Lords Sitting of 24 May 1922

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD WOOLAVINGTON.
Sir James Buchanan, Bart., having been created Baron WOOLAVINOTON of Lavington in the county of Sussex—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
SHEFFIELD GAS COMPANY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  SITUATION IN IRELAND.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I desire, with your Lordships' leave, to ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether Mr. Collins and Mr. Griffith have accepted the invitation of His Majesty's Government to come over this week in order to discuss the situation in Ireland; and, generally, whether the Government have any statement to make on the Irish crisis?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Marquess for the courtesy with which he informed me of the question which he proposed to ask the Government. I deal specifically with a specific question. Mr. Griffith and Mr. Collins have been invited, as have all the Irish signatories of the Treaty, to attend in London at the earliest possible moment for a conference with the English signatories of the Treaty. An intimation has been received that Mr. Griffith and Mr. Duggan will cross from Ireland to-night, with a further intimation that, while Mr. Collins cannot, having regard to his public engagements, cross tonight, he will hold himself in readiness, should his presence be urgently required; to cross for the week end. I think it highly probable, so far as one can in such matters forecast the future at all, that his presence will be discovered to be urgently
  640
  necessary, and therefore, in my anticipation, it is reasonable to suppose that the Irish signatories of the Treaty will meet the English signatories of the Treaty in London during the present week end.
  The noble Marquess has asked me a further question, whether I desire on behalf of the Government to make any statement in relation to the Irish question. The contingent gravity of that which has been said and that which has been done in the last few days, both in the North and in the South of Ireland, is apparent, and needs no elaboration at my hands. What is its full significance will be elicited more plainly as the result of the discussions which will take place at the week end. To me, at least, it would appear to be certain that at a very early date next week there must be full and grave discussion of the Irish question in this House, and I would suggest to the noble Marquess that, observing, as he will have the opportunity of observing, the progress of events, informing himself, if he thinks it useful to do so, by consultation with myself or with any other Minister, of that which makes an occasion suitable or unsuitable, he should take an early opportunity next week of raising this question, or this series of questions, on a more elaborate scale, and in circumstances which will render a full discussion convenient.
  In the meantime, for reasons which I am bold enough to think will recommend themselves to most of your Lordships, I would rather deprecate discussion upon any isolated branch of the subject. I observe that my noble and learned friend, Lord Carson, has a Question on the Paper for to-morrow. I am perfectly prepared to give him all the information at the disposal of the Government in relation to that Question to-morrow, if he thinks it proper, in the circumstances with which I have dealt, to put it, but on the whole I merely suggest, or commend to his consideration—I do not put it so high as a suggestion—whether there might not be some public purpose attained by postponing the whole of our discussions on these very grave and disputable matters until such an early day next week as the development of events suggests to him.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I appreciate, of course, what the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has said concerning a more extended discussion

  641
  next week. I understand, from the usual channels of information, that it is intended that a statement shall be made by the Colonial Secretary in another place on Monday. I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor would wish us to wait for that statement, or whether he proposes to make a contemporaneous statement in your Lordships' House. If he took that course, it would provide an opportunity for discussion, but be spoke as if it were not quite certain on which day he would be prepared for such a discussion.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did speak, in point of time, with a slight degree of ambiguity, because I was not in my own mind quite satisfied as to when a conclusion would be reached in the Irish discussion, having regard to the date of the arrival of Mr. Collins. The noble Marquess is perfectly right when he says that the existing arrangement is that the Colonial Secretary will make a statement in the House of Commons on Monday. That is his present intention, subject, of course, to revocation or postponement. But if it were the desire of the House that there should be a contemporary discussion here—I speak, of course, in the presence of my noble friend who is at the moment leading the House, and I do not claim to know what his view would be—if there is a general desire that the statements should be contemporary, I do not think that we should stand in the way of such a wish. On the other hand, noble Lords might think that there was possibly an advantage to be gained in having had not only the discussion, such as it may be, elsewhere, but also forty-eight hours' further experience of the situation, which, believe me, changes from day to day, almost from hour to hour.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the result of this conversation is that the Government rather indicate that the discussion in your Lordships' House upon Ireland, if there is to be one, should take place on Tuesday or Wednesday. In those circumstances, I would ask my noble friend who is leading the 'House what he proposes to do in respect of the Allotments Bill? So far as I am concerned, I may mention that I have conferred with my friends, and If see no great objection to taking the further stages of the Bill on Monday, which was, I think, the original intention of my noble friend.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, if I may regularise the matter to that extent, I will make the Motion which stands in my name and make a statement. The Motion, of which Notice has been given, is that Standing Order No. XXI be dispensed with for this day's sitting; and that the Motion for the House to be again in Committee on the Allotments Bill [H.L.] have precedence over the Motion for the House to be put into Committee on the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill [H.L.] and over the Motions of the Lord Muir Mackenzie and the Lord Islington.
  This Motion substitutes the Allotments Bill for the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill in the order of precedence on the Paper. I remember that my noble friend, Lord Dynevor, suggested last night that Monday would be too soon to proceed with the Allotments Bill, but I am glad to gather from what my noble friend, Lord Salisbury, has just said that there has evidently been some adjustment of the conference which is to he held, making that course possible. In that case, I invite your Lordships to meet on Monday to take the Report stage of this Bill, and, in deference to what Lord Crewe said yesterday, I would suggest that the Third Reading should be taken, preferably on Tuesday, or, if necessary, on Wednesday, the last day of the month. In that case your Lordships will be sitting for the first three days of next week, and it will be for your Lordships to determine, after watching the progress of these Irish discussions, upon which day you would desire to invite the Lord Chancellor to make a statement on Irish matters.
  There is one further point about the Allotments Bill. Yesterday, in response to appeals made from various quarters of the House sonic time before, Lord Ancaster announced that he had a number of consolidation Amendments that he was prepared to put into the Bill. There are three or four folio typewritten pages of those Amendments. He will be prepared to hand them in to-night at the conclusion of the Committee stage, or else, if on reconsideration your Lordships should prefer it, the notice being rather short, my right honourable friend, the Minister of Agriculture, would insert the Amendments in the House of Commons, and they would then reach your Lordships as Commons Amendments to a Lords Bill. My own strong preference is that they should be

  643
  inserted in this House, but if any body of your Lordships desire that the other course should he followed, my noble friend, Lord Ancaster, would be prepared to concur.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be dispensed with for this day's sitting; and that the Motion for the House to be again in Committee on the Allotments Bill [H.L.] have precedence over the Motion for the House to be put into Committee on the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill [H.L.] and over the Motions of the Lord Muir Mackenzie and the Lord Islington.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not know what Lord Muir Mackenzie has to say to that method of dealing with consolidation Amendments. The usual plan is to send consolidation Amendments before the Joint Committee.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: But, my Lords, this is only doing a certain amount of consolidation of existing statutes. Further consolidation of enactments relating to allotments and small holdings probably will be necessary. I think I have indicated that we want to get the Third Reading of the Bill before the Whitsuntide recess.
  THE DUKE of BUCCLEUCH: Is it proposed to take the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill before Whitsuntide?
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No, not before the Whitsuntide recess.
  LORD DYNEVOR: I understand that a certain amount of consolidating of existing Acts of Parliament will be moved by Lord Ancaster, but is there no possibility that existing Acts of Parliament will be altered by Amendments to this Bill?
  THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The answer is that the Amendments would have to be varied. Either rightly or wrongly, we think that the most convenient thing would be that we should get this Bill through, and so know how the law stands, and how your Lordships wish it to stand, and then deal further with the very complex question of the tenure of small holdings and allotments. Nobody knows what is a small holding and what is an allotment, and what is an allotment in a cottage garden, and what is a cottage garden, and the tenure relating to those different subjects. When
  644
  we have this Bill through Committee we hope we shall be able to place Amendments on the Paper for Report stage—I do not think they would be of very great importance, but they would be of certain length—to put the whole question of the tenure of these different classes of allotments upon a comprehensible footing. Of course, as the noble Earl who leads the House has said, there is the alternative of merely passing the Bill through this House, dealing with the other matter in the House of Commons, and then bringing it hack here as amended in the House of Commons. But from what has already happened I think noble Lords regard the first arrangement as the preferable one.
  LORD BLEDISLOE: Of the two alternatives, I favour the first, because I think the Allotments Bill should be thoroughly dealt with by your Lordships before passing to another place; but if the consideration of Amendments on Report is going to be restricted and fettered in any way owing to this production of consolidation Amendments between the two stages, I prefer the other alternative.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I can give your Lordships an assurance that the consolidation Amendments will in no way fetter you in dealing with the whole case on its merits on the Report stage.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on recommitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

BRITISH OFFICERS AT KASUR.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM had given Notice to ask the Secretary of State for India—

1. Whether the military and civil officers in charge at Kasur at the time of the Punjab rebellion—Lieutenant-Colonel MacRae, I.A., and Mr. Marsden, I.C.S.—were censured for "improper and injudicious" conduct by direction of the late Secretary of State, by which their careers have been seriously prejudiced.

2. Whether their alleged offence was to order three strokes of the cane to

645
three boys from each of two large schools, the pupils of which had formed part of a violent mob that killed two British warrant officers, wounded several British officers and men, attacked an English lady with her children, and burned the railway station, Law Courts, and post office.

3. Whether, beyond being examined as witnesses by the Hunter Committee, these officers were ever allowed to offer any defence of their action.

4. And whether, as no condemnation of that action was forthcoming in the Report of the Hunter Committee, while the Minority Report recorded the incident inaccurately, the grave injustice accorded to these officers will now be redressed.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the main points in connection with this remarkable case are presented in my Question, but there are one or two other circumstances which throw light upon them, and of which I think the House should be made aware. Kasur was under Martial Law at the time, and the headmasters of these two schools, the pupils of which were quite out of hand, applied to the officers in charge to give them the necessary support. These officers, therefore, had to do something, and they asked the headmasters to produce before them the chief offenders. The headmasters selected six small and weakly-looking boys, and the officers very properly rejected their choice, and themselves selected six of the older, bigger, and stronger-looking boys, and those boys received three strokes of the cane each. That punishment was not inflicted in public, as the Secretary of State most wrongly stated in another place, but was administered in a square formed by pupils of the schools, and inside the station enclosure.
There was a very significant sequel to this incident. The Education Department, which controlled the municipal school but not the other school, came to the conclusion that the punishment administered by the two officers was entirely inadequate, so an inspector, a Hindu, and a Mahomedan assistant arrived and proceeded to administer justice. Some of the pupils were expelled, many others received ten strokes of the cane, and the school itself, including the staff, was quite sharply disciplined. I might mention that one of the pupils of this school was convicted of murder. In
646
November, 1919, Mr. Gandhi, who was at that time a valued friend of the Secretary of State, visited Kasur, and congratulated the people on having such a "fair-minded and sympathetic officer" as Mr. Marsden. Those were the actual words of the Mahatma himself, and that was long after the offence for which Mr. Marsden was censured.
The English lady referred to in my second Question, with her three children, was rescued only just in time by the courageous action of Indian officers who proved loyal throughout the rebellion. One of these Indians gave evidence before the Hunter Committee. He has since declared that his life was made hell and he had had two houses burnt over his head, so futile was the protection we gave to Indians who proved staunch to us during the rebellion. The Hunter Committee made no comment whatever on tins Kasur case, and the authors of the Minority Report, who constituted the prosecuting Counsel, reported the case inaccurately and made no mention of the proceedings of the education inspector. I might mention that two of these prosecuting judges have since been made into Ministers. Now the Secretary of State, in a very extraordinary speech, in the Dyer debate on July 8, 1921, said that "if you take school-boys from school, guilty or innocent, and whip them publicly—these were not whipped publicly—you are indulging in frightfulness." I n other words, he classed this incident with the sinking of the "Lusitania" and the hospital ships, and the outrages at Dinant and elsewhere. I wonder what Doctor Keate, the headmaster of Eton, would have thought of such a pronouncement as that. It has been said of Dr. Keate that he once flogged soundly ten boys who had been sent up to him for preparation for confirmation.
The true inwardness of the pains and penalties inflicted on British and Indian officers who only tried to do their duty at a most critical time, is explained by Mr. Rushbrook Williams, who is the official historian of the moral and material progress of India in the year 1920. Mr. Williams writes thus—
"By the end of the period under review many of those whose conduct had been censured by the Hunter Committee had left India on Government service. The balance had undergone either penalties or severe censure from the Government, and, as to the serious effects of such censure upon the personal happiness, the immediate position, and the future prospects of an officer it is wholly unnecessary to enlarge."

647
Then he went on to add these significant words—
"But, as must generally be the case under a centralised government, the distasteful work of punishment was performed without that parade of ostentation which alone might have satisfied Indian opinion."
The evident cue of this official writer was to take as much credit as possible for ruining the careers of British and Indian officers who had saved many thousands of lives during the rebellion, and also to apologise for the absence of ostentation in the methods of punishment.
Of course, that did not satisfy in the least what Mr. Williams called "Indian opinion," and the extremists, as we all know, have been howling for more blood ever since then. It did not occur to him that, though it must be very gratifying to those extremists to see the result of their influence, they, being Asiatics, must feel strong contempt for a Government which threw over its own officers. I am sure the noble Viscount, the late Viceroy, could not have approved of these sentences, because, on October 25 last, he said—
"I assured Sir Michael O'Dwyer, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab, and I assured, through a Resolution of the Government of India, his officers, that they would have unwavering support in any action they thought it advisable to take."
In this Resolution, I believe—though I am not quite certain—the words "however drastic" occurred, and I am certain that the noble Viscount could not consider administering three strokes of the cane to six boys to be anything in the nature of a drastic punishment.
This plea of mine may seem belated. These officers were sentenced, unheard, two and a-half years ago. But it would have been useless to plead their cause under the late régime, and I do so now, as I hope that the noble Viscount, the Secretary of State, will give it his close personal attention, and that he will not hesitate to remove the stigma from these officers, if he finds on examination—as I think he must find—that the sentences were wholly undeserved. These two officers, and many others in India, feel a burning sense of resentment at the treatment they have received and the feeling throughout the public ervices in India is, at the present time, much more serious than is realised in this country. If the noble Viscount can and will do anything which will
648
restore confidence to the British and Indian officers who have suffered so severely at the hands of his predecessor, and if he will do so quickly, he will render an invaluable service to India and to the Empire.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: My Lords, these personal issues are always difficult to deal with across the floor of the House. Your Lordships will naturally, and inevitably, have sympathy with officers whose actions, done in perfect good faith, have had to be reprobated by the supreme Government. But, while your Lordships have sympathy with these officers, I am sure I can count upon your having consideration for the position of those who were in authority, and had to deal with the case. In the first place, we had a disagreeable, a distasteful, and a difficult duty to discharge. It was impossible for us to refuse to express an opinion on matters which were disclosed in a public document which had been drawn up at our request—I refer to the Hunter Committee's Report—and I hope to be able to show your Lordships that it would be difficult to contend that the Government of India could have come to any other decision than the decision they came to in this particular case.
I want, now, to come to the Questions seriatim which the noble Lord has addressed to my noble friend, the Secretary of State for India. I will deal with the first one. I take full and undivided responsibility for the action in this case. The late Secretary of State for India gave no directions whatever to the Government of India with regard to what we were to do as a result of the Hunter Committee's Report; and I strongly suspect that the late Secretary of State for India was unaware of what decision we had come to until we ourselves had informed him from India. I think that disposes of the Question which Lord Sydenham has asked, as to whether these officers were censured for improper and injudicious conduct by direction of the late Secretary of State, to the serious prejudice of their careers.
I come to the second Question, and, if your Lordships will look at it, I think you will realise that it has been couched in terms of prejudice. What I mean by terms of prejudice is this. It has been put in such a way as to make it appear as though after these very serious outrages at Kasur this slight punishment was the only

649
action taken for the punishment of those who were guilty of those outrages. May I tell your Lordships straight away, as regards the outrages at Kasur—I speak without the book, because I have not got the exact details—that to the best of my recollection there were six or more men executed in respect of the murder and murderous assaults.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will give the figures.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: That will relieve me greatly. There were many imprisoned and, as a matter of fact, some boys who were found guilty of taking part in these outrages were arrested and were sentenced. To continue the story with regard to this particular school, there were difficulties in this school, and the headmaster said that he was not able to manage the school. Then it was suggested by the Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Marsden, I think, to Colonel MacRae, who was in charge of Martial Law in that district, that certain boys should be pick-N1 out for punishment. The evidence of Colonel MacRae, given before the Commission, was as follows:—
"Q.—Then on the 18th some schoolboys were flogged, and you gave directions that the biggest six boys were to be selected for that purpose?
"A.—I said, 'Generally speaking, take the six biggest.' The misfortune was that they happened to be big.
"Q.—It was irrespective of whether they were innocent or guilty; because they were big they had to suffer.
"A.—Yes.
"Q.—Do you think that is a reasonable thing to do?
"A.—Yes, I think so, under certain conditions.
"Q.—It was a mere accident that a boy being big should invite on himself punishment?
"A.—It was his misfortune.
"Q.—His misfortune was that he was big?
"A.—Yes."
When we had this case before us on the Commission's Report we took no exception as a Government to the fact that punishment was inflicted, but what we had to consider as a Government was whether we should, as the Government, say that vicarious punishment, arbitrary selection of certain boys irrespective of whether they were innocent or guilty, was a thing upon which we could express no opinion, and we informed the officers that we thought their action was improper.
650
I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Sydenham, has quoted in his Question the words "improper and injudicious." I am not sure whether those were the words. I noticed that the Lord Privy Seal, in another place, referred to some of these actions as ill-advised. Whether they were improper, or injudicious, or ill-advised—I do not know what epithet you are to apply to vicarious punishment—I should like to say that no other penalty was imposed at all on these officers. We merely told them, as a matter of course, that we thought the action they had taken was improper. When you put yourselves in the position of a superior authority, I doubt whether it can be seriously contended that the method of vicarious punishment can ever be right or wise, and, if it is wrong, I do not think that the epithets which have been applied to it were really misapplied.
Now, may I say a word on the third Question of the noble Lord, which really deals with the procedure which was adopted in this case? I must frankly state at the outset that I am unable, of course, to trace this case from the very beginning; I can only speak of my own knowledge when it appeared before me. But the ordinary procedure in a case like this would be that all the reports and all the documents in the case would be examined in the Home Department. The head of the Home Department would then make a recommendation upon the action that he thought should be taken in the case. Now I can say that I come in. I assume that was the case. As to whether these officers were seen or not in the Home Department, I cannot tell your Lordships of my own knowledge; I can only say that all the reports—their reports probably—and documents in the case would have been examined in the Department. Then the Home Member would make his recommendation, and that would come up to the Viceroy, and the Viceroy would order—as I ordered then—that the recommendation with all the papers should be circulated to the different members of Government. Then they would have an opportunity, each one of them, of expressing their opinion upon the case.
When that procedure had been completed we should take the case in Council. I recollect very well that these cases were very carefully considered in full Council and at great length. When we came to a decision, that decision was communicated

651
to the local Government in the case of Mr. Marsden, and to the Commander-in-Chief, who would communicate the decision of the Government, in the case of Lieut.-Colonel MacRae, to that officer. Looking back at some of the papers I have, I note that the decisions in these cases were not made public until February 19, 1921—last year. I am positive that we came to a decision in this case in the previous year, and probably fairly early in the autumn, for this reason, that I know they were adjudicated upon by Sir George Lowndes who was then my Law Member, and he left on December 31.
As soon as the decisions in these cases were communicated to the officers in question it was open to them at once, long before any publication was made, to appeal to the Government. They could have appealed to the Governor-General in Council, in which case we should certainly have heard them; and if they had appealed to the Governor-General in Council and had not received satisfaction they would have had their personal appeal to me. As regards the first course, though I cannot charge my memory with it, I am not aware that they ever appealed to the Governor-General in Council. I cannot charge my memory with that at all, but I am absolutely positive that they made no personal appeal to me. And I can say for myself that during my five years of office as Viceroy I am not conscious of ever having refused a single application, on the part of any officer who thought he was aggrieved in any matter, for a personal interview with me, and I should have been only too delighted had these officers asked to see me personally.
Those personal interviews are not always pleasant; in fact, very often they are the reverse of pleasant; but I always felt that whether one was able to give a decision which pleased the officer or displeased him, he always had a certain amount of satisfaction in having been able to get to the head of the Government of India and have a personal talk over his grievance. Therefore, I can say with regard to my own personal action that I am positive that no appeal was ever made to have an interview with me personally. The truth is that in this case there is really no dispute as to the facts. It is not the punishment that was objected to but the method of that punishment, and I have never heard it disputed that this particular method was adopted; so that the facts are not in dispute.
652
Now let me come to the last Question asked by the noble Lord. It is in these terms:
"And whether, as no condemnation of that action was forthcoming in the Report of the Hunter Committee, while the Minority Report recorded the incident inaccurately, the grave injustice accorded to these officers will now be redressed."
It is perfectly true that there was no specific mention of this case by the Majority Report of the Hunter Committee. It was mentioned only in the Minority Report. But is it seriously contended that when a Government has instructed a Committee or a Commission to report to it, it is to look solely at the Majority Report and to pay no attention to the Minority Report? I think the noble Lord who has asked this Question is not always in the majority in his opinions in this House, and I am sure he would be the first to protest if his views in the minority were not given the due weight which attaches to them, by the Government of the day to whom his remarks have been addressed.
Apart from that, I would like to say that it is true that the majority did not mention this specific case, but they did make some very trenchant remarks on flogging generally in the Punjab. May I read their finding on that subject to your Lordships?
"The impression made upon our minds by the evidence is that there were too many sentences of flogging pronounced. From an examination of the cases of flogging inflicted for breaches of Martial Law orders it appears that the punishment of whipping was regarded as probably the most efficacious and convenient method of summarily dealing with most minor breaches of the Martial Law regulations."
Then they proceed to give instances, and they conclude by saying:
"In view of the strong feeling in India against corporal punishment, we think it would be advisable that some restriction should be imposed on the discretion of area officers in giving sentences of whipping."
So that they did express their view strongly on the general policy of whipping which had been resorted to.
What are the inaccuracies of which the noble Lord complains in the Minority Report? In the Minority Report it is said that six boys were sentenced to six strokes each. As a matter of fact, what happened was that three boys were sentenced to six strokes and three boys were sentenced to three strokes. That is the inaccuracy on which, I presume, the noble Lord lays some stress. I will not trouble

