Sitting of 27 August 1887

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock.

MINUTES.
— PUBLIC BILLS — Committee — Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Acts Amendment [252], debate adjourned.
Committee — Report — Labourers' Allotments [329–387].

MOTION.

  SITTING OF THE HOUSE (SATURDAY).
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)moved—
  "That the Sitting of the House this day be held subject to the Standing Orders that regulate the Sitting of the House on Wednesdays."
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he had given Notice that he would oppose this Motion. He really put it to the First Lord of the Treasury whether they were to learn nothing by experience in that House? They were brought down there last Saturday and absolutely no Business was done, the proposition before the House being talked out deliberately till a quarter to 6 o'clock; and they might all just as well have been at home or in the country. He objected to the House being made a plaything in that way, and he had known no previous Session when this regulation was in force on Saturdays. As a matter of fact, at the close of the Session a great deal of Business had to be done on Saturdays; and he said that this Motion was putting a premium on Obstruction, and he would oppose it.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I, Sir, endeavour, as far as I possibly can, to consider the convenience of the great majority of the House; and I desire to act on the presumption that, although there may be
  some Members who may be disposed to obstruct the Business of the House, I should not be justified in supposing that they would receive sufficient support to entitle or require me to make provision against deliberate Obstruction, carried on with a view of preventing the proper conduct of the Business of the House. I will not say more in regard to the proceedings of last Saturday than that after there had been a considerable amount of debate an hon. Gentleman did prevent the putting of the Question when the majority of the House were, as I believe, ready to come to a decision upon it. But we must not surrender altogether the reliance which we desire to place on the good sense, the moderation, and the wish, I believe, of the great majority of the Members of this House, both to forward the Public Business, and to consider the convenience and advantage of the Members of the House generally. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for South Tyrone will not think it right to press his opposition to this Motion; because, as I am informed, it would be greatly for the convenience of hon. Members generally to get away at 6 o'clock. If we should fail altogether to obtain that concurrence in forwarding the Public Business which I am sure will conduce to the credit of every hon. Member, on whatever side he may sit, then I shall abandon all hope of being able to conduct the Business of the House with reference to the convenience of the greater number of its Members, and we shall be obliged to rely on what may be called the brute force of a majority. But I would earnestly appeal to hon. Gentlemen here to-day, having due regard to the very important position which Members of this great Assembly hold in the country, or should hold, irrespective of the particular Party to which they may belong, to facilitate the transaction of Public Business rather than to hinder or in any way delay it. At this period of the Session, the very exhausting labours which have fallen on those who have attended regularly, and, still more, the heavy demand made on the officers of this House and on the Chairman of Committees, justify, I think, the appeal which I make that there should be some consideration for the strength that is allotted to man—some consideration given to those who have great and im-

  165
  portant and responsible duties to discharge. I therefore hope that we shall get through the Business of the day with that amount of rapidity, consistently with the proper consideration of the matters before us, which will enable us to adjourn not later than 6 o'clock.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY)wished to be allowed to correct the view put before the House by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, or, at any rate, to state a different aspect of the question. No doubt, the experience of last Saturday was not entirely satisfactory; but it stood alone. The hon. Member said that the day was wasted, and referred to an undoubted fact that at a quarter to 6 o'clock a somewhat irresponsible Member got up and talked, obviously with the view of preventing any action being taken on the Vote. But the time was not wasted, because an extremely important subject—the question of Egypt—had been discussed and practically exhausted; and even if the hon. Member had not done as he did, it did not follow that the Vote would have been taken on that day. There was still the important question of our relations with France with regard to the New Hebrides, which, undoubtedly, would have had to be discussed, and he was not quite sure that they would have got the Vote under any circumstances. He hoped that the Members of the House would work together to get through the Business before them, and would proceed to do so at once.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsuggested that it would be better to drop the technical Motion, and act on the understanding, and close the Sitting about 6 o'clock. The Committee would then have a protection against talking out. As to the allusion to brute force, the right hon. Gentleman should not say too much, for the Government might find themselves like toothless lions, not having a 200 majority. He wished to ask whether it had been correctly stated last night that no other Business besides the Allotments Bill would be taken to-day?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that with the view of stopping the discussion, he would say that the Government had no desire to take any opposed Business whatever that day after the Allotments Bill had been disposed of. He endea-
  166
  voured on the previous night to ascertain the general feeling as to the adjournment, and he found that it was in favour of the 6 o'clock Rule being enforced.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid, that the county Members on the Opposition side of the House would do their utmost to bring the discussion on the Allotments Bill in Committee to a close before 6 o'clock that evening. All they asked was that their Amendments should be met in a conciliatory spirit.
  MR.BIGGARexpressed his dissent from the theory of the hon. Member for South Tyrone as to last Saturday having been lost by the talk-out on that occasion. The subject was one which had to be discussed, and the discussion was taken.
  Motion agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  HIGHWAY ACTS — THE SALVATION ARMY — RELIGIOUS SERVICES AT STAMFORD.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the fact that members of the Salvation Army imprisoned at Stamford were unable from poverty to pay the fine imposed upon them by local magistrates for obstructing the public thoroughfare, and that in default of payment of the fine they have not already been imprisoned for 14 days; whether, under those circumstances, he does not think the authority of the law has been sufficiently vindicated; and, whether he can see his way to recommend that the remainder of the term of imprisonment of these people be remitted?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I believe the facts are as stated in the Question of my hon. Friend. Moreover, the prisoners in question have been unable, like the two others who were sentenced under similar circumstances, to secure the benefit of an appeal on the question of law involved. In consideration of these facts, and, without at all impugning the decision of the magistrates, I have given directions that they shall be released from further imprisonment.
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he had himself intended

  167
  to question the right hon. Gentleman on this subject; but after the reply of the Home Secretary it was not necessary for him to do so.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT.
  MR.M'CARTANinquired, upon what day the Land Law (Ireland) Act would be printed and circulated amongst the Members? Several Irish Representatives were every day receiving numbers of letters through the post with regard to the issue of the Bill, and there was some anxiety on their part to give a definite reply in the matter.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, the Act in question had been printed, and could now be obtained in the proper quarter.

  LABOURERS' ALLOTMENTS BILL —DEFINITION OF THE TERM "ALLOT-MENT."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked, Whether the President of the Local Government Board had prepared any definition of the meaning of an allotment?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he thought this was a question that, if it was to be raised, should be raised in Committee on the Allotments Bill. He had considered the matter, and had come to the conclusion that, undoubtedly, an allotment did include a garden allotment. But if he were to insert any words to define what was an allotment, he should probably not extend, but restrict, the meaning of the word.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LABOURERS' ALLOTMENTS BILL
  [BILL 329.]
  (Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Secretary Stanhope, Mr. W. H. Long.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 25 th August.]
  [THIRD NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 4 (Improvement and adaptation of land for allotments).
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is the following Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the
  168
  Ashburton Division of Devonshire (Mr. Seale-Hayne): — Clause 4, page 3, line 18, after "think fit," add—
  " And may let or sell any allotment or allotments to the board or managers of any public elementary school for the purposes of technical education."
  This Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill, and therefore cannot be put.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Management of allotments).
  MR. CHANNING: I had given Notice of an Amendment, in page 3, line 19, to leave out "provisions of this Act," and to insert "approval of the Local Government Board," but I will not move the Amendment, as it stands. I would propose, instead of the words "provisions of this Act," to insert "the approval of the Local Government Board and the provisions of this Act." The object of this Amendment is to effect a purpose which is sought to be carried out also by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) in an Amendment he has lower down on the Paper. What is wished is that the regulations to be laid down by the Sanitary Authority in regard to the management of allotments should be subject to the approval of the Local Government Board.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 19, to leave out the words "provisions of this Act," in order to insert "approval of the Local Government Board and the provisions of thisAct."—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): I am prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment, but I do not think that the wishes of the hon. Member himself would be fulfilled by the acceptance of the whole of those words. We should have some other words in order to carry out the object in view. I propose to accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division (Mr. Chaplin), which will make Sub-section 2 of the clause read thus—
  " All regulations under this section shall not be of any force unless and until they have been confirmed by the Local Government Board, in like manner and subject to the like provisions as

  169
  in the case of bye-laws under ' The Public Health Act, 1875.' "
  MR. CHANNING: Then I will withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTON: I do not wish to detain the Committee for more than a moment or two, but I had put down my Amendment on the Paper with a view of limiting to the section "Urban Sanitary Authorities," and introducing another Amendment later, making other arrangements for rural parishes. That has been rendered unnecessary to a great extent by the Amendment of which the President of the Local Government Board has himself given Notice. I am ready to withdraw my Amendment in favour of that of the right hon. Gentleman if he will explain one or two points to me. I do not see anything in his new clause as to the power of the Local Managers in rural parishes to draw up rules, and I do not see anything putting any restraint upon them. I presume the right hon. Gentleman proposes to put in something to that effect in a further Amendment of the clause. Perhaps I had better move my Amendment, in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of explaining the matter.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 19, before the word "Sanitary," insert the word "Urban."—(Viscount Ebrington.)
  Question proposed, "That the word ' Urban ' be there inserted."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): What the noble Viscount proposes, so far as I can understand it, is that the Urban Sanitary Authority should have power to draw up regulations, and that the rural managers should have power, subject to the consent of the Sanitary Authority. I am sorry to say that we are not prepared to accept that. We must adhere to the principle that the Sanitary Authority shall draw up the regulations. We think it desirable that the regulations should be as far as possible of a uniform character and subject to the consent and approval of the Local Government Board, and we propose, in a subsequent section of the Bill, to introduce Amendments in such forms as to effect this object.
  MR. CANNING: This Amendment raises a question of very great importance—namely, the construction the Government are prepared to place on the words Sanitary Authority in that proposed new clause. I should like to say one or two words on the subject, without going into it at any great length. If I am in Order in making a suggestion as to the course the Government might conveniently take on an Amendment which is not now before the Committee, I should say that they would greatly shorten the business, if they would define what they propose to do with regard to urban sanitary districts, and with regard to rural sanitary districts. I have an Amendment upon the Paper which would extend the same privilege of electing "Allotment Managers or "Wardens," or whatever name is chosen, to urban sanitary districts other than incorporated towns governed by a Town Council. I think it is a question of great importance how far the Government are prepared to go in this matter. The Amendment of the noble Lord really raises the question, and I should like to know what position the Government will take with regard to this and to my own Amendment? I hope they may be disposed to meet my own Amendment in the same spirit they are meeting that of the noble Lord.
  MR. RITCHIE: The position which the Government propose to take up with reference to urban districts, as distinguished from rural districts, with reference to the election of allotment boards or allotments wardens, is this. We do not propose that in urban districts—whether municipal boroughs or local government districts—there should be any power of election at all. There may be wardens or managers in urban districts; but we propose that they should be appointed by the Sanitary Authority, and the reason is pretty obvious. Urban districts, whether local government districts or municipal boroughs, are districts, as a whole, for rating purposes. They are quite distinct from rural districts in this respect, because the rate in the latter, if there be any rate for this purpose, will have to be borne by the parish for which the allotments are provided. Therefore, we think that a good deal is to be said for the parishioners, whoever they may be,

  171
  in a particular parish of the rural district, having the power to elect wardens. That does not apply to urban districts, where the Sanitary Authority is of a more satisfactory character than in rural districts. In that case we do not propose that there should be an election of wardens in the parish as in other portions of the district, but that the wardens shall be appointed as a whole.
  MR. CHANNING: Should I be in Order in commenting now on what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman as to the election of those bodies in urban sanitary districts? If I should not be in Order, I will reserve my remarks until we reach my Amendment.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: As to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman behind me (Mr. Channing), I agree with what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. I think it would be better that the regulations should, in every case, be drawn up on the responsibility of the Local Authority. I venture to assume that when this Bill becomes an Act, the Local Government Board will consider the propriety of drafting model regulations which may be adopted, with any local modifications which may be necessary, by the various Sanitary Authorities. It is desirable that the regulations should be as far as possible uniform.
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes; I will undertake to say that this matter shall be considered with a view to carrying out the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. CHANNING: With a view to shortening the proceedings, I would urge my point now in the light of what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). Perhaps the right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken are not quite as well acquainted with the circumstances which have induced me to place my Amendment on the Paper as I am myself. I have no doubt that as regards boroughs—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not say the hon. Gentleman is out of Order in discussing this matter now; but I would point out that he has an Amendment on this subject on the Paper, and that if he discusses the subject when he brings on his Amendment he will not be saving time by going into the matter now.
  MR. CHANNING: I am not referring to the Amendment lower down on the Paper. I am simply referring to the question of the regulations.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The point can be discussed later.
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTON: I will withdraw my Amendment, so that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman can be brought on.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I beg to move, in page 3, lines 19 and 20, to leave out "sanitary authority," in order to insert "local managers." This Amendment raises pretty nearly the same question as that of the hon. Member, its object being to give the local managers the power of drawing up and altering regulations, instead of leaving the matter in the hands of the Sanitary Authority. For my own part, I am very much in favour of letting elected local managers have the power of framing their own regulations, subject, of course, to the control of the Local Government Board. If this is a convenient time to raise the question, I should like to do so. The local board to be appointed under this Act will be a thoroughly representative body, and would be, I think, the authority which should be entrusted with the framing of regulations, subject, as I say, to the authority of the Local Government Board, who, I trust, will frame model regulations according to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, lines 19 and 20, to leave out "sanitary authority," in order to insert the words "local managers."—(Sir. Seale-Hayne.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): This really is the question. We had a conversation about it a few moments ago, when I said that in our view it would be unfortunate if the framing of the regulations were left in the hands of the various local managers in the districts. If we did leave the powers in the hands of the various Local Authorities, we should have different regulations in

  173
  one parish from, those we should have in an adjoining parish. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman points out that the local bodies would be subject to the Local Government Board; but, even if so, scope would be left for considerable difference in adjoining parishes. Subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, there might be awkward differences of view on many matters as between one parish and the other. I consider the authority who should be the governing authority in this matter should be the authority responsible to the ratepayers. It is not at all to be wondered at that the Local Government Board, looking at the responsibility of the Sanitary Authority in that way, has placed upon their shoulders the duty of drawing up bye-laws or regulations which extend throughout the districts. I do not think the matter is one of very great importance, though I can conceive that if those regulations are drawn up in small parishes where there are a great many local influences to be brought to bear on the matter, not in the public interest, but in the interest of individuals, it would be a very bad thing. I can assure the hon. Gentleman who moves the Amendment that the Government are quite as desirous as he can be that all the rules and regulations under this Bill, and all the clauses of this Bill, shall be drawn up in such a way as will give the best guarantee for the working of the measure. And we think we shall secure that better by placing the authority we are now speaking of in the hands of the municipal body, rather than the body elected by the parish.
  MR. LLEWELLYN: I wish to point out that the Committee should bear in mind the difficulty which is likely to arise in regard to correspondence. In all probability the clerk to the Sanitary Authority will have more correspondence in connection with those allotments with the Local Government Board, and with other people, than he can conveniently dispose of. Everyone who is acquainted with municipal work knows what difficulty arises in regard to this question of correspondence. This matter must be borne in mind in deciding the question now before the Committee.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to move to leave out, in line 22, the words "and management."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): I accept it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 22, to leave out the words "and management. "—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  MR. CHANNING: I now beg to move to leave out from lines 22 and 23 the words "and for preventing any undue preference in the letting thereof." I hope this Amendment will be accepted. It does not seem to me desirable that the choice of the allotment tenants should be left in any way to the Sanitary Authority. If we have allotment wardens, or boards, or whatever term we may adopt to define them, it is obvious that the personal relations of the allotment holders will be with that body, and not with the Sanitary Authority. One of the most effective charges made by Lord Salisbury in his speech at Newport in 1885, was that just this power of selection of the tenants would be a means of corruption and improper influence, would be, as he said, made the Budget of the caucus. I think it would be consistent with the object we have in view to adopt this Amendment, as it would give the allotment tenants greater freedom and a greater sense of independence if they had to deal not with the Sanitary Authority but with their own freely elected, allotment managers who directly represented them.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, lines 22 and 23, to leave out the words "and for preventing any undue preference in the letting thereof."—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): I am afraid we cannot accept this Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. The Sanitary Authorities are called upon to make regulations if they think fit, with regard to undue preference, and I think

