gaps in the older parts of Dublin caused by the simple collapse and decay of buildings.
The position is this. You have got a street in which there are one, two, three, and perhaps half a dozen houses which have probably not only decayed but are lying in ruins. The sites are a kind of no-man's land, being covered with dead cats and tin cans, and so they remain for perhaps forty years. I have known such sites for fully thirty years. The result is not only that these wretched heaps of rubbish are an eye-sore, but there is never the slightest chance of the sites being used for practical purposes; but if there is any compulsory scheme for the acquisition of the sites they at once get a site value of exactly the same value as the adjoining sites where there are tumble down houses which have not yet been closed. If people allow their property to remain uncontrolled, and in the possession of others, for twelve years the law destroys their right to recover it. If people leave sites of this kind absolutely derelict, and an eye-sore, and in a sense a public nuisance for twelve years, it seems fair enough that the Municipal Authorities should have at least a right to take them and utilise them for the purpose of putting up decent, respectable dwellings. Some of these rites are an acre in extent, and of hers will take two or three houses. Unless some power is given to the local authorities this thing will continue. You will have more and more decay and no amelioration of the situation.
The proposal which I make is this, that "When it is proposed to take lands compulsorily for the purposes of the Act of

143
1890, and it shall have been proved to the satisfaction of the arbitrator or other authority appointed to assess compensation, that for a period of twelve years prior to the hearing of the claim, such lands or part thereof have been permitted to remain derelict such arbitrator or authority shall award as compensation for purchase of such lands or Rut thereof as aforesaid, a nominal sum only. Lands shall be deemed to have remained derelict if having been originally occupied by dwelling houses such houses have been permitted during such period to remain in a ruinous condition unoccupied as dwellings and unproductive." The last words have been put in to meet an obvious injustice which might be done. The ruins may still be productive in the sense of rent being paid continuously to the head landlord, and of course it frequently happens that leases in Ireland have no clause of re-entry, and all the landlord can do is to receive his rent. Of course in cases of that kind he ought to be compensated if the site is taken, and consequently it occurred to me to put in this provision.
Even so I am not satisfied, but there is a real difficulty to be met, and I suggest to the Government that even though they may not see their way to accept this particular Amendment, on Report they should do something to meet this question. The question was raised in another place, when a proposal which I think was most unfair was withdrawn. The Amendment there proposed was to hand over sites after five years. That would obviously be unfair. I suggest twelve years because it exactly follows the analogy of the Statute of Limitations. I think that the landlord who allows his land to become derelict, useless and unproductive, is in the same position as the man who abandons his property for twelve years and allows someone else to take it.
Amendment moved—
Insert the said new clause—(Lord Shandon.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord who has moved this Amendment told us he was rather dissatisfied with some points of form in the drafting, but I submit to your Lordships that there are defects in the Amendment which are more serious than form and go very much to the question of substance. What in fact does this clause propose to do. It proposes that if this land lies derelict for twelve years it may be
144
acquired compulsorily by the local authority without compensation, or with only nominal compensation. So that the proposal is a definite proposal that if the land has so lain, after twelve years it shall be confiscated. I do not know whether a proposal of that kind commends itself very strongly to your Lordships. The noble Lord has laid stress upon the fact that in Dublin and some other places there are these derelict sites and houses, and he suggests that if the owners have allowed them to continue in this state for twelve years or so they should get nothing for them at all. I should like to point out this, that if this is really the case, and if the land has lain derelict for that time, it will be very difficult when the local authority acquires this land compulsorily for the owners, or those who have rights in the land, to prove there is much value. I submit it would be much better therefore to leave the matter to assessment in the ordinary Way under the Housing Acts—to assess whatever compensation there may be due rather than to draw the knife across it and say there shall be no compensation at all.
I should like to point this cut also, that this proposal is not only very sweeping but it may be also exceedingly unfair, because there may be many reasons other than mere culpability on the part of the owners to account for this land being allowed to be in this position. For instance, we have heard of legal proceedings about lands, which take a considerable time not only in this country but in Ireland. Then there is the case of boycotting, which has nothing to do with the culpability of the individual. Nothing could have been done on the land; further there are, of course, all those difficulties with which we are quite familiar in the matter of building and altering buildings during the war. A similar Amendment—I do not know whether it was quite in the same words—
LORD SHANDON: Not in the same words.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think it was somewhat similar. Anyhow, the point made by the Chief Secretary applies also in this ease, that if the land was undeveloped the land which would have been subject to land duty therefore would have been paying some charge to the State. But I submit that the provisions of the Housing Acts, as they are, are not capable of dealing with this particular question, and it is un-

145
necessary and unadvisable to introduce a purely confiscatory Amendment which would enable the State to take land without giving any value for it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Amendment moved—
*Page 8, lines 21 and 22, leave out ("so much of section eleven of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, as") and insert ("section six of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1911, which").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 30, leave out ("the local authority") and insert ("a local authority within the meaning of Part III of the Act of 1890").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 10, leave out ("or council").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14:
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 11, leave out ("from the date").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 36, at beginning insert ("In the case of loans made") and after ("period") insert ("after the passing of this Act").—(The Lad Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
Loans to private persons.
16. During a period of two years from the passing of this Act, the money which may be advanced by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland to any private person for the purpose of constructing houses for the working classes on
146
the security of a mortgage of any land or dwellings solely may, if the Commissioners think fit, and if the houses are constructed in accordance with plans approved by the local Government Board, exceed the amount specified in subsection (2) of section sixty-seven of the Act of 1890, but shall not exceed seventy-five per cent. of the value of the estate or interest in such land or dwellings proposed to be mortgaged, and advances may be made by instalments from time to time as the building of the houses on the land mortgaged progresses, so that the total of the advances do not at any time exceed the amount last mentioned, and a mortgage may accordingly be made to secure advances so to be made from time to time.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved to leave out "two" ["During a period of two years"] and insert "five." The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment which I should have thought would commend itself to the Government, but I will not waste the time of your Lordships for more than a moment upon it. This clause limits the period for which money is to be lent to two years, and I should have thought that, considering how long it takes to get to work and how difficult it is at present to get materials and labour, that it would more have met the view of the Government if they had decided to advance the money for five years from the passing of this Act, granted that security was excellent in every case and there being no possible loss to the Government in the transaction. If this were a matter in which the Government were leaking a sacrifice I would not-trouble your Lordships upon it, but that is not so, and I hope the noble and learned Lord will not think that I am doing anything except to forward the interests of the Bill in suggesting that what has been a great concession to landlords—namely, that they should be able when necessary and when they need capital to borrow for five years on giving proper security—should be introduced into this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 9, leave out ("two") and insert ("five").—(Viscount Midleton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I doubt whether the noble Viscount would be wise in pressing this Amendment. Clause 16 authorises the Board of Works in Ireland to lend money to private persons for housing purposes to an amount not exceeding 75 per cent. of the value of the property for two years. The noble Viscount seeks to extend the two years to a period of five years. In the first place this is clearly a case of a privilege Amendment, and unless there is

147
some point of very real and evident substance in a privilege Amendment it may be a question whether it is wise to send it to another place. Here I do not think that the view would be taken, or we could reasonably ask that it should be taken, in another place that there was such a point of substance, because the period has been limited to two years in both the corresponding English and Scottish clauses, and the English clause has actually been accepted by your Lordships.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 26, after ("authority'') insert ("within the meaning of Part III of the Act of 1890, of the district in which the house is situated")
Page 11, lines 28 and 29, leave out ("of the district in which the house is situated").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18:
Amendments moved—
Page 12, line 23, leave out ("carried") and insert ("constructed and laid")
Page 12, line 31, leave out ("which are")
Page 12, line 36, after ("authority") insert ("or on appeal, the Local Government Board").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I need only say about the Amendments in my name on this clause that they insert in this Bill the view which your Lordships took on Lord Bledisloe's Amendment to the English Bill.
Amendments moved—
Page 15, line 18, after ("may") insert ("make application to the county court and the county court may")
Page 15, line 30, leave out ("local authority") and insert ("county court")
Page 15, line 32, leave out ("local authority") and insert ("county court")
Page 15, line 33, leave out lines 33 to 36 inclusive
Page 15, line 37, leave out ("subsections (3) and (4)") and insert ("subsection (3)")
Page 15, line 38, after ("thirty-seven") insert ("except subsection (4)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20:
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 15, leave out ("plans approved") and insert ("any regulations made").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved to insert the following new clause:".—(1) It shall be lawful for any local authority, public utility society, or housing trust having provided houses under any such scheme as is referred to in this Act to sell, with the approval of the Local Government Board, all or any of those houses to any persons residing or intending to reside therein. Provided that this section shall not apply to ally house of which, in the opinion of the local authority, the market value exceeds eight hundred pounds. (2) Nothing in this Act shall exclude or interfere with the operation of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899 (as amended by this Act), in relation to any such house as aforesaid."
The noble Lord said: I apologise to the House for not being here to move the first Amendment which my noble friend Lord Mayo moved on my behalf. It was perhaps not unsuitable in a Bill concerning Ireland and was a consequential Amendment relating to other Amendments which have not yet been submitted to the House. The first of these I now propose to move. These Amendments are all moved at the request of the Corporation of Belfast, not merely for selfish reasons, but because they believe that such alteration will be of benefit to the Bill as a whole and to Ireland. I am sure that your Lordships will give them that consideration which is their due coming from a body of such importance.
The first Amendment which I propose is a new clause after Clause 20 giving power to local authorities, public utility societies, or housing trusts to sell all or any of the houses to any persons residing or intending to reside therein. I should like to point out that this is subject to their obtaining the approval of the Local Government Board, and that proviso certainly makes it less difficult to grant their request. It is doubtful if the above-mentioned societies and authorities have power to sell or otherwise dispose of houses provided under the scheme, and it is desirable to remove any

149
ambiguity on that point. Section (1) of the Bill provides that a Scheme should be prepared and submitted to the Local Government Board under Part III of the Working Classes Act, 1890, but Part III of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, makes no provision for the sale of houses, and a doubt may arise as to the power to sell.
In the Report of the committee appointed to inquire into the housing question it will be found that they strongly recommended that these powers should be given. I find that in paragraphs 74 and 75 of that Report it is said—
"We desire, however, to point out the advantages of selling to owners for their own occupation. These advantages could be attained to some extent by empowering local authorities and public utility societies, with the approval of the central authority in both cases, to sell the new houses to prospective occupying owners.''
It seems desirable that local authorities should have the power to sell to tenants desirous of purchasing, inasmuch as the sale would be to the obvious interest of both parties. And, in addition to encouraging thrift on the part of the tenant, and ultimately snaking him the owner of the house, the sale would enable local authorities and public utility societies to release a portion of the capital expenditure on a scheme, and would thereby put them in funds for the purpose of further development in the way of building operations.
Amendment moved—
Insert the said new clause.—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend has moved a new clause to enable a local authority, public utility society, or housing trust which Elias provided houses, to sell them to any person residing or intending to reside therein. The proposition itself is completely unexceptionable. The only thing which, in his zeal, the noble Lord has omitted to notice is that this proposal is already embedded in a previous portion of the Bill. If my noble friend will look at Clause 10 (1) (b), he will see that among the powers of the local authority are these:—With the consent of the Local Government Board, they may sell or lease any houses on the land; and this quite clearly gives fully that power to local authorities which the noble Lord wishes to give them, with his usual generosity, a second time.
150
As regards the trusts and public utility societies, I submit that that portion of his. Amendment is really unnecessary or inadvisable. It is unnecessary because these societies have power to draw up rules under which they can sell these buildings so erected to their members or their tenants, and therefore they do not want any statutory authority to do it. I would suggest that it is much better to allow them to cleat with their own property in their own way, just as my noble friend would desire to deal with his own property in his own way, and net impose upon them any sort of obligation which they really might find rather inconvenient. I hope, therefore, my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My noble friend tells me that the provision is already in the Bill, and I gladly take it from him that that is so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord must not be under any delusion. My noble friend said that as far as the local authorities were concerned the power was in the Bill. He must not think that my noble friend said that housing trusts and public utility societies are covered by 10 (1) (b). What he said was that these bodies conducted their affairs under rules, which no doubt had been very carefully considered, and it would be desirable to make quite sure that they wanted them altered by Statute before your Lordships did so.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I understood that, but I was speaking principally on behalf of local authorities.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendments on this clause are purely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 16, line 39, leave out ("the lessee of") and insert ("any person interested in")
Page 16, Page 17, line 3, after ("that") insert ("by reason of")
Page 16, line 4, leave out ("do not admit of such conversion") and insert ("or of any restrictive covenant affecting the house or otherwise, such conversion is prohibited or restricted")
Page 16, line 5, leave out ("entitled to any interest in the house") and insert ("interested")
Page 17, line 6, after ("lease") insert ("or other instrument imposing the prohibition or restriction").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22:
Repair of houses.
22.—(1) If the owner of any house suitable for occupation by persons of the working classes fails to make and keep such house in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation then, without prejudice to any other powers, the local authority may serve a notice upon the owner of such house requiring him within a reasonable time, not being item than twenty-one days specified in the notice, to execute such works as may be necessary to make the house in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation.
(2) if the notice given by the local authority is not complied with, the authority may, at the expiration of the time specified in the notice given by them to the owner, do the work required to be done.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON had on the Paper an Amendment, at the end of subsection (1), after "habitation," to insert "Provided that the owner may, within twenty-one days after the receipt of such notice, by written notice to the local authority, declare his intention of closing the house for human habitation, and thereupon a dosing order shall be deemed to have become operative in respect of such house."
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Before the noble Viscount moves, may I save a little time? This is the same Amendment as was adopted in the, English Bill, and I accept it subject to a point I have not time to look into, as to whether or not this covers a small Amendment which the Commons made to the Lords Amendment upon this point, and in which the Lords acquiesced last night. I am not sure that this point is raised, but subject to that I accept it.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: In the Commons Amendment it was only where the house required complete reconstruction that the closing order was allowed. Now in Ireland we have a very strong reason for asking for different treatment. The whole circumstances are different. In the first place, I am afraid there are a great number of houses in Ireland which should be rebuilt completely, but which would not, from the Irish point of view, be held to need complete reconstruction, and
152
we are therefore apprehensive of the position which the landlord may be put in vis à vis the local authorities in this respect.
With regard to closing, there is this great difference between Ireland and England. In this country there has been a great increase of population. Ireland has had a diminishing population, and I believe I am right in saying that there is only one town in the south of Ireland at this moment which had a larger population at the last census than at the one before. Therefore there is not the same objection which the House of Commons took to closing a house where it is absolutely necessary in Ireland. The House of Commons refused your Lordships' Amendment on the ground that it was not desirable to close any houses at this moment in this country. And therefore they only took it where total reconstruction was needed. But I would tell your Lordships, in case it has escaped you, that the Minister in charge of the Scotch Bill actually in Grand Committee put down this very clause, and only withdrew it because the question was in debate between the two Houses. So that it was in the mind of the Government, as much as it was in the mind of the noble Lord who moved it here.
I am afraid we regard this Clause as vital. We base ourselves on this point, first that the whole object of the Clause is to get the local authorities to build for themselves where it is needed, and nothing would be more unwise than to give them the loophole of saying "We can go upon the owner of the houses, bad as they may be, and say 'Put these rotten houses (if they are rotten) in better condition and avoid our having to borrow for building property.'" That is most undesirable. But, in addition, we have to remember what the noble and learned Lord said so truly at the beginning of the discussion. The circumstances of Ireland at this moment are such that it would not be fair to leave the owner without proper protection from the local authority. I would add that, in the opinion of all my noble friends with whom I have consulted, it would have been very preferable that this work should be carried out by Commissioners rather than by the local authorities. This is what we had hoped, and I do not think it would have been a greater charge upon the Government.
There is one other remark I should like to make now to save time. The Amend-

153
ment which follows asks for the additional protection of an appeal to the Local Government Board. I think that is most necessary. At this moment the local authority might come in and say, "You have twelve houses put them all in tenantable repair at once; we give you two months to do it." Unless you could go to the Local Government Board who would probably say that nobody could do it under four or six months in the present condition of Ireland you have the local authority putting in their own man with an unlimited power to spend any amount of money they like. For this reason I hope that the noble and learned Lord will realise that we have the fullest possible justification for what we are asking. If it is not possible to concede this, at any rate we feel that the Government ought to establish some intervening authority between the local authority and the owner.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 17, after ("habitation") insert ("Provided that the owner may, within twenty-one days after the receipt of such notice, by written notice to the local authority, declare his intention of closing the house for human habitation, and thereupon a closing order shall be deemed to have become operative in respect of such house")
Page 17, line 19, after ("with") insert ("and if the owner has not given such notice as aforesaid").—(Viscount Midleton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am obliged to the noble Viscount for his clear explanation; in fact, I discovered while he was speaking that what I had before me was the Scottish clause (to which he referred) which was at one time proposed. The Government is able to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next three Amendments are purely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 17, line 22, leave out ("expense") and insert ("expenses")
Page 17, line 39, after ("and") insert ("if recovered from the occupier")
Page 17, line 39, after ("deducted") insert ("by him").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I accept the next Amendment, which is one-standing in the name of the noble Viscount.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 4, at end insert as a new subsection:
"(6) Any question arising between the owner and the local authority as to the reasonable nature of any notice given by the authority to the owner under this section shall be determined by the Local Government Board whose decision shall be, final."—(Viscount Midleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: The clause which I now move is in the English Bill, and was accepted by the other House of Parliament.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
".Subject to any conditions prescribed by the Local Government Board with the consent of the Treasury, any bricks or other building materials which have been acquired by a Government Department for the purposes of the erection or improvement of houses for the working classes, may, during a period of five years from the passing of this Act, be sold to any person who undertakes to use the same forthwith for the purpose of erecting or improving houses for the working classes, and to comply with the said conditions at a price sufficient to cover the cost of replacement at the time of the sale of the materials so sold."—(Viscount Midleton.).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 29 agreed to.
Clause 30:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 22, at end insert ("Provided that any rules with respect to the qualifications or conditions of employment of architects to be so employed, shall be made after consultation with the President of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: All these Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, line 37, leave out the first ("sell") and insert ("sale") and leave out ("the power to sell") and insert ("sale")
Page 20, line 39, leave out ("sale") and insert ("sell")
Page 21, line 3, leave out ("Act, 1893, or any amendment thereof") and insert ("Acts, 1893 to 1913")
Page 21, line 17, after ("in") insert ("section one hundred and nine of the Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847, or section forty-three of the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, or in")
Page 21, line 18, after ("buildings") insert ("including the drainage thereof")
Page 21,line 19, after ("construction") insert ("and drainage").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32:
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved to insert as a new subsection: "(2) Where a local authority being the council of a county borough are satisfied, in accordance with section two of the said Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899, as to the value of and title to the ownership of a house in respect of which they have received an application for an advance then, unless and except so far as the Local Government Board may in any particular case otherwise direct, the title to the premises in respect of which the advance is made together with the charge securing the advance shall forthwith, upon the application of the local authority, be registered under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, and the advance may be made without any further investigation of such value or title or any sanction of the Local Government Board."
The noble Lord said: I can understand that the Government may find a little difficulty in accepting this new subsection, because naturally there is very strong feeling that all questions of title in matters of this kind should be absolutely cleared up. But I think I shall be able to prove that there is ground for making an exception in the case to which I refer. I should like to point out in the first place that I only suggest that this subsection should operate in the case of a local authority which is the council of a county borough, and there are only six such in Ireland. The existing practice under the Act is that after investigation of title by the local authority, and valuation made on their behalf by
156
their valuer, further investigation of the title has to be made by the registration authority in Dublin. The registration authority in Dublin who makes this second investigation of title has to investigate the various titles arising out of sales under the Land Acts in Ireland. In consequence of the numerous titles he has to investigate, much delay necessarily ensues in investigating a. title sent up under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act. Furthermore the valuer who is sent down by the Local Government Board to make the second valuation usually waits until a number of valuations accumulate and in consequence the completion of any one franc-action frequently occupies as long as five or six months. It is found in practice that this militates very much against the free working of the Act, as a vendor is not prepared to lie out of the purchase money for six months after making the contract for sale, and the Corporation are not in a position to advance the loan until the title together with the charge is registered. It should be noted that the Treasury are in no way concerned with the transaction as the advances are made out of moneys raised by the corporation, therefore any loss accruing owing to a blot on the title or fraudulent valuation would fall upon the corporation.
I understand that there is some doubt about this point, and I should like to point out to the noble and learned Lord that I believe it is the case under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act that the Government hold the corporation liable to them and can therefore recover from them. In the case of Belfast there has not been an instance where, after the title has been proved to their satisfaction, it has been rejected by the Registration authority in Dublin. The same observation applies to the valuation made by the Valuer of the local authority. When an Amendment similar to this was before the Committee of the House of Commons it was objected to by the Attorney-General on the ground that it made no provision for the registration of the charge. The noble and learned Lord will see that this has been rectified in my Amendment as it now stands. The Attorney-General also suggested that Clause 7 of the Bill enabled the purchaser to enter into possession of the premises, but I understand that, as a matter of fact, neither the purchaser nor the vendor is satisfied with this clause, and that it would be im-