653
your Lordships any further with regard to this case. The noble Lord has asked that justice should be done, and do not for one moment suggest that if an injustice has been done it should not be remedied, and remedied at once, and if my noble friend the Secretary of State for India thinks that, an injustice has been done I shall be only too pleased for him to direct that it shall be rectified. I appear at this table this afternoon not to make a case against these officers, but to endeavour to put before your Lordships the position of the Government of India when it was face to face with this particular Report of the Hunter Commission. I hope I have put it temperately and fairly. I certainly have no wish in any way to make the worse appear the better cause.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, it is seldom that we have in this House the advantage of hearing so full and clear a statement as that to which we have just listened, from a high official like an ex-Viceroy of India, who took so responsible a part in the events to which my noble friend, Lord Sydenham, has alluded. His reply really renders it unnecessary for me to be so full as I otherwise might have been in giving an account in answer on the facts of the case. He has spoken not only with an authority but also with a knowledge with which I am unable to speak on this subject.
These Questions refer to matters three years old in India, and to facts and details many of which are not within the knowledge of the India Office itself, and could only be acquired after some research by the Indian Government itself. I think it is fair to the officer to say at the outset that I was able to see, for a few minutes, Mr. Marsden himself. It might have been thought that an aggrieved officer was anxious that his case should be brought before your Lordships' House, and I have his direct authority for saying, because I asked him, that he had no part whatever in urging that this matter should be brought before your Lordships' House. I think it fair to say, in justice to him, that the whole responsibility as to whether this action is considered wise or unwise by your Lordships will rest on the noble Lord who has introduced the subject here.
I think the best thing that I can do is to answer carefully and categorically the
654
specific points raised in the Questions by the noble Lord. First as to the censure "for 'improper and injudicious' conduct by direction of the late Secretary of State by which their careers have been seriously prejudiced," I ought to give the House the actual words of censure which were passed upon these officers. There is, first of all, Mr. Marsden—
"The Government of India have asked the local Government to inform this officer that his action was improper, and that the Government of India disapprove of it."
The same words were used to Colonel MacRae through His Excellency the Commander-in-Chief. The inference drawn by the noble Lord in his Question is, "by which their careers have been seriously prejudiced." I should like to give the most emphatic denial to that statement. The noble Lord himself is sole author of the doctrine that the careers of these officers have been "seriously prejudiced" by this action. I should like to say emphatically that that is not so. I think it rather unfortunate that a statement of that kind should have appeared on the Paper, because it might suggest to those who know the authority with which the noble Lord speaks on this subject that there was something in this statement.
I should like, therefore, to give your Lordships, as hearing upon that point, an official statement that was communicated to Mr. Marsden from the Government of India in which, among other statements, these words were used—
"The Government of India are quite prepared to concede that the work done by Mr. Marsden at Kasur during the disturbances and their sequel, taken as a whole, was praiseworthy, and entitled to share in the general encomium passed on the work of civil officers in a paragraph of their Dispatch."
Your Lordships will see that though it would appear by this Question that all that happened to this officer for his action in this disturbance was that he was censured, the real fact is that the Government of India exercised great discrimination, and gave him a full and wide approval for much of the action that he took in these difficult circumstances. Moreover, the final words of the statement are:—
"I am to request that Mr. Marsden may be informed of the views of the Government of India, and assured that in so far as his future career in India is concerned his general record will be taken into account, and not this particular incident alone."

655
I think I am quite justified in saying that it is very hard indeed of the noble Lord to suggest, after the statements and communications that have been made to this officer, that his career is seriously prejudiced.
The next point is as to the alleged offence. Two points made by my noble friend, Lord Chelmsford, render it unnecessary to say anything. The first is as to an alleged inaccuracy in the Minority Report which has been, according to my information, quite accurately answered by the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford. I may say that exactly the same criticism as was made by him suggested itself to my mind. I am sure the inference to be drawn was not intended by the noble Lord, but anybody who was ignorant of the situation would draw the inference that these very grievous actions had been taken by this mob, and that practically the only punishment accorded was six strokes with the cane to these different boys. Though not intended, that certainly was the impression that came into my mind. I do not want to give the figures, but I think it is important to assure your Lordships that, on the contrary, very grave action and very severe punishment indeed was meted out to the authors of these particular outrages. In fact, no fewer than twenty-six persons were sentenced to death, and seventeen to transportation for life, and eleven of these persons were actually hanged for their share in these operations.
Again, there is, I understand, evidence that the boys in these schools joined with this mob; yet, I should like to correct another inference that might be drawn from the particular form in which this Question is asked. My information is that the punishment awarded to these boys had no connection with outrages committed by boys, or by the school, in conjunction with these mobs, but, as the noble Viscount has related—and I think the noble Lord told us—the place was put under Martial Law, and the request was made by the headmaster to deal with his school because the boys were out of hand. These two subjects ought, therefore, to be disconnected in the minds of your Lordships in considering this point.
As to the Question about being examined as witnesses, it has been stated that action was taken on the Minority Report of the Hunter Committee. That was not so. These officers had an opportunity and did give oral evidence before
656
the Committee, as well as making written statements. But the actual points of procedure are of less importance because there is no dispute as to the action taken, and any sort of inquiry could only elicit again precisely the same facts as were elicited by this Inquiry. There is an admission by both sides that the facts are proved.
The last Question of the noble Lord is whether "the grave injustice accorded to these officers will now be redressed." The noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, has clearly stated what particular issue is involved in these cases. I have stated the position of these officers, and how their action was regarded by the Government of India, but I am not certain what course I am asked to adopt by Lord Sydenham. Really, there is only one course he would wish me to take, and that is for the Secretary of State, in spite of the facts and in spite of the question of vicarious punishment, to announce, three years after these events, that he disapproves of the action of the Government of India, and that the actions of these officers were proper and judicious. That is a statement which, I think, your Lordships will hardly expect me to make.
Reference has been made to a communication made this morning to the Government of India by an official. I do not know whether there are any new facts, but my intention is to find out by inquiry from India what steps have been taken. On the facts stated I think it would be impossible for any one, anxious as he may be to do justice to officers in India, to reverse the decision of the Government of India arrived at three years ago when they were in full possession of all the facts.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I came utterly unprepared to speak on this Question, but really I cannot leave matters as they are after the speeches of the noble Viscount, the Secretary of State, and the noble Viscount, the late Viceroy. I do not know whether your Lordships have been able to follow this Question with the slender material before you, but I can assure you that the two speeches to which we have just listened will be profoundly disappointing to those who do know the facts and are serving in India. Your Lordships can appreciate how little satisfaction is to be obtained from the sarcastic inquiry with

657
which the Secretary of State concluded his speech.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It was not sarcastic.
LORD AMPTHILL: He enquired whether Lord Sydenham expected him to say that the action of these officers had been proper and judicious. Do your Lordships imagine that any such information was expected by the noble Lord; and is it not a matter of common sense that the proper remedy for a censure which has been unjustly pronounced is simply a withdrawal of that censure? You do not reverse the terms in which it has been given. Lord Chelmsford said, most unfairly I thought, that the Question was couched in terms of prejudice.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: The second part of the Question.
LORD AMPTHILL: And he went on to give his version of the story. As Lord Chelmsford has accused my noble friend of prejudice I must tell your Lordships that the noble Viscount left out half the story, and without knowing the whole of the story your Lordships are not in a position to judge whether the noble Viscount's remarks were worthy of the applause you gave. This is what he left out. After the disturbances had been suppressed the headmaster of the school asked for a military guard, because he could not keep his pupils in order. Lord Chelmsford said nothing about that. This request, naturally, could not be granted, and so Mr. Marsden and Lieutenant-Colonel MacRae suggested that the school should be paraded at the railway station. The masters were then asked to produce the culprits, but were unable to do so. On being further pressed they dragged out the four most miserable, ill-clad, and weakly little boys they could find. Would any Englishman have taken these small weaklings for punishment? The obvious answer is, No. They would have asked for the big boys who were the leaders.
I am not going to go into the question of vicarious punishment. No doubt, many of your Lordships have theoretical opinions on that subject, but I would remind you that it is a principle which is accepted, and necessarily accepted, all over the world in every sort and kind of circumstance. It has been accepted in all ages, and whatever your Lordships may say it will continue. When you have a mutiny or rebel
658
lion you naturally punish the ringleaders; and that was done on this occasion. But to talk of it in terms of prejudice as vicarious punishment, and suggest that this is a kind of thing which any reasonable and fair-minded man would object to ipso facto, is simply absurd.
I come to the first part of the Question which asks whether this was done by direction of the late Secretary of State. Lord Chelmsford says it was not; but against that you have the fact that the late Secretary of State, in a Despatch, I think it was of May, 1920, complained that these cases under Martial Law, and other cases, had not been visited with censure as they ought to have been, and directed that it should be done. I naturally assume, although he did not give directions, that in this particular case they were to censure Mr. Marsden and Colonel MacRae, and that he did give directions that a number of officers, who in the opinion of the Hunter Committee were not deserving of any blame at all, should nevertheless be censured; and it was done.
The noble Viscount, the late Viceroy, says that the Government cannot refuse to express an opinion on a matter referred to in a public document. We have all known Governments make such a refusal, and the answer to the noble Viscount is that if you set up a Committee to form a judicial opinion on any question, and it reports as a Majority and a Minority, you act upon the opinion of the Majority. There is no necessity, whatever, to be guided by the opinion of the Minority as well. It is deeply disappointing that the Secretary of State, when he had a great opportunity of showing his attitude towards these questions, should have adopted a tone which will carry profound disappointment to all those fellow-countrymen of ours who are serving in India, and bearing the great burden and anxiety of administration at the present time.
I hope that, in spite of what he said, he will still feel it his duty to look into this question, and see whether it is possible to withdraw the censure. He stated among other things that it would not affect their careers. There, again, we have the statement of the Government of India itself. The Government of India, in their Report for 1920, have put it on record that such censure must affect the future career of the officer censured. In spite of that, we have the statements of Lord Chelmsford and

659
Lord Peel that a little censure of that kind is of no consequence whatever.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I must correct the noble Lord. This is not my statement. It was an official communication made by the Government of India to the officers concerned. It does not rest upon my opinion at all.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: Only as a personal explanation, I can assure your Lordships that I put before you all the facts I had in the document at my disposal, and the only document I had at my disposal was the Hunter Report, in which nothing of what the noble Lord has told your Lordships just now has appeared. If it had appeared there, I should certainly have placed it before your Lordships.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I am a little disappointed that the Secretary of State for India will not bring his fresh mind to hear upon the matter. I think that if he did so he must come to the conclusion that vicarious punishment is the commonest way of dealing with matters of this kind. What is the moral? If these two officers had taken the weakly-looking boys selected by the headmaster and given them the three strokes, they could not have had any censure passed upon them. I cannot think the censure is such a light thing as the Secretary of State for India seems to think, because we have the official report of the historian of the progress of India in 1920, which points out how it must affect their happiness, present and future, and their future prospects. I am sorry that the noble Viscount has not been able to receive this Question a little more sympathetically. I should like to say that I made a mistake in thinking that the Secretary of State had been responsible for these sentences. The noble Viscount, the Viceroy, has frankly taken all the responsibility upon himself, but I was induced to believe that the Secretary of State had done so by the extraordinary strength of his language in regard to this case in the Dyer debate in another place.

PALESTINE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether, according to the latest census returns, the population of Palestine consists of 77 per cent. Moslems, 11 per cent. Christians, and 10 per
660
cent. Jews; and, if so, whether the Government cannot guarantee that this proportion will be maintained in the Legislative Council. From an answer which I received in this House a fortnight ago, it would appear that the members of the new Legislative Council of Palestine are to be allotted, not in accordance with the numbers of the electorate, but with the number of voters who actually go to the poll. I venture to think that this introduces a new and perhaps a dangerous doctrine with regard to the policy of representation, and it would be more desirable if members were allotted to constituencies in the ordinary way.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I do not quite know what my noble friend means by "the ordinary way," but I am informed that the figures in his Question are substantially correct. As to the second part of his Question, namely, what guarantee the Government can give that the proportion of citizens defined by their religious convictions will be maintained in the Legislative Council, he put that question ten days or a fortnight ago, and I have nothing further to reply to it. I cannot guarantee that the political obligation will correspond with the religious conviction of that community. I would add that the details of the proposed Electoral Law are still under examination, and no further statement on the subject can be made at present.

ALLOTMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE had given notice to move, after Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:—
". It shall be the duty of the council of every borough, county borough, and urban district having a population of twenty thousand and upwards, to take such steps as may be necessary to acquire land either within or outside its administrative area at a reasonable price uninfluenced as far as possible by its prospective value for an industrial purpose, with a view to the establishment thereon of allotment gardens on an economic basis, if and as thereafter the needs of the local population so require."
The noble Lord said: I am advised by some of my noble friends, who are in sympathy with the object of this Amendment, that it has not been sufficiently

661
clearly expressed, so I propose, with your Lordships' leave, to move it in the following form:—
"It shall be the duty of the council of every borough, county borough, and urban district having a population of twenty thousand and upwards, to take such steps as may be necessary to acquire land either within or outside its administrative area at a reasonable price, with a view to the establishment thereon hereafter of allotment gardens on an economic basis, if and as the needs of the local population so require."
I may remind your Lordships that the great difficulty which arises in the case of allotment gardens outside a great urban area is that of acquiring the land at anything like an economic value, bearing in mind that the rents charged to the allotment holders are bound, if it is to be an economic proposition, to be based upon the price paid on the acquisition of the land.
The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has recognised that in the Report which he and his colleagues have signed and submitted to Parliament. Paragraph 18 of that Report is as follows:
"The evidence we have received from the representatives of the allotment holders has been unanimous as indicating a keen desire for security of tenure."
They go on to say in the same paragraph:—
"In order that such security may be given, however, it is necessary that land should be purchased by the local authority or by an allotments association. We are strongly of the opinion that local authorities should adopt a lung-sighted policy in this matter, and purchase land for allotments where practicable, within or on the outskirts of the town."
My new clause is moved with the object of asking the Government to put into operation that very strong expression of opinion of the noble Earl opposite which I have just read.
Under the present system, as your Lordships will realise, when there comes an urgent demand for allotments, land has suddenly to be acquired, land of high capital value, based upon its value for industrial purposes, and it has to be let or sub-let to the allotment holders at rates which they find it very difficult to pay. Local authorities already have these powers, but there is no statutory obligation upon them to take this long-sighted view and acquire land either by purchase or on lease in what I may call the outer zone around the boundaries of their closely populated areas. It is with that object that I move this Amendment, and I may remind the noble Lord opposite that there is already
662
a valuable precedent for such a clause as this in Section 8 of the Ministry of Agriculture Act, which provides that local authorities in similar fashion shall take such steps as may be necessary to develop rural industries and social ventures in rural localities. I hope that your Lordships will favourably consider this Amendment, and, in order to make it less difficult for those who follow us when future legislation has to be submitted on this subject, that you will pass the Amendment, and put this obligation upon local authorities of urban areas.
Amendment moved—
After clause 3, insert the following new clause:
"It shall be the duty of the council of every borough, county borough and urban district having a population of twenty thousand and upwards, to take such steps as may be necessary to acquire land either within or outside its administrative area at a reasonable price, with a view to the establishment thereon hereafter of allotment gardens on an economic basis, if and as the needs of the local population so require."—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD CLINTON: Before the noble Earl replies, I wish to add one word to what my noble friend has said upon this Amendment, and to remind your Lordships that under the principal Act, the Small Holdings and Allotments Act of 1908, a council is prohibited from purchasing land at all for this purpose, unless it can do it at a price for which it may expect to be recouped from the rents of the allotment holders. It seems certain that the land now under allotments will, in the course of a few years, be required for building or industrial development, and that the present holders will have to be dispossessed, and other land found for them. Unless the local authority looks sufficiently far forward and gets on to some area of land which has now not obtained its full prospective building value, they will then have to let the land at a price which it will be very difficult indeed for the allotment holders to pay. For that reason it seems essential that they should be instructed to take a long-sighted view of the matter, and acquire land well in advance of requirements.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER): I honestly confess that I did not quite understand the whole purport and the actual working of the noble Lord's Amendment, because not only was it not

663
handed in until last night, but this morning, when I came down to the House, I found that the noble Lord had made alterations in it. It is, of course, a little difficult, with the complexities of the allotment law, and at such short notice, and with alterations at the last moment, to examine very closely what exactly will be the effect of the Amendment and what are the powers of allotment authorities at the present moment. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment as it is.
It is perfectly right that in the Report of the Departmental Committee it is pointed out that it would be advisable for allotment authorities, especially in large towns, to look ahead as regards the provision of land for allotments. So far as I have been able to ascertain, at the present moment they possess such powers, and I think the noble Lord himself said so, because he said that at the present moment the Councils have power to acquire land, not only inside but outside their own areas, for the purpose of allotments. But he goes on to say that he wishes to make it a statutory duty or obligation, and I cannot accept the Amendment if that is its intention. Perhaps it was a pious aspiration which we expressed in our Report, that we hoped these authorities would look ahead, but they can do so now under their present powers, and I cannot accept an Amendment which would place such a statutory duty upon them.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: I will not detain your Lordships more than a minute, but I confess that I heard the proposal of my noble friend opposite with some astonishment. I am very glad that he reminded your Lordships of the fact that there is power already under which local authorities can go outside their area and acquire land for certain purposes. Obviously, that is a necessary power to give to some authorities, who are circumscribed in their area; but may I point out what the Amendment means? It means that you are to make it a statutory duty, for all time, for local authorities to look ahead—to make it a statutory duty to speculate in land outside their area, and not with their own money but with the money of the ratepayers.
A local authority's first duty is to be the trustee, and the faithful trustee, of public money, which they can extract from the pockets of the ratepayers under compulsion. Yet it is actually proposed by my noble
664
friend that we are to make it a compulsory duty on them to speculate in land. It means, in all human probability, if this country goes on as it has gone on of late years and the population continues to grow, that some local authorities, looking ahead, under their compulsory powers will buy land and in a short time will find that it is worth a great deal more than they gave for it. They will sell it, but it does not follow that they will buy other land. This is speculation in land, which is the most dangerous form of speculation of which I know, and I hope that the local authorities will, as far as possible, be deterred by Parliament from doing anything of the sort.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I feel bound, after the very interesting and somewhat forcible speech of the noble Viscount, to remind him that he lives, I believe, about half-way between the Cities of Salisbury and Bristol. In the City of Salisbury the corporation has done exactly what I am suggesting should be indicated to all the local authorities in the country, and it has thereby not only satisfied its allotment holders on economic lines, but it has saved its ratepayers an enormous cost, which otherwise, during the last few years, would have fallen upon them. In the City of Bristol you are faced with a far more difficult problem. A large number of citizens still require allotments, and the difficulty there is that they cannot obtain land on anything like fair terms to the holders, because the industrial value of it is so high. I have been careful not to put the word "purchase" in my Amendment. I have used the words "to acquire" because they will enable the authority, at a peppercorn rent, to obtain a long lease of land outside their boundaries, and so to save the ratepayers in days to come from the heavy burden which has been incurred by some of our crowded urban districts.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 4:
Amendment of statutory provisions as to compulsory acquisition of land for allotments.
4.—(1) The period during which an order for the compulsory acquisition of land for allotments is under section one of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, exempted from the requirement of submission to and confirmation by the Minister is hereby extended to the nineteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-three.
(2) The restrictions imposed by section forty-one of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, on the compulsory acquisition of land