  175
  it is very desirable that any question arising in this way should not be fought out on a small area. I take it that there are certain general principles which will be laid down in the regulations to prevent undue preference—to specify the persons eligible for allotments, and so on—and those regulations, I imagine, will be submitted to the Local Government Board. I shall propose to draw up, in response to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), model bye-laws and regulations, and one of the regulations undoubtedly will have to be some method of properly working these allotments—they will have to have reference to the business of the managers, and they would also have to prevent undue preference that may very well be expected to exist in small localities.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: I am glad the Government oppose this Amendment, which I think would have a most mischievous effect. All will agree that, under the circumstances which exist in rural districts especially, it is of essential importance that allotment holders should nave confidence in those who manage these matters, and that, above all, the regulations should be laid down by some authority to prevent undue preference which otherwise will undoubtedly be established even where it does not now exist. If we are agreed that regulations should be made for this purpose, can anything be more absurd than that we should have two sets of regulations laid down by different authorities—one by the Sanitary Authority as to the letting of allotments, and another to prevent under preference by the local wardens. This would lead to great confusion, and if the hon. Gentleman will consider the matter for a moment he will see that it would not be practicable.
  MR. CHANNING: As to the reasonableness of my contention I would point out that what really I have in view in my Amendment is that the Sanitary Authority is responsible for everything which may affect the rates. What we desire is that the purchase of the land and all the money matters should be left to the Sanitary Authority to arrange, but that the management of the allotment fields, and the personal arrangements with the tenants should be left to
  176
  the allotment Managers a board directly elected on the one man one vote principle. As I understand that the Local Government Board will draw up model regulations, and that the regulations will in all cases be submitted to the Local Government Board, I shall not press my Amendment.
  MR. RITCHIE: The Local Government Board already issue model bye-laws. It is desirable that the bye-laws should be as much as possible on one model; but we do not withdraw the question of laying down the regulations from the Local Authorities.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg leave to move my other Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 25 and 26, to leave out the words "persons eligible to be tenants of such allotments and the."—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTON: I wish at this stage to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board a question as to title of this Bill. The word "labourers" has caused some misconception in regard to it out of doors, although it has been well understood here that the measure was not to be limited to agricultural labourers exclusively. In order to make this clear, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would consent on Report to omit the word "labourers" from the title?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): I must confess I do not know how this word got into the Bill, as it is not by any means our intention that the Bill should be restricted to agricultural labourers. We desire that the word should apply to residents in towns, and we believe it will be as beneficial to them equally as to labourers in the county districts. I will take care that that will be made plain, and that this word shall be removed.
  MR. CONYBEARE; The object of the Amendment I understand is to deprive the Sanitary Authority of the power of defining the

  177
  persons eligible for allotments. Would it not be better that we should know who we are legislating for? It would be much better that this House should, before the passing of the Bill, lay down clearly the classes of persons who are to be eligible. We should have some definition of the term labourer, or whatever term may be adopted by the right hon. Gentleman.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I would advise the Committee not to accept this Amendment.
  MR CHANNING: On the ground that the regulations have to pass the Local Government Board I shall not press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. COBB: I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, to leave out from "and" to" allotments "in line 27. The effect of that would be to omit the words, "and the notices to be given for the letting thereof, and the size of the allotments." It seems to me that the clauses of the Bill fully deal with the size of allotments.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 26, to leave out from the word "and," to the word "allotments" in line 27.—(Mr. Cobb.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): What I understand the hon. Member to mean is, that the regulations will lay down the size of the allotments. Is that so?
  MR. COBB: What I point out is, that the Bill itself proposes to lay down the size of the allotments.
  MR. RITCHIE: It is true that the Bill states the maximum size of an allotment; but there is considerable scope between an acre, and the size of some allotments. It is not at all desirable that there should be a hard-and-fast line drawn in the matter, so long as the allotments are within an acre. Within that maximum it should be left to the circumstances of the district, and the discretion of the authorities to decide what would be the extent of the allotments.
  MR. COBB: What kind of regulations would be made as to size?
  MR. RITCHIE: I really do not feel called upon to define the size; but I will tell the hon. Member what is in my mind. The Sanitary Authority might have reason to believe that there was a demand in a particular place for a certain number of allotments, and they might seem to provide what seemed to them a sufficient amount of land to meet the wants of the district. The Sanitary Authority might say—" We will provide land for a certain number of allotments," and they might divide the land up into lots of half an acre, or a quarter of an acre. But the Government propose that, in addition to being able to do this, the local managers, where they have reason to believe that it will be desirable to give more than a half or a quarter of an acre, may have power to put two or three allotments together, so as to give a person a larger allotment, provided it does not exceed, on the whole, one acre.
  MR. CHANNING: It is desirable that we should understand this matter more clearly. The Government seem to be receding step by step from their original proposal. It seems to me that if you want to give allotments to people who require them, the simplest way would be to go to the field, which is to be cut up into allotments, and see what the character of it is—they should go to the land, and deal with the matter practically, and determine the size of the allotments, according to position, and to the nature of the soil in different parts of the estate. Your local Boards of Guardians would not have time to carry out this work of investigations; and I think that this is one of the points which should be left to the allotment wardens. It is just the work which should be left to practical men to do.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I do not think it is worth while to spend the time of the Committee upon this Amendment, as the general provisions relating to allotments would cover this point It is evident that a labourer with a large family of grown-up lads should get an acre from whoever has the granting of the allotments, whereas a man who has no children, or very few, or very small children, would be satisfied with half an acre, or a quarter of an acre. I do not think my hon. Friend need press the Amendment, as it is covered by the

  179
  general provisions expressed by the Bill.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: It is not a matter of importance; but I would ask the Government to accept this Amendment. You may have a clashing of authority between the Sanitary Authority and the local boards or wardens. In one particular parish the people may desire to have large allotments, and they may be granted to them; but in another parish a hard-and-fast rule may be laid down that no allotment shall exceed a quarter of an acre.
  MR. COBB: My reason for wishing to leave those words out is exactly what my hon. Friend has described. It is said that different people may want different sized allotments; but if you have fixed regulations applying to everybody in the parish, your provision dealing with size will be inapplicable.
  MR. RITCHIE: The land for allotments must be obtained by the Sanitary Authority under some kind of system. I do not think it is right or fair to take a piece of land, and then say to the local managers, "We give you full power to cut this land up in any way you please." I quite concur that there must be considerable margin left for the Local Authorities outside the regulations made by the Sanitary Authorities. The Sanitary Authority may say that the land shall be cut up into half or quarter-acre allotments, and the local managers, within the limits of the Bill, will be able to say how many of these plots shall be given.
  MR. COBB: In my view, what the Sanitary Authority should do would be to find out, before they buy the land, the quantity which would be required. I do not wish to press the Amendment to a Division, but I did desire to explain my view on the matter to the Committee.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: These are only enabling words—then why not leave them out?
  MR. CONYBEARE: It appears to me that the same question we are endeavouring to deal with will arise again further on. The point at issue is as to whether all these regulations should be laid down by the Sanitary Authority, extending over a large area—extending over every parish in that area—or whether you should leave the regulations to local managers?
  180
  It seems to me the best thing you could do would be to give general powers to the Sanitary Authority, but to leave all the details of management to the Local Authority, leaving to the latter the settlement of such question as the size of allotments. They will be the best Local Authority, and will know the wishes of the population and the characteristics of the district much better than the Sanitary Authority, whose jurisdiction may extend over a large district, and who may be too busy with other matters to go into these points of detail. That is the real issue; and I put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether, to avoid the clashing of those authorities, it would not be better to leave out some of these words, and leave something to the discretion of the allotment wardens. The right hon. Gentleman says it is necessary to have some system but I do not see how that would be interfered with by giving a certain amount of discretion, with regard to those regulations, to the allotment wardens. The Sanitary Authority, when applications are made to them for allotments, will consider the general sense and desire as to the number of allotments required, and will be able to frame a general scheme, but would not be so well able as the other authority to go into points of minor details as to whether a certain man shall have half an acre, or a quarter of an acre, or an acre.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I wish to move an Amendment of which I have given private Notice.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment, I think, will come in better in the next clause.
  MR. COBB: I think, Sir, you must have passed over other Amendments.
  THE CHAIRMAN: This is an Amendment in manuscript.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: The Amendment I wish to move will come in, in line 27, after the word "allotments." I wish to add, "not exceeding three acres of pasture, and one acre of arable land." This seems to me to be a very important Amendment which we shall certainly have to discuss. I will not detain the Committee for any length of time on this question, because it was

  181
  thoroughly threshed out on the second reading. The object of the Amendment is to enable allotments of three acres of pasture land to be given to those who desire them, without interfering with the provision to allow one acre of arable land. I believe everybody has made up his mind either for or against this proposal; but I hope the Government, if they have not quite decided, will accept my proposal, because, whilst thankful to them for the Amendment which they have proposed, giving cow runs, that is to say, common lands, the Bill will be ineffective, especially in certain districts of the West and the North, if labourers are not allowed to have three acres of pasture land, which, so far as the Amendment is concerned, is equivalent, or less than equivalent, to one acre of arable land. If the Amendment is accepted, then the Bill will be of extra value, valuable as it is already, because it will apply not only to the labourer, but to the villager—that class of population which those who are acquainted with villages know are to be found there, such as hay tyers, hauliers, road makers, and so on; people who may have a small amount of capital, and plenty of leisure. I have in my mind, also, such people as the village shopkeeper, who has very little to do except on market days. There may be only a very small number of people to whom this Amendment will apply; there will, perhaps, not be many of those whom it is sought to assist by this Bill, who will be able to keep a cow, and who will desire to have three acres of pasture. It is absurd to suppose that if we give this power, everyone is going to rush in for three acres of land. Nothing of the kind. Only a few in a locality will be likely to avail themselves of it. I contend that it will be a great incitement to thrift, and I believe that there will be a sufficient number of people to avail themselves of these powers to get over that terrible want—namely, the want of a proper supply of milk. I am sure that this proposal will solve the difficulty. There will be one or two, or three or four persons in a parish who will apply for three acres to enable them to keep a cow.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not out of Order in moving this Amendment here; but I think it would be more convenient if he moved it on Sub-section 30, Clause 6. All he pro-
  182
  poses to do is to fix the maximum limit.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I think the Amendment would come in quite as well here. It is a direct instruction on the matter. It would be better to insert the Amendment here, while we are dealing with the size of allotments.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will see that his Amendment is really cutting down the power of the authority who may, according to the Bill, so far as we have gone, grant even five or six acres. His Amendment is not of an enlarging nature, but quite the reverse.
  MR. COBB: I would also appeal to the hon. Member to put this Amendment in a different place.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Is it the pleasure of the Committee that this Amendment be withdrawn?
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: No, Sir; I thing this is the best place to put the Amendment in, and I therefore move it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 27, after "allotments," to insert the words "not exceeding three acres of pasture and one acre of arable land."— (Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHANNING: It really seems most undesirable to go outside the ordinary structure of the Bill. In the 6th clause we have provisions as to the statutory conditions on which allotments are to be let. It is obvious that it would be more convenient to take this discussion upon that clause.
  MR. COBB: I should like to ask you a question, Sir, upon a point of Order. If this Amendment is put, it will obviously preclude me from moving an Amendment I have down upon the Paper, and which I think is of great importance. I handed it in this morning. It is to the effect that the allotments shall be of such size that the Sanitary Authority, after taking into consideration the nature of the soil, and the employment and circumstances of the applicant and his family, shall determine.
  MR. CHAPLIN: On the point of Order, Sir, I shall like to say I desire to move an Amendment limiting the size of the allotments to half-an-acre. If this

  183
  Amendment is conceded, I presume I shall have no opportunity of moving my Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Clearly, if the Committee decides upon three acres, the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to move his Amendment limiting the size of the allotments to half an acre.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): The Government regard this as a very important question; in fact, as the only important question of principle which remains to be settled. This may possibly be an inconvenient, place to raise the Amendment; but the view of the Government is this—that the sooner we get the discussion over the better. There is one additional advantage to my mind in taking the discussion now, and it is that it will dispose of a great many other Amendments. That is an advantage of which I am very sensible. I need hardly say that the Government entirely sympathize with the object the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings) has in view in proposing this Amendment. I take it there is no difference between him and us in reference to the acre of arable land, that is, the size to which the Government propose to adhere. The real point is whether the authorities shall have the power to give one acre of arable land or three acres of pasture land. In our view, when the allotment amounts to three acres of land, it assumes very much the aspect of a small holding, and in the opinion of the Government, that is rather outside the four corners of the Bill. The Bill proposes to provide for the labouring man something upon which he will be able to expend the capital which he possesses, and which, as a rule, in his surplus labour. We believe that with half-an-acre, or, in some cases, an acre of arable land, there is no reason to suppose that the labouring man will not be able, in his surplus time, to so cultivate the land as to confer upon himself a very large and valuable benefit. It must be seen that the only necessity in the case of an acre or less of arable land is, that the man and his family should have labour to devote to the cultivation of the allotment. But, when you come to the question of three acres of grass land, two matters of diffi-
  184
  culty arise. First of all, I can easily conceive that in those very places where allotments are most required, according to the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division (Mr. Jesse Collings)—that is to say, where milk is scarce, and that I presume is in non-grazing counties. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: No, no!] The hon. Gentleman says "No, no!" and I will withdraw the remark, although I still retain my opinion. I should have thought, but I am subject to the correction of the hon. Gentleman, who has paid a great deal of attention to this matter. I should have thought that in those places in which there was a scarcity of milk—namely, in arable counties, it would have been almost impossible to obtain the land to provide three acres if there was much demand. But even if that were not so, it is clear that the allotment holder's labour is not the only capital he requires upon three acres. The plot would be of no use to him, unless he were able to put a cow upon it, and that entails a considerable amount of capital, more capital than I should say it is at all likely that nine-tenths of the labourers have. I know of many parts of England in which pasture allotments are extremely successful; Lord Tolle-mache has provided a large number of grass allotments on his estate in Cheshire, but, according to my information, everyone of these allotments has a cottage attached to it. The allotments on Lord Tollemache's estate are very successful, but I imagine that a very large amount of the success that has attended the allotments is due to the fact that they are attached to cottages. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jesse Collings) has said that the Government propose an alternative scheme, which is not without value. We have been unable to persuade ourselves that it would be a wise or a practical thing to allow the Sanitary Authority under this Bill to provide three acres of pasture if applied for; but we do what we consider is the next best thing. We propose to allow Local Authorities to provide land for common, pasture, and in that I believe we are going back to the ancient custom of providing for the inhabitants of villages a common pasture for their cows. Now, we believe that the right of a man who has a cow to put his cow on a common pasture during the grazing season will

  185
  be of considerable benefit to him, but I am afraid that further than that we cannot go. I may point out to the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing whatever in the Bill, so far as I can understand it, which will prevent a labourer having an allotment of arable land, and being also able to put a cow to graze upon the common pasture. Nothing at all, so that it may very probably be that a labourer who has an arable allotment may also keep a cow. I am afraid that, however willing I feel personally to do all I can to meet the undoubted want which exists, and which the hon. Gentleman has done so much to supply, I cannot consent to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman empowering Local Authorities to provide pasture allotments, which will require capital not only for stock but for the fencing of the land, and this would render the Bill practically inoperative, and might lead to very considerable difficulty. We have done all we can to enable Local Authorities to provide common pasture, and I hope that our efforts will receive the approval of the Committee.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: The Amendment which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings) raises two questions, the one a question of procedure, and the other a question as to the merits of the Bill. With regard to the question of procedure, I am sure we shall all be inclined to pay great respect to your authority, Sir; and I understand you are of opinion that it would be more convenient to take this discussion on a subsequent clause. But, at the same time, I may point out to you that the inconvenience is entirely due to the action of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Eastern Division of Northampton (Mr. Channing), because what is the state of the case? The facts are rather interesting, and I think the Committee should be made aware of them. Everyone knows that my hon. Friend the Member for the Bordesley Division has taken exceptional interest in this subject, especially with reference to the desirability of providing in rural districts facilities for labourers and others to obtain three acres of pasture land. So much is that the case, that it has almost become the soubriquet of the hon. Member that he
  186
  is the Member for "three acres and a cow." Under those circumstances, it will not surprise the Committee to learn that the moment this Bill passed the second reading my hon. Friend put down on the Paper an Amendment which, if accepted, would have given to the labourer an opportunity of obtaining three acres and a cow. This Amendment my hon. Friend proposed to insert at the end of the sub-section. Thereupon, the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of Northampton (Mr. Channing), desiring to anticipate my hon. Friend the Member for the Bordesley Division put down subsequently an Amendment upon an earlier portion of the clause, which proposed to omit the sub-section, and to come in with exactly the same words as my hon. Friend the Member for the Bordesley Division. So that the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of Northampton, in fact, says to my hon. Friend the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham "sic vos non vobis," and, like the cuckoo, proposes to oust the hon. Member from the nest he has made his own. I really cannot be surprised, under these circumstances, if my hon. Friend persists with his present Amendment, if he endeavours, in fact, to reinstate himself in what I may call his political possession, although I cannot at all sympathize with the disappointment of the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of Northampton (Mr. Channing). Now I come to the merits of the proposal. I must say I support most strongly the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for the Bordesley Division, and I regret exceedingly that the Government do not see their way to accept it. I think that, by rejecting it, they are doing much to lessen the value which would otherwise attach to this Bill, and I cannot say that the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) are at all convincing to my mind upon this subject. The right hon. Gentleman has told us, and I for one desire to express my gratitude to the Government for what they have done, that he has provided in this Bill, or proposes to provide by Amendments he has put upon the Paper, for giving the labourers a commonable right of pasture which, he says, is in some sort of way an alternative to the proposal of my hon. Friend (Mr. Jesse Collings).

