Lords Sitting of 29 May 1922

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
CHESTER GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ALLOTMENTS BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Determination of tenancies of allotment gardens.
1.—(1) Where land is let on a tenancy for use by the tenant as an allotment garden or is let to any local authority or association for the purpose of being sub-let for such use the tenancy of the land or any part shall not (except as hereinafter provided) be terminable by the landlord by notice to quit or re-entry, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, except by—
(a) a six months or longer notice to quit expiring on or before the sixth day of April or on or after the twenty-ninth day of September in any year; or
(c) re-entry under a power in that behalf contained in the contract of tenancy in the case of land let by a government department or local authority or by a corporation or company being the owners or lessees of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking on account of the land being required by the department, authority, corporation, or company for any purpose (not being the use of the land for agriculture) for which it was acquired or held by the department, authority, corporation, or company, or has been appropriated under any statutory provision; or
(2) This section shall apply to a tenancy current at the date of the passing of this Act, but not so as to affect the operation of any notice to quit given, re-entry made, or proceedings for recovery of possession commenced, before that date.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (I) (a), to leave out "twenty-ninth day of September," and to insert "thirty-first day of October." The noble Lord said: The noble Earl in charge of the Bill said he would give consideration to this Amendment on Report stage. He did not express a strong view one way or the other during Committee, but I would remind hint that this question is very strongly felt in the

801
north of England. The West Riding County Council has asked that the Amendment should be made on the ground that a large number of allotment holders would have their potatoes still in the ground on September 29, while in the south and west they would probably have gathered them. It is hard that these allotment holders should be obliged to leave their crops in the ground. True, they would receive compensation. The feeling of allotment holders is that they would rather eat the crops they have grown than receive compensation. I notice that in the Scottish Bill now before the House the date is November 30. The noble Earl is a large landowner in Scotland as well as in England, and in the Scottish Bill he recognises that it is necessary to have a later date than in the English Bill. If November 30 is necessary in the Scottish Bill, surely it is equally right to have October 31 for the north of England in this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out ("twenty-ninth day of September"), and insert ("thirty-first day of October").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER): My Lords, it is true that I promised to reconsider this matter before Report, and I have done so. There are certain difficulties with regard to the date in the Amendment upon the Paper, and I hope the noble Lord will not press it when I say that there is an Amendment on Clause 2 to insert a new subsection standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, and that I shall be able to accept part of that Amendment which I think will meet his case. The man who had potatoes still in the ground would thus get compensation for them if he were turned out on September 29. I hope the noble Lord will be content with that. There are difficulties in the way of altering the date with reference to Michaelmas tenants in this country, and I gather that the noble Lord is chiefly anxious that the tenant should not lose his crop without getting compensation.
LORD STRACHIE: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection 1 (c), to leave out "by a Government
802
department or local authority or." The noble Earl said: My Lords, in the preceding stage of this Bill your Lordships agreed that a case had been made out for public authorities to have their land back at short notice, in view of possible damage to railway cuttings and so on, but nothing was said about local authorities. I think the noble Earl in charge of the Bill was prepared to admit that there had been cases where local authorities had not behaved very well in regard to regaining possession of their land, and I hope he will be able to accept this Amendment. I suggest that both Government Departments and local authorities should be able to look ahead far enough to give reasonable notice to their tenants.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 20 and 27, leave out ("by a government department or local authority or 7).—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, paragraph (c), which was inserted in Committee, was inserted at the instigation of those who were particularly interested in public undertakings, and I am afraid I cannot consider that there is sufficient justification for the distinction in this respect between Government Departments, local authorities and the owners of statutory undertakings. In the case of a local authority, in particular, there is a considerable area of land which had been acquired for building purposes which could best be disposed of by the local authority in the public interest by immediate sale, and I am assured by the Ministry of Health that the necessity of giving three months' notice of their intention to reenter would materially hamper local authorities. I am aware that the noble Earl has certain information on this point, and it is true that evidence was brought before the Allotments Committee of one or two local authorities who acted rather unreasonably in this respect; but I do not think that this can be regarded as any real evidence that local authorities would evict their tenants unreasonably. I hope the noble Earl will not press this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS of SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl says that it would hamper local authorities in the disposal of their surplus land if the necessity of giving three months' notice to the allotment holders were inserted in the Bill. I wonder whether the noble Earl has realised the implication which his argument involves

803
in the case of private owners. It appears from the case which he puts that there is no objection to hampering the private owner in the disposal of his land, but there is an objection in the case of a local authority. Why that distinction? I have never attributed very great importance to this three months' notice, so far as the private owner is concerned, for those of us who manage our estates properly are generally able to see ahead a certain number of weeks. If that be true of the private owner, it ought to be true of the public authority, and, conversely, if it be not true of the public authority, owing to some reason of which the noble Earl is conscious, I contend that it would not be true of the private owner of land. In other words, there is really no reason why there should be any distinction between the two cases.
The idea, which seems to be in the minds of some people, that an allotment holder under a local authority ought to have less security of tenure than an allotment holder under a private owner is one which, I am sure, cannot be sustained. You could not persuade the allotment holder that it is a sound argument, and, indeed, it obviously is not a sound argument. I confess that if the Government have no better argument than my noble friend has put forward, I do not think they can reasonably contest the Amendment of my noble friend behind me. Railway companies stand in a special position, because it may be necessary for them to resume occupation of their land at a moment's notice, for reasons into which I need not enter now. Such reasons do not apply to a local authority, and I cannot understand why my noble friend should not consent to this Amendment.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: If the noble Earl presses his Amendment, I do not intend to divide the House against, it. I do not wish to enter into a long speech on the subject. There is a little difference, especially at the present moment, between the two cases. Take the two instances which the noble Earl quoted the other day. In both those cases the land had been purchased by the local authority directly for the purpose of building, and then, owing, as the noble Earl is aware, to the curtailment of the housing programme, this land was not immediately required for building. The local authority were not at the time aware that there was going to be this curtailment of the building programme, and consequently they turned out the
804
allotment tenants. That, I think, was the effect of the evidence which we heard. There is a little difference between land like that, which was bought directly by the local authority for the express purpose of building, when they thought they would be able to build upon it, and other land.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That might be true of a private owner.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: As I say, I will not divide the House against the Amendment.
EARL STANHOPE: I am afraid I must press the Amendment. The whole raison dď être of this Bill is to give security of tenure to allotment holders in cases such as those which I have named.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("department, authority")
Page 2, lines 4 and 5, leave out ("department, authority").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "passing of this Act," and to insert "twenty-fifth day of March, 1922." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment, which I move on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Bledisloe, who is unable to be present, is that owners of land should not be able to take advantage of the time during which this Bill is passing through both Houses of Parliament in order to escape from the effects of the clause. It was argued, I think, in Committee, and I do not propose to argue it again now.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 13, leave out ("passing of this Act"), and insert ("twenty-fifth day of March, 1922").—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER My Lords, it was suggested in Committee that there was a real risk of tenants being deprived of the benefits of the amendment of the law now proposed by the service of notice to quit being given, or even by land being resumed, before the Bill passes into law. I think it would require a strong case for the existence of such a risk to induce your Lordships to provide that the Bill should be retrospective, so as to interfere with the operation of notices to quit given, or

805
re-entries actually made, when the law is not in force but only under discussion. There might be cases where people had actually re-entered, and would have to clear out again. Personally, I do not think that there is any such risk in this case, and, for that reason, the Amendment is undesirable. There will, however, be further time, before the Bill passes into law, during which I can consult the recognised representatives of the allotment holders, to ascertain their views on the subject. I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
EARL STANHOPE: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2:
Compensation on quitting.
2.—(1) Where under any contract of tenancy land is, before or after the passing of this Act, let for use by the tenant as an allotment garden, the tenant shall, subject to the provisions of this section and notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, be entitled at the termination of the tenancy, on quitting the land, to obtain from the landlord compensation as provided by this section.
(2) Compensation shall be recoverable under this section only if the tenancy is terminated by the landlord and between the sixth day of April and the twenty-ninth day of September.
(6) Except as provided by this section or by the contract of tenancy, the tenant of land under a contract of tenancy to which this section applies shall not be entitled to recover compensation from the landlord at the termination of the tenancy; and the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1908 to 1921, relating to compensation, and the Allotments and Cottage Gardens (Compensation for Crops) Act, 1887, shall not apply to any tenancy to which this section applies.
(7) A tenant of land under a contract of tenancy to which this section applies may, before or within a reasonable time, not in any case longer than three months after the termination of the tenancy, remove any fruit trees or bushes provided and planted by the tenant during the tenancy or any erection, fencing, or other improvement erected or made by the tenant during the tenancy, making good any injury to the land caused by such removal.
(8) The tenant of land held under a contract of tenancy to which this section applies, made with a mortgagor which is not binding on the mortgagee shall, on being deprived of possession by the mortgagee, be entitled to recover compensation from him as if he were the landlord and had then terminated the tenancy, but subject to the deduction from such compensation of any rent or other sum duo from the tenant in respect of the allotment garden.
(9) This section shall not apply to any tenancy which is terminated by the effluxion of time before
806
the date of the passing of this Act, or where a notice to quit has been given, re-entry has been made or proceedings for recovery of possession have been commenced before that date.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, at the beginning of subsection (2), to insert "Subject to the provisions of this section." The noble Earl said: The object of this and consequential Amendments has reference to the compensation being payable, to an allotment holder for cultivation prior to receiving notice to quit.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 35, at the beginning of subsection (2), insert ("Subject to the provisions of this section").—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, this Amendment must be considered in conjunction with a consequential Amendment on page 3, line 37, to insert a new subsection. These two Amendments, as the noble Earl says, are intended to raise the case of an allotment holder who is required to quit his holding in the non-cropping system, without the benefit of six months' notice of termination. It would not be possible to arrange the crops so as to be able to gather them at the end of the tenancy. I am inclined to think that there is no necessity for the introduction into this new subsection of a new basis of compensation. Your Lordships will see that the basis of compensation is already laid down, and if the noble Earl would be willing, when he comes to his consequential Amendment, to omit all the words after "under this section," I should be prepared to accept these two Amendments, subject to any drafting Amendment which may be found necessary, such as the alteration of date—the sixth day of April instead of the twenty-fifth day of March.
EARL STANHOPE: My difficulty is that, so far as I can see, if all the words after "under this section" are omitted there is no sense in the Amendment at all.
THE EARL OF ANTCASTER: The noble Earl will find that the compensation is laid down in the Bill itself.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, lines 16 to 20, leave out from ("tenancy") in line 10 to the end of line 20
Page 3, lines 21 to 28,.leave out subsection (7)
Page 3, lines 29 to:17, leave out subsection (8).
—(The Earl of Ancasher.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, after subsection (8), to insert the following new subsection:—
"(9) Where the tenancy is terminated on or before the twenty-fifth day of March or on or after the twenty-ninth day of September in any year by re-entry under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the next preceding section of this Act, compensation shall be recoverable by the tenant from the landlord under this section."
The noble Earl said: I will move this Amendment in the form suggested by the Government, omitting all the words after under this section."
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 37, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The EARL OF ANCASTER The EARL OF ANCASTER moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:
".—(1) The foregoing provisions of this Act as to determination of tenancies of allotment gardens and compensation to a tenant on quitting the same shall not apply to any parcel of land attached to a cottage.
"(2) In the case of any allotment within the meaning of this section (not being an allotment garden), the tenant shall, on the termination of his tenancy by effluxion of time, or from any other cause, be entitled, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, to obtain from the landlord compensation for the following matters:—
"(a) For crops, including fruit, growing upon the land in the ordinary course of cultivation and for labour expended upon and manure applied to the land since the taking of the last crop in anticipation of a future crop; and
"(b) For fruit trees or bushes provided and planted by the tenant with the previous consent in writing of the landlord, and for drains, outbuildings, pigsties, fowl-houses, or other structural improvements made or erected by the tenant on the land with such consent.
"(3) Any sum due to the landlord from the tenant in respect of rent or of any breach of the contract of tenancy under which the land is held, or wilful or negligent damage committed or permitted by the tenant, shall be taken into account in reduction of the compensation.
"(4) The amount of compensation shall, in default of agreement, be determined and recovered in the same manner as compensation is, under this Act, to be determined and recovered in the case of an allotment garden.
"(5) The provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1908 to 1921, shall not apply to any allotment within the meaning of this section:
"Provided that nothing in this subsection shall affect the right of a tenant to claim compensation for any improvement executed before the commencement of this Act for which he could, but
808
for this subsection, have claimed compensation under the said Acts, or affect the operation of any notice to quit given in respect of any such allotment before the passing of this Act, or the right of a tenant thereof to claim compensation for disturbance in respect of any notice to quit so given, except that the provisions of this section as to the determination and recovery of compensation under this Act, and not the provisions of the said Acts, shall apply to any compensation so claimed
"(6) In this section the expression allotment' means any parcel of land, whether attached to a cottage or not, of not more than two acres in extent, held by a tenant under a landlord and cultivated as a farm or a garden, or partly as a garden and partly as a farm."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Amendment to subsection (6), to leave out all words after "tenancy," was the first of a series of Amendments which I have placed on the Paper to simplify the law as to tenancies of allotment gardens and other allotments. I may state the difficulties which exist in this respect, and the way I propose to deal with them. The expression "allotments" in the various Acts dealing with the matter has not a uniform meaning. In the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, it means the subject of a tenancy created by an allotment authority, and may comprise any area not exceeding five acres. In the Allotments and Cottage Gardens (Compensation for Crops) Act, 1887, the expression "allotment" means any parcel of land of not more than two acres in extent held by a tenant under a landlord and cultivated as a garden or as a farm, or partly as a garden or partly as a farm, whether attached to a cottage or not. In the Agriculture Act a new expression was adopted, namely, an "allotment garden," though the expression was not defined, and I do not think anybody at present knows what an allotment garden means.
In the present Bill the first two clauses deal with allotment gardens, which are defined as meaning an area not exceeding 40 poles, which is wholly or mainly cultivated by the occupier for the production of vegetables or fruit crops for consumption by himself or his family. In the public mind an "allotment" is generally considered to mean that which in this Bill is referred to as an allotment garden, but there are throughout the country a certain number of allotments under two acres to which the Act of 1887 applies, which are partly used as gardens and partly for ordinary agricultural purposes, thought the cultivation is necessarily on a very small scale. In addition, it is believed that in