665
which has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking shall not apply to the hiring of land by a council of a borough or urban district for the purpose of providing allotment gardens:
Provided that every such hiring shall be subject to a condition enabling—

(a) the corporation or company to resume possession of the land when reasonably required by the corporation or company for the purpose (not being the use of land for agriculture) for which it was acquired by the corporation or company; and

(b) nothing in this subsection shall prejudice the protection given by the said section forty-one to land which is the property of a local authority.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment, counsel shall not be heard in any arbitration under this Act or as to compensation payable for land acquired for allotments under the Allotments Acts unless the Minister otherwise directs.
(4) Paragraph 2 (b) of Part II. of Schedule I. to the Small holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908, which restricts the breaking up of pasture compulsorily hired, shall not apply to land compulsorily hired for the provision of allotment gardens.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Earl said: My Lords, this subsection extends for one year the time under which local authorities are enabled to acquire land without any appeal from the owners concerned. At an earlier stage of the Bill the noble Earl in charge pointed out that there was a difference between this clause and Clause 1, because under Clause 1 the land was given voluntarily by the owner. So long as subsection (1) of Clause 4 remains, then for another year land can be taken under Clause 1 of the Bill without any appeal from the owners whatever. It wipes away the argument with regard to three months' notice, because under this clause it can be taken without appeal in the first instance. That power was first given entirely as a war measure because, as we all agreed, conditions were then peculiar, and we gave the power solely for the period of the war.
I suggest to your Lordships that conditions have now changed, and there seems no real reason why this power of taking land without any appeal should be continued for a further year. In the Report of the Departmental Committee reference was, I think, made to this question, and, so far as I remember, the noble Earl's Committee stated that they thought it would be a rather difficult, and perhaps an
666
inadvisable course, to suggest an extension of this period. In the end I forget whether they actually made a recommendation or not. I suggest to your Lordships that, now that war conditions are at an end, a power such as this, which enables land to be taken from an owner without any appeal, should not be extended for a further period.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 18 to 24, leave out subsection (1).—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD DYNEVOR: I should like to support my noble friend in his Amendment. When the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, was passed there was a great cry to get the ex-soldier on to the land. We all sympathised with that movement. But there is now no longer any need for this power which allows a council to take land compulsorily without the sanction of the Minister. The time has arrived, in my opinion, when the landowner might be given some small protection.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I freely admit that I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Earl in this Amendment. As a general rule I think it is a very great pity to allow a local authority to issue a compulsory order without reference to the Minister, and that there should be some court of appeal. We desire to extend the period chiefly owing to the fact that a very large amount of land, which is accommodating something like a quarter of a million allotment holders, will cease to be held by them in March next, and it is quite possible that them will be a good deal of hurry. We are now well into the summer, and it will be August before this Bill passes. There is no doubt that there will be a considerable number of cases in which a good deal of difficulty will be experienced in obtaining land. In fact, I am not sanguine enough to feel that land can be obtained for all the people who will be displaced next March. We are trying to give facilities so that as many as possible should remain.
We feel that during this next autumn and early spring a very large number of compulsory orders may have to be issued, very likely for land which is already held as allotments, and if every one of these orders has to be confirmed by the Ministry a considerable increase of staff will probably be necessary. Of course, we shall have to

667
send one of our out-door staff down to hold a meeting, a report will have to be sent to us, and very likely more than one meeting will have to be held in order to find out if there is other land available. In that way a certain amount of expense, and a good deal of delay, would be involved. It is for that reason alone that we consented to put into the Bill the provision that confirmation of these compulsory orders should not be required for another year. Therefore, though I sympathise with the noble Earl's object, I consider there is rather a special case at the present moment.
LORD CLINTON: There have been many measures dealing with the compulsory purchase of land, but I think the Act of 1919 was the only one by which it was permissible to take all classes of land, including parks and gardens, without any form of appeal by the landowner. Here there is a power to take land which hitherto has always been excepted from the ordinary provisions for taking land for allotments. This has only been done before for the specific purpose of doing away with the difficulty of settling the
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
ex-soldier, and we agreed to it for a period of two years only. At this stage I do not think we ought to be asked to extend the provision for a further period.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I am bound to say I think there is a great deal of force in the noble Earl's proposal. The Bill gives unlimited powers to acquire land by compulsion, in circumstances which might be very peculiar and very unfortunate. Nobody can accuse me of being opposed to compulsion, where it has been found to be necessary, for the purchase of allotments, for I believe I was the first Member of Parliament who ever introduced a compulsory allotments measure—which, if I remember rightly, created some consternation in the mind of my noble friend's father. But at the same time I should find great difficulty in supporting the present Amendment, and I rather hope my noble friend will not press it.
On Question, Whether subsection (1) shall stand part of the Clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 47.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Dewar, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Emmott, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Devonport, V.

Faringdon, L.

Knollys, V.

Gorell, L.

Peel, V.

Hylton, L.

Ancaster, E.

Aberdare, L.

Islington, L.

Bradford, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Clarendon, E.

Brownlow, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Eldon,E.

Cawley, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E.

Charnwood, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Clwyd, L.

Strachie, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Stamford, E.

Colwyn, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Allendale, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Chaplin, V

Gainford, L.

Ailsa, M.

Churchill, V.

Harris, L.

Camden, M.

Goschen, V.

Hindlip, L.

Salisbury, M,

Hood, V.

Joicey, L.

Abingdon, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough more.)

Lawrence, L.

Derby, E.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

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

Long, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Novar, V.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Jersey, E.

Ullswater, V.

Raglan, L.

Lindsay, E.

Redesdale, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Askwith, L.

Rotherham, L.

Mayo, E.

Barrymore, L.

Roundway, L.

Morton, E.

Clinton, L.

Seaforth, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Dynevor, L. [Teller.]

Sumner, L.

Stanhope, E. [Teller.]

Ernle, L.

Terrington, L.

Strafford, E.

Erskine, L.

Wyfold, L.

LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, shortly before the proviso in subsection (2), after

669
"borough" to insert "county borough." The noble Lord said: It is clear that there is no difference in principle in this matter between a borough and a county borough or a large urban district, and I might remind the noble Earl that the Interpretation Act, 1889, makes the meaning of "borough" perfectly clear for all time in all future Statutes. First of all, it says:
"In this Act and in every Act passed after the commencement of this Act the following expressions shall, unless the contrary intention appears, have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them."
And at the end it says:
"The expression 'borough' when used in relation to local government shall mean a municipal borough. …"
To make it still more clear that a county borough is here excluded, the noble Earl has put in his Bill an interpretation clause in which it is stated that a borough includes a municipal borough and, therefore, necessarily excludes a county borough.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 31, after ("borough") insert ("county borough").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am informed that this is not at all necessary, and I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. The whole case is covered by the interpretation.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I have taken great care to get legal advice on the subject and to look up the Statutes myself, and I think the least the noble Earl might have done, if only in response to my industry in the matter, was to tell me why he thinks the Amendment is not necessary.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am very sorry; I hope I have not treated the noble Lord with any disrespect; I did not wish to do so in any sense whatever. But there are a great many Amendments to this Bill and a great many were handed in very late in the day, and that is why—
LORD BLEDISLOE: The noble Earl has repeatedly referred to my Amendments as having been handed in late in the day. This Amendment has been on the Paper for over a week.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The noble Lord informs me that he has taken legal
670
advice on this matter. I can only say that I have taken legal advice on the matter, and I am informed that these words are unnecessary. I have also taken the trouble to go into the question and find out about it, and, as I say, I am told that the words proposed are not necessary. I shall be very pleased, however, examine it again and, it necessary, to put them into the Bill on Report.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I shall certainly put this Amendment down on the Report stage and, perhaps, the noble Earl will be good enough to study the reasons which, during the last five minutes, I have given for moving this Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does the noble Lord withdraw his Amendment?
LORD BLEDISLOE: No, I really cannot, on principle, withdraw it. I am quite prepared to see it through.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I thought from what the noble Lord said that he was going to withdraw his Amendment now, and put it down on Report.
LORD BLEDISLOE: Very well, let it be as you wish.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: No, it is as the noble Lord wishes.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I am afraid I do not know sufficient of the procedure of the House, but I will withdraw it if I have the right to put it on the Paper on Report.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think my noble friend will see that the wiser course is to withdraw his Amendment now. There is no question of hostility between the noble Earl and himself about it.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: That is so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is merely a matter of drafting, and the noble Lord will retain his rights in regard to the next stage if he withdraws his Amendment now. There will be no prejudice against him on Report if he takes that step.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (2), after "urban district" to insert "or by

671
the council of a county to whom the powers and duties of an urban district council have been transferred under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 24 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908." The noble Lord said: I am moving this Amendment on behalf of the County Councils' Association, who are anxious that it shall be made quite clear that they have under this clause the same powers as urban district councils have of acquiring land compulsorily. As your Lordships are aware, under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, there are certain lands such as parks and home farms and, in the case of a municipal corporation or a company, railways, docks or canals, which are exempted by Section 41 of the Act.
It is proposed by this clause, so far as urban district councils and boroughs are concerned, to remove that restriction where there is compulsory hiring for the purpose of providing allotment gardens. Therefore, it seems very desirable, in the case of a county council, that they should have the power that the urban council has, if the urban council default. In cases of default of an urban council it is necessary for the county council to come in and provide the allotments which the urban district council has failed to provide. I hope the noble Earl will see that it is very necessary to make it quite clear that the county councils have the powers, in cases of default, which are given by this clause to the urban district councils. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 31, after ("district") insert ("or by the council of a county to whom the powers and duties of an urban district council have been transferred under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 24 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The noble Lord has raised an interesting point in this connection, and I think the best course will be to accept his Amendment, subject to consideration on Report, so that we may look a little further into exactly how the law stands in regard to this matter. The position, as I understand it, is that the noble Lord's Amendment to Clause 4 is not required; that compulsory powers already exist; and that it is the law that a county council could act in default where the county council is the authority to which an appeal is given. Consequently, the words of the Amendment are not required in this clause. Moreover, I do not think
672
the Amendment can stand in its present form on Report, because there are certain cases in which the Minister, under existing Acts, has power to act in default. If you put in a provision to the effect that the county council have power to act in default you should also put one to the effect that the Minister has power to act in default. The noble Lord has a similar Amendment to a later clause. There, I think, his Amendment is necessary, because Clause 6 is an entirely new proposal in regard to procedure. My best plan will be to accept this Amendment. There is a point arising on both clauses, and on Report I can put in any Amendment which I think necessary to make the law absolutely clear.
LORD STRACHIE: I thank the noble Earl for saying that he will accept my Amendment subject to further consideration. Perhaps, between now and Report, he will be kind enough to allow me to talk to him about it, because I think he misunderstands the purport of this Amendment. It does not interfere with the Minister. All it does is to make it absolutely clear that the county council shall have the same powers that are given to an urban district council under this clause. The Minister is not brought into it at all.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I see the noble Lord's point.
LORD STRACHIE: It is merely a question of procedure. It is intended to make the matter quite clear and has nothing at all to do with the Minister.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (2) (a), after "required" to insert "and intended to be used forthwith." The noble Lord said: Personally, I have every sympathy with corporations or companies desiring bona fide to resume possession of ground used temporarily for allotments, but it is only fair to ask that on such resumption, and before displacement of allotment holders, it shall be clearly intended by the corporation or company to use the ground for the purposes for which they have previously acquired it. There is nothing about which the allotment holders complain more strongly in these urban centres than the fact that companies and corporations acquire land by Statute.

673
for certain definite purposes, but are unable for some time to come to use the land which, in the meantime, is covered by brickbats and rubbish, and is not available for purposes of allotments. I hope the noble Earl, in the circumstances, will accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 36, after ("required") insert ("and intended to be used forthwith").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I rise to a point, of Order. This is an Amendment to line 36, and there is an Amendment down in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Devonport, which deals with the whole of subsection (2). That surely has priority over this Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think there is a precedent; both ways. It has been put down in this order to enable us to amend the subsection before we decide whether we will retain it or not. I think it will be your Lordships' pleasure that by the moving of Lord Bledisloe's Amendment Lord Devonport should not lose his right.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: With regard to the Amendment, it is reasonably clear that if land is required by a corporation for a particular use it is because it is intended to be used at a very early date for that purpose. I think the Amendment is unnecessary, and that it would be undesirable to put it in this clause unless it is inserted in all the other similar provisions. I suggest to the noble Lord that it is not really necessary in any of the clauses bearing on this matter.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I do not accept the noble Earl's view, but I will not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT VISCOUNT DEVONPORT moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Viscount said: I move this Amendment on behalf of the Dock and Harbour Associations of the kingdom, which embraces all the leading authorities, such as the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, the Man nester Ship Canal, the Bristol Docks, the Tyne Conservators, and many others. I am aware that other interests are concerned, and that probably they will speak to tins Amendment. The object of the Amendment is
674
simple, and I shall state it, I hope, quite candidly. It is to preserve to the dock authorities the control over their lands which they at present enjoy under express Parliamentary sanction. The principal Act which deals with allotments is that of 1908. In one of its sections—I think Section 41—dock authorities are expressly exempted from its conditions. But under this supplementary Act that exemption, so far as hiring goes, disappears. In fact, this Bill seeks to repeal the exemption. My Amendment to leave out the subsection will operate to the extent of leaving us precisely as we are, maintaining the status quo.
In case it may be assumed that port authorities are hostile to the letting of allotments, and that they put. impediments in the way of people who desire to rent allotments, let me say at once that all the dock authorities endeavour to their utmost to meet any demand for allotments in any locality where they have land that is not being utilised, but they let always on one basis—I want to be frank about this—and that is that they shall resume possession "as and when required." There is no hostility on their part to the letting of their land for allotments, provided that they can maintain that principle, which my Amendment will maintain. That system of tenure has always worked well. There is nothing arbitrary about it, and the relations between landlord and tenant in that particular have been friendly, and, I hope, cordial. I have still to hear from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that he can adduce one single case where a public authority of this kind has ever acted in an unsympathetic or arbitrary way in dealing with allotment holders. I do not throw that out in the way of a challenge. I am certain that if the noble Earl had such a case, it would be his duty to cite it against the particular party, but from all the inquiries I have made I have never heard it asserted that any public authority, or any port authority, has ever objected to the letting of allotments.
Why do we then move this Amendment? It is because under the terms and conditions under which we hold these lands it is expressly understood that we use them for a particular and special purpose. We do not hold lands for amenity purposes. We are not sporting owners. All these lands are given to port authorities and public authorities for public purposes,

675
to be utilised to the public benefit. Hitherto, Parliament has realised this, and we fail to see, therefore, why a Bill of this kind should come and sweep away the whole of the statutory advantages that Parliament has accorded us. We have not stolen land, or wrenched land in an unfair way. It has been given to us after full and exhaustive public inquiry whenever Acts of Parliament have been passed under which we have been accorded an exemption.
Parliament has really recognised that the public authorities for which I am speaking should have an unfettered right to deal with their surplus lands as they think fit, and, accordingly, they have been expressly exempted from Acts of Parliament which apply to land under private ownership. In the celebrated Finance Act of 1910 the land of public authorities was completely exempted from the Land Values Duties imposed by that Act. There are other precedents I can quote in Acts of Parliament passed within the last few years. An Act was passed in 1909 dealing with road improvement and development, which gave powers compulsorily to acquire land for road development; it expressly excluded the lands of public authorities. The Housing and Town Planning Act, passed in the same year, gave to certain people the right to acquire land for that particular purpose. There again the lands of public authorities were expressly exempted, and even under the Defence of the Realm Act, in which extraordinary powers were given to the Government to take possession of land, and, if they liked, buy it compulsorily, it was laid down that where they took possession of the land of a port authority or a public authority they were bound to return it within three months after the termination of the war. I have said enough to show that these public authorities have been placed by Parliament in a specially protected position; some may say a specially privileged position, but I do not think that can be urged against us in view of our record in relation to this Bill and allotments.
What will be our position if we fail in this Amendment? We shall come within the provisions of the Bill. Under this clause the Minister of Agriculture will be able to make an order at the request of someone compulsorily to hire the land of these public authorities, repealing the exemption we already enjoy under the principal Act. Having once issued an
676
order, when it comes to the question of re-entering, possession can only be resumed on the certificate of the Minister of Agriculture, that the land so let is "reasonably required for the purposes of the undertaking." Just fancy a great public authority having to go and prove, their word not being sufficient, that this land is "reasonably required." I have no idea what is the nature of the proof demanded, or the nature of the investigation in order to show whether we have a reasonable requirement to resume possession of land which has been granted to us for an expressed public purpose, to be used for the benefit of the public.
This will involve a great amount of delay, a great deal of correspondence, and certainly will beget friction. What object is to be gained? There is no particular object to be gained. In the Second Reading debate the noble Earl, speaking on this particular point, met some of the criticisms which have been made, and said that the renter of an allotment ought to be protected against the whim—that I think was the word he used—of a public authority. In the next sentence he said that in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred there would be no difficulty whatever. So for the isolated one-hundredth case the statutory position of these public authorities is going to be turned down.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I said that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the question whether the land was "reasonably required" would be settled out of court.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT: Settled out of court! But why not settle it in the way we settle it now? Why not leave it as it is? I have been suite frank as to the terms on which we let the land. We let the land on resumption terms at will, and we do not dream of objecting to the payment of fair compensation. I heard a debate last evening as to whether the radius of compensation in the Bill is wide enough. I do not know, but if you widen the radius of compensation we shall not whimper. We do not mind that at all. We are prepared to pay compensation to everyone who has a right to compensation. All we want is to maintain our statutory position, confirmed over and over again by Acts of Parliament.
When it comes to the question of being "reasonably required" I should like to

677
say a word about the appeal court before whom we shall have to appear, either by correspondence or in person. As regards a local authority the court of appeal is the Minister of Health; as regards a public authority, such as those for whom I am speaking, the Minister of Agriculture is the individual; I see also that the Government is interested. In Clause 15 it says that where any question arises as to whether land is "reasonably required," in the case of a local authority it is to be determined by the Ministry of Health; in the ease of a public authority by the Ministry of Agriculture; and where the landlord is a Government Department it is to be determined by a certificate issued by the Department. By an independent assessor? No; but by the Government itself. It would be very interesting to hear what the noble Earl is able to urge for this privileged preference for a Government Department. The Government has to say "Yes" or "No" on sight. It would be impertinent for me to measure the public authorities against the Government, but I really think that if the Government are so self-satisfied as to their own power to decide this matter without having an independent tribunal, they might at least leave us where we are at present.
I notice another extraordinary inconsistency in the subsection that I am seeking to destroy. The land of local authorities cannot be compulsorily hired. These bodies are exempted. We are exempted now, but our exemption is to go. The position is that in a few clays we shall be treated worse than a district council. These great public bodies that had statutory exemption for so long will find themselves, if we fail to get rid of this subsection, in the sorry position that, whereas the land of a district council cannot be compulsorily hired, the land of a great public authority can. I will not detain your Lordships except to say one further word. I noticed yesterday, when I was speaking on the first Amendment, that my noble friend, Lord Bledisloe, and, I think, Lord Dynevor, asked why public authorities should have any exemption at all. That point was put also, I think, by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, who was speaking, of course, on behalf of the landlord, who, he said, was attacked in this Bill. The noble Earl admits that. Would he mind my replying in the tu quoque manner, and asking why landowners should be exempted? In the very section of the
678
principal Act where we, the dock authorities, have exemption, the landowners also have exemption, and that exemption is not to disappear.
The noble Earl probably knows the section to which am referring; it is Section 41 of the principal Act, which says that—
"No land shall be authorised by an order under this Act to be acquired compulsorily which at the date of the order forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground, or forms part of the home farm attached to and usually occupied with a mansion house —"
and so on, and, further on, exemption is accorded to public authorities. I do not want that exemption destroyed, but I think it is a fair reply, when it is asked why public authorities should obtain an exemption, to say that, if there is to be an exemption, it should be made applicable to all. I beg to move.
Amendment noved—
Page 4, lines 25 to 43, leave out subsection (2).—(Viscount Devonport.)
EARL STANHOPE: I am very glad to take up the challenge of the noble Viscount here and now. The reason why an exemption is given to parks and pleasure grounds is that they may be preserved for that purpose. The reason why exemption is taken away from docks and harbour companies is that the land which had that exemption is not required for the purposes for which exemption was granted. The moment it is required for docks, harbours or railways, they have power under the Bill to regain it forthwith. It may be pointed out that the word "reasonable" has come out, and I fail to understand, therefore, why the noble Viscount is so frightened of having to appeal to a Minister. As I understand it, he will not now have to show whether the appeal is reasonable or not, but merely that the land is required.
There is this further point. The noble Earl said that no authority had ever dealt unfairly with allotment holders. If he had included local authorities, I should have said that I have had two cases brought to my notice quite recently by officials of the National Union of Allotment Holders which were among the most scandalous I have ever heard of.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT: Were they public authorities?
EARL STANHOPE: They were local authorities, not public authorities. I do