  187
  But does not the right hon. Gentleman see that, if he thinks there are grounds for providing this alternative, he cuts from, under his feet almost all the objections which he has taken to the proposal of my hon. Friend? If, as he says, it will be in many districts impossible to obtain land for the purpose of giving three acres of pasture to the labourer, still more will it be impossible to obtain land for the purpose of providing commonable rights of pasture. If it is true, as he says, and I dare say it is true, that in many cases a labourer would be unable to find the capital which would be necessary to provide a cow for three acres of pasture, the argument applies to the case of the cow placed on the commonable pasture as much as to the case of the cow placed on the three acres. Consequently, the objections which the right hon. Gentleman has taken, if they are really valid, apply equally to the alternative proposal; but, Sir, are they valid? The right hon. Gentleman says that there would be difficulty in obtaining in some cases the necessary land. Well, of course, if that difficulty amounts to this, that land cannot be obtained at a reasonable price, the Local Authority has full discretion and will not be called upon to provide it. All we ask is that the Local Authority shall have power to provide allotments where the land exists. [An hon. MEMBER: Compulsory?] Certainly; but I do not know what the object of the interruption is. It does not in the least touch the objection made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie). The right hon. Gentleman told us that the Local Authorities would not be able to obtain land at a reasonable rent in certain cases. In such an event, there would be no compulsion upon them to take the land, nobody would expect them to do so. In a vast number of cases, however, there is no doubt Local Authorities could easily obtain pasture land for the purpose of of allotments, and all we ask is that in such cases, and where a demand is proved to exist, they should have this right given to them. Well, then the right bon. Gentleman says that in many cases the labourers would not have the necessary capital. I have talked to many labourers on this subject, and they have always said to me—" It is true a great
  188
  number of us may not have capital, and probably never shall; but others of us have either a little money in the bank, or we have friends who will advance us the necessary funds, and therefore we could at once put a cow on the land if we had it." I know many cases in which labourers, who now enjoy the possession of allotments—thanks to the voluntary concessions which have been made to them by landlords—have begun perhaps with some poultry and a pig, then they have got a calf, and in the due course of nature that calf has become a cow. I am quite certain that in this, as in so many other cases, where there is a will there is a way; where these people have a desire for this facility they will find the means of acquiring it. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) has referred to the case of Lord Tollemache's estate. I can see that illustration has created a great impression upon his mind, because there is no doubt that Lord Tollemache's experiments is the most successful, and most striking experiment which has hitherto been made in reference to allotments in the United Kingdom. Lord Tollemache has some hundreds of labourers who enjoy the facility which my hon. Friend the Member for the Bordesley Division desires that labourers in other parts of the country should enjoy equally. I think that in pasture districts like Devonshire, parts of Wiltshire, and many other counties I could name, facilities of this kind would be experimentally adopted. I believe it would be of great advantage to the labourer and his family. Certainly, I shall vote with my hon. Friend, and I very much regret that the Government have not seen their way to adopt the Amendment.
  MR. CHANNING: I heartily agree with all the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) has said, except with his reference to myself which, I think, was somewhat ill-timed, and occupied unnecessarily some time of the Committee, which might have been given to more practical purpose. But as the right hon. Gentleman has taken this course, I will, with the permission of the Committee, say one word in reply to the pointed personal attack of the right hon. Gentleman, and will state exactly what has occurred. Let me

  189
  point out the fact of which the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, that the whole body of the Liberal County Members—who are really more concerned in this matter than anybody else—met, and went into the subject as soon as the Bill was printed. They appointed a Committee to draw Amendments on certain lines—and these Amendments were brought before the General Body at a subsequent meeting and approved— which were to be brought before this Committee. The principle which is embodied in my Amendment we considered a very good one, and we had no idea that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings) would in the least quarrel with us for agreeing to propose it for adoption by this Committee. It was in pursuance of this discussion that I put this Amendment with others upon the Paper. It is not my fault that it found its way there before the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: It was put down after my hon. Friend's Amendment had been placed upon the Paper.
  MR. CHANNING: It was not put down afterwards. I give that statement my most emphatic contradiction. The whole of my Amendments had been drawn up, and were handed to the Clerk at the Table directly after the second reading was agreed to. Those Amendments included this one which, of course, we thought would be heartily supported by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jesse Collings). As the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Chamberlain) has charged me with borrowing Amendments from other people, I should like to ask how it is that, when it was perfectly well known through the Press that the Liberal County Members' Committee had decided upon an Amendment embodying a popular initiative to compel the Local Authority to act, although that principle was not embodied in the Bill of the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings), that hon. Gentleman put down an Amendment to give a popular initiative in anticipation? [Cries of "Order, order!"] I will not pursue that point further. With regard to the main question, let me say that the arguments of my right
  190
  hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) must seem to be absolutely sound to anyone acquainted with the working of the small allotment system. Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie), that a great many of these grass allotments in Derbyshire have no buildings upon them, except perhaps a small shed, and that the people using them live in the neighbouring town and villages. I do not feel the least hostility to the proposal of the Government in regard to common pasture which the Committee will know was first made by the noble Lord the Member for Hampshire; I think it is a very good one, but it is desirable that power should be given to Local Authorities to provide grass allotments also. On the allotments' estate adjoining one of the towns I represent, part of the allotment farm is specially allotted in grass allotments to tenants and members of the association who occupy the farm.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: The difference between the Government and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division (Mr. Jesse Collings) is very simple. We all desire the same thing. We all desire that the labourer should have a cow, and that that cow should produce milk for him and his family. My opinion is this, that it will be much more convenient and much less expensive for labourers to run their cows on one piece of pasture, than for each labourer to have a single cow on a separate plot of three acres in extent; because each piece of pasture land must be fenced round, and each cow must be kept separate in each plot of three acres, and a cow does not care about being separated but always wants to get to the cows in the next plot. Suppose you take a pasture field of 18 acres in extent, and divide it into these plots of three acres each; you would have nearly a mile of fencing to keep up, and no agricultural labourer would have the time, much less the material, to keep the fencing in repair. There is one other reason why there is not so much pasture land in this country as there otherwise would be. I should like to lay down some of my arable fields into pasture, but I cannot

  191
  do so because I get no water for the land. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) is aware that calves grow into cows, he may not possibly be aware that a cow will not produce milk unless you give it water to drink; and it is scarcely possible, in fact it is impossible, that upon each three acre plot of pasture there can be water for a cow to drink. Therefore, so far as my practical experience goes—and I am a farmer myself—I think it would be more convenient to the labourer for us to adopt the suggestion of the Government instead of that made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division (Mr. Jesse Collings). I quite agree that it is extremely desirable to provide small holdings for labourers, and when that question comes before Parliament, whether it is brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham or by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division, I shall be disposed to support it. I shall not only like to see holdings of three acres in extent, but of 10, 20, 30, and 40 acres, so that we might enable labourers and small traders to rise from that particular condition in life in which they now are, to a more superior one.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I will not enter into the discussion as to who is to have the credit of this Amendment. If my hon. Friend the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings), my first leader in this matter, gets posession of the field I shall vote with him, if anyone else gets possession of the field I shall vote with him. Now, we have had the farmer experiences of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Newington (Mr. Radcliffe Cooke), and they seem to me to be rather singular. It so happens I have been fortunate enough to live all my life in districts both in Yorkshire and in Hampshire where these small holdings exist, and therefore I am perfectly acquainted with the conditions in respect to them. I have said before in this House, that as a boy, I knew perfectly well that cottagers used to have plots of two or three acres, and that they never had any difficulty whatever in having their cow. I appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down. He
  192
  says there is to be a commonable pasture. What is the cow going to be fed on in the winter? Everybody knows that a man who keeps a cow must have hay to feed it upon in the winter months; where is that hay to come from? If a small farmer or peasant has three acres of pasture land, he shuts off half of it for hay and gets his little stock of hay for the winter. It is well known that the small pasture allotments are the best grass land in the whole parish, because there is more manure put on them, and there is more stock kept upon them per acre than upon the large farms; I have seen on these little plots the best grass fields in the whole parish. Often on three acres there will be a cow and its followers, and sometimes more than one cow, and that is a stock which no large farmer keeps per acre upon his land. I entirely agree with the proposal of the Government that there should be commonable pasture; it is a common thing in Yorkshire for labourers to turn out their cows in the summer months upon the parishings; they thus relieve their little plots of land for the time and are able to get hay off them. I gladly accept the proposal of the Government, though not as a substitute for the three aero plots. It is not always certain, however, that commonable land is a good thing. If there is any cattle disease about it is not wise to turn cows upon land where other cows are running. I know many people who do not like to take advantage of turning their cattle into the New Forest, in consequence of the fear of their being attacked by disease; therefore the proposal of the Government cannot be regarded in any degree as a substitute for pasture allotments. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) say that in pasture counties it was easy to get milk. Anyone who has experience in the matter knows that these are the very places where you cannot get milk. A man gets very jealous of his milk when he is in the habit of turning it into butter or of using it for other purposes, and while it is one of the commodities of the district he will not part with it at any price. I attach immense importance to this Amendment for other reasons. No one can know the working classes without feeling that one of the

  193
  great disadvantages they have in this country is that if they make a little money they do not know what to do with it. It is worse here than it is in France, or in any other country. In France there is a great habit of investing money in the Public Funds and in other securities which do not exist here. One way in which artizans invest their money here —in many country towns, at all events— is in building houses. This encourages them to save for that purpose. I maintain that every encouragement to thrift ought to be held out to the agricultural labourers. How many people think there is a difficulty about labourers getting cows. There is, practically, not the difficulty which many people imagine. I have known hundreds of cases where labourers have had their cows. It is asked what happens to a man if he loses his cow? It is the habit in many parishes with which I am familiar for men to subscribe to a cow club, and if any misfortune happens to a cow of a member of the club he is recouped his loss. There is not the smallest doubt that with ordinary good fortune a man may make 7s. or 8s. per week out of his cow, besides paying a fair rent for his land. He can perfectly well afford to pay £2 an acre, or even more, for his grass land, and will have a moderate profit. He has the skim milk for the family and also for the pig which he has, and at the end of the year he has often a little money besides as the result of the working of his allotment. I am perfectly convinced, from practical experience, that the allotment system is one of the best methods by which we can improve the condition of the agricultural labourer, and therefore I hope the Government will reconsider their determination in this matter. I cannot see what objection there can be to giving discretion to Local Authorities to supply allotments as they have been supplied in innumerable cases of which I am perfectly cognizant. If there is any grass land which the authorities want for allotments, why not give them power to acquire it? There is another consideration which, I think, recommends the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham. None of us desire that these allotments should displace the ordinary labour of the land. Well, observe that pasture land requires less labour of a man than by a spade
  194
  allotment. A spade allotment must take up a great deal of a man's time. In these long days when a man knocks off work at 5 o'clock he has time to work on his spade allotment; but when the days become short the whole of his time must be occupied in his ordinary labour. But in the case of grass land there is no labour required except in gathering in the hay, in which a labourer would, be assisted by his neighbours. During the rest of the year there is, practically, no great call upon his labour. His wife can attend to the cows when they are brought up for milking, and in the winter only a short time is required for feeding the cows in the shed, which may be done after dark. Therefore, if your desire is—and I am quite sure the desire of everybody is—not to interfere with the time of the labourer, and therefore not to do injustice to the farmer, I think it is well that we should encourage pasture rather than tillage upon these small holdings. That has certainly been my practical experience. I have very often seen that a man cannot find time to attend to an arable allotment, but that, with the assistance of his wife and children, he can successfully hold a pasture allotment. A pasture allotment gives the labourer that which is the most valuable of all commodities which can be given to the families of the labouring poor, and that is milk. Everybody who knows the North Country—everybody who knows Scotland — knows that though a man has the advantage of running his cattle on the hills he is obliged to have his little farm. It is there that we get the best milk we can find in the world. You have got there a stray on the hills; but that is of no good by itself. A man has a little plot in which to enclose his beast. Surely, it is well that the Government should not shut the door to the practical proposal of my hon. Friend (Mr. Jesse Collings). If pasture allotments cannot be granted they will not be granted; but why should you not enable them to be provided under circumstances where they can be provided, and where they can be provided for the benefit of the labourers? I shall certainly support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I cannot help thinking there is some inconvenience in discussing this Amendment at the present moment. Everybody will agree that when we

  195
  come to a consideration so important as this—namely, what is to be the price of the allotments—the question ought to be decided by the Statute itself, and not by the regulations of the Local Authorities. There is another inconvenience also in discussing this Amendment. The Amendment is divided into two parts. One part deals with the question of three acres of pasture, and the other provides that there is to be one acre of arable land. I wish, before this discussion closes, for an opportunity to be afforded me of submitting to the Committee some of the views I entertain. I hope I shall be able to show, however unpopular the view may be, that it would be a better and more business-like way of dealing with this question to limit the maximum in ordinary cases to half an acre instead of one acre. I am anxious to say a few words on this subject, although I confess, after the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Northampton (Mr. Channing), I have great diffidence in doing so. The hon. Member has informed us that the Liberal County Members—that is to say, himself and a little clique who act with him— have a great deal more to do with this matter than anyone else in the House. We have been favoured with the hon. Gentleman's presence in this House for about a year, and I must say that, under these circumstances, his suggestion is about as cool if not impertinent a one as can be imagined. I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman provides allotments for the people who live around him, and that he has great practical experience in the matter; but he is not the only person who has experience in the matter, and I think it is rather hard if Members on the Conservative side of the House are not to be allowed to express their views. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) expressed the hope that the Government will not close the door upon this question. Now, I do not think that is quite a fair observation with regard to the attitude of the Government, because since the Bill was laid on the Table of the House they have introduced Amendments which, in their opinion, will go a long way to meet the views of the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham upon the question of pasture land for labourers. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby
  196
  says there will be great difficulties attaching to the proposal of the Government to provide commonable pasture. He says, where is the hay to be grown for the winter? How are the cows to be kept during that part of the year? Surely the right hon. Gentleman should know there is nothing new in this proposition. It is practised in many parts of England already. I do not think I know a single parish where there is not what is called a cow run or a cow gate —cow gate is the expression in my county. When commons were ploughed up grass land was provided as a substitute, and they are the cow gates and cow runs in which each cottager has a right to run a cow. Cottagers provide their own hay, and their own accommodation for the cow. The present practice answers remarkably well, and I do think that, under these circumstances, it is rather hard to accuse the Government of trying to shut the door to the adoption of this proposal.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I did not accuse the Government at all. I am extremely glad they have made their proposal; but I think it ought to be supplementary to that of my hon. Friend the Member for the Bordesley Division. I do not underrate the value of their proposal.
  MR. CHAPLIN: The right hon. Gentleman certainly appealed to the Government not to shut the door to this question. I am endeavouring to show that the Government have tried to provide a substitute, and, as I think, a substitute which would be more workable than the proposition of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division. The real difficulty appears to consist in this—that this Amendment raises the whole question between allotments on the one hand and a system of small holdings on the other. [Cries of "No, no ! "] Well, but I think it does. It is impossible to deny that three acres of pasture plus one acre of arable land does constitute a small holding and ceases altogether to be an allotment. Of course, I cannot expect that hon. Members who are in favour of providing small holdings by compulsion at the cost of the rates—and that is a proposition entertained by many hon. Gentlemen in this House—I cannot suppose for a moment that they will agree with me in my view of this Question. I have never

