Sitting of 13 August 1907

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
NEW WRIT.
New Writ for the County of Anglesey, in the room of Ellis Jones Griffith, esq., Recorder of the Borough of Birkenhead.—(Mr. Whiteley.)

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
London County Council (Tramway and Improvements) Bill. Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Renfrewshire Upper District (Eastwood and Mearns) Water Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Leith Burgh Order Confirmation Bill (by Order). Lords' Amendments consided, and agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynaman Railway Bill, without Amendment.
Butter and Margarine Bill; North Staffordshire Railway Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—City of London (Union of Parishes) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
  CONGO FREE STATE.
  Petition from Weston-super-Mare, for protection of the Native races; to lie upon the Table.
  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Linlithgowshire, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Blairgowrie, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
  Petition from Shepherds Bush, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
  WEEKLY REST-DAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour; From Peckham; and Pirbright; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Copy presented, of General Report to the Board of Trade upon the Accidents that have occurred on the railways of the United Kingdom during the year 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRAMWAYS AND LIGHT RAILWAYS (STREET AND ROAD).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 17th April; Mr. Lloyd-George]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 301.]
  ARMY (SPECIAL PENSIONS).
  Return presented, for the year ended 31st March, 1907, of Pensions specially granted under Articles 730, 1173A, and 1207 of the Pay Warrant [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Regulations under which grants for the building of new Public Elementary Schools in England and Wales will be made by the Board of Education, after the passing of The Appropriation Act, 1907, during the year ending 31st March, 1908 [by Command; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of the Local Government Board for Ireland, for the year ended 31st March 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COAST EROSION (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of First Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into and report on certain questions affecting Coast Erosion and the Reclamation of Tidal Lands in the United Kingdom. Part I., Report. Part II., Minutes of Evidence and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  INEBRIATES ACTS (INSPECTORS' REPORT).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Inspector under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, for the year 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE (CORK).
  Copy presented, of Amended Statutes of Queen's County, Cork [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  INLAND REVENUE.
  Copy presented, of Fiftieth Report of the Commissioners, for the year ended 31st March, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (PLAGUE).
  Copy presented, of Correspondence regarding Measures for the Prevention of Plague [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3897 and 3898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Berks).—Further Return relative thereto [ordered 28th March, 1905; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 302.]

  PUBLIC BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME).
  Return ordered, "giving the number of occasions from 1887 on which closure by compartments has been carried, the names of the Bills to which it has been applied, the number of days (if any)
  1038
  devoted to each on the Committee stage before closure by compartments was put into operation, the total number of days (if any) devoted to each in Committee of the Whole House, and the number of days allocated to each on the Report stage."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Statement of particulars of Loans of which the balances outstanding are proposed to be remitted or written off (in whole or in part) from the assets of the Local Loans Fund."—(Mr. Runciman.)
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 13th August; Mr. Runciman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 304.]
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Public Bills (Allocation of Time).—Return relative thereto [ordered 13th August; Mr. Balfour]; to be printed. [No. 300.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Inspectors of Evicted Farms on the T. W. Sands Estate.
  MR. FLAVIN (): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the evicted farms on the T. W. Sands estate, at Knockanure, North Kerry, have been inspected by the Estates Commissioners; whether the landlord has promised to reinstate the evicted tenants; and, if so, what is the result of the inspection and promised reinstatement.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have had the evicted farms inspected and the landlord has intimated that he is willing to sell the lands to the Commissioners, with a view to the reinstatement of the evicted tenants. As soon as the necessary legal requirements have been satisfied the Commissioners will proceed with the purchase.

  Charitable Institutions and Investments of Trust Funds.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS (): To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether

  1039
  his attention has been called to powers given to certain charitable institutions under Royal Charters of Incorporation enabling the Governors of such institutions to invest moneys in securities other than those authorised by the Trustee Acts; and whether he proposes to take any steps to test the validity of such powers.
  (Answered by Sir John Walton.) I understand that investment clauses in draft charters are always closely scrutinised, and where exceptional powers are sought inquiries are made with a view, unless special reasons exist, to a restriction to trustee securities. In some cases, where old and well-established bodies receive charters the powers which governing bodies have possessed and exercised in the past to the advantage of the institutions have not been interfered with, but in most cases there is no special provision as to investments when it is presumed that only trustee investments would be allowable. I am informed that in no case has attention been called or complaint made in reference to the matter referred to. The subject will, however, be considered.

  Navy—Promotions to Engineer Commanders.
  MR. WEIR (): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the recent promotion of officers of the rank of engineer commander in His Majesty's Navy has not given satisfaction, a case having recently happened in which an officer has been superseded by one seven years his junior; and, in considering the promotion of two officers of equally meritorious service, will care be taken that due consideration is given to the claims of the officer who has had the longer service.
  (Answered by Mr. Lambert.) The Answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the negative. As regards the second part, it has hitherto been and will continue to be the rule, in considering the promotion of officers with equally meritorious service, to give due weight to seniority.

  Income Tax Assessments.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL (): To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether earned income
  1040
  includes the duty assessed under Schedule A on a rectory or vicarage occupied by a clergyman of the Church of England, on teachers' houses occupied by teachers, and on houses occupied by persons in a similar situation, when such occupation is part of the emoluments of their office and which they cannot let without the consent of a superior.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The Answer to the Question will depend in each case upon whether the annual value of the house forms part of the income, for Income Tax purposes, of the person to whom the use of it is granted. Where such is the case, the tax under Schedule A will be at the 9d. rate, as the house is "property which is attached to or forms part of the emoluments of an office or employment of profit"; where, on the other hand, an employee is required to reside in a particular house as part of the duties of his office and for the purposes of that office, the value of such house has been held by the courts (Tennant v. Smith) not to form part of the income of the employee, for Income Tax purposes; and, in such cases, the Schedule A tax will be chargeable at the 1s. rate.

  Duration of Leases of Land in the East African Protectorate.
  SIR C. HILL (): To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the duration of leases of land in the East Africa Protectorate I has recently been reduced from ninety-nine to twenty-one years; and, if so, what is the reason for such reduction.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill) The reason for the reduction was that it was not thought desirable to tie up large tracts of land for such a long period as ninety-nine years at a nominal rent for pastural purposes, which do not involve much expenditure for development by the lessee, but the Secretary of State will further consider the matter in the light I of the recommendations which may be made by Mr. Macdonald, the newly appointed Commissioner of Agriculture.

  Concessions in the British East African Protectorate.
  SIR C. HILL: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in sanctioning the grant to companies of land, mining, or railway

  1041
  concessions in the British Protectorates in Africa, the Secretary of State exercises powers similar to those reserved by the Egyptian Government in regard to the terms of flotation of such companies, or if not, what conditions are imposed as an essential preliminary to such grants.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Secretary of State is not aware of the exact nature of the powers reserved by the Egyptian Government in such cases, but various conditions, differing of course according to the special circumstances of each case, are attached to grants of this kind with a view to securing genuine development and providing as far as possible against mere company promotion. He will ascertain what is the practice of the Egyptian Government, and if any additional safeguards of practical value are suggested by it, will be glad to adopt them, as far as possible.

  Railway from Forests of Kenia to the Uganda Railway.
  SIR C. HILL: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any decision has yet been come to as to the construction of a railway connecting the forests of Kenia with the Uganda Railway.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) No, Sir; the matter is still under consideration.

  Reorganisation of the Exchequer and Audit Department Staff.
  MR. FIELD (): To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that on the recent reorganisation of the Exchequer and Audit Department several Second Division clerks with longer service than Messrs. Dixon and Robinson were sent back to the Civil Service Commission as being redundant, he will explain why Messrs. Dixon and Robinson were not similarly sent back as being redundant.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I beg to refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 6th instant,† which explains the position of these two officers. It will be apparent that no question as to their being redundant arises.

  Chancery Suitors' Fund.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will explain the grounds on which the Comptroller and
  † See (4) Debates, clxxix., 1810–1.
  1042
  Auditor-General, in accordance with the directions of the Treasury and Lord Chancellor, keeps duplicate records of the Chancery Suitors' Fund Account (England); why the duties of the Comptroller and Auditor-General embrace the keeping of such duplicate records in addition to those of audit, how many clerks are at present employed on the Chancery Suitors' Fund in the Audit Office, and what is the present annual approximate cost; and, apart from duplication of work, what would be the approximate number of men required and the approximate annual cost if the duties of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on this work were confined to audit alone.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The number of clerks employed in the Exchequer and Audit Department on the Chancery Suitors' Fund is one superintending officer, five or six examiners,* five abstractors, and one boy clerk, at an annual cost of about £2,260. If the duplicate ledgers were abolished the five abstractors could be dispensed with at an annual saving of about £500. The question of the retention of the duplicate ledgers is at the present time under consideration.

  Transfer of Mr. Harty from Kinsale to Burnham.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will explain the reason why Mr. Harty, now principal coast officer of Customs at Burnham, was removed from Kinsale; whether he will state the circumstances under which a telegram was sent to his successor, telling him not to take up the appointment; what were Mr. Harty's annual emoluments in Kinsale and in the now port to which he was transferred from there; whether £41 10s. naval reserve fees were due to him when he left Kinsale; and, if so, will he explain why only £24 of this amount was paid to him.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) This officer's removal took place twelve years ago. All the circumstances were fully investigated and the decision confirmed by the Treasury at the time, and I am not prepared to re-open the matter now.

  Games in Royal Parks.
  MR. LUTTRELL (): To ask the First Commissioner
  *One examiner is engaged on this duty for half his time.

  1043
  of Works, whether his attention has been drawn to the action of a committee of the London County Council with regard to games in the London parks; and whether he could see his way to allowing some portions of the royal parks being used for the purposes of games.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt): I am not at present able to see my way to devote further accommodation for the playing of games in the royal parks. Facilities are now given for games organised under the education committee of the London County Council and will continue to be so afforded so far as space permits.

  Blessington Steam Tram—Hours of Labour of Staff.
  MR FIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the hours of duty worked by the men on the Blessington steam tram; and whether he will make inquiries into the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to this matter, and they are in communication with the company.

  Facilities for Traders at Giggleswick and Settle Goods Stations.
  MR. CLOUGH (): To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has communicated with the Midland Railway Company regarding the provision of reasonable facilities for traders at the goods stations of Giggleswick and of Settle; and, if so, what is the nature of the Midland Railway Company's reply.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The Board of Trade have communicated with the Midland Railway Company, but have not yet received their reply. So soon as an answer is received I will cause my hon. friend to be informed of its nature.

  Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Com- pany and the Shipping of Coal at Goole.
  MR. BRUNNER (): To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his notice has been called to the fact that the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, who recently obtained from Parliament power to work steam vessels carrying cargo between the
  1044
  Port of Goole and various Continental ports, have given instructions that coal traffic destined for their own steamers is to have priority in berthing and loading facilities over coal traffic carried by steamship owners other than themselves, and destined for both English and Continental ports, by the allocation to such traffic destined for the railway company's steamers of one of the coal-loading berths at Goole; and whether the Board of Trade are prepared to take steps to prevent the railway company from persisting in a course seriously detrimental to the interests of other shipowners and traders using the port of Goole.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) I understand that the docks at Goole are owned by the Aire and Calder Navigation Company, but that there is a hoist at the docks belonging to the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company. A question has arisen between the railway company and other steamship owners as to the use of this hoist, and the matter is now before the Court of the Railway and Canal Commission.

  Kingsbridge Workhouse Diet.
  MR. MILDMAY (): To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, upon further consideration, he finds it possible to accede to the request of the Kingsbridge Board of Guardians that they should be allowed to serve the inmates of the Kingsbridge workhouse with a more generous diet.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The proposal of the guardians would involve a departure from the Workhouse Regulation (Dietaries and Accounts) Order, 1900, and the Local Government Board do not consider it desirable to sanction departures from the Order in the case of individual unions, as one of the objects of the Board in issuing it was to obviate the necessity for such sanction. I should, therefore, be reluctant to deal exceptionally with this particular case, but the points to which the guardians have drawn attention have been noted with a view to consideration in the event of a revised Order being issued.

  New Regulations Under the Vaccination Bill, 1907
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the President of the Local Government

  1045
  Board whether, in the event of the Vaccination Bill, 1907, passing into law, he will at once direct that revised notices to be given by registrars of births to persons registering the births of children containing the form of statutory declaration set out in the Schedule to the Bill, shall be supplied to registrars of births in the month of September so as to enable persons desirous of taking advantage of the Act in January, 1908, to be provided with the necessary forms in respect of children born within four months of the passing of the Act.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am aware that a new form of notice by registrars to persons registering the birth of children will be necessary in the event of the passing of the Bill. I am considering how far it may be practicable to meet the point suggested by my hon. friend.

  Ingleton Angling Association Fishing Licence.
  MR. CLOUGH: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that the Lune, Wyre, Keer, and Cocker Fishery Conservators have again refused an application from the Ingleton Angling Association for a general licence; whether this is a refusal to comply with the Acts which govern the constitution of the Conservators' Board; and what steps, legal proceedings or other, it is proposed to take in order to secure obedience to those Acts.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Answer to the first part of my hon. friend's Question is in the affirmative. The Acts require the Conservators to grant a general licence on payment of such sum as the Conservators may determine, with the sanction of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, but I am advised that the Board are not in a position to compel the Conservators to grant a licence, and it rests with the Association to test the legality of their refusal. I think, however, that the difficulty might be met without resort to legal remedies, and we shall be glad to use our friendly offices to bring about a satisfactory settlement.

  Increase of Pay of Dundee Police.
  MR. WILKIE (): To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he could state
  1046
  the reason of the delay in the assent of the Scottish Office being given to the resolution of the Dundee City Council of last May granting the policemen of that city an advance of 1s. 9d. per head per week; and if he will state when an affirmative answer will be forwarded.
  (Answered by Mr Sinclair.) The proposals advanced by the Dundee City Council raised questions of some intricacy involving comparison with the rates of pay enjoyed by other police forces. A letter has been despatched intimating to what extent the alterations suggested have been approved.

  Charts of Loch Long.
  MR. J D. WHITE (): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can say what is approximately the proportion of inches to the mile on the largest scale chart which includes that part of Loch Long in which it is proposed to have the torpedo range.
  (Answered by Mr. Lambert.) Half-an-inch to the mile.

  Loch Long Torpedo Range.
  MR. J. D. WHITE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to the proposed torpedo range in Loch Long, if he will say what will be the guaranteed minimum widths of the fairway navigable by the passenger steamers on Loch Long between the eastern side of the proposed torpedo range and the eastern side of the Loch at Ardmay Point, at Morlaggan, and at the target end of the range, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Lambert.) These facts will all be brought out and discussed at the meeting on the 21st August. The proposal in the draft by-laws, Paragraph 8, is that the officer in charge of the range shall take care not to discharge a torpedo when a vessel or boat is seen to be about to cross the limits of the range area described in By-law 1.

  Provision of Bibles for Non-provided Schools in Yorkshire.
  MR. LANE-FOX (): To ask the President of the Board of Education whether the Board have received a complaint from the managers of a non-provided school

  1047
  that their request for the provision of Bibles for use in the school has not been complied with by the local education authority of the West Riding of Yorkshire.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Yes, Sir, the complaint referred to was received yesterday.

  Rebuilding of Irish National Schools.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH (): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in a case where a new national school is built to replace an old one and in a more convenient and accessible place, the Treasury regulations allow of building a larger school than the old one, to meet the expected greater attendance; what is the minimum space per head allowed by the regulations; have the Commissioners of National Education any power to vary or depart from the regulations; and is the space per head capacity of new schools in all eases to be rigidly calculated on the average attendance at the old school.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) In the case supposed in the Question, the accommodation to be provided in the new building is taken as the mean between the average number on the rolls and the average attendance at the old school during the preceding year. The minimum floor space for which provision must be made is ten square feet for each unit of the number for which accommodation is to be provided, but in schools to accommodate less that thirty-five pupils eleven square feet per unit is allowed. The Commissioners of National Education have no power to vary or depart from the regulations.

  Pension of John Thomson, late Royal Artillery.
  SIR JOHN BENN (): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that pensioner John Thomson, late No. 3,895, corporal Royal Artillery, although discharged from the Army when a corporal has only received a private's pension; and whether, in view of the present ill health and circumstances of John Thomson, he will take steps to secure for him the increased pension due to a corporal who retires with good character.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) As this man on his discharge in 1882, after twenty-one years service, had not served for three years as a corporal, he was only eligible for the pension of a private, and there is no regulation under which the pension can be increased. He was not pensioned for disability, and he had no war service.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Ships Complements on the China Station.
  MR. HUNT (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, what is the actual complement of the two destroyers on the China station now commissioned by nucleus crews; and how soon these ships could be commissioned with full fighting crews without reducing the complement of other ships upon that station.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LAMBERT,): Details of complement and the mobilising arrangements have always been, and must continue to be, treated as confidential. The necessary ratings are available.

  The Coastguard.
  MR. NIELD (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any, and, if any, which, of the coastguard stations are at the present time short of men; if he will state, in relation to each, the number of men they are short, and for how long such deficiency has existed; and whether he proposes, and when, to fill up such vacancies.
  MR. LAMBERT: I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to his previous Question on the 31st July. So far as the requirements of the Services are concerned the coastguard stations are not short of men.
  MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty which of the coastguard stations have been found in excess of present requirements, and to what extent; what reductions have been made in such stations respectively; and when were they effected.
  MR. LAMBERT: The Return now being prepared on the Motion of the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool will give information as to the coastguard stations which have been closed as being in excess of present requirements. Sixty-eight stations have been closed, involving a personnel of 316. Thirteen stations have been reduced on an average about two per station.
  MAJOR SEELY (): When will the Return be issued? It was asked for months ago.
  MR. LAMBERT: It is in the hands of the printers.
  MAJOR SEELY: Will it be before Parliament rises?
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR (): In what way have the conditions altered so as to reduce the number of men required in some cases?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is a rather large question which hardly arises out of that on the Paper.
  MAJOR SEELY: Will the hon. Gentleman endeavour to let us have the Report before the House rises?
  MR. LAMBERT: We will make every effort to do so.
  MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what are the present requirements of the Board in relation to the complement of coastguard stations; whether any alteration has been made during the past two years in the standard of strength or of efficiency; and, if so, in what respect, and when was such alteration made.
  MR. LAMBERT: The requirements of the coastguard stations as regards complements are determined generally now, as in the past, by the naval and revenue duties to be performed. The standard of strength varies from time to time.

  Deptford Cooperage.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state what was the number of casks made at
  1050
  the Deptford Victualling Yard Cooperage during the year 1906, and the number of men employed in this department during that year.
  MR. LAMBERT: The total number of casks made at Deptford during 1906 was 12,983. The daily average number of persons employed upon cooperage work was forty-six.

  War Office Administrative Staff.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Departmental Committee on the training of officers for the administrative staff has presented its Report, and when will it be published; whether the results of the experimental course of instruction held at the London School of Economics are regarded as satisfactory; and whether it is proposed to continue it.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): I expect very shortly to be in receipt of this Report, and will consider whether it cannot be laid on the Table of the House. The results of the first experimental course of instruction have been so satisfactory that it has been decided to hold a second course in October next.

  The Union Jack.
  MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War in view of the fact that the Navy uses the pattern of the Union Jack decided upon in 1801, why and for what reason the pattern used by the Army has been altered.
  MR. HALDANE: There is no difference between the Union Jack used by the Army and that used by the Navy. Does the hon. Member allude to the Army Council flag with the distinctive three cannons and three balls?

  The Lord Mayor of Dublin's Army Captaincy.
  MR. BOWLES ()I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Lord Mayor of Dublin holds in perpetuity the rank of a captain of foot and draws the sum of £300 (Irish) annually from the Consolidated Fund as the pay of this rank; whether the name of this officer appears in the Army List; if not, what is

  1051
  the reason of its omission; and whether he has any claim upon this officer's services should they be required.
  MR. HALDANE: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in answer to a Question on the 30th July, the Lord Mayor of Dublin receives a perpetual annuity, representing the pay of a captain of foot, which is charged upon the Consolidated Fund. The provisions of the Letters Patent of Charles II. regarding the rank and exercise of command by the Lord Mayor have become obsolete in course of time and he is no longer gazetted to hold rank in the Army. The Army has no claim upon his services.
  MR. LEA (): Is it still being paid to him?
  MR. HALDANE: Of course it is.
  MR. LEA: Is this Government going to stop it?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Young Indians in England.
  MR. REES (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will lay before the House the Report of, or the substance of the Report of, or any information concerning, the conclusions arrrived at by the Committee he has appointed to consider the question of giving advice and assistance to young men from India upon their arrival in this country.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): The Committee have not reported yet, but I expect from the nature of the case that the report is likely to contain matter of a purely confidential character.

  Death from Plague in India.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the deaths from plague in June last amounted to more than ·2349 per mille; and whether the like figure for the six months ended June amounted to more than 3·6 per mille of the population of India; what are the losses from cholera and fever and other chief epidemics for the same period; whether the like figures are available in respect of other parts of Asia of more or less similar climatic conditions; and, if
  1052
  so, whether he will lay them before the House.
  MR. MORLEY: The hon. Member has correctly stated the mortality from plague in India as a whole during June last and the six months ending June respectively. I am unable to give the corresponding figures for other epidemic diseases, as the mortality from them is not reported month by month to me. In 1905, the latest year for which complete figures for British India are available, the mortality rates for cholera, small-pox and fevers were 1·97, 0·32, and 19·74 per mille respectively. I have no information that would enable me to reply to the last part of the Question.
  MR. REES: Would it not be desirable when actual figures are given that the figures per mile should also be stated, so as to prevent involuntary comparison with a population like that of these Islands?
  MR. MORLEY: I will consider that.

  Presbyterian Mission in Calcutta.
  MR. GULLAND (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Established Church of Scotland and the United Free Church of Scotland have recently united their mission in Calcutta, and that the Army Council have appointed a committee, composing representatives of the four great Presbyterian Churches in the United Kingdom, to advise upon the distribution and employment of Presbyterian chaplains; and whether, in view of these facts, he will consider the advisability of inquiring whether the time is ripe to throw open the Presbyterian chaplaincies in India to ministers of all Presbyterian Churches.
  MR. MORLEY: I shall be glad to consider any representations on the subject which may be addressed to me by the Presbyterian Churches.

  Cason Mine Disturbances.
  MR. TREVELYAN (): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information about the recent outbreak of Chinese coolies at the Cason mine and the reasons for its occurrence; how many Chinese have

  1053
  been repatriated up to this date owing to the expiry of their contracts; and how many will be due for repatriation up to the end of the present year.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The Secretary of State is informed by the Governor of the Transvaal that the outbreak at the Cason mine is under investigation. The ostensible cause would appear to be a desire on the part of the management to revise the terms of the existing piece-work agreement for drilling and to a misunderstanding as to the attitude of the coolies toward the proposal. The terms were published in advance and the management was led to believe by boss boys who said they represented the coolies that the terms would be generally acceptable. Opinion in the compound was, however, divided and a riot ensued. Two men were killed by the rioters, and two by shots fired by persons so far unknown. The murderers and the ringleaders have been arrested and the compound is quiet. As regards the second part of the Question, 573 labourers have been repatriated on the expiry of their contracts and the contracts of 15,890 expire up to the 31st December.

  Isthmian Canal Labour.
  MR. STAYELEY-HILL (): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many labourers from Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad, or any other islands in the British West Indies, are engaged on the Isthmian Canal.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a Question asked by the hon. Member for Darlington in very similar terms on the 29th July.†

  Transvaal Bills.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL (): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will place in the library copies of the Bills recently introduced in the Transvaal Legislature dealing with questions of immigration, liquor laws, the field-cornet system, and the right of access by natives to the law courts.
  † See (4) Debates, clxxix., 478, 479.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Immigration Bill and the Bill to amend the liquor law which has been abandoned have been received and will be placed in the library. The other Bills will be placed there as soon as copies are received.

  Hut Tax in British East Africa.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH (): I bog to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, during his projected visit to British East Africa, he will inquire into the desirability of altering the method of collection of the hut tax in native districts, so as to provide that the system of payment of taxation to British authorities through the medium of chiefs or sub-chiefs with a commission of 5 per cent. on collection may be reconsidered, and, if desirable, abandoned.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I will inquire into the matter, but so far as I am at present advised there is no reason to suppose that the present arrangement is not well adapted to the special circumstances of the East African Protectorate.

  Panama Canal Labour Contract.
  SIR J. RANDLES (): On behalf of the hon. Member for Kingswinford Division of Staffordshire, I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that it is impossible to enforce the terms of the Panama Isthmian Canal Labour Contract, the Government will consider the desirability of its abrogation.
  MR. CHURCHILL: It might argumentatively be observed that if the Contract cannot be enforced against the United States Government it would become a dead letter, and it could evidently no longer be used as a binding form of agreement. But information on this point is still being sought, and, in the meanwhile, I should strongly deprecate any action which would seem to imply distrust in the ability and intentions of the Government of the United States of America to provide for the well-being of the labourers and to act towards them in strict good faith. His Majesty's Government feel no such distrust and have therefore no intention, as at present advised, of fettering the discretion of the Governor of Trinidad in

  1055
  regard to the recruitment of labour for Panama.

  The Hague Conference and the Limitation of Armaments.
  MR. CARLILE (): On behalf of the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to announce the terms of the resolution to be moved by the British delegates at The Hague on the question of limiting armaments.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): I can only repeat the replies I gave to the hon. Members for Andover and Norwood on the 1st instant.† It would hardly be courteous to the Conference for me to make any anticipatory statement of the terms of any resolution that may be brought before them.

  Trinidad Labour Ordinance.
  MR. CARLILE: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Ecclesall division of Sheffield, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he can now state what Court decided that the recent Trinidad Ordinance cannot be enforced in the Panama zone; what was the status of the Court which pronounced this verdict; and has notice of appeal been given.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: It is presumed that the hon. Member refers to a decision stated to have been given by the Supreme Court of the United States, by which it has been laid down that the Isthmian Canal Commission, with whom the contract entered into by Trinidad labourers is made, are part of the United States Government, and therefore cannot be sued for breach of contract. His Majesty's Government having received information to this effect, His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington has been instructed to report whether such a decision has been given. Until His Excellency's Report is received I am not in a position to furnish the hon. Member with any further information.
  † See (4) Debates, clxxix., 1211–2.
  MR. CARLILE: Shall I put another Question down?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: No, I will send the hon. Member the information.

  Trade in Venezuela.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are taking any steps, and if so, what steps, to secure the removal of the surtax of 30 per cent. on all goods shipped to Venezuelan ports from the West Indies, which was imposed by the Venezuelan Government in 1881 in contravention of Article 4 of the treaty of 1825.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I regret to state that I can add nothing to the Answer which I returned to the hon. Member on this subject on July 28th, 1906‡.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Are negotiations in progress?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The question has been discussed.

  Civil Service Superannuation.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that no steps have yet been taken to repeal the seventh section of the Superannuation Act of 1859, though its immediate repeal was recommended by the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments in 1888; and whether, in these circumstances, any civil servant retiring on account of abolition of office is entitled to part of the extra allowances or benefits contemplated and provided by an unrepealed Act, even though his retirement did not result in the maximum amount of saving to the State as between salary and pension.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; to the second part in the negative. My hon. friend will observe that the provisions of the section in question are permissive only; and since the recommendation of
  ‡ See (4) Debates, clxii., 213.

  1057
  the Royal Commission, the Treasury has made it a rule not to grant the additional allowances contemplated by the section, except under special circumstances which rarely arise.

  English Channel Fishery.
  MR. MILDMAY (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is contemplating the possibility of arranging, in the interests of the fishermen of the South Coast, an English Channel Fishery Convention on the lines of the North Sea Convention.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): Yes, Sir, the matter is now receiving the careful consideration of the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office.

  Seamen's Contracts.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in some of the principal shipping ports of the United Kingdom the superintendents are failing to report to the Board of Trade cases where seamen fail to join their vessels after signing the articles of agreement; and whether he will issue instructions to the superintendents requesting them to report all such cases of failures to join to the Registrar-General, in order that the certificates of such seamen may be dealt with in accordance with the Merchant Shipping Act of 1906.
  MR. KEARLEY: The Board of Trade are not aware that superintendents are omitting to report cases where it is shown to their satisfaction that a seaman has wilfully or through misconduct failed to join his ship. In order, however, to remove any possible misconception of the requirements of the section, further instructions will be issued to superintendents in regard to the matter.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Is it not the fact the Merchant Shipping Act provides that the superintendent shall report all cases?
  MR. KEARLEY: Yes, that is so.