679
not know whether there are any cases against public authorities; there may or may not be. At any rate, the National Union of Allotment Holders, when I asked them if there were any cases of land being regained and then not used, gave me those of local authorities and not of private owners. It seems to me that that disposes of the whole essence of this Amendment.
The noble Viscount quotes precedents from Acts of Parliament which have been passed in recent years. I do not wish to bring controversial matters into this discussion, but I would point out that every one of the measures to which he referred was passed by a Radical Government. A Radical Government always attacks private ownership. The trend of legislation under Radical Governments ever since they came into power has been either to put land under public authorities or, at any rate, to cripple the rights of private owners. We see the result in the state of land at the present time. I do not want to go further into that, but when the noble Viscount quotes authorities of this kind, I want to know whether there is any real reason why a difference should be made between private owners and public authorities. If he can show that land is going to be taken under this clause, and that the public authority will be unable to regain it for the purpose for which it was required, then I think he has made out his case. But I listened to him attentively, and I am bound to say, with all clue respect to the noble Viscount, that I did not get that impression.
Loan DYNEVOR: Apart from the merits or demerits of this Amendment, I should like to put right one misconception which I think has arisen in the mind of the noble Viscount, Lord Devonport. If I understood him rightly, he said that a private park could not be taken for allotments. It is perfectly true that it was exempted under the principal Act, but if he will turn to the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, he will see that that particular section has been repealed.
LORD CLWYD: As I have also put down this Amendment, I may be allowed to say one or two sentences upon it. I have already more than once indicated my view that there is a clear distinction between the two cases of privately owned land and land which is held for public purposes. The question which we have particularly to
680
consider and to decide is the comparative weight of these two interests; the interests, on the one side, of a private individual, and the interests, on the other side, of a public body which holds its land for public purposes. I would remind the House that, at all events in the past, Parliament has recognised this distinction. I will not recall again the very many Acts of Parliament in which the distinction is expressed and embodied, but I should like to say—and I speak, as I said yesterday, as one who is in no way officially connected with dock and harbour boards or with railway companies, but as one who holds a very strong view as to the importance of the interests which they have to safeguard—that the record of these public authorities is one which ought to have sonic weight with us in deciding the question raised by this Amendment.
As my noble friend, Lord Devonport, has said, I do not think that there is a single case on record of a complaint having been made that the land of these public authorities has been unreasonably withheld from use for the purpose of allotments. Having regard to the recognition afforded to these public authorities, and the desirability of avoiding friction in this matter as far as possible, I hope that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, when he comes to reply, will be able to give a favourable opinion.
LORD PARMOOR: Surely the Bill as it stands fully recognises the particular position of a statutory company that has taken land for statutory purposes. Subsection (2) first of all refers to the restrictions imposed by Section 41 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act on the compulsory acquisition of such land. That is quite proper, and that is the law at the present time. The noble Viscount, Lord Devon-port, would not seek to interfere with that. But the subsection goes on to say that the restriction "shall not apply to the hiring of land by a council of a borough or urban district for the purpose of providing allotment gardens." Therefore, the only power with which we are dealing here is the power of hiring land by a council of a borough or urban district for the purpose of providing allotment gardens.
Now how is the statutory position of a company perfectly safeguarded? I take out the word "reasonably" which is to be deleted, and the clause reads:
"Provided that every such hiring shall be subject to a condition enabling—

681
the corporation or company to resume possession of the land when required by the corporation or company for I the purpose (not being the use of land for agriculture) for which it was acquired by the corporation or company;"
Therefore, all the powers which these companies now have to resume possession of land would be fully and absolutely preserved under the terms of the Bill as it stands.
If you entirely preserve the statutory position I feel that it is not right to draw a distinction between the different kinds of ownership, because as soon as you preserve those statutory rights these companies are in the same position as any other landowner; that is to say, they are open to let out that land for such public purposes as allotment gardens. It is their case that they do it, and are willing to do it, and why should not a borough or urban council be enabled to hire land from them, provided, of course, that their statutory ditties and purposes are absolutely preserved, and that they can resume possession when the land is required for their statutory purposes I entirely object to the word "reasonably" and I understand that it has gone.
LORD JOICEY: I understand what my noble friend says, but there is one very important point to which he has not alluded. Certain duties are thrown upon various public authorities to carry out certain works, but while land may be bought for special purposes, in other cases it is bought for the general use of the railway, so that it may carry out the particular duties which Parliament has thrown upon it. There are cases where it is absolutely necessary that things must be settled quickly. I have known of eases where, after an accident has taken place, it has been absolutely necessary within forty-eight hours to make a siding in order to avoid the risk of a similar accident.
LORD PARMOOR: They can do it in two minutes.
LORD JOICEY: Yes, but we have to give notice. No doubt Parliament in its wisdom had these questions put before it when it passed these Acts of Parliament, and when it exempted docks and railways from the operation of the Allotments Act, and I do not see why we should depart from that. I think it would be very unwise indeed to depart from the law
682
which has been so well laid down, not in one case but in so many. It is absolutely necessary that we should be able to deal with the thing very quickly. I have had some experience, because I happen to be chairman of one of the largest railways; we constantly have to decide things very quickly indeed. I am sure that if we put these companies under the ordinary obligation of a private landowner we shall interfere with the transport service in many cases. Therefore, I trust you will maintain the law as it is, and exempt port authorities and railways from interference in this matter.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I can assure Lord Devonport, and other noble Lords who have spoken on behalf of these large statutory companies, that I fully appreciate their ease, and all that they have said as regards the importance of the duties which they have to carry out, and also their sympathy towards the allotment movement. I cannot recollect that during the whole of the proceedings of the Departmental Committee a single witness complained against any of these statutory bodies, on the ground that they refused to let land for allotments, or endeavoured to put undue obstacles in the way of allotments.
Having said so much, I should like the noble Lord to consider another aspect of the question. In the first instance, the word "reasonably" will come out of the Bill. I had intended to make this Amendment all through, so that the clause will read "required" instead of "reasonably required." In addition to that, if this clause stands I also intend to ask the noble Viscount whether it will make any difference to his opposition if I should suggest that the Minister of Transport and not the Minister of Agriculture should be the Minister to affirm an order in regard to transport companies, and that in every other case the order should be confirmed by the Minister of Health?
My reason for hoping that this subsection may stand in the Bill is this: Though it is perfectly true that it is impossible to bring evidence to show that these companies have not behaved well, we cannot be always certain that they will do so in the future. It was pointed out that there are cases of private companies who go in to supply water for a town, and for that purpose purchase a considerable amount of ground.

683
It is possible that such a company might be unwilling to let any of its land for allotments, although it might not go on with the building of its reservoir or works for ten or twelve years. Would it not be very annoying for all those interested in the allotment movement if they saw a piece of land, very suitable for allotment, and yet, owing to a provision in an Act of Parliament, found that there was no power to compel the company to let it?
In a case like that, as this clause stands, with the Amendment I have suggested, it does not seem unreasonable that the local authority should approach them and ask them to let the land. If they refuse, without giving any good reason, the local authority will then say: "Well, really, we think this is a very dog-in-the-manger point of view, and unless you give us a more satisfactory reason we shall serve you with a compulsory order." Before they could get a compulsory order confirmed, they would have to go to the Minister of Health and not to the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister of Health would then have to decide whether there was any reason—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What Amendment is the noble Earl referring to?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I do not know that I have got it down on the Paper. I was only suggesting the Minister of Health instead of the Minister of Agriculture because Lord Devonport is objecting to the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Health would then decide whether this order should be confirmed. When the lease is let under a compulsory order it would be perfectly reasonable to put in it any condition under that compulsory order for resumption of land for the purposes required. In some of these instances to which the noble Lord behind me referred, where the land was wanted immediately, there would be nothing to prevent putting in the lease a provision that if the land was urgently required for works in connection with the undertaking the company could resume possession at twenty-four hours' notice.
A point was raised on Clause 1, when this question was also mentioned. I then said that if railway companies, for instance, had been left in Clause 1, it was quite possible that if they had let the land on one of their embankments to people and their embankment began to slip, they might have to wait
684
a month. As a matter of fact, they would not, as we know, but I believe they would be acting illegally, and I thought it right, on Clause 1, to point that out to the House. But on this occasion I do not think there would be anything in the lease, and it would not be likely to occur. After all, these compulsory orders for leasing land are made under certain conditions. There is nothing to prevent the putting in of clauses giving a company power, in order to carry out their work, to re-enter at very short notice indeed. Though I admit a strong case has been made out for these companies, I think instances may occur where a good deal of land which might otherwise be used for allotments, which is a good public purpose, would be lost for that purpose.
A point was also raised as regards the local authorities being exempt. I think that was reasonable, because in almost every case the local authority would be issuing the compulsory order against itself, because it would be the allotment authority.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I suppose paragraph (b), which saves the case for local authorities, does contemplate the possibility of a local authority having a bit of territory under the jurisdiction of another local authority, which could not apply in any other case really. But, on the general question, I am afraid our position remains rather indefinite, even after what the noble Earl has said. He says that in the case of water you shall have the fiat of the Minister of Health. I did not quite understand whether it was to be the Minister of Health in the case of a railway.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I said the Minister of Transport.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: It still remains the fact that we have had this exemption renewed over and over again, in a long catena of cases, in which, by common admission, there has been no ground for complaint, except in the one case of the kind of authority which is going to have its exemption continued. There remains the case of private owners, and it is a little hard to deny to us an exemption which they will continue to enjoy. I dislike speaking in this way of some of 'my friends and their beautiful estates. There are differences, no doubt, but there is going to be this invidious

685
distinction between one class of owner and another. And, after all this length of time, not a single case of arbitrary usage has been proved against them.
What happens in these cases? The railway companies and other similar public utility companies no doubt like to see their own employees with their little gardens on their little bits of spare land. I do not know that there exist so many of the very large spaces which have been referred to, and certainly the railway companies have not got them. It is true also that they do not always let to their own employees; but the spaces are let on perfectly well understood conditions, namely, that they should be resumed for railway purposes or for the purposes of the undertaking. Everybody concerned thoroughly understands what that means, and is perfectly well content to accept the precarious tenure which necessarily results. And I think that is a reasonable state of things, which ought not to have been interfered with where no case of public mischief or of arbitrary conduct is proved.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The discussion has been a little complicated by the speech of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, because he has been perpetually hinting at certain provisions which are not before us. The whole of the case which Lord Devonport made turned upon the word "reasonably," because if "reasonably" is struck out of this clause, as it was struck out on the Motion of my noble friend behind me in a former clause, all the provisions in Clause 15 providing for going before a particular Minister to get a certificate fall to the ground. It all turns upon the word "reasonably." Clause 15 (2) would have to go out; consequently—
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: We were distinctly told last night that "reasonably" could be replaced by "bona fide."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I had not forgotten that. The noble Lord might trust me for that.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: Yes, but it creates a very different impression.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I want to put myself right with the noble Viscount, and also with my noble friend, Lord Stuart of Wortley. I am entirely in favour of these great public companies having power to resume possession of their land the moment they require it. I do
686
not want them to go through any procedure at all. I want them, when they require the land, to have it, and if the word "reasonably" were struck out of this clause, and none of the vague substitutes of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill were put in, that would be the effect.
Then the clause would read, after the proper consequential Amendment has been made—
"The corporation or company to resume possession of the land when required by the corporation or company."
There would then be no question at all; whenever they required it, they would resume possession of the land. That is what ought to be the case. It should be so also in the ease of private owners. They all ought to have the land back when they require it for the legitimate purposes of building or development, or for the work of the company as the case may be.
My noble friend and I are really agreed. I should like my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment, and to let us strike out the word "reasonably" and be done with it. That, I believe, would interpret the general feeling of your Lordships. What we want to do is to make all the land we can available for allotments, but where the land is really required for some other purpose—for building, or for any other legitimate purpose—then it should be capable of being re-acquired without any formalities at all. That is the position which we occupy, and I should have thought that it was quite a simple position. I hope that we shall tot be forced to divide against my noble friends with whom we really agree. I hope they will withdraw their Amendment, and leave us, as we may if they withdraw it, to strike out the word "reasonably" and so put public companies and landowners on exactly the same footing. They are all anxious for allotments and anxious to carry out the public purposes with which they have been entrusted.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT: If I may say so, the suggestion made by the noble Marquess is a very alluring one, but I should like to know before I accept it on what sort of ground we shall stand if we adopt it. Will the noble Earl be good enough to inform me whether, assuming that we accept the noble Marquess's suggestion, there will be any necessity for us to prove to anybody that the land is

687
required? That is the whole point. The noble Marquess suggests that if we get rid of the word "reasonably" there will be an end of it. But if the machinery remains we have still to prove that the land is required. I do not mind whether the word "reasonably" is kept in or not; it has no effect upon us. You can put in any other words you like in addition to "reasonably." What we want is to be free from any interference at all. Even if we strike out the word "reasonably," I suggest that we shall still be subject to tribunal jurisdiction, and that is where I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble Marquess. Probably he is aware that we shall still be subject to tribunal jurisdiction. If that is so, our case is not going to be bettered, and I much prefer to take my chance on a Division. Perhaps the noble Earl can reassure me and say that if we agree to the deletion of the word "reasonably," there will be an end of the matter, and there will be no tribunal jurisdiction. But I fear that he cannot do that.
LORD JOICEY: I would suggest that the Amendment should be persisted in. The noble Earl made some remarks regarding the delay in getting possession of land by applying to a Minister. Evidently the noble Earl has not had much experience of dealing with Ministers or heads of Departments. I have had experience, and I have always found that it takes a great deal of time to get a decision from a Department or a Minister of the Crown. I can give your Lordships some very amusing instances. Where it was a question of great danger—a matter which we would have settled in two minutes in our own business—we had to apply to the Controller, and it took us six weeks to get a reply from him. Therefore, I cannot accept the statement that has been made that it can be easily done. If you have to apply to a Minister you will find that there will be a great deal of trouble, and I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.
LORD PARMOOR: Might I point out that there will be no application to the Minister at all. The provision is that every such hiring—that is, the hire of the ground—shall be subject to a condition (I am taking out the word "reasonably") enabling the corporation or company to resume possession of the land when required. They will be in exactly the same position as they are in now.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Perhaps I had better intervene here as I do not wish that anybody should vote on this question under a false impression. I certainly did state that although the word "reasonably" was struck out of the previous clause, I should still have to consider on Report whether it would not be necessary to make some Amendment to show that there was a bona fide purpose to build, and I think I shall have to do so. I cannot give a promise that in this case I shall not also have to put in something to show that the company must make out that there is a bona fide case for resuming possession of the land, and that what will apply to a private person will apply to a company. Some of the noble Lords who are very anxious that these companies should be left out of the Bill are rather putting up cases which could not possibly occur. The noble Lord behind me (Lord Joicey) referred to the matter of sudden danger, and I think he quoted a case where the land was wanted and there was a sudden danger, I suppose, that a train might be derailed. Can any possible question arise in such a case that the land is required for a public purpose? Such a question cannot arise. If any question arises as to whether it is for a bona fide purpose or not it will be only in very exceptional cases, and then of course the plot holders who are being turned out will say: "No, this plea of bona fide business is only a trick to get us out of our plots." But as I say, that would only happen very occasionally. In the case referred to by the noble Lord nothing of the sort could happen.
Under the terms of this compulsory hiring I said first of all that I would have to go further than the noble Marquess, and to make further concessions. It is very irregular, but I did it in order to ask the noble Viscount, Lord Devonport, whether he would withdraw his Amendment if I met him either to-night or at some future stage. One concession was to leave out the word "reasonably," and the second was to make the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Health, in either case, the authority which should confirm the order. Is it to be supposed that if any private undertaking was opposing the compulsory order the Minister of Transport would go over their heads, and say: "No, this is a case in which I shall confirm the order, because it is much more necessary that the people should have allotments than that the railway company should

689
have the sidings"? I am only putting the case as it appears to me. Although I admit that I have no evidence that these companies have acted unfairly in the past I still say that they may act unfairly in the future, and that people would ask—Why should their land remain derelict? But I say that the fears that exist as to the working of this clause are, to say the least, practically unfounded.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: If you are going to get rid of the word "reasonably," or if you are going to replace it by the expression bona fide or by what is, perhaps, a more appropriate word, "genuinely," I should like to know who is going to be the judge of genuineness. Is the noble Earl going to make the Minister the judge of genuineness?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Probably.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: Then we have the same objection to this subsection as we had to the clause in regard to which the noble Earl gave way and said that our objection was reasonable. We have really to satisfy two Ministers, one at the beginning and one at the end of the proceedings.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: No.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: We have to satisfy the Minister of Transport that it is unreasonable to bring these people in.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD CAWLEY: From what I have heard to-day it seems to me that this Amendment ought to be accepted. The present law was made after full discussion. All these things which have been brought forward by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill were brought up, I have no doubt, when the present position of these companies was set up. There has been no grievance, and why are we asked to alter the law when there is no grievance, and everything has acted satisfactorily? If this clause is passed as it stands I think people will see that there might be Anyhow, I do not see the use of altering a law which is working so well, in such a way as to bring about many contentious cases.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I understand that as a result of certain private discussions that have taken place it would be convenient if I put the first part of the Amendment in order that the word "reasonably" may remain open to discussion if the opportunity arises. For that reason I will put the Question, "That subsection 2 down to the end of line 32 stand part."
On Question, Whether subsection (2) down to the proviso shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42. Not-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Stanhope, E.

Gorell, L.

Hylton, L.

Camden M

Allendale, V.

Lamington, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chancellor)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Chaplin, V.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.),

Linlithgow, M.

Goschcn, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Salisbury, M.

Novar, V.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.) (L. Chamberlin)

Peel, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Parmoor, L.

Ancaster, E.

Bledisloe, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Bradford, E.

Brownlow, L.

Somerleyton, L.[Teller.]

Chesterfield, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Clarendon, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Strachie, L.

Lucan, E.

Denman, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Onslow, E.

Dewar, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Stamford, E.

Gainford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Devonshire, D.

Portsmouth, E.

Clinton, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Clwyd, L.

Ailsa, M.

Chelmsford, V.

Emmott, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Churchill, V.

Ernle, L.

Devonport, V. [Teller.]

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Abingdon, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Faringdon, L.

Derby, E.

Long V.

Joicey, L.

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

Lawrence, L.

Aberdare, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Jersey, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Raglan, L.

Lindsay, E.

Askwith, L.

Rotherham, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Barrymore, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L. [Teller.]

Mayo, E.

Cawley, L.

Sumner, L.

Morton, E.

Charnwood, L.