  197
  yet been able to see my way to adopt that proposal, and I confess I do not see it at the present time, and that will be my reason for opposing the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham. In the case of an arable allotment, pure and simple, all the capital that is required is the labour of the man who holds it. The case is totally different when you come to deal with pasture allotments. Then you are confronted with all kinds of difficulties at once. There are the questions of capital, of buildings, of repairs, and you convert the Local Authority at once into a landlord with all the responsibilities of a landlord. Who is to manage these estates? You will require an agent; indeed, the system will be liable to every kind of jobbing it is possible to imagine. I confess I do see the greatest possible practical difficulty in providing small holdings in great numbers for the population by compulsory powers of law, and at the expense of the ratepayers of this country. It has been pointed out that this has been done already with great case by Lord Tollemache. I happen to know a great deal about Lord Tollemache and his estates. Lord Tollemache has two estates; he has one estate in Cheshire, and he has another in Suffolk. Cheshire is a purely grass county—at all events, the district in which he lives is a purely grass district. There the system has been adopted without difficulty, and I can quite understand that in purely grass districts it may possibly be carried out. But you are legislating not for purely grass districts, but for the whole of England, and Lord Tollemache's position illustrates the difficulty which will be found to exist. In Suffolk—which is a purely arable county—Lord Tollemache has not adopted the allotment system, and if he desired to do so he would find it impossible to carry it out. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby gets over the difficulty by saying that where there is no grass land it will not be taken; but there is no parish in England where there is no grass land. It is the large and small paddocks round the farmer's homestead that are extremely valuable to him, and without which it would be impossible for him to carry on his business or occupation with anything like success. It is the small plots of grass land—if the hon. Mem-
  198
  ber's Amendment be adopted—that you are going to place it in the power of the Local Authorities to take by compulsion and at the fair market value of the land. Under these circumstances, I must say I can see the greatest possible difficulty in carrying out this proposal. But that is not all. You have to provide accommodation under the Bill for artizans in towns if they desire it, and it is not only three acres of pasture you are going to ask for power to take—the hon. and learned Member for West Newington (Mr. Radcliffe Cooke) just now said he would like to see these allotments extend to 30 and 40 acres. When I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman I could not help thinking what would be the position of a landowner owning an estate in the neighbourhood of a large and populous town if any considerable number of artizans moved the Sanitary Authority to proceed in this matter, and to provide each of them with 30 or 40 acres of land.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman is rather amplifying the discussion. The proposal is to restrict the allotment to three acres.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg your pardon, Sir. I was led away by the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for West Newington. But even in the case of three acres the difficulty would be very considerable in many parts of the country, as I have endeavoured to point out, and that is the reason why I must vote against the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. In conclusion, Sir, I should like to ask you whether the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman may not be divided into two parts, and a discussion taken upon the parts separately?
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is competent for any hon. Member to move an Amendment to this Amendment.
  MR. H. GARDNER: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in the remarks he made as to the procedure adopted in regard to this Amendment. I have an Amendment of my own dealing with the question which I should like to have an opportunity of moving. I do not think the difficulties of procedure have been at all alleviated by the course adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). The question as to who is to

  199
  have priority is hardly worth the consideration of the Committee. For my part, if an Amendment is moved for the benefit of the agricultural labourers, and not merely for an electioneering purpose, I shall very gladly welcome it, no matter whether it proceeds from the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings) or from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), or anybody else. Under any circumstances, Sir, I am extremely glad we have got at last to the question of three acres and a cow. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said a labourer would not be able to obtain the capital sufficient to purchase a cow. I think anybody who knows anything about allotments will be able to tell the right hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. I venture to re-echo the words used by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham on a previous occasion—namely, that if we give a labourer three acres there is not the slightest doubt but that the cow will follow. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division took occasion to differ from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) as to the cow-runs which are proposed to be provided by the Government. Personally, I heartily welcome the Amendment which the Government has put upon the Paper. I think it will be of the greatest practical service to the labourers. At the same time, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby that it will be found almost impossible for labourers, if they are able to obtain a cow and to send it in the cow run, to provide hay for the winter unless they have some pasture of their own. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said that the labourers were to send their cows in the cow run during the grazing season, and he added that if they had an arable allotment they would be able to keep I their cow in that during the other part of the year; but I should like to know, Sir, how it is possible for a labourer to grow, on an arable allotment, anything to keep the cow during the winter? Is the cow to nourish itself with potatoes and other produce? [An hon. MEMBER:
  200
  He may grow roots.] I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that he may grow roots; but he has to grow something for his family also, and not for the cow. If he is simply to have an arable plot on which to grow food for his cow, I think it would be far better to give him at once one acre of pasture land on which he can grow hay. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division said that by giving him three acres of pasture, and also an acre of arable land, you would be approaching the subject of small holdings, about which there is a great difference of opinion. I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the difference between small holdings and allotments appears to rest on this—if the labourer is able to perform other work besides attending to his farm his farm becomes an allotment; but if he cannot do anything else but attend to his land it becomes a small holding. I certainly think that a labourer will be as well able to attend to three acres of pasture as to one acre of arable land, and, at the same time, faithfully discharge his duties to the farmer. The crofters of Scotland always succeed best when they have something to labour at besides their crofts. Reference has been made to the case of Lord Tollemache. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite as well as I do that Lord Tollemache only gives allotments to men who have other employment besides their allotments. I think that proves that three acres of pasture may be considered as an allotment. I have detained the Committee too long already. I do feel so strongly on this matter that I cannot give a silent vote. I trust the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division will proceed to a Division. If so, I shall certainly vote with him.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must again point out the extreme inconvenience of the way in which this question has come up; indeed, I think that the proposal is not well understood. In my opinion the Amendment would defeat the object aimed at. The proposition is to insert, after the word "allotment," the words "not exceeding three acres of pasture and one acre of arable land." It is, therefore, a restrictive proposal, and if the Committee refuse to accept it the effect will be that there will be no restriction whatever. The Committee

  201
  will have decided that there shall be no restriction as to the price of the allotments, which is scarcely what is desired, I think, by those who propose the Amendment. If the Amendment is rejected the subsequent part of the Bill, restricting the allotments to one acre, must be cut out, being inconsistent with this Amendment.
  MR. RITCHIE: I should regret extremely if all the discussion we have just had is to be wasted. I hope that if the discussion is resumed on another Amendment credit will be given for the speeches now made. But with reference to the particular point immediately before us, let me remind you, Sir, that this is a clause which simply deals with the managers of the allotments.
  MR. CHANNING: May I be allowed to say, by way of personal explanation, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) wholly misunderstands me? What I meant by my reference to the Liberal county Members was that county Members, on whatever side of the House they sit, are more directly concerned with this subject than borough Members, and represent those who are specially interested.
  MR. COBB: Mr. Courtney, should I be in Order in moving an Amendment to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings)? My Amendment will make the hon. Gentleman's Amendment more restrictive; it is to insert, after the word "not," in the hon. Gentleman's Amendment—
  " Less than such size as the Sanitary Authority, after taking into consideration the nature of the soil and the employment and circumstances of the applicant and his family, shall determine."
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not know that it would be out of Order to move such Amendment; but it would involve us in greater inconvenience.
  MR. COBB: I wish to put it to you, Sir, that if the present Amendment is disposed of in any way, I shall be precluded from moving my Amendment, in which I have taken particular interest. If I cannot move it in its proper place, I should like to move it now.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: Upon the point of Order, would it not be possible, if this Amend-
  202
  ment is rejected, to move later on an Amendment of a similar nature, but differing in the size of the allotment?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Committee cannot negative its own conclusion; having once come to a conclusion, it cannot reconsider it.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: According to your ruling, Sir, the effect of this Amendment would be such as neither I nor my hon. Friends contemplate. I do not want to steal a march on the Government in any shape or form, neither do I want to waste the time of the Committee by a fruitless discussion. I therefore ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: The Amendment which I rise to move has for its object to prevent such things as the cultivation of the land in rotation of crops being left in the hands of the Sanitary Authority, who have, as at present constituted, no practical experience or interest in allotment culture; whereas the men to be elected as wardens will be persons who are in close touch with the labourers who cultivate the allotments. I think this Amendment should commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 28, to leave out the words "cultivated and."—(Mr. Halley Stewart.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. RITCHIE: I do not think these words at all imply what the hon. Member supposes. I imagine that the meaning of the words is that the Sanitary Authority shall lay down certain regulations with the view of securing good and proper cultivation of the land. I hope the hon. Member will not press the point. The regulations will have to be submitted to the Local Government Board, and nothing unreasonable will be accepted by them; but it is an essential proposition that in the management and cultivation of allotments, and within certain limits, the local managers should be allowed liberty of action.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: The definition is that of the Government; it is not my own. If you are going to

  203
  exclude interference in the cultivation of the land I will not press my Amendment; but I will simply point out that the suggestion is in the words of the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 28, to leave out the words "and manage."—(Mr. Cobb.)
  Question, "That those words be there left out," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, at the end of sub-section (1.), line 28, to insert the words—"Provided that all such regulations shall make provision for reasonable notice to be given to a tenant of any allotment of the determination of his tenancy." —(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. RITCHIE: I promised I would accept the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) with reference to the Local Government Board approving the regulations. It seems to me better that that Amendment should come in at this point, rather than at the place at which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to introduce it. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman provides that any regulations made under this section shall not be put in force unless and until they have been confirmed by the Local Government Board in like manner and subject to like provisions as in the case of bye-laws under the Public Health Act of 1875.
  MR. CHAPLIN: The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman will meet my views entirely.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 28, to leave out the words "be binding on all persons whomsoever," and insert "not be of any force unless and until they have been confirmed by the Local Government Board in like manner and subject to the like provisions as in the case of bye-laws under 'The Public Health Act, 1875.' "
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 28, after the word "them," to insert the words—"Provided that if in any
  204
  case there be a larger number of qualified applicants for allotments than there are allotments of suitable size to be distributed among such applicants, the allotments shall be assigned by lot."—(Mr. Channing)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR.RITCHIE: I would point out that we have already provided that the regulations shall lay down certain provisions with reference to undue preference; but with regard to the Amendment, I wish to say that there may be many cases in which—quite apart from the question of undue preference—some discretion should be allowed to the Local Authorities in making allotments. I do not think it would be wise to introduce a hard-and-fast line. We can all understand that it would be right to give the preference to a thrifty as against a thriftless man; and, again, there might be cases in which the circumstances of one man's family render him preferable to another who does not stand in so favourable a position—that is to say, that it might be more necessary for one man to have the allotment than another. For these reasons I do not think it proper to bind the authorities down in the manner proposed by the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: If the hon. Member for East Northampton (Mr. Channing) will consider a little further, I think he will perceive that the effect of his Amendment will be to restrict the operation of the Bill. We have already decided that every qualified applicant shall be provided for; but this Amendment presumes that there are a number of qualified applicants for whom land cannot be got.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHANNING: In moving the Amendment next upon the Paper in my name, I propose to leave out the words "and in every parish of every rural sanitary district," which are now contained in it. The object is to provide that country towns and districts which are under urban Sanitary Authorities should have the same privilege of electing local managers to deal with the allotments that the Government themselves propose to give in regard to the management of allotments in rural sanitary districts. The position of many country towns and of rural districts in this

  205
  matter are practically identical; and hon. Members will recollect that the Local Boards are not elected on "the one man one vote principle, but by the plural vote, and on a property qualification, so that they practically stand upon the same footing as the Guardians. It follows, therefore, that the same argument applies to the Local Authorities in the one case as the other; and I am quite sure that many hon. Members know that the requirements of the artizans in the two districts are identical.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 35, leave out sub-section (3) and insert,—" In every urban sanitary district, not being a municipal borough, where the provisions of this Act are carried into effect, within two months after the completion of the purchase or hiring of land by the sanitary authority for letting in allotments, an allotments management committee, the number of which shall be fixed by the sanitary authority, and which shall serve for a term of three years, shall be elected under such regulations as the Local Government Board shall from time to time issue for that purpose: Provided always, that the election of such allotments management committee shall be by ballot, that all ratepayers of such district or parish be entitled to vote at such election, or to be eligible to be nominated as candidates for the allotments management committee, and that, in voting at such election, no ratepayer shall give more than one vote to any candidate, nor give more votes than the number to be elected."—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. RITCHIE: The only point to be considered on this Amendment is whether, in the local government districts and urban districts, wardens and managers shall be appointed. The whole question is one which was shortly alluded to at the commencement of Business this morning, when we considered whether the same proceedings should be adopted with reference to the two districts in connection with another subject. I pointed out then why we should not assent to the proposition of the hon. Member whose Amendment was under consideration. Our point is this. In the rural districts there is a very widespread area composed of a considerable number of parishes. The particular parish is the area over which every loss would be spread, if loss is sustained; and there is, therefore, a great deal to be said in favour of the proposition that the management should, as
  206
  far as possible, be left in the hands of persons elected by the ratepayers of the parish. As far as the urban district is concerned it is a district, as a whole, for rating purposes, and is not split up in the manner of rural districts. It is a small district in most cases, and the authority for the district imposes the rate upon the whole district. The Government, therefore, think that in this case, as well as in the case of a municipal borough, the Sanitary Authority ought to have the whole responsibility of the management of the allotments. Therefore, we propose that the managers shall be appointed by the Body responsible to the ratepayers, and not elected as in the rural districts. Under the plan proposed by the hon. Gentleman all sorts of difficulties will arise by dividing these urban areas into small districts. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman will, therefore, in our opinion, be impracticable.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: I hope my hon. Friend the Member for East Northampton (Mr. Channing) will press this matter to a Division, if the Government do not give way. It will be a very simple matter for the Government to insert this Amendment; it can be done in one line. At present you have two authorities, both of whom are elected on a popular basis. Why not a third?
  MR. RITCHIE: The object of the Government is to make this Bill work. The effect of the proposal would be to place a large urban district in a state of turmoil, and put it to a great expense, for the purpose of electing managers who are to act with the Sanitary Authorities in this matter. I really do not think the game is worth the candle.
  MR. F. S. POWELL: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will adhere firmly to the position he has taken up. If there is one mischief greater than another it is that of breaking up areas into subordinate areas; that has, more than anything else, tended to introduce confusion into our system of local government, and I certainly hope that this Bill will not be marred by any such provision.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 40, after the word "persons," to add "residing in the locality of."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Provisions as to letting and use of allotments).
  MR. CHANNING: It will be in the recollection of those Members of the Committee who were present at the debate on the second reading of the Bill that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said that one principle of the Bill was that land should be let at the agricultural value; and that is the principle which I have embodied in this Amendment. If hon. Members will refer to the 2nd sub-section of Clause 2 they will see that the Sanitary Authority is prevented from buying land which they cannot let at rents which will recoup the expenses. The present clause provides that the land should be let at a rent which may be reasonably expected to secure the Sanitary Authority from loss. This is a sort of see-saw, which shows clearly that a definition of what is a reasonable rent is required. Now, that is exactly what I propose to carry out by my Amendment, and, for the reasons I have stated, I hope it will be accepted by the Government.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 10, leave out from the word "The" to the word "land," in line 14, and insert the words "allotments shall be let at such rents as agricultural or pastoral land of the same quality and similarly situate is usually let for in the same parish, with such addition to the said rents as is necessary to cover all expenses incurred by the sanitary authority under Clause 4 of this Act."—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Northampton. The hon. Member says that on the second reading of the Bill I made the statement that the rents were to cover the value of the land. That is perfectly true; but it will be in the recollection of the Committee that I made two propositions on the occasion —first, that the authorities should let the land at such rents as would prevent the local rates being drawn upon; and, secondly, that in fixing the rents, sub-
  208
  ject to that, regard should be had to the agricultural value of the land. The hon. Member's Amendment brings in a number of disputable questions, and a great many points are raised by it which would be very difficult for the Sanitary Authority to provide for. I think it only reasonable that if the Sanitary Authorities are to secure themselves from loss, the allotments should be let on the terms proposed by the clause.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I think the clause of the Government secures the object which the hon. Gentleman has in view far better than his Amendment. It secures to the authority a certain liberty of action, whereas the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would compel them to make nice calculations so as to insure that the rent should exactly correspond to the agricultural value, and yet be sufficient to prevent loss. A similar difficulty arose in regard to the trustees of charities before the Act of 1882. Before then the Charity Commissioners did not like to take the responsibility of letting at a strictly defined as well as a fair price lest the charities should suffer; but, since the Act of 1882 gave them a certain amount of liberty and discretion, they have been willing to let. I think it would be far better to allow the Sanitary Authority to act freely, subject to the provisions of the Act, than to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, which I think would not have the effect which he desires.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: What we want is practically a definition of the term "reasonable rent." I cannot find that this is explained in any part of the Bill. We were promised by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that there should be an explanation of the term; but we have not yet received it. I would suggest that the Amendment of my hon. Friend should be qualified by the insertion of the word "approximate," in reference to the rent of either agricultural land or pasturage, and I think that in that form the Government may fairly be expected to agree to it.
  MR. RITCHIE: Our object is a reasonable object, and we hope that the Sanitary Authorities will endeavour to carry out the Act in the spirit in which it has been drawn. I cannot help deprecating what appears to me to be an un-