157
possible for the property to change hands under it. In these circumstances I hope the Government may see their way to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 37, at the end insert the said now subsection.—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is not a possible Amendment, and it deals with a very important subject-matter—the registration of the title of a house on the security of which a local authority is advancing money to the tenant to enable him to purchase his house under the Small Dwellings Acquisition. Act. Now, that Act requires that the title of a house should be registered under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, which corresponds to the English Land Transfer Act. What is the effect of this registration? The effect of it is that the validity of the title registered is guaranteed by the State—a somewhat important matter. Any mistake in the registration may not only cause grave injury but it may be the subject of a claim for compensation to be made out of public moneys.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: Which will fall upon the corporation to pay.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Lord kindly wait a moment? I am not even clear about that. It is necessary that all titles should be carefully investigated before they ace registered, and this is done by the Central Office of the Land Registry of Ireland, a Government Department which, as the noble Lord knows, is equipped with a fully qualified staff of experts. If it be the fact that the intention of this Amendment is that such charges and claims should be borne by the local authority, it is certainly not the fact that even the local authorities in Ireland specified by the mover are equipped with a staff of experts in any way comparable to those who have collected years, and indeed generations, of experience in doing their registration work. It is proposed in effect that if the county borough council is satisfied with the title it is to be registered without any further investigation on the part of the Land Registry. As the noble Lord will remember, the Chief Secretary said in the debate in another place that he would take immediate steps to expedite
158
the proceedings in the Land Registry, and effect, of course, will be given to this assurance. Your Lordships will not fail to observe further that the Amendment seeks to make the local authority's estimate of value conclusive. That is a very dangerous provision. The value of the premises, of course, is a matter in which the Board of Works are concerned as they may be called upon to advance the money to the local authority. If there were no others, that would be a grave objection to the proposal of the noble Lord, and I hope your Lordships will not give any encouragement to this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved to insert the following new clause: "In exercise of the powers of borrowing conferred by Part III of the Act of 1890 and by the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899, respectively, any local authority being the council of a county borough may for the purposes of those enactments, or either of them, or for any purposes of this Act to which capital is properly applicable with the sanction of the Local Government Board borrow money by way of overdraft from their bankers and may apply in or towards the payment of interest on and the repayment of money so borrowed such of their funds, rates, and revenues as may be approved for that purpose by the Local Government Board."
The noble Lord said: This clause has also been suggested by the Corporation of Belfast. Its object is to enable local authorities to borrow on an overdraft from their bankers. I should like to point out the safeguards attending this. In the first place, it can be done only with the sanction of the Local Government Board; in the second place, it can be done only by a local authority which is the council of a county borough. This case is limited even further than the former case, because in all cases where the valuation is under £200,000 the money is advanced by the Government, and this is the case with all the urban authorities in Ireland with the exception of Dublin and Belfast, so it would really affect only those two towns. This would enable the local authority to borrow on overdraft at their bankers, and the financing of housing schemes would be greatly facilitated.
It is obvious that the capital expenditure on a large scheme must be spread over

159
a substantial period owing to the shortage of both labour and material. I understand that Belfast proposes an expenditure of something like £5,000,000 on houses. It will generally be found that one large loan can be raised by a local authority on more favourable terms than a series of smaller loans. Thus, by borrowing from bankers, local authorities will be able to avoid the issue of small loans and save the payment of interest on money that might otherwise have to be raised before it was required. Perhaps I might illustrate this. Suppose that Belfast or Dublin decide to raise £2,000,000. Under the Bill as it stands at present they will have to raise the £2,000,000 at once. They would probably only be able to spend about £500,000; and therefore with the other £1,500,000 all they could do would be to put it on deposit at the bank for which they would get 3 per cent, while they would be paying perhaps 8 per cent, on the money advanced. This would not affect them, because I understand the money would be paid to them by the Treasury. Therefore the Amendment is in the interests of the State and not specially of the corporations who may borrow under it. I hope that His Majesty's Government will be able to agree to this new clause being inserted.
Amendment moved—
Insert the said new clause.—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The proposal of my noble friend is that instead of borrowing in the usual way the local authorities should be able to borrow by way of overdraft from bankers on the security, I understand, of these houses. I would suggest to my noble friend that that would be bad local finance. The proper way to deal with the borrowing on housing would be to borrow on longer term loans and stock. Moreover, I am not sure, considering the large sums in which my noble friend was dealing, whether he would find the bankers themselves very anxious to lend these large sums on this sort of security. I certainly know that in England the banks would not do such a thing; I do not know what they do in Ireland.
I am not sure whether my noble friend suggested it, but I think it was part of his suggestion that by borrowing for these short terms, say of six months, from the bankers, these county boroughs might be able at a later date to borrow money at
160
much cheaper rates than they would now and to tide over a difficult period. That no doubt is, if I may say so, a plausible suggestion, but the Treasury take the very strong and definite view upon that point that that hope is entirely illusory. I must confess I prefer their view on the subject to the more hopeful and rosier prognostications of my noble friend. I do not know whether my noble friend is aware that these suggestions have been made already in the case of England and Scotland, and that in both cases the Treasury returned a direct negative. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not, in the case of Ireland and of the Irish banks and Irish towns, press this Amendment to an issue.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: In view of the answer of my noble friend, I feel it is useless to press the clause; but as a matter of fact overdrafts were allowed. I believe £800,000 was allowed to Belfast for the purpose of subscribing to the Victory Loan.
VISCOUNT PEEL: But that security is the finest in the country and one which you can always sell. Houses you cannot.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) Bill reported without amendment.
CHECKWEIGHING IN VARIOUS INDUSTRIES BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order).

LAND SETTLEMENT (FACILITIES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, this Bill which I present to your Lordships for

161
Second Reading is largely brought forward in the redemption of the pledge that has been given on various occasions by the Government to provide a settlement on the land of their country for the soldiers who fought for it. Among those to whom preference is to be given under this Bill are included women who worked for at least six months on the land during the war. I do not wish to base the Bill merely on the claims of ex-Service men, because among those who will enjoy the facilities, although they will not get a preference, are others, and the Bill is therefore wider than the Bill for fulfilling this particular pledge, but is a part of the general reconstruction scheme of rural England.
The Bill, therefore, must not really be considered alone. We must take also into our consideration other measures of the Government, such as the Housing Bill, the Transport Bill, and also the Acquisition of Land Bill, with which your Lordships will be dealing in a few minutes. The aim of the Bill generally is to increase the number of small-holders and allotment-holders in this country. I should like to give your Lordships some figures showing the number of small-holders there are in this country. At the present time there are 275,000 cultivators of the soil with holdings of less than fifty acres—that is to say, no less than 65 per cent of all the cultivators in this county. Those, of course, are the figures for numbers. When you take acreage the percentage is very much lower. It represents 18 per cent. of the acreage of the cultivated area. Of those 275,000 cultivators no fewer than 18,000 have been created by the results of the Act of 1908, and I think it is a great tribute to the way in which the County Councils have worked that Act and the skill with which they selected the cultivators that there have only been some 2 per cent. of failures among all those who have been so selected.
As regards allotments, before the war there were something like 1,000,000 in England and Wales; there are now 1,800,000, of which 400,000 have been provided by the Board of Agriculture under the Defence of the Realm Act. This increase in allotments is very remarkable. Under the stress of patriotism a great number of people have found that they can cultivate land in small parcels and enjoy doing so; and they prefer their own domestic home-grown cabbage to the more
162
shop-soiled article. Not only that, but a great many people have made all sorts of discoveries in their gardens and have found that it really is a great enhancement to the beauty of an herbaceous border to plant a few adjoining beds either of Brussels sprouts or of cabbage.
The Government recognise of course to the full, the difficulties that there are in the way of smallholders, and they do not minimise at all the hard work that lies before these cultivators. They recognise that these people will have very little leisure and very little time in which to smoke their pipes and contemplate the landscape, or even to study the book of my noble friend, Lord Ernle, on the history of farming. I should like to say here how very much I regret that my noble friend, through indisposition, is not here to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which is his own, and I am sure the House regrets it also. Further, the Government recognise that much skill must be required for developing and working these small-holdings and that trailing must be given to many of these men who, in some cases, are going into agriculture for the first time. They appreciate, too, the fact that capital is essential, as your Lordships well know, for the cultivation of your thirty, forty or fifty acres of land, and provision is made in the Bill for assisting these small hollers with capital. A scheme is arranged by which, I understand, there will be advances by the local authorities to the smallholders, sovereign for sovereign, on any sums they are able to put up themselves.
LORD SHEFFIELD: At what rate of interest?
VISCOUNT PEEL: That will be settled by the Treasury, of course. It has not been decided.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: And what security?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I believe the scheme is not yet fully formulated.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is not in the Bill?
VISCOUNT PEEL: There is a statement that it will be done, but the Rules are not

163
yet fully drawn up. The next difficulty, with which your Lordships are extremely familiar, as chairmen and members of county councils, is that in this country, unlike more fortunate lands, there are not large territories of good, unsettled land on which soldiers can be placed. It is the intention of the Government, and it will be "up to" the county councils, to apply the Act with the least possible disturbance to sitting tenants. They propose, therefore, to deal rather with such cases as multiple farms—that is, where several farms are held by one man—or with land (of which there is a considerable amount) which has been acquired by the War Office, the Air Force and other bodies, which can be let, or with that lard which has not been farmed in the best way and with which, as your Lordships know, agricultural executive committees have had to deal.
The main changes that are introduced into this Bill—and this Bill, I should say, must be read with the parent Bill of 1908—deals with two points. One is the hastening up of procedure in order that arrangements may be made for these small holders as rapidly as possible, and the second point is in connection with finance. The main changes in procedure will be found in Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. Orders for taking land—and this provision operates for three years—will, during that period of three years, not be confirmed by the Board of Agriculture. That is to say, the county councils will have full power, without the assent or confirmation of the Order by the Board of Agriculture, but they will be subject to financial control in order to see that the land is not bought at an excessive price.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What is the object of that provision?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was going to explain that. The object of the provision is this. The Government are very much impressed with the necessity of dealing with the situation as rapidly as possible. They find that, on the average, something like three months is—I was going to say wasted, but, anyhow, is spent before these Orders can be confirmed, and they think that three months is a very valuable time and they wish, at any rate during the transition period of three years, that it may be saved. The next point may strike your Lordships as drastic. In fact, the proposal is, I think, a drastic one. It is that when the
164
Order has been made the local authority, the county council, will be able to enter upon the land after giving a notice of fourteen days. I am advised that at present, under the Land Clauses Act, where the power to take land has been granted them if the money compensation is deposited, they can enter on the land at once. Therefore, the legal position is not much altered, although, I believe, that particular provision has not been acted upon.
I understand that the desire of the Board of Agriculture is not to turn out harshly the sitting tenants, but to enable the local authorities to enter rather on a part of the land in order to begin to build cottages, and so on, and to shape the land in that way as rapidly as possible for the smallholders. Your Lordships may see that there is a subsection in Clause 2 which, in the case of farm houses, limits the period to three months. That is to say, if any shorter notice is given than three months, there is an appeal to the Board. In connection with this I ought to say something about Clauses 3, 4, and 5, and I ought also to point out that it is not likely that the Board of Agriculture would permit these powers to be used harshly because, of course, it is obvious that would very largely increase the compensation to be paid the farmer for disturbance, crops, and so on, thus bringing up the money to be expended in the development of these particular small holdings to an excessive sum.
Under Clause 3 power is given to the Board of Agriculture itself. Your Lordships know that under the parent Act of 1908 there is a power for the Board of Agriculture to act in default of the local authority, but this power has been found to be a somewhat clumsy one and under this Bill the Board take power to act concurrently in the counties with the county councils. Under Clause 4 there is power for three years for the Board of Agriculture to acquire land for the purposes of reclamation and drainage. Under Clause 5 there is a period of two years from the passing of this Bill during which the Board can acquire land for the purposes of farm colonies, although the total amount of land which they may acquire for this purpose is not enlarged under this Bill.
I come now to what is the mast important part of the Bill, namely, that which deals with finance. The Government are fully aware that, owing to the increased price

165
of land (although it has not increased in the same percentage as the price of commodities) and to the great cost of putting up buildings and work incidental to the development of small holdings, the rent, the economic rent, which would have to be charged to the small-holder would be so high, if it was to be the full economic rent, that it would be a mere mockery to pretend these soldiers were being settled on the land. The rule which obtains under the Act of 1908, under which the land is only to be let for a rent which fully recoups the council for its expenditure, will be swept away; and swept away for seven years.
LORD SHEFFIELD: What clause does that?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think it is Clause 26. In another clause you will see that there is a reversion to the old state of things after seven years have elapsed. As the rents to be charged to these persons is to be a reasonable rent, having regard to the general state of the case and the productivity of the land, it is obvious there will be a deficit; and on whom will it fall? The Government decided that the deficit is to fall not on the local authority but on the general taxpayer, and each year during the seven years the bill will be made out and the deficit repaid to the local authorities by the State.
The next point is as to what, happens at the end of the seven years. At the end of that period a valuation is made of the then economic value of the land and holdings, which will be compared with the total cost and with the money that has been borrowed by the local authority for the purchase of the land and its development, and the surplus cost, if I may so call it, or that portion of the loan which is represented by that surplus, will be shouldered entirely by the State.
THE MARQUESS OF SAMSBUEY: That is, it will be written off.
VISCOUNT PEEL: You cannot write it off, but it will fall on the State, and not on the county council. At the end of the seven years the whole of the small holdings in a county will be transferred or left to the county council, who will then be responsible for the holdings without supervision.
LORD SHEFFIELD: The tenant will then pay an economic rent.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The tenant will pay what is called, a reasonable rent.
LORD SHEFFIELD: That is, a rent which will balance with what the Government take over as the extra loss.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes.
LORD PARMOOR: Does the noble Viscount mean that the rents will be put up at the end of seven years?
VISCOUNT PEEL: The rents will then be considered; I do not say they will be increased. There is one more financial proposal which I think I ought to mention, and it is that these loans will not be advanced for the present by the Public Works Loan Commissioners. There will be a separate fund, up to £20,000,000, set aside out of which they will be made. It is quite obvious, and the Government frankly face the position, that in this way a. charge will fall upon the State, but their view is that this position must be faced in view of the necessity of settling more persons on the land and repaying the debt we owe to these ex-Service men; and unless it is faced, and bearing in mind the high price of land and buildings, it will be a mere mockery to suggest that these persons could be settled on these small holdings.
LORD SHEFFIELD: Then £20,000,000 is the whole amount the Government propose to pay?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes, that is for the present. There are one or two changes in the definition of a small holding. Under the present Act a small holding is anything from one acre up to fifty acres, but under Clause 20 that, lower limit is reduced to half an acre, and between half an acre and one acre comes into the definition of a small holding. Your Lordships will see that an obvious relation is thus established between a small holding of that size, with a house upon it, and the Housing Act, and in this particular class of small holding to which I am referring, the house will be built and financed on the "Housing" terms. I do not think I need say much as to the types of small holdings which the Government aim at creating because your

167
Lordships are very familiar with these matters. There is the small holding of from thirty to forty acres, and the type of holding which will not represent whole time work for the occupier, that is, a small holding of two or three acres with a house. Nor need I say anything about the development of farm colonies; another type of small holding with which Lord Bledisloe is familiar.
I come now to the question whether these small holdings so created shall be let or sold to the occupier. There is a provision in the Bill (Clause 11) that during the operation of the financial proposals, that is during seven years, these holdings shall only be sold to the occupier with the consent of the Board of Agriculture. This is a perfectly fair proposal because, as the Government are shouldering this portion of the expense during the seven years, it will be obviously undesirable that people should come in, take advantage of that finance, get hold of the holding, and acquire it at less than the economic value. That must be subject to the approval of the Board.
Then there is an important provision to which I ought to refer, and that is in Clause 16, which removes that absolute protection which existed before from taking for the purpose of small holdings a portion of existing small holdings, or of land which forms part of any park or home farm. As regards the question of small holdings, it has been found that there have been divisions nominally into small holdings just for the purpose of taking advantage of this particular provision, and in some cases it is essential for the development of other small holdings that portions of existing small holdings should be taken. As regards the question of the parks and home farms, your Lordships will see that that provision is carefully guarded, and that they can be taken only if the land is not required for the amenity or convenience of the mansion house. Moreover, there is no power in the local authority to take this land by their own order. That is excepted from the general provision which I have stated, that during the first three years their own order shall be final. Any order which infringes upon an area either of existing small holdings, or park or home farm, must be confirmed by the Board of Agriculture.
There are one or two minor provisions which, I think, I ought to mention. One
168
is in Clause 17, which deals with the power of county councils to acquire land for letting to parish councils for the purpose of allotments. Then there is a power for borough councils and others to buy fruit trees, plants, and other things, and implements, and to sell them to the allotment holders. There is also in Clause 23 an important provision which it is hoped will encourage the provision of allotments, and that is that the landlord is relieved from paying compensation under the Acts to those allotment holders so created. Your Lordships are fully aware that a good deal of difficulty is bound to arise in the near future owing to the creation of a large number of allotments in the vicinity of towns. Many of these allotments will be required for the purpose of housing; and it is considered that it would be very unfortunate if these allotment holders were not able to get fresh allotments to cultivate. Therefore this provision in Clause 23 is introduced for the purpose of substituting, where possible, other land for the land taken away for building purposes.
I have dealt as briefly as I can, considering the width and importance of the subject, with the provisions of the Bill. Of course one can only present a Bill of this kind to your Lordships with the view that necessity does require a drastic alteration in the rules in order to expedite the provision of these small holdings for soldiers and others; and that, again, the financial provision and the assistance given by the State for this period of seven years can only be defended upon the necessity of providing for these men. I hope your Lordships will give something in the nature of a welcome to this Bill, on the ground that in this way we can repay some portion of the debt which we owe to the serving men. This Bill is required further in order to meet those new conditions, growing up in the countryside, with which your Lordships are very familiar and on which I need say no further word.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.(Viscount Peel.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I should like for my part to offer a warm welcome to this Bill, because in my judgment the scheme that it embodies is one which public opinion demands and strongly demands, and which ex-Service men deserve. Personally, I very much regret

169
the absence to-day of the President of the Board of Agriculture, although my noble friend who has introduced the Bill has dealt most dexterously and clearly with it I regret the absence of the President of the Board because, in my judgment, this Bill adumbrates a veritable revolution in agricultural practice, and, if I may so word it, in rural personnel. In my judgment this scheme of largely increasing the occupiers of agricultural land at the expense, to a large extent, of sitting-tenants, is industrially and economically unsound; but at the same time it is in my opinion from a social and political point of view absolutely essential; and I think that the social and political considerations are, more than enough to justify its industrial and economic defects.
May I explain more fully what I mean? The whole trend of our industries at the present time, and this applies very particularly to agriculture, is to conduct them on a, large scale, with every sort of labour-saving appliance and the employment of large amounts of capital. The tendency is, so far as other industries are concerned, to aggregate existing small enterprises in order to achieve their more economic conduct as the result of such aggregation. Here you are deliberately bringing into existence a scheme of an entirely different character, contrary to the whole economic trend of British industry. At the same time in my judgment it can be justified. Not only do we owe this scheme, or a scheme of this description, as a debt to those men who have been fighting for us by sea and land during the last four and a-half years, and who have been led to believe that they would have a chance of at least occupying, if not owning, some portion of the land of this country for which they have, fought, but, from a, wider standpoint still, in my judgment if we are to attain a feeling of contentment in the countryside, and indeed throughout the whole population, we must have a very much larger number of persons both owning and occupying agricultural land than exists at the present time.
I am not at all satisfied that this Bill will sufficiently meet the legitimate aspirations of our ex-Service men. It has been repeatedly represented to them, and it was emphasised during the General Election last winter, that they would have an opportunity of becoming the owners of the land that they would occupy. I think the Prime
170
Minister himself, in somewhat general language which is certainly interpreted in that way, referred to what happened in the case of Augustus and other Roman Emperors. When they achieved great victories they took the opportunity of celebrating them by making grants, or, in other words, giving what we should now call a freehold interest in agricultural land to the soldiers who had so faithfully served the Empire. That, at any rate, is the impression which was left on the minds of a very large number of ex-Service men throughout this country, and that is in fact the process which has been facilitated to a very great extent in our Overseas Dominions. There is no provision in this Bill that I can discover which improves the position of the small-holder in this respect beyond what the existing Small Holding Act contains. Under that no less than 20 per cent. of the purchase price has at once to be provided, and even if that percentage is provided by the intending freeholder it is at the option of the county councils to deny to him a freehold interest. This Bill perpetuates that liberty on the part of the county councils to deny even to an ex-Service holder the privilege of a freehold proprietary settlement. I hope that your Lordships will support an Amendment which I understand will be moved in order to carry out in effect what many ex-Service men regard as having been an undertaking on the part of the Prime Minister and others during the course of the last General Election.
Reference is made in this Bill to small holding colonies. For my part I welcome the extension of the small holdings colony system, where it can be achieved, without removing the men too far from their own home surroundings. I doubt very much whether the small holdings colony scheme is going to be particularly popular throughout the country, because my experience leads me to believe that the majority of men who have served in the war prefer to remain in their own districts if suitable small holdings can be provided for them. The great advantage of the colony system undoubtedly is that it does enable co-operative methods to be developed and extended to a maximum, to a greater extent in fact than under any other system, and what I want to appeal to the Government to do—bearing in mind that they are, as I said, contrary to the present economic trend of the industry putting small men upon small parcels of land, many of them with-