Wyfold, L.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I now beg to move that the word "reasonably" be struck out.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 36, leave out ("reasonably")(The Marquess of Salisbury).
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I accept that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL had on the Paper Amendments in subsection (3), to leave out "unless the Minister otherwise directs" and to insert "unless the judge of a county court having jurisdiction in the place where the allotment garden is situate, on the application of either party, certifies that the case is a proper one for the employment of counsel," and also to leave out subsection (3).
The noble Viscount said: This is really the same point that I raised on an earlier part of the Bill when the Government were good enough to accept my suggestion, which, very briefly, is that in certain cases the administration of the law should be in the hands of local people and not of the Government in Whitehall. My Amendment is to substitute for the appointment by the Minister appointment by a County Court Judge in his area. I know of no better authority than the County Court Judge, and I view with great alarm the steady growth of what I call the bureaucracy—the introduction in all these cases of a Government Department. It is not because I have no confidence in Government Departments or permanent officials; quite the contrary; but because I hold very strongly that it is no part of their business. It is not the work for which a Minister is appointed, or a Department set up. All you want in this case is the appointment of a reliable person locally selected. That can be done efficiently by a County Court Judge. Therefore, I suggest that where the special power is to be exercised the tribunal should be a local one and not one at Whitehall. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think it will be the most convenient course if I first put the Amendment to leave out subsection (3).
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 1 to 5, leave out subsection (3)—(Viscount Long of Wraxall.)
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLSHIRE: Does that mean that counsel shall be heard?
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: No.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: The subsection says:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment, counsel shall not be heard in any arbitration under this Act or as to compensation payable for land acquired for allotments under the Allotments Acts unless the Minister otherwise directs."
If you take this out does it mean that you can employ counsel?
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: No. The Bill goes on to say that counsel can only be employed by direction of the Minister. My Amendment is that counsel shall only be employed if an application is made to the County Court Judge, and he consents.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: I hope the Amendment will not be accepted. I honestly think you ought to have an independent opinion from the Minister. It certainly ought not to be left to a local man.
LORD JOICEY: These cases of compensation will be for very small amounts, and, in any arrangement you have it ought to be done in the cheapest way; otherwise, it will be a complete failure. I have never known compensation for an allotment going up to more than £20. If you employ people, Ministers, to settle what the compensation is to be, I am afraid it will be a complete failure.
LORD SUMNER: May I say a word on this point? The whole subject is so mysterious that I rather welcome that one part of it in which I begin to see a little light. The subsection says that "notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment counsel shall not be heard." Why are counsel struck out in this way? A solicitor can be heard, a land agent can be heard, the party himself, if he happens to be a counsel, can be heard, and the party himself, if he happens to be an infant, must, I suppose, be represented by someone, but is not to be represented by counsel. I do not understand the theory of this.
The Amendment proposes to ask the local County Court Judge whether or not

693
it is a proper case for the employment of counsel. That involves making an application to the County Court. Is counsel to be heard on that application? If so, is he to be paid for it? If he is not to be heard, someone else, a solicitor, must make the application. Is he to be paid? The County Court Judge must be told what the case is about, the situation of the land, and the circumstances that make it a favourable case for the employment of counsel. He will have to inquire into the whole of the facts. He will have to hear the case first, in order to decide whether counsel shall be employed, and then someone else will hear the case and the counsel, in order to find out how much is to be paid by way of compensation.
I do not wish to anticipate the words proposed to be introduced before the noble Viscount has had an opportunity of defending them, and, indeed, I must apologise to him for attacking his words before hearing his defence. But to my mind it only shows how undesirable it is to interfere with the employment of counsel at all. People are not such fools as to want to pay fees, which are not going to do them any good, and the real remedy is to say that the tribunal shall be entitled, or even bound, not to allow the costs of counsel against the other side. I cannot see why a man should not brief counsel if he likes, but the tribunal should be entitled to say that if he wins he shall not add the costs of his counsel to what he gets from the other side.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: There is a great deal in the speech of the noble and learned Lord with which I thoroughly agree. Most of the witnesses before the Committee, speaking in the interests of landowners and allotment holders, viewed with the greatest alarm the appearance of counsel on these small matters of compensation. It may be a wrong view, but they imagined that the appearance of counsel would add to the costs of the arbitration to an enormous extent. I mention, for the information of the noble and learned Lord, that there is a view amongst a large number of His Majesty's citizens that the employment of counsel is a costly affair. I do not know how it compares with the employment of land agents and valuers, who will have to give evidence in cases of this description. Having said that, I should like to thank him for the answer he has made to the noble Viscount, and the
694
good reasons he has given why I cannot accept the Amendment.
The whole of this subsection is really, to a great extent, declaratory of the existing law as set out in subsection (5) of Part I. of the First Schedule of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908. That Schedule deals with the compulsory acquisition of land, whether for small holdings or allotments, and provides that the arbitrator shall not hear counsel except in such cases as the Minister otherwise directs. We are only following and declaring what we think is the law of the land. Some question has been raised as to whether this provision has been affected by the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919, and though the Minister is advised that the Act of 1908 has not been so affected it was thought desirable to make the point clear as regards arbitrations on the acquisition of land for allotments, which usually does not involve any great area. In certain cases an ambiguity has arisen. In these circumstances I hope your Lordships will come to a decision on the matter.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: I do not want to press the Amendment. I confess I was a little surprised at the attitude the noble and learned Lord adopted. I am very reluctant to draw swords with him, especially in a matter which has a legal side, but I am quite unable to understand the difference he draws between an application made to the Government and an application made to the County Court Judge. In either case the application has to be made, and in both cases it will be made not in the manner he suggests but in the ordinary manner through the post. The whole question is which is the best form. I still think the County Court Judge is the best, because I am in favour of cheapness and rapidity, but if the Government prefer the words in the Bill I will not press my Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does that refer to both the noble Viscount's Amendments?
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: Yes.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved to leave out subsection (4), and to insert the following new subsection:
"( ) No land shall be authorised by an Order under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts,

695
1908 to 1922, to be hired compulsorily for the purposes of allotments which at the date of the Order is pasture land unless the Minister is satisfied that no arable land which is equally suitable for the purpose of allotments to the pasture land proposed to be compulsorily hired is reasonably available for hiring by the Council."
The noble Earl said: The paragraph in the Bill which refers to the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, appears to me to be very complicated. The Small Holdings and Allotments Act itself is very difficult to understand, but this paragraph, as I read it, enables pasture land to be taken for the purpose of allotments. As your Lordships know very well, once pasture land has been broken up, it cannot be remade except at considerable expense and after considerable time, and my Amendment is merely intended to provide that pasture land shall not be taken for allotments unless no arable land is available. I have endeavoured to make it read so that if arable land is not reasonably available, if it is not close enough to be useful, pasture land can then be taken, so as to avoid cases of the kind where arable land is some distance away, and pasture land close at hand. I hope the noble Earl will accept my Amendment, which I suggest is a reasonable one.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 6 to 10, leave out subsection (4) and insert the said new subsection—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: I have the same Amendment on the Paper. All I want to say is that I come from the West of England and can testify to the enormous amount of harm that has been done by the indiscriminate ploughing up of pasture during the last few years, harm which will take many years to remedy from an agricultural point of view. We ask that when there is a choice between arable land and pasture land, arable land shall be preferred.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I do not quite know whether the noble Lord appreciates the fact that, if grass land is compulsorily taken by an allotment authority, and broken up, as it must be, to enable it to be used for allotments, the owner is entitled to full compensation for any injury which is done to the land. The allotment authorities are perfectly aware of that, and will naturally avoid the acquisition of land which involves this responsibility, if other suitable land is available, and I
696
think it is quite unnecessary to dictate to them how they shall exercise these compulsory powers. They know they will probably have to pay a very large bill for compensation if they do take pasture land when other land is available, and they will naturally have to put it on the rates. As things are, I do not think that the owner can be hurt, and I cannot conceive of allotment authorities being so stupid as to take land for which they will have to pay heavy compensation if other suitable land is available. It is not necessary for me to accept an Amendment which would place on the Minister the difficult task of satisfying himself that no arable land is reasonably available. It would mean an Inquiry by the Ministry, and down we should have to go to hold an Inquiry which might be of considerable difficulty and length.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: Will the noble Earl tell us who is to assess the compensation to be paid to the owner? A great deal of damage can be done to pasture which is extremely difficult to assess in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. I hope the noble Earl who moved this Amendment will go to a Division if it is not accepted, but I hope still more that the Government will accept it. It is of most vital importance that we should preserve our pasture, and if, as the noble Earl says, allotment authorities will not be so foolish as to take pasture if arable land is available, surely there can be no harm in accepting the Amendment.
LORD STRACHIE: I should like to support what has just fallen from the noble Earl. It is true that this question of compensation is very difficult, but there is no doubt that in the past, in the West of England, we have suffered considerably from the fact that good pasture land was ploughed up by local authorities who knew very little about the matter and had no very good judgment. I mention that only as an illustration. If it is asserted that no available arable land is suitable, then pasture land ought to be ploughed up. There is no objection to that. But it seems reasonable to have a provision of this sort, so that local authorities shall not be misled, as they have been in the past, into ploughing up pasture without proper discrimination. The noble Earl says that the owner will receive compensation, but he must know that those of us who

697
have our best pasture ploughed up, and are then told that we can sow it again, a process which will take years and years, do not find this very much consolation. The noble Earl laughs.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am not laughing.
LORD STRACHIE: That is the experience we have had. Compensation never really represents the loss; it takes years to put down a good pasture. If my noble friend goes to a Division on this Amendment, I shall support him.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I can only say, in answer to the question of the noble Earl, that the person who assesses compensation is the arbitrator under the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919. I would add that from the evidence which we have had before the Committee, one of the most gross cases—indeed. I think there was more than one—was a ease where these compulsory powers were used and the landowner went to arbitration, and I was simply astounded at the award that was given by the arbitrator to the owner because his grass land was broken up. It was an enormous sum. I mention that only because noble Lords speak of grass land broken up during the war for which the owners have not received sufficient compensation.
Really, this is rather a different question. I do not wish to labour the point, because noble Lords must realise what the position is. There was a time when two million more acres of arable land were wanted, and, of course, grass land was ordered to be ploughed up. We need not go into that matter now. The small question we have to decide here is that a few acres of land, say even a hundred acres, are required for allotments and the allotment authority in the locality will attempt to find suitable arable land. They know well that they will have to compensate the owner if grass land is broken up. Is there not a prima facie case for the contention that they will all look about for some suitable arable land? Noble Lords seem to think that every allotment authority acts on the principle of going somewhere where they think they can cause most annoyance. The presumption is that, knowing they would have to pay compensation, they would avoid taking over pasture unless they were bound to do so.
698
Again, every time this land is broken up, the Minister has to send officials flying about the country in motor cars to discover whether there is any arable land more suitable. This will only perpetuate the system, which noble Lords very much deprecated on other occasions, of interference from headquarters, and it will also involve unnecessary officials travelling about the country. The owner gets compensation, and, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, allotment authorities, if they can find suitable arable land, will take it in preference to grass.
LORD PARMOOR: As the law now stands, under paragraph 2 (b) there is a restriction against breaking up pasture land unless it is necessary for purpose of allotments. Why could not the noble Earl leave the law as it is now? It is not a question of protecting pasture land, but of repealing a paragraph which at the present time, under the existing law, does protect it to that extent. Everything he said is in favour of that. Nobody wants large sums to be paid in compensation, or unnecessary damage to be done. The existing law is that you should nit break up pasture land if other land is available, and the best plan is to leave the law as at present.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I think there is a difference. This is for allotment gardens, and you sec that in many cases the local authorities provide allotments which are pasture allotments, and may be anything up to five acres. They are really small holdings. It is perfectly reasonable to leave them in grass, if the tenants want them in grass; hut when you come to allotment gardens nobody wants them in grass.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I hope I shall not draw upon myself a special measure of the noble Earl's contemptuous eloquence, but I venture to think that he puts his reply upon the wrong ground when he suggests that what we are out for is large compensation for landowners.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I never suggested that.
Loup BLEDISLOE: What we say is that the loss of this old pasture land is a loss to the nation, and we in the West of England are beginning to realise that with ever-increasing force. When the noble

699
Earl suggests that the allotment authorities have sufficient local experience and technical knowledge to be able equitably to adjudicate upon this matter, I venture to think that he is misinformed. I should not trust the ordinary urban allotment authority to judge between the suitability of arable and pasture land. It is common knowledge also that for the first two years after you break up pasture land the manure value of that turned-up pasture is very considerable.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I was only trying to answer objections. If the allotment authorities did not know what they were about, probably they would have a clerk or somebody who would advise them, and who would tell them that if they took grass land it would be practically certain that they would have to pay a lot of compensation to the owner, and would then be unable to let it at an economic rent. I am certain that most allotment authorities are not anxious to take land which is going to cause them a loss and end in economic disaster.
EARL STANHOPE: I think the noble Earl has really answered himself. He says that these cases will be rare, and that there will only be an appeal to the Minister where the allotment authorities do not exercise their functions properly. It is obvious, therefore, that the officials will not be very hard worked by this Amendment, which I hope he will accept.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: I hope that the Government will undertake to consider this Amendment between now and Report. I do not think my noble friend realises the desire that exists throughout the country that this old grass land should not be broken up. I am puzzled by my noble friend's attitude, because he has laid so much stress upon compensation. I venture to predict that if you are going to attach to all the sections of this Bill an obligation to pay very heavy compensation, you are going to dig the grave of the Bill
before it is brought into operation. My noble friend will be well advised if he agrees that this matter shall be reconsidered. The Amendment is of a most moderate character. It does not shut out the acquisition of pasture land, but only says that before you take it you shall try to get something else. In other words, it is a sort of index finger which seeks to point out to local authorities which is the wise course to take.
My noble friend says they will not want advice. I know something about local authorities, and of the influences often brought to bear upon them, although I desire to make no charge against local authorities. I doubt whether they will have clerks particularly acquainted with the subject under discussion, but I have no doubt that there will be somebody who will warn the local authorities that they will get into trouble if they take pasture land. The committee of a council may decide to buy a particular piece of land which happens to be grass land. The committee will report to the council, and then, may be, the clerk will tell the council that there is risk of heavy damage. This will frighten the council, and they will probably refer the matter back, and so it will be twelve months at least before you get any allotments at all. I suggest to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that he should accept this Amendment, or if that is too much for him to do at this moment, that he should promise that it shall be considered in a most friendly way between now and Report. I believe that when he gets among his colleagues over at Whitehall he will find that they 'are not so much alarmed at the Amendment as he is. Let us make as many friends as we can for the allotment movement, and do not let us start by making enemies of those who might so easily be made friends.
On Question, Whether subsection (4) stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 34.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Portsmouth, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Stamford, E.

Gorell, L.

Ancaster, E.

Hylton, L.

Bradford, E.

Peel, V.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Clarendon, E.

Clinton, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E.

Clwyd, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Devonshire, D.

Stanhope, E. [Teller.]

Erskine, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Lintithgow, M.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Gainford, L.

Salisbury, M.

Goschen, V.

Lamington, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Abingdon, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Derby, E.

Long, V.

Parmoor, E.

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

Novar, V.

Raglan, L.

Bledisloe, L. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Jersey, E.

Brownlow, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cawley, L.

Strachie, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Charnwood, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Morton, E.

Dynevor, L.

Sumner, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Powers of entry on unoccupied land.
6.—(1) The council of a borough or urban district may, after giving such notice of intention to enter as is hereinafter provided—

(a) enter upon any land to which this section applies for the purpose of providing allotment gardens thereon;

(b) adapt any such land for use for such purpose;

(c) let any such land for use by the tenant as an allotment garden or to any association for the purpose of sub-letting for such use, but so that any tenancy created by the council shall terminate at the date when the right of occupation of the council is terminated under this section;

(d) on the termination of such occupation remove any erection or work of adaptation making good any injury to the land caused by such removal.

(2) Before entry under this section, the council shall give not less than fourteen days' notice in writing to the owner of the land, in such manner as notices may be given to an owner under the regulations for the time being applicable to compulsory hiring of land under the Allotments Acts.
(3) The right of occupation of the council may be terminated—

(a) by not less than six months' notice in writing to that effect given by the council to the owner in manner aforesaid, and expiring on or before the twenty-fifth day of March, or on or after the twenty-ninth day of September in any year; or

(b) by not less than one month's notice in writing, given by the owner to the council in any case where the land is reasonably required for any purpose other than the use of the land fur agriculture.

(4) A tenant to whom land is let by a council under this section and whose tenancy is terminated by the termination of the right of occupation of the council shall, unless otherwise agreed in the contract of tenancy, be entitled to recover from the council such compensation (if any) as would have been recoverable if his tenancy had been terminated by notice to quit given by the council.
(5) Any person who is interested in any land on which entry is made by the council under this section, and who suffers any loss by reason of the exercise of the powers conferred by this section shall, if he makes a claim not later than one year after the termination of the right of occupation, be entitled to be paid by the council such amount or amounts by way of periodical payments or otherwise as may represent the loss, and such amount or amounts shall in default of agreement be determined by a valuation made by a person appointed, in default of agreement, by the Minister:
Provided that a periodical payment of compensation in the nature of rent shall not exceed the rental value of the land as defined by this section.
(6) This section applies to—

(a) land which at the date of the notice of intended entry is not the subject of a rateable occupation; or

(b) land of which at the date of the notice of intended entry the Minister is in possession by himself or any person deriving title under him under the provisions of section one of the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916, as explained by section thirty of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, and which when possession thereof was first taken under the Defence of the Realm Regulation was not the subject of a rateable occupation;

except land being the property of a local authority or forming part of any metropolitan common or any land subject to be inclosed under the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, or any town, village, green, or recreation ground.
(7) For the purposes of this section—
The expression "rental value" means the annual rent which a tenant might reasonably be expected to pay for the land if the land had continued in the same condition as at the date v-hen entry was made under this section, or at the date when possession thereof was so first taken as aforesaid, as the case may be.
The expression "rateable occupation" means such occupation as would involve liability to payment of the poor rate or any rate leviable in like manner as the poor rate.
VISCOUNT GALWAY VISCOUNT GALWAY moved, in subsection (1), after "The council of a borough or urban district," to insert "or the council of a county to whom the powers and duties of an urban district council have been transferred under the provisions of sub-

703
section (2) of section twenty-four of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908." The noble Viscount said: On behalf of the County Councils' Association I wish to move this Amendment, which stands on the Order Paper in the name of Lord Strachie. It is only right that county councils should be in the same position as urban councils if they are called upon to administer the Act.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 19, after ("district") insert the said words.—(Viscount Galway.)
THE EARL of ANCASTER: I think I told Lord Strachie that I accepted this Amendment, subject to reconsideration on Report, because I believe there is some question about the Minister.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, in subsection (1) (c), after "association," to insert "being an association to which land may be let by the council under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1919." The noble Earl said: The associations referred to in the Amendment are associations formed for the purpose of creating, or promoting the creation of, allotments, and so constituted that the division of profit among the members of the association is prohibited or restricted. It seems reasonable that this provision, applicable to land now bought or leased for allotments, should apply to land temporarily occupied under this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 27, after ("association") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (2), after "land," where that word firstly occurs, to insert "if the owner be known." The noble Lord also had on the Paper Amendments to insert, at the end of subsection (2), "and if not known, in manner provided by section seven of the Agriculture Act, 1920," and "and if the owner be not known, by affixing a copy thereof on some conspicuous part of the land."
The noble Lord said: These two Amendments (for the third Amendment which I have on the Paper is an alternative to the second) deal with the case where an owner
704
of land is unknown. This clause refers to the acquisition of derelict land—the sort of land which may, or may not, be near a town, on which brickbats or rubbish are to be found, and in some cases, particularly in Essex, as Colonel Whitmore demonstrated on behalf of the Central Landowners' Association before the noble Earl's Committee, there are considerable areas which have been the subject of speculative enterprise during the last few years and the owner is not known. In such a case, I ask that the machinery which was contemplated by Section 7 of the Agriculture Act should be brought into operation, and that a copy of the notice should be affixed on some conspicuous part of the land, so that there may be no question as to whether the notice is inoperative owing to the impossibility of finding the owner of the land.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 37, after ("land") insert ("if the owner be known")
Page 5, line 40, at end insert ("and if not known, in manner provided by section seven of the Agricultural Act, 1920").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The section to which the Amendment refers has been repealed, and for this reason I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD BLEDISLOE: It is for that very reason that I put down an alternative Amendment, which is the third upon the list.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am sorry if I misunderstood. The Bill provides that notices are to be given in such manner as notices may be given to an owner under the compulsory hiring regulations made under the Allotments Acts. These regulations make provision for the case where an owner after diligent inquiry cannot be found, and I think, therefore, that the case of the unknown owner is already adequately provided for. I have a copy of the procedure which is adopted. I will read it:—
"(1) Every notice required to be given by a Council to an owner, existing tenant, or other person interested in land proposed or authorised to be hired, shall either be served personally on such person or sent by post to or left at his usual place of abode in the United Kingdom, if any such can after diligent inquiry be found and in case any such person shall be absent from the United Kingdom or cannot be found after diligent inquiry, shall be sent by post to or left with any agent ordinarily receiving the rents of the land on behalf of such person, and a copy thereof shall

705
also he sent by post to or left with the occupier of the land to which such notice relates, or, if there be no such occupier, shall he affixed upon some conspicuous part of such land."
LORD BLEDISLOE: Probably the last three words meet the case, if the noble Earl will substitute "premises" for "buildings." But all the first part is clearly inapplicable, because this is a case where the owner does not appear to exist at all and, therefore, there is no agent to collect the rents. However, I do not press it.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does that apply to those three Amendments?
LORD BLEDISLOE: Yes.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, in subsection (3) (a), to leave out "twenty-fifth day of March" and insert "sixth day of April." The noble Earl said: This is consequential upon previous decisions of your Lordships.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 6, leave out ("twenty-fifth day of March") and insert ("sixth day of April").(The Earl of Ancaster.)
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved, in subsection (3) (b). to leave out "reasonably required for any purposes other than the use of the land for agriculture" sand insert "required for any purpose other than agriculture, and where a contract has been entered into for the sale or leasing of the land for such purpose the production of the said contract shall be conclusive evidence of the land being so required."
The noble Earl said: The situation has somewhat altered since this Amendment was placed on the Paper. It is a Land Union Amendment. At the time it was put down, as I have already explained to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, we had not received any communication f.com the National Union of Allotment Holders. I understand that a similar representation will be made in another place when the Bill comes up there. The whole motive of the Amendment is that landowners shall find it as easy as possible, and may be able as quickly as possible to get possession of land affected by Clause 6, which is in a somewhat different position from laud which is affected by other parts of the Bill. I
706
will not take up your Lordships' time because I hope and believe that an agreement will ultimately be arrived at. A clause was drafted at the conference between the Land Union and the National Union of Allotment Holders, and I hope that if I do not press this Amendment now the noble Earl will be in a position to give me an assurance that the whole matter will be very carefully considered elsewhere. It is perhaps too much to expect that it will be considered on Report. It is a very important matter, and the noble Earl will be rendering a very great service to Parliament and to the country if he agrees to the insertion of a clause in the Bill. I hope we may have some assurance from the noble Earl on the point.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, lines 1l to 13, leave out from ("is") in line 11 to the end of paragraph (b) and insert the said words.—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: In order to save later Amendments, I shall have to put it that the word "reasonably" only be left out.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am prepared to accept the omission of the word "reasonably." As to the second part of the Amendment, it has the object of making a sale one of the reasons for regaining possession of the land, and I could not agree to that. In view of what the noble Earl has said as to further consideration of this matter, I think he will not expect a longer reply from me on that question.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I do not intend to press this matter to a Division, but I am very sorry that the noble Earl has not seen his way to accept the latter part of the Amendment. In view of what has passed, the noble Earl, I think, understands that something ought to be done when this matter reaches another place. I am convinced, from what I have heard from the Land Union and the National Union of Allotment Holders, that an agreed clause which would protect the interests of both parties concerned could be arrived at, and I trust that either on the Report stage or in another place, an announcement will be made that such a conclusion has been reached.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (3) (b), to leave out "any purpose/other than the use of the land for agri-