  Seamen's Qualifications.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of
  1058
  Trade whether he is aware that the British Vice-Consul at Rotterdam will not permit any seamen to engage on vessels belonging to the Furness line as A.B.'s unless such seamen can prove three years sea service, and that at the same time on all other vessels, where the crews are supplied by the Rotterdam shipping masters, men are accepted as qualified able seamen although unable to prove three years sea service; whether he can say why the British Vice-Consul makes this distinction between vessels of the Furness line and other vessels; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made with regard to the conduct of this Vice-Consul at Rotterdam, and call upon him for the ground on which he can reconcile his different conduct in the two cases.
  MR. KEARLEY: The Board of Trade are informed by the Vice-Consul at Rotterdam that no distinction is made by him between vessels of the Furness line and other vessels.

  The "Palastrina."
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the British steamer "Palastrina" engaged a crew at Rotterdam on or about the 30th July, 1907; whether the British Vice-Consul allowed four seamen to be signed on the articles of the vessel as A.B.'s, not one of whom was able to prove that he had three years sea service; whether the "Palastrina" is now lying at Cardiff; and, if so, whether he will cause inquiries to be made at Rotterdam and Cardiff as to the want of three years sea service of these men who were signed on as able seamen.
  MR. KEARLEY: The facts are as stated by my hon. friend. An assurance has, however, been received from the Vice-Consul that in future seamen who cannot prove the necessary sea service will not be given the rating of A.B.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: May I call the hon. Gentleman's attention to his previous Answer? He now admits that the Vice-Consul has been signing men on as A.B.'s who could not prove three years service, and before that he said no distinction was made.
  MR. KEARLEY: Both Answers are accurate.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the "Palastrina" is not one of the Furness line, and that before men are allowed to sign on for the Furness boats the Vice-Consul is particular to see that they prove three years service? Did he not in this case overlook the provision and allow incompetent men to sign on?
  MR. KEARLEY: I do not admit that at all. If the hon. Member has any further information I shall be pleased to consider it.

  Railway Dining Car Attendants.
  MR. HUDSON (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the number of hours worked by the dining-car staff engaged on the important trains on the principal railways of Great Britain; whether he can see his way to request the several railway companies to furnish a complete Return of the actual hours this class of servants were on the trains each turn of duty during the month of July, 1907; and what other steps he proposes to take, if any, in this matter.
  MR. KEARLEY: Dining car attendants would not appear to come within the scope of either the Regulation of Railways Act, 1889, or the Railway Regulation Act, 1893, and the Board of Trade have therefore no powers which would enable them to take the action suggested.
  MR. HUDSON: Under what Department do these men come?
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that although by Act of Parliament certain powers had been given to the Board, these men did not come within their scope. The Regulation of Railways Act, 1889, applied only to servants whose duties involved the safety of trains or passengers, while the Act of 1903 dealt with men engaged in working the traffic. These men came within neither category, and the Board consequently had not the power the hon. Member seemed to think.
  MR. LEIF JONES ()asked whether the Government
  1060
  were not in a position to bring influence to bear on the railway companies to arrange proper hours.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid they could make representations, but there was no statutory force behind them.
  MR. HUDSON: Seeing that these men are employed on the trains will the hon. Gentleman further consider their case?
  MR. KEARLEY: Yes, Sir.
  MR. LEIF JONES: And will representations be made to the railway companies?
  MR. KEARLEY: Yes, for what they are worth.

  Conviction under the Merchant Shipping Act at Middlesbrough.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the conviction under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, of a seaman named Thomas M'Atanney, at Middlesbrough on 23rd July; whether he is aware that M'Atanney signed on the steamer "Lady Lewis" on the 5th July and failed to join that ship, and afterwards signed on the 16th July on the steamer "Oakby," and failed to join that ship either; whether he can say if M'Atanney produced a discharge book when signing on the "Oakby"; and whether he will call the attention of the owners to the fact that seamen are being engaged on their vessels without producing certificates of discharge, and thereby encouraging men to obtain employment who make it a habitual practice to sign on ships and not go to sea in them.
  MR. KEARLEY: The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the conviction, under Section 65 (1) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, of the seaman referred to by my hon. friend. I am aware of the seaman's failure to join the "Oakby" but, in the ease of the "Lady Lewis," I am informed that the master on the arrival of the vessel at Cardiff reported that he had discharged the seaman at Middlesbrough. The seaman did not produce a discharge book when signing on the "Oakby" as his book had not yet been returned from Cardiff to Middlesbrough. The attention.

  1061
  of the owners of the "Oakby" has been called to my hon. friend's Question, and the Board of Trade will also communicate with shipowners generally in regard to the subject.

  Lord Strathcona and the All-Red Route.
  MR. BYLES (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the present visit of Lord Strathcona to Canada has any bearing on the suggested subsidies by this country to certain railway and steamship routes to the Australian Colonies; and does he carry any instructions or authority from His Majesty's Government, or can the House be assured that no encouragement will be given to the Canadian proposal to establish what is known as the All-Red route.
  MR. KEARLEY: The Board of Trade have no knowledge of the objects of Lord Strathcona's visit to Canada. As has already been stated in answer to previous Questions, His Majesty's Government has the matter of the proposed All-British Route under consideration, and I am not at present in a position to make any further announcement on the subject.

  London Traffic.
  SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can definitely state that the branch in connection with London traffic, recently established in his office, is to be of a temporary character; whether it has been established pending legislation next session; and whether he can state what duties in connection with traffic this newly-appointed branch of the Department will be asked to perform.
  MR. KEARLEY: Yes, Sir. It is not contemplated that the traffic branch should be of more than a temporary character, and its establishment is without prejudice to any future legislative proposals that may be made. Among the duties of the branch at the outset will be the collection of information and statistics with a view to bringing and keeping the Report of the Royal Commission up to date and the preparation of an annual Report with regard to London traffic for presentation to Parliament, the preliminary examination of new schemes seeking statutory authority so far as these come within the
  1062
  scope of the Board of Trade, and the consideration of any other questions affecting traffic in Greater London that the Departments concerned may desire to refer to it.
  SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: May I ask the hon. Gentleman what steps have been taken to empower the Commissioner to deal with items of London traffic which stand outside the scope of the Board of Trade? The duties of such a Commissioner would be very limited unless they were extended to the Home Office and the Local Government Board.
  MR. KEARLEY: I could not answer that offhand.
  LORD R. CECIL (): Is it intended to introduce legislation next session dealing with this traffic question?
  MR. KEARLEY: No doubt legislation will follow in due course, but whether next session or the session after I really cannot say.
  LORD R. CECIL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is a considerable time since the Report of the Royal Commission, and there is a great difficulty with reference to London traffic? Either you must hang up schemes which are or may be of great advantage to the public, or else you must allow them to proceed at the risk of throwing out the whole subsequent development of the question.
  MR. KEARLEY: I can assure the noble Lord that we are fully alive to the necessities of the case.
  SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: Are the Board satisfied that they have statutory powers to examine private Bills under the present law?
  MR. KEARLEYasked for notice of the Question.

  Sir Hugh Owen.
  DR. COOPER (): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state whether Sir Hugh Owen, late Permanent Secretary to the Local Government Board, still holds any appointment as an official of a public authority for which he receives a salary; whether he

  1063
  is in receipt of a pension; and, if so, whether a reduction is made in this pension by the amount of the salary he receives from the appointment.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): Sir Hugh Owen is receiver of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, and also examiner of costs under the Borough Funds Acts, the net emoluments of these offices being £265 per annum. He is in receipt of a pension, and no deduction is made from it. The emoluments of the offices above-mentioned are not payable from Imperial funds.

  Education Department Consultative Committee.
  SIR J. RANDLES: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Kingswinford Division of Staffordshire, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he will give the names of the members of the Consultative Committee, the date of its formation, and the purposes for which it was formed.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKUNNA,): The Consultative Committee consists at present of twenty-one members; I will send the hon. Member the names. The Committee was established on the 1st October, 1900, by an Order in Council under Section 4 of the Board of Education Act, 1899. The purposes for which it is formed are laid down in that section.
  SIR PHILIP MAGNUS (): Are the members of this Committee appointed for life?
  MR. MCKENNA: I really cannot say without reference to the Act.

  Secondary School Grants.
  SIR J. RANDLES: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Kingswinford Division of Staffordshire, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state what education standard a secondary school must possess in order to obtain the increased grant for secondary schools over and above the educational standard attained by schools earning only the lower grant.
  MR. MCKENNA: None, Sir.

  Neckinger Council School, Bermondsey.
  DR. COOPER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of the medical officer of health for Bermondsey as to the verminous and insanitary condition of the Neckinger London County Council school, Bermondsey; and whether he will require the school to be placed in a sanitary and cleanly condition before the children return to school after the holidays.
  MR. McKENNA: My attention has not been drawn to the statement referred to, but I have given directions for the matter to be investigated.

  The Antwerp Shipping Dispute.
  MR. THORNE (): I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if the Peninsular and Oriental Shipping Company receive a subsidy from the Government in consequence of carrying the mails; if he is aware that the company in question shipped 1,600 persons in their boat "Borneo," which left the Albert Dock on Saturday morning last for Antwerp, to take the places of the dockers who were out there owing to a dispute with some of the shipping companies; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (; for Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON): The Peninsular and Oriental Company receives a subsidy for the conveyance of mails. My right hon. friend has no knowledge of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers. The matter does not appear to be one in which he could take any action.

  Irish Land Purchase.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the total amount of the agreed purchase money in the agreements for sale under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1903, lodged with the Land Commission to 30th June, 1907; how much money has been allocated by the Commission in payment of purchase money to the same date; how much money is now available for completion of the agreed sales; and is it proposed to find funds for the restoration of evicted tenants and the expropriation of new tenants or planters in priority to the funds required to

  1065
  complete the agreed voluntary sales under the Act of 1903 for which agreements have been lodged with the Estates Commissioners.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The total amount of the purchase money involved in the agreements lodged up to 30th June last, including sales to the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board, was in round numbers £47,500,000, of which £17,500,000 had been advanced up to that date. Money is at present being supplied to the Irish Land Purchase Fund by the National Debt Commissioners as and when required. The provision of funds for the purchase of lands under the Evicted Tenants Bill will not affect the provision of funds for ordinary land purchase under the Act of 1903. An additional and separate staff has been, and will continue to be provided for the work to be done under the Evicted Tenants Bill, and funds will be provided for the purposes of that Bill pari passu with the provision of funds for ordinary land purchase.

  Mullaghboy-Robbery of Postman.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on 23rd July the postman from Carrigallen S.O. to Mullaghboy was attacked by three men disguised as women, who took from him five letters supposed to contain writs; and whether he will state why it was not considered necessary to afford the postman protection in this case, in view of the instructions issued to the local police by the police authorities in the matter.
  MR. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that the facts are as stated in the first part of the Question. Letters containing writs are usually registered, but in this case the letters were ordinary post letters. The local police had no reason to apprehend that the contents of these letters would become known before delivery, otherwise special protection would have been given to the postman.

  The Theft of the Irish Crown Jewels.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with regard to the recent disappearance of Crown
  1066
  jewels from Dublin Castle, whether the jewels have yet been traced, recovered, or redeemed; and, if so, under what circumstances.
  MR. BIRRELL: The reply is in the negative. The jewels have not been traced, recovered, or redeemed.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (): What efforts have the police made to detect the loyal and patriotic Unionist criminals who stole these jewels? Have they searched the haunts of the aristocratic loyal and patriotic Unionist criminals, the Kildare Street Club, for instance.
  MR. BIRRELL: As we have no means of knowing who the thieves or receivers are, any speculation as to their politics would be out of place.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is it not the fact nobody had access to this part of Dublin Castle where the Crown jewels were kept except persons known to be loyal and patriotic Unionists?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Irish Land Annuities.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state in what way the payment of part of his annuity in Guaranteed Land Stock, by a purchaser under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, would be unfair to other purchasers who did not choose to avail themselves of this mode of payment; who is, or are, the person or persons whose duty it is to make the rules, under Section 2 of the Act of 1891, to enable payments to be made in Guaranteed Land Stock; and is the £13,900,000 of existing Guaranteed Land Stock only very little, and how much, less than the total outstanding advances under the Act of 1891.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): (i). The Sinking Fund instalments payable under the Act of 1891 have to-be accumulated by the National Debt Commissioners until such time as the amount so accumulated will redeem the original advance in Guaranteed Land Stock. The National Debt Commissioners apply all receipts on the accumulation account to the purchase of Guaranteed

  1067
  Land Stock at the prices obtaining from time to time, and when the Stock is below par the Stock credited to the tenant purchasers is in excess of the cash invested, and the benefit of such purchases accrues to the tenant purchasers as a whole, the period for which the annuity is payable being reduced accordingly. Owing to the large number of purchasers under the Act, about 46,000, the only practicable way of accumulating the Sinking Fund is to deal with the payments as a whole so that any advantage arising from the Stock being procurable below par may be equitably distributed. If one section of the tenant purchasers were to pay their instalments in Stock the progress of the accumulation would be retarded by the action of that section of tenant purchasers, whereas they would share equally with the rest in the benefit arising from payments in cash although they would have contributed nothing to produce that benefit, and those who paid in cash would suffer to a corresponding extent, (ii.) It is, of course, the Treasury who were given power to make a rule under the section referred to. (iii.) The existing Guaranteed Land Stock at 31st March last was £12,741,000, which amount has to be redeemed by the accumulation of the Sinking Fund instalments. Up to the same date the accumulation account had acquired £966,000 Stock, but of the remaining £11,775,000 only a small proportion was in the hands of the public.

  Business of the House.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON (): I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can afford facilities for the final stages of the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): Yes, Sir; in view of the fact that this Bill has passed through all its stages in this House with the exception of part of the Report stage and the Third Reading, and of the very large measure of support which it has received at every stage, the Government propose to afford facilities for this Bill. The object of the Bill has gained steadily for many years in Parliamentary support, and the opposition to it has correspondingly dwindled. We think it is high time that
  1068
  the matter was settled. Perhaps I may be allowed to add that the other Bills for which we propose to give facilities are: The Limited Partnerships Bill and the Advertisement Regulations Bill. In regard to both of these it only remains to find time for consideration of the Lords' Amendments. The Lights on Vehicles Bill will also be starred, but it is proposed to exclude Scotland from its operation. We also hope to give facilities for the Notification of Births Bill, but this must depend upon the Bill being agreed to.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill will be taken?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I hope to-morrow night.

  Crown Ecclesiastical Patronage.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR (): I beg to ask the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to a recent utterance of the Bishop of London in which he exhorted the Crown to reconsider its present method of exercising ecclesiastical patronage; if he proposes to take any steps to avoid a repetition of the procedure recently adopted, with the approval of the bishop, by which the induction of an evangelical clergyman appointed by the Crown to the living of St. Saviour's, Hoxton, was prevented; and if it is proposed to transfer the patronage of this living from the Crown to the sole patronage of the Bishop of London.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have seen a report of the sermon to which my hon. friend appears to allude, but I cannot find any exhortation in it. The Vicar of St. Saviour's, Hoxton, was, I understand, allowed by the bishop to withdraw his resignation before his living was declared vacant. I have no control over these proceedings. I am considering whether the names of Crown nominees should be divulged in future before the vacancies actually occur. An arrangement has been for some time under consideration whereby there would be an interchange of shares of patronage, that is of alternate rights of patronage, between the Crown and the bishop. If this exchange is carried out this particular living would pass wholly to the bishop—others of equivalent value passing wholly to the Crown.

  The Belfast Riots.
  MR. CURRAN ()asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the grave condition of affairs in Belfast, the Government would immediately take steps to prevail upon the railway and shipping companies to recognise the desirability of submitting all points of dispute to arbitration, and also in the meantime have the troops withdrawn for a stipulated period, with a view to securing a peaceful settlement.
  MR. MARKHAM (): Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, may I ask him whether he is aware of the speech made by a Member of this House at Belfast, in which he said that although the people of Belfast had no swords or guns they had broken bottles, and whether he proposes to take action against the hon. Member for inciting the people to riot?
  MR. STANLEY WILSON (Holderness): Don't give him a free advertisement.
  MR. BIRRELL: I can assure the hon. Member for Jarrow, who has given me notice of his Question, that the Government are fully alive to the urgency of this matter, and are doing all they can to secure a settlement of this most unfortunate strike. It will be remembered that two representatives of the Labour Federation, Messrs. Mitchell and Gee, did in the earlier stages of the dispute go over to Belfast, and did their best to secure a settlement, with very considerable beneficial results. I cannot but believe that, had they remained, all the difficulties would by this time have been overcome. Unfortunately, they were obliged to leave. I have arranged with the President of the Board of Trade that he should send over, and he is sending over to-day, one of these gentlemen, Mr. Mitchell, who is now a temporary servant of the Board of Trade; and he is going accompanied by a permanent servant of the Board of Trade in the Labour Department. They will at once do what they can to place themselves at the disposal of all parties. I have also just heard, I think somewhat authoritatively, from the representative of the trade unionist party in Ireland and the trade unions, that they are perfectly willing to
  1070
  refer this matter to arbitration. They suggest the name of Mr. Carlisle, an active member of the firm of Harland and Wolff, who are one of the largest, if not the largest, employers of labour in the United Kingdom. They say also that failing him they would be willing to allow the matter to be referred to Sir Antony MacDonnell. This, at all events, shows a disposition on their part to refer all these matters in dispute to arbitration. I have the most earnest hope, and am not altogether without some confidence, that in the course of a few hours we may hear that these negotiations which are going on on all sides have had a satisfactory result. Every effort, so far as I can do anything, will be in the interests of peace. So far as the removal of the troops is concerned, that is a matter entirely in the hands of the civil authority, and it is for them to consider the propriety of any such step. I have no responsibility; but from the information within my reach, I cannot say that I think any such proposal as that would add to the general sense of security on the part of the whole city of Belfast, whose interests must not be overlooked even in the presence of this most lamentable strike.
  MR. CURRANasked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the reason of the breakdown of the negotiations with Messrs. Mitchell and Gee arose entirely from the obstinate position taken up by the railway company.
  MR. BIRRELL: I do not think it is desirable for me at the present time to express any opinion.
  MR. SLOAN ()asked whether the recent visit of Sir Antony MacDonnell was not with a view to arbitration, and, if so, whether he had reported the result of his inquiry.
  MR. BIRRELL: Sir Antony MacDonnell went as a representative of the Government to ascertain facts for my information. I do not think I am at liberty to say more.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON ()asked whether a full and complete inquiry would be made into the circumstances which had led to such disastrous results.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONasked whether it was not the fact that the soldiers and the police had exercised the most wonderful self-control during the riots.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH ()asked the right hon. Gentleman to say who were the civil authorities referred to who ordered out the military, seeing that the Lord Mayor did not consult the city magistrates or the city corporation.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY ()asked whether the introduction of the military in Belfast was not chiefly owing to the extreme pressure brought to bear on both the local authorities and the Irish Office by the Shipping Federation, who wrote to the right hon. Gentleman on 25th July a threatening letter which contained the phrase that failing strong action by the Government they themselves would use force, that they would organise a force of their own, and whether the right hon. Gentleman had sent any reply to this letter depecating the use of such minatory language.
  MR. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the question I have put to him?
  MR. SUMMERBELL (): May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, considering the nature of the missiles used by the crowd in Belfast, and the fact that such crowd contained a large number of innocent women and children, he does not consider that the order to shoot by the troops with intent to kill was wholly unnecessary and unjustifiable?
  MR. HALDANE: I have a report here which tells the story related by the military commander, and I will read the details of it. It is dated the 12th, but it contains a narrative of what happened on the two days—
  "Military report on the situation in Belfast during Saturday and Sunday, 10th and 11th August—
  "Belfast, 12th August, 1907.—I have the honour to report that the troops were on picket duty in the streets on Saturday. All was quiet till about 12 noon, when a determined attack was made on some wagons of Messrs. Hughes in the Nationalist quarter in the Falls Road. Two pickets of the 1st Royal Berkshire Regi-
  1072
  ment came to help the police and formed a cordon across the street, afterwards falling in in rear of the wagons and escorting them down the road. The troops were greatly hampered in taking any offensive action, as three-quarters of the mob consisted of women and children, the men remaining in rear and throwing paving stones and broken bottles. Second Lieutenants Allfrey and Harvey and ten non-commissioned officers and men were cut about the head with missiles. The disturbance appeared purely local, and I am taking measures in concert with the police to guard against attacks on the pickets in this quarter. The conduct of the 1st Royal Berkshire pickets was admirable, all ranks showing the greatest forbearance and steadiness under the most trying circumstances. No troops were on picket duty yesterday (Sunday). At 7.15 p.m., however, an urgent telephonic communication was received from the Commissioner of Police that a serious riot had broken out again in the Falls Road district, and requesting that all available troops in the garrison should at once proceed to the vicinity. Within five minutes of the message being received all three battalions at Ormeau Park were under arms, the two battalions at Victoria Barracks and two troops of cavalry following shortly afterwards. On arrival at Cullingtree Police Barracks, which appeared to be the centre of the riot, the troops were halted. After consultation with the Commissioner of Police, it was decided to block the entrances to the streets to the north of the Grosvenor Road with a view to localising the disturbance, and also separating the Protestant and Catholic quarters north and south of the above road. A picket of fifty men of the 2nd Essex Regiment were ordered, in company with about twenty of the constabulary, to occupy a post about 150 yards north of the police barracks. The party were received with volleys of stones, and it was found necessary to clear the three worst streets at the point of the bayonet. The mob, however, did not await the charge, but fled down the streets, the inhabitants covering their escape by throwing stones, tin pots, filth, and other missiles from the upper windows. The charge, however, had a good moral effect, no further trouble taking place in this quarter. More stone-throwing took place at the picket of the 4th Middlesex Regiment guarding the debouches into the Grosvenor Road, and the cavalry had several times to clear the streets, followed up by parties of the infantry. The rioting gradually ceased, and about twelve midnight all troops returned to quarters. I regret to say that one officer (Second Lieutenant Passingham, 4th Middlesex Regiment) and seventeen hon commissioned officers and men are under medical treatment, all suffering more or less severely from contused wounds, chiefly in the head, caused by paving stones thrown at distances of nine or ten yards. The brunt of the fighting fell on the 4th Middlesex Regiment, two troops 3rd Dragoon Guards, and a picket of the 2nd Essex Regiment, mentioned above. The conduct of these corps was admirable, and there was never the slightest sign of the troops getting out of hand, though they often had to stand being mercilessly pelted at short ranges without being allowed to retaliate. The police co-operated splendidly with the troops, and

  1073
  some twenty arrests were made. Some portable searchlights would be of the greatest assistance and would save many casualties, as prior to commencing operations the mob extinguishes all street lamps. Wires and ropes were also fixed across the streets to impede the cavalry."
  I have just received the following telegram—
  "Victoria Barracks, Belfast, 13th August, 1907.—Serious rioting last night. At 5 30 p.m. I placed troops in five posts round disaffected area with orders not to expose men unless necessary and keep rioters in their own quarter of city. Reserve at Ormean Park and Victoria Barracks. Mob attacked and broke all windows of Cullingtree Road Police Barracks. Rifle Brigade charged out and made twenty-five prisoners. This moved mob to Palls Road Barracks. Here the picket was so hardly pressed that the magistrate ordered troops to tire. Seven rounds were fired, three people killed, one, I regret to say, a woman, and several wounded. Reinforcements arrived about 8.15., and troops were able to hold their own. About 12.30 the troops returned to barracks, leaving a detachment at Falls Road, which left for barracks at 1.30; casualties fifteen, only three of these serious."
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us who is the local authority who ordered out these troops? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lord Mayor did not consult the city magistrates nor did he consult the corporation; and I will further ask him can the Lord Mayor of a city call out the military on his personal responsibility?
  MR. HALDANE: I must have notice of that Question. The conditions under which the troops were called out are laid down in the King's Regulations.
  MR. CURRAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my colleagues and myself on these benches have counselled peaceful behaviour during the whole strike?
  MR. HALDANE: I have no reason to doubt that. My opinion is that the people who have been taking part in these lamentable attacks are not strike workmen.
  MR. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my Question, whether he knows that a Member of this House advocated to the people of Belfast that they should throw broken bottles at the troops if they had not swords or guns, and what action he proposes to take to prosecute that Member?
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: For inciting to riot.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: Is it not a fact that this speech was delivered in England, and that England is not within the jurisdiction of the Chief Secretary for Ireland?
  MR. BIRRELL: The matters which are engaging my attention and also the attention of the people of Belfast have not allowed me a moment to pay attention to the wild language which has been used, and to which no importance is attached in Belfast. The hon. Member paid a hasty visit to Belfast and disappeared very soon. Belfast people with all their faults are not likely to take any guidance from him. With reference to the letter that was addressed to me by the Shipping Federation, I dare say its terms were not very proper, and I have pointed out that in my reply. But I can say for myself that no pressure was put upon me or on any of us by the terms of that letter.

BUTTER AND MARGARINE BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 312]
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION, ETC.]
Committee to consider of authorising the extension of the period for repayment of certain Loans made by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, and of authorising the remission of a debt due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, in pursuance of any Act of the present session, to grant money for the purpose of certain Local Loans out of the Local Loans Fund, and for other purposes relating to Local Loans (King's recommendation signified), Tomorrow (Mr. Runciman).

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY (INSURANCE COMPANIES) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 303.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 303.]
Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 311.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GUEDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Mr. Munro Ferguson; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Rufus Isaacs.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C (in respect of the Companies Bill [Lords]): Mr. Thornton, Earl Percy, and Mr. Pickersgill; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Companies Bill [Lords]): Mr. Hills, Mr. Fell, and Mr. Berridge.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee C: Mr. Cave.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILL.
  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  "To continue various Expiring Laws," presented by Mr. Runciman; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 313.]

  SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
  MR. CHAPLIN ()MR. CHAPLIN (Surrey, Wimbledon) moved on Clause 6 an Amendment to restrict to the labouring population the acquisition of small holdings under the
  1076
  compulsory powers of the Bill. He said that he might be reminded that there was no similar qualification in the Act of 1892, for which he was personally responsible, but he submitted that there was no analogy between the two cases, because there was no compulsion under the Bill of 1892, while this Bill was full of it. Under the Bill anybody could obtain a small holding, whether well-to-do or not. That was not the purpose of the measure, and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, when he introduced it, stated that the real object aimed at was to bring people back to the land, although he admitted at the same time that he was not very sanguine that Parliamentary interference would turn back to the villages any great proportion of those who had acquired a taste for the excitement of the towns. Still he felt that if they could fix on the land those now living on it or near it they would be doing good work. That he took it was the main object of the Bill, on the right hon. Gentleman's own showing, but the measure in its present form went far beyond that. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman there was no very great probability of bringing back to the land any great number of those who had left it, but he was afraid that if the Bill passed in its present form they would see in all parts of the country the establishment on a very considerable scale of what he might call rural villadom. That certainly was not the object they had in view, and it was not an object which afforded any justification for the use of compulsory powers. Then again the provision that the person who applied for and obtained a small holding should cultivate it himself was absolutely no safeguard. What was the definition of the word "cultivate?" He had looked up the definition clauses of the Act of 1892 and found there that the expression was to include horticulture and other things, including the keeping of poultry or bees. Thus a person had only to grow a few roses or to keep a hive of bees in his garden to bring himself under the Act. He certainly held that there ought to be some further qualification, and he therefore proposed the insertion of the words providing that applications for the small holdings should be confined to the labouring population. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 31, after the word 'persons,' to insert the words 'of the labouring population.'"—[Mr. Chaplin.)
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,)was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not be surprised to hear that his hope for the acceptance of the Amendment was doomed to disappointment. He wished to have no hampering of the class of deserving people who might get these small holdings. The larger the number of people from the overcrowded towns who could be induced economically to settle on the land the better he would be pleased. The right hon. Gentleman might rest assured that rural villadom was not likely to be set up under the county council control which would be exercised over the tenants under this Bill. But if they attempted to define a class in an Act of Parliament they would either get into difficulty or create injustice. In his opinion the words in the Bill "shall themselves cultivate" were quite sufficient safeguard even with the gloss of the rose and the beehive put on them by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS ()regretted that he was unable in this case to support his right hon. friend the Member for Wimbledon, who, he could not forget, was the author of the only Bill in existence which had succeeded in bringing men back to the land. There was a numerous class of village tradesmen who would be excluded from the Bill if this Amendment were carried. There were the blacksmith, the shoeing smith, and the wheelwright who in consequence of the decay of village life were now only half employed, and if they could only be possessed of a few acres of land they could fill up their spare time profitably and their sons would not be driven into the towns. He did not think they need fear that the Bill would give rise to speculation in land for there were provisions against sub-letting.
  MR. GEORGE FABER ()presumed that the object of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon
  1078
  was to make sure that people who got the small holdings were conversant with the cultivation of the land. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman really wished to confine the applicants for holdings to the labouring class. The subsection it was true provided that persons who hired holdings were themselves to cultivate them, but it did not go so far as to say that they were to cultivate them properly as was the case in the Act of 1892. There certainly seemed to him to be some omission from the Bill which ought to be made good.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had supported the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon on one ground, and one only, that the cultivating provisions of the Act of 1892 were not applied by this Bill. If the hon. Member turned to the Bill he would see in Clause 7, line 3, provision was made for applying the whole of the cultivating conditions of the Act of 1892, to which he had alluded.
  MR. E. GARDNER ()said there was nothing in the clause as it stood to prevent a county borough from providing allotments or small holdings, but why should persons outside the rural area come in and dispossess men, who had been in occupation for years, of their holdings? Surely, injustice could not go much further than that. Here was one set of people born and bred on the land, who had stayed there through good times and bad times, and they were to be turned out by another set who had been away from the rural area all their lives, and probably had made a competency in the borough. As he understood, the Bill was intended, among other things, to keep people on the land, so that the population bred thereon should be healthy and strong; and here they had a population brought up on the land which was to be displaced by the population in the towns, who had lived there all their lives, and who desired in the closing portion of their careers to live upon the land. Anything more unjust to one class in favour of another he could not conceive. If the clause remained unamended, an injustice would certainly be done to those who

  1079
  had given up their lives to agriculture, in favour of those who came into it as a recreation.
  MR. CHAPLINadmitted that he had overlooked the provision in Clause 7 referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. That would apply undoubtedly to any cultivation of the land. Personally he adhered entirely to the views he had expressed. He was not shaken in the least by what his right hon. friend had said, because what was the argument against his proposal? They were in favour of the Bill applying to the blacksmith, the wheelwright, and various others in the village districts, everyone of whom came within the Amendment that he proposed. But he owned that his proposal did not appear to have received that support, even from some Members on his own side, which he might have anticipated, and, therefore, he should not waste the time of the House by going to a division.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER ()SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER (Wiltshire, Chippenham) moved an Amendment to give power to purchase holdings. His object, he said, was to enable county councils, who had availed themselves of compulsory powers to purchase under the Bill, either to sell land to small holders or lease it. In other words, he proposed that the county council should be armed with compulsory powers of purchase in regard to the Act of 1892, under which they had limited powers at the present time to purchase by agreement. The Amendment was moved upstairs, but he regretted that his right hon. friend had not seen his way to accept it. It appeared to him that the principle involved was important to the whole of the land tenure question in our country districts; and he believed the demand in certain districts of England among certain people to take advantage of it was so substantial that he made no apology for again raising this question on Report, in the hope, however remote, of inducing his right hon. friend to reconsider his former decision. The objection upstairs to the Amendment moved by the right
  1080
  hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley division was to the effect that the proposal for purchase was outside the scope of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said the question was dealt with in another Bill and, therefore, could not consistently be included within the provisions of the present Bill; that this measure was exclusively one giving powers to the county councils to lease, and that if they included the principle of a proprietary peasantry or of ownerships, they would be running in direct antagonism to the machinery set up by this Bill. He had felt at the time that this objection of his right hon. friend was not a very strong one, but was somewhat flimsy in its character; and since he had had an opportunity of reading more closely the Act of 1892 he was confirmed in that opinion. This opportunity of strengthening the Act of 1892 was one which would not recur again probably for years, because the land question was not dealt with by elaborate measures every year. They should make purchase compulsory under the Act of 1892, as purchase for hire was compulsory in the present measure. The main charge against the Act of 1892 had always been that owing to its permissive character it was a dead letter save for a very few holdings that had been established in Worcestershire, and he believed in Lincolnshire. Surely, an opportunity like the present should be seized to improve existing legislation, and to bring it up to the level that they desired the measure now passing through Parliament to attain. He was aware that the opposition to this Bill was due to the fact that it was based on the principle of leasing and not on the principle of ownership. He had never shared that objection himself, nor did he do so now in moving this Amendment. He believed that in the great majority of cases throughout the country the method of leasing land to small holders was one that would be most suitable and prove most acceptable. He would not attempt to recapitulate the various reasons based both on economy and convenience; he merely contented himself by stating that in the great majority of cases the principle of leasing was the one that would be availed of. But while he said that, he

  1081
  was equally confident that throughout the country, especially in those districts where small holdings already existed, there were many small holders who would gladly avail themselves of the opportunity of becoming owners on the instalment principle. He knew many small holders, and hon. Gentlemen near him knew many also in their respective districts, who would gladly seize the opportunity offered them out of the small provision they had made, to pay the fifth of the purchase money which was required, and they would also be able to pay the instalments which would run for a period not exceeding fifty years. All the Amendment asked was that some opportunity should be afforded to this class of small farmers by the introduction of compulsory powers of purchase where necessary. It had been argued by those who opposed the idea of ownership that it would create throughout the country a class of ill-tended holdings; that as time proceeded the occupants of those holdings would lose their money and even mortgage their properties, and that the land would ultimately find its way into the hands of unreliable people. The answer to that was very clear. Certain provisions inserted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon in his Act of 1892 were very clear precautions against anything of that kind occurring. Clause 7 referred to rules as to the mode or conditions of sale, and said—
  "Every county council acquiring land under this Act shall make rules for providing against any small holding being let or sold to a person who is unable to cultivate it properly."
  In Clause 11, it was provided—
  "If at any time after the restrictive conditions imposed by this Act have ceased to attach to a small holding, the owner of the holding desires to use the holding for purposes other than agricultural, he shall, before so doing, whether his holding is situate within a town or built upon or not, offer the holding for sale, first to the county council from whom the holding was purchased, next to the person then entitled to the land from which the holding was originally severed."
  They were the specific precautions laid down in the Act of 1892 against anything of the nature of that which was apprehended by those who were opposed to the course which he proposed. The only answer which they had really had up to now was that it ran counter to the
  1082
  principle of the Bill, which was for leasing. But the adoption of the Amendment would not in the least degree interfere with the smooth and easy working of the principle of basing. The real objection which had been raised, and probably would be raised again, chiefly by hon. Gentlemen on the Labour Benches, was to any extension of ownership, because they desired gradually to extinguish ownership throughout the country. He could understand that attitude; it was logical and consistent; but he unhesitatingly said that he most profoundly disagreed with it, and he hoped and believed that his right hon. friend shared that disagreement with his colleagues on the Treasury Bench. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not allow himself, cither in this or in any other measure, to arrive at such an opinion by the urgency of demands coming from certain sections of the House. He was quite certain of this, that although there was a number of hon. Members who held that view, there was, on the other hand, a very large number who held the view which he had ventured to indicate in the opposite direction. Among those who held the view which he advocated, some would never allow the opportunity to escape for a public authority to acquire property, and having once acquired it, under no conceivable circumstances would they permit that property to be sold or parted with. He had no sympathy with extreme views, especially as applied to agricultural land. Whilst in towns it might be necessary for the local authority permanently to own the land on the basis that it was in the public interest, that same doctrine when extended to the country districts became utterly and entirely inapplicable. He had been twitted by an hon. friend, who slid that he must find it difficult to reconcile his position as a Liberal and his position as a landlord. He did not find any difficulty in reconciling those two positions. At the same time, in order to avoid difficulty, they should have a little clear thinking, and they must distinguish once for all between a slavish adherence to extreme Socialistic views and the maintenance of sound Liberal principles. Wherever they looked abroad they would find small holdings developed on the principle of ownership. He was very much struck

  1083
  last week at the International Housing Conference—at which he regretted more of his hon. friends were not present—by four speeches, one by a Belgian, one by a Dutchman, and two by Germans. They all strongly advocated the extension in their own countries of small holdings. They said that all responsible people had realised that the extension of small holdings was one of the chief methods of mitigating those evils which were common to their countries and to ours. They went on to emphasise the fact that if those small holdings were to be a permanent success, if they were to be profitable to the occupants, they must be based on the principle of ownership. He had laid stress on that argument as to ownership, because he thought they had now an opportunity of carrying it on parallel with the principle of leasing—distinct from but not antagonistic to it. He urged the principle of purchase on the Government even now, because it was a sound alternative, and there was a demand for it in the country, and he was confident that all sections of opinion, whether Liberal or Conservative, would be profoundly disappointed if they found that something of this nature was not put at their disposal. No real objection could be raised which his right hon. friend need be anxious about. He appealed to him to reconsider the proposal, for it would in no way interfere with the smooth working of his measure. Those hon. Gentlemen who held the same view as he did associated themselves with him in urging upon his right hon. friend and the Government to do what they could to give this proposal, which he ventured to move, favourable consideration.
  MR. BERTRAM (), in seconding the Amendment, said that the object of the Bill was universally recognised, and their duty was to do what they could to improve the status and condition of the agricultural labourer; that was the sole object of the measure. It had been said that legislative change which acts on the social structure merely as a physical force, altering the arrangement of parts, but leaving it character the same, was certain to fail. He did not say the Bill was sure to fail without this Amendment, but if they could by
  1084
  any means "transform the molecules" composing the structure, their chance of success would be much greater. It was because he believed that the. Amendment would have the effect of enabling the country to transform the character and raise the position of the agricultural labourer that he gave it his warmest and heartiest support. The question was, would mere ownership operate to transform the labourer? While as a mere tenant, no matter low benevolent his landlord, no matter what artificial securities might be afforded him he must remain as he now was, and exhibit perhaps but one more illustration of the small tenant, a by-word for ill-luck and incompetence. There was, he knew, a very substantial body of opinion unfavourable to private ownership in land, and the hon. Baronet had referred to it as existing among hon. Members below the gangway opposite, while it was sparsely, he hoped sparsely, distributed over the Liberal Benches. If the view was held that they were going, by a devious course, by means of this Bill towards the establishment of the elements of a socialistic or collectivist system he did not think success would attend upon their efforts. That was not the purpose, object, or intention of the Bill, which was designed to afford to the agricultural labourers a better chance and opportunity than they had ever had before, and he felt that it was the duty of Parliament to enlarge this opportunity by every means in their power. He believed the main effect of the Bill would be seen in immediate recourse to the Act of 1892, which had been regarded as a dead letter up to the present time. The first effect of the Bill would undoubtedly be to stimulate activity on, the part of county councils, who would not like Commissioners coming in from outside, while landlords would by reason of the compulsion clauses be more acquiescent in selling their land. They would, as he had said, in this way experience a large recourse to the Act of 1892. To refuse assent to the Amendment would be to set up anomalous conditions in many parts of the country. Might he suggest a possible case? In the county of Hertfordshire the county council might put in force the Act of 1892 and acquire land by agree-

  1085
  ment, say thirty or forty acres, in the neighbourhood of a village, which they offered either for sale under the Act of 1892 or on lease under this Bill, until such time as the tenants could become the owners by purchase. Then over the border in Bedfordshire, let them assume that the county council was unable to acquire land by agreement, and put in force the compulsory clauses of this Bill. In this way they too secured a piece of land which they offered to the labourers. Could they treat them in the same way as the more fortunate labourers were being treated in Hertfordshire? No; in the case suggested the Bedfordshire County Council could only offer them small holdings upon a tenancy; they could not offer them ownership. He would read a very short quotation from Professor Fawcett on this point. They would have set up side by side two sets of small holders, one set owners and the other set tenants, dealing with the same produce, probably in the same market, and under conditions in all other respects identical, and the two classes of cultivators would be competing with one another. Professor Fawcett, in his "Political Economy," said—
  "How little chance there would be of manufacturing industry in this country successfully encountering the close competition with which it has now to contend if in England manufactories generally had to be rented, whereas in other countries they were owned by the manufacturer. Legislation may give a tenant security for improvements, but no legislation can give the same security as that which is obtained when a man feels that he is applying his labour and his capital to increase the value of his own property.'
  The argument against small ownership was not very strong. The proverbial poverty of the English agricultural labourer though it might unfortunately represent a fact did not constitute an argument against the acceptance of the Amendment. If a man was too poor to buy he could hire and wait until he was rich enough to purchase. As for the question of State ownership as against private ownership, it could only be justified if they were considering the food supply of the country, a question which did not arise upon this Bill, which was merely concerned with giving the agricultural labourer the maximum of opportunity to do the best for himself. There was no
  1086
  question of betterment. It was perfectly true that there was often a rise in the market value of land classed as agricultural, but that was not the "agricultural value," and was due to certain social distinctions for which people were willing to pay apart from the agricultural value altogether. It had been suggested that it would be a dangerous thing if the smallowner had the power to mortgage or to sell. He wished to point out that there was a provision in the Bill that for a period of twenty years the power of the smallholder to sell or mortgage was restricted. There was also a provision inviting the county council to co-operate in future with agricultural credit banks for the purpose of enabling these very men to tide over times of difficulty and stress which in some cases must arise. Was it not true to say that the man who was a lessee could mortgage his property, his leasehold, just as fatally as the smallowner; and with regard to sale, if it was an advantage to a man to sell what he had created by his own industry he ought to be entitled to do so. On behalf of the value and merits of ownership he felt that he ought to say something. The first consequence was the enormous augmentation of a man's industry. About 130 years ago Arthur Young in France made a series of observations with regard to peasant proprietors which had never been contradicted or falsified, and during the whole period which had intervened no French Government had ever attempted to make or dared to suggest any alteration in the legal status of the peasant proprietor in France, and that was the strongest possible argument in favour of that system. Everywhere upon the Continent those who had seen the system of peasant proprietorship in operation were unanimous in praise of it and ascribed its success to the fact that the man who tilled the soil was the owner. Under this Bill they were being invited by compulsion to create "tenants." The only observation he wished to make on this point was that where they had the county council control which would be exercised under this Bill over the tenants the tenants had not freedom, because the council would have an agent who would have his favourites among the tenants and would have his fads and system just like

  1087
  the agent of an ordinary landlord. That was inevitable, and the real impetus which enabled the owner to drive the plough to better advantage would be Licking. Then came economy in working. Wherever they got smallowner-ship there they would find economy in working. It was one of the main features of the whole system. They found not only that the gross produce derived from the labour of a smallowner was greater but his net produce was proportionately greater than in the case of a large farm. Proof of that was to be found in Prussia, where there had been a much more rapid enhancement of the value of the small farms as compared with large farms. With economy in management they got frugality and a host of social virtues which completely transformed the character of the man, who came to exercise more foresight and care in everything that went to improve his property. But the greatest benefit of all was that ownership raised a man from the position of a mere dependent. He carried his head higher and acquired a sense of patriotism which he did not possess at the present time. [An HON. MEMBER: Why not now?] Because he was too poor, poverty ruled out patriotism, and a labourer had not the chance of making the best of his opportunities. He was afraid the right hon. Gentleman was going to meet the Amendment with an adamantine negative. All parties desired that a measure of this kind should operate for the benefit of the agricultural labourers, and it would be a great advantage if the Bill was passed by a united House of Commons. It should not be overlooked that the Opposition had a strong force behind them in the country which was out of all proportion to their numbers in the House. The labourers he had conversed with told him that they did not want land law reform so much as a little bit of land which they could call their very own and which they could cultivate for their own benefit. They did not say anything about tenancies, because they were dreaming of ownership. He thought they would do more good if they augmented the number of owners of land by compulsion than by creating more tenancies. If the Bill succeeded, he believed they would multiply its chances of success by
  1088
  giving both ownership and tenancy an equal and a coinciding opportunity.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 31, after the word 'lease.' to insert the words 'or purchase.'"—(Sir J. Dickson-Poynder.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HARCOURTagreed with the hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment that there was no inherent difficulty in the position of Liberal and landlord. He did not know, however, in which capacity the hon. Baronet was speaking when he proposed to expropriate compulsorily one private owner in order to put another in his place. He had never argued against the sale of small holdings on the ground that he wished to abolish private ownership. He had argued against it on the ground that he believed that it was not to the best advantage of the smallholder and of the country generally. If there were a demand for actual ownership, it would have found expression under the Act of 1892. He believed that a good deal of the failure of that Act was due, not so much to the absence of compulsion as to the absence of any power to hire. The hon. Baronet admitted that the majority of smallholders would be likely to take up leases and that it would be only a small minority who would wish to secure the freehold of their land.
  SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: A small but increasing minority.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid he had received a letter from a district in the Midlands which stated that application was made some time ago to a local authority to acquire 300 or 400 acres of land to sell to the applicants as small holdings, but as soon as this Bill was introduced all the applicants asked the local authority to suspend the purchase of the land, because they would all prefer to become tenants under the Bill. He would not repeat the arguments he had previously put forward on the Second Reading as to the disadvantages of absolute sale to smallowners. He had pointed out

  1089
  the danger of the moneylender, and he could not agree that that danger was anything like so great with a leaseholder as with an owner. Although it was true that there were directions in the Act of 1892 to the county councils to secure, men who would cultivate the land properly, there was no provision which would secure that their sons should inherit their capacity for cultivation. There had always been this great objection to his mind. If they made a small man the absolute owner of his first holding, which would be a very small one, they would tie him to that holding, not by law but by the fact that he must remain on it until he could obtain the full price for it and all the improvements he had made upon it, so as to be enabled to remove to another holding. He did not understand really why hon. Members like the mover of the Amendment, who did not think that the number of smallholders who desired purchase would be very large, were not satisfied with the provisions made by this Bill combined with previous legislation. Any land acquired under the new Act by agreement could, of course, be sold by the county council as under the Act of 1892. Surely the effect of the compulsory provisions of the Bill would be that they would be able to obtain the largest part of the land by agreement. Therefore the county council were likely to have over the land they obtained very full discretion as to the method in which they should deal with it. He had declined, and he must still decline, to go further to facilitate sale to small ownerships, which he believed would be a great disadvantage to the locality.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid the evident hostility of the right hon. Gentleman to do anything to increase the ownership of land almost passed his comprehension. He did not note in the few words which the right hon. Gentleman had addressed to the House any adequate reason whatever for the somewhat peculiar view which he held on this particular question. In the ease of a small man who had acquired his holding the right hon. Gentleman had asked what assurance there would be that his successor would inherit capacity for dealing with land. He understood the right hon. Gentleman
  1090
  to suggest that the father might have been brought on to the land for the first time himself. Was it the son who had been brought up on the land or the father who came there without experience who was most likely to be able to deal with the land? The right hon. Gentleman had pointed to the difficulty which the owner of a small property would have, even if he were successful, in moving to a larger one, or acquiring an addition to his own. He failed to see any difficulty whatever on that point. What difficulty could arise if he proposed to add three or four acres to his holding if he had the wherewithal to purchase the addition? The question which had really been raised by the Amendment of the hon. Baronet was whether it was desirable to encourage ownership on the one hand or tenancy on the other under the provisions of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had asked—If there is such a demand for ownership in the country, why is that there has not been a greater number of applications for the purchase of land under the Act of 1892? It had already been stated that that Act had proved to be a dead letter because it was wanting in the element of compulsion. He disputed that argument altogether. The reason why the Act of 1892 failed was not in any degree because there were no compulsory powers included in it. There was ample land in the market which could have been obtained by agreement on perfectly fair terms. His right hon. friend the Member for the Bordesley Division had repeatedly pointed to the success of an experiment in the creation of small holdings in Worcestershire. The reason why the Act of 1892 had not had a far greater operation was to be found in the fact that the Liberal Government which came in soon after the Act was passed did not give it a chance. They introduced a measure for compulsory hiring. He admitted that at that time compulsory hiring was exceedingly popular with that part of the public who desired to have small holdings. That was put in force to a considerable extent, and the advantages of the Act of 1892 were neglected. The effects of the measure in regard to purchase were referred to in evidence to which he had called attention more than

  1091
  once. The evidence did not show that compulsory hiring had been successful, but no one representing the Government had condescended up to the present time even to notice that evidence. Reference had been made by the seconder of the Amendment to the success of peasant proprietors abroad. Everybody knew that the man who owned the land always used it better than the man who was only a peasant, however good as a tenant he might be. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Well, that was the universal experience of everyone who was practically conversant with the land question in this country. There had been successful small ownership in days gone by, but agricultural depression came upon the country and that class suffered. Until the unfortunate days of agricultural depression there were few who lived more happily and prosperously than the small owners of land. He remembered the time when in Lincolnshire there were thousands of people called freeholders, and they prospered as much as any class in the country could desire. That class suffered from the agricultural depression which resulted from foreign competition. In France, Germany, and many other countries peasant proprietors flourished. He thought the Amendment should be accepted in the hope that it would promote the ownership of land. The peculiar form of tenancy proposed by the Government would, he had no doubt, be exceedingly popular at first, but when a tenant had got all he could get out of the land in a few years he would surrender it as other small holders had done in the past. That would not happen under a system of ownership. The House could not do anything more wise in connection with agriculture than to accept the Amendment and thereby encourage ownership instead of tenancy.
  MR. VERNEY ()said he supported the proposal of the hon. Baronet from the point of view that there was abundance of scope in this country for every kind of holding and for every class of farmer. He would call the attention of the House to what the Amendment really implied.
  "A county council may for the purpose of providing small holdings for persons who desire to purchase or lease," etc.
  1092
  In other words, it gave a man power to purchase his holding if he desired. The hon. Baronet did not propose to bring in any more compulsion than was already in the clause. He did not see anything of any kind for enforced purchase in the clause. If there were he would most strongly oppose it. The clause as it stood referred to persons who desired to lease. Now, what did a lease mean? It might be for nine years, nineteen years, ninety-nine years or 999 years. It was not of mere agricultural labourers they were talking, but of successful tradesmen who had made a certain amount of money and demanded a long lease What kind of distinction could be drawn between a long lease in this connection and a freehold? They knew well that when a lease came to a certain length it practically was the same as a freehold. He ventured to say that under the clause as it now stood, if there was any vice in a freehold there was equal vice in compulsory hiring. When they took into consideration how slight was the change which would be made by the hon. Baronet's Amendment he hoped it would be accepted. A good deal had been said about mortgages and debt. Everybody who had closely followed this question as it had been taken up in Ireland, and the work which had been done by Sir Horace Plunkett and his friends, knew that there used to be ownership of land with all the evils of debt attaching to it, but these evils had been to a very large extent mitigated or abolished by the system of co-operation and by agricultural credit banks through which there was an easy acquisition of money in small amounts with no interest by the Irish tenants and small landholders. These had proved to be the antidote to the gombeen man. It was not right that the freeholders should always suffer under a burden of heavy debt or mortgage, and the Irish plan might be called in in aid in this country of the purchaser—not the enforced purchaser—of his holding. At any rate in Ireland under the new régime the evils of debt had largely disappeared or were rapidly disappearing. He hoped, therefore, that the Government might be induced to reconsider their position and would not deny the option of

  1093
  purchase to the small holder, in which he saw the germ of that success and prosperity to the small holder which would do great things for the country.
  MR. LEIF JONES ()said that no one could doubt the importance of the Amendment, because its inclusion in the Bill would go far to destroy the whole merit of the measure. [An HON. MEMBER on the OPPOSITION Benches: How?] For the reason that the great feature of the Bill was that it enabled county councils to acquire by hiring land to let to small tenants throughout the country, and if this Amendment was inserted the operation of hiring would be seriously affected through the fact that a landlord who did not want to let would say. "Oh, you are always bothering me about my land. Take the land—you have the power to do so—and shift the burden on to your own shoulders." That would be a not unreasonable argument, and hiring would tend to diminish, and purchase to increase, and the operation of the Bill would consequently be limited. What was the position in which they found themselves at the present moment? The right hon. Gentleman opposite who represented the landed interest in the House par excellence was an advocate of the compulsory expropriation of one landlord in order to set up another in his place; and he further told the House that in order that a man might be a good cultivator of the soil he must be the owner of it. [OPPOSITION cries of "No!"] Certainly the right hon. Gentleman did imply that a man who owned the land was a far better cultivator than the tenant. He must say that his experience did not agree with that statement.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that what he laid down and what he adhered to was that ownership was the greatest possible inducement to a man to carry on good cultivation.
  MR. LEIF JONESsaid he was not able to agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He maintained that the tenant farmers of this country were the best farmers in the world, and that our landed system was only justified by securing
  1094
  such men as cultivators of the soil. If the right hon. Gentleman contended otherwise then out of his own mouth he condemned the landed system of the country. But that was not all. The right hon. Gentleman knew that capital was necessary to carry on a farm, and that the farmer required security that he should have a return for the outlay of that capital. But in the case of small holdings there was great difficulty in finding tenants who had the necessary capital to carry on the farm.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that he was not speaking of large tenants. All his observations were directed to ownership or occupation of small holdings.
  MR. LEIF JONESsaid he was quite aware, but every word the right hon. Gentleman said about large farms applied also to small holdings. That was the necessary and logical sequence of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. The merit of the Bill was that without requiring too much capital from the small man they would be able to place him on a small holding. With ownership they would have to find a man not only to stock the land, but also to buy it. It was most desirable to have hiring to enable the man to use all his capital for the purpose of stocking his holding. He was not without experience of small holdings. He represented a county in which there were more of these small properties than in any other county in England. The great difficulty was that the owners had families. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of a son succeeding his father; but they often had five or six sons and the property was divided, encumbrances were created, and the small holdings were swallowed up gradually in the big estates. As to the agricultural labourers, they were in Cumberland and Westmoreland able to save £150 to £200 by the time they Were thirty years of a re if they were industrious and thrifty. And they could then under the hiring system get a small holding and stock it fully. He was heartily glad that the Government resisted the Amendment. They heard the phrase continually from hon. Gentlemen opposite about rooting the people with the soil. That was not his ambition. He wanted to see the labourers walking

  1095
  erect on the soil and moving on from stage to stage.
  MR. BECKETT ()said that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had put an extraordinary argument in the mouth of the right hon. Member for Wimbledon, viz., that the latter had advocated the expropriation of one landlord in order to set up another in his place. That was not the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, but the proposal of the Bill. If they would not let the present owner continue in his ownership, they must put another in his place. He supported the Amendment because he wished to see the measure not only useful as a spasmodic experiment, but as a permanent success, and the question of whether it was a permanent success or not must depend in the last result upon the labourer. It was because he thought that the labourer would have a great deal more incentive to make his holding a success as the owner rather than as the tenant that he rather favoured the Amendment. He understood that it was one of the objects of the Government to enable the labourer to rise in life: all he could say was, that under this Bill they gave him but a very short ladder. If, after a great deal of expense and trouble, the labourer was put only on the footstool of the tenancy, what could he do when he got into his holding? The tenant looked around him when he got into his small holding and knew that neither the house in which he lived nor the land which he tilled belonged to him. He would be called on to pay not only the rent, but the interest on the sinking fund, if the county councils were not to make a loss, and at the end of his tenancy he would be I deprived of the advantages which were I due to him. If it was one of the objects of the Bill to keep the labourers on the Soil: there were two ways in which that might be done. The first was by attaching him to the soil, and that was a purely sentimental idea. The other was by attaching the soil to him, by allowing him to become the purchaser. Hon. Members talked very glibly about landlords, and there were some quarters of the House in which one had only to mention the word "landlord" to excite
  1096
  the throwing of half bricks in the way of bad language at them. The tenants of the country knew better, however, and hon. Members made the greatest mistake if they thought they desired to come under county councils, who had not the power or indeed the right, dealing as they were with ratepayers' money, to be merciful in bad times. A corporation had neither a body to be kicked or a soul to be saved. For these and other reasons he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment, otherwise there would be hopeless chaos. In many directions it appeared to him that the finance of the Bill was muddled, and unless the Amendment was accepted the Bill could not be a success.
  MR. SUMMERBELL ()remarked that the hon. Member had talked about bad language being used when the landowner was mentioned. It was not the landowner that they took exception to, but the question of private ownership in land. He therefore hoped that hon. Members would somewhat modify their views in regard to their position. The hon. Member had said that the Bill was very much muddled, but he thought the muddle was in the mind of the speaker. Several hon. Gentlemen had said that the way to get land cultivated was to make the man who cultivated it the owner, but anyone who knew anything about land knew that the responsibility for its condition at the present moment was to be put upon the owners, and not upon those who were the tenants of it. Millions of acres were out of cultivation and yet we obtained two-thirds of our food from abroad, and the direct responsibility for this state of things rested upon the system of the private ownership of land. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not give way as far as this particular Amendment was concerned To say that a municipality could not acquire land for the purpose of letting it with better results than flowed from private ownership was to advance a contention which in his judgment was not arguable. He thought the time had come when the Government, and especially this Government, should take upon itself the responsibility of restoring the land to the people. Only a small proportion of our total