171
out the necessary amount of experience, a considerable number without the necessary capital—is that they should not leave these unfortunate people to their fate, but that they should bring into existence and at once such co-operative machinery in the several localities in which the holdings are provided as will put them upon a securer economic basis than they can possibly be on if left as separate industrial entities. The county councils have not proceeded very far in this connection, and I doubt very much, without some stimulus from the Government, whether in many parts of the country these co-operative developments in connection with small holdings will in fact take place. The Agricultural Organisation Society is doing magnificent work in this connection, but we are still slower in adopting or in applying co-operative methods to our agricultural industry than any other country in Europe, with the possible exception of Russia. In all these countries where small holdings have been an undoubted success, particularly in Denmark and Belgium, their success has been due almost exclusively, but not exclusively, to the sound co-operative basis upon which they have been erected.
I welcome the provision in the Bill for what is popularly called cottage holdings, because I fancy this particular type of holding, between half an acre and an acre, will provide for the requirements of a considerable number of men who do not want or expect to depend upon their holdings for their living. Many of these men no doubt will be disabled soldiers in receipt of an Army pension, who can supplement their pension by working intensively a small plot of land which will adjoin their cottages. I think that is a far less risky process of small settlements than holdings of from 20 to 100 acres in cases where there is but little capital or experience. What I am surprised to note in the public Press is that so far so small a demand appears to be made by ex-Service men for this class of holding. At first sight the displacement of sitting tenants at no more than fourteen days' notice sounds a little drastic, and I cannot help thinking that the period might have been somewhat extended without in any way retarding the process of putting this Bill into operation.
I rather regret that it is deemed necessary, although from what the noble Viscount has suggested I can appreciate the reason, for obtaining beforehand the consent of the
172
Board of Agriculture before any land is purchased during the next seven years by County Councils for the purpose of these holdings, because that will be a retarding factor at a time when County Councils are very anxious to get on with this work, and, if possible, to take advantage of the numerous auction sales which are now going on throughout the country to buy, not with the knowledge that the public purse is going to provide money—or in other words that a public authority is in the market—but to take advantage of the facilities which the public auction provides of obtaining holdings at the lowest market value. This seems to be an impossible or very difficult process if the consent of the Board of Agriculture is a condition precedent to any purchase, and I assume in that connection that the actual purchase price will have to be agreed before any bid can be made on behalf of the county council at an auction sale.
I notice an entirely new provision in connection with small holdings in the provision of loans to county councils to provide live-stock, seeds, fertilisers, and other raw materials of the agricultural industry, and that this provision is to be made to extend to parish councils—an entirely new departure—who are going to be allowed to purchase these requisites assuming that they are satisfied that co-operative facilities in the district are not adequate for the purpose. I do not much believe in trading on the part of local authorities, and it is rather difficult to see where this particular process may lead us if unduly developed, but I do foresee in the case of parish councils—bearing in mind that on those councils in many cases there are a large number of small shopkeepers—a considerable prejudice against the process being carried on by the parish council, and also very little desire on the part of the members of such a council to develop co-operative enterprise which is deemed to be contrary to their commercial interests.
There is no part of this Bill—which is in many senses an omnibus Bill, because it deals with many other matters besides small holdings—that I more warmly welcome than Clause 4, which relates to reclamation and draining. Throughout the whole of this country to-day there is an enormous need for improved drainage of agricultural land, and there are very few landowners who are in a position to undertake this work

173
with their somewhat attenuated resources. And even if they did undertake- it, they would fail in many cases in undertaking it efficiently unless a more comprehensive scheme extending over a larger area than they control is put in hand.
I venture to say that a great deal of land which was inefficiently drained some fifty or sixty years ago is to-day producing far less agricultural produce than it is capable of producing, and germination upon it is undoubtedly seriously retarded owing to its waterlogged or semi-waterlogged condition, as a result of the drains being choked or, in many cases, of their having been laid too far apart, or at too great a depth below the surface. I am sure there is no matter in which the Board of Agriculture can do more uselful work than improving, with the help of Government funds, the drainage of agricultural land throughout the country.
This, of course, applies with at least as much force to reclamation of land. There are large areas of most admirable lard, or potentially fertile land, close to our seashore and on the banks of our estuaries to-day which certainly could, by scientific reclamation methods, be converted into extremely valuable and productive farm land. I have some doubt as to whether the prospects of reclaiming a large amount of down and moor land are going to meet with the success which the Board of Agriculture seems to anticipate. Much of that land, I should have thought, could much more usefully be put under timber than reclaimed with a view to its being agricultural land. There are many cases—one jumps to my mind at this moment, that of Hollesley Bay, Suffolk—where reclamation of this character has been undertaken at very great cost, with no proportionate return for the expenditure involved in that attempted reclamation.
I should like to express the hope that a small provision in Clause 21 which relates to Stamp Duty will extend the benefit of exemption from Stamp Duty not merely to prospective allotment holders, but to allotment holders' societies, which are being constituted in various parts of the country, and which have rendered the cultivation of allotments a more economically sound venture than they would in many cases otherwise have been. In this connection I should like to say that I, for my part—and I doubt whether I shall altogether carry your Lordships with me—
174
warmly welcome the continuation of the allotments policy which has been such a success during the years of war. The more you bring our great industrial population in contact with mother earth, the more they will appreciate the difficulties that agriculturists have to. face, and the more contented, in my judgment, will they become, and, I may also add, to a greater extent will they be carrying out what I believe to be a natural function in which all men should take part.
My own experience in this connection as a Poor Law guardian in days gone by is that not a single man who has a good garden or allotment, and knows how to cultivate it, will ever go into the workhouse, because he always has a reserve upon which he can fall back to provide himself with food to a large extent, and, in ways such as these, possibly to put something upon the market to help out his domestic resources. For my part I trust that your Lordships will warmly receive this Bill as an instalment of a new agricultural policy, with the hope that the Government will not discourage what some of us regard as legitimate Amendments of their scheme.
I should only, in conclusion, like to add that I regret that the noble Viscount who has expounded this Bill to us has made no reference whatever to the particular authority which is going to be the chief Government agent in carrying out the provisions of this Bill—namely, the new County Agricultural Committees, which were referred to in the original Bill, as it was introduced in the House of Commons, and for which, as I understand, provision is now going to be made in an entirely new Bill, the Board of Agriculture Bill, under which these authorities will come to be set up, and which, in fact, while being statutory Committees of the County Councils, will at the same time be branches of the Board of Agriculture and agents for them in carrying out this work of rural reconstruction.
LOAD WITTENHAM: My Lords, I for my part, in common with the rest of your Lordships no doubt, must very warmly welcome a Bill of this kind. Promises have been made to our soldiers and sailors, the men who have fought, and so many of whom have come back mutilated, and those promises have to be fulfilled. I am not going to follow my noble friend into the details of this complicated matter, which he knows so very much better than I do, but

175
there is one subject on which I do claim to have some slight knowledge, and that is the financial aspects of this case.
I hope that some noble Lord will mention this whenever a Bi l is brought forward in this House. We have to remember that before the war we were a very rich country; to-day we are a very, very poor country. It is easy enough—anybody can do it—to pull a string, so to speak, and tell the people that a shower of gold will drop down—from the heavens, I suppose, because that is what the people think: you pull the string, and the money has to come out of the pocket of the taxpayer. It is no good crying for "Economy, economy, economy," if, whenever a matter is brought forward (and it may be necessary—we are between the devil and the deep sea there)—it is no good with one side of the mouth crying out "Economy, economy, economy," and with the other "Spend, spend, spend." Wherever we twin it is "subsidy," and somebody must speak for the taxpayer: bread, £40,000,000 to £50,000,000 a year; the providing of houses, Heaven knows how many millions a year! coal—on the edge of a subsidy; and so on through everything everywhere. Here again the noble Viscount below me made it clear, as indeed it had already become apparent, that Clause 26 meant that the country was going to be involved in a loss, and probably a very serious one, for many years to come.
Let us understand. It has to be done, but do not let us do it with any doubt in our mind as to the result. For the next seven or eight years, both annually and at the end of the eight years, capitally there is going to be a large loss. Why? Because the authority will have to borrow money at, perhaps, a high rate. The bank-rate will not remain at 3 per cent.; the moment it is let loose it wil go higher. The soldier and the sailor, I assert without fear of contradiction, cannot possibly pay an economic rent, whether you take the cost of the land, or of the buildings, or of the equipment. Therefore year by year there will be a deficit, and probably at the end of eight years there will be a large capital loss to be made good. It may be necessary in the common weal; but there comes a point when the nation, like an individual, has to say, "I would give anything to do this; I know it is the right thing to do; but my purse does not allow it." We all know that we are living in a false world; you are not facing the realities. We know
176
that the nation cannot afford half-a-dozen of the schemes which are being brought forward one by one.
What I am going to say now is said in no Party sense. I have no Party. I can speak only what I think. There must be a halt somewhere. I may be wrong (I hope I am) but in Clause 26 (2)—this may be a Committee point; I think it is a Second Reading point—it appears that the draftsman of the Bill has not been satisfied with recoupment for losses which may be incurred by putting our soldiers and sailors on the land, because the subsection seems to be retrospective, unless there is a misprint. Ought this to be tucked in a patriotic Bill? Because it is patriotism to which you are appealing; we should not think of passing this if it were not for the sake of patriotism. Subsection (2) of Clause 26 says—
"The Board shall on the passing of this Act pay to a council of the county the loss, if any, which may be shown to the satisfaction of the Board to have been reasonably or necessarily incurred by the council in the exercise of their powers under the principal Act during the period from the first day of January, 1908, to the thirty-first day of March, 1919."
Have we been running at a loss and the confession has never been made, and row, under camouflage, are you going to ask the taxpayer to pay back the losses from 1908 onwards, if there have been any? It is a serious matter to ask this House to do that. It is difficult enough to meet our future liabilities; are you going to sweep up past liabilities and tuck them into this measure? I am sure that the noble Viscount who introduced this Bill will have a satisfactory explanation to offer for a course of this kind.
I venture with all humility to end on the note on which I began—namely, that you will have to call a financial halt somewhere, and some day soon, or it is as certain as possible that this country must go into bankruptcy. I said two and a-half years ago in the House of Commons that the whole of Europe would be bankrupt. The House of Commons laughed, and the financial papers laughed. Are they laughing to-day? No; because we all see that it is a fact. Facilis descensus when one gets on the edge of the slippery slope; and no one dare face it. I agree with what Lord Buckmaster said; and I told Lord Milner last night, when he said he did not agree with the £800,000,000 Budget for next year, that I felt tolerably certain that it was going to be an £800,000,000 Budget.

177
And all this kind of thing helps. This thing has to be done; you have promised it to the country and you must do it; but do not forget that you are doing it with a purse which is full of holes, and most of the money you have left is slipping away as fast as it can.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, I should not presume to say a word as a financier; I have not the smallest conception whether England is or is not heading straight to bankruptcy. I hope to God it is not; that's all. But I really do not see that we are going headlong to bankruptcy because we are going to extend the system of small holdings. I have been a believer in small holdings all my life. One-fourth of my estate—I have nothing except land upon which to live—is under small holdings, and I have had no difficulty in getting the rents, though I have had the estate for fifty years. In fact in Lincolnshire, where there are three farms let to a Small Holdings Association—they have had it for twenty-five years—they have never asked for one reduction in the rent, and at the present moment the tenants are paying £1 an acre less than they would pay if they were taking up allotments now.
I am very proud to be able to supplement in my humble way the welcome that Lord Bledisloe has given to this Bill. One hardly knows whether one is on one's head or on one's heels in this House. When one remembers ten or twelve years ago the reception that any person got who was insane enough to advocate small holdings and then to listen to the most satisfactory speeches that have been heard this afternoon, one is forced to the conclusion that things have indeed changed. Your Lordships will remember that, in what is called the principal Act of 1908, the county councils were the persons who were told to administer the Act. For the first year very little was done; we had to get into working order. As far as I remember, there were 170,000 acres of land obtained, and then, in the three years after that, somehow it tailed off and only 30,000 acres more were got.
Then came the war, and of course small holdings and allotments were put on one side. Afterwards came the difficulty about getting food for the country, and in 1917 the Government brought forward their agriculture proposals which, as I have said
178
before in this House, did more in twenty minutes for the agricultural population than we agricultural reformers have been: able to do in half a century. In 1918 the agricultural home production increased enormously. A great deal of land was ploughed up and a lot of corn was put in. I am speaking under correction, but I believe something like 1,000,000 small holdings and allotments were added in that year. What was the result? We were told in the old days that the agricultural industry—the oldest industry in this country—was within measureable distance of great if not supreme disaster. We were told then that we could only produce fourteen weeks' supply of home grown food in England. In 1918 what was the result? I believe it is practically accurate that there were forty-two weeks' supply of food grown in this country. The matter really speaks for itself.
I do not think for one moment that we need be at all apprehensive if there is any small loss consequent on this great movement. From the bottom of my heart I congratulate His Majesty's Government on the splendid work that they have done, and I hope will continue to do, as regards agriculture. I congratulate them inasmuch as in this Bill they have done away with a. great number of those so-called safeguards and crippling conditions which were put into the principal Act. I hope they will by their policy be able to fulfil to some extent their promises to the men who fought and bled for this country, and be able to put not only them, but also a large number of practical and deserving agriculturists, on the land of this country.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Viscount who has moved the Second Reading this evening in his expression of regret at the absence of Lord Ernle from his place on that bench. I understand he is absent through indisposition, and we are very sorry to hear that is so. I confess I thought his absence was probably clue to another cause, for I understood that his continuance in the office which he has filled with such distinction was a matter of very short duration; but it is very gratifying to those of us who are interested in agriculture to reflect that Lord Ernle is responsible up to date, at any rate, for the agricultural policy of the Government. I share with others the satisfaction which has been expressed at the introduction of this Bill,

179
because the Bill is the fulfilment of a pledge given publicly on the highest authority and repeated upon every hustings in the country at the late General Election. We all share the wish that those who have given such tremendous services and made such sacrifices for the country should receive any provision of land which they desire to occupy in so far as it is in our power to give it to them.
It is not a question of what may be economically sound so much as what natural patriotic gratitude demands, and we are only too glad to extend whatever powers we can with advantage to these who were members of our forces by sea and land who wish to have small holdings. I am prepared to go a step further and to say that there are others, too, who are entitled to preferential treatment, such as the women who have worked upon the land. I do not pretend to have considered the matter, but I can conceive that that would be very appropriate. I confess, however, I regret that the Government have extended the Bill beyond those limits. Upon the arguments of the noble Viscount—there may be other arguments which he would be able to advance—I do not see why, because we have engaged in a great war in which our soldiers and sailors have conferred upon us immense services and in the course of which many of the women of the country have with great self-sacrifice and public spirit worked on the land, we should extend to everybody else the very special financial provisions which are contained in this Bill. There may be a good reason for it, but I did not find it out when I listened, as I tried to do with the greatest care, to what fell from the noble Viscount.
Like all your Lordships I am familiar, as a member of a county council, with the working of the Small Holdings Act. I do not pretend to be an enthusiastic admirer of the system. I believe it to be a good system as far as it goes, but its value can be very easily exaggerated. Broadly speaking, I do not believe it is the best method in most counties of producing the highest result in the cultivation of the soil. It does no doubt confer upon the country certain political and social services which are of value; but looked at broadly as an industrial and agricultural proposition, in most counties it is not the best way of cultivating the land, and those of us who are very anxious to see the greatest product from the land possible would not like the
180
ordinary process of agriculture—I mean the cultivation of land as we have known it all our lives—to be interfered with so as to injure the result which comes from that system. Up to a point, however, small holdings are a very good thing, and I am very glad to hear from the noble Viscount that every chance is to be given under this Bill for the success of small holdings.
There are provisions, I understand from him, for the encouragement of better agricultural training and, I think he said, better agricultural co-operation. Both those things are not only good, but essential, in my humble judgment, to any wide extension of the small holdings system. It is no manner of use to put people on the land who have no knowledge of agriculture; that only leads to failure. It does not matter whether they are heroes or not; they will not be able to make it pay unless they have some knowledge of the system. It is no kindness to them, but a cruelty to put them on the land. Therefore if you are to increase to a widespread extent the number of soldiers upon the land it is necessary that you should provide some sort of agricultural training for them, and, I may add, some sort of agricultural co-operation, for co-operation of that kind is the only way in which you will get rid of the undue advantage which the large holding system would have over the small holding system. These two things are essential. Even so, the Government are well aware that on the present prices these small holdings cannot be made to pay. Therefore, they provide a system under which, for the next—is it six or seven years?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Seven.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:—the loss upon small holdings will be borne by the taxpayer. That I believe to be shortly the system. I do not mean to say any loss which a small holding will incur but any loss which a local authority will incur by charging the only rent it can get in present circumstances. Any such loss from insufficient rents will be borne, under the Bill, by the taxpayer. I am not afraid of that so far as soldiers and sailors and preferential persons are concerned, because it is of limited duration. At the end of seven years it will come to an end. Even though it may involve a considerable loss, we can see the extent of

181
the loss, or, at any rate, we know it will be limited, and I understand from the noble Viscount that at the end of that time ordinary economic conditions will be restored—he looks forward to that—and the small-holders will be charged a reasonable rent. If that is really done, economic causes will reassert themselves and, if the small-holding system is not a sound one economically, it will come to an end. That is to Fay, the small holding, being unable to compete in the market on economic terms, will gradually tend to disappear. The small-holders, like reasonable, prudent men, will, of course, sell their small-holdings to people who can cultivate them better; so the economic system will be stabilised, and no great harm will arise.
But that is upon the assumption—which I understand from the noble Viscount is the policy of the Government—that proper economic rents will be charged at the end of seven years. If that is carried out, as I say, we need not be very deeply concerned, but if it is not carried out, if, when the end of the seven years comes, it is found that a great many small holdings are not economically sound—what are the Government going to do? It will not be this Government, I presume. What will the then Government do? The noble Viscount is a comparatively young man and he may be I do not know what by that time. What does the noble Viscount contemplate that the Government of that day will do if the small-holdings do not pay? I should be rather happier if I saw a clause in the Bill—there may be one; I will not pretend to be a master of it like the noble Viscount—containing the mandatory provision that economic rents should be charged at the end of seven years.
If we are to go on with the uneconomic conditions there really is no end to it. There is no reason why, at the end of that period, the subsidies to small-holders should not become a precedent extended to any number of other persons at the expense of the State. If the noble Viscount says, "We are only anxious to do it in the case of soldiers and sailors," I have nothing more to say. By all means in the case of the soldiers and sailors who have fought for us I would be willing to dispense with the economic conditions, so long as that makes them happy. If it is to be extended to others, as the Bill contemplates, and if
182
the uneconomic conditions are to be continued at the end of seven years to others, then I say there is no limit to the slippery slope upon which we are proceeding.
I say this with a certain amount of emphasis because I am quite familiar with the particular financial proposals which are made in the clauses of this Bill, and I will tell your Lordships why. I was, for my sins, about two or three years ago, a member of an Emergency Housing Committee, and the financial proposal which is contained in this Bill was precisely the one which we recommended in the case of emergency housing. It is not adopted in the Housing Bill which has just gone through this House—not exactly, although there are certain features which are similar—but the particular proposal in this Bill is precisely what we proposed with one exception—we laid it down that economic rents must be charged at the end of the provisional period. We made it as emphatic as we could that at the end of the provisional period, which corresponds to the seven years in this Bill, economic conditions should be restored, so far as possible. I cannot tell your Lordships with what emphasis we ventured to lay that down in the Report which we presented to the Minister of Reconstruction. I think that, in this respect, I have the singular virtue of consistency in urging upon your Lordships, and upon the Government, that they should put into the Bill some provision which shall make it quite clear and definite that these eleemosynary provisions, in so far as they extend at any rate to others than those who have served as soldiers and sailors in the war, shall come to an end at the end of the provisional period and that economic conditions shall be restored.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I merely desire to say one word on the point which the noble Marquess has developed in the closing passages of his speech. He stated that in his view His Majesty's Government were at the edge of a slippery slope in this matter of endowment from public funds of those who, some years hence, may not be able to satisfy economic conditions with regard to their holdings, and I understood him to urge that Your Lordships should insert a clause in the Bill which would make it clear that, at the end of this period of seven years—so far as Parliament can lay down any rule of that kind—economic rents must be charged and that no future subsidy will be given.