809
a few cases allotment authorities have provided very small agricultural areas exceeding two acres but not exceeding five acres, which are only allotments in the sense that they have been provided by allotment authorities. They are really very small agricultural holdings, and should be treated as such.
It is proposed by the new clauses which I have placed on the Paper to deal separately with (1), an allotment garden; (2) a cottage garden or other allotment under two acres; and (3), an allotment provided by the local authority of between two and five acres. The result of these Amendments, if adopted, will be that the tenant of anything that can in any sense be called an allotment will not have to look at more than one Act to ascertain what are his rights and liabilities. If he holds an allotment garden, that is to say, under 40 poles of land, he will have to look to Clauses 1 and 2 and the new Clause 4 of the Bill. If he holds a cottage garden or other allotment, that is to say between 40 poles and 2 acres, he will have to look at Clauses 3 and 4. Clause 3 of the Bill, as printed, will now become Clause 5, and this will complete the law on the subject as far as he is concerned. In the case of the so-called allotment between two acres and five acres, provided by an allotment authority, the tenant will have to look at the Agricultural Holdings Act, and in this respect he will be placed in the same position as the tenant of a similar holding provided by a private landlord. I hope that the adoption of these Amendments will materially simplify the law as it is at the present time and be a real advantage to both landlord and tenant. The Amendments involve some alteration of the existing law, but this is inevitable if the present confused position is to be simplified.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2 insert the said new clause.— (The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: After what I have just said I think that the next new clause does not require any further explanation.
Amendment moved—
After the clause last inserted insert the following new Clause—
".—(1) A tenant of land held under a contract of tenancy to which any of the foregoing provisions of this Act apply may before the termination
810
of the tenancy remove any fruit trees or bushes provided and planted by the tenant and any erection, fencing or other improvement erected or made by the tenant making good any injury caused by such removal.
"(2) A tenant of land held under a contract of tenancy to which any of the foregoing provisions of this Act apply and which is made with a mortgagor but is not binding on the mortgagee, shall, on being deprived of possession by the mortgagee, be entitled to recover compensation from him as if he were the landlord and had then terminated the tenancy, but subject to the deduction from such compensation of any rent or other sum duo from the tenant in respect of the land.
"(3) Subsection (1) of section forty-seven of the Small Holdings Act. 1908, shall not apply to an allotment as defined by the last preceding section except in relation to any improvement executed before the passing of this Act."—(The Gaul of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Assessment and recovery of compensation.
3. The compensation under the two preceding sections of this Act from the tenant and from the landlord respectively, and such further compensation (if any) as is recoverable under the contract of tenancy shall, in default of agreement, be determined by a valuation made by a person appointed it, default of agreement by the judge of the county court having jurisdiction in the place where the allotment garden is situated, and if not. paid within fourteen days after the amount is agreed or determined, shall be recover able upon order made by the county court as money ordered to be paid by a county court under its ordinary jurisdiction, is recoverable.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: There is a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("two preceding sections") and insert ("foregoing provisions").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) The proper charges of the valuer for the valuation shall be borne by the landlord and tenant in such proportion as the valuer shall direct, but be recoverable by the valuer from either of the parties and any amount paid by either of the parties in excess of the amount (if any) directed by the valuer to be borne by him shall be recoverable from the other party and may be deducted from any compensation payable to such party."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this clause adopts the same arrangement as prevails under the Agricultural Holdings Act and Section 21 of the Agriculture Act, 1920. It follows the precedent of the Agricultural Holdings Act as regards expenses.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 12, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD PARMOOR: Will this be applicable only to the cases of allotments between two and five acres? It is to those allotments that the Agricultural Holdings Act applies.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Under the new clause which I have already moved, everything above two acres will become an agricultural holding, and then everything will be done under the Agricultural Holdings Act.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5:
Amendment of statutory provisions as to compulsory acquisition of land for allotments.
5.—(1) The restrictions imposed by section forty-one of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, on the compulsory acquisition of land 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 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 twenty-four of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, for the purpose of providing allotment gardens:
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (1), after "borough," to insert "county borough." The noble Earl said: This was an Amendment moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill considered the words "county borough" were unnecessary, but he promised to consider the matter before Report.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 30 after ("borough") insert ("county borough").—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: This is a purely technical question, and I think it is clear that the Interpretation Act makes the expression "borough" include "county borough" unless there is something in the context to prevent this interpretation. That Act states that the expression "borough," when used in relation to local government, shall mean a municipal borough as defined in the Act.
EARL STANHOPE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7:
Powers of entry on unoccupied land.
7.—(1) The council of a borough or urban district, or 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 twenty-four of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, 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 (being an association to which land may be let by the council under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1919) 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 sixth day of April, 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 for 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 Lard 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 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 funning 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.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (3) (b), to leave out all words after "for" and to insert "an industrial purpose." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this was moved in Committee, and the noble Earl said he would consider whether the words "industrial purpose" were better than those which appear in the Bill. The Amendment uses the same words as appear in the Interpretation Clause, and I suggest that it is better to use these words than to say that land can be resumed where it is not required for agriculture.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, lines 22 to 24, leave out from ("for") in line 22 to the end of line 24, and insert ("an industrial purpose").—(Karl Stanhope.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Earl quite realises the position. The suggestion of the Committee over which I presided was that resumption should be allowed for any purpose Which was more remunerative to the owner, and though I do not see my way to adopt this phraseology, I have endeavoured by the provision in
814
the Bill to arrive as nearly as possible at the same result. There is reasonable ground for making a distinction between provisions for resumption in the case of land occupied under Clause 7 and in the case of land to which Clause 1 applies. Land affected by Clause 1 is land actually let for allotments, whereas the present clause deals with land which is taken from an owner without his consent because it is unoccupied. It is a more drastic action. If he desires to re-occupy the land the case for depriving him thus summarily of the right of occupation disappears, or, at any rate, is considerably weakened, and I have no reason to think that the allotment holders' representatives regard paragraph (b) of this clause as unreasonable. I hope the Amendment will not he pressed. We think there is real difference between these two classes of land.
EARL STANHOPE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Earl said: My Lords, this deals with the case which I brought up during the Committee stage, under which, if a road has to be dug up for the provision of allotments, the cost of re-making that road can only be met by repaying by instalments in sums that are not to exceed the actual rent from the land. As the clause refers entirely to derelict land, obviously the rent that could be received for the land in that condition is practically nil. The clause in the Bill endeavours to pay the capital lost by sums which are so small that they will never achieve their object;. It is a complicated matter, because subsection (5) refers, as far as I can see, to capital losses, and goes on to refer to the method in which they should be repaid. Then, in subsection (7), it says that the rental value, which is the method by which repayment is to be made for the capital loss, is limited to what might be expected from the rent of the land in its then derelict condition. I failed to understand the clause in Committee, and I am afraid I do not understand it any better now.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 32, to page 7, line 3, leave out subsection (3).—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I admit that the question is not a very easy one, and, perhaps, I did not make myself quite clear in Committee. The payments which the Ministry are making now are being made on this principle, because, of course, the matter is going on now, and land is being retaken which was taken under D.O.R.A. In many cases we find that a capital sum has to be paid for damage to the ground, as in the case I gave of a road which had been dug up and allotments made on the site. In addition to that, we had to make a payment by way of rent also in compensation, because I think the noble Earl will admit that there is a difference between absolutely derelict land and land which has some rental value. It is not all derelict land. Some of this land might have, and has, a rental value.
If the noble Earl looks at subsection (7) he will read—
"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."
I cannot give him a better example than the case of an empty house in London. There is not a rateable occupation; at the same time, the house has a rental value. In many cases there is land at present which is not rateable because it is not occupied; at the same time, it has a rental value. If you seize this land from the landlord he will expect to realize some rent—perhaps not much, but some rent.
EARL STANHOPE: What happens when he does not expect any?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: He gets none.
EARL STANHOPE: But he cannot save his capital loss.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I hope the noble Earl will be satisfied with my explanation. The clause may not be very clear, but cases arise where both the capital compensation and a compensation in the way of rent have also to be paid.
EARL STANHOPE: I certainly will not press the Amendment. I cannot see that it will do any harm; on the other hand, I think there are many cases where it certainly will not do any good.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, in subsection (6), after "authority," 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 Earl said: These words ought to have been put in during the Committee stage. They were accepted in Committee, but were omitted from the reprinted Bill.
Amendment,moved—
Page 7, line 19, after ("authority") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, in subsection (6), after "recreation," to insert "or land which has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, clock or canal undertaking." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment of the same kind as the last. It has already been dealt with in that Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 28, after ("recreation") insert the said words.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following new clause:
".—(1) Where land has been let to a local authority or to an association for the purpose of being sub-let for use as allotment gardens, or is occupied by a council under the powers of entry conferred by this Act, and the landlord, or the person who but for such occupation would be entitled to the possession of the land, proposes to resume possession of the land in accordance with the provisions of this Act for any particular purpose, notice in writing of the purpose for which resumption is required shall be given to the local authority or association.
"(2) The local authority or association may by a counter notice served within ten days after receipt of such notice on the person requiring possession demand that the question as to whether resumption of possession is required in good faith for the purpose specified in the notice shall be determined by arbitration under and in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908.
"(3) Possession of the land shall not be resumed until after the expiration of the said period of ten days or the determination of such question as aforesaid where such determination is demanded under this section.
"(4) This section shall not apply to any case where resumption of possession is required by a corporation or company being the owners or lessees of a railway, clock, canal, water, or other public undertaking."
The noble Earl said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD DYNEVOR: I should like to ask the noble Earl one question on this rather long new clause. In reference to subsection (3) which says: "Possession of the land shall not be resumed until idler the expiration of the said period of ten days or the determination of such question as aforesaid where such determination is demanded under this section," we have already agreed that there should be a right of re-entry at three months when the land is required for industrial purposes. I now understand that arbitration can take place over this question, and I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he can give me any definite undertaking that if there is a case of arbitration possession will still be able to be obtained at the end of three months.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: No; ten days I should have said. If I explain the object of this new clause I think it will be clearer. The clause is proposed to carry out the arrangement. which I indicated in Committee for securing some method of determining disputes which might arise as to whether a notice to quit purporting to be given for a legitimate purpose was, in fact, given for that purpose, and not for some other purpose. It is not suggested that such a dispute will often arise, but there have been cases in which it has been represented to the Ministry that when applicants have claimed to resume possession of their land for building or some other urgent purpose the applicant has not been acting in good faith. This question is, of course, a very different question from that as to whether land is reasonably required for a specific purpose, because "reasonably" may mean a good deal more. There is a good deal of difference between whether a man has acted in good faith or has acted reasonably. In the former case it might have been possible to raise the question as to whether or not re-entry might not have been avoided; for instance; by the use of some other land for the purpose specified. It may, no doubt, be a matter of some difficulty for the local authority or the association to establish a case of bad faith on the part of the landowner, but if it feels that it has good ground for an objection
818
of this kind it is desirable that some method should be adopted for disposing of such dispute.
The clause provides that the landowner shall give notice to the authority or association of the purpose for which resumption is required. This is not made an essential part of the notice requiring possession, as to do so might possibly invalidate a perfectly proper notice. The landowner, having informed the local authority or the association of the purpose for which he requires the land, will not necessarily be delayed in any way in resuming possession in consequence of the necessity of his waiting for ten days to see whether an appeal is lodged; but, of course, if an appeal is lodged, it is obvious that the resumption cannot take place until the dispute is settled by the arbitrator. The clause applies only to cases where the land is in the occupation of a local authority or an association, as it is felt that the extension of the provision to individual allotment holders to whom land has been voluntarily let by a landowner might lead to cases where such an individual allotment holder might, quite unreasonably, demand an arbitration and, for want of means, be reckless as regards any risk of having to pay the costs of an arbitration which the arbitrator aright consider to have been unreasonably instituted.
The clause does not apply to resumption of land by railway and other statutory undertakings, as it is recognised that the case of urgency as regards such bodies is not infrequently so great as to make the risk of any delay due to arbitration quite incompatible with the proper exercise of their statutory functions. I think the noble Lord will see that I have answered his question, because the only question is the expiration of the ten days. Naturally a man cannot resume possession until the case has been decided, and he ought, in the first instance, to give notice to get back the land and also state the purpose for which he wishes to regain possession.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that if the counter notice is given frivolously—because even, local authorities occasionally behave frivolously —there will be power in the arbitrator to give costs against the local authority. I am afraid I cannot expect the noble Earl to answer that question, but perhaps he will be good enough to make a note of it. 1e want to protect the owner from a