  1097
  population were at present settled upon the land. It was the birthright of every child to live upon the earth, but if they maintained the right of private ownership they denied the right of people to live on the land except upon the landlords' terms. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill would adhere to the declaration which he had made that he would keep the clause as it stood, and thus start the movement for the restoration of the land to the people of this country.
  MR. BECK (), as one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the Bill, urged the right hon. Gentleman to grant the concession asked for. It seemed to him, if he might say so with all due deference, that the last two or three speeches had dealt not at all with the Amendment proposed. There was no idea of forcing county councils to constitute small freeholders; they merely wished to give them the option of doing so if they desired it. They on that side had resisted the efforts of hon. Gentlemen opposite to shackle the freedom of those who would have to administer this Bill; they asked for freedom for these bodies and for elasticity of machinery. Yesterday they gave the Commissioners a free hand, and to-day they asked for the same freedom for county councils. He was a warm advocate of the Bill, and he believed in establishing tenants instead of owners, but cases might arise in which it might be desirable to settle small owners on portions of farms and he thought it would be undesirable if county councils had not the power to do this. He agreed with much that the hon. Member for Appleby had said about the small holders lacking capital and being shackled as owners, but he did not think that that had anything to do with the Amendment. They only wished to give the county councils power to settle small freeholders if they thought it desirable. It would be for the county councils to see whether the applicants were desirable people, and whether they had the necessary capital. He thought they could safely leave such questions in the hands of county councils. The Bill was intended to serve, and he believed would
  1098
  serve a double purpose, one was the improvement of the condition of the labourer and his status in life, and the other was the national object of maintaining and increasing the population upon the land. He thought that as the result of this Bill they might see something like the results which had been obtained in Denmark, where the State settled a number of men on the land and after thirty or forty years they or their children accumulated capital and were now in the position of small landowners. He believed that there were a number of cases in which it would be desirable to settle small owners on the land, and he hoped the Bill would enable this to be dons.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS ()said the hon. Member who had just sat down had ably advocated a system of purchase, and it was obvious that the Bill as it stood would break down. If a small holder were allowed to purchase it was cheaper than hiring the holding. The county council would buy the land as cheaply as possible. There was plenty in the market at a very low price. Then the county council would be able to sell to the holders at a correspondingly low price. But if this Bill became law all the expenses connected with it, and they would be very heavy, would be included in the rent which the tenant would have to pay, and he would acquire no interest in the holding. If bought at any future time the basis of purchase would then be on the rent they were paying, and the purchase price would be far higher than they would pay if the county councils now started to buy as cheaply as possible land which was on the market and to sell it to the occupiers in a corresponding manner. It was difficult to find a reason for refusing this small concession. On the introduction and the Second Reading of this Bill the right hon. Gentleman showed his opposition to the principle of purchase, and he had never wavered since. He had said that if he thought there would be any substantial increase in the number of purchasers under the Act of 1892 he would limit rather than extend the facilities. The right hon. Gentleman had asked why, if purchase was so desired, there had not been more success

  1099
  under the Act of 1892; but he knew perfectly well that the labourer did not buy land for the same reason that he did not buy comforts and luxuries: he had not the money. When the labourer was asked to put down 20 per cent. of the purchase money he was unable to do it, and therefore it was not very wonderful that the Act was not brought more largely into operation. Over and over again the Government had been pressed to remove this bar of poverty which prevented a man from owning the land he cultivated. He had visited the estate to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, the occupiers of which were said to prefer tenancy, and having talked to those men collectively and individually, he had found that the majority of them preferred ownership to tenancy, but the bar of poverty prevented it. He had in his hand at that moment a petition in favour of owner-slip which was sent to an hon. Member of the Committee which sat to consider this Bill, and the petition was signed by fourteen of these very tenants who were said to prefer tenancy. Was the position of the Government this, that while they would give £100,000,000 to the Irish people for this purpose, they were prepared to say to the people of this country that they should not own an inch of the soil the tilled? He had received a letter from a man in Kent who described himself as one out of many thousands who had saved a little money and desired to have a small holding, and in that letter he said, with all respect to the present Government, that unless they fell in with the view of purchase they were wasting their time in a useless endeavour to bring men back to the land. The artificial arguments as to the moneylender and bad cultivation did not apply to the question of purchase. A man who had bought his holding and had to pay the price in annual instalments was of no use to the moneylender. He had borrowed all the money he required at the lowest rate of interest. As to the argument of bad cultivation, he need only say as the hon. Member for Hitchin had pointed out, that the man who owned the holding was more likely to attend to it and cultivate it properly than a tenant who was there to-day and
  1100
  gone to-morrow, and whose only desire was to get as much as he could out of the holding while he was there. Ownership disclosed the best power that was in a man to do the best he could. It was suggested that a tenant could keep on until he had saved enough to take a larger farm, but ownership could do better than that. If a man who owned his holding thought the time had come to buy a bigger farm, and his holding was in good condition and self-contained, he would have a dozen offers for it and have all the advantages in disposing of it of a man disposing of a property which he had improved. A man on the Catshill estate began twelve years ago with a holding of four acres. He saved money and had since increased his holding to twenty-nine acres. That man sold off his holding in the year before last £600 worth of produce, and in addition to the labour of himself and his family he paid £240 for labour. On the Catshill estate they had solved the housing question and the question of pauperism, and the rates now paid by those occupiers was much higher than those paid by the estate when it was a farm. That was a ladder no tenancy could secure. The hostility of the right hon. Gentleman and that of hon Members below the gangway were quite distinct. That of the latter was perfectly understandable. Their view was that there should be as few private owners of land as possible: they believed in municipal or State ownership. But there was a party that had beaten men holding those views in Germany and France, and who would always beat them. That party was the peasant proprietors of the country. But if hon. Members below the gangway believed in the nationalisation of land it should be brought about by purchase and not by confiscation. If the county councils were to set about buying land the tenants would have to pay for it, and if those who paid for it were not to have an inch of what they paid for that came as near confiscation as anything he could imagine. An hon. Member had said there was only a small body of opinion in the House in favour of purchase. That might be true, but there was a large body of opinion outside, and he claimed that there was a large body of opinion in that House,

  1101
  for if there was a vote by ballot many Members sitting on the Government side would vote in favour of it. This should not be made a Party question. In all the evidence given before Royal Commissions and Select Committees on the question all the most important witnesses said that, although they saw financial difficulties in the way, ownership was the best system. A very important Committtee appoined by the late Government, which reported two years ago, stated in their Report—which was one that should receive attention from any Government—that after going all over the country and hearing all the evidence available they recommended purchase under the "Purchase of Land" Bill as the only system. Denmark began by giving facility after facility for men to buy their holdings. In Denmark there was no question of tenancy, 87 per cent. of the occupiers being the owners of their holdings. Peasant proprietorship in France was the, great guarantee of order, and wherever the Code Napoleon had been introduced in Europe the same results had followed. When they saw all this in other countries it seemed to him that the Government were like Rip Van Winkle. They had been asleep all these years, and had now awakened up to put into force an obsolete system which had long since broken down everywhere else. It was said that under this Act county councils could acquire land on lease, but the Bill said nothing about letting to the tenants on lease. Therefore, they must assume that in such a case the tenants would be annual tenants. The hon. Member for Hitchin had said that for small holders outsiders would have to be relied on partly. Of course, they did not forget that there was only 23 per cent. of the population in the rural districts, and if from that percentage was deducted the residential population, and the old people and young children, there were very few agricultural labourers left. How was it that the people on the Continent sent us millions of small articles of food which we could not supply [An HON. MEMBER: Better education.] Better education and cooperation were not known either in France, Germany, or Denmark, until ownership
  1102
  was established. They were exotics where tenancies existed, but were the natural outcome of the system of ownership. The reason why we could not compete with them was that the owners knew every inch of their land and cultivated it in an intensive manner. The tenant who cams to-day and went to-morrow could not compete with them, but the colonists of Catshill could and did successfully. Out of that estate they had produced £4,000 or £5,000 per annum. The hon. Member for the Appleby Division had said he preferred tenancy with security and fixity of rent. But under this Bill there was neither security of tenure nor fixity of rent, and he hoped the hon. Member would no longer figure on platforms saying that this Bill gave either one or the other. In this case both rested with the local authority, but in ownership the security was absolute. That was the whole pith of the question, and it was a national question upon which the safety of the country depended. The matter ought to be thought out in a friendly way. The question was whether the men ought to own the land they tilled, whether it should always be in the hands of the cultivating occupier, or whether the system should be that of tenancy under county councils. If they looked at the evidence given before the Royal Commission they would find that the opinion of the most important witnesses was that corporations of any kind, whether public companies or other corporations, were the worst farmers and the worst people to manage a farm. In all the details which belonged to the management of a farm there must be personal supervision, and municipalities and local bodies could only exercise that supervision by hiring agents and tradesmen, the cost of which would all add to the rent. All these things would make it worse and worse for the tenant. He appealed to the Government to yield to what he believed to be the wishes of the majority of their supporters. The Amendment would not interfere with the working of the Bill and would only give an option. Unless the Government were determined that no labourer in this country should ever possess an inch of the soil they cultivated they would accept this proposal.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,)said he was called upon to meet arguments coming from the Opposition side supporting the view that the principle of tenancy ought to be replaced by ownership and that this ought to be carried out by the State on a scale in regard to which no kind of limit or restriction had been indicated. Such a proposal was throwing Irish legislation in the background with a vengeance. It simply meant the employment of State funds in order to substitute small owners for large owners. Was that what the Opposition required? There was another point upon which those who took this view had been significantly silent, and upon which the hon. Member for Sheffield had also remained silent. When people talked about purchase they ought to indicate what method they desired for the acquisition of the land. Hiring was simpler than purchase, and in this Bill they had still further simplified it. They enabled a county council compulsorily to hire land in the neighbourhood of a town, where it would be most valuable for small holders; but when that land was wanted for building, then the landlord would be entitled, after twelve months notice, to resume the land. That enabled them to exclude from the agricultural rental any question of building value and thereby to take the land for a long period of years without having to pay a building price for it. Were hon. Gentlemen opposite willing to allow purchase to be carried out in the manner provided by this Bill—that was, to substitute valuation for the operation of the Lands Clauses Act, which provided an arbitration which had been oppressive to railway companies and all municipalities? If so, they would then talk about purchase. He did not think hon. Members opposite had realised this important element in any system of universal purchase. They would have to decide whether they were going to adopt the Lands Clauses Act or not. Under this Bill they empowered the Board of Agriculture by the Schedule to regulate these various matters and to adopt any of the clauses in the Lands Clauses Act. They had appointed a valuer who would act impartially as a Government official, and with expert
  1104
  knowledge, but without the heavy cost which was involved under the operation of the Lands Clauses Act. He would be glad to receive some indication in regard to future purchase as to whether hon. Members were willing to accompany universal purchase of the land by some method of acquiring it which would be cheaper and more expeditious than that which had nearly broken down some of the great railway companies. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley had said several times that the cultivator preferred to own the land; but would I he pay for it? The cultivator who bought his land must be content with a very small return upon his capital. He doubted whether he would get more than 2½ per cent. net upon his purchase capital. Those who had bought land generally found that they had to pay a heavy price for it and they seldom got a return of more than 3 per cent. upon their investment. Would any farmer be content with 3 per cent. interest on his capital? He did not know exactly what interest a farmer expected, but he knew he would not be content with 3 per cent. One of the difficulties and dangers of purchase was that the small owner was under the temptation to part I with the fee-simple of his land, in order, with the purchase price, to increase his stock, or to invest the money otherwise. [An OPPOSITION MEMBER: Why not?] He was not objecting, but was it worth the while of the State to undertake that great cost and risk, with that certain economic result?
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: That has not happened under the Act of 1892.
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid that under that Act there was a limit on the power of sale for thirty years and the purchaser was subject to all kinds of conditions. The framers of that Act recognised that there were certain economic forces to contend with, and restrictions were placed upon it of a very humiliating character. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon gave as the reason for the failure of his own Act for enabling county councils to purchase land by agreement, that the Act was passed in 1892 and that in 1894 a Liberal Government came along and passed the

  1105
  Local Government Act of that year, giving the local authorities the power either to purchase by compulsion or by agreement, or to hire. They had now the three systems in operation between which the local authorities had the right to choose. Which did they choose? He had before him a report dealing with the period from 1897 to 1902, showing the proportion between the acreage purchased and the acreage hired. The land purchased amounted to a little over 200 acres, and that hired by agreement to 2,364 acres. Thus they preferred to hire rather than purchase, and the disproportion was over ten to one. The Government left untouched the inestimable benefits of the right hon. Gentleman's Act; they left the question of purchase as it stood, but before they changed their Bill into one of purchase they would want to know how the price was to be fixed, and also whether the progressive Party opposite would show themselves as liberal when it came to the question of fixing the price as they now professed themselves to be in regard to a change of ownership.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR ()said the hon. and learned Gentleman had dwelt upon one argument and had asked why, if hon. Gentlemen sitting on that side of the House were so anxious for purchase, they did not come forward with some proposal to make purchase cheaper than it was at present? The Bill did not contain purchase so far as the tenant cultivator was concerned, but it did contain purchase so far as the existing landowner was concerned, and so far as purchase from him by the municipality was concerned, and that purchase was to be carried out by the very mode which the hon. and learned Gentleman said had broken down in the country and was so intolerable that it could not be introduced into the Bill, but which he and his right hon. friend had, as a matter of fact, introduced into the Bill.
  SIR W. ROBSON: I said that with regard to purchase the Lands Clauses Act will apply, but not to hiring.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURreally believed that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not read the Bill. It gave the public authority power to purchase compulsorily, and it declared that, when it did so, it was to purchase under the Lands Clauses Act. All that was required was that the local authority should use the powers given to it by the hon. and learned Gentleman under the Lands Clauses Act, and when it was the owner of the land it could divide up among the small cultivators the large farms it had bought into small holdings of any size it liked. What value were they to put on the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument when it was so obviously based on complete ignorance of the Bill he was supporting? The hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment had expressed some doubt as to whether it was possible to be a good Liberal and a good landlord. He had no immediate concern with the case of the hon. Baronet's conscience. He could not imagine why the hon. Baronet should feel any difficulty or why the subject suggested itself to him as a difficulty in connection with this debate, because not only was his proposal supported by hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House, but it was in exact accordance with all the confirmed traditions of the Liberal and Radical Party. The whole traditions of that Party were in favour of the multiplication of the owners of the land. He could remember in his earliest years being interested in this controversy. John Stuart Mill gave a great impulse to the whole doctrine in a well-known chapter in his "Political Economy," and he only echoed the universal conviction in those days of every man who called himself a good Liberal or a good Radical. There was one criticism of the existing system of divisions of land in this country, that estates were too large, that the number of owners of land should be greatly multiplied, and that such multiplication was good for the social order and prosperity of the country. [An HON. MEMBER: There were no county councils then.] Did the hon. Gentleman think that the creation of county councils by a Tory Government had entirely destroyed the whole of the Liberal creed? The old Liberal and Radical view might be entirely wrong. It certainly was

  1107
  opposed explicitly by every Member of the Front Bench opposite who now-professed to be the representatives of Liberal and Radical opinion, with the exception of one Radical, the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible for the government of Ireland. It was really impossible to say that that right hon. Gentleman did not regard the multiplication of owners as a social advantage. No man could govern Ireland for a week if he let it be understood that the proper system of land tenure was the system which the Government held to be appropriate under this Bill. Therefore, among the many divisions which separated right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite, there was this very fundamental difference between the opinion held by the Secretary for Ireland, and which must be held by every Secretary for Ireland, and the views which now passed as good Liberalism and Radicalism, but which during the first twenty years of his experience would have been regarded by every representative Liberal or Radical as entirely outside the Liberal and Radical creed. Certainly the hon. Baronet, whatever else he had to apologise for, need never apologise from the Liberal Benches for saying that his desire was to multiply the number of owners in this country. That being the historical view of the question, let them consider what sound policy required them to do now. The Scottish Bill insisted that they could not have good cultivation by small owners unless they had fixity of tenure. That was the Scottish view. But there was to be no fixity of tenure whatever for these holders of land under the county council. Living and dying on the same holding was held by the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate to be essential, but it was not the idea of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill, nor was it the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite who represented English constituencies. Let them consider what exactly was to be got, from a social and economic point of view, by the system which the Government had now adopted and which was in direct contradiction both to the policy which they were adopting in Scotland and to the whole traditions in Ireland. The Member for the Appleby division
  1108
  had said that all that was required was that henceforth cultivators of the land should be able to walk erect. He thought that was the gem of the hon. Gentleman's peroration. From the statements made by some hon. Gentlemen opposite and by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway one would believe that there was no more abject and unhappy being on the face of the earth than the agricultural labourer; that he could not call his soul his own, and that he was afraid to find in his employer or someone else an enemy. Well, he lived in the northern part of the island and certainly nobody would describe a Scottish labourer in those terms. But granting, for the sake of argument, that any man who was a tenant to another man became thereby his unhappy subordinate, at the will and beck of that other man, did the hon. Gentleman apply his epithets to all the cultivators of the country, and say that their desire was to walk erect and become independent? He did not know what the hon. Member's feeling was, but if he had to choose between being a tenant of the average county council or a tenant of the average landlord he would not hesitate to choose the landlord.
  MR. LEIF JONESsaid his contention was that the tenant was for the purpose of cultivation in as good a position as an owner. He was not contrasting one class of tenant with another.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it used to be held by Liberal and Radical politicians that tenants were mere servants of a tyrannical landlord who could turn them out at pleasure and command their politics and votes.
  MR. LEIF JONESdisclaimed responsibility for such a statement. He had never said anything like that.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the hon. Gentleman had the felicity of belonging to a Party which had made the statement, and had done so so recently as during the discussion of the Scottish Bill. The hon. Gentleman sitting on the Treasury Bench said that he had to defend a Bill the essence of which was fixity of tenure so that the tenants

  1109
  might no longer feel that they were in a position of servitude.
  MR. LUPTON (): We are going to raise the labourers' estate.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was pointing out the difference between the two Bills of the Government dealing with land. Was the hon. Gentleman prepared to apply one set of principles in dealing with one case and another set when dealing with his own county?
  MR. LUPTON: Certainly.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. Member for the Appleby Division thought that the tenant might walk erect, but that the labourer might not. He said the Bill was going to give independence to some class. Was it not the class of agricultural labourers?
  MR. LEIF JONES: I was making a contrast. My emphasis was on the word "walk" rather than "erect." What I endeavoured to say was that while hon. Gentlemen opposite were fond of talking of people being rooted to the soil, we wanted them to be able to walk erect on the soil and move on from stage to stage.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURthought that that must have been an extract from one of the hon. Gentleman's excellent temperance speeches. He would point out to the House the extraordinary inconsistency of the position of the Government and of a section of the supporters who believed in land nationalisation. It had been represented that if only the land was owned by county councils and municipalities all the cultivable land of the country would be cultivated, that the area and amount of production would be enormously increased; in short that the waste places of the land were solely due to private ownership. As a matter of fact it was out of private ownership of land, including small private ownership, and out of that alone that we could really get the waste places cultivated. Did the author of the Bill suppose that the new tenants should be asked to cultivate the waste land of
  1110
  England? The idea was absurd. If these lands were waste it was because the old tenants, cultivating in some respects under far more favourable circumstances, could not make them pay. If the new small tenants were successful it would be at the expense of the old tenancies which were now succeeding. They could turn out the old tenant and divide his land, and if he had prospered the new tenant might get on, sometimes perhaps even better than the old tenant, but the idea that they had only to hand over the land to a municipality and that that authority would be able to let it to people who would extract from it a good living was the most fantastical view of the possibilities of agriculture in England ever put forward on the responsibility of an important Party in that House. He thought the best system of land cultivation was probably a mixed system. He believed it would be a great disaster to destroy all the large estates and large farms, and on the other hand he welcomed the idea that small farms and small owners were to be multiplied. He hoped they would not, in consequence of the theoretical crotchet of a certain school of economists, destroy the very foundation of the system under which alone agriculture could be properly conducted. He wished to ask one question in connection with land naturalisation. Did hon. Gentlemen below the gangway hear the speech of the Solicitor-General, and his reference to the part of the Bill which gave the landlord the power of resumption when the land was ripe for building? Probably it was true that it would not be wise to stereotype the agricultural character of lands in growing urban communities; but this was the antithesis of land nationalisation. The Solicitor - General had thrown over that favourite doctrine of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, and had introduced an elaborate provision by which what was called the unearned increment would go, not to the community, but to the owner of the land. One word upon the crucial point of the whole question. Let the House remember that agriculture was not a profession in which there were either great prizes or great fortunes to be attained. It was an industry in which neither the owner nor the cultivator nor the worker

  1111
  on the soil could hope for those great prizes which attached to certain urban industries, which had an attraction just because while, among other things, they had an element of gambling risk, they had also great prizes. If they were going to induce people either to buy or cultivate the land, they must use every motive they had at their disposal, and there was no motive outside pecuniary profit which had so great an effect upon human industry as ownership. Could anybody deny that the universal experience of mankind was that the sense of ownership, especially in connection with land, had produced the most marvellous effects? He did not agree with those who alleged that this nation was lagging behind the rest of the world in the management of acres of land. It was doing nothing of the kind. So far as large holdings were concerned, he believed we were far ahead of any nation in the world; but there were some things that could be got out of small holdings which could not be got out of large. Both were required. But could they make small holdings really a success unless they gave the cultivator that perpetual spur to industry and saving which ownership, and ownership alone, gave? The universal experience of mankind was on the side of those who said they could not. Taking a broad area, it was hopeless to expect to make it a success unless the small occupier had the perpetual hope of increasing his means, the passionate love of his home, and the desire to leave that home to his children—all those motives which had a very noble side, though they might occasionally take a sordid form, and which were not connected with mere money-making. Those motives the Government refused to appeal to so long as they confined their Bill to occupancy and declined to extend it to ownership. That, put shortly, was the plea he earnestly addressed to the Government for accepting the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. Let the Government remember that the Amendment did not destroy their Bill. It only gave an alternative to the county council. The speech of the Solicitor-General seemed based on the idea that the Amendment made the Bill one for compulsory purchase. Nothing of the kind. It gave a freedom, and a needed
  1112
  freedom, to the councils, and this was eminently a case in which they might, in the cant phrase, "trust the people." He earnestly hoped, for his part, that wherever possible they would find it possible to adopt that system of small ownerships which was the true root and secret of any successful system of small cultivation.
  MR. LYNCH ()observed that before they went to a division he wished as a loyal supporter of the right hon. Gentleman and of his Bill to say a word or two in order to persuade him to accept this Amendment. With the greater part of the speech just delivered by the Leader of the Opposition he could not say that he was in agreement. He could not say honestly that under the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman they would not succeed in putting first rate small holders on the land. He thought there were great advantages in favour of the principle of this Bill which the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House had not brought out; but all that those who supported the Amendment asked was that the right hon. Gentle man who brought in the Bill should leave it optional to the county councils to take whichever course they liked. They wished to avoid forcing down their throats the principle of leasing; they desired to put trust in the county councils and allow them to take whichever of the two courses they liked, either leasing or purchase. What were the objections to the Amendment brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill? None that made any impression on his mind. The right hon. Gentleman truly said that they had had no great demand for small holdings under the Act of 1892; and he gave as the reason that under that Act there was no provision for leasing. But surely the right hon. Gentleman would agree with him, that the fundamental reason for the failure of the Act of 1892 was, that it gave no compulsory powers whether in regard to purchase or to leasing. What did the right hon. Gentleman himself say in bringing in this Bill? He said—
  "As a landlord myself I welcome the compulsion which is comprised in this Bill; and, if the House will forgive a personal allusion, I

  1113
  will tell them why. I stand in a position very common to many of my class—a position of considerable difficulty and limitation. I am a tenant for life of what the law calls my estate—a tenant for life under a very strict settlement of entail. I have no son, and I am therefore compelled, at all events I am morally bound, and so are my trustees, without whom I cannot act, to have regard in the treatment of my estate to the interests of the ultimate remainder man, who may be a distant relative, and to exercise strictness of administration, with absence of social and political bias, which I should not feel myself compelled to exercise if I had a son or if I were the owner of the fee simple. Therefore I say I welcome this compulsion."
  If the right hon. Gentleman welcomed this policy for the purpose of leasing what argument could he bring forward against extending it to purchase and resale to small holders? He heard no answer; and if they really came to close quarters with the Amendment they would find that both the principle of selling as well as that of leasing had been successful in the institution of the small holdings that already existed in England. The whole administration of this matter would be left in the hands of the county councils, and he could not see what possible reason there could be why the whole question should not be left in their hands to deal with as they liked. He would repeat that he spoke these few words as a strong supporter of the Government and of the Bill.
  MR. MILDMAY ()said that in his judgment it had been shown that ownership had produced co-operation, thrift, and frugality. He did not rise, however, to argue the question which the Amendment raised, but to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to put on the Government Whips, in the ensuing division, because he thought this was a matter which ought to be left to the House to decide for themselves. Members were not actuated by Party motives, as they had shown by their speeches, and he was sure the House would welcome the opportunity of being able to vote freely on this matter.
  SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERsaid it had been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman that if this Amendment were passed it would not interfere with the smooth working of the Bill. That being
  1114
  so he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to allow the House to vote as they pleased, unfettered by any party restraint.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid he did not propose to inflict any further argument on the House at this stage of the Bill, nor did he think it was necessary to deal in detail with the interesting lecture delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. If he had thought it worth while to go into that, he would have felt inclined to say that the Bill as proposed was perhaps the greatest step for the subdivision of land that had been taken in the last fifty years in the direction of creating small occupiers. He was sorry that he was unable to give his consent to the appeal made by his hon. friend. He had listened with great interest and instruction to the debate. Two right hon. Gentlemen had advanced the argument—which was worth noting for future use, and would be interesting to their landlord friends and tenants in the country—that farming tenancies must be a failure and that the only successful system was ownership of the land.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that, according to the ordinary profits of agriculture, success could only be achieved either as a large farmer of a small owner. Small occupiers working under special difficulties had not sufficient stimulus to make the system a success.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid that the whole of the argument on the Amendment had been conducted according to the view that he had left no optional powers to the local authorities to sell land. He had left the optional power which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends had thought to be amply sufficient for the purpose in 1892. In this Bill he enabled the county council to dispose of any land by sale which they might acquire by agreement, but he had not thought it right compulsorily to acquire land from one man in order merely to hand it over as the possession of another individual. The magic of ownership was much less attractive to a man who found that nearly all his capital was used up in securing the ownership, and that he had

  1115
  not been left with enough money to put stock on the farm, so as to turn over the value of his capital. One of the dangers of putting in permissive sale was this. He did not like to assume that there would be a large number of obstructive county councils in the country, but there were a certain number; and it was conceivable that, owing to the circumstances of their counties and the particular quality of the land there, these bodies
  might decline to let to anyone, though willing to sell under certain terms. The suggested permission would be giving a handle and an engine to an obstructive county council, and he would not be a party to the policy.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 84; Noes, 217. (Division List No. 410.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Ashley, W. W.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Moore, William

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Napier, T. B.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Nield, Herbert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick Georgo

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Gordon, J.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gretton, John

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

  Starkey, John R.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

  Verney, F. W.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore)

  Keswick, William

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lane-Fox. G. R.

  Cochrane, Hon Thos. H. A. E.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir John Dickson-Poynder and Mr. Bertram.

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J (Birmingh'm)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North

  Lynch, H. B.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Maddison, Frederick

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbet Henry

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury. E.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset

  Cleland, J. W.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

  Clough, William

  Elibank, Master of

  Bell, Richard

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Erskine, David C.

  Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Essex, R. W.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J (S. Pancras, W.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romt'rd

  Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinsted

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon

  Cowan, W. H.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth

  Ferens, T. R.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Ffrench, Peter

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Crooks, William

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Brace, William

  Crossley, William J.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Branch, James

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Crae, George

  Seddon, J.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Seely, Major

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Shackleton, David James

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Glover, Thomas

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Grant, Corrie

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Snowden, P.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Marnham, F. J.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Massie, J.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Hall, Frederick

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Summerbell, T.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Morrell, Philip

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morse, L. L.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Myer, Horatio

  Thorne, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nicholls, George

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Vivian, Henry

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Walsh, Stephen

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wardle, George J.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Philipps, Owen C, (Pembroke)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Pollard, Dr.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Wegdwood, Josiah C.