  209
  reasonable suspicion of hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to this authority. I am afraid the word "approximate" will not meet the objections of the Government.
  MR. CHANNING: I think that those suspicions are not unnatural, considering who are the people with whom we have to deal. A recent article in The Mark Lane Express, which, hon. Members will know, accurately represents the opinion of just the class from whom Guardians are generally chosen, throws the utmost contempt on the Bill on this very point. I shall not withdraw this Amendment, because I think it carries out the distinct pledge given by the Government on this matter.
  MR. F. S. POWELL: I wish to point out that there is a definition of rent in line 13, which says—
  " Such rents may be from time to time charged as are reasonable, having regard to the agricultural value of the land."
  That appears to me to be a sufficient indication for all practical purposes; and if the Local Authority is not to be trusted in this matter, I am afraid the whole of this Bill is a mistake.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I wish to point out that this clause is far more peremptory than that which the hon. Member for East Northampton proposes. It tells the Local Authority that the rents must be such as are reasonable without putting the Sanitary Authority to any loss, subject to the condition that the Sanitary Authority are to charge rents having regard to the agricultural value of the land. I am of opinion that if this Amendment were adopted, it would introduce restrictions and difficulties in the way of attaining the object of the Bill.
  MR. CHAPLIN: If the hon. Member for East Northampton (Mr. Channing) insists on dividing the Committee on his Amendment, for which I cannot conceive that there is the slightest necessity, I hope he will do it at once or not at all. We wasted five minutes just now through his determination to divide the Committee, and then no Division was taken.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member press his Amendment?
  MR. CHANNING: Yes.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. FULLER: There are two parties to this question of what is a reasonable rent. If the clause
  210
  goes so far as to protect the ratepayers, I think we ought to give the tenants the assurance that they shall not pay more rent than that which amounts to the expenses and the cost of obtaining the land. I do not myself approve the principle of allowing the rent of allotments to be a subsidy to the rates in any way, and I think the idea that the rents payable under this Bill are to go in any form to subsidize the rates will destroy the confidence of the labourers in the Bill. If we allow the rents to subsidize the rates, and allow Corporations to purchase land and lot it at such rent as they please, and which they may call reasonable, the result will be that exorbitant rents will be paid by the tenants. There is one corporate town which possesses a large amount of land that is let to tenants, and the authorities consider that £13 an acre is a reasonable rent for the tenants to pay; and, not satisfied with that, they have endeavoured to let a portion of the land for building purposes, in order that the rates may be further subsidized. The result of this was that almost a riot took place, the tenants refusing to have their land taken from them. We do not desire that corporate bodies should become land-jobbers; and my view is that the tenants ought to be assured that they will not have to pay one sixpence more than the actual cost of the land, and the interest on the money borrowed for the purpose of acquiring it, together with the rates and taxes and the necessary expense for making boundaries, roads, and so forth. I maintain that the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper gives a clear definition of the term "reasonable rent," by saying that the Rural Sanitary Authority in fixing the rent shall not charge more than what may be reasonably expected to cover them from loss, and I hope it will be accepted by the Government.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 11, after the word "less," to insert the words "but not more."—(Mr. Fuller.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I quite sympathize with the object the hon. Gentleman the Member for West-bury who has just sat down has in view; but, at the same time, the Government is unable to insert these words.

  211
  If the hon. Member means that the power to charge rent shall not be used for the purpose of subsidizing the rates we are agreed; but I think it is necessary that the clause should remain in its present form, because there are many considerations which must be taken into account by the Local Authorities in fixing the rent, such as bad debts and other matters of which it is impossible to make an exact estimate beforehand. That being so, I think it would be very undesirable to add the words "but not more," which would compel the authorities to make an exact estimate and place them in a very difficult position. If there is any danger of the surplus of the rents being applied in aid of the rates this can be provided for by specific directions.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. COBB: I wish to say a few words in support of the Amendment which I rise to move. I have in my hand a book written by a Conservative barrister of great authority —Mr. Hall—who advises Lord Onslow in regard to all legal matters connected with allotments. He says that payment in advance is not recommended except where the class of tenancy is peculiar, or to meet special cases. And he goes on to say that the amount of risk is so small that the mode of payment provided for seems to afford sufficient security. This relates to Lord Onslow's tenants and to the Nottingham allotments. In the case of Lord Onslow's tenants the rents are not exacted in advance, nor is the Irish tenant required to pay the rent of his holding in advance. If that is so, why is the English shopkeeper or the artizan or labourer to pay the rent of his allotment on the principle proposed in this clause? I do not see that there is any reason in the world why the allotment tenant should pay his rent beforehand, and I hope the Government will accept the Amendment which I beg to move.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 14, to leave out the words "not more than a quarter's," and insert the word "no."—(Mr. Cobb.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I cannot think that the hon. Member has
  212
  understood the scope of these words or the object of introducing them. It must be remembered that Parliament is going to give the Sanitary Authority power to acquire land compulsorily, and in my judgment it is the duty of the Sanitary Authority to protect the rates as well as the interests of the labourers. These are not compulsory words; they are limiting words, introduced to meet the case where it is desirable from the circumstances that the rent should be paid in advance. Supposing that a case arose in which the Sanitary Authority thought it proper to ask for the rent to be paid six months in advance, this clause says you shall in no case exact more than a quarter's rent in advance, and that appears to me to be a reasonable provision, enabling the Local Authority to protect the rates.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I contend that the retention of these words will make the payment of a quarter's rent in advance the invariable custom. Supposing a man is unable to pay his rent at the end of a quarter; it would be perfectly possible for the Local Authority to take such measures against him as would coerce him into paying his rent, or, if not, he could be dispossessed of his allotment. It seems to me there is no danger, as far as the rates are concerned; and if there is not, why do you make such provisions as will cover the possibility of bad debts? It will be a great hardship if you compel these men to pay their rents a quarter in advance, as would undoubtedly be the effect of this clause, because many of them are not in possession of such an amount of capital as would allow them both to pay their rent in advance and stock the ground. These men might, perhaps, have a difficulty in scraping together the money necessary to work the allotments. What would happen? The labourers are anxious to take up these allotments; they may, by borrowing from their friends, get the necessary tools and seeds for the first season's work. Now, is it very reasonable to ask that they should pay a quarter's rent in advance when they have no capital? I say it is not, and that the payment of rent should be left till the end of the quarter, by which time something may be made out of the land which will enable the labourer to pay the rent. I do not believe that any danger would arise to the ratepayers from the Amend-

  213
  ment of my hon. Friend. On the other hand, you will, by retaining these words, he hanging a millstone around the necks of the labourers, and defeating the purpose of the Bill, which you allege to be that of conferring a benefit on the labourers. I think the words which my hon. Friend proposes to strike out are most mischievous.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I venture to think that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is absolutely and entirely wrong in the whole of his argument. There is nothing in the clause, as it stands, to prevent any Sanitary Authority adopting precisely the rules which the hon. Member who moved the Amendment (Mr. Cobb) cited from Mr. Hall's book. I admit that it would be very hard to make all allotment tenants pay a quarter's rent in advance, and nobody desires anything of the kind. The Local Authority is the trustee for the ratepayers, and you are bound to give him the power of securing the interests of the ratepayer.
  MR. RITCHIE: We do not wish that these words should remain, and I am quite ready to strike out "and not more than a quarter's rent shall be required to be paid in advance," so as to omit all reference to the subject. The Amendment, however, of the hon. Member would make any insistance on rent in advance illegal.
  MR. COBB: I regret that I cannot agree to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. We must not forget that when the rents have been paid the parish will then have the land for nothing which will have been bought out of the rent of the allotments. I do not see how I can withdraw my Amendment. I wish to press this point—namely, that no allotment holder ought, in my opinion, under any circumstances, to be called upon to pay rent in advance.
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTON: There is one objection to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that the Local Authority could demand six or even 12 months' rent in advance if they liked, if these words are left out. I do not think that any landlord would make that arrangement in the present day with his tenants, and therefore I do not think it right in the case of allotments. I think if the right hon. Gentleman were to allow rent where necessary to be claimed weekly it would make the Sanitary Authority
  214
  safe, and enable them to deal with the tenants with whom they might expect to have trouble in collecting the money. I do not think it reasonable to put in a provision which no landlord could persuade any tenant to agree to.
  MR. M'LAREN: I would point out that if we merely remove these words from the clause, it will be at the option of the Local Authorities to charge a whole year's rent in advance, and make any other conditions they may think fit. The words as they stand are, to a certain extent, a safeguard. But I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should not be willing to agree to the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Cobb). The Local Authority would only stand in this case in the same position as the Local Authority which becomes a manufacturer of gas, and there is no more reason for charging these rents in advance than there is for charging in advance for gas or water. A labourer's wages are not paid to him in advance, and he does not have to pay house rent beforehand. I think we should be content with leaving the Local Authority in the position occupied by a landowner, and that we should provide that no rent is to be paid in advance.
  MR. RITCHIE: I do not think at this moment I should go into the question of gas lighting and water, which are not on all-fours with that which is now before us. But I would point out to the noble Lord the Member for the Tavistock Division of Devon (Viscount Ebrington) that when a man who the landowner thinks cannot pay wants to take his land he can refuse to let him have it. Now the hon. Gentleman wants that the Sanitary Authority should not be allowed to ask for any rent in advance; then, on the supposition that they are applied to by a man who is neither likely to do justice to the land nor to pay the rent, are they to let that man have the land? Is it not better that they should have the power to say—" You may have the land, but we must have some rent in advance? "
  MR. M'LAREN: Is it intended that the payment shall always be a quarter in advance?
  MR. RITCHIE: The authorities are not compelled to ask for any rent in advance, and I hope that the necessity will seldom arise.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to add words

  215
  definitely showing that it will be optional on the part of the Local Authority to require such payment in advance?
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes.
  MR. LLEWELLYN: I am of opinion that it will be fatal in a great many oases to the operation of the Act to bind down the authorities by unnecessary words and limitations. A safeguard of this kind I think is absolutely essential to meet some cases which are likely to arise; and no authority would, I should say, undertake the letting of land without it. It is all very well, to speak of what may take place between private individuals; but this is an entirely different matter. It is not to be supposed that the authorities will always insist on having rent in advance; but, as I have said, to compel them to let without doing so, as is proposed by hon. Members, would be to defeat the object they have in view, because no authority would undertake the responsibility without the discretionary power provided by the clause.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: The effect of an Amendment of this kind is a double one. It is, no doubt, extremely undesirable that in the majority of cases the rent should be asked for in advance, and it would certainly be unpopular. If, however, the Local Authority were positively prohibited from stipulating that some rent should be so paid, the result would be that they would refuse many of the applications made to them. As an illustration, I have no doubt that the Town Council of Birmingham will avail themselves of the powers given by the Act to a large extent. The applicants for allotments will be numerous; and I ask whether it is likely that the Town Clerk can examine into the characters and qualifications of the scores of persons who will apply, and see whether every applicant is able to pay the rent of the allotment? If an applicant is allowed to pay a quarter's rent in advance, the matter will at once be settled in his favour—a simple solution which would not be possible were the Amendment of the hon. Member accepted.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 127; Noes 76: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No, 428.) [3 P.M.]
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 14, after the word "advance," to
  216
  insert the words "in any case where it is deemed necessary by the sanitary authority."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I rise to move the Amendment in my name, which provides that for the purpose of the Parliamentary franchise, and the municipal and all other local franchises, the tenants shall be deemed to be the occupiers, and that the rates have been paid by them notwithstanding the previous provisions contained in the Bill.
  MR. RITCHIE: We accept that.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am of opinion that this cannot be introduced here. The Amendment can be made on Report.
  MR. RITCHIE: I will take care that the Proviso is inserted on the Report.
  MR. CHANNING: In rising to move the Amendment which stands in my name, I do not propose to add anything to what I said earlier in this discussion. The matter has already been so fully discussed that I will content myself by moving the Amendment without further argument.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 25, to leave out sub-section (3), and insert—" Each allotment shall consist of not more than one acre of arable, or three acres of pasture, but the sanitary authority may let more than one allotment to the same person." — (Mr. Channing.)
  Question proposed, "That the words ' one person shall not hold any allotment or allotments' stand part of the Clause."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): I have nothing to add, with regard to this Amendment, to what has been said in the discussion that has already taken place. I will, however, make an earnest appeal to the Committee. We have had an adequate discussion on this question, and I hope hon. Members will be satisfied with that discussion, and allow us to go at once to a Division. We have only two hours at our disposal, and I sincerely trust that we shall be able to finish this stage of the Bill to-day.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: Hon. Members who have opposed this proposal have assumed that it is necessary, where a cow is kept, to

  217
  fence in the land; but everyone knows that it is far better that cattle should be tethered as in foreign countries, and that they should not be allowed to roam about and destroy the pasture. It would be much better if the feeding were carried on as it is in Switzerland and other countries.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I cordially welcome the proposal of the Government for the creation of cow pastures. That is the old principle of common rights, and it shows a complete change of views on the part of the Government with reference to this subject; but I am bound to say that it is not, in my opinion, quite a substitute for the proposal of the hon. Member for East Northampton (Mr. Channing). This matter ought to be regarded, in my opinion, not merely with reference to economical considerations, but also from a political point of view. There is no other country in Europe where the agricultural labourers pure and simple who work for others are not the owners of land to a considerable extent. I believe I am right in saying that at least one-half of the agricultural labourers in Continental countries are owners of from a quarter of an acre to three or four acres of land. This country is the great ex-ception—and it seems to me to be a dangerous exception—to this rule. I admit that a change can only be effected in the direction of a more widely distributed ownership by a slow process; but, in the meantime, it seems to me that it would be a wise and in the highest sense a truly conservative thing for the Government to do what it can to faciliate the enjoyment of land by agricultural labourers. I therefore entreat the Government not to deal with this as a Party question, but to allow the Committee to vote upon it without reference to Party considerations, and then I believe it will be found that the balance of feeling in the House is in favour of the proposal of the hon. Member for East Northampton. Experience has shown how cow allotments can be enjoyed by the agricultural labourer in Yorkshire, Derbyshire, and other parts of the country, and therefore all the arguments used against the proposal fall to the ground. I think we should recollect that only one-third of the land of this country is arable, and that pasture is
  218
  increasing in every direction, the result of which is that less labour is being employed on the land, and it is rendered more and more important that the interest of the agricultural labourer should be considered. As I have said, the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is truly conservative, and will benefit the agricultural labourer in the highest sense of the term.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER: I rise to make something in the nature of a personal explanation in connection with this matter of cow pasture. As it is my Amendment which the Government have accepted, I wish to state that I do not for one moment regard these cow pastures as substitutes for allotments. I look upon the question of cow pasture as standing side by side with the question of grass land; and while expressing my pleasure that the Government have accepted my Amendment, I would impress upon them the importance of considering an extension of the Act in the direction asked for by the hon. Member for East Northampton.
  MR. JOICEY: I think it is important that this question should not be decided without full consideration. [Cries of" Divide! "] I believe every Member of the Committee has a right to speak on this question, and therefore that I am entitled to make some observations. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has undoubtedly made a great change in this matter of allotments. I do not know whether that change has been brought about by the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings); but it is not long since the Government and their supporters generally considered that allotments should not be given at all. I think the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division has possibly not been so successful as he wished to be. The Bill before the Committee is one which will simply give gardens to labourers who have not got them already. In my part of the country every agricultural labourer has a garden, and therefore I may say that in the counties of Northumberland and Durham the Bill will confer no benefit whatever. We want something more than is offered by the Bill; we want the agricultural labourer to have something