819
frivolous counter notice, and the way to do that is to provide that there shall be costs against the offender if frivolous notice is given.
THE EARL OF ANC ASTER: I can answer the noble Marquess now. I think that in the arbitration cases costs can be given against a frivolous offender.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8:
Time limit for serving notice to treat for compulsory acquisition of land.
8. 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 order, or where confirmation of the said order is necessary, then from the confirmation thereof the same shall become null and void.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved to leave out "same" and to insert "order so far as it relates to land in respect of which notice to quit has not been so served." The noble Earl said: There is a misprint in this Amendment: it ought to be "in respect of which notice to treat has not been served" and not "notice to quit." Perhaps I may be allowed to move it in that form? In Committee this question was raised by Lord Dynevor, and I promised that I would place on the Paper an Amendment to meet as far as possible the Amendment moved by him, which I did not see my way to accept.
It is quite right that the owner of land should be afforded reasonable protection against liability to a repetition of orders dealing with the same land, but, in practice, it may be found that where an order has been made authorising the acquisition of land, and particularly the hiring of land, it is for some reason impracticable to put the order in force. For instance, the land proposed to be hired may be in excess of the area required owing to some applicants withdrawing their applications, or it may be found that a re-adjustment of boundaries would avoid difficulties as to severance or otherwise, which would reduce the compensation which would have to be paid. I suggest to the noble Lord that the protection proposed by my proposed new subsection is sufficient to protect the landowner from being unreasonably harassed by proceedings of the local authorities, as the second order could only be conferred if a special case were made for relief from the general principle involved in the earlier
820
part of the Amendment. I hope the noble Lord will accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 6, leave out ("same") and insert ("order so far as it relates to land in respect of which notice to treat has not been so served"). —(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD DYNEVOR: I am much obliged to my noble friend, and I am ready to accept the Amendment which he has proposed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 6, at end insert the following new subsection:
("( ) Where an order has so become null and void as respects any land no order authorising the compulsory acquisition of that land or any part of such land shall be confirmed by the Minister within three years after the expiration of the said three calendar months, unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Minister that there are special reasons justifying the failure to exercise the powers under the original order and the making of the order submitted for confirmation.")—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10:
Allotment committees of urban authorities.
10.—(1) The council of every borough or urban district with a population of ten thousand or upwards shall, unless exempted by the Minister of Health from the provisions of this section, establish an allotments committee, which may be an existing committee of the council or a subcommittee of an existing council, 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 be 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 case 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 ERSKINE LORD ERSKINE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the first "shall" and to insert "may." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, which stands in the name of Lord Strachie and myself, is, I think, one of considerable importance. The object of it is to leave to borough and urban district councils discretion as to the establishment of an allotments committee. The importation of another certificate of exemption by the Minister of Health is, I think, an unnecessary interference with the proper functions of local government by locally elected bodies charged by Parliament with local duties. It is obvious that the multiplication of statutory committees tends more and more to make too onerous the duties which a local council is called upon to perform. There can be no doubt that in many places the type of person whom it is desirable to have on the local governing bodies of the district is deterred from taking part in the local government of his district by the increasing calls on his time which membership of a local body involves. I have in my hand two letters, one from the Urban District Councils' Association and one from the County Councils' Association, both strongly urging that this Amendment should be accepted. I will ask the noble Earl if he will be good enough not to think my Amendment has anything to do with co-opted members. That Amendment will come on later.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 14, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(Lord Erskine).
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I do not wish to repeat at any length the arguments which I used in Committee against this Amendment, but I must state again that the clause on which this Amendment is moved is one to which the representatives of the allotment holders attach the very greatest importance. I am afraid that there are cases, though they may not be numerous, in which councils entrusted with allotment powers for various reasons do not take a very active interest in the provision of allotments, and the representatives of the allotment holders expressed strongly the view that the allotment powers are unlikely to be administered generally in a careful spirit unless a committee is constituted for allotment purposes, anti that that committee contains persons representative of the allotment holders in the district. The present arrangement, under
822
which an allotment authority has power to appoint allotment managers of the land already acquired for allotments, is inadequate to meet the point, and, though urban district councils have already power to appoint committees for the exercise of any powers of the council on which they can co-opt person, who are not members of the council, they have not used the power in many cases. Borough councils have no such power.
I recognise the force of the argument that as a general rule local authorities should be allowed to manage their own business in such manner as they think best, but allotment holders have strongly impressed upon the Ministry the view that if there were some committee on which the allotment holders were represented, though not in such numbers as to be a preponderating influence, this would ensure proper attention being given to the problem. The noble Lord, in his speech, said that lie was not referring to the co-option of members. This point, from the allotment holders' point of view, is most important. The noble Lord mentioned the County Councils' Association, and I would point out that this clause does not refer to county councils at all. I can only repeat what I said when the Bill was in Committee that the allotment holders feel that this is one of the most important parts of the Bill to them, and, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the Committee over which I presided, if these committees were set up with co-opted members, a great deal of the friction and agitation that now exist would be done away with. I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Earl has dealt with the Amendment coming later on in regard to co-option. I will not attempt to go into that now, because I shall move an Amendment later in regard to it, and shall press that Amendment. The noble Earl has expressed surprise that the County Councils' Association are supporting this view of the municipal and urban district councils. I cannot see any reason why the County Councils' Association should not come to the assistance and support of the minor authorities. I will not say that the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, sneered at the suggestion last week, but he rather intimated that the County Councils' Association were not generally inclined to help these local authorities.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Please read the words. I want to see if there was a sneer in them.
LORD STRACHIE: I did not say there was a sneer. I said "I will not say sneer." I said that the noble Earl suggested that the County Councils' Association was a body that was not inclined as a rule to do anything to assist minor authorities, but rather was inclined to go against their wishes. As to the appeal made by my noble friend (Lord Erksine) to give this discretionary power to minor local authorities, the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, himself said in Committee that he recognised the force of the argument that as a general rule local authorities should be allowed to manage their own business in such a manner as they think best, and as their experience has shown, but that, unfortunately, as regards the provision of allotments, the existing position was not satisfactory, taking the country as a whole. It would have been much more satisfactory if, instead of making a vague statement like that, the noble Earl had given us instances-in which there had been recalcitrant local authorities, and where, taking the country as a whole, there had been minor authorities who were so obscurantist and foolish as to refuse to appoint allotments committees. Had the noble Earl done that he would have furnished a weighty argument for his case.
I have had a good deal to do with local government, both in the county councils and in the minor authorities, and I have never known a single case in which the local authorities were not quite ready to set up an allotments committee, and anxious to promote the provision of allotments. The noble Earl ought to have given seine good reason; he ought to have shown that there were authorities which had been recalcitrant. As he quoted no such case, I think it is rather doubtful whether there have been any. He said the Committee expressed this view, but the difficulty of dealing with the Report of that Committee is that it has not been published, and it is very unfair for the noble Earl to found so many of his arguments on the Report of a Committee as to which no member of your Lordships' House is able to judge the evidence given.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: That is an accusation that I have acted unfairly. What I said was that the witnesses we
824
heard from different allotment associations all made this a great point, and they all complained, rightly or wrongly I cannot say, that there were many cases in which no interest was taken in the question of allotments.
LORD STRACHIE: I am not saying that the Report ought to have been published, but as the Report has not been published it is not very reasonable to ask your Lordships to accept the mere ipse dixit of the Committee when we are unable to sift the evidence given on both sides. The noble Earl is rather too fond of quoting this Committee when we are unable, by reading the evidence, to judge on what his statements are founded. I hope he will recognise, as he did in Committee, that local authorities ought to be masters in their own house.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, I do not see how the Government could have adopted any other course than the one they have adopted to-day. I speak with the utmost respect, having very little knowledge of the procedure of your Lordships' but in the other House it is the generally accepted principle, if a question has been fully debated and decided in Committee and nothing fresh is adduced in support of a particular Amendment on Report stage, that the House generally supports the line taken in Committee. That is the position in which your Lordships find yourselves to-day.
I understand the noble Lord's feeling indeed, I share it—that the less we put compulsion on local authorities the better; but at the same time noble Lords who are speaking as the champions of local authorities must not carry that argument too far. Parliament has frequently, especially of recent years, laid new duties upon local authorities, notably when they transferred practically all the duties in respect of public elementary education from Whitehall to the county councils. They then not only transferred all the duties, but laid it as an obligation on county councils that they should conduct the education work through a committee. The difference between saying that they shall have an ad hoc committee and enacting that their work shall be done through a committee is very small. I do not depart from the view I expressed in Committee, but I have heard nothing fresh to lead me to believe that the Government would be wise to

825
change the line they then took. Lord Strachie has complained somewhat of the use made by the noble Earl of the Departmental Committee's Report. That is the invariable practice unless you have a public Committee.
LORD STRACHIE: What I complained of was not that the Report was not published but of the use made of a Report the evidence of which has not been given.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: I fail to see why the noble Lord interrupted me. I said that he complained of the Report, and he says so himself, especially in regard to the evidence. That is the whole matter. The result of this Committee was an agreement, or arrangement, between those who are feverishly anxious for allotments and those who are responsible for providing them. I had the advantage of an interview with representatives of allotment authorities and I know they attach enormous importance to making this an obligatory duty on local authorities. I still believe that if local authorities are determined not to provide allotments you will not compel them to do so by making it obligatory on them to appoint a committee. This is a difficult and delicate question. There is a very strong feeling amongst certain sections of the people that they are not quite fairly treated, and if we can remove that feeling I think it is well to do so. I must support the Government in their decision.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should be very sorry if the noble Viscount thought we were negligent of the very salutary rule that where a matter has been discussed and decided in Committee it requires strong additional arguments before it is wise to reverse it upon Report. I do not know whether the noble Viscount was present when this was discussed in Committee, but I am informed that it took place in rather peculiar circumstances. It so happened that there were not a large number of your Lordships present, and there is a stage when the attendance may be so small that if a matter is pressed the proceedings on a Bill come to an end. That was represented to my noble friends on this occasion, and, studying the convenience of your Lordships' House, they did not go on with the discussion.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: I was present.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount will agree that they are not quite open to the rebuke he properly administered of trying to reverse on Report what has been decided in Committee, because the decision in Committee was made in such special circumstances as hardly to come within the ordinary procedure. I do not think we ought to blame my noble friends for raising it upon Report; I should have done so myself if I had been in their place.
On the merits of the case I confess that my feelings are with my noble friends in support of the Amendment. I feel strongly what Viscount: Long has said about the delicacy of this question and the feeling it excites. I think, however, your Lordships should reflect on two points. The first is the great objection there is, unless the case is very strong, to interfere with the discretion of local authorities. They are the elected representatives of the people and it is for them to decide whether or not a committee is necessary. The second important question is that the multiplication of committees on local authorities is becoming rather an abuse. I do not serve on a minor local authority, but I am a member of a county council, and I know that the enormous multiplication of committees on that body has approached the point of straining the resources of the council. It must not be forgotten that the two great associated bodies which represent local authorities, as far as I can gather, are unanimously against this proposal. I think the County Councils' Association and the Urban District Councils' Association, at any rate, are against it; and that is an important point. In these circumstances I think the Government would have been wise to have given way; but I can feel the strength of the point which my noble friend opposite has put.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I confess that I am rather impressed by what Lord Salisbury has recalled to the House about the conditions under which this was discussed on an earlier occasion, and if, as seems probable, the matter will have to receive a more definite issue than it received the other night, I would ask permission to say a word before the House concludes its views upon the subject. I do not myself remember the protest from the Association of Municipal Corporations.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not press that. I did not know it of my own knowledge.
LORD STRACHIE: I can say, of my own knowledge, that they do object.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: As a society?
LORD STRACHIE: Yes.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I beg your pardon. I do not remember receiving it myself. I think that, when they consider it, they will see that this committee is hedged about by so many restrictions and so many reservations that it does not constitute any real infraction of liberty. In the first place, no such committee can be formed without the local authority having the right to appeal, not to the Minister of Agriculture, but to the Minister of Health, who is more in touch with local government than the Minister of Agriculture. In the second place, the corporation has the right to use an existing committee. It need not set up a fresh committee. Finally, it can use an existing sub-committee; so that the freedom of the local authority remains pretty considerable.
Next, when you have a committee, it is not a committee: with executive functions. It can do or say nothing which will bind or adversely affect the decision of, the council as a whole. The council retains its freedom intact. This is purely an advisory committee, with no executive powers. The Ministry of Agriculture has these committees, which do not interfere with its freedom. It has a big consultative committee established by Act of Parliament. What I feel about this matter is that, while there may be no real grievances, as Lord Strachie assures us, there are, perhaps, unreal grievances. For my part, I am more afraid of an unreal griev
ance than of a real one. You can tackle a real grievance, you can grapple with it and force a man to bring it to the hard test of fact and cross-examination. So long as you have an unreal grievance, a hidden, subterranean grievance, these men feel that, somehow or other, they are not being fairly treated. That is the light in which every public authority ought really to weigh the opinion of those who assure them that these grievances exist.
Lord Strachie complains that no evidence was brought. That is not uncommon, and I do not think that one must condemn a section of an Act of Parliament because it is based upon general views of that kind. But I think many of your Lordships know, as I certainly know, that this grievance does exist, and that many of these allotment holders think that they have no proper court before which they can bring their grievances and state their case. All that is asked is that the local authority shall have a tribunal before which these men can talk. They can do no more than talk. It is an advisory committee, with no executive powers, and if the Ministry of Health is satisfied, as every urban authority has the right to satisfy them, that there is no adequate case for the establishment of this committee, the Ministry can give exemption. Under those conditions, I really think that the course of prudence is to allow these people who say they have grievances to bring them before the proper committee. I am sure that is the right way to dispose of the grievance. If it be justified, we can trust the local authority to remove it; and if it be unjustified, great benefit has been conferred upon the local community by forcing a grievance into the open.
On Question, Whether the word proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided—Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 21.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Stamford, E.