  Kelley, George D.

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Radford, G. H.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wiles, Thomas

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mp'n

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough

  Lupton, Arnold

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wilson, P. W. (St, Pancras, S.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Winfrey, R.

  Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs

  Rowlands, J.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Maclean, Donald

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-und.-Lyne

  M'Callum, John M.

  Sears, J. E.

  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY ()said he desired to suggest a very small Amendment to ensure that the holders would "personally" cultivate their holdings. The object was perfectly obvious, that the holdings should be given to persons who were really bona-fide cultivators. As the Bill stood, it seemed that people could come into possession of a holding without being personally connected with its cultivation. He did not think that was the object of the framers of the Bill, but that it was their intention, as far as reasonably possible, to provide that
  1118
  the type of men who got possession of these small holdings should be bona-fide cultivators, not amateur casuals, or urban residents, living perhaps elsewhere. These latter were not the class of people that both sides of the House desired to get under this Bill. The county councils who had to select the small holders would, of course, secure their economic position as far as they could, and they would naturally be a little bit prejudiced in favour of applicants who had some pecuniary resources, some little capital to fall back upon, which would enable them to stand

  1119
  the brunt of a bad season. There would be many of these applicants with a little capital who would be willing to embark it in a small holding; but the agricultural labourer had only his own industry and special knowledge, which were the capital that he put into the land. Therefore, if they did not make it necessary that the cultivation should be "personal" they would cut off from the agricultural labourer the chance of his getting a small holding. It was to guard against that contingency that he desired the insertion of this word "personally." It might be said that it would bar a man from the help which his family could render, but he did not believe that that would be the result of the Amendment, though he was perfectly willing to accept any other word or form of words which would achieve the object he had in view, namely, to get a small holder who would be a bona-fide and genuine cultivator, and personally work his holding. He wanted to bar the outsider from coming in, who was not so much an agriculturist as one who wanted to take a pleasant interest in the holding, one who was not always there, a weekender, a man who wanted to enjoy some of the amenities of a country home without being a bona-fide cultivator. He also desired, in the competition that took place for holdings, that a first chance should be given to the labourer who would actually and personally cultivate the land. If any objection were seen to the actual word "personally," he would be glad to substitute some other. He very much wished that the Bill should ensure that the small holdings went to the right class of men, whose number they desired to increase and whose position they sought to secure. In certain districts there would be a competition for these holdings, and they should try to secure for the men in whom they were chiefly interested the first chance, and he hoped, in that spirit, his Amendment would have the approbation of the Government. He could assure them that he would be only too glad to accept any other word or words which might be considered more appropriate if it carried out the essence and spirit of his Amendment. He begged to move.
  MR. COURTHOPE (), in seconding the Amendment, submitted that some such word as "personally" should be inserted in the Bill to make It absolutely certain that the right type of men would be secured for these small holdings. It would be possible for a market gardener under the Bill to obtain five or six small holdings for his purposes as a market gardener at the lower rate instead of the higher rate which he would have ordinarily to pay for market garden land. It would appear to be very necessary that some words should be introduced to ensure their getting the right type of man.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 32, after the word 'themselves,' to insert the word 'personally.'"—(Colonel Kenyon-Slaney.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'personally' be there inserted Bill."
  SIR W. ROBSONthought that so far as the object could be carried out the word "themselves" was sufficient for the purpose. The word would not be qualified by "personally," and the word "personally" was not in the Act of 1886 nor in the Act of 1892. He thought danger would arise from the introduction of the word "personally." The meaning of the Clause as it stood was that the smallholders should "themselves" cultivate the land, and the introduction of the word "personally," he was afraid, might put an undesirable limitation upon the size of the holding and on the type of tenant. Let them take, for instance, a holding of fifty acres, which was the maximum limit under the Bill. He apprehended that the personal cultivation of anything like that amount of land would be rather difficult. The small holder must have assistance and cooperation of some sort. If the word "personally" was inserted it might be construed that the size of the holding was to be cut down to what a man could cultivate himself. That would be a very unsatisfactory result, and was not the result which the right hon. Gentleman himself desired. The word "themselves" I must, in fact, mean personal cultivation.

  1121
  Then they were desirous of including the village blacksmith, the wheelwright, and others, who might take ten or twenty acres, but who might not be personal cultivators. The introduction of the word "personally" would make the clause very difficult of construction.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he quite agreed with what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, and he was perfectly willing to substitute some other word or form of words, such as "where he is helped by any member of his family or by hired labour," or anything which the hon. and learned Gentleman chose in order to carry out the object he had in view. They had had considerable discussion on a cognate point in the Scottish Grand Committee. There they came to an agreement to introduce the words "or with hired labour." These words would make it absolutely certain that the county council would secure a bona-fide tenant, although not the only hand employed. In the case of a fifty-acre holding the small holder would have the assistance of a boy to lead his horse, and in harvest time he might have several men to assist him for a day or two. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would accept "personally, with or without hired labour." That would fully meet his view, and would help to ensure that the Act went in the direction that it was always intended it should go.
  SIR W. ROBSONthought the word "themselves" was sufficient. He was very much against importing another word.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYasked leave, in the interests of brevity, to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HICKS BEACH ()MR. HICKS BEACH (Gloucestershire, Tewkesbury) moved an Amendment with the object of restricting the operations of county councils in the acquisition of land for the purposes of the Bill to the area of their own counties. He saw no reason at all why the county council should step outside the limits of its own county for the purpose of acquiring land.
  1122
  Under the Bill county councils would have power to acquire land for small holdings, not merely in their own county, but also, if necessary, in places outside. He did not say it was likely, but it was possible under the Bill for any county council to wander into another county. It was also quite possible for the London County Council or the council of any county borough, to take land by agreement for small holdings in any part of England they liked. He could not think that that was desirable. It was not desirable for one body to go and take land in an area which belonged to the ratepayers of another county, nor that the London County Council should be able to acquire land wherever they liked for the provision of small holdings for ratepayers of London. The clause as it stood would have the very painful effect of giving greater advantage to the inhabitants of towns than to the inhabitants of the country. The Bill was intended not so much to get the people back to the land, as to keep the people on the land and diminish the exodus to the towns. If they wished to check rural depopulation the way to do it was by measures of this kind, to keep the present population on the land, and not by attracting people from the towns who had probably paid no attention to agriculture. He contended that the inhabitants of the rural districts ought to be have a prior claim, and under this Bill it was perfectly possible for any county council by acquiring land by agreement or by compulsion to get ample land in their own area to meet the requirements of those now living in that particular county. He did not think it was desirable to allow a county council to step over its borders and obtain land in a neighbouring county; that would only lead to friction between the counties concerned. They should remember that the result of purchasing land by one county council in another county might be that the rateable value of that particular county would increase considerably or on the other hand it might cause the rateable value seriously to diminish. The ratepayers who suffered would not be those who resided in the area of the county which acquired the land, but those who lived in the county where the

  1123
  land was situated. He did not think that was fair. He might be told that in the Act of 1892 there was no restriction of this kind. In reply to that argument he would say that in that Act the county councils had power to acquire land only by agreement and they were not given the same opportunities for acquiring land in their own county as were provided under this Bill. He begged to move.
  VISCOUNT MORPETH ()pointed out that as the Amendment making residence in the county a qualification had not been pressed it was quite possible under the Bill for those living over the edge of the boundary to have holdings provided for them. If the clause remained as it was now it would be possible for the larger counties, and especially the county boroughs, to compete in the neighbouring counties in order to plant down unsuitable cultivators of small holdings. In spite of what had been said about the millions of uncultivated acres of land there was only a limited amount of land in the country, and if the county councils were left to compete for it great difficulties would arise. Already the greatest difficulty had arisen on account of county borough and urban district councils coming into the countryside and taking, perhaps, the only available water supply. This was a question which had to be faced, and some controlling authority would have to be established to apportion the water supply of the country. If this clause was left in it was quite possible that what had happened with regard to the water supply would occur with regard to the land, and they would have to protect the rural counties from the depredations of the county boroughs. There was another matter to which he attached the greatest importance. Those acquainted with the county councils and the parish councils in the rural districts were content to trust to the sense of justice of the inhabitants of those districts. They believed that where cases of injustice were likely to arise, they could rely upon the common sense, the good feeling and sense of fair play of those concerned to see that no great harm was done. If they did not rely upon that it should not be forgotten that they were able to exercise some
  1124
  influence at the election of those local bodies, and if the council adopted a wrong policy it was easy for them to get that policy altered. The county council and the county borough council coming into a neighbouring county were under no sort of control at any election and in no sense were they amenable to the public opinion of the place where the small holdings had been set up. Consequently, it was likely that the very greatest injustice would be done because those bodies would be acting in complete ignorance of local conditions. There were also other difficulties in regard to management. Granting power to one county council to set up small holdings in the area of another county would lead to the greatest difficulty in the way of management by sub-committees. For these reasons he seconded this Amendment. He believed the provisions in the Bill would lead to administrative friction, quarrels and complaints, and hinder the cause which the right hon. Gentleman opposite was so anxious to advance.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 32, to leave out the word 'whether.'"—(Mr. Hicks Beach.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'whether' stand part of the Bill."
  SIR W. ROBSONdoubted whether there was any substantial danger of counties in general going beyond their own boundaries in order to expatriate their own citizens or present neighbouring counties with an additional rateable value. It should not be forgotten that there were cases in which a county should have the right to go over its own boundaries if it thought fit, and it was in order to provide for such cases that this power had been placed in the Bill. It was not an unusual power to give; it was given under the Local Government Act of 1898 when the power of acquiring land was conferred upon the county council and in that case there was no limit as to the boundary. Of course the scheme had to be settled by the Board, and it was unlikely that the Board of Agriculture would allow any injustice of the kind which had been mentioned by the mover and seconder of the Amendment.
  MR. CHAPLINthought the Solicitor-General was mistaken in his contention. He would remind him of a provision in Clause 3, that—
  "Where the Commissioners report or the county councils concerned are of opinion that a scheme should be made affecting two or more counties the scheme may be prepared by the councils jointly and they may provide for joint action being taken by the councils."
  Therefore in difficulties with regard to boroughs or other places within a particular county and situated near its borders, there would be no difficulty. The Solicitor-General appeared to have overlooked that provision. Nothing in this Amendment could lead to any of the difficulties which the hon. and learned Gentleman had anticipated. He thought that on general grounds it was desirable that each county council should confine its operations as far as possible to its own county.
  MR. CAVE ()expressed the hope that the House would remember that they were dealing with a proposal to confer powers on a county council to acquire land by compulsion outside its own area. That was a very serious matter. Under the Public Health Act of 1875 there were provisions which enabled a local authority to exercise certain powers outside its own area with the assent of the authority for the adjoining district. If, under this Bill, a county council desired to acquire a piece of land suitable for small holdings in an adjoining county, there might be two councils competing for the same land. He held it would be undesirable that the London County Council should compete with the Surrey County Council for the same piece of land in Surrey. That had been shown in connection with the question of water. London and other places took water more and more from Surrey, with the result that the supply available for the people of the county was being seriously diminished. Very soon there would not be enough water for the people of Surrey. Here they were dealing with a matter which would require hundreds of acres. If a county council desired to set up small holdings, it might exercise its compulsory powers with respect to the most desirable land it could find in another county alto-
  1126
  gether. Everyone who had experience of local government would see that a serious question was raised by the Amendment. He thought the powers to be exercised by a county council for the compulsory acquisition of land should be exercised only within that county. The people of a particular county should have a prior claim to the land of their own county.
  MR. WINFREY ()said the words which the Amendment proposed to omit were most valuable from the countryman's point of view. He knew of a case in point in Lincolnshire which showed how necessary it was to have this power. Men residing in the south part of the county desired to have small holdings. The most suitable land was just over the border in Cambridgeshire, and an effort was made to obtain it, but the county council in whose area it was situated declined to co-operate with the Lincolnshire Council. Therefore, he welcomed these words so far as countrymen were concerned.
  MR. LANE-FOX (Yorkshire, W. R., Barkston Ash)said that this was a question which vitally affected his own constituency. His reason for supporting the Amendment was that he did not wish to see his constituency made a refuge for the whole of the West Riding. He represented a division which was at the beginning of the open country after a series of urban areas. If this Amendment was not accepted they might suffer in another form encroachments of the county boroughs which they had already suffered in certain directions. The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk had referred to a conflict between two county councils, but he thought that it was a kind of conflict which would be less likely to arise in future. He hoped the interests of county councils would not be prejudicially affected by the proposals in the Bill that outside authorities should have compulsory powers of acquiring land in their area.
  MR. COURTHOPEsaid the instance mentioned by the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk was a strong argument in favour of the Amendment.

  1127
  He did not think they should assist a county council to obtain land in another county against the wish of the council of the latter county. The county council of the area where the land was taken might in a few years wish it for themselves. The hon. Member desired to override the county council which had jurisdiction in the area where the land was situated. The county council of Surrey might at a particular time on account of economic considerations be prevented from developing the whole of the suitable land within its own area, though it might want that land in future. The London County Council which was not restricted to such narrow limits in the matter of expenditure might draw up a scheme and apply for land in Surrey, and the Board might approve of the scheme, there being no immediate competition. In years to come that land might be required by Surrey County Council. He thought co-operation between county councils should be a condition precedent when it was proposed by one council to take land in the area under the jurisdiction of another.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid the Solicitor-General had stated that the acceptance of the Amendment would be a serious thing for big towns. He would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether its non-acceptance would not be a serious thing for some country districts. A Bill which was supposed in the first intance to be for the interest of the country districts should give those districts the first consideration. If small holdings were to be successful they must be set up in groups so that they might be worked on economic lines. There might be one or two of these places available, and a big neighbouring town desiring to set up a colony for 200 or 300 people might acquire the land. Would that be fair to the residents in the country? If they allowed the great towns to come in they would drive away from their natural places the men
  whom it was said they desired to support by this Bill. He urged upon the Government and the House that really the chief benefit of the Bill would be in the direction of helping those who were now agricultural labourers and rural residents and preventing them from drifting into the towns. He thought that the endeavour to call back those who had removed into the towns would be a doubtful experiment. What was wanted was to keep those on the land who were already there. The right hon. Gentleman must recognise that if he put in competition with the county councils of some particular counties the needs and desires of great urban centres all over England it would be extremely dangerous from the point of view of the residents of the counties which were to be invaded by men from the towns. It was not a fair thing to do. He did not say that it was right to limit the acquisition of land by the urban authorities so long as that acquisition was made by agreement. But where the land was to be taken by compulsion quite a new set of circumstances came into existence. If his hon. friend withdrew his Amendment perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would favourably consider the proposal standing in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston. They on the Opposition side of the House would then be satisfied and willing to come to terms with him. The objections he and his friends had to the Bill were not bogus or sham objections, but were really felt; and Amendments such as that now under consideration were absolutely vital if they were going to make the Bill a success.
  MR. HAKCOUKTsaid that he would be falsifying his pledges if he accepted the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 216; Noes, 42. (Division List No. 411.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barry, Redmond, J. (Tyrone, N

  Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bell, Richard

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Black, Arthur W.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Richards, Thomas (WMonm'th

  Brace, William

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'm'pt'n

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Hudson, Walter

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Branch, James

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rowlands, J.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Runciman, Walter

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Kelley, George D.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Cleland, J. W.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Clough, William

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-und.-Lyne

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lamont, Norman

  Sears, J. E.

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Seddon, J.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Shackleton, David James

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Crooks, William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Crossley, William J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Lough, Thomas

  Snowden, P.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eiflon)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Ches.)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Macdonald, J. M (Falkirk Bg'hs

  Steadman, W. C.

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

  Maclean, Donald

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Callum, John M.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  M'Crae, George

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Summerbell, T.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Elibank, Master of

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Essex, R. W.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset, E.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Massie, J.

  Vivian, Henry

  Ffrench, Peter

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Walker, H. De R. (Lciecester)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Walsh, Stephen

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Walters, John Tudor

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

  Gill, A. H.

  Morrell, Philip

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Morse, L. L.

  Wardle, George J.

  Glover, Thomas

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Waring, Walter

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Myer, Horatio

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Napier, T. B.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Grant, Corrie

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W Brampton

  Nicholls, George

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Hall, Frederick

  Nicholson, Charles N (Donoast'r

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Winfrey, R.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pollard, Dr.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J A. Pease.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Radford, G. H.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rees, J. D.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Rendall, Athelstan

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex, F

  Ashley, W. W.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

  1130

  1131

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Forster, Henry William

  Moore, William

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Nicholson, Wm, G. (Petersfield)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gordon, J.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cave, George

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hills, J. W.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Hicks Beach and Viscount Morpeth.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Keswick, William

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  MR. MASTERMAN ()MR. MASTERMAN (West Ham, N.) moved an Amendment providing that in voluntary arrangements between county councils and private owners for the leasing or purchase of land for letting in small holdings the price of the land purchased and the rent of the land taken on lease must have the approval of the Board of Agriculture. He pointed out that when moved in Committee the Amendment received support from Members on the Ministerial side of the House. Knowing what the circumstances were under which his Amendment was moved in Committee, he did not think it had received that full consideration which it deserved. At any rate, he was convinced that it was absolutely necessary for the Government to adopt it. The Amendment proposed that in regard to these voluntary arrangements between the county councils and the landowners for the leasing or letting of land in small holdings any such arrangement should receive the sanction as far as the price was concerned of the Board of Agriculture. In such voluntary arrangements there were three parties directly and vitally involved, the landowner, the county council, and the future or hypothetical tenant. Under the Billas it stood only two of those parties had any kind of representation, and there was none for the tenant from first to last. It was his hope, however, that the Commissioners under the Board of Agriculture would stand as the representatives of the tenants in this case in order to insure that they should not be too heavily weighted from the beginning with a rent which they ought not to bear. Although the Commissioners could not establish a Fair Rent Court which he would like to see, he wished them to have the power to veto any illegitimate transaction. There were a number of facts which supported the
  1132
  demand for this power for the protection of the third person interested. Everybody knew that public bodies were the subjects of transactions of a kind which would not be permitted between individuals. No man was very disturbed in his conscience in regard to any swindle he had carried out in regard to public bodies. This had been shown in the past by dealings in water, land, gas, and other matters. It had always been the case that the private owner had got more than he ought to have got legitimately, and the public body had had to bear the extra cost. In regard particularly to the subject under discussion he had no desire to say anything offensive to hon. Members opposite, but in the southern counties at all events, although he did not suggest that there was anything illegitimate in the matter, the county councils consisted to a large extent of landlords and a few solicitors. There was a strong and probably an unconscious impulse on the part of these public bodies to give more than the full value, or at least the full value, for property acquired under compulsion from a similar class to that to which they belonged. In every case since 1892 in which this voluntary provision had been adopted he thought he was justified in saying the county councils had paid more than they ought to have paid, and to that extent small holders had been overweighted. He did not want to interfere with any transaction which was satisfactory, but there were possible three alternatives. Either the county council might say that they were willing to purchase land in a particular place and the small holders might say that the price was too large and they would not have the land on the terms. As far as he could understand, it would in that case be perfectly legitimate for the county council to say, "We

  1133
  offered the prospective small holders of this village land at what we considered a satisfactory price and they refused, and therefore there is no reason for any further experiment." But on the other hand the small holders might take the land and be burdened with the excessive price, and that meant they would be taxing, and for the benefit of the landowning class, the labour and energy of the small holders. He realised that hon. Gentlemen opposite had made a generous fight in the interest of the landlords, but he did not wish that an excessive price should be charged to the small holders. The third alternative was that the land being placed upon the small holder at an excessive price he might be ultimately landed in bankruptcy. Then the right hon. Gentleman and the Treasury came in and said that half of the loss incurred should be paid by the latter which had up to that time had no voice in the transaction. They had been discussing in Committee many and various safeguards for the landowning interest in regard to this Bill. They had barricaded them against any kind of loss. If small holdings failed they did not lose and if they succeeded they stood to gain. They had arranged that the compulsory powers should be placed in the county councils which were largely composed of the landowning class. They had arranged that any increase of value which might come from the neighbourhood of a town should go back to the landlords, and in fact that every penny of damage should be paid to them. On the other hand the Committee had not, he thought, arranged that the small holder should be launched on equitable terms. He recognised that on the report stage it was impossible to ask the Government to introduce a fair rent clause, but he wished that the rent to be paid should be subject to some kind of arbitration. Only two arguments had been used against this proposal. One was that the county council being desirous of snatching up small parcels of land would be prevented from doing so by having to appeal to Commissioners far away. He did not think that was a valid argument, because it would be as easy to obtain the sanction of the Commissioners or the Board of Agriculture as to obtain
  1134
  that of the county council itself. Then it was said that it would overweight the work of the Commissioners, but he did not think that that would be the case. His last point was that under the Treasury Minute the representative of the Treasury was concerned, and it was not sufficient to say that the transaction was over when the land had been acquired. His great contention was that there should be some next friend of the small holder who should be present at these voluntary arrangements.
  MR. LUTTRELL ()seconded the Amendment, and said he would strongly urge the Government to accept it. After all, what was the object of this Bill? It was to provide small holdings for the people, but it was no use providing small holdings for the people unless they provided them at a price which the people could afford to pay. When they considered of whom the county councils were personally composed, they knew perfectly well that, as at present constituted, they consisted very largely of landowners, and although no doubt they did not wish to be unfair, they were almost of necessity bound to look upon the land at perhaps a higher value than it really was worth. It was common knowledge that most people looked upon their own possessions at a higher value than they really were worth, or, in common parlance, "all their geese were swans." What, however, the House was doing by this Bill was to make out of the swans of the county council geese of the people. He thought the great advantage of the Bill was that it gave the tenants security. The man who took a holding knew that he could continue on in that holding at a certain price and that the rent could not be raised. But if they were going to allow a man to take land at a higher price than its proper value a burden would be placed upon him which he might not feel immediately but which he must feel as years went on. Such a thing would do away absolutely with the great advantage obtained under the Bill. There were strong reasons, therefore, why the House should be in favour of this Amendment. The dangers of people paying too high a price for the land were apparent in Ireland. He was

  1135
  informed that in Ireland there was a very great danger in the future on account of the price that was paid for the land. It was proposed that the Board of Agriculture should be allowed to step in and say to the county council whether they considered the price was a fair one or not. The whole of the Bill was drawn up with the recognition of the subserviency of the county council to the Board, and therefore it was not too much to say that the Board should have some voice in this matter. It had a great knowledge of agriculture and would be of great service in determining the point. He therefore urged the right hon. Gentleman to consider very carefully whether he could not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 35, after the word 'lease,' to insert the words 'provided that the price of the land purchased and the rent of the land taken on lease shall be approved by the Board.'"—(Mr. Masterman.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HARCOURTsaid he was sorry he could not modify his opinion and bring it more in accordance with that of his hon. friend, but he felt very strongly that they must keep the acquisition of land absolutely free. He must remind the House that the county council was already limited by the provisions of the Act of 1892 not to pay any price which would go beyond an economic rent covering the equipment, maintenance, and other charges of the holding. Under the Amendment, however, the Board would have to send down a valuer or arbitrator to inquire into every transaction, and that would absolutely kill acquisition by agreement. He was not afraid of collusive high prices between the council and a private landlord, which, to put it bluntly, was what the mover of the Amendment feared. He believed that in ninety cases out of 100 under this Bill agreements would be made for acquisition at a reasonable price which would save an enormous amount of compulsory action and so contribute to the economy of the transaction. County councils were now acquiring land for all purposes and only in this one
  1136
  case was their discretion to be fettered by the approval of a public authority where the land was acquired by agreement. One of the results of the announcement he had made on the previous evening was that the county council had been taken into a sort of limited partnership, which, if the county councils, in vulgar parlance, "played the game," would make them still more careful over the price they paid for the land; because the part payment of the loss was strictly limited to the case they were able to make to the Board of Agriculture, and the price which they paid for this land would be the first element of consideration in the minds of the Board in regard to the question of whether they would repay any part of the loss at all. The hon. Member had suggested that small holders might take land for which an excessive price had been paid. He did not think smallholders were inclined to pay excessive rents, and they were quite clever enough in any case to see how far that excessive rent was justified by the cost of equipment and the provision of buildings and other arrangements of a small holding which were necessary and which necessarily increased the rent. He did not think they would attempt to pay an uneconomic rent, nor did he think the county council would risk their doing so for any length of time, because they would inevitably find the land thrown back upon their hands.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid the right hon. Gentleman had made a very fair and reasonable reply to the hon. Member. The hon. Member wished the Board to have a voice in the settlement of the price to be given for the land. His view was that of the three parties interested, the landowner, the county council, and the future tenant, the last was not represented, and therefore the Board should come in and take his interests under its wing. He was supported by the hon. Member for the Tavistock Division, who said that small holdings were no good if the rent and the purchase price were too high, and for that reason he was anxious for the Board to step in, in order that the county council should get the land at a price lower than he thought they otherwise would. The hon. Member had referred to his

  1137
  right hon. friend the Member for Bordesley in support of his view. As far as he could recollect his right hon. friend's statements, they were in a totally different direction. His right hon. friend was referring to the operations under the Act of 1892, and had said that it was only under the Act of 1892 that there was any instance of the successful acquisition of land for the purpose of small holdings, and he had cited the. Catshill colony which was acquired under the Act of 1892. He did not think, therefore, that the statement of the hon. Member for North West Ham was altogether borne out by the facts, certainly not if statements of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley were to be trusted. But how was the land to be acquired? It was to be acquired, in the case contemplated by the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, by agreement between the county council on the one hand and the landlord on the other. Then he supposed that the county council would not fix the price themselves. They would call in a professional man, somebody perfectly able and competent to judge, and on his recommendation they would either come to an agreement or refuse the land. But that did not satisfy hon. Members. They said: "Oh dear, no; we must have a third party altogether; the Board of Agriculture must be called in to say whether the price is reasonable or whether it is not," and that, let it be marked, in the case where the land was avowedly to be purchased by agreement. What was the object? There was only one object in the minds of those hon. Gentlemen, and that was that the price fixed by the valuer should be lowered by the Board of Agriculture. Was that a businesslike arrangement, or was it fair or just to the landlord? Would the hon. Member for Tavistock in ordinary transactions for the sale and purchase of land, after having employed valuers, like the Board of Agriculture to step in and say: "Oh dear, no; this is too great a price, much more than you are entitled to?" He sympathised with the object of hon. Members just as much as they did; they desired to provide small holdings, if possible, on terms which would permit of their being successful, and he sym-
  1138
  pathised with hon. Gentlemen because he believed that it was in the interests not only of future tenants, but of the community, that a great purpose of this kind, which was a national object—the provision of small holdings—should succeed; but why was one class alone, the landlords, to be called upon to make the sacrifice which was to render these small holdings a success? If they wished to accomplish a great national object, and they could not do it on ordinary business-like terms, then, if they were genuine in their wishes and proposals, and if they sought to be fair to parties all round, they must be content to see the nation called upon to pay for it itself. He had been wondering, in regard to this Amendment, whether the hon. Gentleman, who had displayed such ability in this controversy both upstairs and in the House, could really have in his mind what it proposed. He must say that, on the grounds that the right hon. Gentleman had stated, and which he had endeavoured to reinforce by a few words, he thought it the most unfair and iniquitous proposition that he had ever heard.
  MR. MORRELL ()said that for fifty years past an arrangement of this sort had been in operation. It was very well known to all lawyers and to all buyers and sellers of land that the University Colleges Estates Act made it impossible for the University or college to sell or to buy land without getting the approval of the Board of Agriculture in the manner which the right hon. Gentleman said was utterly unjust to the landowner.
  MR. CHAPLIN: They have a charter; it is part of their charter.
  MR. MORRELL: But what happened whenever a contract was carried out between the college or University and the person who sold the land? The contract was to be subject to the approval of the Board of Agriculture. If they thought that the price was excessive in any way they revised and altered the contract. It might seem that this was a great disadvantage to the universities and colleges concerned. It might be