  219
  more than vegetables for his table of his own providing. If possible we want him to have a cow, and for that purpose we must give him at least three acres of grass. From this considerable advantages would result, among them the advantage of education, because very few families really know anything about the making of butter and the management of cattle. We shall thus confer a double benefit. Again, we shall encourage the labourer to exercise thrift, because when once a man gets a cow he will naturally begin to make the most of his position. These are things which we ought to encourage, and I believe that the effect of the Bill, if we succeed in this Amendment, would be to create a demand for larger allotments. We have butter, eggs, and cheese imported from abroad in enormous quantities; and I am sure we shall not be able to produce the amount of food required in this country until we have not only a system of allotments, but also a system of small holdings suitable for farming purposes. Finally, I say that by accepting this Amendment we shall, by inducing agricultural labourers to work these allotments themselves, give them the hope of getting small holdings of their own, and thereby confer a real benefit on the agricultural community. I hope my hon. Friend will press his Amendment to a Division, and that the result will be favourable to the agricultural labourer.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I should like to understand before we go to a Division whether it is intended that the labourer shall have an acre of arable land, or whether, in addition he is to have three acres of pasture for a cow?
  MR. CONYBEARE: The argument of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board is that three acres would be of no use for keeping a cow, and that the proposal to give this quantity of land assumes the possession of more capital than the labourer is likely to have. But that is a question which depends on the character of the labourers. We have heard it stated that artizans as well as labourers are to be admitted to the benefits of this Bill; and, that being so, it is quite open to belief that they will be able to get sufficient capital for the purpose of getting
  220
  a cow. I live in a county where it is almost impossible for agricultural labourers to get any milk at all. The whole of it is sent to London, and that shows the reasonableness of what we are urging upon the Government. The hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) said that we are going back to the ancient system of common right under the provision offered by the Government. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) stated in a volume published some time ago that more than 6,500,000 acres of land had been taken from the people of the country; and I think, if we are to go back to the ancient system, we should begin by giving back that land. But there is one suggestion I should like to make, and which has not been brought forward in the course of this discussion. It is this—you will do a great deal of benefit by giving these allotments, because the young people living in the different localities will have an inducement to remain there. At present, there is not sufficient employment in the country for young men as they grow up, and consequently they drift into our great cities. That is an admitted evil, and I contend that the great advantage of allotments would be that by them will be provided an easy kind of labour with which old men can occupy themselves in their declining years, and that young men will be raised up to take their places in the field. This is one of the highest advantages which the Bill can be made to confer, and I urge it upon the consideration of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) is always saying that arable land does not pay the farmers. If that is so, there is all the more reason why arable land should be cut up and turned into these small holdings. I regard this Amendment as a critical and a test Amendment; and the Division will show who is in favour of the agricultural labourer and who is not.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I support this Amendment very heartily, because I have had the opportunity in Ireland of seeing the enormous difference between families who have cows and those who cannot keep them. I think it is a very great advantage that

  221
  the children of a family, especially the girls, should learn to milk, because in the Colonies and in other conditions of life in which they may be placed it would be of the greatest service to them. Another point in favour of this Amendment is that it can be very easily put in operation by the authorities. They have only to take a field of 30 acres, subdivide it, and let it to the people who want it. I have already told the Committee that it is my intention to move that the Bill should be extended to Ireland; and I support this Amendment, because the value of the Bill will thereby be greatly enhanced.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has stated that the Government wish to make this Bill work; and I can assure him that the desire is shared by all Members on this side of the House. Now, it is ridiculous to suppose that one acre of land is sufficient for the keep of a cow. You have to provide hay for the winter, and it must be extremely good land if less than three-quarters of an acre would produce sufficient hay for a cow during the winter months. Again, I think the right hon. Gentleman spoke of roots; but roots alone will not keep a cow. We have great experience of cow-keeping in Northumberland and Durham, where the cattle roam over large areas of such land as is proposed by the Government to be given, in addition to the allotments. I do not believe that any labouring man can, by spade work, make these allotments pay. What we want is one-eighth, or even a sixteenth, of an acre of garden land; and, for cow-keeping, three acres of good, four acres of indifferent, and a larger area of poor land. I trust the Government will agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Northampton.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 85: Majority 23. — (Div. List, No. 429.) [3.55 P.M.]
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire move his Amendment?
  MR. CHAPLIN: Yes, Sir; in line 25, I wish to
  222
  leave out the words "one acre," in order to insert the words—
  "Half an acre, but if the claims of other applicants have first been satisfied, and if there afterwards remain allotments for distribution, more than one allotment may be let to the sama person."
  I will not detain the Committee for more than two or three moments, or, at any rate, for more than is necessary, to explain the object of the Amendment, and the reasons why I propose it. The Committee will observe that in the Bill the maximum for an allotment is fixed at one acre. Perhaps, as a general rule, one acre would be the amount granted; but I provide in my Amendment that the maximum should be half an acre, with the proviso that in certain circumstances the authorities should have power to grant more than one allotment to the same person. It would not, therefore, if my Amendment were accepted, be necessary to limit the maximum amount to one acre. I think a hard-and-fast line is undesirable, and that some discretion, under peculiar circumstances, ought to be left to the Sanitary Authority. As the Bill is drawn, it withholds discretion altogether, and under no circumstances can anyone hold more than one acre. My experience with regard to this matter teaches me that undoubtedly, as a general rule— and I do not suppose that either the Government or hon. Gentlemen opposite will doubt it—half-an-acre for allotment purposes is ample, and is very often more than ample. It always seemed to me, with regard to this particular question, that one acre is neither one thing nor the other. One acre is too small for a holding or a farm, and, as a general rule, it is too large for an allotment pure and simple. I have spoken to a great many agricultural labourers on this question. I have conversed with them and ascertained their views, and I find that in almost every case where I have let allotments myself and have taken pains to ascertain what is the amount of land that the peasantry really require, that in 99 cases out of 100 half-an-acre is as much as they can do with. I am certain that the result of giving an acre will be that in general cases where one acre of land is given it will be badly cultivated, as it will be more than the man can really manage; but if you give half-an-acre, it will be cultivated to per-

  223
  fection. Upon this subject I would quote an authority which, unless I am very much mistaken, will be regarded as a very high authority by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am sorry I have not got a copy of the evidence taken before the Agricultural Commission with me; but I can tell the Committee from memory what Mr. Joseph Arch stated to that Commission some years ago. I gather from his evidence that, as a general rule, he thought that a quarter of an acre would be sufficient for an allotment; but he said—
  " What I would do is this—I would not lay down any limit at all; I would give a man a quarter of an acre to begin with, and if he cultivated that well I would give him another quarter of an acre; but if he did not cultivate it well I would not give him any more."
  That is what I now ask the Committee to do, only that instead of giving a quarter of an acre I am much more liberal than Mr. Arch. I am aware that there may be exceptions to the general rule. There may be cases of men with large and very industrious families, and in these cases I can believe that one acre might be well cultivated, or even two or three acres; but such cases, I venture to say, would be amply provided for by this Amendment. However unpopular this proposal may be with hon. Members who wish to develop this allotment system into a system of small farms or holdings, I declare that the Amendment is the result of personal experience, and that I should be failing in my duty if I did not put the matter frankly and fairly before the Committee. I am certain that if you want to make a practical, business-like arrangement, you will limit the maximum of your allotments to half-an-acre to begin with. I beg leave to move my Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 26, leave out the words "one acre," in order to insert the words "half an acre; but if the claims of other applicants have first been satisfied, and if there afterwards remain allotments for distribution, more than one allotment may be let to the same person."— (Mr. Chaplin.)
  Question proposed, "That the words ' one acre ' stand part of the Clause."
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG): Everyone will admit at once the great experience of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin), and every-
  224
  one will admit his right to express an opinion on this subject. No one has a better right to express an opinion upon it. I have paid close attention to his observations, and I have considered his view; but I think the Committee will see that between the proposal of my right hon. Friend and that contained in the Bill there is very little difference. My right hon. Friend proposes that in cases where tenants are able to work more than half-an-acre, more than half an acre should be granted; but under the Bill the Sanitary Authority would have power in cases where they thought that an acre would be too much to grant allotments of a smaller extent. I admit the correctness of the statement of my right hon. Friend that in 99 cases out of 100 half-an-acre is as much as any labourer can want or can work with satisfaction or profit; but, on the other hand, there are cases which have occurred within my own experience within the last 12 months, where applications have been made by 10 or 12 persons to have a larger grant to begin with, and the Government think that it would effect the object that we have in view much better by enabling the Sanitary Authority to grant a maximum of one acre where they think it desirable, with power to reduce it where they do not think it desirable. We think that there is sufficient difference between the two proposals to justify us in adhering to the proposal in the Bill, and in thus leaving it to the Local Authority to grant an acre if they think fit.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment. The subject of it has practically been disposed of, and as we have a great deal to do to-day I think he would be acting wisely in refraining from pressing his Amendment.
  MR. CHAPLIN: If I thought that by pressing my Amendment to a Division I could carry it, I certainly would press it; but, under the circumstances, as I gather I shall not have much support, I should only be wasting time by insisting upon my proposal, and I therefore withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I have an Amendment, in line 26, to leave out "one acre," and

  225
  insert "six acres." May I ask if that is now out of Order?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I have the following Amendment on the Paper, in line 40, after the word" allotments," to add the words—
  " But at any time during a tenancy, and before the expiration of any notice determining the same, such stables, cattle sheds, pigstyes, fowl houses, greenhouses, and tool houses, together with fruit and other trees and bushes, may be removed by the tenant."
  I see the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board proposes to insert this Amendment, in line 36, after "building," to insert "other than a tool house, green house, fowl house, or pigstye." The right hon. Gentleman has adopted my Amendment, but has left out the words "stables" and "cattle sheds." I would put it to him that a stable may be absolutely necessary to the occupier of an allotment. He may have a pony or donkey, and surely a place to stable it will be as necessary to him as to have a stye for his pigs or a house for his fowls. There is another Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for North Dorsetshire (Mr. Portman), to add after "tool houses" the words "and a common barn," and if that Amendment had been placed before the House I should have been ready to accept it, because I consider that a common barn may be as necessary to some allotment holders as a fowl house or a pigstye or a stable.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member move his Amendment?
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: Not the one next on the Paper. I understand there is an Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board which will precede the one to which I have been referring. I would propose to insert in the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment the words "stables, cattle sheds."
  MR. LONG: The Government cannot possibly accept this Amendment, and I would point out to the hon. Member that the only reason he has submitted to the Committee for its being adopted is that if an allotment tenant desires to keep a donkey or pony he should have a place to keep it in. Well, if an allotment holder wishes to have a donkey or
  226
  pony, he may have it; but it does not follow that he should keep it on his allotment. The most natural thing would be for him to have a stable adjoining his house. I think that as the Government have consented to the proposal to allow tool houses, green houses, fowl houses, and pigstyes to be erected on the allotments, that is all which ought properly to be asked of us. We cannot agree to any extension.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: Will the hon. Gentleman accept "cattle sheds? "
  MR. LONG: No.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: Then we are to understand that the allotment holder is to be allowed to keep a pig if he likes, but is not to be allowed to keep a calf or a cow. By resisting proposals of this kind the Government are practically crippling the Bill. I have not taken part in the discussions in Committee to any extent, because, bad as the Bill is, I have been anxious to see it passed into law; but I do feel it necessary now to protest against the Government opposing this proposal to allow a man to keep a cattle shed, on his holding if he thinks fit.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am sure that the protest of the hon. Member is raised in absolute ignorance of this subject. What is an allotment? It is a small strip of ground separated from another by nothing but a narrow pathway a few inches broad.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I did not propose that stables should be erected on every allotment.
  MR. CHAPLIN: But the hon. Member would propose that a stable and cattle shed may be erected if necessary.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: Yes, may be.
  MR. CHAPLIN: What, I ask again, are allotments? They are narrow strips of ground close together, and the hon. Gentleman desires that there should be power to put donkeys and cows upon them in sheds. But how are you going to get cattle on to a man's allotment? How are you going to get them into the shed and out again? Does the hon. Member desire to see half-a-dozen head of stock trampling over the onion beds and cabbage beds on these narrow strips of ground? In the case of a pig, it is taken into the stye probably when small and never leaves it again until it goes to the butcher; but that is not the case with cattle or a donkey or a pony. It