183
I am bound to say that I gravely doubt the wisdom of inserting any provision of such a kind in a Bill of this sort. When the time comes—the close of this period—either general agricultural and economic conditions will have so completely changed as to make it possible for these holdings to be carried on at an economic rent, or some such condition will exist as obtains at the present when, as we know, it cannot be done. In the latter case one of three things must happen. Either the State must continue its subsidy, or the local authority must be prepared to make good the deficit out of county funds, or—and this is the consummation to which the noble Marquess looked forward apparently without any great dismay—the whole system must come to an end and small holdings disappear altogether. I decline to contemplate the last possibility. I do not believe for a moment that public opinion, either here or in the country districts, would tolerate what would practically mean the eviction from the homes they have occupied for a certain number of years, not merely of soldiers and sailors, but of small-holders who have worked hard and done their best at considerable sacrifice of material. The effect would be to throw back into large farms, not requiring the same character of buildings or dwelling-houses, a certain number of small holdings; to produce, in fact, widespread disturbance of the rural conditions which will then exist.
That being so, if I am right in believing that this is an impossible picture of the future, it will then be for the various county authorities to consider whether they are prepared to stand the loss, supposing a loss to be involved, or whether a fresh appeal will be made to Parliament—the then Government may be precisely of the same complexion as the present Government, or of an entirely different complexion—in order to make the country as a whole responsible for the balance of deficit. It is quite impossible at this moment to say what the results will be. By that time we may have advanced very much further on the road to collectivist management and collectivist responsibility. If we have, I have no doubt that the Government of that day will cheerfully shoulder the new responsibility, but in the complete uncertainty which now prevails I hope that your Lordships will not attempt to stereotype, as the noble Marquess desired, the rule that no advance from public funds
184
must be made to meet the deficits that have accrued.
I have no desire to say anything about the Bill as a whole, but merely to add a word of welcome to its main provisions, and to congratulate His Majesty's Government upon having undertaken this further wing of the large structure which they are trying to erect for the benefit, not merely of those who have nobly done their duty in the war (many of whom have suffered for it) but for the benefit of a class, generally speaking, who have not in the past been admitted to a full share in our national prosperity. The Bill will, of course, by unanimous agreement be read a second time, and although some recommendations will undoubtedly be made for its amendment in Committee I am quite certain they will not touch the main principle which is involved in the Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I should like to say one word or two in reply to specific points of criticism which have been raised. Your Lordships have given a general welcome to the Bill, and it may interest you to know that it was welcomed in another place. In fact it had a most remarkable career there, in that there was no Division on any single stage of the Bill; Second Reading, Committee Stage, Report Stage, or Third Reading. I think that is without precedent in the case of a Bill of this importance. We cannot hope, unfortunately, for the same thing here, although I am glad to have the encouragement of the noble Marquess.
Two points were put to the Government by the Marquess of Salisbury. The first was on the financial position, and he said that we ought to know whether these State contributions are to continue after seven years, or whether they will come to an end; if we knew they would come to an end after seven years we should be greatly comforted. I can only state the intentions of the present Government and the provisions of the Bill itself. I cannot make any prophecies such as the noble Marquess was able to make. The position is that after seven years a valuation will be made, a capital valuation, of the farm on the basis of the economic rent at that time. On the other side will be set the total amount expended by the local authority in purchasing and, equipping; that is to say, the money that was borrowed

185
by the local authority for the purpose of establishing these small holdings.
Let me take two figures. Suppose the whole business cost £10,000, and that the economic value of the small holding was £7,000; the difference, £3,000, will fall upon the State entirely. The small holding, and all the small holdings in the area of the county council, would be treated as one property and would be handed back to the county council presumably at that valuation. What then would the county council have to do They would have to charge an economic rent which would meet the difference—it may be £3,000, £4,000 or £5,000, or whatever the amount was. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, asked whether there ought not to be a provision in the Bill that they should charge an economic rent? Surely their own self interest would make them do so; there is nobody else to pay for it. If there is a deficiency it will fall on the rates, and I think the ratepayers can look after themselves. As noble Lords know, at the present time under the Act of 1908 the State bears half the deficiency, but that will not obtain. After the seven years the county councils will be placed upon an entirely self-supporting basis. Therefore they will have to charge such economic rents as will meet the new valuation. I think that is the reply to the point raised by the noble Marquess.
There was only one other point raised by the noble Marquess. He said, We shall be quite ready, I think, to deal with this on a. basis of loss, if it be confined to serving men, and I think he included women who had been working on the land; but he said, Why should these privileges be extended more widely than that? I need not remind him, because I have just stated it, and he knows it perfectly well, that the change is from bearing half the loss to bearing the whole loss. Of course that is a far larger loss than is represented merely by that statement, because of the increased cost of land after the war and also the greater cost of equipping small holdings with buildings. Therefore it is considerable financial assistance, but the Government find it extremely difficult to draw a line between the ex-Service men and these women, and other persons. Your Lordships are very well aware how absolutely essential agriculture and other industries such as munitions were during the war; how under the Military Service Acts certain
186
persons were told that they were to go to the war and others that they were not to go to the war, but that they were considered to be doing their duty, by doing this work at home, just as much as if they went to the war. Therefore the Government feel it difficult to exclude these other persons from these particular advantages; but I would point out this, that preference is given to the ex-Service man, and I think, considering the way those who want to share these advantages are coining in, that the county councils, and the Board of Agriculture if necessary, will be fully occupied for some time in dealing with the claims of these men who have the preference
There is only one technical point further to which I think I ought to reply. It was raised by my noble friend behind me. I always listen to his speeches, especially on finance, with great pleasure but with ever-deepening melancholy. I do not wish to follow him in his general exposition of the evil state of the finance of the country, because I think his statements on this particular occasion were based upon a rather small point. He had read his Bill with great care, and he had ascertained that not only the future liabilities but the past liabilities on these small holdings of the county councils from the year 1908 were to be shouldered upon the State, and he fears that we cannot meet the ever-growing responsibilities. I wish to examine what the weight of this responsibility is, because upon the size of it depends the whole argument of my noble friend. I think it is possible to give a pretty accurate figure as to what those financial responsibilities may be. I have already stated that half these losses are already borne by the State. The losses that are already borne amount to £3,000. If you add another £3,000 you make up £6,000. I am advised that £20,000 will be an absolutely outside figure and that £10,000 will probably be more like the actual figure.
I ask, Is the country going to be ruined by the payment of £10,000? As to the proprietary of these payments, what I have to say is this: It was part of a bargain made with the county councils, who in return for this and as part of their general duty have been content to act in this way as agents for the Board of Agriculture for the ensuing seven years. I think your Lordships will consider that vast as are the fresh responsibilities

187
which will be thrown upon them by this Act, the sum which I have mentioned is not a very extravagant remuneration.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Tribunal for assessing compensation in respect of land compulsorily acquired for public purposes.
1.—(1) Where by or under any statute (whether passed before or after the passing of this Act) land is authorised to be acquired compulsorily by any Government Department or any local or public authority, any question of disputed compensation and where any part of the land to be acquired is subject to a lease which comprises land not acquired, any question as to the apportionment of the rent payable under the lease, shall be referred to and determined by the arbitration of such one of a panel of official valuers to be appointed under this section as may be selected in accordance with rules made by the Reference Committee under this section.
(2) Such number of persons, being persons with special knowledge in the valuation of land, as may be appointed for England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland by the Reference Committee, shall form a panel of persons to act as official valuers for the purposes of this Act in England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland respectively: Provided that of the members of the said panel for England and Wales one at least shall be a person having special knowledge of the valuation of land in Wales and acquainted with the Welsh language.
(3) A person appointed to be a member of the panel of official valuers shall hold office for such term certain as may be determined by the Treasury before his appointment, and whilst holding office shall not himself engage, or be a partner of any other person who engages, in private practice or business as estate or land agent surveyor or valuer.
(4) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to official valuers such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may determine—
(5) The Reference Committee—

(a) for England and Wales, shall consist of the Lord Chief Justice of England, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Surveyors' Institution;

188

(b) for Scotland, shall consist of the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Justice Clerk and the Chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Surveyors' Institution;

(c) for Ireland, shall consist of the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, the Master of the Rolls in Ireland and the President of the Surveyors Institution, or (if the President of the Surveyors' Institution thinks fit) a person, being a member of the council of that institution and having special knowledge of valuation of land in Ireland appointed by him to act in his place.

LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1) after' "authority" to insert "or the promoters of any housing scheme under the Housing, Town Planning, &c., Act, 1919, which has been approved by the Ministry of Health."
The noble Lord said: It is a very short point which is raised. This Bill provides for a case in which a valuation has to be made, as between the Government Department or the local authority on the one side, and a private owner on the other. It will be remembered that under the Housing Bill a new body is being brought into existence which is likely to be very freely utilised for the purpose of promoting housing schemes, namely, Public Utility Societies, and I want to be sure that those societies will have all the benefits of the rapid valuation and acquisition of land which the local authorities will have. With this object I move my Amendment. There is no more urgent matter to-day than the early acquisition of land for the purpose of cottage building, particularly in the more crowded industrial towns. As the Local Government Board or Ministry of Health are definitely encouraging these Public Utility Societies to undertake, so far as possible, this work of housing, I suggest that such societies should have all the benefits which the local authorities will have under this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, after ("authority") insert ("or the promoters of any housing scheme under the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, which has been approved by the Ministry of Health").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD PARMOOR: As I have an Amendment down in similar terms, I may perhaps say a word upon this Amendment before the noble and learned Lord replies. My object was to have one system of compensation in force, and one system of

189
procedure, whether the land is to be acquired compulsorily by any Government Department or by any other competent authority. At the present time the general principle would be that where there is no special scheme of compensation the procedure would be under the Lands Clauses Act. I quite agree, from very considerable experience of the working of that Act, that the scheme which hitherto has been in operation under that Act requires simplification and amendment, and particularly I am in favour of what is part of the fundamental suggestion of this Bill, that there should not be any allowance under the head of compulsory acquisition in cases of this kind. My desire is that you should have one scheme of compensation. That can be met in two ways—either by inserting the words which are suggested in the Amendment, or by not putting any special scheme of compensation into any housing scheme under the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1919, and so leaving compensation under that Act to the general provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act with which we are dealing at the present time. My main object and desire is to have one scheme and one only in all these cases, because I know there no more fertile source of expense and trouble than to have different schemes for different cases.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is an Amendment with the objects of which every one will sympathise, but I cannot appreciate that it is really a necessary one. We are asked after "authority" to insert "or the promoters of any housing scheme under the Housing, Town Planning Act, 1919, which has been approved by the Ministry of Health." It becomes necessary to ask, Who are the promoters of any housing scheme under this Act to which this can apply? I am a little puzzled, because the only promoters I can think of are county councils, local authorities under the Housing Act, public utility societies, and housing trusts. I do not know that I have overlooked any in that enumeration. If the promoters then of a housing scheme are the county council, or the local authority under the Housing Act, they would be a local authority authorised under statute to acquire land compulsorily and the Bill would automatically apply to them. It is not in the least necessary therefore to have a special Amendment to meet their case. Let us
190
deal with the other persons. It cannot be housing trusts or public utility societies because neither of these two have the power to acquire land compulsorily for housing purposes. Therefore so far as they are concerned the Amendment would be meaningless. Power is taken by the local authorities to acquire land with a view to a subsequent sale to and development by a public utility society, but in that case the local authority would be the acquiring authority, and the Bill would apply. I cannot really think that if the Amendment were adopted it would add anything, and it would in one respect at least be wholly unacceptable.
LORD PARMOOR: Having regard to what the noble and learned Lord says, that under the Bill as it stands the principle of compensation would apply to the promoters of any housing scheme, for my part. I should not think it necessary to press the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I really have no doubt, but I may add that I will carefully fortify myself before we reach the later stages of the Bill, but it seems clear.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "valuers" and insert "arbitrators." The noble and learned Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to make clear what I understand the purpose of the Bill to be. We are dealing with arbitration, and not with valuation. The noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor, is perfectly well aware that from a legal point of view there is a great distinction between a valuation and an arbitration. An-arbitration is in its essence a quasi judicial inquiry where, in the case for valuation, there is such element at all, and if the object of this Bill is that there should be arbitration to determine what the value of land is, then the proper terminology would be arbitrators and not valuers. I do not want of course to snake any long address to your Lordships on what might appear to be a mere matter of words, but I think it goes deeper than that, and that the word "valuers" ought not to be inserted, but that there ought to be inserted in its place "arbitrators."
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("valuers") and insert ("arbitrators").—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: This Amendment also stands in my name, and one reason why I ask that it should be adopted is that unfortunately the term "official valuer" has now a sense which is not very acceptable to a large number of those who are interested in land in this country, having come into existence under the provisions of the Finance (1909–10) Act. At the present time the expression consequently means something totally distinct from the meaning intended to be conveyed in this Bill. They are in fact to-day the advisers of the Inland Revenue Department as to the value of land. Those persons who will act under this Bill as adjudicators are not themselves valuers or advisers as to value, but they are the actual adjudicators on contested questions of value. Perhaps the strongest reason for adopting this Amendment is that it is specifically stated in the Bill that the work of these persons, when questions arising on the Bill are to be determined, is that of arbitration and not that of valuation. If your Lordships will refer to Clauses 4, 6 and 8, you will find in every one of them that it is perfectly clear that the function of these gentlemen will be that of arbitration—a judicial function—and not that of valuation, which is a more commercial or professional function.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is a good deal to be said for the view that the functions discharged by these persons are functions which would be more accurately described by the term arbitrations than by that of valuation, and I observe the additional objection stated by the noble Lord who spoke last as to the use of the term official valuers. The Government are by no means wedded to the term "valuer," and especially when it is not used in the most appropriate context. I feel a slight difficulty about the word "arbitrator," because the word official must be used, for reasons into which I need not enter, and the term "official arbitrator" is a little too general for application to a particular Act, or at least it is open to that criticism. It rather suggests a function to discharge duties comparable to the duties, very general in scope, that can be discharged by official referees, but I am not disposed to enter, at any rate at this stage, into any dispute upon the point. I will accept at this moment the term arbitrator in the form of the Amendment moved by my noble and learned friend,
192
subject to this, that if in the interval I happen to think of a better term I shall adopt it.
LORD PARMOOR: Of course, if a better term could be suggested I, for one, would gladly welcome it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved, in subsection (2), after the words "with special knowledge in the valuation of land," to insert "or experienced in the law and practice of arbitrations in cases of disputed compensation for land taken under compulsory powers." The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend, Lord Saltoun, through indisposition, I hope your Lordships will allow me to move this Amendment which stands in his name. It is an Amendment suggested by a number of bodies in Scotland. The noble and learned Lord has been good enough on behalf of the Government to accept the word "arbitrator" in the last clause, and I hope he will also see his way to accept this Amendment. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that these arbitrators are to be persons with a special knowledge in the valuation of land. They are entirely arbitrators, and will have to decide upon all cases which may be brought before them under this Act. Consequently it seems almost necessary that their qualification should be widened, so that they may be selected not for their knowledge of valuation alone but for their knowledge and experience in arbitration matters.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, after ("land") insert ("or experienced in the law and practice of arbitrations in cases of disputed compensation for land taken under compulsory powers").—(Lord Clinton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has really attempted to erect far too elaborate an edifice on an Amendment which was accepted on the pure point of nomenclature. I adopted the word "arbitrator" because it did seem to me that there was something to be said for the view that, whatever you may call him, he had to arrive at an arbitral conclusion, and the word "valuer" suggested a man who arrives at his conclusion without going through the form of hearing persons before him, and arguments, and so forth. But that is a mere question of names. The

193
noble Lord is now requesting me to do a very different thing. He asks that one should add to the panel of persons qualified those who are experienced in the law and practice of arbitrations.
For myself nothing would give me greater pleasure than to accept at once this Amendment, because I accept on principle, and as the result of long habit, any proposal which can obviously enure to the benefit of lawyers and lawyers alone. And nothing could afford me more pleasure than to add to these panels. I have not the least doubt I should be called upon to nominate them, which would be an agreeable addition to my own patronage and I should have the privilege of providing thousands a year for esteemed former colleagues of mine at the Bar. But I doubt whether the proposal would be received with the same general enthusiasm by the public as a whole, or even by your Lordships. The idea here—and it is essential in this scheme of coordinated measures—is as far as possible to strip these things of formality and to bring them to a conclusion with the utmost celerity which is compatible with the doing of justice.
The legal profession possesses many great merits. It possesses, above all things, this merit, that in matters which are proper for delay, and which admit of delay, they ensure that a conclusion is not reached till every point of view has been examined and explored. But where practical knowledge, where extreme expedition are required, where a measure, if it is to be carried through, must be carried through at once, I am sure your Lordships will think the Government are wise in having decided to commit this matter to practical men.
LORD CLINTON: I accept the noble and learned Lord's explanation and his suggestion that this would enure to the advantage of all those who are connected with the law. I have already admitted that the Amendment was put forward at the suggestion of some very learned bodies in Scotland; it is just possible that they may have been animated in their desire to put forward the Amendment, by such a motive. Although I am not going against the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, it is practical men that we require and those who have a knowledge and experience in the practice of arbitration; and it seems to me that if you are to have arbitration, if you are to have men who are to act as arbitrators,
194
it is not so necessary that they should be learned in the actual valuation, but that they should have had an experience in those particular methods which are being brought before them. I rather regret that the Amendment cannot be accepted, but I shall not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (3), to delete all words after "shall hold office for," and to insert "a term of five years," and to delete subsection (4). The noble Lord said: This Amendment would strike out the rest of subsection (3) and the whole of subsection (4). The result would be that powers in this Bill such as those of single arbitrators or the abolition of allowance for compulsory purchase and the power of the arbitrator over costs would not be disturbed. But there would be a larger panel of arbitrators, who would be paid by fees, instead of a small panel consisting of people who would have a vested interest, and who would be paid large salaries.
My points upon the matter are two. One is that to have this small fixed panel of men is unnecessary and undesirable—I would go so far as to say unwise; and the second is that the one method is likely to cost the country far more than the other and to give us a number of place-men with large salaries—considerably larger than the majority of the Civil Service. If this body of eight or less arbitrators are to be popular people and are to have such business as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack appeared at one time to foreshadow in his financial statement, they will have to proceed by lists, and have to deal with cases in a certain order. And they would not be able to cope with their work. You would get the exact delay which the noble and learned Lord has so much deprecated. If, however, they are unpopular you have these men getting £3,000 apiece—I presume with pensions also and with clerks—and they would have little or nothing to do because under Clause 8 (1) if parties are allowed to go to any arbitrator whom they may agree upon or to some other body—another body which was very much pressed upon the Government in the House of Commons as a body which should have control of the whole of the business, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
It is extraordinary how easy an arbitrator may find it to become unpopular from time to time. He may have his periods when be is popular or unpopular, but a very little thing may throw an arbitrator out of popularity for the time being. He may not be popular in that particular part of the country. One of these gentlemen speaking Welsh, for instance, is appointed for Carnarvonshire, but it does not follow that he will be listened to in Carmarthen-shire or Breconshire, and he might receive still less respect in the Rhondda Valley. It might be said that he knew the Welsh language, but he would not know about the agricultural land in the counties I have named or the peculiar situation in the Rhondda Valley.
Then again, this larger panel of arbitrators is not only supported by the Institute of Surveyors (as I know it is from the Press) but also it was supported by Mr. Leslie Scott's Committee, and was advised as the best method of dealing with this matter. I do not know why it should have been changed. But I speak, myself, from experience. I have had during the last few years to deal with scores and scores of arbitrators, and I have found elasticity to be of the very greatest value. You cannot possibly foist an unpopular and undesired arbitrator upon people, or put him before those who will not accept his finding because they do not believe in his justice.
It is much more important with this waxing and waning, as it were, of arbitrators that you should be able to choose from a wider field. You get much more elasticity, you get much less delay. The arbitrators can be chosen extremely quickly; you have a Government list and men consider it an honour to be put upon that list. The names would be before the country, and they would get known by the people. This matter has been successfully proved in cases where a lot of arbitrators have to be appointed.
The observation is made that these men should be ready to give their whole time, and that they should not be doing any private business. I have not heard that there has ever been any complaint in the past with regard to arbitrations conducted by surveyors, yet they are continually doing their own private business; not a word has been said anywhere, of which I am aware, as to the fact that they are influenced because they are engaged in private business. In the legal profession does the
196
noble and learned Lord say that the lawyers are not able to carry on their business because they are engaged one day in their business at the Bar and another in delivering judgment from the Bench? Or is his mind, as Lord Chancellor, influenced by the fact that during two-thirds of the day he is occupied in judicial business and for the other one-third in attending to his business in the House, with unpaid overtime, in dealing with the multifarious duties of his office?
I come now to the question of expense. The Lord Chancellor made the remark that the arbitrator would be appointed for a definite time by what is known as the Reference Committee, and that the cost to the State of their salaries would be entirely or almost covered by the fees which are, of course, properly to be charged to the parties who come before them. It is mentioned that there are to be up to eight arbitrators with £3,000 apiece. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord can produce any list of the number of the cases, but it is a very notable fact that from this Bill all the great trading companies—railway companies, gas companies, water companies, and electric light companies—are excluded. Of the nineteen witnesses heard before the committee not one came from those great companies. What is the deduction? That they will not have anything to do with this Bill. The Bill, therefore, is confined to the Government and to local bodies. What is the number of cases the Government and local bodies have which are to go to this arbitration? I am informed that before the war the number of these arbitrations had been considerably reduced; that the principles on which these arbitrations were founded were becoming established and known; that an arbitrator was far less required, and that there was every prospect of the number growing less. Is there any reason why they should now increase? On the contrary. The objection to the question of cost would mean that they would not like this Bill. The Land Clauses Act dealt with the cost in a way that would rather lead people to arbitration than to lessen arbitration; I think this type of arbitration will be still less because of the fear of the cost.
To raise this money, excluding Sundays and holidays, these eight men would have to work, for, say, 270 days. I doubt very much whether they would average £10 a day apiece. Again, are you going to get