707
culture" and to insert "an industrial purpose." The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I am merely asking the noble Earl to make use of his own excellent definition in the Interpretation Clause of the Bill. What is said there is that the expression "industrial purpose" shall not include use for agriculture, horticulture, or the keeping and breeding of livestock. It is obvious that is just the very case which is intended to be met in this subsection. There is no particular reason why agriculture should be inserted and horticulture omitted, as well as the keeping and breeding of livestock. The wards "an industrial purpose" will not only make clear what he is driving at, but will also include the other semi-agricultural purposes which obviously are intended to be included.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, lines 11 to 13, leave out from ("for") in line 11 to the end of line 13, and insert ("an industrial purpose").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The main difference here, as I think I have already explained, is that the agreement we arrived at, which was in the nature of a compromise, on the Allotment Committee was that this land was in a different position from that of the land under Clause 1. To start with, the allotment authority at rpesent can simply enter upon this land giving practically a fortnight's notice without any appeal whatsoever: therefore, we thought that the owner—and this was agreed to by the allotment representatives —ought to have a better reason for reentry on the land than under Clause 1. It may be unreasonable that that should be the case, but we did think, and I am still of the opinion, that the landowner should have more reason for entering on the land than under Clause 1.
In regard to the other question he has raised, I should be very pleased to look into the matter again before we get to the Report stage; but we are of opinion that a landowner should not re-enter for agricultural or horticultural purposes or for the breeding of livestock. We do not think that he ought to enter upon his land to turn it into a horsebreeding farm. If he is going to enter upon it again we think it ought to be entered upon for some other purpose than agriculture, because it is already being used for an agricultural purpose when under cultivation as allotment gardens.
EARL STANHOPE: That is exactly what the Amendment of my noble friend means.
LORD BLEDISLOE: The point which the noble Earl raised, as the House will no doubt have noticed, was not quite relevant to my Amendment. I do not dispute the desirability of there being much longer notice in this case where the land is derelict. The noble Lord was arguing with regard to one month as compared with three months provided in Clause 1. I do not argue that. It is only desirable when you come to the question whether land is required for a purpose other than agricultural. It clearly is intended that this special power should be reserved in the case where it is wanted for some clearly industrial purpose. If it is desired to be used for any agricultural purpose—using agriculture in the wide sense contemplated by the Interpretation Clause—then this other agricultural purpose, particularly horticulture, should be taken into account.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I think it is clear. Let me quote a case. The owner could resume the ground for a football field, but he could not do so under Clause 1.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I do not think the noble Earl has given any valid reason why my Amendment should not be accepted, but I shall not challenge a Division.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Earl said: I have put down this Amendment because I am afraid I do not understand the subsection. As far as I read this Bill the subsection refers to a capital loss which the owner of land might suffer. It says that any one interested in any land who suffers any loss by reason of the exercise of the powers conferred by this section shall be entitled to be paid such amount, or amounts, by way of periodical payments or otherwise, as may represent the loss. I imagine that means the capital loss which would be suffered, and it is proposed that the person should be repaid by way of periodical payments. It goes on to say that the periodical payment of compensation shall not exceed the rental value of the land as defined by this section. As your Lordships will see in subsection (6), this clause only refers to land which is not in rateable occupation, and therefore is only what is termed

709
"derelict" land. If your Lordships turn to subsection (7), you will see that the expression "rental value" means "the annual rent that a tenant might reasonably be expected to pay for the land if the land has continued in the same condition as at the date when entry was made under this section." In other words, the rental value presumably is practically nil, because the land is derelict. What I fail to understand is how, if the value is practically nil, you are going to pay anything in order to meet a capital loss.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I think the noble Earl did not understand the clause, and I confess that I did not understand his Amendment, so perhaps we are in the same position. Now that he has told me that the object of his Amendment is to get me to give an explanation of this compensation clause, I would point out that the subsection proposed to be left out is, in substance, a reproduction of the provision of the Corn Production Acts which gives a right of compensation to persons injuriously affected by their land being occupied under the Defence of the Realm Act. We are practically putting the local authority, in regard to this land, in the same position as that in which the Ministry is. The local authority will go on to these waste lands, and they will be placed in the same position in regard to them as the Ministry was placed in under the Defence of the Realm Act.
We are still clearing up many cases under the Defence of the Realm Act, and it is largely for the purpose of getting rid of these cases that we are trying to get this Bill through. We want to be able to settle our accounts. We are at present settling claims for compensation made by these people against the Ministry owing to our occupation of these derelict lands. Let me give an example. A man may have built a row of houses, and very likely spent some money in the development of the land. No more houses were built, and during the occupation of the vacant land by the plot holders the road which he had made has been dug up. When we give up the occupation of this land the owner comes to the Ministry —under this he will go to the local authority —and says that it cost him £300 to put down this road; that the plot holders have dug it up, and turned it into allotment gardens; therefore, he claims compensation. We are paying these owners compensation, and we think the local authorities, in cases where
710
the same thing is done in future, should also pay compensation if the property is deteriorated.
As regards the question of rent, I agree that it goes to the whole principle of this clause. There are many Amendments on the question of compensation to be discussed later. We anticipate that the rents paid by these allotment holders will be very small indeed. We anticipate that they will pay practically nothing but an acknowledgment rent. We do not see how an arbitrator can put it much higher. Still, there will be certain cases where a man's property has been deteriorated, owing to the act of the plot holder, and in those cases the owner should be compensated for the damage. I think that explains the position.
EARL STANHOPE: I am afraid the noble Earl has not explained it. I still fail to understand how he is to pay by periodical payments of a peppercorn rent for a road which has been dug up. There will be a good many peppercorns before he has paid people out.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The words are "such amount, or amounts by way of periodical payments or otherwise as may represent the loss."
EARL STANHOPE: Would the noble Earl look at the proviso: "Provided that a periodical payment of compensation in the nature of rent shall not exceed the rental value of the land as defined by this section."
LORD BLEDISLOE: I do not think the noble Earl has gone far enough. The clause goes on to explain that "rental value means the annual rent that the tenant might reasonably be expected to pay for the land if the land had continued in the same condition as at the date when entry was made."
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Very often a road has been made.
LORD BLEDISLOE: It does not matter whether it is a refuse heap or a road. It is obvious, according to the definition, that there is no rental value in it.
EARL STANHOPE: Perhaps the noble Earl will consider it before Report. I can understand why he did not realise

711
the reason for my putting down this Amendment, but now that he sees the reason perhaps he will consider it between now and Report.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I will consider it before Report, but I think the clause is all right as it stands.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, towards the end of subsection (6), to leave out "or any land subject to be inclosed under the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, or any town, village, green, or recreation ground," and to insert "within the meaning of the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866, or any land which is subject, or might be made subject, to regulation under an order or scheme made in pursuance of the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, or under any local Act or otherwise, or land which is or forms part of any town or village green, or any area dedicated or appropriated as a public park, garden, or pleasure ground, or for use for the purposes of public recreation, or land forming part of the New Forest. (as defined in the New Forest Act, 1877), or of the trust property to which the National Trust Act, 1907, applies."
The noble Lord said: I have reason to believe that negotiations have taken place between the National Union of Allotment Holders, the Commons Preservation Society, and the Ministry on this question, and, without detaining the House, may I ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether he will accept this Amendment. Its object is to strengthen the clause, and to secure that no land in the New Forest shall be inclosed.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, lines 7 to 9, leave out from ("common") in line 7 to the end of line 9, and insert the said words.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I accept the Amendment.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved, at the end of subsection (6), to insert "or land which has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway dock or canal undertaking." The noble Lord said: I hope I shall find the noble Earl in a more gracious mood towards this Amendment. I am moving
712
it in the form suggested by Viscount Devon-port as I think his words are more convenient than mine. Although I cannot swear that no railway has any derelict land within the wording of the clause I do not think any has.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 9, at end insert ("or land which has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway dock or canal undertaking").—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I accept that.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended at fire minutes to eight o'clock, and resumed at ten minutes past nine o'clock.]
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR had on the Paper an Amendment, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause—
"Where an order has been made for the compulsory acquisition of any land and notice to treat there under is not served by the acquiring authority within two calendar mouths of the said order or where confirmation of the said order is necessary, then from the confirmation thereof the same shall become null and void and no other compulsory order shall be made or confirmed with respect of the same land or any part thereof within three years from the date on which the order was made or where confirmation is necessary from the date on which the order is confirmed. For the purposes of this section, the periods of two calendar months and three years shall, as regards any compulsory orders already made, he respectively counted as from the date of the passing of this Act."
The noble Lord said: The object of this new clause is to remedy a serious defect in the present law. There is no power which enables the owner to compel the acquiring authority to complete the acquisition of the land, nor can he compel them to withdraw, the result being that the land cannot be dealt with for development. I consider that a time limit in which the authorities should act is necessary, so that the land shall not be held up indefinitely. Your Lordships will, no doubt, notice that in this proposed new clause I have fixed that notice to treat should be given within two calendar months, and if it is not given within that time then the order should be null and void, and the same land, or any part thereof, should not be taken again within three years. I think it is very

713
essential that some clause of that kind should be put in the Bill, and I hope my noble friend will accept it.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I thoroughly understand the purpose of the noble Lord's Amendment, and with the first part of that Amendment, which deals with the time within which the powers conferred by a compulsory order can be put into force, I feel a great deal of sympathy, although I am inclined to think that the period of two months is rather too short. As the law stands all orders provide that the power shall cease to be operative at the expiration of twelve months, unless the Minister shall extend the time. Constantly, after a compulsory order has been made, negotiations for voluntary acquisition take place, and these may take some time. If the noble Lord would agree to three months instead of two months I am prepared to accept the Amendment down to the words "null and void," subject, of course, o any drafting Amendment which I may be advised is necessary.
I am, however, not prepared to accept that part of the Amendment which provides that no order in respect of the same land shall be made and confirmed within three years thereafter. It is sometimes found that an order is defective, or that the boundaries are not the best that could have been devised, and it may be perfectly reasonable that time original order shall be abandoned and that another order affecting the same shall be made. I do not know whether it would meet the views of the noble Lord if in this respect some provision should be made upon the general lines of his Amendment, but providing that a substituted order should not take effect unless it was confirmed by the Minister? I think that goes a very long way to meet the noble Lord. At the present moment a substituted order does not have to be confirmed by the Minister.
LORD DYNEVOR: I understand the noble Earl's point in altering the two months to three, but with regard to the omission of the words after "null and void," do I understand that he himself is going to bring forward some such new provision as he suggests?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Yes, that is the proposal—that we should amend the Act so that if an order is made, and then
714
alterations are made in it, so that a substituted order has 70 be made fur the same land, it would require fresh confirmation by the Minister. We will put down an Amendment to provide for that on Report.
LORD DYNEVOR: I am quite ready to adopt the suggestion of the noble Earl, and to move the Amendment in the form proposed.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6, inert the following, new clause:
(".Where an order has been made for the compulsory acquisition of any land and notice to treat there under is not served by the acquiring authority within three calendar months of the said lacier or where confirmation of the said order is necessary, then from the confirmation thereof the same shall become null and void").—(Lord. Dynevor.)
Clause 7:
Restriction of obligations of urban authorities to provide allotments.
7. The obligation of a borough or urban district under the Allotments Acts to provide allotments shall be limited to the provision of allotment gardens not exceeding twenty poles in extent.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: There is a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 22, after ("of")insert ("a council of").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, after "shall," to insert "if the population exceed ten thousand." The noble Lord said: There are many urban district councils situated in the most remote rural villages. The urban district councils are merely the successors of the old local boards, and in a great many Statutes of this character the population is added in order to make it perfectly clear that the urban district is one of an urban character. Tire most rural parish in my neighbourhood is a so-called urban district, though it has no more than 120 inhabitants, whereas I live in a rural district with a population of 5,000. Obviously, therefore, "urban district" without some qualification is not quite a suitable phrase to use.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 23, after ("shall") insert the said words.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The clause under consideration, which is confined to borough and urban district councils, limits the statutory obligation to the provision of allotment gardens not exceeding 20 poles in extent. There is nothing, however, to prevent the authority providing larger allotments if there is any demand for them and the land is available. I admit that, as the noble Lord says, some rural districts are large, and some urban districts are small. I prefer, however, that the Bill should remain as it stands, and that the difference between urban and rural areas should be preserved. On grounds of logic I confess that the noble Lord has a good case, but I do not think the matter is of very great importance.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: I hope the noble Lord will accept the Amendment. There is more than mere logic or uniformity in it. We have in this country a great many rural authorities, such as the one which my noble friend opposite describes, the population of which would fully justify their being made boroughs. Happily, as I think, a great many of the inhabitants of these rural areas do not desire that their areas should be made into boroughs, but if. Parliament continues to put powers into the hands of urban authorities which they withhold from rural authorities they will give an incentive to the rural authorities to request the Ministry of Health to make them urban authorities in order to get the right to exercise these powers. That is the last thing we want. Let us retain as much of the rural character of our country as we can. I can assure the noble Earl that this is not an unimportant question. It touches the whole system of local government, and the Amendment will not injuriously affect his Bill. In fact, I think that it would improve it. In those circumstances I would respectfully ask the Government whether they cannot see their way to accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I accept the Amendment.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Allotment committees of urban authorities.
8.—(1) The council of every borough or urban district shall, unless exempted by the Minister from the provisions of this section, establish an
716
allotments committee, and all matters relating to the exercise and performance by the council of their powers and duties under the Allotments Acts as respects the provision of allotment gardens (except the power of raising a rate or borrowing money) shall stand referred to such committee, and the council before exercising any such powers shall, unless in their opinion the matter is urgent, receive and consider the report of the committee with respect to the matter in question, and the council may delegate to the committee, with or without restrictions, any of their said powers except as aforesaid.
(2) An allotments committee established under this section shall comprise persons, other than members of the council, representative of the interests of occupiers of allotment gardens in the borough or district provided that such co-opted members shall he less than one-half but shall not be less than one-third of the total number of the members of the committee.
(3) The accounts of any receipts or payments by or to a committee under powers delegated under this section shall be accounts of the council and made up and audited accordingly.
(4) In the ease of a county borough, the council may appoint their small holdings committee, if constituted so as to comply with the provisions of this section, to be their allotment committee under this section.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), after "district," to insert "with a population of 10,000 or upwards." The noble Lord said: The same point arises here to make it perfectly clear that the urban district is intended to apply to a district that is really urban and not to an ultra-rural district of the kind that I have described.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 27, after ("district") insert ("with a population of 10,000 or upwards").(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I think this is consequential on the Amendment I have just accepted.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: This applies to the second of the two Amendments, I think?
LORD BLEDISLOE: Yes.
LORD ERSKINE LORD ERSKINE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "shall, unless exempted by the Minister from the provisions of this section" and insert "may." The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in the name of Lord Dynevor and my own has for its object to leave borough and urban district councils a discretion as to the establishment of an allotments committee. The importation of

717
another certificate of exemption by the Minister of Health is, I venture to think, an unnecessary interference with the proper functions of local government by locally elected bodies charged by Parliament with local duties. It is evident that the multiplication of statutory committees tends more and more to make too onerous the duties that a local council is called upon to perform. There can he no doubt that in many cases the type of person whom it is desirable to have on local government bodies in the district is deterred from taking part in the local government of his district by the increasing calls upon his time which membership of a local body involves.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, lines 27 and 28, leave out ("shall, unless exempted by the Minister from the provisions of this section") and insert ("may").—(Lord Erskine.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The clause in which these Amendments are moved—I think those appearing in the names of Lord Dynevor, Lord Erskine, The Earl of Malmesbury and Lord Bledisloe all go to the same point—is one to which the representatives of the allotment holders attach great importance. The committee over which I presided were furnished with some evidence indicating that there are councils entrusted with allotment powers who for various reasons do not take very active interest in the provision of allotments, and the representatives of the allotment holders press strongly the view that the allotment powers are unlikely to be administered generally in a sympathetic spirit unless a committee is constituted specially for allotment purposes, and that committee contains persons representative of the allotment holders in the district. I am dealing rather with the whole of the clause at the moment, because the question of co-opting members arises later.
At the present time an allotment authority has power to appoint allotment managers of the land acquired for allotments, but these managers, even if appointed, deal only with land already acquired and not with the question of the acquisition of land, which is the most important point. Although these allotment managers may include persons who are not members of the council, this provision is not regarded as satisfactory even if it were used to any large extent, which does not appear to be the case. Urban district councils have
718
power already to appoint committees for the exercise of any powers of the council, on which they can co-opt persons who are not members of the council; but this does not apply to borough councils.
I quite recognise the force of the argument that as a general rule local authorities should be allowed to manage their business in such manner as they think best, but experience has shown unfortunately that as regards the provision of allotments, which is undoubtedly a matter of considerable public importance, the existing position is not satisfactory taking the country as a whole. The allotment holders have strongly impressed upon the Ministry the view that if there were some committee on which the representatives of allotment holders were present, though not in such numbers as to be a preponderating influence, this would ensure prompt attention being given to the problem. Further, I think that the presence of these representatives on the committee, would tend to remove -friction which at present sometimes occurs, as the discussion by the committee would disclose to the representatives the difficulties which arise in the provision of allotments with which they are not at present familiar. The proposal to make the clause entirely optional would, in my view, largely, if not entirely, destroy the value of the clause.
There is an Amendment upon the Paper, I think in the name of Lord Strachie, to provide that the allotments committee may be an existing committee, or sub-committee of an existing committee. To this I should see no objection provided there was some arrangement by which the committee or sub-committee when called upon to deal with allotment matters contained some co-opted members representative of allotment holders. It may be that to some extent the inaction of local authorities has been due to the difficulties which have so far impeded the provision of allotments, and which it is hoped will, to a considerable extent, be removed by this Bill. But from the evidence placed before the committee it. has not entirely been due to this cause, and I think the allotment holders have made out a reasonable case for the proposition contained in Clause 8. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will not take any action which would destroy the effectiveness of the clause. I am quite unable to accept either of the Amendments.