  227
  would be perfectly impossible for a man to erect these buildings on his holding. For my own part, I think the Government have gone rather too far in admitting fowl houses. You cannot keep your fowls—[Laughter]. An hon. Member laughs, but will he do me the favour to listen to what appears to me to be a very practical statement? You cannot always keep your fowl in a fowl house, except when they are being prepared for the market. Then what are you to do if you have them on the allotment? You must let them loose, and then they will run all over the allotments, not only over the allotment of their owner, but over those of his neighbours also. Do you suppose that people who devote great care and attention to their allotments will like to see fowls belonging to their neighbours let loose on their ground to scratch it over, and probably destroy the result of their labours? I must say I trust this proposal will not be persevered in.
  MR. H. GARDNER: I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire through the humorous speech he has made, especially at this late hour of the day, as I wish the Committee to make progress with the Bill this afternoon; but I would point out one thing which, in his humorous description, the right hon. Gentleman has failed to appreciate. He seems to think that by the proposal which has been made hon. Members desire that cattle sheds should be built upon every one of these allotments. I do not suppose there would be any such desire; but this might happen. Possibly, the labourers holding several of these allotments might desire to have a plough, and might desire to work the land in common amongst them. In such a case I cannot see for the life of me why you should not allow a labourer, at any rate, to have the power and opportunity of raising a cattle shed or a stable which may be used in common by himself and his fellow allotments holders. That is often done among the crofters in Scotland. I would urge the Government to consider this question, and I do think it would be well for them to yield upon this point.
  MR. C. W. GRAY: I quite agree with what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member
  228
  for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire as to the impossibility of allowing arrangements to be made for stock-keeping on allotments. If these arrangements were carried into operation we might find these allotments converted into small farms, which is quite foreign to the principle of this Bill. But, at the same time, I think there should be a little more elasticity in the words it is proposed to insert. Either now or on the Report stage the Government might introduce into this clause the word "shed." That would be a general term, and would allow a building to be erected which could be used for other purposes than those described in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board.
  MR. CHANNING: I have an Amendment to insert, after "allotment," in line 36, "without the consent in writing of the allotments management committee." These words, if adopted, would give power to the Local Managers to exercise their own discretion in the matter. I think the Government would do wisely to insert this Amendment, or something like it. I know allotment farms where there are a good many buildings erected, including, I think, stables. The wording of the subsection, as it now stands, is absolutely prohibitory. Unless it is amended, no building can be erected on any part of an allotment; but I think it is very desirable to allow such buildings to be put up.
  MR. RITCHIE: I should be willing to insert an Amentment here to include the word shed. I hope that will be accepted and satisfy hon. Members.
  MR. FULLER: Will the right hon. Gentleman include the words "common barn?" I am at this moment engaged in erecting on an allotment field a common barn, at the particular request of the allotment holders. The tenants pay rent for the allotments, and whatever risk is to be run by the erection of the barn it is their affair. The risk to the ratepayers will be very small. It is desirable to give allotment holders a barn, so that they can thrash out their corn with a common flail, instead of getting a steam machine. A barn would enable them to thrash in bad weather, and, moreover, would save them expense.
  MR. C. W. GRAY: I would suggest that if the Government adopt the word shed they may leave out the words tool house, and fowl house. They will be quite unnecessary, and it will simplify the Bill to leave them out.
  MR. RITCHIE: I think I must retain these words. It does not necessarily follow that because these words are contained in the Bill that structures of this kind will be erected. On some allotments it may be desirable to have a shed; but some other structure for a tool house or fowl house may also be necessary. I would much prefer to have all these words in, so that the sub-section may be as inclusive as possible.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 36, after "buildings," insert "other than a tool house, green house, fowl house or pigstye."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Ashburton propose his Amendment?
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I am content with the insertion of the word "shed;" but I hope the words "common barn" will also be inserted.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Are we to understand that a shed may be used for a horse or a donkey? [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh; but I have a right to have this cleared up. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) was particularly emphatic just now against allowing an occupier of a holding to have a horse or a pony or a donkey housed upon that holding. I should think this is a very important matter, because allotment holders may want to keep an animal of this kind, in order to take their crops to market, and so on. All I desire is that in accepting the proposal the Committee shall know exactly what it means.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I take it that the shed is to cover something. It may cover a donkey as well as anything.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Do we understand that the word "shed" the Government propose to insert shall go farther than what we might consider included in the previous words, green house, fowl house, and tool house? According
  230
  to the common construction of Acts of Parliament to use the word "shed," coming after these other words, would not include any other purpose.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): If a shed is constructed upon an allotment, of course it will be legal to use it for any purpose for which a shed can be used.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the words "fowl house," to add "shed."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question proposed, "That the word ' shed ' be there inserted."
  MR. CHAPLIN: Before the Amendment is accepted I would ask the Government whether, if they are successful in the Amendment they propose, they would be prepared to accept the Amendment I have on the Paper lower down. The object of the Government Amendment, I presume, is to enable structures to be placed upon allotments, but to prevent their being used for residential purposes. Well, I propose to insert, after the word "erected," in line 36 of the clause, the words "for use as a dwelling house or workshop." The Committee will observe that that Amendment will give a very much wider discretion even than the Amendment moved by Her Majesty's Government. What I am afraid of is this—that if the Amendment moved in the terms proposed by Her Majesty's Government specifying these particular buildings is inserted in the Bill, it will be taken as a kind of direction or instruction for people to erect buildings on them. According to my proposal, nothing would be specified at all, and the question of erecting buildings, sheds, or otherwise, would be left to the common sense of the occupiers of the allotments themselves.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: The right hon. Gentleman appears to forget that allotment cultivators are not without common sense, and would not be likely to erect sheds or tool houses, or fowl houses unless they want to turn them to some use. They certainly would not be likely to erect them simply because they have power to do so.
  Question, "That the word ' shed' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: In reference to the Amendment I have on the Paper, I would briefly protest against the restrictive enactment the Government would pass against any building being erected on an allotment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire has given us a definition of an allotment—a narrow strip of land not partitioned off or divided from the other allotments adjoining; but I say an allotment may be a strip of land to which a cottage may be attached. If this Bill passes as it stands, it will be of very little use. If in the Northern parts of Britain a Municipal Authority took lands, the first thing they would endeavour to do would be to get pieces of land on which cottages with gardens could be erected. I do not think anyone would be so insane as to think that the owner of a small allotment could cultivate wheat upon it with profit—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The observations of the hon. Member are altogether irrelevant.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I protest against the clause passing without power being given to erect buildings and dwelling houses upon the allotments.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I have an Amendment on the Paper, the early part of which covers the point which we have already decided, but the latter portion of which deals with the crops which may be removed from the land by the tenant.
  MR. RITCHIE: That Amendment is covered by that portion of the Bill referring to cottage gardens.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: No; these words deal with what may be removed by the tenant. It has nothing to do with planting.
  MR. RITCHIE: I had better move my Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 40, at end, insert "if any building so allowed to be erected is erected upon an allotment then at the end of the tenancy, neither the sanitary authority nor the incoming tenant shall be bound to take any such building, or pay any compensation therefor, but the outgoing tenant shall be at liberty, before the expiration of his tenancy, to remove the same, and, if he fails to do so the sanitary authority may pull down the building, and dispose of the materials, and apply the proceeds in like manner as if it were a building prohibited to be erected."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I beg to move in line 5 of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, after the word "same," to add the words "together with fruit trees and other trees and bushes, may be removed by the tenant."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 5, after the word "same," to insert the words "together with fruit trees and other trees, and bushes may be removed by the tenant." —(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. LONG: Those words will be included.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CONYBEARE: It will be in the recollection of most of the Members of the Committee that we fought the question of compensation for these improvements, and were defeated by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. We wished that in all cases these men should have compensation for the fruit trees they had planted, but they were not allowed to have compensation unless they had first obtained permission from their landlords to plant fruit trees, &c.—
  MR. RITCHIE: The Amendment we have just agreed to simply implies that the tenant may be at liberty to remove these things.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Then, I have no objection.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Recovery of rent and possession of allotments).
  VISCOUNT WOLMER: I beg to move, in page 5, line 4, to leave out the words "forty days," and insert "one half-year." It seems to me that 40 days is too short a time to insert in this sub-section. If a man takes an allotment for a certain period of years, it may be six months before he receives any return from it, and before he is able to pay his rent. Within 40 days he may not have received any benefit, and may not be able to pay his rent. I beg, therefore, to move this Amendment.

  233
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 4, leave out the words "forty days," and insert the words "one half-year." —(Viscount Wolmer.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed, to be left out, stand part of the Clause."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): I cannot accept this Amendment. The words "40 days" are taken from existing Acts—allotments are treated in this manner under the Enclosure Acts. It seems to me that 40 days is quite long enough to allow a man to got in arrear. The allotment holder will have incurred the rent, and for 40 days will not have paid it.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER: Do I understand that this means 40 days after the rent has fallen due?
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER: Then, to save the time of the Committee, I will not proceed with the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. COBB: The Amendment which now stands in my name—that is to say, in line 4, to leave out the words "it appears to the Sanitary Authority," in connection with other Amendments, really raises the question as to what fixity of tenure there is to be under this Act; and I propose that Sub-section 2 of Clause 7 should read—
  " If the rent for any allotment is in arrear for not less than forty days, or if it appears to the sanitary authority that the tenant of an allotment, in the judgment of the local manager, has not kept his allotment in a good state of cultivation, or is permanently resident more than two miles out of the district or parish for which the allotments are provided, the Sanitary Authority may serve upon the tenant, or, if he is residing out of the district or parish, give public notice determining the tenancy at the expiration of one month after the notice has been so served or given, and thereupon such tenancy shall be determined accordingly, but no tenancy of any allotment shall be determined by notice or otherwise for any other reason: Provided that in every such case the sanitary authority or the incoming tenant shall, on demand, pay to the tenant whose tenancy is so determined any compensation due to him as an outgoing tenant."
  I wish to embody this principle in the Bill, that no allotment holder shall be
  234
  evicted from his holding except for three reasons—that is to say, for non-payment of rent, or for not keeping the allotment in a certain state of cultivation, or for living a certain distance away. I have put the distance at two miles; but I am not particular as to that. Under the clause, as it stands, a man may be evicted for breaking any regulation which may be laid down by the owner of the allotment—regulations which might be of all kinds. I could give many instances of regulations such as I have frequently known to be laid down. I have known one case in the neighbourhood of Leamington where a lady laid down, as a rule in granting allotments, that no man holding an allotment from her should work on Sunday. I do not wish to express an opinion as to whether or not it is right to work on Sundays. That is a different thing. I know of another rule laid down which declares that no man shall use certain language —language which the landlady does not like. The landlady is not content with requiring the cultivation of the land, but requires a moral cultivation of the tenant as well; and if he does not conform to her standard, it is a reason for evicting him from his holding. On page 20 of Mr. Hall's book, he says in examining Weyland's Act, which refers to allotments, it is found laid down that an allotment is to be held from year to year, and that notice to quit is only to be given to the tenant when he is four weeks in arrear, or if the land has not been duly cultivated. "Thus," says Mr. Hall, "fixity of tenure is secured to a good tenant." The Act I refer to is 2 Will. IV. c. 42, s. 5. Then, in 8 & 9 Vict. c. 118, s. 110, there is contained a further provision, as mentioned in page 203 of Hall's book, giving fixity of tenure. I think I have put my case very clearly before the Committee, and I will not occupy further time in dealing with it. What I want to establish is this — that no man shall be evicted from his holding unless his rent is in arrear for a specified time, or unless he has neglected the proper cultivation of the land—and how this question of proper cultivation is to be decided I do not say, but leave it open—or unless he has ceased to live within a reasonable distance, which I put in this Amendment at two miles.

  235
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 4, to leave out "it appears to the Sanitary Authority."—(Mr. Cobb.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. RITCHIE: I think the hon. Gentleman has hit upon a very convenient mode of disposing of the whole series of Amendments he has on the Paper at one time. So far as I understand it, the only difference between him and the Government is that he prefers to extend the distance from one to two miles, and would not allow a tenant to be turned out of his holding for breaking the regulations of the tenancy. We think it cannot be any injustice to a tenant that he should be called on to observe the conditions on which he took his holding. These regulations are supposed to be made not in the interests of any one individual tenant, but in the interests of all the tenants, and in the interests of the ratepayers; and it seems to me that if you were to say to the tenant that he could practically set at nought all the regulations and conditions under which he took his allotment it would be utterly useless to make any regulations whatever. Let me point out that it is not only in the interests of the ratepayers that these regulations would be made. It will be in the interests of the allotment holders themselves. These allotments will be all side by side, and every tenant should be a party to the regulations, which are meant for the security and comfort and convenience of them all. I can well imagine that if the tenants were at liberty to ignore the regulations, there might a person of such a disposition that he might render the lives of the adjoining allotment holders almost intolerable. Therefore I would venture to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it would not be in the interests of the tenants generally that any one of them should be able to free himself from the engagement he had entered into, and practically to ignore all the arrangements which have been made. I would point out that fully two months are given during which a man may reside away from his allotment; but if he comes home within that time he must conform to the regulations under which he took the allotment.
  MR. COBB: That refers to what he may have to do on the allotment.
  MR. RITCHIE: Unless within three months he conforms to the regulations laid down by the authorities, he may be turned out of his holding. I do not think that that is unjust or unfair. We have put in the Bill that these regulations shall be referred to the Local Government Board for their sanction, and the hon. Member may rely that every precaution will be taken that the regulations shall not be arbitrary or unnecessary, but such as can be reasonably imposed; and that being so, I think that every tenant can be reasonably called upon to abide by these regulations. With regard to distance, the Bill provides for this, that if an allotment holder goes away to live, not a mile from his allotment, but a mile outside the district which provides the allotment, then he shall cease to hold the allotment. The hon. Member, however, proposes to make it two miles—
  MR. COBB: I do not care for that point.
  MR. RITCHIE: Then I will not enter into that matter further.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I quite sympathize with the object of the hon. Member for Rugby. Those who have seen agreements entered into with regard to allotments have seen some very curious things. I know one case in which a tenant was under obligation to keep so many hens and so many cocks—and he had to enter into an elaborate undertaking as to the number of them, and so on. I do not think the hon. Gentleman need fear any such regulations as that, seeing that the rules are to be framed as has been pointed out, and seeing that the moment the Bill becomes law, the administration of it in the rural districts will be in the hands of a purely electoral body, I do not think that any of these dangers are to be apprehended.
  MR. COBB: I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. COBB: There is a small point I should like to ask the Committee to deal with; it is a very small one, and one that it is hardly worth while spending many words over. I think that, instead of affixing the notice under this section

  237
  to" the door of the church of the parish in which the allotment is situate," it would be better to strike those words out, and to put in the words "give public notice." I would move to insert those words.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 10, leave out from "affix" to "written," in line 12, and insert "give public notice."—(Mr. Cobb.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause,"
  MR. RITCHIE: I think this is a matter of some importance. The church door is the place where notices of this kind are usually posted in parishes. The tenant will be supplied with the conditions under which he holds his allotment, and surely it will be no hardship upon him, knowing those conditions, if we provide that the notice shall be affixed to the church door—it will be no hardship to require him to go to the church door to see it.
  MR. COBB: I would suggest that the notice should be affixed not merely to the church door, but to the doors of all the places of worship in the district. A great number of people never go to church, and therefore will know nothing about the notice if it is merely placed on the door of the parish church. What objection can there be to my proposal?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I do not think the hon. Member can really be serious in this suggestion. If it were carried out it might involve the posting of notices in some cases on 15 or 20 public buildings in the parish, and that might be a costly process. Surely it will be a far more simple and satisfactory method if we adhere to the words of the section. The parish church is a place which can always be found, and it can be no hardship to require a man to go to the door of the parish church in order to see these notices.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: I know some parishes in Wales where no church can be found at all, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to adopt in those cases the practice usually followed by the Local Government Board in these matters. Notices of this kind should be placed where they are usually put up in Welsh parishes—
  238
  on the school house or some other public building.
  MR. RITCHIE: I will provide on Report for districts in which there are no churches.
  MR. CHANNING: I think this question of distance is one which the Government ought to consider carefully. I have in my mind a parish in Leicestershire where it was found necessary for persons living in one parish to have allotments in another parish some distance away. I do not think the Government would do a hardship to anyone by making the distance in the provision two miles instead of one.
  MR. RITCHIE: I think the point of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was this. We provide in the Bill that if an allotment holder goes to reside out of the parish which grants the allotment then he shall cease to be an allotment holder in that parish. The allotment may be some distance from the parish, but that is not the point. The point is that if a man goes into a parish and the authorities have provided him with an allotment, and he goes and lives miles away from that allotment in another parish, he should go to that new parish for a new allotment; otherwise he would be holding an allotment which ought to belong to a man residing in the parish which he has left.
  MR. CHANNING: I will not discuss the matter, but would point out that what was previously discussed was the question of fixity of tenure. It is very desirable that allotment tenants should be encouraged to improve their allotments, and should have as permanent an interest in them as possible. I do not think the Government would do any harm by accepting this suggestion.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment?
  MR. COBB: Yes, I withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I think the next is in my name—in lines 12 and 13, to leave out "one month," and to insert "six months." The sub-section provides that the tenancy shall terminate one month

  239
  after the notice has been served, and I propose to make that period six months.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, lines 12 and 13, leave out the words "one month" and insert the words "six months."—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. RITCHIE: I cannot accept this Amendment, as it seems to me that the remedy in this matter should be rapid. A tenant may have gone no one knows where, and the result of leaving the allotment six months idle might be to let it go to wreck and ruin. Under such a provision as that proposed, it might be impossible to let the allotment for six months after the tenant has left it.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: In my neighbourhood men go away for three months, and sometimes for six months at a time.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: But in those cases the tenants have not ceased to reside in the parish, and the Bill contemplates the case where a man has left the parish altogether, or maybe said to have done so. They do not all of them leave wives and children behind.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I do not think the hon. Member who moves this Amendment can have read the clause. We have already provided, by an Amendment which the Government have accepted, that not only reasonable but ample notice shall be given to every man who is turned out. But this is the case of a man who turns himself out, and yet would remain legally the tenant, unless measures were taken to dispossess him. Unless you have some means of determining legally the tenancy which the man himself has determined practically, I do not know what the Local Authority could do with the allotment. They could not let it, they could not get any money for it. This provision will only apply in certain cases which must of necessity be provided for.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I only referred to my own locality, where a great many of the people are fishermen, and go away for several months at a time.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. CHANNING: The next Amendment is in my name, as follows:—In line 17, after "tenant," to insert—
  "And such compensation shall be assessed by an arbitrator appointed by the allotments management committee, or, if the tenant so elect, either by an arbitrator appointed under ' The Allotments and Cottage Gardens Compensation Act, 1887,' or by a reference under 'The Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1883.' "
  I should like to know, before I move this Amendment, whether any amendment of this part of the section is considered necessary? The words "of the tenancy" are required after "commencement."
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Some alteration is necessary.
  MR. CHANNING: Then I move to insert the words which I have just read. I will not repeat here the serious objections I have taken to the procedure under the Allotments and Cottage Gardens Compensation Act. All I wish to do is to give the tenant a reasonable alternative as to the mode in which his compensation shall be assessed. This is not a large question, but I think it is important that the tenant should be allowed to take of several methods of securing compensation whichever one he thinks most desirable.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 17, after the word "tenant," insert the words—" And such compensation shall be assessed by an arbitrator appointed by the allotments management committee, or, if the tenant so elect, either by an arbitrator appointed under ' The Allotments and Cottage Gardens Compensation Act, 1887,' or by a reference under ' The Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1883.'—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Sale of superfluous or unsuitable land).
  MR. CHAPLIN: The object of the Amendment which stands in my name is partially provided for in the Bill as it stands now. I shall be corrected if I am wrong, when. I say that Sub-section 3 of Clause 9 provides to a great extent for the object which I have in view in my Amendment. It provides that the Sections 128 to 132 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act shall apply upon any sale by a Sanitary Authority of any land. Unless