Dewar, L.

Ernle, L.

Lansdowne, V.

Cave, V.

Gorell, L.

Devonport, V.

Hylton, L.

Ancaster, E.

Gosehen, V.

Joicey, L.

Bradford, E. [Teller.]

Peel, V.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Derby, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Redesdale, L.

Eldon, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Roundway, L.

Harewood, E.

Brownlow, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E.

Cawley, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Mayo, E.

Clwyd, L.

Treowen, L.

Onslow, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Wavertree, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Crewe, M.

Novar, V.

Lawrence, L.

Salisbury, M.

Monckton, L.(V. Galway.)

Cottesloe, L.

Parmoor L.

Midleton, E.

Denman, L.

Raglan, L.

Morton, E.

Erskine, L. [Teller.]

St. Levan, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Forester, L.

Strachie, L.[Teller.]

Stanhope, E.

Islington, L.

Terrington, L.

Allendale, V.

Lamington, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 17, leave out the second ("council") and insert ("committee").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out the first "shall" and to insert "may." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment raises an entirely different question, a very grave question indeed, namely, that of compulsory co-option. I move this Amendment on behalf of the County Councils' Association, of which I have the honour to be president this year. They feel it is their duty to support the minor local authorities, such as the Association of Municipal Corporations, and also the Urban District Councils' Association. The Municipal Corporations' Association feel very strongly indeed about this question. Up till now they have always been successful in opposing in Parliament any compulsion as regards co-option on their committees. Neither that body nor the Urban District Councils' Association object to the principle of co-option, which may be desirable in certain cases, but they consider that they are the better judges, and not a Minister sitting in Whitehall, whether or not it is desirable to co-option experts from outside.
Now that does not seem to me a very unreasonable matter. You entrust these local authorities with enormous powers of rating, and we know how those powers are exercised. If you allow them those enormous powers of rating, subject only to the control of the electors, it is surely only reasonable that in regard to a matter of so much less importance than rating the discretion should be 'left to them. I would remind your Lordships of a matter which is very germane to this question. It is that in 1918 this very question of whether co-option should be optional or mandatory on the local authorities was raised on the Maternity and Child Welfare Act. Anybody who followed that debate will remember that in another place there was a most
830
interesting debate in Committee on this question. Lord Downham, then Mr. Hayes Fisher, opposed the striking out of the words which made co-option on these maternity, and child welfare committees obligatory, but the discussion in the House was so strong that Mr. Hayes Fisher, the Minister in charge, having undertaken to reconsider the matter; on Report himself moved the omission of the mandatory part, leaving it entirely optional whether or not the local authorities should co-option any members from outside. There was this one exception, which does not apply here, that as it was a question dealing with women and children it was provided that two women should be co-opted on those committees.
I have here a very strong argument to address to the same Government whose representative on that former Bill abandoned compulsory co-option and left the matter optional. There is the further fact to consider that under this clause it is proposed that the local authorities shall co-opt representatives of the allotment holders themselves. It has generally been the practice of all legislation that a committee should be perfectly independent, and that you should not specially put on committees representatives of any particular section. It seems to me that this is another reason against the clause, but the argument on which I most strongly rely is that these local authorities, win are entrusted to rate us so highly, and who can be turned out every three years if they are not behaving themselves properly, should be trusted to use their own discretion in this less important matter. I can assure the noble Earl that even if he is successful in defeating this Amendment, he has not done with the matter, and that he will find in another place it will mean a long and argumentative discussion. I venture to think that he will be well advised if he accept the Amend-merit at once, instead of allowing the matter to be fought out again in another place.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 30, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(Lord Strachie).
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, of course, it is not for me to say what is likely to happen in another place. There may be a debate on this subject there, but what we have to do here is to consider the Amendment on its merits, or demerits. The proposal that allotments committees shall necessarily include co-opted members, representative of the allotment holders, is an essential part of the scheme proposed by the clause. Without such co-option the clause merely provides for an allotments committee, which may be the existing committee, and would make no material change in the present system.
Your Lordships have already voted in favour of making this clause compulsory, and, if I may say so, I think you should leave it there. If you adopt the noble Lord's Amendment, our efforts will be
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE had an Amendment, in subsection (2), to leave out "representative of the interests of" and to insert "who are themselves." The noble Earl said: The noble Earl in charge of the Bill also has an Amendment on the Paper which I prefer to mine, and I therefore do not move.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 32, after ("district.") insert ("and being themselves occupiers of such allotment gardens").—(The Earl of Ancestor.)
rendered nugatory, because the authorities who may be the worst offenders, and who now pay the least attention to the allotments question, are just the authorities which will refer the question to one of their existing committees, to which the representatives of the allotment holders object at present, because they will simply ignore the subject, and the case will be very little better in the future than it is at the present time. I have already dealt with this question in Committee, and I hope your Lordships will not support the noble Lord's Amendment, but make the co-option of these members compulsory.
On Question, Whether the word proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Cave, V.

Ernie, L.

Devonport, V.

Gorell, L.

Ancaster, E.

Gosehen, V.

Hylton, L.

Bradford, E. [Teller.]

Peel, V.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Redesdale, L.

Derby, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Roundway, L.

Eldon, E.

Brownlow, L

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E.

Cawley, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Onslow, E.

Clwyd, L.

Terrington, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Treowen, L.

Stamford, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Wavertree, L.

Stanhope, E.

Dewar, L,

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Rutland, D.

Allendale, V.

Lamington, L.

Novar, V.

Lawrence, L.

Crewe, M.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)[Teller.]

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Mayo, E.

Denman, L.

Raglan, L.

Midleton, E.

Dynevor, L.

St. Levan, L.

Morton, E.

Erskine, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Portsmouth, E.

Forester, L.

Wyfold, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11:
Power for county councils to let land for allotments.
11. A county council may let land acquired by the council for small holdings for cultivation as an allotment., or to a local authority or association, being an association to which land may be let by a council under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1919, for the purpose of being sub-let for such use.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, at the end of the clause, to insert:
"Provided that where such land is not the property of the, council and is pasture land, the consent of the owner of such land shall have previously been obtained."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this clause refers to land which has been taken over by a county council for the purpose of small holdings and it is proposed that part

833
of the small holdings should be turned into allotments. During the Committee stage the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, in reply to an Amendment in a somewhat similar sense, by which I tried to ensure that a county council which had taken over land should not be allowed to plough up pasture for the purpose of making allotments, said: "What about land which is already the property of the county council, and which they have already purchased from a previous owner?" Both in my Amendment and in that of Lord Dynevor, which follows mine on the Paper, we meet that case of the noble Earl by leaving the power to county councils to plough up their own land for allotments, but we deprive them of power to plough up the land which they hire from private owners. My Amendment gives power al consent to the owner, and allows a county council, with that consent, to plough up the land. Lord Dynevor's Amendment does not allow any such power to the council. I leave it to your Lordships to decide which Amendment you prefer.
There are many eases in which an owner might very well let land for a small holding as a small pasture farm. Having done that, he would find that the county council, under the powers given by this Bill, would be able to plough up one of his fields for the purposes of allotments, thereby ruining the farm. When the land is handed back to the original owner, the owner would perhaps find one of his best grass fields ploughed up, without his having had any say in the matter. That is not a thing to which your Lordships should readily agree.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 6, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, the trouble that has arisen over this question is due to the Government's having used the word "acquired," which covers two meanings—namely, purchase and hire. If the Government had originally introduced their Bill with the word" purchased, "not" acquired, "no trouble would have arisen. In order to leave the county council with full power to deal with their own land, if they so desire, I propose to add the words which stand in my name—
"Provided that, if the said land has been acquired otherwise than by purchase, no letting as aforesaid shall take place unless the said land was already in use as arable at the date of its first acquisition by the Council."
834
This will prevent the breaking up of pasture land. I myself, and I dare say a great many of your Lordships, have let extremely valuable pasture land for the purpose of small holdings. In fact, I have let on lease for thirty-six years pasture land which would have let for £3, El and an acre. County councils readily agree that land shall remain pasture land. Under this Bill as it stands a county council can divert land from the purpose of small holdings and let it for the purpose of allotments. It naturally follows that it will be broken up from pasture.
I should like to point out this difference between the Amendment of my noble friend, Earl Stanhope, and mine. The question arises under this cause as to whether the county council has power to break existing contracts. I have asked the opinion of two or three people on the matter and I understand that it is an open question whether that power does or does not exist. Lord Stanhope's Amendment enables this to be clone if the owner consents. If he is approached for his permission and refuses, friction, no doubt, will follow. I think the landowner would be in a rather invidious position if he refused to allow his pasture land to be turned into allotments by the local authority. My Amendment would prevent this in connection with existing contracts. As regards the future, my Amendment does not prevent a council approaching an owner and obtaining his consent to land being broken up. Of the two Amendments I prefer my own, but if the noble Earl thinks that my noble friend's Amendment is the better I shall certainly not object.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, in answer to the question the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, has put to me, I am advised that the extension of the powers of letting their land which is given to county councils under this clause would not enable a council or their lessees to break up any pasture land in contravention of any covenant contained in a contract of tenancy by which the council holds the land. I expect, in all the cases to which the noble Lord refers, he has got a covenant in the contract of tenancy that the grass land shall not be broken up.
LORD DYNEVOR: That is so.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: If there is such a contract of tenancy, I am advised

835
that the county council have no power to break up that land, if the noble Lord is not satisfied on this point I am prepared to accept the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, upon the understanding that in another place the proviso may, if necessary, be so amended as to make it clear that it was inserted solely for the purpose of preserving existing restrictions on the user of the land.
EARL STANHOPE: Will the noble Earl kindly explain what he means by "existing restrictions"? Does he mean that if there is nothing in the lease saying that pasture land shall not be broken up, then it shall be done?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The position is this. I am accepting the noble Earl's Amendment; but I do not think the Government are prepared to go the full length, and if there is no restrictive covenant of that description there should not be power to break up the land. I cannot pledge the Government to that, but I will accept the noble Earl's Amendment, and it will be for another place to decide whether that Amendment shall be amended or not.
EARL GREY: Would it be possible for a local authority to acquire land in the future for the purpose of small holdings and, having done so, to evade the decision to which your Lordships came the other afternoon by subsequently saying that they meant to use it for allotments and then breaking up grass land for the purpose? That is the point we want to get at.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Surely those who fear anything of that kind should arrange by a covenant that it should not be done.
EARL GREY: I was talking of compulsory acquisition.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: In the case of compulsory acquisition, you can put in restrictive covenants.
EARL STANHOPE: Is that so?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: If they said: "It is of no use to us; we must have the land and break it up," then you could claim a great deal more compensation.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13:
Limitation on expenditure on allotments and rents to be charged.
13.—(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, or other compensation payable in respect of the land;

(b) expenses incurred in making roads to be used by the public;

(c) sinking fund charges in respect of loans raised in connection with the purchase of land.

(3) Land let by a council under the Allotments Acts for use as an allotment shall be let at the best rent that can be reasonably obtained for such use, and not more than a quarter's rent (except where the yearly rent is twenty shillings or less) shall be required to be paid in advance.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (3), after "use", to insert, "after taking into account the cost to the council of acquisition, adaptation and equipment thereof and of other land let by the council for the like use." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is to provide that land shall not be let at a rack rent. Your Lordships will see that in Clause 13 (3) it is provided that "land let by a council under the Allotment Acts for use as an allotment shall be let at the best rent that can be reasonably obtained …." This Amendment ensures that land shall be let at a reasonable rent, and that the council shall not endeavour to get the very best possible rent in order really to make money out of allotments. The whole object of this Bill is, of course, the obtaining of allotments and, I presume, the letting of them at as cheap a rent as possible to allotment holders, provided that the corporation or local authority does not lose money.
If the noble Earl is going to argue that the letting of allotments is to' be taken as a means of assisting the rates, we shall know where we are; otherwise; I submit