719
I have read this statement because it is rather important that the position should be definitely stated. We have now arrived at a very important Amendment, which is rather a dividing of the ways. First, I should like to speak as one who presided over this Departmental Committee on allotments. After a long fight upon this matter we came to the unanimous decision that allotment committees should be set up, and that it should be a statutory obligation. I think it is perhaps better that there should be co-opted members. On this Amendment we are discussing whether these local authorities may or shall set up these committees.
There is one argument to which the noble Viscount, Lord Long, referred on the Second Reading with very great force. He said that some important councils would be very indignant indeed if we ordered them to set up these statutory committees for allotments. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that the allotment holders should be satisfied. A very strong case has been made out by the allotment holders for the setting up of these committees. I do not think that it would be fair to quote evidence from the Committee, because it was never published, but there is no doubt that there is an idea at the back of the head of a large number of men who have allotments, and who will be dispossessed in March next, and also at the back of the heads of other people who desire allotments, that the land is there, and that they could get it if the council was in the least degree sympathetic towards them.
All sorts of allegations are made. I will quote some of those allegations for the information of noble Lords. I do not know whether they are true or not. One sort of allegation made is that the question of allotments is referred to the parks committee or sonic other committee, and that the members of the committee, being unsympathetic, do not turn up when the question is to be discussed, and there is no quorum. The whole question is then postponed. I believe that if it was a statutory obligation that these councils should set up these committees, that would get rid of a great deal of prejudice and what I may call backstairs talk. These people would then no longer be able to charge their councils with the sort of subterfuges which they now allege are resorted to. They would know that there was a
720
committee to deal with the question, and they would also learn, if members were added to it representing the allotment holders, of the difficulties, especially in big towns, of acquiring land. It would do away with a good deal of ill-informed gossip.
I cannot place the question any more clearly before your Lordships. It is a very simple one indeed. It is a question whether Parliament should dictate to these local authorities, or whether the case of allotment holders for a statutory committee is strong enough. So far as the provision of allotments is concerned it is a very important provision, and I know that many people who possess allotments, and many who wish to obtain them, look upon this clause, with the word "shall" instead of "may," as their charter. Your Lordships must vote as you think fit. I shall vote against the Amendment and in favour of making it compulsory, and noble Lords who really believe in the importance of the allotment movement will support me in voting for the retention of the word "shall." By so doing they will do as much to promote the finding of allotments as by any other clause in the Bill.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: I must support the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, though I confess I do so with considerable regret. It is not an invasion of the principle of local government; that would not be a correct statement. There are several Statutes which impose upon local authorities the duty of performing certain public functions, and it is laid down that the local authority shall operate through a committee. In this case, unfortunately, the Government have gone out of their way to tread on the toes of local authorities. This clause brutally tells local authorities that, whatever they think, they shall in future do so and so. I waited during the Second Reading debate, and also to-night, to hear the number of cases there are in which local authorities have been recalcitrant. I have not heard one quoted. I had the great advantage of interviewing two representatives of the Allotments Association. I pressed them on this point, but could get no information. They told me that land which ought to be let in allotments was not so let.
The noble Earl now tells us that this provision will smooth the path, and that allotment holders attach great importance to it. There is nothing truer than the old

721
adage that while one man can take a horse to water twenty men cannot compel the horse to drink, and you are not going to make local authorities provide allotments by saving that they must appoint a committee. The noble Earl has made it quite clear that those whom interests are mainly concerned with this legislation, attach immense importance to the retention of the word "shall." Speaking only for myself, therefore. I am inclined to think that the proper course is to support fie Government, although I do so with some regret, because I believe, for the reasons which I have given, that this Amendment is more likely to retard the growth of the allotment system than to expedite it. The Government have given grave consideration to the matter. They have been in consultation with those who are interested and therefore, with regret, but none the less with sincerity, I shall support them.
LORD STRACHIE: Having heard the concluding words of the noble Viscount, he would have given me arguments, even if I had not gone into the question before, for supporting my noble friend behind me. I intervene now for a few moments in order to state the view of the County Councils Association upon the question of local self-government. I can assure your Lordships that the County Councils Association, and I believe all county councillors, feel that this is a question which, as the noble Viscount, although supporting the Government, has said, strikes at the root of local self-government, and of the right of these important local authorities to manage their own affairs in their own way without interference from the central Government.
I will go further; not only is the County Councils Association desirous that the word "shall" shall be left out and "may" take its place, giving urban authorities option, which I am sure they would nearly all exercise, to set up an allotments committee as they think fit, but I am informed that the Association of Municipal Corporations and the Urban District Councils Association are very strongly of opinion that they ought to have the right of appointing an allotments committee or not as they think fit. Some of these urban authorities and boroughs are very large indeed. The noble Lord has also referred to the question of occupation. There, again, there is an Amendment on the
722
Paper, and exactly the same feeling was felt by all representative bodies, from the County Councils Association down to the Urban District Councils Association.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I do not wish to interrupt, but I think the county councils are already under a statutory obligation to appoint a small holdings and allotments committee. This Amendment really refers to boroughs and urban districts.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRANALL: That is so.
LORD STRACHIE: But this goes a great deal further. You not only compel them to appoint it, but you compel them to have co-opted members.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I was dealing with the whole question.
LORD STRACHIE: That is a very different question. When the county councils were first set up, some of them may have been hostile to allotments committees. I would remind the noble Earl that the committee which the county councils are obliged to set up is a statutory committee dealing with small holdings. The noble Earl will remember that in those days there was very strong feeling against small holdings in certain areas, and it might well have been that the county council, as then constituted, would have, refused to set up a small holdings committee. All that has entirely changed. I believe a very small fraction indeed of any urban authority or borough to-day would refuse to set up an allotments committee or to refer the matter to a committee of some sort. All I can say is that such is the opinion of the County Councils Association, of the Urban District Councils Association, and of the Association of Municipal Corporations. All these great democratic bodies are entirely opposed to the view of the Government in this matter.
It is also said that the allotment holders will be badly treated. I would remind the noble Earl that these bodies are elected on democratic principles and have large electoral influence. He knows very well that it would be a brave man who set himself against the wishes of the allotment holders in any area. Certainly, he would lose his seat on any local authority. The allotment holders would have their remedy in turning

723
out any member who refused to set up an allotments committee, and I support this matter entirely in the interest of seeing that the local authority shall be masters in their own house, and not be affected by a Government office in Whitehall.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think Lord Strachie is under some misapprehension. This clause, as it now stands, imposes no fresh duty or obligation upon any county council in the land.
LORD STRACHIE: What I said was that I supported it on the principle of local government, I agree that it does not interfere with county councils, but they are supporting the view of the minor authorities that they should be masters in their own house.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It very seldom occurs that the County Councils Association takes a strong line in the interests of borough or urban district councils, but I think it is just as well to remind your Lordships that this does not affect the counties in the very least, nor do I think it is quite so brutal a clause as Lord Long said. He referred to the brutality of it. Your Lordships must recall that the power of exemption is contained in the clause. It is not an absolute rule. The words are "unless exempted by the Minister from the provisions of this section." That gives any aggrieved borough or urban district a right of appeal to the Minister of Agriculture, and confers upon the Minister the right to say that this committee shall not be appointed. Supposing that busybodies in the City of London said that they wanted an allotments committee. The Minister, on being consulted, could then say that it was a frivolous matter, and grant exemption. Accordingly, I hope your Lordships will support the clause.
It is a matter which has aroused intense feeling amongst allotment holders throughout the country. The feeling does exist that there are cases where the interests of the allotment holders are ignored in a manner which is wrong, and I myself believe that the establishment of these committees, and the conferring of power upon the representatives of allotment holders to attend and state their grievances, will in this case, as in so many others, he sufficient to remove misunderstandings and backstair gossip, which do far more harm to the allotment movement than anything
724
else. The clause does not increase the power of authority, but merely says that if they fail to secure exemption from the Minister in charge, an allotments committee shall be established. I greatly hope that your Lordships will support the Bill as it stands.
LORD BLEDISLOE: While fully endorsing all that the noble Earl has said, I should like to express my astonishment at the support given to the Amendment by Lord Strachie as coming from the County Councils Association, because they have their own committees which stand on a similar footing. It is fully recognised that the county councils are in some counties largely composed of people who have not the faintest knowledge of land cultivation, and it is only right they should have associated with them persons who know their job, and if only these people can be brought into touch with the ignoramuses on the councils, the people with urban prejudices who know very little about the cultivation of the land, it will be better both for the urban element and for the allotment holders.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "unless exempted by the Minister from the provisions of this section." The noble Lord said: I do not quite see what is the object of leaving it to the Minister of Agriculture to exercise a discretion as to whether municipalities shall or shall not appoint a committee of this character. Either it is right to appoint an allotments committee or it is wrong, and it is difficult to see in what circumstances the caprice or the discretion of the Minister of Agriculture will operate to prevent a municipality from appointing an allotments committee. My argument, I think, is somewhat strengthened by the fact that the council will always be in the majority on these committees, and matters which they will decide will always have to be referred, as in the case of a county council committee, to the parent body. That being so, I cannot understand why the Minister, a person outside altogether, should be allowed to come in and say that in a particular case there shall be no allotments committee. I rather agree with my noble friend, Lord Long, that if there is to be a Minister at all—which I myself deprecate—it should be the Minister of Health rather than the Minister of Agriculture.

725
I cannot see what particular qualification the Minister of Agriculture has for this task.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, lines 27 and 28, leave out ("unless exempted by the Minister from the provisions of this section").—(Loral Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Though this is not a very important point I believe the reason the words were put in is that it would be rather ridiculous in the case of a place like the borough of Holborn, for instance, to say that it must have an allotments committee. I am very doubtful whether the borough of Lambeth is in that position. There are, I think, some cases where it would not be necessary to have an allotments committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL moved, in subsection (1), after "Minister" to insert "of Health." The noble Viscount said: I am extremely hopeful that the Government will accept this Amendment, especially after the speech to which I have just. listened from the noble Earl who leads the House, who, in some very interesting remarks, attached immense importance to this power of exemption, if I mistake not, with regard to the City of London, as did the noble Earl who has just sat down. They seem to he attracted to the City of London. I am somewhat appalled at the idea of the City of London desiring to be exempted from doing certain work and having to go to the Minister of Agriculture for permission. This really must have come in per incuriam, because the Ministry of Agriculture has no machinery for the purpose. How are they going to hold these inquiries? If you have a local authority which is determined or very anxious not to set up an allotments committee, you must have an inquiry. There is no machinery at present existing which is at once so efficient and so economical as the procedure of a local inquiry by the Ministry of Health, held by men who are accustomed to such inquiries, and who understand all the local circumstances. In this particular question, of course, expenditure and, therefore, rates are bound to play a prominent part.
There is a further reason. My noble friend, in the interesting speeches he has made during the course of this Bill through your Lordships' House, has made it clear
726
that the Ministry of Agriculture has been in conference with various outsiders, and is heart and soul in this project of getting land for allotments. This proposal would make the Minister of Agriculture litigant and judge in his own case, a thing which is ridiculous. The Minister of Agriculture would be as much interested as the prospective allotment holder; yet he is to be made the judge of whether or not the local authority should have exemption. I submit, with great respect, that the proposal will not hold water, and if you want to have this exemption at all you must constitute a proper authority for the purpose, and the proper authority is, I submit, the Ministry of Health, the Department to which ill these questions are referred.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 27, after ("Minister") insert ("of health").—(Viscount Long of Wraxall.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: I should like to add two words. What I may call the argumentum ad Holbornum which defeated me just now obviously defeats the intention of this clause. The fact that Holborn can never have allotments is a good and sufficient reason why it should not refer to the Minister of Agriculture of all people to decide upon its municipal affairs.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: If it would meet the noble Lord I should be willing to insert "after consultation with the Minister of Health." I do not mind which comes first, whether it is the Minister of Health, after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture, or the Minister of Agriculture after consultation with the Minister of Health. I feel that if we entirely cut out the Minister of Agriculture there may be a certain number of boroughs who would try to slip out by going to the Minister of Health without consulting the Minister of Agriculture.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: I do not quite know what my noble friend means. May I ask him whether this Amendment has been considered in the Department In that case he will be able to answer my question, which is this. He proposes that there should be consultation between the two Ministers of Health and Agriculture. Is this consultation between the Ministers to be before or after the inquiry is held?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: When it comes to the setting up 'of a statutory committee, if a borough council does not wish to set up a committee to fulfil that statutory obligation they then apply for exemption to the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Health would not grant that exemption till it had consulted the Ministry of Agriculture.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: I am sure I did not make myself clear. The question I asked is not the one the noble Earl has answered. The question I asked was this. Assuming there is to be coalition between the two Departments, is that coalition to be effected before you have inquired into the local circumstances or after, awl before the decision is come to? It is a simple question, and can easily be answered. If the matter has been inquired into in the Department they must surely have made up their minds on this elementary fact. Let me put it more plainly. The local authority desires to be exempt. Under this machinery they apply to the Minister of Agriculture. He has to ascertain how the facts lie, and he would therefore hold a local inquiry. I want to know whether the consultation of the Departments is to be before the inquiry or afterwards. I have no arrière pensée or any trick in putting that question, and if the noble Earl will answer it I shall know exactly what to do.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The object of my noble friend, Lord Ancaster, was to avoid an analogous difficulty. Lord Long asked: "What is the good of the borough of Holborn talking to the Department of Agriculture; they know nothing about them. They have never been brought into conflict or co-operation. They are alien to one another." My noble friend has tried to meet that difficulty, and the analogous difficulty. The Ministry of Health can say: "You were asking us to conduct an inquiry into allotments raised by the borough of Holborn. We know nothing about allotments. We are not bucolics."
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: They were the authority for allotments for twenty years.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: They are not so now. This duty has been taken away from the old Local Government Board
728
and deliberately put under the Ministry of Agriculture. The Ministry of Health will say that the proper people to deal with the subject is the agricultural department. My noble friend suggests that the two difficulties should be avoided in a simultaneous manner if possible. As it stands now, if Holborn does not want to have an allotments committee forced upon it, it shall apply for exemption to the Ministry of Agriculture. My noble friend said that Holborn shall be entitled to receive exemption from the Ministry of Agriculture after consultation with the Ministry of Health. That means that upon receipt of an application for exemption those two Departments shall confer. The noble Earl suggests inserting, after the word "Minister," "after consultation with the Minister of Health," so that the exemption would come after the two Departments had considered the matter.
LORD HARRIS: What can be the object of bringing two Government Departments into a matter of this kind? If Holborn does not want to have an allotments committee what better chance has that borough by having two Government Departments dealing with it? And supposing the two Departments do not agree, who is going to decide? The Prime Minister?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I will accept the Amendment if that is thought the more desirable course. There may be a case in which' some borough council which is not very keen on allotments may get at the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Agriculture may consider that particular council very remiss in the matter. The only thing we ask is that the Minister of Agriculture should be consulted.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (1), after "allotments committee," to insert "which may be an existing committee of the council or a sub-committee of an existing committee." The noble Lord said: I am following the precedent set up in 1918 during the debates on the Maternity and Child Welfare Bill. The question was then raised whether it was not very undesirable to force large local authorities to set up special committees when they had existing committees which could do the work very well. It is the same

729
here. There are existing committees which could deal with allotments without setting up a special body for the purpose. When the Maternity and Child Welfare Bill was being considered the actual words I have used in my Amendment were moved on Report by Mr. Hayes Fisher, who was then President of the Local Government Board. He said he had been convinced by the argument that it was undesirable to force local authorities to set up special committees. If it was thought right in 1918 then I think that fact may have some influence on the noble Earl in charge of the present Bill. There is no reason why local authorities should be forced to set up special committees when they have committees which could easily do the work. And there is also the objection of local authorities to so many committees. Members complain that they have to serve on so many.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, lines 28 and 20, after ("committee") insert ("which may be an existing committee of the council or a sub-committee of an existing committee").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I have no particular reason for objecting to the Amendment. It is not very necessary, not will it be very convenient to local authorities. If the noble Lord presses it strongly, I will accept it. I am in rather a difficult position, because the next Amendment on the Paper, also in the name of the noble Lord, aims at excluding co-opted members.
LORD STRACHIE: Not excluding.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I do not know whether the noble Lord will press the Amendment, but if, later on, we exclude the co-opted members, which I hope we shall not do, it would be better to have an allotments committee set up ad hoc. If I give way to the noble Lord, and say it could be an existing committee, and then you knock out the co-opted members—
LORD STRACIHE: May I interrupt the noble Earl? My Amendment does not propose to knock them out. It only proposes to make them optional.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: That is much the same thing. Will not the noble Lord leave it until Report, and let us settle the question of the co-opted members
730
before we accept or reject this Amendment? I do not think there is any objection to it, and I know it is supported by these authorities, but I am in the difficulty which I have already explained to the House.
LORD STRACHIE: May I make a suggestion? If the noble Earl will accept this Amendment without prejudice to what may happen on Report, I will not move the other Amendment dealing with co-opted members, while reserving my right to do so on Report if I think fit.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Very well.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out the first "shall" and to insert "may." The noble Earl said: This is the Amendment to which the noble Earl has just referred, and which also stands in the name of my noble friend, Lord Strachie. Your Lordships will, no doubt, gather that its object is to make the election or co-option of outside members of allotments committees optional. A good deal of discussion has recently taken place as to interference by Parliament with the local authorities. I think the noble Earl mentioned it himself, and I confess without hesitation that I think this attempt on the part of Parliament to interfere with the functions of local authorities is a very serious danger.
I do not want to repeat, nor do I expect the noble Earl to repeat, what was said when the subject was raised two or three Amendments back, but I do most emphatically say that to compel a local authority to co-opt on its body members representing certain clearly defined and specified interests is a most serious departure from the freedom which local authorities have always exercised in the conduct of their own affairs. I have here a letter addressed to me by the Association of Municipal Corporations, in which they point out, what I already knew, that it has always been the practice of Parliament to exclude from a local authority persons whose interests, whether through holding office under or by reason of a contract with a local authority, or otherwise, differ from and indeed may be directly contrary to those of the public and ratepayers in general.
My noble friend, Lord Bledisloe, a short time ago, alluded to the fact—I think he was speaking specially of a county

731
education committee, of which, I am sorry to say, I have had very considerable experience—that very often the co-opted members were some of the most useful and ablest members. That may be so sometimes, but in a very large number of cases I should entirely repudiate the suggestion. A short time ago I attended a meeting of the county council of which I have been a member for a good many years, and with others raised the question of educational expenditure, and we found that in many cases those most responsible for extravagance were co-opted members, who had no real practical knowledge of local government. Let me remind the Government and the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that co-opted members are frequently faddists and enthusiasts of a most dangerous character. Here we have in this particular case a statutory order levied on a council—which again is not a county council— not only to co-opt members representing a certain interest upon its body, but, what is a far more serious thing in my opinion, laying down the exact proportion of the representation which they shall have. I do not want at this hour to labour the point, but I say that there are other people to be considered in this world besides the allotment holders.
I venture to think that in trying to please the allotment holders the Government are going to put themselves wrong with a large number of other people. We must remember that the allotment holders are not the only people who possibly may have haloes round their heads. We recognise that many allotment holders have possibly a very just claim, but you cannot do impossibilities, and I say that to place representatives of a certain interest in a particularly privileged position is contrary to all the traditions and customs of Parliament. I trust that the noble Earl in charge of the measure and the noble Earl who leads the House will give me some assurance that these particular persons whom it is sought to benefit will not have this particular privilege conferred upon them.
I would remind the noble Earl in charge of the measure of one thing more, and it is this: Supposing that there are a very large and representative body of people who have, or desire, allotments within the area of a certain council—I would ask, have they not got their own remedy when the election time comes? Have they not got their own remedy through the medium of their
732
own representative on that body One would think they were individuals unable to speak for themselves, whereas in my experience they are never very backward when they want anything. I trust that the noble Earl will see his way to make this clause permissive instead of obligatory. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 41, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I cannot accept the Amendment, because it is those very authorities who will not take any action whom we wish to force to take action. I do not know whether it would meet the noble Earl if the proportion of representation was decreased. But this question is considered to be of the very greatest importance by those people who wish to obtain allotments. The point is embodied in the Report of our Committee, the Government have accepted it, and I am bound to stand by it. The worst authorities who will not take any action are just the authorities who will not add co-opted members. The noble Earl exaggerates a little the power of these co-opted members. Everything they do will have to be subject to confirmation by the county council. I do not think they would have any power over finance, and it would do away with a great deal of misapprehension if these men were co-opted on to the committees.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I gather that the noble Earl sympathises with the object of my Amendment.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: No, I do not.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: At any rate, it is an entirely new principle to have a packed committee for this purpose—because it is nothing less. However, I have made my protest, and I leave it to the House to decide.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in Subsection (2), before "occupiers," to insert "and elected by the." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in order to make this clause really effective in securing the representation of the allotment

733
holders themselves. It seems to me very desirable, if you are going to have that delightful accord in the deliberations of these allotments committees to which reference has been made, that you should have the actual allotment holders on them, and not some agitator or some urban talker who is appointed from outside.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 42, after the second ("of") insert ("and elected by the"). —(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am in entire sympathy with the desire that these co-opted members should be representative of the allotment holders. I c4n honestly say that there is a great deal of difficulty in accepting this Amendment. It would mean practically that I should have to set up all the machinery for taking a poll and, incidentally, there would be the expenses connected with an election. It would be known in most boroughs who were the prominent people connected with allotments. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
EARL STANHOPE: Who is to decide whether they are representative or not, under the clause as it stands?
LORD BLEDISLOE: Although, as in many cases to-day, I remain wholly unconvinced by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, may I suggest a middle course? If he will agree to it on Report I will not press this Amendment. I want to see persons who are allotment holders and who actually cultivate allotments placed upon these committees. And I would suggest that for the words "representative of the interests of occupiers of allotment gardens" he should substitute the words "who are themselves occupiers of allotment gardens." That is, that all those who are added to the committee in this Capacity shill be allotment holders. If the noble Earl is prepared to accept that suggestion I will withdraw my Amendment and put down another in that form on Report.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I do not think that these are very important words. The noble Lord is, I believe, anxious to get this Bill and to provide allotments for allotment holders. If I were to promise to accept something of this sort on Report
734
it would be perfectly easy for another noble Lord to put clown another Amendment of the opposite character on the ground that some of these people had not been able to get allotments and are, perhaps, discontented about the matter. I am only putting a possible case, and I think that as a general rule those who would go on to the allotments committees by co-option would be the secretaries of the local allotment associations. A good many difficulties appear to be raised. It is possible that in a place which has been backward in this matter a particular man has taken a leading part in securing land for allotments, and it would be rather hard on such a man to say that he should not be co-opted on the committee because he was no— a plot-holder. I think the noble Lord will agree with me in that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is, perhaps, asking the noble Earl a good deal to ask him to pledge himself to take such an Amendment on Report. He might, I think, reasonably say that he would consider it before the Report stage. There is no doubt, of course, that the words in the Bill are open to a great deal of objection. I agree that it is not a very important point, but no one knows what is the meaning of the words "representative of the occupiers," and no one knows what is to happen if anyone challenges a man and says that he is not representative of the occupiers.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I will consider the matter upon Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (4), after "constituted" to insert "or augmented." The noble Lord said: It is quite clear that if a small holdings committee is appointed they will not be constituted with these co-opted members as is provided in the earlier part of this clause. In order, therefore, to ensure complete accuracy of language, I ask that these words may be added. It is a great pity that the small holdings committee have anything to do with it. If you are to make use of a small holdings committee you should take care that it is augmented by gardeners in the way suggested in the earlier part of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 9, after ("constituted") insert ("or augmented").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I think the Amendment is unnecessary as the committee would not be constituted so as to comply with the provision of this clause unless it comprised co-opted members.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I find it difficult to carry on this perpetual difference of opinion with my noble friend. I do not wish to prses the Amendment. I feel that my position is getting a very difficult one in regard to this Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Power for county councils to let land for allotments.
9. A county council may let land acquired by the council for small holdings for use by the tenant as an allotment, or to a local authority or association for the purpose of being sub-let for such use.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, after "holdings," to insert "and already in use as arable." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that land which has been acquired by county councils for small holdings shall not be converted into allotments unless it is already arable land. It is connected with an earlier Amendment which was accepted by your Lordships in order to preserve pasture from being broken up for allotments when that could be avoided.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 13, after ("holdings") insert ("and already in use as arable").—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: This Amendment goes a good deal further than the Amendment already accepted, and I hope the noble Earl will not press it. Practically, it means that a county council which may have purchased land for the purpose of small holdings will not be
allowed to let a portion of that land for allotments. Does the noble Earl wish to say that a county council shall not be allowed to break up its own grass land? I hope he will not press that.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I am bound to support this Amendment. It is apparent from what the noble Earl has just said that he does not follow the meaning of the word "acquired." County councils are in e habit not merely of purchasing land, but a the present time, to a preponderating extent, of taking land either on an annual tenancy or on a lease. It is obvious that if the landowner lets on lease a grass farm for small holdings to the county council on payment of an annual rent by the county council it is very unfair to him and may be to the detriment of the public interest that that land, without any compensation being paid to the owners, should be converted to arable land for a totally different purpose from that for which it was originally purchased. If the county councils are going to have these powers to convert small holdings into allotment ground at least there should be some proviso similar to that which I have on the Paper to the effect that if such land be pasture due compensation should be paid to the owner on its conversion into arable.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: There is another Amendment on the same subject, and I shall consider this question again. I do not wish to get into controversy, but are you going to lay it down, as this Amendment does, that a county council, if they wish to let some of the land that they have bought for allotments, shall not be allowed to break it up for that purpose? I cannot accept an Amendment like that.
EARL STANHOPE: If the noble Earl will change the word "acquired" into "purchased" I will withdraw my Amendment.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be here inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 21.