  241
  I am misinformed, these sections do not include building land. It appears to me that ought to be provided for. In my opinion, it is only right that the landlord should have the first offer of the land if it is parted with by the Sanitary Authority, and that he should be allowed to buy it for the price at which it was originally purchased. According to my Amendment, building land will be included within the clause.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 32, after the word "exchange," insert the words—" But the owner from whom the land was purchased or his assigns shall first have the offer and the right to repurchase the land for the same price at which it was purchased by such authority."— (Mr. Chaplin.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): If these words are to be inserted, they will require further consideration. Some further provision is required — namely, as to the condition of the land, or as to whether it still remains in the same hands, and is let in the same way. I think it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman were to leave the matter over till Report.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I shall be glad to postpone the Amendment until Report, if the Government will consider it by then.
  MR. COBB: I think the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act does not contemplate the sale price.
  MR. CHANNING: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General consider my proposed Amendment to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) in drawing up the clause?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Yes.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I hope the hon. and learned Attorney General will do nothing of the kind.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Power for allotment wardens or allotment trustees to transfer to sanitary authority).
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: The object of the Amendment
  242
  I am about to move is to bring all the parish allotments under one authority— as far as we can under the authority we are going to establish by this Bill. I believe there are no less than four allotments authorities of various kinds under different Acts of Parliament. At all events, I propose that the allotments wardens under the Inclosure Act of 1875 should hand over their allotments gardens to the newly-constituted allotments authorities.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 21, to leave out from the words "may by agreement," to the words "partly situate," in line 22, and insert the word "shall."—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): As the Committee no doubt knows, there are in certain Acts of Parliament certain allotment authorities with certain machinery fixed. What we provide for is that these may be transferred to the allotment wardens. We have enabled them, the one to give up and the other to take, and I hardly think it is desirable to go any farther.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: Let me call attention to the difference between my two Amendments, my Amendment with, regard to the allotment wardens under the Inclosure Act of 1845, and my Amendment in regard to the subsequent authority established in 1882. I propose that the allotment wardens under the Inclosure Act shall by compulsion transfer their allotments to the new allotment wardens; but in regard to the allotment authorities established in 1882, I propose to make their property transferable upon the requisition of the Sanitary Authority, and not otherwise. I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will consent to the transference of the allotments under the Inclosure Act to the new authority.
  MR. RITCHIE: In both cases the transference would be compulsory if there was a reqisition. I have very little doubt that, in course of time, all these matters will be in one hand; but I do not think we ought, before we see how the machinery of the Bill will work, to impose the obligation on the wardens

  243
  who manage the allotments already existing by Statute to absolutely transfer all their duties and responsibilities to an authority which, after all, is only about to be set up.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I should like to move my second Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It refers to the same point.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: It refers to a different set of allotment authorities— the authorities who were constituted under the Act of 1882. There is a difference in the allotments; the ground which the allotments authorities constituted in 1882 have is valuable and good ground, while the ground in the hands of the allotments authorities constituted under the Inclosure Act of 1845 is very poor. We all supposed when the Act of 1882 was passed that the working classes would be able to get allotments out of the charity lands. As a matter of fact, they have hardly been able to do so on account of the alteration made in the Bill which compelled them to apply to the Charity Commissioners in London, instead of applying, as the Bill was originally drawn, to, I think, the County Court, or, at all events, to some Local Authority. I wish to give to the newly-constituted allotments authorities power, if they desire to possess it, of acquiring charity lands.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 31, leave out the words "may if they think fit," and insert the words "shall, if required by the sanitary authority."—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I hope the hon. Member (Mr. Seale-Hayne) will not persevere with this Amendment. The Allotments Act of 1882 does not set up any new authority at all, but the local trustees are the same under the Act, as they were before; and in a variety of cases these trustees hold lands part of which come under the Act of 1882, and part of which do not. It will be very difficult, therefore, for the Sanitary Authorities to take over the lands without taking over the obligations of the trustees in respect of fuel and other doles, and at
  244
  the same time dealing with the educational matters which come under the same trusteeships, and which are not affected by the Allotments Act of 1882. My hon. Friend is quite mistaken in his suggestion that the Act has not been enforced. It has been enforced.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I will not detain the Committee.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 11 (As to combination of parishes and contributory places).
  MR. RITCHIE: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 8, line 8, after the word "place," to insert the words, "and the Parliamentary electors for the contributing place shall be the persons registered in any list of Parliamentary electors for any parish wholly in such contributory place, or for any parish partly therein, if registered in respect of any qualification, situate in such contributory place."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I am not quite sure, I perfectly understand the meaning of the Amendment, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain its purport in a few words.
  MR. RITCHIE: There may be a parish partly under an urban authority and partly under a rural authority. The Parliamentary Register includes the whole, and the object of this Amendment is to take the Parliamentary Register for the purposes of the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Extent of Act).
  COLONEL NOLAN: I have an Amendment down, the object of which is to extend the operation of the Act to Ireland. As we are pressed for time, perhaps the Government will concede the Amendment at once.
  MR. RITCHIE: I confess the matter has not been considered with reference to Ireland, but perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will accept an assurance from me that between now and the time of Report the Government will consider whether it is for them, without modifications, to extend the operation of the measure to Scotland and Ireland.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I almost hope that this Act will not be extended to Scotland, unless it is greatly altered.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I am quite willing that the question shall be postponed until Report, but I think we may strike out the words "or Ireland" now. Of course, it is idle for me to go into the reasons why the Bill should be applied to Ireland.
  MR. RITCHIE: It is a mere question of form. What I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes is that the words "or Ireland" should be struck out, but that that is not to be taken as prejudicing the case as regards Ireland or Scotland. On the part of the Government, I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to thoroughly understand that, by omitting these words now, we do in no way agree to the principle of his Amendment.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to move the omission of the words "or Ireland." I think that the Bill would be far more valuable to Ireland than the Labourers' Act. As the Chairman of a Union in Ireland I have had a great deal to do with the consideration of these matters. Of course, it is quite understood that if the Government assent to my Amendment they are quite free to deal with the question on Report in any way they please.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 14, to leave out the words "or Ireland."—(Colonel Nolan.)
  Question proposed, "That the words ' or Ireland' stand part of the Clause."
  DR. CLARK: Why not leave out Scotland as well, and so have the whole question considered on Report?
  DR. TANNER: I hope this Bill may extend to Ireland, and I warmly support the arguments which have been adduced by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Galway (Colonel Nolan). I object, however, to the question being postponed until Report; during the course of this debate matter after matter has been put off until the Report stage. What does that mean? It means that hon. Members are to be called together again; there will have to be another whip of hon. Members who are now
  246
  worn out with fatigue. I really think the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this measure ought to be able to make up his mind at once, and tell us whether he will or will not grant what we now demand. We demand that this Bill shall be extended to Ireland, so that if there is any good in it—and I am not prepared to say there is much good in it—the Irish labourers may receive the advantage of it. We claim for the agricultural labourers in Ireland the same advantage you extend to the English agricultural labourers. My hon. and gallant Friend made allusion just now to the working of the Labourers' Act in Ireland, but he did not mention the fact that our labourers, under the Labourers' Act, never get half an acre. I think that what is sauce for the English labourer is sauce for the Irish labourer. I do not, however, rise for the purpose of inflicting a speech upon the Committee. [Cries of "Hear, hear ! "] Hon. Gentlemen should understand that, up to this, I have not opened my mouth upon this Bill, and that now I am only standing up in the interests of the Irish labourers. I call upon the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to make up his mind at once whether he will extend the operation of this Bill, such as it is, to the Irish labourers.
  MR. RITCHIE: Let me remind the Committee that the question is that the clause which excludes Ireland shall be omitted. The Government accept the omission, having undertaken to consider the whole question before Report. What is being done now is entirely in contradiction of the course suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Galway.
  MR. BIGGAR: Permit me to say one word. There is no intention to talk the Bill out.
  DR. TANNER: I rise to a point of Order. I want to know whether, when my hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan said, he had no intention of talking the Bill out, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings) was in Order in saying that my hon. Friend had every intention of doing so.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I heard no such observation.
  DR TANNER: It was said so deliberately in my hearing.
  MR. BIGGAR: I not only have no wish to talk this Bill out, but I hope it will not be talked out by anyone else. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham is at perfect liberty to disbelieve what I say, but I think that my words are entitled to as much credence as his. I hope this Bill will be a workable Bill; whether it will be I do not know. The great misfortune in regard to the Irish Labourers' Cottages Bill, which was passed in one Session and amended in another Session, has been the extraordinary expense in connection with the working of the machinery of that Bill. In addition to that the object of the Labourers' Cottages Bill, which gave half an acre was to build cottages for labourers giving the land in addition. The result of the application of this Bill to Ireland will be that labourers in villages will be enabled to get small patches of land in the neighbourhood of their villages, and that will be of great advantage to these people, because in Ireland the land-lord—
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I rise to Order, Sir. Is it in Order for the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to discuss the question of the relations between Irish landlords and their tenants on the question whether Ireland shall be retained in the Bill?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for West Cavan would not be in Order in entering upon a general discussion such as that, but I rather imagine the hon. Gentleman is approaching the end of his observations.
  MR. BIGGAR: Let me give an illustration. The land round the town of Castlebar is covered with grass, but there is no accommodation in the shape of town parks or otherwise. Now, if this Bill is extended to Ireland, the residents of Castlebar will be able to get possession of parts of this grass land, and thus be able to rent land for the ordinary purposes of accommodation. The Bill will be of great advantage to Ireland. If it is inoperative, it certainly will do no material harm.
  MR. RITCHIE: Let me make an appeal to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. We have promised to consider the question of Ireland; we desire that this Bill should be passed through Committee to-day in order that
  248
  it may be reprinted so that we may lay it before the Irish Government, and receive their opinion as to whether there is any objection to its application to Ireland. It is imperative, if it is to be reprinted and submitted to the Irish Executive, that the Committee stage should be finished to-day.
  DR. TANNER: I trust that when the Bill is referred to the Irish Executive the recommendations made to that body will be made not merely in good faith, but that all the power which the right hon. Gentleman is capable of exercising upon the Executive to induce them to extend the benefits of the Bill to the Irish labourers will be brought to bear.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 12, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I should not like anything I have said to be responsible for the retention of this clause. I wish to have a Bill of this kind for Scotland; but I wish to have a good Bill. I believe that a Bill which does not include buildings and gardens will not be a good Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Definition of county authority).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 8, line 18, leave out from "established," to "and," in line 20, and insert" the powers and duties of the county authority under this Act shall he exercised and performed by the Local Government Board, and the provisions of this Act and of the enactments incorporated with this Act shall accordingly be construed with the necessary modification."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Definitions).
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to propose to insert in page 8, after line 24, that "the expression ' allotment' includes a garden." According to the Amendment upon the Paper my intention was to move that "allotment" should also include ground used for pasture, but as that has been already negatived, I wish to omit that

  249
  part of my Amendment, and simply to move that "allotment" shall include a garden. I have adopted the suggestion of the noble Marquess the Member for the Rossendale Division of Lancashire (the Marquess of Hartington) that we should put in words providing that the term "allotment" should include a garden, and I understand the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) is prepared to accept the suggestion. I want, however, to be sure that the word does include a garden. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that it includes field gardens, garden allotments, and other things of that kind, but he has never said it includes a garden. I have seen many field gardens, and all I can say is that, if we do not include bonâ fide gardens which may be contiguous to cottages, we shall make a great mistake.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, after line 24, to insert the words "the expression 'allotment' includes a garden." —(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. COBB: I beg to propose to insert, after the word "includes" in line 32, the words "pasture and arable and." I have had some doubt, while the Bill has been going through Committee, whether hon. Members opposite actually mean that the expression "land" really does include pasture. The other night an hon. Member said he hoped some words would be put in to make it clear that "land" does not include meadow land. I think it should include all land. The limitation of the size of allotments to one acre rather presumes that the land should not be pasture land, because one acre of pasture land would be of very little use.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 32, after "includes," insert the words" pasture and arable and."— (Mr. Cobb.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIE: The Amendment is quite unnecessary.
  MR. COBB: There can be no harm done by the insertion of the words.
  MR. CHANNING: As the hon. Gentleman the Member for
  250
  the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings) knows, one of the most frequent difficulties in securing land for allotments under the Allotments Extension Act, 1882, so that the Trustees of the Charity land almost always try to obtain a certificate of urban validity from the Charity Commissioners, on the ground that the land is pasture. I think it is only reasonable the Local Authority should have power.
  MR. RITCHIE: I do not think the words are at all necessary, but I have no objection to their insertion.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: It will be impossible to take all the new clauses to-night, and therefore I think it will be well that we should now report Progress.
  MR. COBB: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) will admit we have done everything we can to get the Bill through. The only object in reprinting the Bill is that it shall be sent to the Irish Authorities. I do not see why we should be debarred from having some discussion upon the new clauses. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to allow us time for their consideration, assuring him, at the same time, that there will be no unreasonably long discussion.
  MR. RITCHIE: There are one or two clauses which are not opposed. I think we might put them in and leave the others over.
  New Clause—
  (Power to make scheme for provision of common pasture.)
  " Where it appears to any sanitary authority that, as regards their district, if urban, or any parish in their district, if rural, land can be acquired for affording common pasture at such price or rent that all expenses incurred by the sanitary authority in acquiring the land and otherwise in relation to the land when acquired, may reasonably be expected to be recouped out of the charges paid in respect thereof, and that the acquisition of such land is desirable in view of the wants and circumstances of the labouring population, such sanitary authority may submit to the county authority for the county in which the district or parish is wholly or partly situate a scheme for providing such common pasture, and the county authority, if satisfied of the expediency of such scheme, may by order authorise the sanitary authority to carry it into effect, and upon such order being made this Act shall, with the necessary modifications,

  251
  apply in like man as if 'allotments' in this Act included common pasture, and ' rent' included a charge for turning out an animal.
  " Provided that the regulations made under this Act may extend to regulating the turning out of animals on the common pasture, to defining the persons entitled to turn them out, the number to be turned out, and the conditions under which animals may be turned out, and fixing the charges to be made for each animal, and otherwise to regulating the common pasture,"— (Mr. Ritchie,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  New Clause—
  (Register of tenancies.)
  " The sanitary authority shall cause a register to be kept showing the particulars of the tenancy, acreage, and rent of every allotment let, and of the unlet allotments, and such register shall be open to the examination of ratepayers in the urban district or the parish for which the allotments have been provided, in such, manner as may be prescribed by the regulations made under this Act by the sanitary authority, and any ratepayer of such district or parish, without paying any fee, may take copies of or extracts from such register,"—(Mr. Ritchie,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 387.]

  TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  (Colonel Nolan, Mr. James O'Brien, Mr. Foley, Mr. Shirley.)
  [BILL 252.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  COLONEL NOLAN, in moving that the Speaker do leave the Chair, said, he would appeal to his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) not to persist in his opposition to the Bill, which materially affected his (Colonel Nolan's) constituents, and those of the hon. Member for South Mayo— inhabitants of Claremorris. The object of the Bill was to remove a technical objection, and really the constituents of the hon. Member for Cavan were no more affected by it than they were by the Suez Canal. It would be a great disappointment to his (Colonel Nolan's) constituents if the Bill did not pass
  252
  during the Session; and he would ask the hon. Member not to allow his opposition to take the form of blocking the Bill; but let him put it to a Division, and see how the Irish Members voted.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Colonel Nolan.)
  MR. M. J. KENNY: That is all very well. We would accept the opinion of the Irish Members; but I am afraid we should have English Members interfering in our affairs and influencing the decision. My objection to the Bill is that it contains a principle, concerning the whole of Ireland, which is so obnoxious to me that, under all the circumstances, I shall oppose it. That principle is that money shall be borrowed for the construction of Irish works, Irish property being mortgaged for the value.
  MR. J. E. X. O'BRIEN: I claim to move "That the Question be now put."
  Question put accordingly, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 13: Majority 67.— (Div. List, No. 430.)
  [5.40 P.M.]
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by the Standing Order of the 18th March, 1887.
  Original Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till Monday next.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  In reply to Dr. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid),
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASUY (Mr. JACKSON)said, it was proposed to take the Constabulary Vote first on Monday, and subsequently the other Irish Votes in the order in which they were set down. He understood that course would be for the convenience of the Irish Members.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.