197
£3,000 a year from Ireland, and is it likely that you will get so much from Scotland? You cannot raise the fees above the market rates or people would go and take an agreed arbitrator under Section 8 (1), which would still more lessen the amount of work they would have. To create these appointments of six or eight new arbitrators at a salary of this kind—one-third more than the Permanent Secretaries of some of the great Departments of State, one-third more than some of the Ministers at the present time, double that of the Permanent Secretary of the Office of Works, who has to deal with building all his time; men who would have vested interests, who would probably want pensions, and who would probably have honours also—that they should be created at a time when the amount of work the arbitrators are going to do is uncertain, when it; may lessen considerably, is not in accordance with the Resolution passed by your Lordships, "that the serious condition of the finances of the country calls for the strictest economy in all directions."
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 26, leave out from ("for") to the end of subsection (4) and insert ("a term of five years").—(Lord Askwith.)
THE EARL, OF SELBORNE: The noble Lord who has just sat down has put his point with great knowledge and lucidity. I think it will facilitate our discussion here if my noble and learned friend in charge of the Bill would take the opportunity of this Amendment of making a statement to the Committee as to the reasons which led His Majesty's Government to adopt the particular plan embodied in this Bill; a plan which, I think I am correct in saying, is a departure from the universal previous practice of the Government and different from the plan recommended by Mr. Leslie Scott's Committee. It has seemed, as the noble and learned Lord knows, to many people to be a worse plan than the existing one.
The two fears that have been mainly held on this subject are these, Firstly, that the best men in the profession would not be prepared to abandon their practice to take an official post under the Government; and, secondly, that unless the number of official valuers was most unduly multiplied they would not be able to do all the work that would have to be done. I admit that this is a. contradictory argument to the one
198
just made by Lord Askwith, but there certainly are those who do not share his view that the business to be done will be little; who, on the contrary, think there will be a great many cases to be decided by these arbitrators. Therefore the first thing I would ask my noble and learned friend to do is to explain to the Committee carefully and fully, with that perfect command of explanation which he possesses in such a large degree, why the Government have adopted this plan.
The second point on which I ask him to be precise is, what is going to be the position of these gentlemen after appointment? It seems absolutely essential that the arbitrators appointed should be fully qualified persons who know their business thoroughly and that we should not have in these posts only men who have failed in private practice or who have recently joined the profession. Therefore we ask for assurances—and here we are only repeating the views of members of the House of Commons, because this point was repeatedly put before the Government in Committee in the House of Commons and on Report—that the position of these gentlemen is going to be such that a really qualified person will be prepared to take it. It is therefore not only a question of salary; it is a question of the terms of appointment, and also, as the noble Lord who has just spoken said, of pension. I am not one of those who think that this work is going to last for two or three years and then cease altogether. No doubt there will be more work to be done probably in the next two or three years than there will be in an average two or three years; but I believe that this particular plan adopted by the Government, if it passes into law, will find work for competent men permanently. It is therefore of the utmost importance, as I am sure my noble and learned friend will agree, that the attractions of the post should be such that the best men, and not the failures of the profession, will offer themselves as candidates for them.
VISCOUNT MIDLETONBefore the noble and learned Lord replies, I want to put a case to him which has not been put by either of my noble friends who have spoken. By far the largest experience of arbitrations in land values has occurred in Ireland, where the whole of the land has been transferred from one hand to another by valuation by different Com

199
missioners. What I would ask the noble Lord to remember is what has occurred in regard to Irish land valuers who are brought into this Bill. It has been perfectly notorious that certain valuers were trusted by neither party; but if they had a permanent employment it was impossible for the Government or anybody else to remove them. And be it remembered that in all these cases there was an appeal. There is no appeal in this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, there is—to the High Court.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: There is only an appeal on questions of law, not of fact.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount said there was no appeal under this Bill; that is the reason I said that.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I happen to know a case in the Midlands in which, almost directly, a question involving hundreds of thousands of pounds must be taken up by one man. It is a single arbitrator, and no appeal. Even if that arbitrator gave a decision which in the opinion of all those concerned was a wrong decision, unless the Government alter the Bill, they will have to put him on to another job at once and he will go on and give similar decisions.
One other point. Two arbitrators may take different views on questions of value, as defined in the section which defines value. Having regard to the existing taxation they may take a wholly different view, and there will be absolutely no power of control of those differences of opinion unless there is a power, as my noble friend suggests, of employing men at the head of the profession rather than keeping a panel of men who must be given a certain period of years in which to operate and who during that period of years may in some instances prove themselves to be quite unequal to the task they have undertaken.
LORD PARMOOR: Before the Lord Chancellor answers, may I say that I have an alternative Amendment to that which has been proposed by the noble Lord, but I think it will be better to take the
200
decision upon his Amendment than upon mine. My alternative Amendment is—
"That those holding the appointment of arbitrator under the Act should be entitled, in spite of being official arbitrators, to carry on their ordinary business, although whilst holding office they shall not give evidence in disputes in connection with the acquisition of land tinder compulsory powers."
There are only three points I should like to add to the arguments which have already been addressed to your Lordships. From a very considerable experience of what are known as compensation cases, I should like, in the first instance, to state that it is most important that the particular arbitrator should have business knowledge of the particular subject-matter with which he has to deal—that is to say, it may be building land, or it may be agricultural land, or minerals, or what not The great advantage of the present system is that when you select a valuer or an arbitrator who is carrying on business you select him because he has knowledge of the particular subject-matter in which you wish him to determine the value. I think that is a very important matter indeed.
Secondly, I should like to say that the difficulty appears to be, as regard the purely official arbitrator, what is to happen to him at the end of his period of service. Suppose he is unsatisfactory. It is a very invidious thing to turn him on to the world, almost into the poor-house; whereas if you left him as a member of a firm, or carrying on an agency in the ordinary way he would not suffer much loss. It should be a matter for other people to consider whether he should continue as an agent or not; but he may be, although a most competent valuer in the ordinary sense, an unsatisfactory arbitrator. I think it is an important matter that you should not cut him off from his ordinary business.
Thirdly, on the score of expense it is quite clear that if you do not cut off a man from his ordinary business, the salary to be provided is less. An illustration was given of a case of a Recorder. The payment of a Recorder would be in effect small if at the same time he could not in ordinary cases carry on his business. With regard to the amount of arbitrations, I take the view of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, that they would be comparatively small in number. I take that view, not because there may

201
not be a large amount of land taken compulsorily, but because at the present time under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, in 999 times out of the 1,000, and indeed in many more cases than that, the matter is settled by ordinary arbitrators with only a nominal expense. Under Clause 8 I am glad to see that a procedure of that kind is maintained in the present Bill. I believe that in nearly all cases the amount will be settled in that way. I feel very strongly, however, that if you are to have arbitrations for the purpose of, say, valuation, they should be held by business people who are perfectly impartial as regards a particular case which is likely to be brought before them, but who have a knowledge of the particular subject-matter in reference to which they have to fix the value of land.
The noble and learned Lord is quite aware that on questions of fact their determination is final. If they go wrong on a point of law their determination may come for settlement before the Courts. The important factor is that their decision on fact should be satisfactory. In order to obtain that, I think you ought to have the choice of men carrying on business and cognisant with the particular subject-matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a very important proposal, and the change which it is desired to introduce into the Bill and which has been recommended in very eloquent and informing speeches, would be a far-reaching one. I should give a wrong impression if I did not make it clear, by every means in my power, that it is an Amendment to which the Government is very strongly opposed. A Committee, which was formed to consider the matter and to advise the Government, held many meetings and examined all the arguments that have been used to day and (if I may say so without giving offence) many arguments, by no means lacking in weight, which have not been used to-day, against the course which they ultimately adopted, and they came—I will not conceal from your Lordships, only after considerable hesitation—to the conclusion which was embodied in the Bill. That conclusion was unanimously approved by those members of the War Cabinet, and several others who were invited in for the purpose, to whom the matter was submitted. It is, therefore, a question on
202
which it must be taken, for what it is worth, that the Government, after the most careful inquiry and deliberation, reached a clear conclusion, and they would be very sorry if that conclusion should be varied by your Lordships. Let me attempt to reply to some of the objections that have been taken. I had already noted what the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, pointed out, that much of the argument he advanced was entirely inconsistent with what bad been pressed—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I did not advance any argument. I asked questions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think they were argumentative questions. I think there was some considerable argument underlying them. If I am right in that view, it is true there was some degree of inconsistency between the points put by the noble Earl and the apprehensions which have been expressed by Lord Askwith. Lord Askwith spoke of the great salary which, he said, was greater than that of some Ministers and greater than that of half-a-dozen other functionaries, whose names or positions he took by way of illustration. He also pointed out that they might have pensions and they might have honours—although I do not know that there is any reason why distinguished public servants should not have honours as a reward for their careers—and he gave the impression that there would not be enough work to justify the appointment of men whose emoluments and other advantages would be so considerable. I disagree, for what my opinion is worth, with Lord Askwith on that point, and I agree entirely with what was said by Lord Selborne. I believe that the number of cases that will be tried and pronounced upon by these arbitrators will be very great indeed. I also agree with what the noble Earl said—and this again was the view of the Committee—that it is not in the least likely that their activities will be concluded when three years are over.
What then is the issue which the Government had to decide and upon which your Lordships must form a view this afternoon? We had to decide between having panels of whole-time arbitrators and adopting the course, which is involved in this Amendment, of allowing those whom we were to employ to continue their private practice—

203
to go from a private arbitration one day to preside over a case in which the Government were concerned on the next. I say quite plainly that when the choice is presented in that way—and there is no other way of presenting it, because those are the only two alternatives—I have no doubt whatever, for the reasons which I will give, that although there is much to be advanced in argument on both sides, the course which the Government have chosen will in the end prove to be more economical of money and will prove, which is even more important, to be immensely more efficient in its results and in the manner in which the work is carried out.
My noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor brings, as everybody realises, remarkable experience to this kind of discussion. Nobody was concerned in more arbitrations than he was. He asked a question which had also been asked by a previous speaker—what is to happen to the arbitrator at the end of his time?—and he said it would be very difficult to cut him off. What would happen to him at the end of his time would depend, I suppose, in the first place, upon how long he had adequately discharged important public functions. If he had discharged those functions efficiently for a very long time I presume he would have the same claim to the gratitude of the State which could be put forward by any other public servant who had served the State for a long time.
If, on the other hand, he had served the State for a short time—the period is at present not decided; the noble Lord puts forward a period of five years, but I should have thought it wiser to leave the Treasury a free hand in such a matter—be it assumed that a period of three or five years was, in the first instance, selected, and let us take the case of an individual arbitrator. His three years are over. The opinion is perhaps formed, without any grave reflection upon him, that it would be desirable to have some fresh blood in the panel. Perhaps some special kind of arbitration is more than usually frequent. Such a man could perfectly well go back to the practice of his profession. There is not the least reason why he should not go back, so far from going with a lessened prestige, with an additional prestige, in the circumstance that he has been for the whole period in heavy practice on behalf of the Government and has had before him great industries and estates represented on matters
204
of importance, the decisions upon which have given some guarantee of his ability.
I confess I see no difficulty there, and so I come to the main question—why have the Government preferred this system? I will tell your Lordships quite shortly. It seemed to those who examined this subject that, when you were dealing continuously with matters in which the Government and the citizens of the State were interested, it was intolerable to have a system under which those who were to give decisions, those who would be appointed as judges in these arbitrations by the State, should very likely next day be advising a landowner against the Government and, in other words, have standards which, I say quite plainly and with every desire not to give offence to those who practice a historic profession, exhibit the most amazing and inexplicable disparities that have ever, I think, been known among any class of witnesses who habitually give evidence on oath.
Let us take one or two illustrations of that. I remember appearing in an arbitration in which the Corporation of Liverpool was concerned. I am not sure that my noble and learned friend was not engaged in the same arbitration; he will remember if he was. It was a case in which the Corporation of Liverpool, by compulsory powers, took a very large estate belonging to a noble Lord who was then a Member of the House of Commons—Lord Leverhulme, who now sits in your Lordships' House. I do not, of course, tie myself to the exact figures, because I have conducted many cases since that day. It was many years ago when I was a member of the Junior Bar, but I should be very much astonished if the disparity between the valuations that were put forward on the two sides was not somewhat in the following proportions. I appeared for the Corporation of Liverpool. I believe that my expert witnesses, who were men of the highest possible distinction and gave evidence on oath, said that the property in their opinion was worth about £70,000, or £80,000. I quote the figures from memory—it occurred twelve or fourteen years ago. The expert witnesses on the other side, again the most distinguished men in the profession, with profound and emphatic conviction, swore that the property was worth something like £500,000. I do not recollect the precise figures, but if the noble and learned Lord was engaged in

205
the case he will recollect that the disparity was something of that kind. This is not, in my judgment, by any means an isolated case.
I had the good fortune in my career at the Bar to be occupied in as many of these cases as any one of my standing who was not a regular member of the Parliamentary Bar, and with that experience I say that the constant disparity between the evidence which was given on oath by expert witnesses, as they were called, was such as could not be explained by any reasonably divergence of view. And the same gentlemen who took so pessimistic a view of the claims of a private owner when they happened to be employed by a corporation had not the slightest difficulty a week later, if they appeared against the corporation in a similar case, in revising every figure and valuation which had been the basis of their finding in the other case.
I cannot believe that it is good for the country or for the subject that there should be this kind of uncertainty of standard. Get your court, your panel, and let those men say, "We have deliberately made a selection, we have given up the greater prizes of our profession, just as those who accept Judgeships make great sacrifices in order to accept the Judgeship, though they have been the most successful practitioners at the Bar. They make this sacrifice for the sake of the position and honourable rank of a Judge, and in no small measure for the possibility of making useful contributions to the fortunes of the State. We will make this sacrifice "; and I am sure we shall obtain a good class of man in return for the security and distinction these positions will confer. No doubt they will lose increment by accepting these positions, but on the other hand they will not have the slightest inducement except to apply all their powers to standardising the conclusions which they reach upon similar or comparable facts.
I lay the greatest possible stress on this. You have eight or ten men. They are ex hypothesi experienced men, because no one will be appointed who is not a man of experience. They will meet together, confer together, and their conclusions will all become, not indeed uniform, but you will attain a degree of standardisation which will be absolutely impossible to obtain under the method, and as I think the dangerous and unsatisfactory method, suggested by the Amendment. I hope I
206
have examined the arguments put forward not in the spirit of a man who does not admit their force. To be quite frank with the House I hesitated between the arguments, but I reached this conclusion. It is a conclusion on which the Government holds very strong views and I should be sorry if your Lordships found it impossible to acquiesce.
LORD BLEDISLOE: In view of the announcement by the Lord Chancellor of the fact that the Government are strongly opposed to the acceptance of this Amendment I suggest it would be undesirable to push the matter to a Division. I do not think, however, that I could sit silent and accept as gospel the Lord Chancellor's expression of opinion upon the possible lapses into undue partiality on the part of what we may call the cream of the surveyors' profession—and we are seeking to obtain the cream of that profession. I suggest that the cream of that profession are just as honourable, just as reliable, and jug, as impartial, when appointed to exercise judicial functions, as the cream of the legal profession. The chief guarantee against the appointment of persons who will act in a partial manner lies in the method of their appointment. It is open to a body of men, whom we all admit are above suspicion, to select these individuals. That is the best possible guarantee that you are going to have men of the highest integrity and men whose judgment as arbitrators can be fully trusted.
The Lord Chancellor has suggested that these men will say, "We are giving up the greatest prizes in our profession in order to become Government servants." That is true. But there is still a danger, if the Lord Chancellor's apprehensions are well founded, that these men may have a professional bias, because having a duty to the Government, and owing a renewal of their appointment to the good favour of the Government, they may act partially in the interests of the Government as against the owner of land. I do not want to press this point, but the fact that the Government have during the last few weeks selected one of the leading valuers, Sir William Peat, to act as Chairman of a Royal Commission composed of sectional interests—a man who has conducted as many valuations as any one—is evidence that, in the opinion of the Government themselves they can be trusted to do justice as between one conflicting interest

207
and another. After the first flush of work these gentlemen will not have very much to do. The deterent effects of the uncertain danger of chargeability in the matter of costs is going to render these compulsory valuations extremely rare after the first year or two. I am inclined to think we shall soon revert to a voluntary means of assessing the value of land in consequence of the serious burden which may be east on either party in the process of carrying out the intentions of this Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR had an Amendment on the Paper in subsection (3), to leave out from "appointment" to the end of subsection (3), and to insert "and whilst holding office shall not give evidence on behalf of either party in disputed cases connected with the acquisition of land under compulsory powers."
The noble Lord said: I do not move this Amendment, but I desire to make a statement. I propose to put it down on the Report stage because it seems to meet some of the difficulties which were suggested by the Lord Chancellor.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought the noble and learned Lord would have accepted the decision on the previous Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes. Perhaps that should be so.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I want to explain that this Bill has taken rather longer than I had hoped, and a Royal Commission is fixed for 7.30, to give the Royal Assent to the Housing Bill, which it is desirable to pass into law at once, and to the Finance Bill. I am afraid that that involves my moving that the House do resume, which in turn I am sorry to say involves, in view of the fact that the Government has not the right to rearrange its business—which right will be given if the Motion on Monday next is assented to—that we shall not be able to resume this Bill this evening, because other measures will have intervened.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Cannot you move that the House adjourn till nine o'clock?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No, because there is other business which must be taken. I therefore suggest that I should now move that the House do resume; that Lord Parmoor's Bill, which is a pure formality, should receive a Third Reading; that the Finance Bill should receive its Third Reading; and that we should then adjourn till 9.15, and that on resuming we should continue the Committee stage of the Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: When will you take this Bill again?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I shall put it down for Monday.
LORD PARMOOR: I hope it will not be put down for Monday. It is a most inconvenient day.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I agree that it is a most inconvenient day, but there is great pressure of business, and other Peers are pressing that other Bills shall not be put down for that day. Lord Midleton, for instance, does not wish us to take the Transport Bill. We shall not meet before 5.15 on Monday afternoon.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have been making inquiries about trains on Monday, and I can get no information at all.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am afraid we cannot altogether congratulate His Majesty's Government on the course of business, though it may not be entirely their fault. It is, for one thing, surely unfortunate that the Transport. Bill, as we are now to call it, by far the most important in its details of any of the Bills with which we have to deal, has apparently always to be taken in the late hours of the night. That is a marked inconvenience to a large number of your Lordships, and naturally affects the attendance. In the circumstances, we seem to be without any business for Monday; at all events, so far as the wishes of various noble Lords are concerned. There is a strong desire not to take the Transport Bill on Monday, and I understand that my noble and learned friend strongly objects to this Bill being taken. In those circumstances perhaps the noble Earl will tell us what he thinks is the most advisable course for the Government to take.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The business already down for Monday is the Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland) Bill, Second Reading; the Restoration of Pre-War Practices (No. 3) Bill, Second Reading; and two small measures, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and the Retired Officers (Civil Employment) Bill, and the further stages of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Bill, of which we have taken the Committee stage this afternoon. I am most reluctant to put down business which is inconvenient to your Lordship, but I would beg you to appreciate that there is a very heavy programme of business before us, and we are anxious to end this part of the session.
LORD PARMOOR: Might I suggest that as the judicial business is soon coming to an end the House might meet each day at an earlier hour.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Can the noble Earl tell us what in fact, is to be taken on Monday?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: In the absence of the noble Marquess I stated what our proposal was, and I stated the objections to that proposal in various parts of the House. One proposal was that this Bill should be resumed from its adjourned position to-night, and the other that we should continue the Transport Bill. I understand that Lord Midleton finds it very inconvenient to attend for the Transport Bill, and Lord Parmoor to attend for this Bill—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: And Lord Selborne,
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: And Lord Selborne, and I have no doubt other Peers as well. A further group find it difficult to attend for the Scottish Town Planning Bill.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I have had a pretty long experience of Parliamentary business, and I never remember a Bill like the Transport Bill being taken on a day like Monday, with the difficulties of locomotion and with peace celebrations going on all over the country. Therefore I made an appeal to the noble Earl privately not to take the Transport Bill on Monday, but to take other measures, of which there are numbers before the House.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: May I support that appeal. The Transport Bill is a very important measure, and after to-night we shall have had two nights on it when the Bill has not come on until very late. If we do the same on Monday we shall have had a third such night.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What I rose for was to ascertain of the Government what they intended to take on Monday, and the noble Earl was good enough to tell me the objections. Be did not tell me what the ultimate effect of those objections was upon his mind. I confess I do not thigh it is very regardful of the dignity of Parliament—
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Dignity!
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sorry if I used the word disrespectfully of anybody. I think the word may pass without comment from the noble Earl. I was going to say that it is not very regardful of the dignity of Parliament to discuss such a Bill except in the presence of as many noble Lords as desire to attend.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Is that the transport Bill to which the noble Marquess is referring.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes. I think the noble and learned Lord will agree that it is a more important matter than the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Bill, and it is very inconvenient that it should be taken at a time when noble Lords have difficulty in attending. It is not a question only of the convenience of your Lordships, for I gather that many are unable to attend because the trains do not run. I think as the process of passing Bills through Parliament is supposed to be by the united wisdom of your Lordships, it is not a good thing to take such a Bill at a time when many of your Lordships are not able to attend.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: We cannot get both Bills and. I suggest that we content ourselves on Monday with getting the last stages of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Bill, but we shall have to finish that on Monday, and make a great effort next week to get through the remaining stages of the Transport Bill. Otherwise we shall get well into the third week in August before the Commons receive the Lords' Amendments.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am not going to ask the noble Earl to reconsider his decision, but he must not be surprised if those who cannot attend on Monday try to make those observations on Report which otherwise would have been made in Committee. It may not, after all, mean greater progress.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: Will the noble Earl say whether it is proposed to sit after dinner every night next week?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I imagine that will be necessary.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Transport Bill will be taken this evening?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes.
House resumed.

LOCAL ELECTIONS (PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

FINANCE BILL.
Read 3a and passed.
[The sitting was suspended at a quarter before eight o'clock, and resumed at a quarter past nine.]

MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
Clause 3:
Power to control temporarily rail ways, etc.
3.—(1) With a view to affording time for the consideration and formulation of the policy to be pursued as to the future position of undertakings to which this section applies, the following provisions shall, unless Parliament otherwise determines, have effect for a period of two years after the passing of this Act, or where as respects any particular provision a longer period is expressly provided, for such longer period:—

(a) Where at the passing of this Act possession has been taken of any railroad undertaking or part thereof in pursuance of section sixteen of the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871, or otherwise, possession thereof shall be retained without any renewal of the warrant granted by the Secretary of State in pursuance of that section, upon the same terms as to compensa
212
tion as those heretofore in force, and the Minister may exercise over all such undertakings all such powers as have hitherto been exercised by the Board of Trade under the said Act or with the consent of the owners of the undertakings or otherwise, and such other powers as may be conferred by this section or agreed to by the railway companies concerned:

(b) The Minister may, after giving not less than one month's notice in writing, take possession, in the name or on behalf of His Majesty, of the whole or any part of any other railway undertaking or of any light railway or tramway (other than a tramway or a light railway used as a tramway belonging to a local authority), canal inland navigation, undertaking, and subject as hereinafter mentioned any harbour, dock or pier undertaking, or of any plant belonging thereto or used thereon (exclusive of privately owned railway wagons), and of any barges, tugs, and other craft owned or held by the undertaking of which possession has been taken:

(c) The directors and other persons concerned with the management, and officers and servants of any undertaking of the whole or part of which, or of the plant whereof, possession is retained or taken shall obey the directions of the Minister as to the user thereof, and any directions of the Minister in relation to any undertaking or part or plant thereof of which possession is retained or taken—

(i) as to the rates, fares, tolls, does, and charges to be charged; subject, however, to the provisions hereinafter contained repecting references to the advisory committee established for advising as to directions on the matters aforesaid;

(ii) as to the salaries, wages, and remuneration and conditions of employment of persons employed on or in connection with the undertaking;

(iii) as to the working or discontinuance of the working of the undertaking or any part thereof including directions as to keeping open or closing of any stations;

(iv) for securing that the permanent way, rolling stock, plant, appliances, or equipment, whether fixed or moveable, are satisfactory in type and design;

(v) as to the carrying out of alterations, improvements, and additions which the Minister considers necessary for the public safety or for the more efficient and economic working of the, undertaking;

(vi) for securing co-operation between undertakings and for securing the common user of facilities, rolling stock and equipment whether fixed or moveable;

213

(vii) for affording running powers over their system, or any part thereof, to the owners of any other undertaking;

(viii) for securing that manufacturing and repairing facilities and auxiliary and ancillary services shall be used, and the purchase and distribution of stores shall be conducted, in such manner as may be most conducive to economy and efficiency:

(d) For enabling any directions given by the Minister under subsection (c) of this section as to alterations, and improvements and additions to be carried into effect the Minister may, by order, authorise the owners of any undertaking to acquire any land (including easements) and to construct any works, and the order may incorporate the Lands Clauses Acts, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order, being modifications of those Acts made or authorised to be made by the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, or any other enactment, and may incorporate or apply any of the provisions of any enactment relating to the construction, maintenance, or working of railways, light railways, tramways, canals, harbours, docks, and piers, and any such order shall have effect as if enacted in this Act: Provided that nothing herein contained shall be deemed to empower the Minister to authorise the acquisition, otherwise than by agreement, of any land belonging to the owners of another undertaking to which this section applies, or of a local authority, or of a harbour dock or pier undertaking, but the Minister may authorise the acquisition of an easement or right of using such land for the purposes of any works the construction of which he may authorise under this section:

(e) In the case of any undertaking of which possession is retained or taken by the Minister as aforesaid any rates, fares, tolls, dues and other charges directed by the Minister shall be deemed to be reasonable, and may, notwithstanding any agreement or statutory provisions limiting the amount of such charges or increases therein, but without prejudice to claims or complaints in respect of undue preference under the provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts, 1854 to 1913, be charged in respect of any undertaking during the period for which the Minister retains possession of such undertaking and for a further period of eighteen months after the expiration of the said period, or until fresh provision shall be made by Parliament with regard to the amount of any such rates, fares, tells, dues, and other charges, whichever shall first happen.

(2) Subject as aforesaid, any agreement made between the owners of any undertaking, of the whole or part of which possession has been retained or taken under this section, and any other person shall continue in force in like manner as if such possession had not been so retained or taken, unless the Minister considers that such agreement is contrary to the public interest, and in that case he may suspend or modify the operation of such agreement during the period of such possession and for a period not exceeding eighteen months thereafter, and any party to the agreement who suffers loss or Injury by reason of such suspension or modification, and any person who by virtue of any special statutory provision or agreement, is entitled to the benefit of any special rate, fare, toll, due, or other charge, and whose position relatively to other persons is prejudiced by any direction of the Minister altering such special charge, shall be entitled to receive such compensation as, in default of agreement, may be determined by the Railway and Canal Commission, regard being had to any change in circumstances.
(3).—(a) For the purpose of giving advice and assistance to the Minister with respect to and for safeguarding any interests affected by. any directions as to rates, fares, tolls, due, and other charges or special services, a committee shall be appointed consisting of five persons, one being a person of experience in the law (who shall be chairman) nominated by the Lord Chancellor, two being representatives of the trading interest nominated by the Board of Trade, one being a representative of transportation interests nominated by the Minister, one being a representative of labour interests nominated by the Minister of Labour, together with, if deemed advisable, one additional member who may at the discretion of the Minister be nominated from time to time by him.
(b) Before directing any revision of any rates, fares, tolls, due, or other charges, or of any special services, the Minister shall refer the matter to the committee for their advice, and they shall report thereon to him, and where such revision is for the purpose of an increase in the net revenue of any undertakings which the Minister determines to be necessary, the committee shall also advise as to the best methods of obtaining such increase from the different classes of traffic, having due regard to existing contracts and the fairness and adequacy of the methods proposed to be adopted.
(c) The committee, before reporting or advising on any matters referred to them under this section, shall, unless in their discretion they consider it unnecessary or undesirable to do so, give such public notice as they think best adapted for informing persons affected of the date when and the place where they will inquire into the matter, and any persons affected may make representations to the committee, and apply to be heard at such inquiry, and, if the committee in their discretion think fit, the whole or any part of the proceedings at such inquiry may be open to the public:
Provided that, for the purpose of this provision, any city, borough, county, or district council shall be deemed to be persons affected in any case where such council or any persons represented by them may be affected by any proposed revision as aforesaid.
(d) The committee shall hear such witnesses and call for such documents and accounts as they think fit., and shall have power to take evidence on oath, and for that purpose any member of the committee may administer oaths.
(e) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to all or any of the members of the committee such salaries or other remuneration as the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine.
(f) For the purposes of this section, special services means the services mentioned in section five of the schedule to the orders relating to railway rates and charges, and in the corresponding sections of the schedules to the orders relating to canal tolls, rates and charges confirmed by various Acts passed in the years eighteen hundred and ninety-one to eighteen hundred and ninety-four.
(4) Section twenty of the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916 (which relates to the establishment of new routes for omnibuses), shall continue in force until the expiration of two years after the passing of this Act, and shall have effect as if—

(a) the following provision was substituted for subsection (2) of the section (that is to say):—
(2) Except as provided in subsection (4) this section shall not be deemed to detract from any existing powers of highway authorities in regard to omnibuses; and

(b) the following subsection was added to the section (that is to say):—
(4) Where, upon application for a licence to ply for hire with an omnibus, the licensing authority either refuses to grant a licence or grants a licence subject to conditions, in either case the applicant shall have a right of appeal to the Minister of Ways and Communications from the decision of the licensing authority, and the Minister shall have power to make such order thereon as he may think fit, and such order shall be binding upon the licensing authority.

(5) The exercise by the Minister of any of his powers under this section as respects any tramway or light railway used as a tramway which a local authority, or two or more local authorities, have power to purchase under any Act of Parliament or order having the effect of an Act of Parliament shall not affect such right of the local authority, or authorities, and upon the purchase thereof such tramway or light railway shall cease to be in the possession of the Minister.
(6) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to exempt from any rate any undertaking to which this section applies.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection 1 (b), to leave out from "after giving not less" down to "railway undertaking or," and to insert" confer with the owners or local authorities with a view to securing improvements in the service."
The noble Lord said: I do not pretend that the words of my Amendment are in any way perfect; I do not make any claims to be a draftsman, but I think the point to which I desire to call attention is quite clear. My object is to take away from the Minister the new powers which are to be imposed upon hint as Minister of Transport for the first time. In Clause 3 these powers differ from those in Clause 2, because they give to the Minister for the first time powers over railway undertakings, light railways, or tramways, other than those which have already been given during the war to a Minister under the control system under which the railways have been managed recently.
The noble Earl in charge of the Bill used the following words on July 23 in this House—
"There is no question of taking over and managing these undertakings and taking them out of the hands of those in whose hands they are at the present moment. We do not profess to be able to manage railways better than the railway companies."
It is on that issue that I stand; and it is with a view of carrying out the intention of the noble Earl that I move this Amendment to maintain the management in the hands of the railway companies. We all know that the railway companies have been to a very large extent abused by the public in the past, but I am satisfied that in their management they will meet the wishes of the traders and of the travelling community to a far better extent than if they are to be entrusted to a centralised bureaucratic control, even under the control of a man of the distinguished parts of Sir Eric Geddes.
It is on the assurance that the noble Earl gave us that, I think, many of us supported the Government on the Second Reading, and in the vote we gave the other night in support of the Bill. We desire to impose upon the Minister the duty to advise railway companies, and we desire to impose on railway companies the obligation to take into consideration the views which may be expressed by a Minister who is anxious to promote the efficient conduct of the railways of this country, and to establish both efficiency and effective service for the benefit of the public. To give a Minister arbitrary powers to direct, to require, and to obey, seems to me entirely uncalled-for. We do not want to be directed by a Minister of the Crown as to the particular route by which we are to travel either by rail or by

217
road. We want to have liberty; but at the same time we are anxious to see economies effected in the services, and to see that the competition between railways in the interests of special shareholders shall not be prejudicial to the interests of the travelling public. In my judgment it is right that a Minister should be appointed who shall have certain powers of making representation to railway authorities in convection with the management of their concerns; but to be able to direct and to control and to call upon them to obey in an arbitrary fashion is to me un-English and contrary to the necessities of the case. I object to the peremptory direction which is secured under the provisions of this Bill.
The Minister no doubt may be called upon occasionally to look after the interests of the general public, as against, possibly, the interests of special shareholders; but I am satisfied that with the influence that a Minister Possesses he can make representation to railway companies which will enable them to retain the responsibility of managing their concerns without having to obey directions given in an autocratic way. It is necessary, I believe, for Ministers, just as it is for other authorities, to be subject to some limitation and restraint. It is the duty of a Minister to co-ordinate, and to see to the co-operation of the various transport services of the country. I believe that if that power is exercised in a proper and reasonable way he will secure a magnificent response from the railway companies and the other authorities in this country with whom he is going to be associated in the future. The local authorities and the local railway companies have special knowledge connected with their localities. They understand their own districts; the directors are men who are specially qualified to express an opinion as to the policy which ought to be pursued; they are men of large experience and they can be trusted, I think, with the management of their railway systems.
I am opposed to handing over the management and responsibility of railways to an autocrat. It is not because I believe that those powers will be exercised in an undue way by a man like Sir Eric Geddes, whom I have known for a great number of years, but because on principle I think it is undesirable that a Minister should be entrusted with powers which are of an autocratic and dictatorial character. Dictation tends to produce friction, and I am
218
quite sure bureaucracy tends to increase expense. It is with the view of preventing that heavy expenditure on the part of a new Ministry, and in order to promote cordial relations between the Minister of Transport and the various railway authorities in the country, that I move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, leave out from ("may") to the second ("of") in line 39, and insert ("confer with the owners or local authorities with a view to securing improvements in the service ").(Lord Gainford.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The noble Lord who has moved this Amendment is quite candid in the description he has given of the effect of it. He has told your Lordships that the object is to deprive the Minister of the powers of direction and control which are given to him under the Bill—that is, in fact, the effect of the Amendment. It will convert the mandatory hewers given to the Minister into purely consultative powers. If this Amendment is read in connection with others that the noble Lord has on the Paper later on the effect will be that, instead of having the power to issue directions to those undertakings of which he has taken possession, he is merely to be authorised to confer and to consult with the directors of those undertakings. I might point out, in passing, that no such power is necessary. He can confer and consult without being authorised to do so.
I think the noble Lord forgets, in the argument which he has used what is the fundamental fact which governs the whole situation—namely, that the State at this moment is the guarantor to these companies of their net revenue. So long as that situation lasts it is obvious that the State must also have power to secure to the public some advantage.
I would point out that there are a number of matters which the railway companies are quite anxious and willing to do but would be unable to do under their existing powers without a direction from the Minister. Without saying anything for the moment about the directions from the Minister which the companies might be unwilling to obey, there are many directions given in the course of subsection 1 (c) on page 4, notably an increase in their rates, which the railway companies are not able to-day to exercise without a period of

219
time so inserted as to make it impossible that any advantage may be derived within the next two years. I do not confine my defence of the powers in the Bill merely to the ground that there will be no direction from the Minister with which no railway company might disagree. The whole case rests upon the fact that during these two years during which the State stands behind the company in the matter of their finances, it is necessary that they should have some voice in the management of their undertaking. It is obvious that, if the State has got to pay, it must have some voice in the question of wages and salaries such as are mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (1). But it is not merely in the management of one particular undertaking, but in the supervision of the whole question of transport, that these powers are necessary in order to ensure that each undertaking is not managed merely from the point of view of its own interests, and that where possibly the interest of a particular undertaking might conflict with the general public interest in transportation matters, the Minister, who has his eye on the whole field, should come in and say, "This is necessary in the public interest."
We hold that that is necessary but we also admit that if, in the exercise of those powers, he inflicts any injury upon the undertaking, then the owners of the undertaking are entitled to some measure of compensation. That is provided for in another part of the Bill. I do not propose to enter into it now, but the principle is that if the Minister, in the exercise of his powers, causes any injury to the revenue-earning capacity of the undertaking, the owners shall receive compensation. Having provided against that, we hold that the ability of the Minister to exercise control during this period is absolutely vital to the objects we want to accomplish. The situation of the transport services throughout the country at this moment is much too serious to allow us to be satisfied with a mere consultative power on the part of the Minister. That being so, I can only say that the Amendment of the noble Lord strikes a blow at the very root of that principle and, of course, it is quite unacceptable to His Majesty's Government.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL BRASSEY EARL BRASSEY moved, in subsection (1) (b) after "The Minister may," to insert "with the consent of the owners of
220
such undertaking." The noble Lord said: This Amendment has a simliar object to that which was moved by Lord Gainford. The apprehensions which I expressed on the Second Reading of the Bill were founded on Clause 3, because the Minister practically has power to take over such an organisation as the London and North Western Railway Company at one month's notice, and I do not think any such power should be conferred on any Minister.
The noble Lord who moved the previous Amendment referred to the words used by the noble Earl in reply to the debate on the Second Reading. It may be the intention of the Government, and of the Minister-designate, not to interfere in the management of railways, but I think this should be made clear in the Bill. It is not clear now. This Bill is not only to provide for present circumstances but to provide for circumstances in which the noble Earl may not be in charge of a similar measure, and when Sir Eric Geddes may not be the Minister in charge of railways. I wish the noble Earl to understand that I myself believe there is a strong case for establishing a central authority to co-ordinate the system of transport in this country, and helping those who are responsible for the administration of our railways and other means of transport to remedy the disorder into which they have been thrown by the circumstances of the war, and not least by the concessions as regards hours and wages which have been imposed by the Government. Judging from the experience of our coal industry it would be absolutely disastrous for a Government Department, or Government officials, to interfere between employers and employed in the management of railways or any other means of transport. That is what I fear will be the result if this clause is carried in this present form. Divided responsibility is fatal.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, after ("may'') insert ("with the consent of the owners of such undertaking").—(Earl Brassey.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The only difference between this Amendment and the one on which your Lordships have just come to a decision is that, whereas the previous Amendment would have prevented the Minister from exercising control or taking possession of any undertaking and would have confined him solely to consultative means, the Amendment of the

221
noble Earl would have the effect of preventing the Minister from taking possession of any undertaking without the consent of its owners. Therefore all the remarks which I made upon the previous Amendment are appropriate. I do not think it would be of any use my repeating them. The effect is simply that the Minister shall not have power except with the consent of the undertaking; and That, we are unable to accept.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I listened to the very lucid speech which the noble Earl opposite made upon the last Amendment, and I admit with him that from the point of view from which the Government regard the Bill it would have been impossible for them to accept the Amendment which stood in the name of Lord Gainford. This is, however, a much more moderate Amendment, and it suggests that all that the Government desire to accomplish in the matter of this subsection, which is only as regards the railway undertakings already in the possession of the Government, could be done with consent and without coercion. The noble Earl opposite thinks differently. If the Government upon their responsibility declare that it would be impossible to work the Bill from their point of view without this coercive power, I should hardly feel able, after the line which I took upon the Instruction which your Lordships rejected, to go into the Lobby against them on this question of their Amendment; because in the effort which I then made to persuade your Lordships, I stated that for my part I was willing to grant: great powers to the Government with regard to railways, which were in a special position, and which powers I did not think ought to be extended to other parts of the Bill.
I would, however, put it to the Government whether they are quite wise to take this very strong line about railways. Is it not a very Prussian view about treating independent Englishmen? Apparently in the view of the Government you cannot expect railway companies to act in a public-spirited sense unless they are obliged to—unless you have the power to order them to surrender their liberty of action into the hands of the Government you cannot expect them to take that view.
I ask the noble Earl, and his colleagues whether during this war they have experienced that refusal amongst Englishman to
222
co-operate with the Government, even to the abandonment of their own liberty of action, in order to fulfil a great public service. I submit to them that their experience is entirely in the other direction, and that they have not made any demands, of any kind or sort, so far as England and Scotland are concerned, which have not been met in the most generous fashion. Why then should they desire to force people to do that which they show no desire to resist? What is it which has infected them with these Teutonic ideas? Why not leave us to be free, as we always have been?
I admit that the Government have a strong case in one sense, that they are going to find the money and are therefore entitled to call the tune. I do not, however, make an appeal to justice in this matter. I appeal to common sense and to reasonable treatment, and I suggest to the Government that they might confidently rely, if they had any real faith in their countrymen, upon the co-operation of these railway companies if they allowed the words of my noble friend to be inserted. As I have said, I do not propose personally to go into the Lobby against them, because it would be inconsistent with the line which I took on another occasion. But unless the Government change their spirit they will find they will meet finally with the determined opposition of all Englishmen and Scotsmen.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL BRASSEY EARL BRASSEY moved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out "one" and insert "three." The noble Earl said: This Amendment explains itself. I think it is quite unreasonable to give power to the Minister to take over the management of the North-Western Railway—the illustration I gave just now—on one month's notice. I am not sure that three months' notice is sufficient. But I think that at least three months' notice should be given of the intention of the Minister, and I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, leave out ("one") and insert ("three").—(Earl Brassey.)
LORD ISLINGTON: As I have the same Amendment down I should like to say a word in support of it. This subclause, and those that follow, open up the whole