  1139
  thought that a valuer on the part of the Board of Agriculture was to come down and value the land. Nothing of the kind. All that was to be done was that a report was to be prepared by the local valuer on the spot, and that afterwards was to be submitted to the Board of Agriculture for approval, and they, having considerable experience in matters of this sort, were able to say whether it was a fair contract or not. Surely that was not an unreasonable request to make in a matter like this. So far from hampering the county council in acquiring land, he believed that it would be an immense advantage to that body that it should have its transactions strengthened in this way. The right hon. Gentleman had often tried to urge upon them the importance of partnership between the central body and the county council. This was exactly what would happen if the Amendment of his hon. friend was carried into effect. They would have on the one hand the great advantage for the Board of Agriculture that they would know what was being done in the various counties, what steps were being taken to acquire land; and the county council, on the other hand, would have all the advantage of expert advice from the surveyor and valuer to the Board of Agriculture. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite would say, in answer to the analogy which he had given, that these colleges and Universities were not representative bodies, and that was undoubtedly true; they acted under charter; but at any rate the colleges and universities, if they made a bad bargain, did not afterwards come upon the State to ask it to bear half the loss. If there was any ground for the supervision which they had in the case of the colleges and Universities, there was all the more reason for the same kind of supervision in the transactions which would take place under this Bill. He thought that in this way they should be doing some-thing to secure that the transactions were carried out on the best possible lines. He must say that he felt sorry to find himself in disagreement with the Government on this Bill. No one appreciated more than he the efforts which the right hon. Gentleman had made in connection with the measure, and he hoped that he would accept this
  1140
  very reasonable Amendment, which would do a great deal to strengthen and carry out the operation of the measure.
  MR. GEORGE FABERsaid that nobody had a greater respect than he had for the ability and discrimination of the hon. Member for North West Ham, but he really could hardly believe that his Amendment was intended seriously. Still, knowing the hon. Member as well as he had the honour to do, he must assume that it was intended seriously, though he thought that the hon. Member's usual ability had misled him on this occasion. What did the Amendment mean? They had heard a great deal about trusting county councils, but was this trusting them? The Amendment amounted to this, that where an arrangement had been entered into either for a lease or a sale between the owner and the county council, the county council were not to be allowed to look after their own affairs without an extraordinary pater familias intervening in the shape of the Board of Agriculture. The county council had got to bear primarily, all the burden of the establishment of small holdings, even if the Treasury eventually shared the loss with them. Why, then, in the name of common sense, where there were two parties to the transaction—the county council on the one hand and the owner or hirer on the other—should they put this extraordinary clause into the Bill that the purchase or leasing transaction was not to go through unless approved by the Board of Agriculture itself? The Department would have enough to do without being involved in matters of this kind. The more they looked at it the more absurd it was. Surely business should come in somewhere in the Bill. What did they want with a third party? Were not the county councils of age? Were they not capable of carrying through transactions of this kind? Hon. Gentlemen opposite had always been telling them what excellent authorities the county councils were; but the moment they had to put those professions into practice away those professions vanished, like mist before the rising sun. On this question he spoke seriously as a business man. Was this or was it not a business

  1141
  matter? Could they not leave the county councils to settle this matter with the vendor or the hirer of the land? This was a subject in which the county councils were deeply concerned and in which they had to "bear the racket," so to speak, if they made a mistake. They would not be anxious to incur expense unnecessarily, because that would increase the rates.
  MR. WEDGWOOD ()said that this was really a very innocent Amendment and ought to receive the unanimous support of the House. It should not be overlooked that all compulsory purchases under this Act would have to pass through the mazes of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845, which provided that wherever land was purchased compulsorily the provisions of that Act had to be followed just the same as in the case of any railway company. Wherever arbitration was resorted to under that Act prices far in excess of the ordinary price of land would have to be paid. The county council would know perfectly well that if they were driven to arbitration under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act a higher price would have to be paid for the land, and that if they could come to an agreement with the landlord considerable costs would be saved. He thought nine county councils out of ten would under those circumstances be inclined to pay a price in excess of the real marketable value by agreement in order to avoid the heavy costs of arbitration. When that excessive price had been paid for the land the whole of the burden fell upon the small holder, who would have to pay not only 3½ per cent. interest on the purchase price, but also contributions to the sinking fund to repay the loan in eighty years. He had to pay interest on all the money spent in equipping the farm, and he had to pay off the capital spent upon improving his farm. If they commenced operations under this Act by burdening the small holders with a price above the ordinary market price, as was bound to ensue from purchase either under arbitration or by agreement, they would strangle small holdings in their inception and prevent the small holder being able to make his holding pay. The Amendment merely asked that the price to be paid by agree-
  1142
  ment should be referred to and passed by the Board of Agriculture in London, and that that Board should be allowed when necessary to put its foot down and say: "No, this transaction is out of the ordinary run, and must be stopped. It is so bad that small holdings will not pay at this price." The Amendment simply asked that they should give an impartial public body the opportunity of stopping any unconscionable transaction, not one that was manifestly and visibly corrupt in any way, but one that was made to avoid expensive compulsory arbitration. Hon. Members might say that they recognised that this Bill was not a purchase Bill but a hiring measure, that the hiring clauses were not subject to the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, that therefore hiring would be resorted to far more frequently than purchase, and that consequently they were bothering about something that would not matter. He asked the House to remember what would happen under the hiring clauses. He admitted that under the Bill land could be and would be hired at market rates and at fair rates. But if they hired land under the Bill they would only have a period of thirty-five years for the lease, and consequently it would be impossible for the county councils to invest large sums upon improvements, such as putting houses or other buildings upon the holdings, because thirty-five years was too short a period to enable the holder to repay his loan as well as the interest on the amount of capital sunk in the holding. There was no provision for securing a renewal of the lease, and if they were driven to purchase they would be able to come to a voluntary agreement, or go to arbitration. They would probably choose voluntary agreement, and consequently the price was bound to be far in excess of the real price, and the result would be that an undue burden would be placed upon the small holder. Consequently, they asked that this Amendment should be allowed to be put in the Bill in order to give the Board of Agriculture a watching brief, in the interests of the community as a whole, who would have to pay the Bill if there should happen to be a loss. As the hon. Member for Woodstock had already pointed out, provision of this kind had already been made by the great colleges.

  1143
  There was also a similar precedent to be found under the Public Works Loans Commissioners. All they wanted was that similar powers should be extended to the Board of Agriculture in determining whether these transactions were conscionable or unconscionable, whether they would pay, or whether the price would prevent small holdings being of any use whatever. From every point of view, whether of precedents or of making small holdings workable and obtaining reasonable terms, the Amendment was urgently required.
  MR. LANE-FOXsaid that hon. Members opposite had stated that the Opposition were going to support this Amendment because they wished the owners to obtain an undue price. In that assumption hon. Members were entirely in the wrong. The hon. Member for North West Ham made a serious accusation, not only against county councils but also against the landed interest. It was all very well for the hon. Member to make speeches in his most charming manner, but he should remember that the words he spoke went a great deal further than this House, and he ought to be careful not to make such serious accusations. It was most unfair to say that county councils, being largely composed of those who were connected or represented the landed interest, were likely to wish to secure that the bodies on which they sat paid undue prices for the land. He did not think there was any foundation for that accusation. The hon. Member appeared to have a holy horror of rural county councils. Upon the Committee upstairs he asked the hon. Member what experience he had had of rural county councils, but he had never yet been able to tell him. Personally he had had a large experience. He was a member of a county council in which the agricultural interest certainly did not predominate. It was most unfair to say that the great majority of the county councils were likely to be influenced by unworthy motives, and that on the Committee a generous effort was made to safeguard the interests of the landlords.
  MR. MASTERMANwas understood to say that he did not intend to use the words in an offensive sense.
  MR. LANE-FOXsaid the hon. Member might not have meant anything offensive, but the words he used were certainly liable to misconstruction. The hon. Member's statement was that they had been fighting a generous fight in favour of the landowners. He would remind the House that they had been able to do something for the tenant farmers and labourers as well as the landlords, and that they had succeeded in that. There was only one class who under the Bill would be liable to have their property taken from them, namely, the landlords, and, therefore, there had been more need to safeguard their interests than those of any other class. It was to the credit of the Government that words had been put in safeguarding their interests.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS ()said that the discussion had given force to what was said by some hon. Members a while ago when they stated that this Bill should have been preceded by a Valuation Bill. He was of opinion that the passing of the Bill would necessarily cause an increase in the price of land, and unless some provision could be made for getting land at a fair price the economic working of allotments and small holdings would be utterly impossible. He asked the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether it would be possible for the Commissioners in submitting schemes with respect to land proposed to be purchased to indicate in the schemes the price contemplated to be paid for the land. That would give those interested an opportunity of knowing the price proposed to be paid. He did not see any provision in the Bill as to the course the Commissioners were to take in framing a particular scheme.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid the Commissioners could not indicate in the scheme the price of the land to be taken. A scheme was to be a general indication of the desire in a neighbourhood for small holdings, and not of the particular land that might be required for providing them.
  Questions put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 73; Noes, 192. (Division List No. 412.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Jowett, F. W.

  Snowden, P.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

  Brace, William

  Kelley, George D.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Branch, James

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Summerbell, T.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Verney, F. W.

  Cory, Clifford John

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Vivian, Henry

  Crooks, William

  Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Morrell, Philip

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Nicholls, George

  Wardle, George J.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Gill, A. H.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Glover, Thomas

  Roberts, G, H. (Norwich)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Rowlands, J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Masterman and Mr. Arthur Henderson.

  Hills, J. W.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Seddon, J.

  Hudson, Walter

  Shackleton, David James

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hall, Frederick

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Clough, William

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Harwood, George

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Helme, Norval Waton

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Crossley, William J.

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Dickinson, W. H.(St. Pancras, N.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Bell, Richard

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Elibank, Master of

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.

  Essex, R. W.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Bertram, Julius

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Fenwick, Charles

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Lamont, Norman

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Cave, George

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lough, Thomas

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Gordon, J.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Grant, Corrie

  Lupton, Arnold

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Lynch, H. B.

  Maclean, Donald

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  M'Crae, George

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rees, J. D.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lineoln)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Massie, J.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Waring, Walter

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Weir, James Galloway

  Montagu, E. S.

  Runciman, Walter

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Morse, L. L.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Napier, T. B.

  Sears, J. E.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Winfrey, R.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Nolan, Joseph

  Stanger, H. Y.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Starkey, John R.

  MR. COURTHOPE MR. COURTHOPE moved an Amendment to provide that if a county council acquire land by agreement, and seeks to acquire it compulsorily under the Bill, it should purchase the land. He said that the Amendment raised the whole question of compulsory purchase. He did not wish, however, to delay the House unduly on the matter, because the question had been very fairly discussed on the Second Reading of the Bill, but he wished birefly to protest against the system of compulsion as applied to hiring. He admitted the justice, or rather the necessity, of applying the system of compulsion to purchase; but it should not be extended to leasehold. He would like to draw the attention of the House to Paragraph 144 of the Report of Lord Onslow's Departmental Committee on Small Holdings in Great Britain, which spoke strongly on the subject. [A laugh.] That Committee was an extremely sound and influential Committee composed of representatives of all parties, and he could not see why, because hon. Gentlemen opposite did not agree with their recommendations, they should necessarily ridicule them. Clause 144 of the Report set forth—
  "While approving of the proposal empowering the acquisition of land compulsorily by purchase by a central authority, the Committee do not approve of giving them compulsory powers to hire land, or to interfere between landlord and tenant. Exercise of
  1148
  compulsory powers of this kind would involve the creation of a system of tenant right, under which the ownership of the land would, in effect, be divided between two or even more persons and authorities. The result would be, in the opinion of the Committee, that the sense of responsibility which should accompany ownership would cease to exist, and also that endless disputes and litigation would arise between landlords and tenants. Another result would be to provoke quite unnecessarily the hostility of all large farmers and landowners, whose support and goodwill is of the greatest value in the development of a system of small holdings. Experience has proved that a system of dual ownership of land is one which, under ordinary economic conditions, cannot be permanent, and which, while it lasts, is fatal to the proper maintenance of holdings, to harmony between landlords and tenants, and to the prosperity of agriculture. This system may be suitable under such conditions as prevailed in the crofting parishes in Scotland, but it is quite inappropriate where the rent, the duration of occupancy, and the general relations between landlord and tenant are determined by ordinary economic conditions."
  He begged to move.
  MR. HICKS BEACHseconded the Amendment. The point raised by it had, no doubt, been discussed to a certain extent during the Second Reading of the Bill and in Committee upstairs; but the House at large had had no opportunity of debating the question as a whole. He thought that the paragraph quoted by his hon. friend from the Report of Lord Onslow's Committee was

  1149
  very strong. He objected to a system of compulsory hiring, because, in the first place, he did not think it was really necessary. If there was a genuine demand for small holdings it would be found that the county councils would be able to hire all the land they wanted by voluntary agreement. The chief reason why small holdings were not to be found in larger numbers throughout the country was the cost of equipment, and if the county council were willing to undertake that cost he believed that the majority of the landlords would be quite willing to sell their land by agreement. The object of the Bill was to take away the land from the landlord for ever, because it was provided that, the county council having hired the land compulsorily for small holdings and allotments, they might renew the tenancy for not less than fourteen nor more than thirty-five years—all this entirely against the wishes of the landlord and without giving him the opportunity of selling the land to the county council. Under the Bill the provision of compulsory hiring really created a system not of dual, but of triple, ownership. The county council acquired the land in the first place by compulsory hiring, then they let it to associations, and the associations afterwards let it to small holders. He did not believe that such a system was likely to be beneficial to the welfare of the country or to the prosperity of agriculture. After the evil results which had followed dual ownership of the land in Ireland he did not see how the Government was justified in setting up a system of triple ownership. Supposing that a landowner held an estate, and that a considerable portion of it was compulsorily hired by a county council, the landlord would lose his interest in that portion of his estate and would not spend money on it. He would also be deprived of the large amount of pleasure which a landlord had in doing what he liked with his estate, and in developing it according to his own views. The natural tendency would be for him to put up the whole estate for sale, and would anybody seriously think that a purchaser could be found for an estate, a considerable portion of which was leased compulsorily by the county council? The whole sentimental value
  1150
  of the possession of an estate would be taken away. The right hon. Gentleman had told them upstairs that he could not imagine anyone asking for a better investment than in land the letting value of which had the security of the rates. But a man bought an estate because he wished to control it himself and to take an interest in his tenants. [MINISTERIAL ironical laughter.] He could assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that there were many men who were only too glad to spend their money in improving their estate and the conditions of those who lived upon it. He did not believe that there was any real justification for the largely increased compulsory powers given to the county council under this Bill, and he supported the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 38, to leave out the word 'acquire,' and to insert the word 'purchase.'"—(Mr. Courthope.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'acquire' stand part of the Bill.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid he would imitate the brevity of the mover and seconder of the Amendment on two grounds, first of all because it was a Second Reading point, which had been fully discussed upstairs, and, secondly, because he accepted the suggestion made by his right hon. friend opposite, that the Government ought not to occupy more time than necessary on this Amendment, but devote the time to other important Amendments. Compulsory hiring had already been established in relation to allotments. Under this Bill that power would be of great convenience to the county council. The council would not require to raise capital or loans for the purchase of land or to make provision for a sinking fund which would increase the rent. On the other hand, there would be no damage to the land, the full rent of the land would be guaranteed to the landlord through a series of years by a perfectly solvent authority. At the same time he would have the power of resuming the land for all purposes other than agricultural. They had provided for the landlord full compensation at the close of the tenancy for any damage or waste which might have been done to his estate.

  1151
  This compensation the landlord would be able to obtain against the county council, and if any improvement had been made by the county council the landlord would only pay compensation for improvements which were improvements to him as a landlord and not to a hypothetical tenant. He did not think that the landlord therefore had any reason to complain of the provisions which they had made proposing that the small holder should be able to lease land under compulsion.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid that throughout the right hon. Gentleman's speech there ran the fallacy which was common to the speeches of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They said in effect, "We pay the landlord compensation in money for taking away his rights," but money would not compensate him when they might destroy his interest in the estate and the hope with which he inherited it that he would make the estate better than it was when he came into it. The idea that Parliament was able to make up to the landlords for depriving them of portions of their estate by giving them this wretched money was a sham. [An HON. MEMBER: What do you want?] He wanted justice and fair play, and he did not want to be deprived by that House or anybody else of that which he valued infinitely more than money. He wanted to pass on in an improved condition the inheritance which he had received, and by passing a Bill of this sort the House robbed him of the motive of his very existence and of something which he valued more than any title or anything else which could be conferred upon him. [An HON. MEMBER: We are paying you the rent.] The payment of the rent did not supply an equivalent for the interest he lost. He would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill would have sympathised with these views. He was sure that those who had gone before him in the possession of his estates would have done so.
  MR. HARCOURTwas sure that his immediate predecessor would not have done so.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he knew the right hon. Gentleman's prede-
  1152
  cessor, and he thought he would have sympathised with his point. But the question was not what his immediate predecessor thought, but whether in these arrangements the right hon. Gentleman was giving a sufficient solatium for what he was taking. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that he was making good what he took away by insuring that the rent should be paid and that he was really making up for the deprivation he inflicted, he was mistaken. He was not doing so, and he hoped that those upon whose opinions the right hon. Gentleman would place more reliance than he did upon his, would assure him that that was the case. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the landlords' sense of injustice was an unreal one, because he was given the power of resumption of the land and of compensation in certain eventualities. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman said the landlord had no reason to complain. He wanted, however, on behalf of those whom he represented, to put on record his protest against this sordid idea that they could always compensate the landlords as a class by merely guaranteeing a pecuniary equivalent for that which they took from them. The idea was utterly mistaken. They felt their position in this matter much more keenly than that, and if hon. Members would only get rid of that idea they would understand the position which they took up. They had discharged their duties in the past pretty fairly, and he ventured to say that no class had made greater sacrifices out of limited means. They had spent large sums on their estates in trying to make life tolerable for all who dwelt upon them. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] He could prove that figure by figure and fact by fact, and he was sure that hon. Members when he had gone through his proofs would not contest that statement. He felt very keenly that this policy was countenanced by the right hon. Gentleman, who was the last man in England who should have laid it down that they could make up by the sordid equivalents given under this Bill for the rights which were taken away. On these grounds he supported the Amendment.
  MR. BECKETTsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not replied to the point of his hon. friend that if they accepted

  1153
  this Amendment the landlord could not either now or in the future sell his land. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out many advantages which the landlord would receive. He said he would receive rent upon the security of the rates and would have powers of resumption and compensation for improvements if they were not suitable to him. But he had not met the point of his hon. friend in this respect, that under this Bill the landlord had no power to sell his holding either to the county council or to anyone else. It was rather a novel piece of legislation for any Government to say to any man: "Because you have chosen to invest your money in a certain security, namely, land, in that security your money must for ever remain." For many reasons a landowner might wish to turn his estate into cash. He might wish to sell it in order to realise money for the benefit of his children whom he might wish to start in business or professions, but so long as he laboured under the disabilities of this clause he would never be able to turn his land into money. For the first time in his life he had to congratulate himself upon his perspicacity in never becoming the owner of land.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid he did not think the hon. Member had heard the explanation which he gave upon this point upstairs. Under the Bill the landlord was in the same position in regard to the sale of his land as if it were let to private tenants, only that he would have the additional advantage of having a much freer market and of having a tenant who was certain to pay his rent during the whole term. He did not wish to appeal to the sordid side of this matter, which he disliked as much as hon. Members opposite did, but he thought he had tried to meet them on every point.
  SIR F. BANBURY (), replying to the right hon. Gentleman's observation that the landlord would have the same facility for selling his land as he had at the present moment, said that he wished to point out that the market for that land would be I entirely different. At the present moment the demand for land did not
  1154
  arise from any sordid motives, but from what the Opposition called the amenities which attached to the holding of land and what hon. Members opposite called the desire to exercise the tyranny of the landlords. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Hear, hear."] Quite so; that was the view of hon. Members opposite, but he did not admit the truth of it The moment the House did away with the amenities of the land they did away with the desire of people to invest their money in it, in order to receive 2½ per cent. or 3 per cent. or nothing at all on their capital, and in order to have the pleasure of possessing land. It might be a wrong pleasure, but any auctioneer would tell hon. Members that people bought land generally not for what they could get out of it but for the pleasure of owning and holding it. It was quite a different thing, however, to put in a purchaser of land who would use it for a sordid motive, and in the same way as he would an investment on the Stock Exchange, for the purpose of making as much out of it as he possibly could. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that sort of thing was going to be a benefit to the small holder, the village, or the owner of the land, he was very much mistaken. The right hon. Gentleman had in effect repeated the argument used by Mr. Gladstone in 1881 in regard to the Irish Land Act. Mr. Gladstone assured the landlords of Ireland that they would be in a much better position if that Act was passed, because their rents would be assured to them and they might be certain of receiving them without disputes. History had shown that Mr. Gladstone made a wrong forecast, and in his judgment history would show that the right hon. Gentleman was also making a wrong forecast. He wished to be informed how the right hon. Gentleman knew that an exceedingly fair rent would be given for the land under this Bill, or that it would be paid. Let them take it for granted that the President of the Board of Agriculture might appoint competent Commissioners, how did the right hon. Gentleman know that the Labour Members from below the gangway might not in four or five years appoint another President of the Board of Agriculture?

  1155
  Supposing they appointed the hon. Member for the Colne Valley Division of Yorks. What sort of fair rent would they receive from that hon. Gentleman? Therefore the argument of the right hon. Gentleman as to a fair and full rent was illusory. Then he came to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the county council with the rates behind them would afford a good tenant. He differed from the right hon. Gentleman on that point and for this reason. If the county council was to take over the whole of the estate it might be different, because it would convert the landlord into a mere rent charger, and they would be bound to pay him, but it was quite a different thing to take a part of a landlord's estate and place a number of small tenants upon it. This would enable small district councils and parish councils to injure those who were above them. He defied the right hon. Gentleman to get up and say that the landlord or anybody else was advantaged by that. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not hear the speech delivered in another place by a Member of his own Party. He only wished that he had the power of the language of the noble Lord.
  MR. HARCOURT: Was he speaking against this Bill?
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he did not know whether he was in order in referring to the matter, but the noble Lord in question was speaking on the Small Landowners (Scotland) Bill, and he used arguments which applied equally to this Bill. Under the circumstances he would have much pleasure in supporting the Amendment which had been moved.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEY ()said he would not like to let this question go by without entering what protest he could against the proposal of the Bill for the compulsory hiring of land. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill took great credit to himself for the fact that he was not expropriating one owner in order to instal another. It seemed to him, however, that the right hon. Gentleman was doing something which was
  1156
  very much worse. He was expropriating one owner without giving him the quid pro quo to which he was entitled and was taking out of his hands that which made property valuable—his management of it and the disposal of it according to his own will. That seemed to him to be very much worse than expropriating one owner in order to put in another owner. For his part he could not see where the advantage lay in this policy of hiring land rather than of buying it. It seemed to him that it was complicating the system to an indefinite extent, in a way which was wholly unnecessary and to the disadvantage of those whom it was intended to set up as small holders under the Bill. Apart from any question of fairness, which he would not go into, although he thought it was very unfair to owners to make them give up that which made property valuable, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman as well as the Solicitor-General whether this system of hiring in the matter of buildings and improvements did not add greatly to the complexities and difficulties which would arise under the Bill. The county council would hire land compulsorily and then put up buildings to make the land suitable for small holdings. What was the position of those owners in regard to the possession of the land, and how were the county council going to get repaid for their expenditure? By the rent which the tenant was prepared to pay? That was a point which had never yet been elucidated, and it seemed to him to be a point which was crucial to this question, because if the county council were to recoup themselves in the rent for the money they spent upon the buildings of the small holdings, then they were committing a gross injustice upon the tenant, because he would not only be paying the value of the land, but also interest and sinking fund for the money which had been spent by the county council in adapting the land to small holdings. If the tenant paid that money annually by instalment, surely he ought to be entitled at the end of his tenure to compensation from the council. Yet he gathered from the Bill he would not be entitled to compensation, but on the contrary the county council would be held to have made the improvement and to have adapted the land for the purpose

  1157
  of a small holding. That was a great injustice and, as his right hon. friend the Member for the Bordesley division of Birmingham had pointed out, it was practically making the tenant pay for the freehold of the land and the buildings upon it and yet not giving him what he had paid for. Then as to the landlord: this House was going to enable county councils to hire land compulsorily and to spend money upon it; to alter its character and to put buildings upon it suitable for small holdings; and, yet they were going to make the landlord pay for all these so-called improvements, which had been made perhaps without his consent and contrary to his wishes. He was quite aware that there was a clause in the Bill to the effect that the value of the improvements on the land should, in assessing compensation, be their value to the landlord, but it seemed to him that the arbitrator might very well hold that the land had been improved for the purposes of the landlord, and that he could get more rent for it in consequence of those improvements, which no doubt would be the test, and yet they might not be improvements which the landlord wanted, while he would be called upon to find a very large capital sum—a proceeding which might be to him a source of great inconvenienec—which he would never have been able to afford had the land been left in his own hands from the start. Therefore what it came to was this, that by their benevolence to the small holders and county councils they were compelling the landlords to find money for buildings suitable for small tenants which were not suitable otherwise and the expense was to be borne out of the income from a particular farm or estate. What after all would be the result if the alternative of purchase were adopted? There would be none of those complications which would arise under this Bill. If the county council thought fit to acquire the land they would be solely responsible for the success of the holding or its failure. The buildings on the land set up by the county council, all the money spent by the county council in adapting the land for the purpose of small holdings, would I be a definite sum advanced by the county council; they would be entitled to all the receipts from it, and theirs would be
  1158
  all the profit or all the loss, if either resulted. But, as it was, by the policy of hire they were compelled to insert in the Bill, in order to give it some appearance of the rudiments of justice, various provisions which would hamper the tenant, which would hamper the county council, and which, as the long and the short of it, would lead to divided and dual ownership in the improvements in the buildings and in the land, no matter how much they tried to escape from it. Surely it was an almost elementary principle of justice that if they wanted land for a given purpose, indeed, if they wanted anything for a given purpose, they must buy it from the possessor of it for the time being. Really one would have thought it was almost unnecessary to argue such an elementary principle in that House. It was quite different in the case of a small allotment, which he believed was the only precedent for compulsory hire; but in that case they did not give compensation for buildings, though in this Bill he believed they were going to add this compensation to the existing allotment system. As the question had hitherto stood, however, they had not got the complications of capital sunk in the land by the medium tenant, if they might so describe the county council. [AN HON. MEMBER: Allotments are small.] As his hon. friend remarked, an allotment consisted of a very small quantity of land, and did not involve the very great danger which existed in connection with this Bill. But surely it must appear plain to the House that when land was to be hired compulsorily from the landlord by the county council, who were to lease it to a tenant, they got three people concerned, every one with a different interest; whereas, if they had a system of purchase there would be only two concerned, the landlord and the person to whom he sold the land, and their interests would be as easily adjusted as the relations between landlord and tenant were adjusted at the present time under the Agricultural Holdings Act. He supported the Amendment very heartily. He would have preferred an Amendment which stood on the Paper in his own name, providing that they must have the report of the Board before compulsion was adopted, because he thought that might have had

  1159
  the result of bringing in a third party who, in the case of the landlord and the county council being in disagreement, might have smoothed the way and enabled them to have a further consideration of the question, in order to see whether it could be done by agreement instead of by compulsion. All the same, however, he thought that this Amendment largely met his view, and he had some considerable hope that it would meet with great support from Members on the Government side of the House when they came to a division.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he could not allow this proposal to pass without one word of protest against the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government. The right hon. Gentleman said the Bill did no harm whatever either to the land or to the landlord. It was true that he gave him or professed to give him full compensation for any land, but he questioned very greatly whether that compensation would be as adequate as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to believe. But that was only a comparatively small part of the question. He agreed very much with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shropshire, that in this case they certainly deprived the landlord of interest in his land, although they would not buy it even if he wished them to do so. They took away all his powers connected with the land, and worse than all they absolved him from all his duties. What was the real position in this case? They proposed to hire his land for thirty-five years to begin with. At the end of that term, if the venture was a success on the part of the county council, they might renew it. They took it for seventy years from the man to whom it belonged; not only that, at the end of that second period they had nothing to do but obtain a fresh Order from the Board of Agriculture, and again they took it for a similar period, and so on from time to time. Was ever such a proposal heard of before? They were going to take away property for a great number of years, and they would not buy it even if the owner desired to sell it. The least they could do, when they took a man's land by compulsion in this way, was to pay him in cash. This was the first in-
  1160
  stance on record in our legislation when any such proposal on a great scale had ever been made by any Government in this country, and he sincerely hoped and trusted that it would be the last. What was the reason for doing it? Because it would give certain advantages to the county councils; they would be absolved from the necessity of raising capital or raising loans. They were very ready to consult the convenience of the county councils, but he saw no readiness to consult the convenience of the unfortunate owner of land, however much he desired it. There were estates heavily encumbered with charges, sometimes family charges, mortgages and things of that kind. Supposing they were called in, as they very likely would be, what was the position in which they were about to place the landlord? They told him that his security would be better than ever it was before. What authority had they for saying that? He questioned it very greatly. Money invested in a first-rate farm tenanted by a succession of first-rate farmers, who had never failed to pay their rent for generations, was regarded as an admirable security. Would it be so good a security under the great experiment they were about to make? He believed himself that the experiment of providing small holdings under this system of hiring, for reasons which he had given over and over again, and which had not been refuted, was in all probability bound to come to an end in a very few years, and then what became of the good security? They were told that the landlord would then have a chance of getting as good a price for his land as ever he had before. Who was going to provide that? What on earth would be the object of doing so? Besides, they could not sell the land; all they could sell would be the rentcharge upon it, and for the objects and purposes for which land was bought in this country it would be absolutely useless. He knew that it was useless to try to get any concession whatever on this point, but the Government would live to regret having been the first Government to take such a course as this in connection with a scheme which, if it became law, he believed would end in failure and disaster instead of success.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 259; Noes, 63. (Division List No. 413.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lynch, H. B.