837
that this Amendment really ensures that land shall be let to allotment holders at a reasonable price, it also meets the point which was raised in Committee, that where land was taken at a very cheap price and, therefore, could be let cheaply to allotment holders, and where land was taken subsequently at a high price and, therefore, could be let at a high rate to allotment holders, it would be obviously unfair to charge one lot of allotment hollers a low rent and the other lot a high rent. It was suggested that there should be a pool. Your Lordships will see that a pool is possible under the Amendment, because it says that the rent shall be sad as is necessary after taking into account the cost to the council of acquisition, adaptation and equipment of the land and of other land let by the council for the like use. That enables a local authority or a corporation to make a pooling arrangement by which land which has cost them a great deal of money can be pooled with land which cost them very little, and let at a fair rent to the allotment holders. I hope the noble Earl will accept my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 1, after ("use") insert the said new words—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, subsection (3) of Clause 13 provides that each allotment shall be let at the best rent that can reasonably be obtained, and the existing requirements will no longer prevail. What is intended is that the local authority shall charge a full rent for each allotment, and that it shall restrict its allotment proceedings to such as, in its opinion, will put the undertaking on a self-supporting basis. The proposed Amendment, though I do not think it is very aptly worded, appears to be intended to preclude a council from charging rents in excess of the aggregate amount required to defray their expenditure. I cannot think that there is any serious risk of their doing so, as in most cases it is found that there is great difficulty in making both ends meet. As was mentioned by Lord Harris, in Committee, if any case should arise where the council were in a position to acquire by means of fair rents some surplus on the working for their allotment undertaking there seems to be no reason why this should not be permitted. I think the cases would be very few and far between.
838
Some doubt was expressed as to whether the expression "best rent" did not mean something in the shape of a rack rent, which, to the lay mind, suggests extortion, but the expression "best rent that can be reasonably obtained" is a very common expression in Acts of Parliament, and the Settled Land Act, under which a good many members of your Lordships' House draw up your leases, requires that every lease shall reserve "the best rent that can reasonably be obtained." I have never heard any complaint that this compelled landowners to charge extortionate rents. This being the case, I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think I agree with the noble Earl that this is not a difficulty which is likely to occur very often, but most of your Lordships realise exactly what is meant by the term "rack rent." It is not an extortionate rent. A rackrent is the competition rent—the rent which any hereditament will fetch in the market. As the noble Earl has frankly admitted, there may be cases in which by charging this rent a council will make a profit—that is to say, they will got more rent than is necessary to defray the reasonable expenses and the interest on their loan.
Therefore, the question before your Lordships is a perfectly simple one. It is whether there shall be power vested in these councils to make a distinct profit out of their allotment business. While I agree there are not very many cases where that would occur, nevertheless some might occur in places where there is great demand for allotments. The price there would rise, following the ordinary laws of demand and supply, and in such cases it would be quite possible for a local authority to charge rents which were sufficient to yield a profit, and enable local authorities to make a commercial business out of allotments. That is really the point.
It may be argued, as Lord Harris argued in Committee, that there is no great objection to that, but it is clear that the effect would be that the profit on the allotments would go to the reduction of the rates of the local authorities, and I do rot think that is the intention of Parliament in providing allotments. When we take all this trouble to provide allotments, and when we say that all sorts of ordinary rights are to be superseded in order to supply allotments, we

839
do not intend the local authority to make a profit out of them. I should say that clearly is the intention of Parliament, and, that being so, we ought to carry out that intention. My noble friend's words, as far as I can make out, do very aptly provide what is required, and I do not see why the Government should not accept them. I shrink from the conclusion that the Government really intend the allotment authorities to make a profit, and I think they ought to provide words to prevent it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, the object of the Amendment is to prevent a profit being realised, or at any rate to ensure that, in assessing the rental, things other than those mentioned in the text of the Bill shall be taken into account. Lord Stanhope says that the council must take into account the cost of acquisition, and the adaptation of the equipment. of these holdings, and, indeed, of other land let for the same purpose. Is it quite sure that the effect of putting in these words may not tend to raise the rents of the allotments rather than to reduce them? Lord Salisbury speaks as if Lord Stanhope's words would help the allotment holder. Is it quite sure that they would do so? Might not they have the effect of raising his rent?
EARL STANHOPE: Surely not. The words of the Bill are "the best rent that can be reasonably obtained for such use."
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Reasonable use—there is that limitation. The authority has to say: "We will charge this quarter acre at such and such a price, which is reasonable for use for that purpose." Lord Stanhope goes on to say: "In reaching that figure you have to take into account certain things that are not mentioned here." The result may be to put up the rents rather than to keep them down. I do not know if that is Lord Stanhope's intention. It certainly is Lord Salisbury's intention that the effect of the Amendment should be to keep the rent low. I think the effect of it may be to make the rent high. "The best rent" is a term that is used in nine cases out of ten under the Settled Land Act, but when Lord Salisbury says that "the best rent" is a competition rent, there again I am inclined to criticise. It is not a true competition rent, because the only competition can be the competition of other allotment holders.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is true.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That enormously limits the connotation of best rent, and makes the use of rack rent as an analogy or simile in this case quite out of the question. This is a matter on which anyone can take any view he likes. I do not see anything immoral in a public authority making a profit. Why should they not make a profit? It is better that public authorities should make a profit on public utility services—and this ranks as one—than that they should do what we all deplore, incur terrific losses on such services as trams, and so on. I hope your Lordships will not lay down a rule that an undertaking of a local authority must not be looked upon as a commercial business.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I say that I quite agree with every word my noble friend has just said, except in this respect? Here we are superseding the rights of landowners, and giving all sorts of special powers. If the authorities were acting in the ordinary business of their own work there would be nothing to be said, but it is because of this superseding of rights and the granting of special powers that they ought not to be allowed to make a profit.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That applies equally to trams, housing, electric light, and very often water and gas. I point that out to your Lordships rather as a general caveat; I do not want to argue it on this Bill. It is a big question. I hope that where the local authority can make an honest profit it will not be precluded from doing so.
EARL STANHOPE: I do not press the Amendment, but I suggest that it is a reasonable one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, after Clause 15, to insert the following new clause:
". Where a council purchases land under the provisions of section fifteen of this Act, the council may resell 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: The noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, said in Committee that I should put this Amendment down for Report. I shall not go into detail, because it speaks for itself. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 15, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, the noble Lord, when he moved this Amendment in Committee, explained that it was intended to enable a council to re-sell land to an allotment association. I am wholly unable to understand why the existing law is insufficient for this purpose. Under Section 27 of the Act of 1908, as amended by the Act of 1919, an allotment authority is authorised to sell land acquired by the local authority to an association having the prescribed rules restricting the division of profits. The Acts do not prescribe the terms on which a sale can be effected, and, so far as I am aware, there is nothing to prevent a sale, if so desired, upon terms which would authorise the purchase money to be paid by instalment.
The object of the noble Lord's Amendment is already provided for by the existing law, but in any case I could not accept the Amendment in its present terms. It refers to cases where the council purchases land under the provisions of Clause 15. and that section does not relate to purchasing but to borrowing of money. If the noble Lord will discuss this matter again with the allotments association he will find that what they really want is the same borrowing facilities from the Public Works Loan Commissioners as the council, and a new clause of an entirely different character would he required to effect their object. At the moment the council have power to sell land.
LORD STRACHIE: Then I am quite satisfied.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, after Clause 15, 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 fee 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 purpose 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 fallowing provisions:—

(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 eighty 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.

(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: This is an Amendment that I put down for Committee stage, when the noble Earl said lie would consider it on Report. It is the point to which he has just referred, by which properly constituted societies can raise money from the Public Works Loan Commissioners in order to purchase laud for allotments. The National Union of Allotment Holders are in favour of this proposal. It enables these corporations to purchase land for allotments, and thus gives them that security of tenure which the noble Earl is anxious to secure by this Bill. The more we get these allotment holders in as holders of land the better for the security of the country. They will look with a more friendly eye on agriculture and on country questions generally.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 15, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I recognise that there is a good deal in what the noble Earl says. Whether the Amendment amounts to very much I do not know. Under this Bill allotment authorities will be able to borrow money from the Public Works Loan Commissioners and loan it to these allotment

843
associations. The stumbling block will be the Public Works Loan Commissioners. They still object to lend money to associations for this purpose, and naturally, because they have only the security of the land. When they loan money to allotment authorities they have not only the security of the land but the security of the rates as well. I cannot accept the Amendment, but if the noble Earl presses it I shall not divide the House against it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I caution your Lordships that this is an Amendment of a financial character, and I do not think the case made out by the noble Earl is very strong.
EARL STANHOPE: I do not want to detain your Lordships on this question, but this is a matter about which allotment holders are very keen, and my proposal would give them more out of this Bill than anything already in it. There will not be many cases in which applications are made, but where they are made suggest they should be considered. We have the many cases referred to by the noble Earl in which possession of the land is resumed by a private individual or the local authority. Where the allotment society is able to purchase the land it is able to get complete security of tenure for the allotment holders, which is a matter of considerable importance to allotment holders themselves, and a really good thing for the security of the country. It is certain that a man who only holds 40 poles of land feels a greater interest in the country than he would otherwise feel, and that is a feeling which it is desirable to support by every means.
The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, said that this was an Amendment of considerable financial provisions. Surely that is a case fox the Public Works Loan Commissioners. If there are many applications they will say that they have not the capital for the purpose, and if they prefer other methods of investing their money they will refuse them. But there will be cases, I hope, where they will look favourably on the application of allotment societies. This Amendment only gives power to the societies to apply to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for a loan. It does not compel the Public Works Loan Commissioners to grant the loan.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment. It raises very important financial questions. The way in which applications are now being made by all kinds of societies for public money has within it the elements of great danger to the financial security of the State, and upon the broad ground of the financial position of the country at the moment I should much object to the opening of another door by which pressure could be put upon the Public Works Loan Commissioners to make grants for this purpose.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved, after Clause 15, to insert the following new clause:
". Notwithstanding the provisions of section sixteen, subsection (1), of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, no land shall be acquired date of the order forms part of any park or of any home farm attached to and usually occupied with the mansion house or which forms part of a holding of fifty acres or less in extent."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this new clause I am carrying out the request made in Committee by the noble Earl. I then moved an Amendment to the Schedule deleting Section 16 of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, which allows the park and home farm attached to a mansion house or land which forms part of a holding of fifty acres or less, to be acquired by the county council. The noble Earl rightly pointed out that my Amendment would cover small holdings as well as allotments. He asked me, therefore, to put down an Amendment for the Report stage in the shape of a new clause, but to restrict its application to allotments. I have done exactly what my noble friend asked me to do, and I assume he will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 15 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Dynevor.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I have not looked through my speech in Committee, but I hope I did not give an undertaking that I would accept the Amendment. The section referred to enables land to be acquired for the purpose of small holdings or allotments, provided that the order is confirmed by the Ministry and subject to the qualification that the Ministry must be satisfied that the holdings are under fifty acres. I do not know whether

845
the noble Lord has any evidence of orders having been unreasonably made which affect any part. It is unreasonable that you should allow acquisition for small holdings, but should not allow acquisition for allotments. When Section 16 was under discussion, it was pointed out that there are many small holdings of 50 acres or less which were held in connection with other holdings, and that total exemption from compulsory acquisition of all holdings under 50 acres had proved unnecessarily restrictive, particularly in the case of the acquisition of land for Allotments. I suggest to the noble Lord that the partial repeal of Section 16 cannot be justified, and I hope he will not press his Amendment.
LORD DYNEVOR: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to reply to my noble friend. May I point out to him that, in the Committee stage, he raised no objection on the question of holdings of 50 acres? His objection was to my having raised the question in the Schedule. I should like very shortly to read out to my noble friend the exact words which he used, because I do not wish to misrepresent him. He said—
"I appeal to the noble Lord that t is not quite right to move such a substantial Amendment by merely including a provision in the repeal Schedule. If the polite 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."
I have done exactly what the noble Earl asked me to do.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 16 (Provision as to parts of New Forest now used for allotment gardens):
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "where the context permits." The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment, to correct a mistake in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 22, leave out ("where the context permits").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17:
Interpretation.
17.—(1) For the purposes of this Act—
The expression "allotment garden" means an area not exceeding forty poles which is
846
wholly or mainly cultivated by the occupier for the production of vegetable or fruit crops for consumption by himself or his family;
The expression "allotment" includes an allotment garden;
The expression "council" shall, 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, and the expression "agriculture" includes forestry, horticulture, or the keeping and breeding of livestock;
The expression "the Allotments Acts" means the provisions of the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1919, which relate to allotments and this Act;
The expression "Minister" means the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries;
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;
The expression "sinking fund charges" includes any charges for the repayment of loans whether by means of a sinking fund or otherwise.
(2) Where land is used by the tenant thereof as an allotment garden, then, for the purposes of this Act, unless the contrary is proved—

(a) The land shall be deemed to have been let to him to be used by him as an allotment garden; and

(b) where the land has been sublet to him by a local authority or association which holds the land under a contract of tenancy, the land shall be deemed to have been let to that authority or association for the purpose of being sublet for such use as aforesaid.

Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 24, after ("Act") insert ("where the context permits")
Page 11, line 25, leave out ("area") and insert "allotment")
Page 11, line 26, after ("poles") insert ("in extent")
Page 11,lines 29 to 31, leave out from ("family") in line 29 to the end of line 31.
Page 11, line 31, at end insert:
("The expression 'landlord' means in relation to any land the person for the time being entitled to receive the rents and profits of the land
The designations of landlord and tenant shall continue to apply to the parties until the conclusion of any proceedings taken under this Act in respect of compensation and shall include the legal representative of either party")
Page 12, lines 2 to 9, leave out from ("Fisheries") in line 2 to the end of line 9.
Page 12, line 25, at end insert the following new subsection:
("( ) For removing doubts it is hereby declared that the expression 'holding' in the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, and in the Agricultural Land Sales (Restriction of Notices to Quit) Act, 1919, does not include any allotment garden or any land cultivated as a garden unless it is cultivated wholly or mainly for the purpose of the trade or business of market gardening")—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule:

ENACTMENTS REPEALED.

Session and Chapter.

Short Title.

Extent of Repeal.

8 Edw. 7. c. 30.

The Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908.

Subsection (3) of section twenty-five.

Subsection (1) of section twenty-seven.

10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 76.

The Agriculture Act, 1920.

Section eleven.

Amendments moved—
Page 13, line 4, at end insert:

("50 & 51 Vict. c. 26

The Allotments and Cottage Gardens Compensation for Crops Act, 1887.

The whole Act

53 & 54 Vict. c. 90.

The Tenants Compensation Act, 1890.