223
operative powers of this Bill. This clause in all its varying and various sub-clauses empowers the Minister to control and conduct all these great undertakings throughout the country, and all these transport organisations upon which the complete commercial system of the country depends. This clause is perhaps the most far-reaching and comprehensive of any in the Bill, because it not only comprises the whole working expenses of these undertakings but it grants powers of such a character that they must if put into operation, at any rate in many instances, materially affect and influence for good or ill the whole conditions, social, economic, and commercial, of the locality in which they are imposed.
I agree with my noble friend Earl Brassey that one month is a totally inadequate period of notice that the Minister is to give to obtain possession of all or part of these undertakings. The Bill says that it is not to be less than one month. I propose, along with my noble friend, the extremely moderate extension that it should not be less than three months. One month would hardly enable time for the boards of management and for the governing bodies of these great undertakings to be called together. Still less would it enable them to discuss and decide as to the whole course they are to take in regard to the changes that will be effected preparatory to these vital and over-riding alterations that are to come about in regard to their own internal arrangements.
My noble friend may say, in reply to this that there will be plenty of time at a subsequent stage, as proposed in a later clause to the Bill, for the Committee to be set up to give its advice in regard to these undertakings. But, my Lords, I do not gather in the Bill that this committee will have the consideration and advice of all these matters that are enumerated in these various sub-clauses on page 4. The only matters that this sub-committee will have to deal with are such matters as rates, fares tolls, dues and charges. A very important question such as the salaries and wages of the employees, questions as to the working or discontinuance of the undertaking, the securing that the permanent way and rolling stock, plant, and appliances, and equipment should be dealt with or not, the carrying out of alterations and improvements, and the securing of co-operation—all these matters are to be dealt with in an
224
arbitrary manner by the Minister. And therefore I think it is incumbent on the Government, in the interests of all those concerned, to give a longer notice than one month.
I entirely agree with the main conception of this Bill which, as I understand it, is for establishing co-ordination of traffic. I voted against the noble Marquess the other day because I believe that that principle, if it is carried out in a moderate and reasonable manner in this Bill, is a perfectly sound one, and an essential one. But I am sure that many of your Lordships will share my view when I say that this principle should be carried out with due, proper, and reasonable consideration for those who are concerned, No one man, however able he may be and however fair-minded he may be, no one centralised Department, however efficient it may be, can do this successfully, unless the opportunity is offered of weighing the various conflicting effects that may result from this policy.
I think there are two blemishes in this Bill, and I hope, before it has passed through this House, that both those blemishes will undergo, at any rate, modification. In my humble opinion this Bill in many respects aims at too precipitate action. I do not believe that you are going to get any really permanently successful results from over-precipitate action. Secondly, I cannot see in this Bill at present—and I shall use my best efforts, along with your Lordships, to see it strengthened in this direction—that it furnishes a sufficient machinery for due and proper consideration for those vast and varied interests which will be affected when some of these powers are put into operation. Both those aspects of the problem should be given effect to in this Bill.
I have no confidence in a merely attractive and theoretical proposition in the four corners of a Bill. Unless it is coupled with careful and well-thought-out machinery for the consideration that can only be elicited successfully by examination from the interested quarters affected, I am sure that this Bill when it becomes a Statute, far from proving a blessing to this country, as I am sure the Government desire, will only bring about a very great calamity. It is in that sense that I shall address myself to the Bill, and that I support this, to my mind extremely reasonable, proposal of my noble friend for the extension of the time to three months.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: As my Amendment comes next to this and deals with the same subject I will speak now, and perhaps not move my own Amendment. I am quite willing to substitute for the words "twelve months" in my Amendment the "three months" which, I understand, has been moved by Lord Brassey. I think my noble friends made a mistake when they thought the London and North Western Railway is to be taken over. It is under the control of the Government already under different powers. As a matter of fact, taking one month's possession, or whatever the period is, only applies to a certain number of smaller railways, to a certain number of tramways and minor things. I am not saying that it is not important they should have justice, but it would not really affect the great railway companies at all. I think the Government might agree to not less than three months notice, which I think is the wish of the House. There are several smaller concerns—take the tramways round London nut municipally owned; I think it would be an outrageous thing to take them over at one month's notice. We have to think that the day may come when we may have a Transport Minister intent on very rapid and drastic nationalisation, and under this clause he could take possession of any of the privately-owned tramways or smaller railways. For that reason I shall support my noble friends if they go into the Lobby.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The noble Lord who has just sat down has saved me the necessity of pointing out to Lord Islington that he was incorrect in speaking of these great undertakings as being affected by this measure. What we are dealing with are those undertakings not at the moment in the possession of the Government. The large railway companies are at this moment in the possession of the Government.
LORD ISLINGTON: I know that. I was dealing with those in (b).
THE EARL OF LYTTON: They will be a very few railways—the District Railway, and the very small railways not now in the hands of the Government, and tramways, and canals. My argument on this Amendment does not, of course, rest upon that. I point that out merely by the way. I hope that I may be able in explaining this procedure to convince your Lordships that we are not such Prussians as the noble
226
Marquess conceives. If I understand it, the movers of this Amendment consider that it would be reasonable for us, on giving three months' notice to any undertaking, to obtain possession of it there and then without any further action. What I would like to point out to noble Lords who have spoken on the Amendment—
EARL BRASSEY: I had an Amendment on this clause which entirely qualified that. I did not think it was reasonable to take possession even with three months notice.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I do not think that the noble Lord has quite understood the procedure. What we have already given under the Bill is something far more than that. Noble Lords have overlooked the fact that in Clause 21 (at the top of page 23) before the Minister can exercise any of his powers under this subsection he has to refer to an advisory committee which is set up for the express purpose of examining the intentions of the Minister with regard to taking possession of any undertaking. Suppose the Minister decides that it is desirable to take possession of some undertaking not at this moment in his hands. He has first of all to refer this to the advisory committee; the advisory committee has then to hold an inquiry, and all the owners of the undertakings affected will come before this advisory committee and discuss them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They have not got to hold an inquiry; they may do so.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: You said that they had got to hold an inquiry.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Yes, I admit that. "The advisory committee to whom this matter is referred shall, if they see fit, give public notice and permit any person affected to place their views before them."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: "If they see fit."
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Yes. But this committee is appointed for the express purpose of advising the Minister whether or not it is advisable that he should take possession.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They are all the Minister's nominees.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The composition of the committee does not really arise at this point. This committee is appointed for the purpose of advising the Minister as to whether he should exercise those powers. Surely it is inconceivable that the committee can offer any advice at all unless they have consulted the persons who will be affected by it. If any opposition is expressed on the part of an undertaking to be taken over it is obvious they will make representations. Whether a public inquiry will be held or not is, it is true, at the discretion of the Minister. The owners will, at all events, have had notice from the Committee to whom the matter is referred that it is intended to take over the undertaking, and will have an opportunity of making representations to that Committee. All that process of inquiry may take a very considerable time. All that is stated here is that when that Inquiry is complete, and after the representations, if they have any claim it should be made to the Committee. Then, and not till then, shall one month's notice be given. By that time the whole purpose of giving notice will have been obtained, and there will be really no necessity to give any notice at all, because there is no preparation required on the part of these undertakings. The process is simply that the undertaking is taken over, and an official rubber stamp is placed upon their business. They have not to make any preparation for which notice is required. All their interests will be considered much more effectively in the preliminary negotiations than they could be by merely giving notice. By the time all that procedure has been gone through I feel sure the noble Lord will see that the undertakings concerned will have much more opportunity of making representations on matters concerning their interests than they would have by the mere receipt of notice, whether it be one month's, two months', or three months'.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I think we have all heard on this side of the House the speech of the noble Earl with great regret. A most moderate proposal is made, and really the noble Earl gives us the impression that moderation does not produce the result we should have expected in a case like this. What is the proposition of the Government? They have declared that they do not want to control but merely
228
to advise. In this clause the words as to control are as absolute as anything can be. We are not at war; we are not at grips with any crisis, and there is no reason for this extraordinary haste. The noble Earl puts up as a plea that before doing anything the Minister has got to make an Inquiry. What is the Inquiry? An inquiry by his own nominees. It is not necessarily a public Inquiry; it may possibly be secret. We know what the Government think about Inquiries from the Coal Inquiry. The fate of the greatest industry of this country was decided upon under pressure in about three weeks, to the eternal damage of the whole industry and of the country. Under those circumstances the Government do not come before us with clean hands about inquiries. I can quite imagine that a Minister might be appointed who would tell the Committee to consider the matter and report to him in forty-eight hours, and if he did so he would be giving a great deal more time, considering the relative importance of the things, than was given to the Coal Inquiries.
It really seems that the object of the Government is that the Minister should use at any moment powers which might have been tolerable in war but which are quite intolerable in time of peace. This is a Bill with control in every line. In those circumstances, even though the Bill has been brought up at such a late hour, when there is not the same attendance as there would have been at an earlier hour, if my noble friend goes to a Division I shall certainly go with him.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: May I put this case to the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill? I will give an instance which, I think, he will agree is a possibility, and a fair instance of how it would work. Supposing the Advisory Committee were to report against taking over one of the concerns at present uncontrolled, like the Tubes or the London United Tramways, the Minister has a right to override that decision. He then overrides the decision, notwithstanding the report, and he can take over the undertaking at a month's notice. I do not say he would do so, but he has the power to do so. We are not always dealing with Sir Eric Geddes. We may have somebody who is determined on ruthless nationalisation at the earliest possible moment, and if that Minister chose to put his powers into operation he could, even against the advice of the Advisory Com-

229
mittee, take possession of the concern at one month's notice. I do not think any one call say that is fair.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I look at the Amendment, as the noble Earl knows, from a point of view entirely friendly to the Bill, but I hope he will give a little more consideration to the matter. I listened carefully to his argument, based upon subsection (2) of Clause 21. I noticed he said that under the Bill the matter must be referred to a committee before notice is given under subsection (1) paragraph (b) of Clause 3. I doubt very much whether that is the effect of his Bill. If the noble Earl will look at page 23 and subsection (2), Clause 21, he will see that it provides that, before exercising any of the powers in subsection (1) (b) of Clause 3, to the exercise of which the owners of the undertaking concerned object, the matter shall be referred to a committee. I think that implies that notice has been already given to the owners of the undertaking because, until they get notice, they have no opportunity to object. I think the effect of the Bill is that the Minister might on the same day give his month's notice and refer the matter to his Committee. The Committee might possibly meet at once and dispose of the matter in a very short time and the effect might be that really the owners of the undertaking would have no more than a month's notice. I venture to think that the point requires consideration, and, if I am right; in my reading of the Bill, one month is really too short a time in which to expect the owners of a business undertaking to prepare to hand over their concern.
THE EARL OF LYTTON:: Of course, we are really concerned with undertakings that do object, because obviously if an undertaking is willing to be taken over, it does not require a day's notice. In such cases, the undertaking will come to the Minister and say, "Please take us over to-morrow." The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, said a case might arise in which, a matter having been referred to the Committee, the Committee might advise against it. Of course that might happen, but what no speaker in support of the Amendment has shown, is the necessity, from the point of view of the undertaking, of receiving notice. Nobody has said what inconvenience would be inflicted upon any undertaking by the fact that the owners knew that at the end of a month
230
they would be taken over. In what respect would any undertaking be better off if it knew it would be taken over in three months instead of in one month?
I think it is necessary before we are accused of doing something which is unfair, that it should be explained to us what advantage there is in the Amendment. What advantage is there to an undertaking, after its interests have been considered, to know that it will be taken over in three months instead of one? The disadvantage is obvious. It means delay. I did not say anything about the noble Lord's Amendment but it really is ridiculous. The Minister has only power for two years, and the noble Lord suggests that he should wait for twelve months before he did anything at all: I only mention that to show the disadvantage of extending the period, as it is obviously important these powers should be exercised as soon as possible. No attempt has been made by those who support the Amendment to show that any injustice or inconvenience will be imposed by reason of the shortness of notice.
LORD EMMOTT: I appeal to the Government on this matter. Is it quite reasonable that they should insist on only one month's notice? It must be the experience of every noble Lord present that it takes a month in the ordinary way to get an answer from a Government Department, and is it reasonable that the Government, on its side, should ask a commercial undertaking to decide in less than a month whether they are willing, and have no objection, to the Government taking complete control of their concern. I maintain it is not a reasonable time to give.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT: I should like to point out that this period of one month cannot be deemed to have been carefully thought out because when the Bill was introduced there was no period stated at all. A month was inserted while the Bill was before the House of Commons. Secondly, as regards the Advisory Committee. That was not in the Bill when introduced. These are Amendments which have been imposed on the Government during the consideration of the Bill in another place. As regards the statement of the noble Earl that nobody has given any reasons why this month was too short a period, I agree with Lord Emmott that a great undertaking requires time to get the Board together to consider what their

231
action will be. It is perfectly impossible for them to accept the notice and act upon it until they have had some sort of breathing time for consideration. At certain periods of the year it might, indeed, be difficult to get the Board together in a month. If the Government assume that on the mere fact of giving notice the persons affected will fold their arms and surrender that is another story, but that is not their intention, and certainly one month will prove, in practice, to be highly inconvenient. I think the Amendment to extend it to three months is in every way reasonable.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not venture to comment on the criticism made by Viscount Cave, but Lord Lytton informs me that it was not the intention of the Government that the notice should be given on the same day so that the month should actually include the time during which the Advisory Committee is going to act. The Bill says absolutely in clear terms that before the Minister exercises any of these powers he is obliged to refer the matter to the Advisory Committee.
VISCOUNT CAVE: To which the owners object.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: Can they object if they have not received notice?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: Then the giving of the notice is not one of the powers to be exercised.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My noble friend will most readily look into that point and consult his expert draftsmen, and if they agree in what Viscount Cave has said the matter can be revised. I was, however, rather surprised to hear the interpretation of the noble and learned Viscount. What I wanted to deal with is the reference that Lord Montagu, Lord Brassey, and Lord Islington made to Clause 21. I think by some of your Lordships it may not have been fully appreciated that this preliminary step did exist.
It was said, I think by Lord Midleton, that the Committee were nominees of the Minister. I am not quite sure that that is entirely the case. The Statute lays down
232
very specifically the qualifications of these gentlemen, and they are pretty stringent qualifications. They have got to be experts, to be impartial, to enjoy wide commercial and trading experience, and the Consultative Committee cannot be appointed except after a consultation with the various interests and parties concerned, and also with the various classes of undertakings affected by this Act—canals, railways or whatever it may be—and finally with the local authorities and other interests. One can hardly say that an advisory committee formed according to so stringent a Statute call consist of mere nobodies who are going to do whatever the Minister may give them a hint that he desires them to do. Then the Statute says how the Committee is to be formed and that once it is formed the Minister has got to refer to it before he can take action.
Then lastly this advisory panel, or any committee of it, before reporting or advising are entitled—it does not say they shall but are entitled—to give public notice and to permit anybody to appear before them. I think it is impossible to say everybody should have a right to appear before them, because the Committee must have some safeguard about preserving its own views of locus standi. I think, however, with these three provisions nobody can say that the case of these undertakings has not a chance of being placed before the Committee, which, although it may be nominated by the Minister must clearly represent all interests.
LORD ISLINGTON: I am sorry to delay the Committee, but I ant not impressed at all by anything which has been said by the Government. Whether my noble friend is right or not in his interpretation of the Bill I cannot see that it affects this matter. My noble friend Lord Lytton has asked for a reason why we should stipulate three months. The reason which I give is this, that assuming all the arrangements have been discussed at the Advisory Committee, and assuming that that precedes notice, although it is very doubtful if it does, even then there must be all kinds of internal arrangements of administration of these concerns which it is incumbent upon the management of these concerns to consider in view of being taken over by the Government. To ask them to make these internal arrangements within a month is to my mind unreasonable.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I do not think there is really very much between us. What we all, I think, agree about is that any undertaking must have due notice before it is actually taken over. It has always been the intention of the Government that that should be the case. Lord Cave pointed out that no undertaking can say whether it will consent until it has been given notice of the intention of the Minister to exercise his power, and therefore the first thing the Minister must do is to give notice to the undertaking. It was never the intention of the Government that that should be construed as notice to take possession, but if it be so construed subsequent discussion might not be terminated in one month, and in order to make it quite certain that full notice shall be received by the undertakings I am willing if the noble Lord will agree to extend it to two months.
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD ISLINGTON LORD ISLINGTON moved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out "take possession," and to insert "assume control." The noble Lord said: This may appear to be a mere verbal Amendment, but I think there is more in it than meets the eye. This Bill, as we all understand, is to create a Ministry with power to control and co-ordinate the various forms of transport throughout the country, and, if that be so, why should the Bill be drafted in such a manner as to amount in its impression to nationalisation. "Possession" by a Ministerial Department which has become an integral part of
EARL BRASSEY: For my part I am not prepared to accept the offer. I think three months is the minimum notice required in this case. I did not refer to Clause 21, because I think all reference to that clause, if the noble Lord will excuse my saying so, is completely beside the mark. As pointed out already, the panel set up under that clause are the nominees of the Minister. If the Minister wants them to decide it, they will decide it in a day. It does not afford the least protection to the undertaking that the Government wishes to take over. I therefore press my Amendment.
On Question, whether the word "one" shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 34.

CONTENTS.

Bradford, E.

Peel, V.

Newton, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Craven, E.

Annesley, L.

Ranksborough, E.

Jersey, E.

Clinton, L.

Shandon, E.

Lytton, E.

Cochrane of Cults, B.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Colebrooke, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Harris, B.

Wyfold, E.

Churchill, V.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Devonport, V.

Islington, L.

Hood, V.

Joicey, L.

Salisbury, M.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Belper, L.

Lovat, L.

Brassey, E. [Teller.]

Bledisloe, L.

Montagu of Beanlieu, E.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Ribblesdale, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Morton, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Rotherham, L.

Mount Edgeumbe, E.

Denraan, L. [Teller.]

Strachie, L.

Stanhope, E.

Ebury, E.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Wicklow, E.

Emmott, L.

Sudley, B. (E. Arran.)

Erskine, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Cave, V.

Forester, L.

the Government can only mean, to the ordinary mind, possession by the State, and will undoubtedly be construed as such by all those who desire to consummate the policy of nationalisation.
I am told that these words have been. taken from a previous Act of 1871, the Regulation of Forces Act, that it is merely a technical term, and that it does not, in fact, mean possession, but only control, as it did in that Act. But I do not think that is a very valid reason for its survival in these days. In 1871 there was no question in the country of nationalisation, there was therefore no danger in wording an Act in a somewhat vague form, as that Act was worded. But we live in very different times

235
to-day. Nationalisation of the industries of the country is rapidly veering to the forefront as an issue of the most prominent controversy in the country.
This Bill, when it becomes law, will have to be complied with by a very large number of interests in the country, embracing large sections of the public, most of whom had been brought up to regard a word in the English language to imply what it means and to be recognised as such. "Possession" is a perfectly simple word and every one understands what it means. "Control" means something quite different. I venture to say that it is control and not possession which is the principle of this Bill, and if that be so why should it not be embodied in the Bill? In this Bill we are breaking entirely fresh ground; and in view of what I have said, merely for the sake of preserving an obsolete uniformity of drafting, we should not introduce into this Bill a word which is not really meant, and which, perhaps, in a few years—indeed, in a few months—may be administered by a Government which will give effect to it in its literal sense. I think there is a grave danger in this, and that it is incumbent upon His Majesty's Government to avoid lending assistance to it. Therefore I would ask them to accept the substitution of these words which really embody the principle of their Bill, and get rid of the old phrase which is so vague.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 37, leave out ("take possession") and insert ("assume control").—(Lord Islington.)
THE EARL OF LYTI'ON: There is no point of substance involved in this Amendment. It is really a mere matter of words. There is, however, a considerable objection to accepting the noble Lord's Amendment, for this reason. At the present time the Government is in possession of the railways, of which they have taken possession under the Act of 1871. No alteration of the words here can alter that fact. Now, if it is said that the Government are in possession of undertakings which were taken over during the war under the Act of 1871, and possession of which is now retained, but that in respect of other undertakings control is assumed under the powers of this Act, then surely it will be assumed that there must be some difference between the powers of the Minister with respect to those undertakings of which he has assumed
236
control and those of which he is in possession. That would lead to considerable confusion and, I think, would be a puzzle.
It really is not a question of substance, because the powers of the Minister, whether you say he has assumed control or taken possession, are the powers contained in the further subsections of this clause. If there should be any doubt that these words "take possession" had vested the property of the undertakings in the Ministry, of course that could be cleared up. It has never occurred to any one that because the undertakings have been in the possession of the Minister under the Act of 1871 the property is vested in the Minister; and it never would occur to any one under the wording of this clause, I think. If it should be necessary to insert words to make that clear I believe it could be done. I am of opinion that it would be a mistake to give rise to the opinion that there will be any difference in the powers exercised between one set of undertakings and another.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Would it alter the position if the Government put in the words as in the Act of 1871?
THE: MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I had always understood that the words "take possession" only meant to give control. I confess that I think it is most unfortunate, if I may say so with respect in the presence of the noble and learned Viscount, that legal language is sometimes very deceptive to the ordinary reader.
VISCOUNT CAVE: May I point out that it is not legal language; it is statutory language.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I live and learn. I did not know that there was a distinction between the two; but I shall remember hereafter, on the authority of a great light of the Bench, that statutory language is not always legal language. I think, at any rate, it is very unfortunate, and I should not perhaps have been called upon to trouble your Lordships with a single word if it had not been that there seemed to be a lingering doubt in the mind of the noble Earl whether there was not possibly some question as to the meaning