  Alden, Percy

  Ferens, T. R.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Maclean, Donald

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Baring, Godfrey (IsleofWight)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Crae, George

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Maddison, Frederick

  Bell, Richard

  Glover, Thomas

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Grant, Corrie

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Massie, J.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hall, Frederick

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Brace, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Branch, James

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morrell, Philip

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  Morse, L. L.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Myer, Horatio

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Napier, T. B.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nicholls, George

  Chance, Frederick William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Clough, William

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

  Hudson, Walter

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Cory, Clifford John

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Cox, Harold

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Radford, G. H.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Cooks, William

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Crossley, William J.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rees, J. D.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Kelley, George D.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lambert, George

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Elibank, Master of

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Erskine, David C.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rowlands, J.

  Essex, R. W.

  Lough, Thomas

  Runciman, Walter

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Summerbell, T.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Sears, J. E.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Seddon, J.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Seely, Colonel

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

  Wiles, Thomas

  Shackleton, David James

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Ure, Alexander

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Verney, F. W.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Vivian, Henry

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Snowden, P.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Winfrey, R.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wardle, George J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Waring, Walter

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Ashley, W. W.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Moore, William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Balfour, Rt Hn. A.J. (City Lond.)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Nield, Herbert

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gordon, J.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Gretton, John

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Starkey, John R.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Cave, George

  Hills, J. W.

  Younger, George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Keswick, William

  and Viscount Valentia.

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Resolution agreed to.

  And, it being after half-past Ten of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 9th August, successively to put forthwith the Question upon any Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given.
  The following Amendments, proposed by Mr. Harcourt, were made—
  "In page 6, line 12, at end to add the words '(3) This section shall only apply in the case where a small holding has been sold by the county council.'"
  "In page 10, line 5, after the word 'that,' to insert the words '(a) The duty of a council under the Allotments Acts, as amended by this Act, to provide allotments shall not include the duty of providing allotments exceeding one acre in extent; and.'"
  Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be further considered To-morrow.

  CALEDONIAN RAILWAY ORDER CON- FIRMATION BILL (BY ORDER).
  Read the third time, and passed.

  YORK (MICKLEGATE STRAYS) BILL (LORDS) (BY ORDER).
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON ()MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON (Durham, Barnard Castle) moved that the Bill be recommitted to a Select Committee. He said one clause in the Bill had created a great amount of feeling in the City of York, and he was convinced that it was in the interest of all parties that the course he proposed should be adopted. A difference had arisen as to the lease between the city council and the racecourse company. The inhabitants of the city declared that they were left in ignorance as to these arrangements until a very late stage of the proceedings. They had at a meeting passed a resolution against endorsing them. He might be asked if there was any precedent for the course which he now invited the House to take. In 1901, in the case of a Bill where circumstances arose very similar to those which had arisen here, the measure was recommitted to a Select Committee, and the whole matter was settled in about three days. If the ratepayers of York were to be saved the £3,000 or £4,000 spent in bringing this Bill to its present stage, he thought the Motion should be accepted. The Committee could be set up on Thursday or Monday next, and towards the end of the week the Bill could be reported again to the House. Meantime he felt satisfied that some arrangement would be made which would be satisfactory to all parties concerned.
  MR. HILLS ()seconded the Motion.
  Amendment, proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'be,' to the end of the Question, and add the words 're-committed to a Select Committee'"—(Mr. Arthur Henderson)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. MORTON ()said that a number of Members had been asked by the citizens of York to get the obnoxious clause regarding the Race Committee and the schedule taken out of the Bill, and he was bound to say that they had a very strong case. Both the clause and the schedule were put in in "another place." He had no objection to that,
  1166
  but what he did object to was that the people of York were not asked whether they liked that course or not. If the Bill could be recommitted in the way proposed, he believed the parties would be able to come to an agreement.
  MR. GEORGE FABER ()said there were extremely complicated and delicate matters involved in the proposals contained in the Bill. From time to time disputes had arisen between the corporation of York and the Micklegate freemen as to their respective rights in the Micklegate Strays, on a part of which the racecourse was situated. In fact litigation had been commenced by the corporation against the freemen in order to get their respective rights determined. But law was an expensive matter, and the parties wisely decided to abandon the litigation and introduce a Bill in Parliament. The Bill was introduced accordingly in another place. It provided that the Micklegate freemen, in exchange for their common rights, should receive from the corporation of York a payment in perpetuity of £1,000 a year, and that the corporation should have power to enter into an agreement with the Race Committee respecting the racecourse. When the Bill was in Committee in another place, and heard as an opposed Bill, it was settled that the Race Committee should receive a lease for ninety-nine years at a rent of £1,000 per annum. The lease was thereupon scheduled to the Bill. The Charity Commissioners put forward a claim before the same Committee that the £1,000 a year agreed to be paid by the corporation to the trustee should be treated as a charitable trust. This claim was disallowed. In the meantime a large body of the citizens of York took exception to the fact that a lease to the Race Committee containing the terms above referred to had been scheduled to the Bill. Their contention was that they had no idea that an agreement for a lease of ninety-nine years was contemplated. When the Bill came to this House and was sent to an unopposed Committee upstairs the Charity Commissioners again pleaded that the £1,000 a year was a charitable trust. He understood that the Committee by a majority did not agree to

  1167
  the view of the Charity Commissioners. Then a proposal arose that as this Bill was so complicated, and so ill-fitted for proper discussion in the full House the better way to take was to re-commit it to a Select Committee. He put this view before the parties interested, but he was bound to say that the corporation of York, the Race Committee, and the Micklegate freemen were not in accord in the matter. His endeavour as Member for the City of York had been to take neither one side nor the other, but only to give advice when asked to do so.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid that he represented a body of freeholders in the City of York, and also the Micklegate freemen, of whom he was one. The question was whether or not the Charity Commissioners should formulate a scheme dealing with the money which was to be paid by the corporation. He thought if the Bill were referred to a Select Committee it would be contrary to the wishes of all the Micklegate freemen. And if the Charity Commissioners persisted in the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Elland he was afraid that the Bill would not become law this session.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. EMMOTT,)said he had spent the greater part of two laborious afternoons in endeavouring to bring about a settlement in this matter in order to save the time of the House. He thought the suggestion to recommit the Bill to a Select Committee was a very good one. There were two points. The first was the Amendments suggested by the Charity Commissioners, and as to those he thought than an arrangement could be easily made by an Amendment, which would have been suggested had that been the only question of difficulty. The principal question in dispute now, however, was as to the lease for ninety-nine years which had been scheduled in the Bill. It was admitted, he believed by the Race Committee itself, that that was rather a long period, and that it might be considerably reduced. He believed that a similar lease was granted in 1753 to Lord Rockingham and Lord Carlisle, and the period had been adopted on that precedent without due consideration. It was generally
  1168
  admitted that ninety-nine years was too long, but there was a large body of citizens whose opinion had only made itself felt since this Committee who desired to have no lease at all. That matter could be quickly decided by a Select Committee, and when the Select Committee reported he hoped there would be no difficulty raised to their decision being accepted by the House.
  MR. LANE-FOXsaid the Race Committee did not wish to see this Bill recommitted at this stage, but in view of the statement made it was obviously impossible for him to divide the House. The Race Committee maintained that they had acted very fairly in this matter. They came to an agreement with the freemen of the city to pay £1,000 a year to hold the races on the Strays, and when the corporation bought out the rights of the freemen the Race Committee came to a similar agreement with them and had since accepted considerable modifications. It was only fair therefore that the Race Committee should be allowed to say that they had done nothing to justify the recommittal of the Bill. He hoped if the recommittal was insisted upon the result would be satisfactory to all parties. This race meeting was almost the only one in England run for the public' benefit, and not a single penny of private profit was derived from it, the whole of the profit being used to forward the meeting. It was run in the interest of sport, of which in York they were very fond, and was the only race meeting to which the people could come without payment. Under these circumstances the Race Committee thought their representations deserved the sympathy of the whole House.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Proposed words there inserted.
  Bill, as amended, re-committed to a Select Committee.

  TRANSVAAL LOAN (GUARANTEE).
  Resolution reported—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to guarantee, on the security of the Consolidated Fund, the interest of a Loan to he

  1169
  raised by the Colony of the Transvaal, not exceeding in the aggregate an amount sufficient to raise five millions pounds, and the principal of any such Loan by means of the guarantee of Sinking Fund payments, and also to guarantee the payment of any sums temporarily raised by the Colony of the Transvaal in anticipation of the Loan, with interest thereon."
  Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Attorney-General, and Mr. Runciman.

  TRANSVAAL LOAN (GUARANTEE) BILL.
  "To authorise the Treasury to guarantee the payment of a Loan to be raised by the Colony of the Transvaal," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 314.]

  PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 9, line 22, to leave out from the word 'to,' to 'a,' in line 24, and insert the words 'the sale or lease of, or licence to use or work any article or process protected by a patent to insert.'"
  "In page 9, line 29, to leave out the word 'invention' and insert the word 'process.'"
  "In page 9, lines 31 and 32, to leave out the words 'employ or.'"
  "In page 9, line 34, after 'licensor,' insert the words 'or his nominees.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  MR. RAWLINSON ()said the object of Clause 23 was to prevent the oppression of a person using the patent of a foreign owner by undue restrictions. He moved an Amendment as a safeguard against the very wide effect of the clause. The Amendment proposed to make lawful the conditions attached to the use of a foreign patent which the clause made unlawful if at the time the contract was entered into the patented article or process was being freely sold or licensed in the United Kingdom with-
  1170
  out such restrictive conditions, or if the patentee had before the date of the contract offered to the other party to sell, lease, or grant a licence on reasonable terms, and without any restrictive conditions.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY ()formally seconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 9, line 34, after the words last inserted, to insert the words 'unless at the time when the contract was entered into for such sale or lease of or licence to use or work the patented article or process, the said patented article or process was being freely sold or licensed to be used or worked in the United Kingdom, on reasonable terms and without any such restrictive or prohibitive conditions, or unless the patentee had, prior to the date of such contract, offered to the other party or parties thereto to sell, lease, or grant a licence to use or work the said patented article or process on reasonable terms, and without any such restrictive or prohibitive conditions.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,)said he had considered this very carefully and was afraid he could not agree to accepting the Amendment in the form proposed. He was afraid that if it were accepted in this form it would render nugatory the whole of the clause and would enable these people to escape altogether the conditions the clause sought to impose. At the same time he agreed that there was something to be said for providing a reasonable alternative. If a reasonable alternative was provided, that was all that was required. So long as such provision was made, they did not want to put an end to freedom of contract in these cases. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment he would be prepared to move words which he thought would meet the case, namely—
  "Provided that the sub-section shall not apply in the case of a lease if (1) At the time when the contract was entered into the patented article or process was being freely leased or licensed to be used or worked at a rent or royalty and without any such restrictive conditions and (2) The contract

  1171
  entitles the lessee or licensee at any time, on giving not more than six months notice, to relieve himself of his liability to observe any such condition on payment of a rent or royalty not exceeding such rent or royalty as aforesaid."
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD ()said it was exceedingly inconvenient to the House that Amendments should be sprung upon it. The effect of the Amendment was a matter which they could not grasp right away. When they were in Committee upstairs a similar Amendment was proposed and they resisted it, with the result that it was either withdrawn or defeated. The question was whether the patented article or machine should be offered freely, and in that event certain contracts were not to be annulled. The same idea came up again now. The hon. Member for Southport had not put his Amendment on the Paper. ["Yes."] He begged pardon; this Amendment was at any rate on the Paper, but he had not known that it was the Amendment which was being moved. It was the Amendment they were to oppose. The amended form of this was now before them, and in that form it was not on the Paper, and it was impossible to grasp the meaning of the "payment of rent and royalty as aforesaid." Did that mean one year's payment or payment of arrears of rent and royalty, or the purchasing value of the rent and royalty? The whole point was quite muddled up, and it was quite impossible for them to vote upon it intelligently unless they had the proposal in front of them.
  MR. GORDON ()thought they should see the Amendment in print, and he believed that the right hon. Gentleman would admit that a point of this importance should not be decided without being thoroughly understood. It was a very important matter as it stood; it would be a restriction of freedom of contract between people who were perfectly able to look after their own interests. He thought that it would be right, when they were going to give a monopoly to a patentee, that they should render it impossible for him to make the conditions too hard upon people who used the patent; but that would be avoided if they left freedom
  1172
  of contract, with the alternative that certain offers might be made such as were proposed in the Amendment on the Paper, or in the proposed Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. In that way they would meet all the difficulties of the case, because once they gave a reasonable alternative, they would effect what the right hon. Gentleman wished. But hon. Members should have an opportunity of considering the Amendment now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, to see whether it met the case. He did not think that anyone on that side of the House wished to deal with the matter in any captious spirit, and he would respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman to give them an opportunity of considering the matter a little further. The first portion of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would appear to him to be quite sufficient and ample to meet the requirements of the case; the second part of it raised great difficulties, and they should have an opportunity of looking into it to see what effect it would have. He thought that might be done without in any way interfering with the time of the House, or a promise might be given to consider the matter in another place if the proposal was found not to work out as the right hon. Gentleman would wish.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he did not approach this matter from the strictly Opposition point of view. They had endeavoured to help the Government to get through their measures. He and many others had considered this complicated Bill in Committee upstairs, and they now found it difficult to understand the exact meaning of the Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade. He would point out that they were dealing with an intricate subject, which at the same time would affect poor men of inventive genius as well as the work of the trades and industries of the country. If they passed hurry-scurry a Bill of this sort without debating it, they might find that they had not only made a bad law but caused great loss and injury to the trades and industries of the country. The President of the Board of Trade had ample evidence that the Unionists who sat until the early hours of the morning

  1173
  helping the Government to pass their measures did not desire to deal in any hostile spirit with Bills, more especially those relating to commercial matters. They desired that the legislation which emerged from that House should be useful to the nation; therefore he made bold to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, absolutely in a business-like spirit and in no Party spirit, to agree to postpone this measure. They would be in session until the middle of September, and they would have ample opportunity for dealing with this and other measures, not in the late hours of the night or early hours of the morning, but at a reasonable hour, and if the right hon. Gentleman agreed to their request his measure would receive greater attention, and very great credit would redound to him because of the form in which it would be passed.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE, in response to the appeal, said that he was anxious to get the Bill through, in order that the other House might have it before them to-morrow. The Amendment would be dealt with in another place, and hon. Members would be able to consider it fully then.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 9, line 38, to leave out the word 'invention' and insert the word 'process.'"
  "In page 9, lines 40 and 41, to leave out the words 'embodied in the patented article in force at,' and insert the words 'by which the article or process was or were protected at the time of.'"
  "In page 9, line 41, and page 10, line 1, to leave out the words 'or the patent for the invention.'"
  "In page 10, line 7, to leave out the word 'determined' and insert the word 'awarded.'"
  "In page 10, line 11, to leave out the word 'invention' and insert the word 'process.'"
  "In page 10, line 19, to leave out the word 'determined' and insert the word 'awarded.'"
  "In page 10, line 21, to leave out Subsection (4)."
  Amendments agreed to.
  MR. CAVE ()MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston) moved to leave out Subsection 5 of Clause 23, which provides that the insertion by the patentee in a contract of any condition which by virtue of this clause
  1174
  is null and void shall be a ground on which the patent may be revoked. He did not know of any provision of that kind in any other Act of Parliament-He hoped the Government would not insist upon it.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 10, line 27, to leave out Subsection (5) of Clause 23."—(Mr. Cave.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'the insertion' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman would observe that he proposed considerable modification in the clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman knew how difficult it was to provide a perfectly watertight clause which would prevent operations by trusts for the evasion of the law. It had been attempted many times, but the trusts had been able to walk round the law. There was only one way of doing it, and that was by making them feel that if they endeavoured to evade the law or the principle of the law in this respect they would endanger the patent for the time being. If a man abused the special privilege which was granted to him when he obtained a patent by using it to the detriment of the trade of this country, he must know that he could not bring an action for infringement of the patent as long as he was abusing the privilege. He did not think that that man should be allowed to go into Court and sue for damages in respect of the infringement of the patent. That was the principle on which he had proceeded, and he thought it was the only way to prevent people in future from operations of the kind complained of. That would make it worth their while not to repeat these operations.
  MR. HILLSsaid he thought the penalty proposed was too heavy. If a man entered into a contract for five years, believing that such a contract was good, it might happen that, under this section of the Bill, some condition in it would be held to be bad. As soon as the courts held that this condition was void that man would not be able to get out of the contract,

  1175
  during the five years for which it had been made, anybody would be able to infringe the patent and make the article. He was all for a watertight clause, but this was going a great deal too far. Under this clause a perfectly honest man, carrying on his business in the ordinary way, might, through having been badly advised, lose a valuable patent.
  MR. BOWLES ()said he thought the proposal was rather vindictive. It was gratuitous and unnecessary. Before these words in this section could come into effect the man would be in the position of having had his contract declared null and void, and therefore he would be forced to suffer the very serious consequences resulting from his having made a contract in which the governing condition was null and void. The whole value of the contract to him would be gone, but the other party to the contract might hold him to it. Being in that position, it seemed to him that the man was punished enough, and to impose an enormous
  and ruinous penalty in addition was going too far. Although the practices which they desired to stop might in some cases be a knowing violation of the law, he believed that in many cases they would be done by inadvertence by the poor inventors whom they wished to protect.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid that this was the worst form of penalty which could be thought of. The infringer of the contract would be the first to get the benefit of the penalty, which was that the patent would be declared null and void. But he thought that the infringer of the contract was the last person who ought to be considered. He contended that to strike out this clause would not affect the rest of the Bill and that those who wished to use the patent had already got protection under Clause 16.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 144; Noes. 34. (Division List No. 414.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Elibank, Master of

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jowett, F. W.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Kelley, George D.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lamont, Norman

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gill, A. H.

  Lehmann, R. G

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Brace, William

  Glover, Thomas

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Branch, James

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Burns, Et. Hon. John

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hall, Frederick

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down. S.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Harvey, A. G. C (Rochdale)

  M'Crae, George

  Clough, William

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

  Harwood, George

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Cory, Clifford John

  Hazleton, Richard

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Crooks, William

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Crossley, William J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Nicholls, George

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hudson, Walter

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Pollard, Dr.

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Kendall, Athelstan

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

  Summerbell, T.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Rowlands, J.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

  Walsh, Stephen

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Seddon, J.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Shackleton, David James

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Waring, Walter

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Gordon, J.

  Radford, G. H.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hills, J. W.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Keswick, William

  Younger, George

  Cave, George

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Lupton, Arnold

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Bowles and Mr. Claude Hay.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Forster, Henry William

  Nield, Herbert

  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn"—(Mr. Whiteley)—put, and agreed to.

  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to amend Subsection (5) of Clause 23, which as it stood in the Bill provided that the insertion by the patentee in a contract made after the passing of the Act of any condition which by virtue of this section was null and void should be a ground on which the patent might be revoked The right hon. Gentleman proposed to insert instead of the words at the end rendering the contract null and void, words to the effect that such conduct should be available as a defence to an action for infringement of the patent to which the contract related brought while that ontract wacs in force.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 10, line 29, leave out from the first word 'be,' to end of subsection, and insert the words 'available as a defence to an action for infringement of the patent to which the contract relates brought while that contract is in force.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. LUPTON ()suggested that it would be well if the
  1178
  right hon. Gentleman would insert the words "with the consent of the patentee," so that the patentee would not be able to bring his action so long as the objectionable contract existed with his consent. The patentee might wish to terminate the contract but might not be able to do so. If something of that sort were not inserted this House might render ineffective the labours of a lifetime.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he could not accept that Amendment because if he did the patentee would not consent and the action for infringement would be brought.
  MR. LUPTONsaid the presumption was that a patentee would make a contract which should last for the whole term of his patent and his rights would be extinguished by virtue of this amended clause. The patentee and inventor was usually a man of science and mechanical ingenuity and he was rarely a man who had any commercial or legal knowledge. Usually he was a mechanical enthusiast and it was hard to come down on him over a contract which was made illegal by this Act.
  MR. MICKLEM ()said it seemed to him that Subsection (5) as it stood was vastly better than it would be as it was proposed to be amended by the President of the Board of Trade. He could quite conceive that where illegal contracts were entered into by the patentee it might be a ground on which the patent might be revoked, but he failed to see how when the patentee had entered into a contract with some one else that contract could be a defence to an action against the third party who had infringed the patent. It seemed, to him somewhat ludicrous. If a man infringed a patent surely it ought not to be a defence to him who was a wrongdoer, that the patentee had entered into a contract which contained conditions which were under this section null and void. The contract itself was not null and void but only certain provisions of it. How could such a contract as that be pleaded man action for infringement against an ordinary wrongdoer? He could not understand how it could be, and he thought it would be better to leave the clause as it stood.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 10, line 31, to leave out Subsection (6)."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. RADFORD moved: "In page 11, line 18, at end, to insert the words '(f) apply to any contract if the seller, lessor, or licensor proves that at the time when the contract was entered into the patented article or invention in question was being freely sold without any such prohibitive or restrictive conditions, or that he was willing and had offered to the other party to the contract to sell, lease, or grant a licence to use or work the patented article or invention on reasonable terms, and without such prohibitive or restrictive conditions as hereinbefore referred to.'" He said that he believed this Amendment, or something like it, would be accepted by the Board of Trade. If the right hon. Gentleman
  1180
  did not see his way to agree to the Amendment, it would not be pressed to a division, and as he had already brought the matter to the attention of his right hon. friend he thought it would be sufficient if he moved the Amendment in a formal manner.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that this was a subject which he proposed to deal with by some such clause as he had read to the House, or by a similar clause moved elsewhere. He hoped that statement would satisfy his hon. friend.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. D. WHITE MR. J. D. WHITE moved to leave out Clause 25.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out Clause 25."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that he accepted the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. RAWLINSON MR. RAWLINSON moved to leave out Clause 26. He said that this was an Amendment which he should venture to press very strongly upon the Government. Subsection (1) of Clause 26 abolished a tribunal which had existed for many years—the tribunal of the law officers who sat to hear appeals from the decisions of the comptroller. This Court, composed of the law officers, had over a long period done a very useful work in an admirable manner. It had been held by successive law officers, the business being conducted generally by arrangements between the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. It was a highly desirable tribunal from the point of view of patentees, and more especially from the standpoint of the small patentee. The Bill proposed to abolish this efficient but inexpensive tribunal altogether, and to substitute for it an appeal in all cases to a Judge of the High Court. Necessarily, and for reasons which the House would well understand, the hearing of an appeal before a Judge of the High Court must be a more expensive proceeding than an appeal to the simple tribunal

  1181
  now existing. It was an exceedingly informal but an exceedingly successful tribunal; and matters could be dealt with before the law officers in a sort of informal way which would be quite impossible in the case of the High Court. Of course before a tribunal composed of the law officers anyone could appear. If the patentee who was dissatisfied with the decision of the comptroller chose to employ legal assistance he could do so, but if he did not choose to do so he need not be legally represented. The law officers sat in a private room, and, meeting in this way, they formed a very competent tribunal for the decision of matters arising out of the comptroller's decision. This was an Amendment about which there was a considerable amount of feeling, and if it was accepted he could not help thinking that it would clear away a good deal of the opposition which was expressed to the Bill at the present time. Might he also use an illegitimate argument in favour of the Amendment? If this subsection was omitted. Subsection (2), which provided that rules of the Supreme Court regulating the procedure on appeals from the comptroller to the Court should provide for appeals under this section, would go as well. That raised very difficult and thorny questions. If they abolished this informal tribunal they had to transfer the whole of these appeals to a Judge of the High Court, and in that Court, before that Judge, there had been from time immemorial a practice that only barristers and solicitors were entitled to appear. Clearly, if they abolished this tribunal, the ordinary rules of law ought to prevail, with the result that only barristers and solicitors would be allowed to practice before the Judge. That being the case, he thought the House would see that there would be a certain amount of hardship caused by not allowing people to appear in person as they did now before the informal tribunal composed of the law officers. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment and would thus ensure that the Court which had existed so long should not be abolished.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 11, line 36, to leave out Clause 26"—[Mr. Rawlinson.)
  MR. G. CROYDON MARKS ()said that if this clause was allowed to remain in the Bill, patentees in the future would have thrown on them an enormous expense and they would have a tribunal for the determination of cases which would he less satisfactory than that which they had at present. This was a very important matter and it deserved the consideration of his right hon. friend. He could give a number of cases in which the comptroller had been wrong and in which the Court had been right. It was proposed to take away from the law officers the power of dealing with cases which they had been dealing with for many years and he thought the change would not be to the advantage of the patentee. During the year 1905–06 the comptroller gave 5,679 decisions. Against these there were sixty-two appeals to the law officers and only six were reversed. In the King's Bench Division in the year 1904, there were 123 appeals and only fifty-two were maintained. In the Chancery Division there were 114 appeals and only fifty-six were maintained. In the House of Lords there were fifty-four appeals and twenty-nine were maintained. He was perfectly certain that if this tribunal were shifted from the law officers to the Courts they would have a less satisfactory termination to the cases and a great deal more cost would be associated with the proceedings. He therefore hoped that his right hon. friend would see his way to agree to the Amendment.
  MR. HILLSsaid that he wished to support the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend. This tribunal consisting of the law officers had been in existence for a period of twenty-four years and during all that time it had undoubtedly worked admirably. It was a cheap tribunal, it was quick, and it exactly met the needs of the case. Now it was proposed by the President of the Board of Trade that instead of this eminently satisfactory procedure of an appeal to the law officers, there should be an

  1183
  appeal to the High Court. That Court, as the House knew, was overworked already, and he therefore maintained that it needed a very strong case to be made out before the House should sanction such an alteration. The effect of the Bill was to put in the place of a very good tribunal, a Court which was already overworked, and it was only in the nature of things, the circumstances being what they were, that delays should occur. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would accept the Amendment, because if he did not, his Bill would destroy a procedure which had worked exceedingly well in order to substitute one that could not prove nearly so satisfactory.
  MR. RADFORDhoped the President of the Board of Trade would stick to this clause. He understood that the Amendment before the House proposed to strike out both subsections and he thought it was difficult to discuss the matter on that basis. It might be that certain Members would be in favour of striking out one subsection and not the other. If they struck out the first subsection they retained the law officers as the tribunal which was to hear any appeals from the decisions of the comptroller. While he wished to speak of the law officers with unfeigned respect, he thought it was only just to remark that they were not appointed to their respective offices with any special regard to their competence to discharge these particular duties. He differed from several previous speakers inasmuch as he thought it would be a great advantage to the poor inventor if he had a right of appeal from the comptroller to a regularly constituted Court such as was proposed by Subsection (1) of the clause, and he hoped therefore that the President of the Board of Trade would stick to that part of the clause Subsection (2) which laid down that rules of the Supreme Court should provide for appeals under this section being heard in chambers, and for allowing any person to appear and be heard on any appeal who might have appealed and been heard on an appeal to the law officer was inserted with the view of diminishing expense, and of preserving the right of audience which the patent-
  1184
  agents now had before the law officers, and which it was proposed they should retain, before the Judge in chambers. Experience had shown that the practice of giving a right of audience to the patent-agent had been extremely useful. This was one of few clauses in the Bill which were likely to realise the genuine desire of the President of the Board of Trade to do something for the poor inventor, or at any-rate to preserve the meagre rights which the patentee possessed under the present law. The method favoured by the hon. Member for Cambridge was that the inventor should instruct the patent agent and pay him, that the patent agent should instruct the solicitor and pay him, that the solicitor should instruct counsel and pay him. The result would be that three men would be paid instead of one and no increase in efficiency would be produced by the process. On the contrary he thought there would be a diminution in efficiency. The patent agent knew nearly all about the matter, almost as much as the inventor; the solicitor knew a little less; and counsel knew a little less than the solicitor. The individual who knew least about the matter would present the case. For these reasons on the ground of diminishing the cost and increasing the efficiency, he sincerely hoped the second subsection, preserving the right of audience to the patent agent would be retained.
  MR. CAVEsaid he wished to deal with two points the hon. Member had put before the House. He did not understand how Subsection (2) could stand without Subsection (1). Subsection (2) was simply the machinery for carrying out the first subsection.
  MR. RADFORD: I wish to preserve both.
  MR. CAVEsaid the hon. Member suggested at the beginning of his speech that he did not agree with leaving out Subsection (2) although Subsection (1) might be argued. The second point was that the hon. Member had said that when these appeals were left to the law officers it was a mere toss-up whether