The whole Act")

line 8, third column, at end insert ("subsection (3) of section forty-seven").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Your Lordships are aware that there is some difficulty as to the discussion on Irish matters to-morrow. It was originally arranged that the debate should take place to-morrow, but it seems quite possible that the discussion will have to be deferred until Wednesday, in which case it may be convenient to take the Third Reading of this Bill to-morrow. That is entirely as your Lordships think most convenient. I shall certainly not press it, if your Lordships would prefer it to be postponed until Wednesday, but I think that under certain conditions it might be well to take the Bill to-morrow, or at any rate to put it down for to-morrow, and if the Irish debate makes that course impossible, it could then be deferred until Wednesday. May I take it that your Lordships agree to that course? Then I will put down the Third Reading for to-morrow.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lee of Fare-ham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Amendment of s. 53 of the, Naval Discipline Act.
1. In paragraph (5) of section fifth-three of the Naval Discipline Act (which relates to the term of penal servitude which may be awarded) "three years" shall be substituted for "five years."
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD LEE OF FAREHAM): I have a purely drafting Amendment on this clause, to correct a printer's error.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(4)").—(Lord Lee, of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I submit this Bill for Second Reading. It is drafted, and deliberately drafted, in very wide and general terms. Broadly speaking, it confers upon the Secretary of State the right to enter into agreements with the Government of any Oversea Dominion, Colony, or Protectorate, or mandated territory, and in so doing to formulate schemes placing joint responsibility upon the Home Government and the Oversea Government for assisting the migration and settlement of British subjects within the Empire.
The agreed scheme may be of various descriptions. It may be a development scheme, a land settlement scheme, or actually a scheme for assisting the migration or settlement of the individuals concerned. It permits assistance to be given towards transport, or towards training, or towards initial allowances. Moreover, there are certain limited powers given in relation to loans. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, who is the responsible Minister under this Bill, is not allowed to proceed

849
without the sanction of the Treasury in any individual scheme, and he has also to satisfy himself that the Oversea. Government is from a financial point of view co-operating as much as is laid down in the Statute, and the Secretary of State is limited to contributing not more than one-half of the total outlay.
Then, under Clause 1, subsection (3) (c), a further limitation is inserted. The Act is limited to a period of fifteen years. The amount of money to be spent is limited in the first year—that is, in the financial year current at the date of the passing of the Act—to one and a half millions sterling, and, moreover, in none of the subsequent fourteen years after the Act is passed may the Secretary of State spend more than three millions sterling, exclusive of any amount received by way of interest on, or repayment of, assistance previously made. Thus, there is a limitation of Time and a limitation of expenditure, unless Parliament were to amend the Statute and to allow larger sums to be expended. I fancy there are many noble Lords present—I notice some—who know far better than I can express the incalculable advantages which can he secured by securing the migration of suitable men from this country to His Majesty's Dominions overseas; and it is migration and not emigration. We have ceased to look upon the movement of a man, or of his children, from this country to the Colonies as emigration. It is moving from one country to another, but all within the Empire. It is Empire settlement, and I submit this Bill with the greatest confidence to the favourable consideration of your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, the subject-matter of this Bill is so important, and its results may be so far-reaching, that I would ask leave to make a few observations upon it. In the first place, I would congratulate the Government upon its introduction. I am quite sure it will meet with approval in every quarter of the House; but while thinking of the origin of this Bill we should not overlook the excellent work done by Colonel Amery and the Oversea Settlement Committee in this direction. Colonel Amery has travelled widely in the Dominions. He knows public men there, and I think we can see the fruits of his knowledge and experience in the provisions of this Bill.
850
I desire to say one or two words, especially from the point of view of Australia. I fully recognise the need for settlers in all the British Dominions overseas, but f think there is no case so urgent as that of Australia at the present time. Obviously, it is desirable that men and women of British birth should emigrate to Canada, but Canada has the advantage of her proximity to the United States, and her comparative proximity to European countries, which ensure for her a considerable influx of population from those sources. The great distance which separates Australia from Europe, unfortunately, prevents her from receiving any considerable number of emigrants from other European countries, and so she is not So well situated as Canada in that respect. There is also the political aspect to consider, and that is not the same for Australasia as it was before the war. When the German fleet was sunk the centre of naval strategy shifted from the North Sea and the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Australia and New Zealand, from their isolated position in the Southern Seas, are both affected by that change. Particularly so Australia, situate within a few days steaming of great Asiatic countries, their teeming populations rapidly on the increase, and the White Australia policy barring their way to the great empty spaces of the Australian continent. I am a believer in the White Australia policy; it is ambitious, but I believe it is the right policy. But it can only be maintained and justified in the eyes of the world if Australia can achieve a great increase in her population and render her now unoccupied territory fertile and productive.
It is because I believe this Bill to be a step in that direction and regard it as giving a great opportunity to the Australian Commonwealth, that I welcome its appearance here to-day. There are advantages in the Bill for this country as well as for the Dominions. This Bill now regularises migration within the Empire, and no longer leaves it a haphazard and chance affair. It recognises that the State has obligations to our people who are migrating overseas. It is not sufficient to pay their passages, and dump them down in strange countries, without any training and without provision for employment. These things have occurred in the past, and ranch hardship has resulted in consequence of it. There has also been the action of unscrupulous emigration agents, and these poor people, after sacrificing

851
their all to pay their passages, have found on arrival that there was no work for them. They have then drifted into the big cities, there to swell the ranks of the unemployed, very often being stranded without even the means of paying for a return passage. I hope that the passing of this Bill will prevent such cases occurring in the future.
As Lord Crawford has said, this Bill has been widely drafted. It provides the framework on which schemes of migration suitable to different Dominions can be built up, but much will necessarily depend upon its administration and the careful preparation of the schemes which are contemplated. Much also will depend upon the training which the migrants, both men and women, receive, because I think women require quite as much training as men before settling in the Dominions, and I certainly hope that under the Bill they will receive adequate training, either here or in the Dominions, before they are settled on the land. I take it that in some cases part of their training will be given in this country. If that be so I should like to press upon the Government that they should secure to that end the co-operation of two other Departments, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Agriculture. We are all aware that it is not always easy to obtain co-operation between Government Departments, but I sincerely hope that those responsible for the administration of this Bill will be successful in this respect.
The Bill also provides funds for schemes of approved organisations. I happen to be connected with an organisation that has received the approval of the Oversell. Settlement Committee, and we receive much help from them. That is an organisation called Australian Farms, a company administered by public-spirited Australians in Melbourne. There is a Melbourne gentleman now resident in London who helps at this end. It endeavours to settle on the land British ex-officers and soldiers who possess a small amount of capital. It has purchased for that purpose an estate for fruit farming and dairying in the Murray River District of Victoria. During the last eighteen months we have sent out seventy-five ex-service men, mostly officers, and the majority of them are doing well. We have been fortunate in securing for this purpose the co-operation of the Government of Victoria, of the Oversea Settlement Committee, and of the Officers' Association.
852
We are now, I hope, in a position to enlarge the scope of our work, as we are in treaty with the Government of India for settling on the land in the State of Victoria young British officers who are being retrenched from the Indian Service. The Victorian Government has undertaken to co-operate with us in purchasing estates, and will sell them direct on favourable terms to the settlers. Our idea is to put from fifteen to twenty of these ex-officers in a group on one estate, which will be worked as a whole until they are sufficiently experienced to enable the estate to be subdivided among them. I do not want to exaggerate the importance of a scheme of that kind, because it is a scheme that provides for men who already possess a certain amount of capital, though not very much. Any scheme of that kind can only touch the fringe of the migration problem. But I do attach importance to it in this respect, that its success—for I think we can already claim to have achieved some measure of success—shows the scope for settlement of this kind of men who may be described as of the public school type.
I should like to say one word about the public school boy in connection with migration schemes. I take it that the majority of public school boys go into the various professions, or into business, or else openings are found for them by their parents in some other direction. But there are some who are not so fortunately placed. I think that a public school boy, about seventeen or eighteen years old, of good physique, accustomed to open air life, and with a training in games and gymnastics, is just the type you want to make a good settler if—and we must always insist upon this proviso—he receives technical training and acquires the special knowledge to fit him for such a life. There is one public school, and one only, so far as I am aware, that gives such training to boys, and that is Christ's Hospital School. I should like to make this suggestion to the noble Earl and the Government. I think they might, under this Bill, enable some of the lads from this school to settle overseas. I am sure if some of them were given a chance of being settled overseas it would be a very excellent thing for the Empire. It would also, I think, encourage other public schools to follow the good example that has been set by Christ's Hospital School.
Now, I would draw attention to the question of medical examination in the Dominions. These examinations are very

853
strictly carried out. When migrants arrive at the ports of debarkation they undergo a very strict medical examination. I make no complaint of that. There have, however, been some very hard cases in the past, owing to migrants who have gone to their doctors in this country and undergone only a very cursory medical examination perhaps, being refused admission by the medical authorities when they have arrived in one of the Dominions. There is an even harder case—that of the man who has gone out and left his wife and children to follow, and they have been found unfit by the medical authorities in the Dominions. That, of course, has spelled disaster for that particular household.
The Commonwealth Government have lately appointed medical referees in this country to whom intending migrants may apply for examination. They charge a very small fee for such examination. I understand that other Dominions are following their example. But the migrant has still to pass the medical authorities at the ports. I should like to make a suggestion to the Dominion Governments. Unless these migrants should contract an illness on the voyage out—which sometimes is the case—I suggest that the examination by the referee in this country should be regarded by the medical authorities at the ports of debarkation as final. Your Lordships are well aware of the power that the Labour Parties possess in the Commonwealth and in the States of Australia, and if you can secure, as I hope you will secure, the co-operation of the Australian Labour Parties for this measure you will enhance the good work that I hope it is going to achieve.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, I desire to say how cordially I support the Government in the policy which finds expression in the Bill now under your Lordships' consideration. I thoroughly believe, with the noble Lord who has just spoken, and who has made such an interesting contribution to the discussion, that a great debt of gratitude is due to Colonel Amery for the work that he has done in preparing this Bill, and also in dealing with this question as chairman of the Committee which has been in existence now for some little time. This movement took shape when I was at the Colonial Office, but it was not possible then, during the war, to formulate schemes such as this, which have now become possible.
854
I particularly rejoice that the Government have produced a scheme of this kind, because it is the first time that any Government in this country has recognised the plain fact which stares us all in the face, though we may not hitherto have cared to realise it, that if you are going to deal with the growing population of this country, with its limitation of area, and consequently to a large extent limitation of employment, you can only do so by a wise, generous and well-thought-out scheme of migration. I congratulate His Majesty's Government upon the fact that their Bill to-day meets with a very different atmosphere from that which was to be found in this country twenty-five years ago. I remember having to examine this question more than twenty-five years ago when I was Under-Secretary in Lord Salisbury's second Administration, and I came to the conclusion that the policy which was then pursued by this country was an altogether mistaken one. It consisted in sending out, with indifferent financial assistance, men, women and children who often were by no means satisfactory representatives of our race and of the class to which they belonged. The result of that was to produce a feeling of hostility to the emigrants (as they were then called, or migrants as I am happy that they are now called), sent out by us. All that is changed and that hostility no longer exists.
Shortly after the time to which I have referred, when I was in Opposition in another place, I remember making some remarks very similar to those which I have just had the honour of making to your Lordships, and they were received partly with ridicule and partly with contempt. I recollect one speech in particular in which it was declared that I was trying, by means of my suggestions, to drive working men out of their own country and away from their own homes. I need not tell your Lordships that I had no such desire. If this country were big enough to offer a field for all who are born within its shores I would not, for the sake of the country, suggest changes such as those which are to be found in the Bill. But the country is not big enough for that purpose, and we have to recognise the fact and to act accordingly. The fact is realised to-day, I believe, as it has never been realised before.
The noble Lord who has just addressed your Lordships spoke with personal experience

855
of Australia in which he rendered service both to the Empire and to Australia, and I do not blame him for claiming priority on behalf of Australia. But he seemed to me to assume, somewhat erroneously I think, that the difficulties of Canada are not nearly so great as those of any other part of the British Empire, because of the fact, to which he referred, that owing to her propinquity to this and other countries Canada is able to get a supply of residents which is denied to Australia, New Zealand and the Colonies and Dominions which are further afield. That is an advantage, no doubt, up to a certain point, but from the Empire point of view I submit that it is a disadvantage, because there is a constant flow into the fruitful lands of Canada of men who have no sympathy with the British Empire, some of whom are actually opposed to the British Empire, and who, if a moment of difficulty comes to the Empire, are not to be found aiding and supporting her as are those of our own blood. We have immense territories not only in Australia, but elsewhere. We have in Canada a population of under ten millions, and yet there is an area there big enough to accommodate at least the population which inhabits the United States of America. As my noble friend, Lord Seaborne, knows better than I do, there is a great deal of territory available in South Africa, and I do not believe there is any fair comparison to be made between the different Dominions of the Crown. They all need migrants from this country to take up their unoccupied land and to cultivate it to the advantage of the Dominion in question and of themselves.
As perhaps your Lordships will have realised, I look at this matter far more from the Empire and home point of view than from that of any particular Dominion. If this Empire is to continue to grow in strength, in influence and in importance, as I am convinced she will do, I believe that wise methods must be devised by which she can transfer her surplus population front those spots which are already overcrowded to those in which there is, happily, abundant open space. That is what I find in the Bill which the noble Earl has introduced to-day. I hope it will have a rapid passage into law, and I believe when it is in working order it will have a wonderful effect upon some of the most urgent social problems of the present moment. I hope that all those evils to
856
which Lord Denman referred a moment ago—the unscrupulous agents not only advertising what did not exist, but getting hold of ill-informed men and women and depriving them of their last farthing—all those terrible things that happened not so long ago—are over for ever, and that we are now starting on a new era altogether.
If these plans are to be successful, I am sure that the advice given by the noble Lord to His Majesty's Government is sound advice which they will do well to consider carefully. It is not easy to overcome at once the difficulties connected with the settlement of people in a strange land. In Canada I have gone to the station to witness the arrival of migrants from this country; I have seen them received and disposed of for the time being, and ultimately moved on to their settlements; and I feel bound to pay a tribute of admiration and of gratitude to the Salvation Army for the work which they have done in many parts of the world. I have seen that work being done, and it is most admirably conducted. It is necessary in some cases, I believe, that the men sent out should be given employment there before they are definitely placed on the land. If that can be arranged, as it can in many cases I am sure, it will be to their advantage. These are all details which I ought to apologise for raising on Second Reading, but I have taken an active interest in this question for more than a quarter of a century, and I really could not forbear the gratification of offering my congratulations to His Majesty's Government and saving how heartily I welcome this new and, as I believe, most beneficent departure.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I do not rise to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill because I am in hearty agreement with the general principles enunciated by my noble friend, Lord Crawford, and my noble friend, Lord Long, but I want to draw the attention of this House and of those outside this House to an aspect of the working of the Bill to which attention ought to be drawn and which, so far, has largely escaped notice.
The noble Viscount, Lord Long, talked of the migration of some of the finest specimens of our congested population to the empty spaces of the Empire. We can all absolutely agree to that. But where is our congested population? It is in the I great cities. Colonel Amery said that we