CONTENTS.

Salisbury M.

Stanhope, E. [Teller.]

Bledisloc, E.

Abingdon, E.

Brownlow, L.

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

Novar, V.

Clinton, L.

Dynevor, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Onslow, E.

Gorell, L.

Stamford, E.

Harris, L.

Ancaster, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Hylton, L.

Bradford, E.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Clarendon, E.

Long, V.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Derby, E.

Peel, V.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E.

Strachie, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved to leave out "use," and to insert "cultivation," and to leave out "by the tenant." The noble Lord said: I should like to draw the attention of the House to what is actually contemplated in this somewhat extraordinary clause. Here are holdings that are provided with carefully selected tenants as farmers, a totally different class from allotment holders and it is to be possible for a county council to use these holdings as allotments. Not content with that, they may put the same tenants, chosen, possibly, as grass farmers, into these allotments to cultivate them as gardens. I venture to say that it is entirely contrary to the whole purpose of the Small Holdings Act that these persons, selected for one purpose, should remain for an entirely different purpose.
What I ask is that the land in the hands of these men should not remain derelict but should be actually cultivated. I am sufficiently acquainted with allotment associations in three different cities to know that if there is one thing that stands in the way of successful cultivation it is the wind-carried seeds blowing from a derelict allotment to one under cultivation. What I ask is that these allotments should not be disposed of in such a manner that they will not be cultivated at all.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 13, leave out ("use") and insert ("cultivation") and leave out ("by the tenant"). —(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I accept.
LORD BLEDISLOE: Thank you very much.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, after "association" to insert "being an association to which land may be let by a council under the Small Holdings and
738
Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1919." The noble Earl said: As I explained on a previous occasion, this is a question of certain restrictions on profits.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 14, after ("association") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE had given notice to move, at the end of the clause to insert "provided that if such land be pasture due compensation shall be paid to the owner on its conversion into arable." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to the same purport as that of my noble friend Lord Stanhope, on which the House has divided, and I do not propose to move.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause in agreed to.
Clause 11:
Limitation on expenditure on allotments and rents to be charged.
11.—(1) A council shall not take any proceedings under the provisions of the Allotments Acts relating to allotments, unless in the opinion of the council the expenses of the council incurred under those provisions (other than such expenses as are hereinafter specified) may reasonably be expected, after the proceedings are taken, to be defrayed out of the receipts of the council under those provisions.
(2) For the purposes of this section, expenses and receipts shall be calculated in such manner as the Minister of Health may direct, and shall include expenses and receipts in respect of land acquired whether before or after the passing of this Act:
Provided that such expenses shall not include—
(a) expenses in relation to the acquisition of land other than the purchase price or rent, and other compensation payable in respect of the land;
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My first Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 3, leave out (",and") and insert ("or").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "the best rent that can reasonably be obtained for such use" and insert "such rent as may be necessary to repay all costs incurred by the council in respect of such land and its adaptation, equipment, and maintenance as such."
The noble Lord said: I have been asked on behalf of the allotment holders to point out to your Lordships that it would be unfair to try to secure for these allotments the very best rent or rack rent that could be obtained, especially when there is a scarcity of allotments for a somewhat crowded population, where, in fact, the demand far exceeds the supply. In that case the operation of the ordinary laws of supply and demand would be unfair to the allotment holders, who would pay the best rent the municipality could screw out of them. Surely no one, not even, I venture to say, my noble friend, Lord Long, desires the municipalities to make large profits out of the allotment holders, and all I ask is that the rent should be no more than is necessary to repay all costs incurred by the Council in respect of such land, its adaptation, equipment, and maintenance as such. Unless they are prepared to say that allotment holders are to yield a profit out of their allotments to the municipalities, I feel sure the Government will be prepared to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, lines 11 and 12, leave out ("the best rent that can reasonably be obtained for such use") and insert ("such rent as may be necessary to repay all costs incurred by the Council in respect of such land and its adaptation, equipment, and maintenance as such").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I think it is fairly clear that the object of this clause is not to exact a rack rent from the allotment tenants. One of the great proposals was that there should be what was known as pooling of rents. We did not like to lay it down in the Bill that the authorities were to pool the rents, but we considered it was a question that should be left to the discretion of the allotment authorities. There are cases where land has been acquired on very favourable terms, and the authority is able to let the allotments at very low rents. There are, on the other hand, exactly opposite cases, and we give power by this clause to the councils practically to pool their rents, and by increasing the rents of their low rented allotments to make the whole thing a financial success.
740
We intend that these allotments shall be let at a fair rent. We do not want the allotment authorities to become a sort of charitable institution, and to let the land for far less than the land is worth.
By this clause, we lay it down that the land shall be let at a fair rent, and we give a chance for the allotment authorities to put up the rents where the rents are very low, in order that they shall not be losers on other allotments, but shall make the scheme an economic one. The clause has been drawn with that object. It is not the intention that these allotments shall be put up to auction and a rack rent so obtained. It may be that the words of the Amendment are better than those in the Bill, and if necessary the matter can be further considered on Report. At the present moment I prefer the clause as it stands.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not want to delay the Committee but I am afraid, from my reading of the clause, it does mean a rack rent. I gather that is not the intention of the Government, but if I am right the words of the clause are not apt, because they would secure what the Government do not want. I think the noble Earl had better look at the words of the clause again. As the clause stands it makes the allotment holder pay "the highest rent that can reasonably be obtained" in the market.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It is not to be quite the highest rent that can reasonably be obtained, because it is limited by the words "for such use." That is a very important limitation.
LORD HARRIS: Why should not the authority get the best rent it can? If it does not, the difference is going to be paid by the ratepayers.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Rating of allotments.
12.—(1) A council providing land for allotments whether under the Allotments Acts or otherwise may by notice to the authority by which any rate is levied require that the council shall be assessed to the rate as the occupiers of the land notwithstanding that the land or part thereof may be let, and in such case the council shall for the purposes of any rate levied by that authority be deemed to be the occupiers of the land until the notice is withdrawn.
(2) The foregoing subsection shall apply to an association providing land for allotments in like manner as it applies to a council, if at the request of the association the authority by which a rate is levied agrees that it shall so apply.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, after "authority," where that word secondly occurs, to insert "and made after the notice is given and before the notice is withdrawn." The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that the assessment to the county rates shall only take effect after the notice has been given and so long as the notice has not been withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 22, after ("authority") insert ("and made after the notice is given and before the notice is withdrawn").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: There is also a consequential Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, lines 23 and 24, leave out from ("land") in line 23 to the end of line 24.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, after Clause 13, to insert the following new clause:
". Where a council purchases land under the provisions of section thirteen of this Act, the council may re-sell such land on the same terms as acquired by the council to an Allotment Association whose rules conform to the regulations prescribed by the Treasury."
The noble Lord said: I have been asked, on behalf of the Bristol and District Small Holdings and Allotments Association, comprising a membership of over 17,000, to move this Amendment, in order to give power to a council, if they think fit, to re-sell land acquired to any allotments association whose rules conform to the regulations of the Treasury. It would be of great advantage in some cases where a council did not wish to have the trouble of managing the allotments themselves, if they were allowed to transfer them to a properly constituted authority under rules set up by the Treasury, and safeguarded in every way. In the majority of cases where you have a good allotments association
742
it would no doubt be more economical if the allotments were managed by the allotment holders themselves than if they were run by the council.
Amendment. moved—,
After Clause 13, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Clause 13 does not authorise councils to purchase land, but only deals with their powers for borrowing money for the payment of the purchase money. When I came to consider the Amendment I had some difficulty in arriving at its precise meaning. An allotment authority which purchases land for allotments can sell the land to a recognised allotments association under Section 27 of the Act of 1908, as amended by the Act of 1919, and, if this power is considered inadequate, I should be glad to consider the matter further. For this purpose I would ask the noble Lord to put down an Amendment on Report.
LORD STRACHIE: I will do as re-quested by the noble Earl.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, after Clause 13, to insert the following new clause:
".—(1) In addition to the powers conferred upon them by any other enactment the Public Works Loan Commissioners may out of funds at their disposal advance on loan to societies on a co-operative basis having for their object or one of their objects the provision of profitable working of allotments which are entitled to any land for an estate in foe simple, or for any term of years absolute whereof not less than fifty years shall for the time being remain unexpired, and any such societies may borrow from the Public Works Loan Commissioners such money as may be required for the pure, se of such provision or profitable working of allotments whether in relation to the purpose of requisites the sale of produce credit banking insurance or otherwise.
"(2) Such loans shall be made in manner provided by the Public Works Loan Act, 1875, subject to the following previsions—

(a) Any such advance may be made whether the society receiving the same has or has not power to borrow on mortgage or otherwise, independently of this Act.

(b) The period for the repayment of the sums advanced shall not exceed years.

(c) No money shall be advanced on mortgage of any land solely, unless the estate therein proposed to be mortgaged shall be either an estate in fee simple, or an estate for a term of years absolute, whereof not less than fifty years shall be unexpired at the date of the advance.

743

(d) The money advanced on the security of a mortgage of any land solely shall not exceed one moiety of the value, to be ascertained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Loan Commissioners, of the estate or interest in such land proposed to be mortgaged.

"(3) For the purpose of provision or profitable working of allotments every such society as aforesaid is hereby authorised to purchase, take, and hold land, and if not already a body corporate shall, for the purpose of holding such land under this Act, and of suing and being sued in respect thereof, be nevertheless deemed a body corporate with perpetual succession."
The noble Earl said: The idea of this Amendment is that a properly registered friendly society, registered under the Friendly Societies Acts, should have power to raise money from the Public Works Loans Commissioners for the purpose of purchasing land for allotments. There is already power under various Acts by which money can be advanced to societies of this kind. Under Section 49 of the Act of 1908 a county borough or urban district council has power to promote the formation of co-operative societies, and of making grants and advances thereto, and under subsection (4) of the same clause the Ministry of Agriculture have power, with the consent of the Treasury, to make similar grants. Also, under Section 53 of the Act of 1908, as amended by the Act of 1919, a borough or urban council may borrow to make grants or advances to co-operative societies. The object of this Amendment is that these societies should be able to raise money direct from the Public Works Loans Commissioners for the purposes of purchasing land for allotments.
On a former Amendment Lord Ancaster rather accused me of being against giving security of tenure to allotment holders. This Amendment was put down before he made those remarks, and that is my answer to that charge. I know of no security better than actual purchase, and this is an Amendment which would be very much appreciated by the National Union of Allotment Holders, and I hope very much that the Government will accept it. I have left one small point open in the Amendment. Your Lordships will see that in subsection (2) (b) I have not put any term of years within which the repayment of loans shall be carried out. I would suggest that it should be eighty years, as provided in the Bill, and if the Government will accept my Amendment I am prepared to agree to any term of years they suggest.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 13 insert the said new clause.—(Earl Stanhope.)
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I hope the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, will not accept this Amendment. We have quite enough loans to deal with in the present state of county finance without incurring more. In addition, I think at this hour of the evening it is rather out of time to try to induce the Government to give way on this point. County Councils and other local bodies are already quite heavily burdened enough in the matter of rates.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I think there is something in what the noble Earl has said, but I am in a difficulty about accepting his Amendment for the simple reason that it has not been very long on the Paper, and I have not had time to communicate with the Public Works Loans Commissioners, who are the people who have the say in this matter, and not ourselves.
EARL STANHOPE: I am quite prepared to put the Amendment down on Report to suit the noble Earl's convenience.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Perhaps the noble Earl would kindly do that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HARRIS: Am I too late to comment on subsection (2) of Clause 13?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Yes. I am sorry. I put the clause and then called on Lord Strachie. I did not know the noble Lord wanted to comment on the clause.
LORD HARRIS: It contains a most nefarious proposal.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, but the noble Lord gave me no notice of any proposal.
Clause 14 (Provision as to parts of New Forest now used for allotment gardens):
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Amendments to this clause are merely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 10, line 30, leave out ("1887") and insert ("1877")
Page 10, line 31, after ("1831") insert ("or any Act amending that Act").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following new clause—
"To remove doubts, it is hereby declared that the provisions of the Agricultural Land Sales (Restriction of Notices to Quit) Act, 1919, do not apply to any allotment or allotment garden as defined by this Act."
The noble Lord said: I do not think that this Act should apply to allotments. Your Lordships may have noticed that I have put the words "to remove doubts" at the beginning of my new clause. That is because it is not quite certain whether this Act does or does not apply to allotments or allotment gardens. The words in the Act are very definite as regards market gardens, but the Act is silent as to allotments and allotment gardens, although I believe it really does apply to them.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 14 insert the said new clause.— (Lord Dynevor.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am in sympathy with much of this Amendment, but I cannot accept it in its present form. This is a most complicated legal point and I will not trouble your Lordships with the whole case in regard to it. So far as the Amendment refers to allotment gardens I see no objection to it. The noble Lord's Amendment states that it has the object of removing doubts. I do not think that is quite correct as regards allotments because that term is not defined by the Bill.
I could not accept the Amendment as it stands. If the noble Lord would leave out the words "allotment or" I would accept the Amendment. I think, however, before this Bill leaves this House it will be desirable to place on the Paper some Amendments which will remove other questions as to the distinctions between agricultural holdings and holdings such as allotment gardens which ought not to be treated as agricultural holdings, and thus enable the law as to these two classes of holdings to be consolidated in a satisfactory form. These amendments may render the noble Lord's Amendment unnecessary. I think, in view of the Amendments which I shall put down later, it would be better if the noble Lord raised the matter then.
LORD DYNEVOR: Shall I be able to see what my noble friend has to suggest before the Bill leaves this House, and have an opportunity of dealing with it? My noble friend says allotments are not defined in the Bill, but the word allotment is used continually in the Bill. Now we find that all our discussions on the word allotment are useless because no one knows what an allotment is.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am sure the noble Lord will be able to raise the question of allotments again. By the Amendments which I propose to consolidate the Acts an effort will be made to make clear what allotment gardens, cottage gardens, etc., are, and my noble friend will not be ruled out. I cannot accept the Amendment as it stands, because "to remove doubts" is not correct. I could deal with allotment gardens now, but that would not cover the whole ease.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15:
Interpretation.
15.—(1) For the purposes of this Act—
The expression "allotment garden" means an area not exceeding forty poles which is cultivated by the occupier for the production of vegetable crops for consumption wholly or mainly by himself or his family;
The expression "council" in the case of a rural parish not having a parish council, mean the parish meeting.
The expression "industrial purpose" shall not include use for agriculture, horticulture or the keeping and breeding of livestock.
The expression "association" means an association formed for the purposes of creating or promoting the creation of allotments and so constituted that the rules thereof prohibit the issue of any share or loan capital with dividend on interest exceeding the rate for the time being prescribed by the Treasury;
The expression "borough" includes a metropolitan borough;
(2) Where under this Act any question arises as to whether land is reasonably required for any particular purpose, the question shall be deter-mined—

(a) where the landlord is a Government Department, by a certificate issued by the Department;

(b) where the landlord is a local authority, by a certificate issued by the Ministry of Health; and

(c) in any other case, by a certificate issued by the Minister;

and any such certificate shall be final and conclusive.
Amendments moved—
Page 10, line 34, after ("Act") insert ("where the context permits")
Page 10, line 36, after ("is") insert ("wholly or mainly").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved after "vegetable" in subsection (1), in the definition of "allotment garden" to insert "or fruit." The noble Lord said: It is quite clear from the Report of the noble Earl's Committee that fruit is considered of at least as much importance in these allotments as vegetables.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 37, after ("vegetable") insert ("or fruit").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 38, leave out ("wholly or mainly"). —(The Earl of Ancaster.)
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 2, after ("agriculture") insert ("and the expression `agriculture' includes forestry")
Page 11, leave out lines 10 to 16.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Earl said: This subsection refers to the question as to whether land is "reasonably required," and as the word "reasonably" has gone, this becomes a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, lines 22 to 32, leave out subsection (2).(Earl Stanhope.)
THE EARL of ANCASTER: Yes, I think the whole of this subsection comes out.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
Short title, commencement, and repeal.
16.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Allotments Act, 1922, and the provisions of the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1919, which relate to allotments and this Act may be cited together as the Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1922.
(2) This Act shall come into operation on the day of nineteen hundred and.
(3) The enactments mentioned in the schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that schedule.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Earl said: There is no necessity to postpone the operation of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, lines 8 and 9, leave out subsection (2). —(The Earl of Ancaster.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 12, at end insert the following new subsection:
("This Act shall not apply to Scotland or Ireland")—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule:

SCHEDULE.

Enactments Repealed.

Session and Chapter.

Short Title.

Extent of Repeal.

8 Edw. 7. c. 36

The Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908.

Subsection (3) of section 25.

Subsection (1) of section 27.

10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 76

The Agriculture Act, 1920

Section 11.

LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved at the end of the Schedule to insert:

9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 59.

Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919.

Section 16.

The noble Lord said: I am moving to omit Section 16 of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919. That section gives power to acquire compulsorily land forming part of the park or home farm attached to a mansion not required for the amenities of the mansion, and also a holding of not less than fifty acres. Prior to 1919 this land was excluded under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, for compulsory acquisition, and I maintain that this protection should be restored. There is ample land available, apart from these special holdings, for allotments.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 22, at end insert—

9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 59.

Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919.

Section 16.

—(Lord Dynevor.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: This Amendment would include small holdings as well as allotments. I appeal to the noble Lord that it is not quite right to move such a substantial Amendment by merely including a provision in the repeal Schedule. If the noble Lord wishes to repeal Section 16 of the Act of 1919, I would ask him to do it by putting down an Amendment for the Report stage in the shape of a new clause, and, in order to bring it within the scope of the Bill, that he should restrict its application to allotments. What he proposes now is really outside the scope of the Bill.
LORD DYNEVOR: I appreciate the remarks of the noble Earl. It is possible that the Amendment is outside the Bill, and I will put down an Amendment for the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.

ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION (AMEND- MENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
TRAFFORD PARK BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL. [H.L.]
Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for this day) put off to the first sitting day after the recess at Whitsuntide.
House adjourned at ten minutes past eleven o'clock.