237
of "take possession" and as to the way in which the Act of 1871 has been interpreted. He, however, says that if there should be any doubt as to "take possession" involving becoming the owner of the property of the railway, he would take care to clear it up. I think that is a very fair offer. If he would consult his legal advisers and find out whether it is absolutely clear, and, if not, undertake to put it right, I should have thought that would be sufficient for our purpose.
LORD ISLINGTON: In the circumstances I would suggest some such words as, "take possession with the object of control."
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Would it not be better if my noble friend would put in the simple words "as defined by the Act of 1871"
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I think that is covered, because it states that, "Where at the passing of this Act possession has been taken … in pursuance of Section sixteen … possession shall be retained." That is in subsection (1) (a). I think it may be assumed, when the words occur in subsection (1) (b), that it is possession in the same sense. If, however, there is any doubt as to the exact meaning of the words, and it may be thought necessary to define them further, I will consider the matter at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD JOICEY LORD JOICEY moved, in, subsection (1) (b), after "any other" to insert "statutory." The noble Lord Said: There is no definition of what a railway undertaking is in this Bill, and I gather that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government simply to take possession and deal with railways which are what I call statutory railway undertakings. There are scores of railways in various parts of the country which are private railways, which are owned by various industries that are used entirely for the carrying on of those industries. The traffic upon them generally goes at about 8 or 10 miles an hour. There is some anxiety about this matter in the North of England and other places where these railways exist, and I have been asked to have this point properly defined.
238
I gather from the noble Earl that he will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, after ("any other") insert the word ("statutory").—(Lord Joicey.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I am quite willing to accept this Amendment, which makes clear the intention of the Government.
Amendment agreed to.
LORD ISLINGTON LORD ISLINGTON moved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out "other than a tramway or a light railway used as a tramway belonging to a local authority." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment with a view to elicit front His Majesty's Government a statement why this most important link of the scheme of national transportation is to be omitted. I must frankly admit that in moving this Amendment I do so solely on my own responsibility, and I have no authority to do so from any local authorities that possess these tramway or light railway systems.
The tramways and light railways owned by local authorities are extremely numerous in this country. I have not been able to obtain the figures, but I do not think I am incorrect in saying that there are probably more tramways municipally owned than those owned by private companies. Whether that is so or not, the exclusion of tramways belonging to local authorities will undoubtedly dig very deep into the proposals for effective co-ordination as proposed in this Bill. Whole slices of country, and this, indeed, the most industrial and populous, will be bereft of those advantages of central direction and co-ordination which the Bill seeks to grant to the country. It will create a series of transport anomalies and partialities throughout the country. These very links and connections in the chain of transport, especially in relation to tramways, are to depend, not on the necessities of the case, not on the intrinsic requirements of the localities, but merely on the fortuitous circumstance of ownership. These tramways owned by public authorities are in the most industrial localities, most thickly populated, and one of the chief objects of this Bill, as I understand it, is to assure, through this new Ministry, an effective form of co-operation between transport and housing.
These new schemes of housing that are so urgently needed, especially in our thickly populated industrial districts, will require for their success absolutely the best form of regular traffic and transport. It is in these very centres, with vast population now inadequately housed, where great schemes are being projected to supply houses for the population, that it will be found that the existing tramway systems, owned by local authorities, will not have any of the advantages of this Bill. I think that is a very important point, because these housing schemes, for their utility and success, must depend upon the extension of the tramway systems. It is true that there is a provision in the Bill to give the Minister power to establish these lines himself, but that does not appear to me to be a very practicable arrangement. The practical course would be to come to some arrangement with the local authority so that the local authority might extend its own tramway systems. I suppose the reason that influenced another place to omit the tramways owned by local authorities was that they were owned by those authorities, as distinct from private ownership, and that therefore, they should not be interfered with by a central authority. By this Bill the Government are placing roads under the Ministry, and roads belong to and are maintained by—
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Not taking possession of them.
LORD ISLINGTON: I am not asking for this Ministry to take possession of the locally-owned tramways. I am asking them to have the power of direction, so that in co-operation with them the local authorities can extend the tramway systems to meet the demand of fresh housing. I give another instance. Last week in clause after clause in the Housing Bill powers were given of the most drastic character to the Ministry of Health over local authorities in the matter of housing schemes, and I really think there should be no diffidence on the part of the Government in asking local authorities to act under central direction and thus give effect to a complete and perfect system of transport throughout the country. Rapid, regular, and cheap tramway facilities are an integral and indispensable part of a successful housing scheme, and there can be no argument on the merits for the omission of tramways. It must certainly impair the
240
success of the housing schemes and it will also impair the whole system of coordinated traction throughout the country.
Probably the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment in its bald form, because I can quite see that difficulties would arise. I can see that the whole system of tramways in London would have to be dealt with in another fashion, as well as the tramways systems in our great cities. But before passing the Bill I hope the Government will give due consideration to the points I have put forward. I ask them to see that in our industrial centres they must play an important part as a connecting link in the whole traction system and should be brought into closer co-operation with the new Ministry.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 40, leave out from the first ("tramway") to ("canal") in page 4, line 1.—(Lord Islington.)
LORD JOICEY: I support what has been said by Lord Islington. It is most important that there should be a complete system of tramways and that the Government should have some control over municipal tramways. Municipalities sometimes quarrel. I have known a case where two municipalities kept the tramways separate, and unless there is some central authority you will find there will be difficulties in some industrial districts. Now that the housing question has become so important it is necessary there should be a complete tramway system for the people who will live in these houses. This is a very important point.
LORD EMMOTT: I differ from my two noble friends. I do not think it is practical politics to attempt to take out these words. Objections might be made by local authorities. Neither have they brought forward anything to show that the tramway systems would be better worked than by local authorities. The duties which the Bill imposes are vast enough without adding to them the care of all the tramway systems now controlled by local authorities. On the whole I would trust local authorities about these matters rather than give the Government power to take possession. It is not advisable to give the Government power to take possession unless it can be shown that local authorities are making a bad use of them.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: It is rather a novel and pleasant experience to find noble Lords anxious to impose upon us powers and duties which we have not asked for in the Bill. I rather gather from the speech of the noble Lord who moved it that he was not so much anxious that we should take possession of these municipal tramways as he was to make a point at the expense of the Government for not having been consistent in maintaining their Teutonic attitude upon all points.
It is true that in the first draft of the Bill powers were asked to take possession of these tramways, and I do not think the Government would offer any objection if your Lordships once more placed these under their control, but the argument of the mover has really been met by the last speaker. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment is quite right in saying that the real importance of tramways is in regard to housing, and that the Government could not honestly say that these local authorities had in the past shown any reluctance to meet the housing needs of the country by extending their own tramway systems. As the noble Lord has pointed out they have powers under the Bill should that be the case to start or extend tramway systems of their own, but owing to the very strong opposition expressed by various municipalities the Government had to consent to put in these words which the noble Lord now wants to strike out. As I have said, if your Lordships decide to reinsert these words we shall not quarrel, but I can hold out not much hope that they will be reinstated by the House of Commons.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I share the view of Lord Emmott on this matter, but I was very much interested to hear how the dexterous speaker who has just sat down would get out of the logical difficulty put to him. I cannot understand the ground upon which the Government made this distinction between one set of tramways and another, but I am only too grateful that some tramways have been spared, and therefore do not desire to press them at all. These are, however, signs of the battlefields in the House of Commons—the various measures of retreat as the Government have been driven from point to point. This is one of them. As the Bill was introduced all tramways were included, but I think I am not wrong in saying they were
242
induced in Standing Committee to give up the municipal tramways, just as they were induced to give up power to take over other vast undertakings permanently, which was the original Clause 4 of the Bill. Under all these circumstances I am inclined to hope that my noble friend will not proceed with his Amendment, but let us save, at any rate, the municipal tramways.
LORD ISLINGTON: I do not propose to press this Amendment, but I am bound to say I do not think the answer of the Government is a very adequate one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 40, after the first ("tramway") insert ("undertaking").
Page 4, line 1, leave out ("canal") and insert ("or of any canal or")
Page 4, line 2, after ("mentioned") insert ("of")
Page 4, line 3, leave out ("thereto") and insert ("to any such undertaking as aforesaid").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of subsection (1) (b), to insert: "at the end of two years from the passing of this Act the possession of any undertaking possession of which has been retained or taken under this clause shall be restored forthwith to the owners of the undertaking, unless Parliament shall otherwise determine, and it shall be the aim of the Minister to restore such undertakings in such a condition in respect of efficiency and reserve earning capacity that no expenditure of public money shall be necessary for their upkeep."
The noble Lord said: This is a rather important Amendment and is supported by various commercial bodies and others, and it aims at securing that if nationalisation does come we shall not glide into it without Parliament having an opportunity of expressing its opinion. We have heard from the Government that they do not consider this Bill is a step towards nationalisation. I differ from them on that point. Moreover we are told that it is rather the other way, and that if it was not for this Bill we should have to have nationalisation. This is an endeavour to avert what I may call the glide into

243
nationalisation without Parliament or the country being consulted upon it. Although the preamble to Clause 3 says "the following provisions shall have effect for two years," and although this clause, I take it, is governed by those words, these things are, I imagine, a preliminary to consultation about the policy to be pursued. Nothing is done specifically to show that after two years the Minister, if still in possession under the terms of the Act of 1871, is under any obligation to give up these undertakings or return them to their original possessors. I think we ought to make it clear that it should be the Minister's statutory aim to restore the railways in a revenue earning condition at the end of the two years, and that if he runs them on the lines of certain municipal trams—namely, not to pay but to be a public service, merely to earn their expenses and nothing more—then it will be absolutely impossible in my opinion to avoid nationalisation, because the State cannot go on subsidising the concerns at the end of two years; and the companies, in the second place, will not want them back.
I move this Amendment for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Government can give us any clear statement of policy as to what they intend to do at the end of the two years, and to avert as far as possible the gradual and irresistible glide into nationalisation without the previous authority of Parliament or the country. I do not move this in any spirit of hostility to the Bill, but in order that the Government may give us information, and, if they are sincere in their statement that this Bill is not a step to nationalisation, I hope that they will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 7, at end insert ("at the end of two years from the passing of this Act the possession of any undertaking possession of which has been retained or taken under this clause shall be restored forthwith to the owners of the undertaking, unless Parliament. shall otherwise determine, and it shall be the aim of the Minister to restore such undertakings in such a condition in respect of efficiency and reserve earning capacity that no expenditure of public money shall be necessary for their upkeep").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I think the noble Lord has moved this Amendment under a misapprehension The first words of the Amendment I can assure him, are entirely unnecessary. I do not think there
244
is any doubt whatever, under the words of the Bill as they stand, that if power is given to the Government to take possession of any undertaking for two years, that at the end of that two years possession must revert to the owners of the undertaking unless of course Parliament decides otherwise in the meantime. All that the noble Lord is proposing to do in the first part of this Amendment is to say that that shall be the case. I say that the words are unnecessary because that must be the case. With regard to the second part of the Amendment I think the words are objectionable. I really do not quite know what some of them mean, and in ally case I think that it is very undesirable to put into an Act of Parliament the expression of a pious opinion that it should be the aim of the Minister to do certain things; certainly it will not be the only aim of the Minister to do these various things stated in the Amendment. Except on that ground I should have no objection to its being said that it should be one of the aims of the Minister to restore such undertakings in a condition of efficiency. But I have an objection to the last words of the Amendment. As I say, I do not quite know what they mean, and it seems to me that they imply an obligation—
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Will the noble Earl say what words he objects to?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: "No expenditure of money shall be necessary for their upkeep." That seems to me to imply an obligation on the part of the State to give to those undertakings some assistance out of public money other than in the form of compensation. The policy of the Bill is this. The Government is given possession or control over these various transport undertakings for a period of two years. At the end of that time they will be handed back to the owners of the undertakings, and Clause 8, which we shall come to presently, sets out the conditions which shall attach to their being handed back. It is there set forth that, if the undertakings have been improved by the Minister, then the owners are not to have the benefit of that improvement. If, on the other hand, they have been depreciated, then the owners are not to bear the expense of that depreciation. All that is set forth in Clause 8, and that represents the obligation

245
of the Government in the matter of compensation. I really do not know what is meant by the noble Lord in these words. I object to putting into an Act of Parliament words saying that "it shall be the aim of the Minister to restore such undertakings," using the words of the noble Lord's Amendment, and I object to the implication contained in the last words that there is any obligation to spend money at the end of these two years upon the undertakings otherwise than in the form of compensation, which is provided for in Clause 8.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I think that the object of the Amendment is one that the noble Earl cannot altogether deal with, because at present every railway tries to make the best of its undertaking. By hypothesis the Minister, in taking them over, is not going to study the advantage of any particular undertaking, but of the whole of them. What my noble friend wants to avoid is leaving some of the undertakings, one or two, in such a condition that they have really been acting as feeders to others, but not to their own advantage, so that they cannot be taken back except with the greatest possible difficulty by the shareholders. All that, I am afraid, must follow upon the main principle of the Bill, which some of your Lordships disapprove, but which at the same time is the substratum of the Bill, and therefore I do not think it is worth while pressing the Amendment at this stage.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I am not quite reassured by what the noble Earl has said, but I understand him to say that automatically at the end of two years these undertakings are restored, unless Parliament otherwise determines.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Certainly.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: So that I suppose that that is as far as we can get at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved, at the end of subsection (1) (b), to insert: "There shall be paid to any company whose railway undertaking or light railway or tramway or any part thereof may be taken possession of in pursuance of this
246
section, such fall compensation for any loss or injury they may have sustained by the exercise of the powers of the Minister under this section as may be agreed upon between the Minister and the said company, or in case of difference, may be settled by arbitration in manner provided by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to secure that any undertaking at present not controlled and not taken over shall, should it be controlled and taken possession of, receive at least as fair treatment, as the result of the process, as has been received by the undertakings which have been taken over.
A short time ago the noble Earl in charge of the Bill expressed the laudable desire to adhere to and repeat the spirit and the exact wording of the Statute of 1871, under which the great railway undertakings have been taken over. This Amendment adopts verbatim the wording of the third paragraph of the very section under which those undertakings have been taken over. It provides in like manner for full compensation for any loss or injury that they have sustained by the exercise of the powers, and that, if compensation should be agreed upon between the parties, or should agreement fail, it should be referred to arbitration under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845. I think that such an Amendment hardly requires elaboration or persuasion, and a heavy presumption in its favour throws upon those who propose to resist it the duty of showing any reasons why any undertaking, which up to now has been providing for the requirements of the public and which it is proposed to take over in the general interest, should suffer in treatment in any respect worse than the undertakings which with such great advantage to the State have been taken over by the State daring the years of the war under the powers of the Act of Parliament which I propose to make applicable totidem in verbis to the case which my Amendment is designed to meet.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, after line 7, insert the said words.—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I suggest that this Amendment is out of order at this point. This clause deals with the powers of the Ministry and the Amendment deals with the question of compensation. I do

247
not press the point, however. The Amendment seeks to provide a scheme of compensation under the Lands Clauses Act. The Government have in Clause 8 a scheme of compensation, which has been agreed with all the railway companies, whereby the Tribunal shall be the Railway and Canal Commission. I cannot help thinking that hopeless confusion would result if more than one Tribunal were set up under the Bill to deal with the claims for compensation. I cannot discuss the matter in greater detail at this moment beyond saying that the Government's policy with regard to compensation is dealt with in Clause 8, and that this is a clause which meets with the approval of all the railway companies. I cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I must remark that I think it is a little hard, when
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment is in the name of the Earl of Bessborough. I would suggest to the noble Earl whether it is necessary that those words should be moved. It seems to me that if the noble Earl obtains his proviso lower down on page 5, line 5, the words will not be necessary. If he does not, they mean nothing.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I understand that it is purely consequential, and I will leave it to a later stage, and not move this Amendment now.
EARL BRASSEY EARL BRASSEY moved, in subsection 1 (c), to leave out "obey the directions," and insert "give full consideration
I have adopted the exact wording of the old Act of Parliament, that I should be faced with a difference of procedure; and after all, Clause 8 does not apply to this case at all. That clause applies to the return of the undertakings which have been taken over. My Amendment applies to the act of taking over, to the doing of damage in the taking over, and the terms of the agreement under which the undertakings are to be taken over. Clause 8 applies to a later stage of the proceedings, and I respectfully differ from the noble Earl. My Amendment rests upon abstract justice and upon the practice already adopted by the Government.
On Question, whether the words proposed shall be here inserted?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D. [Teller.]

Selborne, E.

Erskine, L.

Stanhope, E.

Forester, L.

Salisbury, M.

Wicklow, E.

Islington, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Brassey, E.

Hood, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midlelon.)

Strachie, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Stuart of Wortley, L. [Teller.]

Morton, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bradford, E.

Annesley, L.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Chesterfield, E.

Belper, L.

Joicey, L.

Jersey, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Newton, L.

Lytton, E.

Clinton, L.

Shandon, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Colebrooke, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Peel, V.

Harris, L.

Wyfold, L.

to any suggestion." The noble Earl said: The part of the clause which my Amendment proposes to alter states that the directors, officers and servants of any undertaking which is taken over shall obey the directions of the Minister. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill, as I and others have pointed out, has asserted that he desired that this Minister should work through the existing management of railway undertakings and not supersede it. What I wish to submit to him and also to your Lordships is that you will get much better service out of any body of Englishmen, whether they be employers or workmen, if you make suggestions to them and appeal to them to put forth their best energies to carry out what you wish them to do, than by placing them in the position in which they would be placed under the clause as it stands. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 11 and 12, leave out ("obey the directions") and insert ("give full consideration to any suggestion").—(Earl Brassey.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I feel that the point has been already covered by the discussions which have taken place on previous Amendments on which your Lordships have come to a decision. It raises once more the whole question whether the Minister is to exercise his powers under the Bill in giving directions to the undertakings or merely in receiving suggestions from them. I feel that it would be merely wasting the time of the House to discuss the whole question again.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I confess I do feel that that is so—that this point has been already decided in principle by your Lordships, and I think perhaps it would not be right or proper for us to go into it again. My noble friend knows that I have general sympathy with a great deal of what he said, but I hope he will not press the matter.
EARL BRASSEY: In response to the appeal of the noble Marquess I am willing to withdraw the Amendment, but I wish to express again that I do feel that a great mistake is being made by treating Englishmen as they are being treated under this proposal.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH moved, at the end of subsection (1) (c) (viii), to insert the following new paragraph: "(ix) Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising the Minister to impose on the owners of the undertaking without their consent the obligation to make any expenditure or incur any liability which in the opinion of the owners would seriously interfere with their finances."
The noble Earl said: I venture to submit to your Lordships that the scheme of this Bill is that the railways should be preserved intact so that they may be handed back, or possibly handed back, to the commercial management of the companies at the end of the two years period of control. It is obviously necessary, therefore, that if they should be so handed back, they should be returned with their financial resources unimpaired. It appears that if the Boards of Directors have some
250
voice in the management of the undertaking that the question of the finances should be under their care. The Amendment provides that the Minister shall not be in a position to oblige the Company either to burden itself with new capital against its consent or be called upon to deplete its reserves. In these matters I submit that the financial control of the Company must be left undiminished in the hands of the Directors.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, at end insert the following new paragraph:
"(ix) Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising the Minister to impose on the owners of the undertaking without their consent the obligation to make any expenditure or incur any liability which in the opinion of the owners would seriously interfere with their finances."—(The Earl of Bessborough.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I am quite willing to agree in principle with the Amendment. The noble Earl, as I understand it, wishes to make sure that a railway company at the end of two years shall not be compelled, by any action the Minister may take, to borrow capital on disadvantageous terms, or unduly deplete their reserves. It is certainly not the intention of the Government to place such an obligation on the companies. I am not, however, able to accept the Amendment in the words in which it has been moved. The last words "which in the opinion of the owners would seriously interfere with their finances" are rather too vague, but if the noble Earl will withdraw the Amendment I will undertake to consult with him how this point may be met by the insertion of some such words as "capital expenditure," or words which will limit the Amendment to the points he has raised. I am confident we shall be able to find words to meet the point.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I am obliged to the noble Earl. I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The next is a drafting Amendment—
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 6 and 7, leave out ("under subsection (c) of this section") and insert ("the last foregoing paragraph").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Before the noble Earl, Lord Brassey, moves the next Amendment I should like to ask the Government how long they propose to sit to night. The next Amendment will probably take some time. It raises the considerable point as to what the powers of the Advisory Committee are to be. It would not do for me to discuss it now, but I should like to suggest that, as it raises an important question and is likely to take some considerable time, this is a convenient moment for the debate to be adjourned.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: In response to the invitation of the noble Marquess, I think perhaps it would be convenient if at this stage our proceedings were adjourned. In moving that the House do resume, I desire to call attention to a matter, and to offer a personal explanation with regard to a passage in Viscount Devonport's speech on the Second Reading. I do not see the noble Viscount in his place. He was here just now, and I should like to make the explanation I have to make in the presence of the noble Viscount.
As, however, it is a matter of very considerable importance, I feel bound to take the earliest opportunity of bringing it to your Lordships' attention. Speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill, Lord Devonport used these words—
"Sir Eric Geddes did not pay any tribute of praise in respect to that management."
He is speaking about the Railway Executive Committee—
"He said that the control was bad. I think I must quote what he said, if I may be allowed to, because it has a very important bearing. He said, 'During the war they were worked under an executive committee composed of the general managers of the principal lines—' "
Then he went on to quote the following from Sir Eric Geddes's speech in the House of Commons—
"I have seen it suggested that the executive committee might go on. Any one who suggests that railways could go on for another two or three years in the position in which they are to-day, working under the executive committee of general managers in the position in which they are to-day, really does not understand the proposition at all. It is quite impossible. That control, which was bad during the war, is trebly bad now. It is almost impossible to expect development under it."
The noble Viscount continued—
"That is an astounding statement. It is one more of those statements which are not true in fact."
252
The noble Viscount, in using those words, did a grave injustice both to Sir Eric Geddes and to the Railway Executive. He informed your Lordships that Sir Eric Geddes did not pay any tribute of praise to the Railway Executive. These are the words which the noble Viscount left out of his quotation. They occur between the two parts which he quoted from the speech. The words omitted are these—
"The executive committee have done a work of which they are justly proud, and for which the country should be grateful, but they were an emergency committee. They did not really run the railways. They have no power over any capital expenditure, and no power to do anything but keep the thing moving. It is quite impossible to go on with that system. Development which is necessary has been dead, and economies on a large scale are really impossible as long as railways have separate interests to consider."
Again, Sir Eric Geddes, speaking on the Third Reading, said, after giving an account of the position in which the Railway Executive is placed—
"Therefore, though they have done most excellent work in a most patriotic way, I think it may be necessary to some extent to modify the procedure and powers and constitution of the Railway Executive Committee."
Those words were precisely the same as were used by Lord Devonport himself when he said that in his opinion there was undoubtedly a case for changing the method of control.
I call attention to the passage omitted because the noble Lord gave an impression to your Lordships that Sir Eric had underrated the work done by the Executive Committee, had condemned their work as bad, and had paid no tribute of praise in respect of it. Yet between the two passages which the noble Viscount quoted occurred these words paying a very great tribute of praise to the Executive Committee. I cannot help feeling that the noble Viscount must have been supplied with the passage from which these words were omitted. I do not believe he omitted them deliberately. I impute no motive to the noble Viscount, but I only feel that, in justice to those affected, I should make this explanation.
House resumed.

MEDWAY CONSERVANCY BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following twelve Bills received the Royal Assent—

Finance.

Anglo-French Treaty (Defence of France).

Treaty of Peace.

Housing, Town Planning, etc

London County Council (General Powers).

Sheringham Gas and Water

Fylde Water Board

Llanelly Rural District Water.

Falmouth Docks.

Medway Conservancy

Stoney's Divorce.

Pallin's Divorce.

SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

BEDWELLTY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
COMMONS REGULATION (COITY WALLIA) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Third Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Monday next.

WAR LOAN BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments to be printed, and to be considered on Monday next (The Lord Somerleyton).
House adjourned at half-past eleven o'clock until Monday, a quarter past five o'clock.