857
were only going to send our best, and we all agree with that. We know that there are many representatives of our race of whom we have every reason 10 be proud who find the competition for life in the great industrial centres very hard, and my wholehearted sympathy goes with any attempt to find them a better opportunity in the empty spaces overseas, but, so far as I understand the attitude of the Dominion Governments, they do not want that kind of population at all. I am told that at the present moment some of these Governments will admit only either domestic servants, or agricultural labourers, or farmers. There is no congested population in our rural area, and that brings me to the aspect of the case to which I want to draw attention.
It is only three or four years ago that the Government, from every platform—and nobody more so than the Prime Minister—laid emphasis on the need for increasing our rural population and for increasing our agricultural production. We know the whole story. That policy was launched; and very shortly after shipwrecked and withdrawn altogether on the ground of financial stress. I am not going to reopen that question, but I want to point out that the effect of this Bill may be not to migrate from our great cities those whom we should like to see moved, but to tempt away from our agricultural population some of our very best agricultural labourers and farmers; in fact, to depopulate still further our rural areas, and still further to diminish our home production.
What is most extraordinary of all, the House will remember that when the agricultural policy was changed the Government announced a grant of £1,000,000, I think, for agricultural education. May it not very well be that under the policy of this Bill many of these young agricultural labourers and farmers who received those special advantages offered by this grant from the Government will be the very men chosen to be migrated to the Dominions? Therefore, the result of this policy may be further to depopulate our agricultural area, further to diminish our home production of food, and further to increase the production of food overseas which will be competing in these markets with home production? I wish I did not think that might be the result of a Bill with the general object of which I am in such hearty concurrence. It would not necessarily
858
be the result if the Dominions were willing to welcome all able-bodied Britons of good character. But the point upon which I wish to lay stress is that that is not so and that it is only the agriculturists and the domestic servants who are going to be admitted. It is an extraordinary irony of fate that a Government which started with a policy of increasing our rural population and increasing our home production should end with a Bill which may have the result, and I fear will have the result, of decreasing our rural population, and decreasing our home production.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, may I add my humble tribute to the general chorus of approval which has been meted out to this measure? I rise really with the object of asking the noble Earl in charge of this Bill a question. Your Lordships will notice that in Clause 1 a scheme can be formulated for affording joint assistance to suitable persons in the United Kingdom who intend to migrate. That term "suitable person" is a very wide one, and I am wondering whether it would include a certain class of young men who might benefit very considerably under this scheme if there was no age limit in the Bill. I am referring to boys and young men of sixteen, seventeen, eighteen and nineteen years of age, who might benefit very much under such a scheme if they were to be taken out of their evil surroundings and were recommended by some suitable philanthropic society as persons who should he able to go out and start life afresh under the scheme of this Bill. I hope the noble Earl may be able to give me sonic assurance that these boys, on behalf of whom I plead, may be included under the class "suitable persons."
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I desire to ask a question arising out of remarks made by Lord Denman, who stated that migrants to Australia have found on arrival that there was no work for them; that they have been stranded, and had to pay their passages back. I should like the noble Earl to say whether, in fact, there are at the present time any number of such migrants, and what number are returning from Australia because they have been unable to find employment? If there are numbers of such men we should like to know the reason of their having to come back to this country.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, I heartily congratulate the noble Earl and His Majesty's Government on the introduction of this Bill. The terms of it may be regarded as somewhat vague, but perhaps at the present stage that is only prudent. The sum of money available is limited, but, having regard to the present financial position of the country, perhaps it is a matter for satisfaction that the sum available is so much as it is. I hope that later it may be possible to make larger provision. Allusion has been made to various schemes of settlement. I should hope that the staff required at home for the purpose of organising migration may not be unduly large, and that the money available will go rather to assist migrants than to maintain another large Government office in this country. Most of the information required can be got from the Dominions, especially after the experience thay have had of settling ex-soldiers on the land.
It is no doubt to be regretted, as the noble Earl who spoke just now said, that we should lose any of our country population. Nothing could be more regrettable than that, the population being already too small. But the hard facts of the present situation point to a reduction of the country population. The abandonment of the policy to which the noble Earl referred, and the pressure of rates and taxes, are tending to turn the country into grass. A certain number of men who found employment in the woodlands have had to quit their employment. Many men accustomed to kill rabbits in this country, who might have an opportunity to follow their occupation in some other portion of the Empire, are also out of work. There are several classes of the community who live in villages who will have to leave the country. The whole population of the country under the present burden of taxation and the abandonment of the Agricultural Holdings Act of last year is bound to diminish, and, as the people cannot get employment here, there is a growing surplus which will be available for the policy which the noble Earl has sketched out.
There are also the ex-officers, to whom my noble friend opposite referred, who are being settled partly by private enterprise, and certainly there is no better scheme than that under which ex-officers are being settled by organisations with which he is associated. It is on limited lines, and perhaps the Government may be able to
860
extend the system. There is another class, the younger boys who are leaving public schools in England, many of whom will find it difficult to obtain employment here. Many of them are going as clerks in the great banks and insurance companies who would probably prefer to go upon the land. They would possess a certain amount of capital and be in a different position from those who went out from the towns in the old days as emigrants. I do not think such boys could get their training in this country, but if they were entered in the agricultural colleges in the Dominions and had their training there they would be able to make their way in the Dominions just as well as the boys who are already in those colleges. That is one avenue by which migration from this country could be extended. They would be the very best of the land, and a great asset to the Dominions.
I am a little sceptical about bringing many Departments into co-operation for the training of migrants or for superintending their health. That can be done by the different Dominion establishments in London with the help of the limited number of officials in the Overseas Department. The training in the Dominions is everything. I agree with the observation that all the Dominions should have an equal claim. In Australia, by the storage of water and the unification of railways, there may be provided a great opening for a flood of migrants. There, and elsewhere, great care is needed, but if the Dominion establishments in London co-operate with the Department in charge of this Bill I doubt whether any elaborate scheme for training in this country, or anything else connected with their migration, is necessary.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed to add one word in support of this Bill and to thank the Government for having brought it forward. It is certainly time that steps were taken in the Dominions and in the old country for dealing in a thorough and systematic manner with this big question. I realise and acknowledge the importance of what Lord Selborne has said in reference to the withdrawal of a large number of men from agriculture here, but we have to take this question at rather an earlier stage.
I should not like to deprecate the work which could be done by a well-trained and

861
skilful agriculturist in this country, but one of the difficulties he would have to contend with in the Dominions is that from Ms standpoint, from his practice in agriculture, there may be a good deal he would have to unlearn before he could adapt himself to the somewhat unusual conditions in which he would find himself, For instance, in Canada there is an entirely different system of farming in the East and West, and the man who has had his training in Eastern Canada has practically to begin again before he is capable of dealing successfully with the altered and changed conditions he finds on moving further West.
May I be allowed to remind your Lordships that there are many other great developments to which we can look forward with confidence in Canada. At the moment the financial and social conditions are such as to make it undesirable that there should be a large entry of mechanics and artisans, but, in Canada, at no very distant date, there will be a great development of her mineral wealth and of the lumber industry. Great as has been the lumber industry in the past, and still is, Canada will be for many years, as the country gets more and more opened up, a centre from which there will be a still greater flow of finished and unfinished lumber materials. There is not the slightest reason why, with a little training and a little practice, a man who may not be qualified for agriculture should not be capable as well as any one else of doing work in the lumber industry. In the mineral industry, when conditions which are prevalent throughout the world become more stable, there is bound to be a very big development, and I am sure there will be an opening, when that industry is further developed, for other classes of the community besides those connected solely with agriculture.
I hope that the Bill will justify the expectations we have of it. We have to begin slowly, but this is a step decidedly in the right direction and one on which I am sure your Lordships will congratulate the Government and give it your most cordial support.
Loan RAGLAN: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will say one word about Clause 2. Most of the protected and mandated territories are in the Tropics, and few of them are suitable for white settlement. The settlement of
862
Australia and Canada is, of course, of far greater importance.
THE EARL OP CRAWFORD: My Lords, I ask leave to refer to one or two of the points made in the discussion. As regards the protected and mandated territories Clause 2 is an enabling clause. There may be a Protectorate where emigration would be useful, notably in Africa, places like Togoland, but, of course, it cannot be contemplated that a tithe of those who go overseas under this Bill will go to Protectorates. We assume that it will be in the great Dominions that they will find their ultimate homes.
With regard to Lord Denman's question about public schools the Overseas Settlement Committee reported on that point, and I will read a passage from the Report showing how very much alive they are to the problem. They say—
"There is general agreement that these (Christ's Hospital) and other similar schools, indeed all the secondary and public schools throughout the country, could provide the Dominions with admirable recruits.…
"The Committee are anxious to do all in their power to facilitate and encourage settlements of this nature."
The Committee is in close touch with charitable organisations, such as Dr. Barnardo's Home which concerns itself especially with the education and training of the young, and Lord Shaftesbury may be reassured that there is no age limit in this Bill. The word "suitable" does not preclude a child being sent out. It applies to a child, adult, and anybody who is considered suitable.
The second point that Lord Denman raised concerned medical examination. He is quite right in telling your Lordships that in old days it frequently happened that a wretched man with a family was induced by some speculative person to spend his money upon transport overseas, and, on arrival there, found himself rejected. Nothing could be more cruel and discreditable. It is still happening to-day, though not in British Dominions. It is actually true that men are being repatriated from abroad because they have been taken out on false pretences. The Committee and Colonel Amery are very conscious of this difficulty also. So are the Dominions, and every effort is being made to prevent any recurrence of this trouble. The Commonwealth, which has taken a very active part in this settlement throughout,

863
has arranged to appoint medical referees throughout the United Kingdom to give certificates to these men before they depart. Lord Denman referred to that point, bat he did not say that the Commonwealth Government itself is appointing these people. The Commonwealth Government, therefore, is responsible for their verdicts and diagnoses, and, although I have nothing in this Report to tell me so, I assume that a certificate given by way of these referees appointed by the Commonwealth Government will hold good until the end of the journey, unless, of course, some infectious disease develops in the meantime. The Commonwealth Government alone is appointing 1,500 of these men, and I hope that the system of medical referees will be extended, and will prevent any recurrence of the very real difficulty to which Lord Denman referred.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Do I gather that the Dominion of Canada has taken this step?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I have no record of what the Canadian Government has done, but it is obvious good sense, and remember, also, that the Dominion or Commonwealth or Union Government is going to pay at least one-half the outlay of this country. It is good sense from their point of view, as well as ours, and I cannot help feeling that Australia has laid down a line of policy on medical matters which everybody else will have to follow who wish to come into this scheme.
Lord Lamington referred to migration from Australia. I have no figures to give, but it must in any case be a very small percentage. In all probability, if Lord Lamington investigates the subject he will find that people coming back from Australia are very likely people who ought never to have gone there, and certainly are not people who have gone under the joint supervision of the Overseas Settlement Committee and the Commonwealth Government. There will always be unsuitable migrants, and all I can say is that the whole scheme underlying this Bill will tend to reduce undesirable migration to the smallest possible compass.
Let me say one word about Lord Selborne's speech, to which Lord Novar also referred. There is, of course, no desire underlying this Bill to take away farm labourers or young farmers from this
864
country, still less to depopulate our country areas. But migration, whether from rural England to rural Australia, or from rural England to urban England, will always take place if and when the agricultural industry is depressed, just in the same way that in certain industrial parts of the country during last year there was a curious migration of men from the collieries to rural occupations, again for purely economic reasons. If the industry of farming in this country is depressed, we cannot prevent men moving, either to the towns, which, I think, is probably undesirable, or to pursuits of husbandry overseas, which, in my opinion, is one of the best things they can do. I feel convinced, moreover, that, even if it had proved possible to maintain the agricultural development policy of the Government, migration to outlying parts of the Empire would have continued, none the less, among agricultural labourers and young farmers. I am convinced that the desire to go would have been strong, perhaps overwhelming, notwithstanding the prosperity of the industry at home.
This Bill will at least ensure, if and when such persons do migrate to other portions of the Empire, that they will he given a fair chance, and will be watched over by the paternal interest of the oversea Government. The advantage to them is that, if they wish to get on to the land here they can only do so at the cost of dispossessing somebody else, whereas in the Oversea Dominions there is ample free land, and splendid land, already at their disposal. These are the only general questions which I noted. I thank your Lordships very heartily for the kind reception you have given to this Bill. It is a striking thing that a Bill, modest as is this Bill in its character, should receive such warm-hearted and sincere support from members of your Lordships' House who have been responsible in this country for looking after Dominion interests, and from Peers who themselves have governed Dominions in every corner of the British Empire.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

REPARATION COMMISSION.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government what has been and what is the present cost of the Reparation Commission in Paris, and what

865
sum the pay and allowances of the British representative amount to; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, some little time ago my noble friend opposite, Lord Newton, introduced this subject to your Lordships' notice, when he referred to the number of Commissions and Committees that had settled down in the different ex-enemy cities. He then stated that one Commission, connected, I gather, with Germany alone, the Reparation Commission, consisted of 171 people, and cost Germany 32,000,000 marks a month. That debate took place in March, and those figures may have since been modified. It is to be hoped that some reduction both in expense and personnel has taken place, but should like to know whether those figures represent the cost of the whole of the Reparation Commission as regards Germany, or whether they include Reparation Commissions for Bulgaria, Hungary and Austria. Again, is the sum extracted from ex-enemy countries for paving for these Commissions deducted from the final settlement of the reparation, or is it in excess of that which is to be obtained from the ex-enemy countries? I hope the noble Lord who represents the Government will be able to answer these points, and also to say whether a final conclusion has been reached as to the amount of the reparation that is to be obtained.
In the course of the debate to which I referred, Lord Weardale remarked that all these experts have been unable to arrive at any definite conclusion as to the sums of money that are to be paid by our ex-enemies. I should like to know whether, to-day, there has been a final determined amount settled, or whether that amount, is again liable to fluctuation in the future, either by reason of the opinion of the experts themselves or as the result of one of the numerous conferences summoned to different parts of the country from time to time. I beg to move.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I have, as stated by my noble friend opposite, brought the question of the excessive cost of these different Commissions before time House on various occasions, and I am only too glad to find that another member of this House takes an interest in the question. It appears to me that the question of the expense of the Reparation Commission is one that is well worthy of attention. The
866
original decision was that the Reparation Commission should be paid at the rate of five million francs a month. In pre-war currency that would, of course, represent over £2,000,000 sterling, but that arrangement was modified, and I understand that the present system is that the Reparation Commission can ask for five million francs whenever they require the money.
I desire to give the House a few figures to show how the cost has mounted up. The cost of the Reparation Commission from April 1, 1919, to March 31, 1920, was 47,000,000 marks. In time following year the sum rose to 177,000000 marks. In 1921 it was 358,000,000 marks, and in the current year—namely, from March 31 to May 7–131,000,000 marks has been paid, or I presume it has been paid, because that is what has been claimed. In addition to the Reparation Commission there are Sub-Commissions, and it is very remarkable to note the extraordinary increase there has keen in the expenses of the Sub-Commissions. In 1919 the Sub-Commissions cost 7,000,000 marks, in 1920, 27,000,000 marks, in 1921, 236,00,000 marks, and for the present year—April 1 to May 7–112,000,000 marks has been paid. Now, in 1919, 5,000,000 francs were represented in German currency by 23,000,000 marks, in November, 1920, by 24,000,000 marks, and in January, 1922, by 75,000,000 marks.
Altogether, I calculate that something like 1,100,000,000 marks have been spent on time Reparation Commission in one way or another. Without desiring to express any particular sympathy with the Germans it is, in spite of the depreciated value of the mark, an enormous sum, and I should like to hear a convincing reason why so much money has been spent upon this particular Commission, when it is obvious that a sum of this character, or a portion of it, would have been so much better spent in restoring to some extent the devastated areas in France.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I will endeavour to answer the Question which has been put on the Paper by my noble friend opposite. In his opening remarks I think he went a little further than the Question on the Paper, and if he wishes for further detailed information I must ask him for Notice of what is required. My noble friend is, no doubt, aware that the Reparation Commission is an international

867
body the cost of which is not paid by the British taxpayer. There are no Papers in possession of His Majesty's Government. I am informed that the estimated annual cost of the Reparation Commission and of the Committee of Guarantees amounts to about £700,000. This sum covers the expenses of both the national delegations and the international organisation in relation to Germany, Austria and Hungary, and includes the costs of offices at Paris, Berlin, Essen, Wiesbaden and Budapest. It also includes the expenses of the work of disposing of German war material, a task accepted by the Commission in addition to its Treaty duties at the request of the Allied Governments.
In reply to the question regarding the past cost of the Reparation Commission I am not able to give exact information as to the cost of the Commission at various times since its institution, but I am informed that the present cost represents in terms of sterling a reduction of over 20 per cent. on the maximum cost of the Commission. As the work of the Commission decreases in certain directions reductions of staff are constantly carried out, and by this means it has been possible to effect the savings referred to. The British delegate to the Reparation Commission receives a salary of 100,000 gold marks per annum and an allowance equal to 20 per cent of his salary for additional expense of foreign residence and also an allowance of the same amount for official expenses. Accordingly, the salary and allowances of the delegate amount to 140,000 gold marks per annum. There are at the present rate of exchange, about 19 gold marks to the sovereign, and accordingly the sterling equivalent of the sum of 140,000 gold marks is about £7,100. The cost of the Reparation Commission is paid direct by the German Government, and no part of the expense falls upon the British taxpayer.
LORD LAMINGTON: I thank my noble friend for the reply which he has given to me, but can he answer my question whether these expenses are a deduction from the final reparation settlement or in addition to the reparation settlement which may be eventually arrived at?
LORD HYLTON: I cannot tell the noble Lord without notice of the Question.
LORD SUMNER: I think I can tell the noble Lord that. It is in excess.
LORD LAMINGTON: Then, in any case, it is a large sum—a700,000 a year for the British Commission only.
LORD HYLTON: No, for the whole Commission.
LORD LAMINGTON: It is a very considerable sum. Presumably, it means that in the end a very large sum goes to those who hold office under the Commission, and therefore the taxpayer, who might hope to get something out of the reparation, will be deprived of these very large sums of money.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BRITISH CIVIL OFFICIALS IN EGYPT.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I wish to ask what guarantee British civil officials now serving in Egypt will have for payment of pensions or compensation on retirement under the newly constituted Government of Egypt; and to move for Papers. This Question deals with the great anxiety felt by a large number of British officials now serving in Egypt as to their official status under the new Constitution that has been, or is being, set up. I have no precise figures myself, and I will therefore defer any remarks until after I have had a reply from the Government.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I will give Lord Lamington a brief history of the whole question, and then he will see whether it is necessary to bring the matter up again later on. The prospect of a gradual reduction in the number of British officials serving under the Egyptian Government, in the event of a change in the status of Egypt, was first mooted in the Report of the Milner Mission. This Report recognised the necessity of making careful provision for those British officials with whose services the Egyptian Government might wish to dispense, or who might themselves wish to retire when the new régime contemplated in that document came into force.
In February, 1921, His Majesty's Government informed King Fouad that they desired to confer with an Egyptian Delegation regarding the proposals of the Milner Mission. An unofficial Committee had in the meantime been formed by the British officials in Egypt, and had evolved a scheme for compensation which, in their opinion, safeguarded their interests on an

869
equitable basis. This scheme was duly-forwarded by Viscount Allenby to His Majesty's Government, who consulted the president of the Institute of Actuaries as to its provisions. Sir Alfred Watson approved the general principles on which the scheme was based, and they were eventually embodied in the draft Treaty which was submitted to the Egyptian Delegation under Adly Pasha when it came to England last year. In the course of preliminary discussions the Delegation had shown themselves disposed to accept the general principles for compensation, and had made certain counter-suggestions on points of detail. Complete agreement, however, had not been reached when the general negotiations broke down. In the meantime, Sir Alfred Watson had revised the scheme on actuarial lines, and had worked out tables of compensation, as provided in the Treaty, which were at once communicated to Viscount Allenby as likely to prove of value in subsequent negotiations with the Egyptian Government.
The Declaration of His Majesty's Government; in February last terminating the Protectorate over Egypt has conferred no new powers on the Egyptian Government to dispense with the services of their officials. But His Majesty's Government fully realise that it is essential that British officials, in the changed conditions now obtaining, should feel that their future is amply safeguarded, and Viscount Allenby, who is in close touch with the officials concerned, has been instructed to take the matter up with the Egyptian Government. His Majesty's Government will use all their influence in order to secure that an equitable scheme of compensation is put into force with the least possible delay. It would, however, be premature in the circumstances to lay Papers regarding a matter which is at the moment the subject of negotiation.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for his reply. I understand that what caused alarm to these different officials was a speech by Sarwat Pasha, in which he stated that he could not consent to the compensation of British officials, but would leave the matter to be settled by the National Assembly. I presume, as these negotiations are still being carried on, His Majesty's Government will take cognisance of that repudiation. The sooner the minds of our officials
870
can be satisfied that their future is being safeguarded by His Majesty's Government, and that they will not be entirely left out in the cold, the happier they will be. It is only due to them that the Government should recognise the extreme importance of seeing that those who serve the Empire faithfully should have their interests looked after. I trust, therefore, that something may be announced to relieve the minds of these officials.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Nothing can be announced beyond the fact that Viscount Allenby's attention is very closely directed to this particular subject, and he is actually discussing the matter with the authorities in Egypt.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

GENOA CONFERENCE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord MIDLETON, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to lay before Parliament Papers giving the negotiations with the Governments of America, France, Italy, Germany, and Russia which preceded and led up to the Genoa Conference, and in particular showing the efforts made to induce this American Government to take part in the Conference, and ally conditions or reservations under which the consent of the French Government was obtained.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I think my noble friend, Lord Midleton, is not aware that the Resolutions of the Supreme Council at Cannes in January last formed the basis of the Genoa Conference. The text of those Resolutions has already been laid before Parliament in Command Paper 1621, and I would refer my noble friend to it. The decisions regarding the issue of invitations to the various participating Powers are given in that Paper. Since then further Papers, including the reports by the economic and financial experts of the Powers responsible for summoning the Conference, Command Paper 1650 and Command Paper 1667, have been laid. The Government doubts the expediency of laying any further Papers at this moment.
TILE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It was, of course, a perfectly usual practice in

871
the days when most of us remember the Foreign Office that after any great event a Blue-book should be laid giving the correspondence. I rose again for the purpose of giving Notice, on my noble friend's behalf, that on an early date after the recess he will move for these Papers.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  SITUATION IN IRELAND.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it was arranged that we should come to some conclusion as to the Irish debate, if that were possible. I had hoped that the noble Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, would have been on the Woolsack, but no doubt he is detained. It was anticipated that the Secretary of State for the Colonies would have been able to make a statement in another place to-day in respect of the Irish crisis. He has, I understand, not been able to make such a statement, and, moreover, has spoken in very doubtful terms as to whether he will be able to make it to-morrow. If that turns out to be a correct anticipation, and he postpones the statement in the House of Commons until Wednesday or perhaps later, it behoves your Lordships to decide whether the debate should take place in this House to-morrow, as arranged, or not. I understand that His Majesty's Government, as at present advised—although, of course, events might alter their intention—are disposed to think it would be disadvantageous to proceed with the discussion to-morrow.
  In these circumstances, I think, I shall best consult the convenience of your Lordships if I leave the Notice on the Paper to-morrow and decide in the course of tomorrow morning, if my noble friend opposite will allow me to communicate with him, as to whether we should proceed with the debate in the evening. It is possible that circumstances will have arisen between now and then which will enable us to come to a conclusion more easily. In the event, however, of its being necessary to postpone the debate from to-morrow, I should then ask the Government's co-operation in taking it on the following day, or even later, if necessary. Your Lordships will remember that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, told the House that it would not be proper for us to separate without a discussion on the
  872
  subject. I should, therefore, hope to proceed on that basis.
  If the debate takes place to-morrow, as previously arranged, it would no doubt be upon the Motion that I have tabled, but if it is to be a simultaneous discussion with the House of Commons, which will he the case if it is postponed still further, then I anticipate that the Government will be good enough to begin the debate and make the statement for which I asked them two days ago. A statement will be made, no doubt, by the Colonial Secretary in another place, and we should, of course, expect that it would be balanced by a statement here by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, or by any Minister who took charge of the Irish business. I hope that, in what I have said, I have not gone contrary in any degree to what would be the wish of the Government. I should be much happier in discussing this matter if I knew what the intentions of the Government were.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, the only intention of the Government is that this House and another place shall have information at the earliest possible moment. But the difficulty, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, very well knows, is that at this moment the Lord Chancellor is absent owing to one of these conferences going on. For my part I desire to do what the noble Marquess suggests—to recommend him to leave his Motion on the Paper for to-morrow and, if he fails to get an opportunity of speaking on the subject, to put it off until Wednesday. I greatly hope that it will not be necessary to invite your Lordships to sit on Thursday, in the event of it proving impossible to finish on Wednesday. Beyond that, I very much regret that I am not in a position to make any announcement to your Lordships House. The Motion of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, would be, in effect, the first on the Paper for to-morrow.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I presume that the Government will make their statement in both Houses.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If there is anything to state it will be stated there by the Minister concerned, and here by the noble and learned Viscount.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before eight o'clock.