  1185
  the law officer was able to do the work. Hitherto they had always found the work was extremely well done. The law officers had one after another given full attention to the work and had done it to the satisfaction of everybody. The tribunal as at present was informal, it was rapid, it was cheap, and it was satisfactory to all concerned. Why then should they alter such a tribunal for a tribunal which must take more time, which must be more expensive and which in some respects would not, he thought, foe quite so satisfactory?
  MR. RUFUS ISAACSappealed to the President of the Board of Trade to accept the Amendment. So far as he understood the arguments which had been addressed to the House, there seemed to be no valid reason put forward for substituting another tribunal for the one which had existed so long and worked so successfully. Indeed the arguments put forward seemed rather to support the views of those who favoured the Amendment. It was desired to avoid expense. In order to effect this purpose it was much better to keep a tribunal which had worked so well for so long a time and which had proved satisfactory and inexpensive for dealing with matters brought before it. He urged that matters might be allowed to stand as they were and the rights of appeal to the law officers preserved, who, in spite of what had been said by the hon. Member who had recently spoken, had always in the past proved a satisfactory tribunal for dealing with these questions. Unless there was some better ground put forward for substituting another tribunal which must be more formal and more expensive, he submitted to the House and to the President of the Board of Trade, that no change should be made, and that this provision should be eliminated from this Bill.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEregretted that none of the law officers were present. There was no doubt there was a general feeling that the present tribunal had worked very well. It had been put to him by a very high legal functionary that it was not so much a tribunal as a kind of domestic arrangement. Agents came and
  1186
  discussed matters round a table and there was nothing in the way of formal presentment of the case on one side or the other. The idea of the Bill was that there should be a special Judge with a special knowledge of patent cases who should sit upon patent business. It was quite clear to him, however, that it was the sense of the House that the present jurisdiction of the law officer should be retained. In the circumstances he acceeded to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 12, line 3, to leave out the word 'under,' and to insert the words 'by virtue of.'"
  "In page 12, line 4, after the word 'referred' to insert the words 'or presented."'
  "In page 12, line 5, to leave out the words 'or reference.'"
  "In page 12, line 6, after the word 'made' to insert the words 'and the petition referred or presented.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  MR. CAVE*MR. CAVE moved, in page 12, line 8, to leave out from the word 'purpose' to end of clause. The words he struck out, he said, provided that the decision of the Judge should be final—a matter of great importance. He had every confidence in our Courts, but he thought the right of appeal was very valuable. He noticed that the President of the Board of Trade had put an Amendment on the Paper that the decision should be final except in the case of an appeal from a decision of the comptroller revoking a patent on any ground on which the grant of such patent might have been opposed. The effect of that was that a decision under Section 14 of the Bill would not be final, but a decision under Section 15 or Section 16 would. Might he, before the President moved his Amendment, suggest that he should go a little further and leave out the final words of his Amendment, so that it should read "except in the case of an appeal from a decision of the comptroller revoking a patent." The revoking

  1187
  of a patent was a very serious matter to a patentee, and whether it was revoked on one ground or on another an appeal should be allowed.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYseconded.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 12, line 8, to leave out from the word 'purpose,' to the end of Clause 27."—(Mr. Cave.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he could not see his way to accepting the proposal. It would destroy the whole effect of the Bill because, as the hon. Member knew, what had been the difficulty up to the present in regard to dealing with these patents was the enormous expense of putting such clauses as they had got into operation. A man in his endeavour to put these classes into operation might be taken from Court to Court, first of all to the Comptroller, then to the High Count, then to the Court of Appeal, then to the House of Lords. No man in these circumstances cared to undertake what was after all a public duty, the duty of compelling these patentees to work their patents in the country which granted them.
  MR. CAVE: My suggestion is that the right hon. Gentleman should confine the right of appeal to cases where the patent is revoked.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that Clause 15 was purely a clause with a view to compelling those who took out patents in this country to work them. He was certain that if there were three or four appeals such as he had indicated, in that case the result would be that the clause would be quite inoperative. The cost of these appeals was enormous. Before they got the matter through the House of Lords there might be £5,000 to £10,000 spent in compelling a foreign patentee to work his patent. In these circumstances they might as well not legislate at all. It was with a view to cheapen
  1188
  procedure largely that the Bill had been introduced, and if they were going to allow a series of appeals it would be quite useless. In case of revocation of a patent under Clause 14, that was a different matter. He thought an appeal might be granted there.
  MR. CAVEsaid he was willing to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 12, line 8, to add the words 'except in the case of an appeal from the decision of the Comptroller revoking a patent on any ground on which the grant of such patent might have been opposed.'"
  "In page 12, line 35, to leave out the word 'further' and to insert the word 'second.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 12, line 36, at end, to insert the words, 'If within the prescribed time before the explanation of such second period of five-years application for the extension of the period of copyright is made to the Comptroller in the prescribed manner, the Comptroller may, subject to any rules under the principal Act, on payment of the prescribed fee, extend the period of copyright for a third period of five years from the expiration of the second period of five years.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that surely the right hon. Gentleman would give the House a few words of explanation of the Amendment.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the holder of a copyright was not adequately rewarded, and artists generally had pressed that Amendment on the Government with a view to securing special treatment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 13, line 17, after the word 'disclosure,' to insert the words 'or acceptance.'"—(Mr. Lloyd George.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 13, line 20, to leave out the words 'Subject to the rules under the principal Act.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that surely on a question of rules which involved questions of law the President of the Board of Trade should give them some explanation.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the words had been inserted in that clause by mistake. They should have been inserted in Clause 42.
  Amendment agreed to,
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 13, line 32, after the word 'refused,' to insert the words 'nor shall the registration thereof be invalidated.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. BLACKsaid he did not propose to move his first Amendment, which was to leave out Clause 33, but he would move his second Amendment, which was, in page 14, line 9, to leave out the words "not less than one year." If the right hon. Gentleman agreed to accept his Amendment he need not trouble the House with any of the reasons which he had for bringing it forward. The clause applied particularly to an industry like the lace industry, and in the lace industry the life of a design was exceedingly short, generally about one season.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 14, line 9, to leave out the words 'not less than one year.'"—(Mr. Black.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he thought the Amendment was a reasonable one.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 14, line 15, after the word 'kingdom,' to insert the words 'including those relating to costs.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved an Amendment the object of which was to give in the case of designs the same remedies as in the case of patents.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 14, line 17, at the end, to add the words 'Such ground as aforesaid shall be available by way of defence to an action for infringement of the copyright in the design.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 17, line 14, to leave out the words 'subject to rules under the principal Act.'"
  "In page 17, line 16, at beginning, to insert the words 'subject to rules under the principal Act.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  "In page 17, line 21, after the first 'declaration' to insert the words 'or allow any declarant to be cross-questioned on his declaration.'"—(Mr. Cave.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, "in page 17, lines 38 and 39, to leave out the words 'or giving notice of appeal from any decision of the Comptroller.'"
  MR. CLAUDE HAYasked what the words meant. He thought the House should have an explanation.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he would not press that Amendment or the following one, which was, "in page 17, line 41, to leave out the words 'or in case of appeal to the law officer, the law officer.'"
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. RADFORD*MR. RADFORD moved, on Clause 45, to add the words '(2) If any person who is not registered as a patent agent uses on his place of business or on any document issued by him or otherwise, any words or title suggesting that he is a patent agent, he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.'" He said the clause was intended to meet the evil, which it had been discovered by

  1191
  sad experience existed, of a man who lad been struck off the register for disgraceful professional conduct and who therefore was not entitled to the description "patent agent" using some other title calculated to make people think he was a patent agent or something a shade better. Some other title such as "patent expert," which conveyed the same idea to the public, was used by men who could not legally describe themselves as patent agents. Such men carrying on their business in that manner had caused great loss to innocent inventors who had sent them fees for them to take out patents, but the fraudulent recipients had put the money in their pockets and not taken out the patents at all. It was to put an end to that state of things that he moved his Amendment. He knew it would be said, and it had been said, in opposition to the suggestion that he had put forward, that the Comptroller of Patents kept a sort of black list of patent agents who had been removed from the register. That was said last year when a Bill embodying his suggestion passed through the House of Lords. But it was no reply to say that the Comptroller of Patents did not allow these men to practice, for that would not be effective against fraudulent agents who never applied to the Comptroller at all, but simply put the money they received as fees in their pockets and fraudulently converted them to their own use. Gentlemen like the President of the Board of Trade, who knew all about patents and patent agents, knew that that was a serious and widespread evil, which ought to be stopped at once. If the President of the Board of Trade considered the words in the Amendment too sweeping and would suggest some words which should be inserted limiting it to people who intended to deceive, he would be quite satisfied to accept them. The evil was, however, a serious one, and one from which the public suffered, and he therefore commended the clause to the House.
  MR. HILLSseconded.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 18, line 7, at the end, to insert the words, '(2) if any person who is not registered as a patent agent uses on his place of business, or on any document issued by him or otherwise,
  1192
  any words or title suggesting that he is a patent agent, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a tine not exceeding twenty pounds."'—(Mr. Radford.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Amendment which his hon. friend proposed was a serious one. He would not say it was not desirable, but he was doubtful whether it would be effective. If the Government decided to accept it there would be very considerable opposition. He had received information from a good many quarters that there would be opposition. He thought the whole thing ought to be considered. They were dealing with a very responsible profession, a skilled profession, and he thought that the status of the profession should be recognised. Still he doubted very much whether it could be done in a clause of that kind. If they proposed to do it they should do it in a much more certain way than in the way suggested by his hon. friend. If they thought that it could be done it should be properly done by means of a second Bill, when there would be full opportunities for the patent agents to state their case and for those outside the profession to state their case. He agreed there was a great deal to be said against some of the men to whom his hon. friend had referred, and that there might be attempts to deceive the public, but a good many of these outside men earned an honourable living, and that they should be deprived of all means of obtaining their livelihood without being allowed to state their case would be manifestly unfair. He hoped that his hon. friend, having stated his case, and set it before the House, would withdraw his Amendment, for he must realise that at that stage of the session it would be impossible to set up a new provision of that kind, with all the new rules which would be rendered necessary. Some organisation would, of course, be necessary to carry the proposal out properly, for that could not be done by the Amendment before the House.
  MR. RADFORDsaid he could not resist the appeal of his right hon. friend,

  1193
  based, as it was, on the late period of the session. He asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid before the Amendment was withdrawn he would ask the House to remember that the President of the Board of Trade had made a very important statement. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the words proposed to be introduced were not suited to the subject, that the profession was a skilled one holding a highly responsible position in the commercial life of the country, and that the unsatisfactory state of things belonging to the work of that profession rendered legislation of great importance. Surely, that being so, when the President of the Board of Trade was dealing as he was that night, with the patent laws in a large spirit, so large that the next order of the day was the Patents and Designs Consolidation Bill, he should give an undertaking that he would make it one of the first considerations in his programme for next year to introduce a very substantial Bill dealing with the patent agents of this country.
  MR. LUPTONsaid that he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. The most successful profession in this country was a profession without any legal restriction—civil engineering. He supposed the House knew that anyone could call himself a civil engineer. As soon as they set up a close corporation as a means of protection from the competition coming up from the great mass of the people a deterioration began. The more close the corporation the less worthy it was of the country. If the proposal was adopted in the present case it would not do any good to the people whom it was primarily intended to benefit and he hoped therefore that it would not be agreed to, although he quite sympathised with the feelings which had prompted the mover in bringing it forward.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments proposed.
  "In page 19, line 9, at end, to insert the words 'Section 19.'"
  "In page 19, line 23, at end, to insert the words 'Section 38.'"
  Amendments agreed to.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he wished to appeal to hon. Members to assent to the Third Reading of the Bill that night. His reason for making this request was that he wanted the measure to be sent up to the House of Lords as soon as possible, so that the other House might be able to consider it without delay, as the session was now very near its close. If this were done hon. Members would have an opportunity of considering fully any Amendments which were made in another place and progress generally would be expedited.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that after what the right hon. Gentleman had said he felt that he for one could not refuse his appeal.

  PATENTS AND DESIGNS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  LORD BALCARRES ()said that he hoped the President of the Board of Trade would tell the Committee something concerning the intentions of the Government regarding this measure.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that he should be glad to explain briefly what it was proposed to do. He hoped hon. Members would allow him to send the Bill up to the House of Lords and let them consider the question of the incorporation of the Patents and Designs Bill, as finally amended by them, in it. Of course it would be no use getting the Consolidation Bill through at all unless the Patents Bill which the House had

  1195
  just read a third time was incorporated in it. If hon. Members agreed to that step the Bill would come down there afterwards, as amended by the House of Lords, for consideration.
  LORD BALCARRESthought that the course taken with regard to this Bill was really somewhat inconvenient. He understood that this Bill, like all Consolidation Bills, ought to be referred to a Select Committee. The Bill was now before a Committee of the Whole House, but it was manifestly out of the question for the House of Commons to attempt to consider the whole of the eighty clauses which were now before them. They might accept the assurance which would, no doubt, be given that there was not a line nor a word in the Bill which was different from or inconsistent with any existing statute. It was well known that during the last ten or a dozen years there had been cases in which Consolidation Bills in respect of various statutes had made considerable alterations of the law, but that had invariably been put right in Select Committees of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman asked them now pro forma to discuss the eighty clauses in this Bill, and it was obvious that at one o'clock in the morning they could not do it. As that was impossible they were to pass the eighty clauses and give the right hon. Gentleman the Third Reading of the Bill with the same despatch as was shown in the case of the measure just disposed of. They were to send the Bill to the House of Lords together with the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman had just piloted through the House and ask for a Select Committee to be set up in another place. The Lords were to be asked to incorporate in this Consolidation Bill the thirty or forty clauses of the Bill just passed, and, though the right hon. Gentleman might regard it as a simple form of procedure, he submitted that really it was a rather cumbrous method. The Patents and Designs Bill was going to be amended by agreement in various respects in the Lords. This Bill, therefore, would have to come down again after consideration; the eighty clauses would have to be reprinted and the whole matter would have to go to a Select
  1196
  Committee of the House of Commons. They could not, he submitted, pass the Bill without letting a Committee consider it in some form, because a measure of this kind undoubtedly required very careful and detailed expert examination. It was not right that a Bill should be passed through Parliament in the last few hours of a session which really required weeks of work, and it might be found on examination that there were certain points in the Bill which the House had just passed that conflicted with existing statutes. All these matters needed the most careful explanation and it was in the interests of sound legislation that he ventured to press these points on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The Lords would require a few hours to consider the Bill, and it would be very late in the session—almost at the very end—before it could come back to the House of Commons. Under the circumstances he ventured to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be a very great advantage if he would consider the propriety of deferring the consolidation of the patent laws, eminently desirable as it was, until next session, when he was sure it would be treated as a purely formal and non-controversial matter.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that of course he would not be disposed to press a matter of this sort if the Opposition were not prepared to accept it. He had understood, however, that in the case of this Bill there was not only an agreement, but a desire not to oppose the Bill. They had just given a third reading to a Bill amending the patent laws, and he thought it was very important that the ordinary layman who was interested in patents should be able to read those laws for himself. One thing was absolutely certain, and that was that he could not do it now. The Consolidation Bill could not be taken, however, unless the members of the Opposition really assented, and he would be glad to know what their desire in regard to the measure really was.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid it was not a question whether the Opposition objected or not. They did not object to

  1197
  the consolidation of the patent laws, but, on the other hand, they thought it was a thing that ought to he carried out. As a matter of fact they considered it not only advisable, but imperative. The only question which exercised their minds was whether that consolidation should be effected during the last hours of the session, or whether it would not be better to postpone it till there was ample time for experts to consider the whole matter, the importance of which he thought no one denied.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that if the Opposition did not object to the Bill he would suggest that they should let it go to the House of Lords and there would be ample time before it came back to the House of Commons to consider whether they should proceed with it or not. If they sent both Bills up to the House of Lords then they would know the final form which would be assumed by the Bill to which they had given a Third Reading that night and they would be in a better position to consider the question of consolidation.
  MR. FORSTER ()said that the Opposition did not object to the Consolidation Bill, but what they wanted to know was whether there was an understanding that the Patents and Designs Bill was to be included in the Consolidation Bill, and that if the latter was passed through the House of Commons it should be carefully reviewed before it actually became the law of the land. Under the Bill which the House had just passed amending the patent laws various machinery provisions were set up, and he was not certain that all his legal friends were satisfied that these would work smoothly. One of the objects in passing a Consolidation Bill was to save expense, and they would not do this unless the provisions of the Bill were carefully considered. This they all hoped and
  1198
  believed would be satisfactorily done in another place, but the House of Commons at any rate would not be willing to accept the Bill without further examination. All he wished was to have it recognised that when the Bill came back it must of necessity be subjected to examination by the House of Commons.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that the President of the Board of Trade made a very proper statement when he said that the object of this Bill was to ensure that the poor inventor who was concerned in patents should have a cheap vade mecum of the law. The first function of the House of Commons was to have the first hand in framing legislation of this kind, but if they adopted the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman and took this Bill in Committee in the early hours of the morning because it was to be sent to another place, then it would be dealt with by the other House, with the result that the House of Commons would have lost control of the Bill. He was quite sure that the Committee would recognise the truth of that statement, because the House of Commons would only, under those circumstances, be able to deal with such Amendments as the House of Lords might pass. Therefore it was a very serious thing to agree to the idea that the Committee stage of the Bill should pass practically sub silentio, throwing the whole duty of considering the measure on another place. If anything went wrong in another place in respect of this Bill the burden would not rest on the House of Commons but on the other Chamber. Being a Member of the House of Commons he preferred that the responsibility should rest on the House of Commons, and he thought they should do all they could to ensure that the Bill had an easy passage through that House. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to adjourn the consideration of the Consolidation Bill until the other Chamber had had a full opportunity of considering

  1199
  and amending, with the full consent of the House of Commons, the Patents and Designs Bill which had only a few moments ago passed its Third Reading. If the right hon. Gentleman agreed to put back this measure for a time every facility would be placed in his way of passing a fully matured Consolidation Bill through the House of Commons. Otherwise it would be like producing a cheap book, badly edited, and instead of making the law more intelligible to the inventor they would run the risk of making it more difficult to understand The Opposition were taking a perfectly reasonable course in asking the right hon. Gentleman to adopt this plan, and he was convinced that the best results would be secured if their suggestion was adopted.
  MR. CAVEsaid the Consolidation Bill had over eighty clauses, and the new Bill had about fifty. Everybody who understood the matter knew that the effect of the new Bill would be to necesssitate alterations in a great many clauses of the Consolidation Bill. Of course, any Amendments actually made by the Lords in the Consolidation Bill would come before the Commons for consideration, but supposing the Lords omitted to alter the clauses of the Consolidation Bill which ought to be altered in order to give effect to the new Bill, how could the Commons deal with that matter? The House of Commons could only deal with Amendments made by the other House, and could not insert new Amendments after the Bill had been returned from the other House. He did not know what machinery the Lords had for dealing with such complicated matters, or whether they were dependent on the private efforts of Members, but in any case words might be omitted which ought to be inserted and this House would then be unable to insert them. Was it not possible to postpone the Committee stage
  1200
  of the Consolidated Bill in this House until they got the amended Patents Bill back? Then when they got that back and knew what the Lords' Amendments were, they might in a few days put the proper clauses into the Consolidation Bill and go on with that Bill. He was very much in favour of consolidation, but he was against consolidation in a hurry.
  MR. GORDONsaid that in a measure like that there might be mistakes which hon. Members might be able to point out. He was most anxious to see a Consolidation Bill. He would like to have the law consolidated. It would be in the interests of everyone concerned that it should be; but he certainly thought it would be better to go slowly and let the Bill which had been passed go up to the House of Lords and come back first. If that could not be done they need only wait till next session, when a Consolidation Bill could go through without any waste of time or trouble. All he wanted was that if they were to have a Consolidation Bill, the Bill should be of such a character that it would carry out the object intended, and that was to have the law accurately stated in a compendious form.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

ADJOURNMENT.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes after One o'clock.
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (KING'S BENCH DIVISION).
The King's answer to the Address of the 29th of July last, reported by the Lord Steward as follows:—"I have received your Address praying that, in pursuance of the eighteenth section of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, an additional Judge may be appointed to the High Court of Justice in the King's Bench Division thereof, and I will issue directions in accordance with your desire."

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railways (Additional Capital, etc.) Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Dumbarton Burgh Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Oxford and District Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Petty Sessions Clerks (Ireland) Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Dumbarton Burgh and County Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to Order). An Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  ARMAGH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Report from the Standing Orders Committee and for resuming the adjourned debate on the Amendment moved after Third Reading.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I understand that the position now is that this Bill has been before the Standing Orders Committee, and that they have recommended a certain Amendment. On the understanding that your
  946
  Lordships will accept that Amendment, and I believe the noble Lord opposite does not object to that course being followed, I would ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment which I moved on the previous occasion. The new Amendment does not include a certain number of points that were comprised in my Amendment, but I desire to accept the decision of the Standing Orders Committee.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Moved, That the Amendment of the Standing Orders Committee be agreed to.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

PETITIONS.
  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition against; of East Lothian Land and Property Defence Association; and Fife Land Defence Association; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  BUTTER AND MARGARINE BILL.
  Petitions to be heard by Counsel for amendment of; of Bridgwater and District Grocers' and Provision Merchants' Association; St. Albans Grocers' Association; and North Staffordshire Wholesale Grocers' Association; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (TONNAGE DEDUCTION FOR PROPELLING POWER BILL.
  Petition to be heared by Counsel against; of Furness Railway Company; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION.
  Petitions against any legislation on the lines of the Education (England and Wales) Bill, 1906; of Annual meeting of Governors of Wiggonby School at Aikton, Cumberland; Annual meeting of Clergy and Laity of Rural Deanery of Wigton, Cumberland; Annual Meeting of Managers of Biglands Church of England School; Annual meeting of Aikton Habitation of Primrose League; and Annual

  947
  meeting of Parish of Aikton; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Regulations under which grants for the building of new public elementary schools in England and Wales will be made by the Board of Education after the passing of the Appropriation Act, 1907, during the year ending 31st March, 1908.

  TRADE REPORTS—ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3897. Siam (Chiengmai).
  No. 3898. China (Canton).

  INDIA (PLAGUE).
  Correspondence regarding measures for the prevention of plague.
  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  General Report to the Board of Trade upon the accidents that have occurred on the railways of the United Kingdom during the year 1906.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  Annual Report for the year ended 31st March, 1907.
  INEBRIATES ACTS 1879 to 1900.
  Report of the Inspector under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, for the year 1906.
  COAST EROSION (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  First Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into and report on certain questions affecting coast erosion and the reclamation of tidal lands in the United Kingdom—Part I., Report. Part II., Minutes of evidence and appendices.

  INLAND REVENUE.
  Fiftieth Report of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Inland Revenue for the year ended 31st March, 1907.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  QUEEN'S COLLEGE (CORK).
  Amended statutes of Queen's College, Cork.
  ARMY (PENSIONS).
  Return for the year ended 31st March, 1907, of pensions specially granted under Articles 730, 1173A, and 1207 of the Pay Warrant: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
EDUCATION (ADMINISTRATIVE PRO- VISIONS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons. Read 1a, and to be printed. No. 172.
EDUCATION (ADMINISTRATIVE PRO- VISIONS) BILL.

  VACCINATION BILL.
  Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  The Lord Lamington—Took the Oath.

SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, when my right hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland asked me to undertake the moving of the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordship's House I think he had in mind the intricacy of the Bill itself. I hope also he had in mind the fact that I was for many years a Scottish Member of the House of Commons, always associated with the movement for an increase of small holdings in all parts of the United Kingdom, and friendly in every way to the policy of this Bill in the main provisions which it contains. The object of this Bill is the creation of small holdings in Scotland and the giving of security of tenure for those small holdings, and upon the object I need not say much, for there has never been any dispute that it is desirable, if it can be accomplished in the right way. No one has questioned in the House of Commons that it is desirable. I do not anticipate that anyone will question it here; and the noble Lord who has put down an Amendment to the Second Reading expressly affirms in that Amendment that the object is one which we ought to aim at.
I wish to express my own belief that the main principles of this Bill are much

949
more seriously desired in Scotland than is readily appreciated, or than it is easy to appreciate, if I may respectfully say so, in the atmosphere of London. There is an unusually strong feeling in Scotland upon the whole land question. I am perfectly aware that the topic with which I am dealing to-night is only a portion, and not the largest portion, of the land question; but I hope your Lordships will allow me, very shortly, to indicate the reasons why my countrymen attach exceptional importance to the early treatment of the land question as affecting our country. If you look at the census returns you will find that during the ten years preceding the last census the population in Scotland increased by 446,000 people, but in the rural districts there was a decrease of 42,000. The population of the rural districts of Scotland is now about one-fifth of the whole, which is remarkable considering the configuration and character of the country; and during the ten years the decrease in that rural population has been nearly 5 per cent.
Let me turn now to the towns, which have become overcrowded partly by reason of the influx of people from the country districts. The figures I am about to quote were stated by the Lord Advocate in the House of Commons and have been verified by the Scottish Office. In England and Wales the proportion of people who are living in overcrowded conditions is 8 per cent. In Scotland it is 46 per cent. Let me compare a few cities. In London 1 out of 7 of the population is living in overcrowded conditions; in Leeds, 1 in 10; in Liverpool, 1 in 12; in Manchester, 1 in 16. But in Edinburgh 1 in 3 are living in those conditions, and in Glasgow and Dundee, 1 in 2. I take in each case the same standard—namely, living more than 2 to a room. Let me say a word in regard to the consequences of those overcrowded conditions. There originated at the time of the War inquiries in regard to the physical deterioration of the people in this country, and the most recent report of all on that subject is dated July 18th last—a report of investigations conducted in the board schools of Glasgow by Dr. W. Leslie Mackenzie, medical member of the Scottish Local Government Board, and Capt. Foster, Inspector of Physical
950
Training. They divided the schools into four groups, beginning with the poorest, and show the effect of overcrowding. In all groups the children were distinctly below the standard both of weight and of height. One paragraph alone I will ask the leave of your Lordships to read. It is this—
"These figures show that the one-roomed child, whether boy or girl, is always, on the average, distinctly smaller and lighter than the two-roomed, and the two-roomed than the three-roomed, and the three-roomed than the four-roomed."
I do not for one moment pretend that the subject with which I am dealing to-night is the sole cause, or, indeed, the main cause of that state of things, so utterly deplorable in itself. I am perfectly aware that drink has a great deal to do with it, and there are other causes with which I need not deal; but one of the causes is the exodus of the people from the country districts to the I towns, and that has been the subject of comment by the Inter-Departmental Committee of 1904, who declare that there cannot be any controversy as to the expediency of arresting, where possible, the exodus to which such baneful results are attributable.
The provision of small holdings is one method—I could not put it higher than that—of alleviating the evil, and if the system spreads it will be to a great degree an effective remedy. Whether it will spread or not depends upon the terms upon which the system is established, and upon the inducements you offer people to stay on the land. Unfortunately, although numerically there are many small holdings in Scotland, they are not more than 15 per cent. of the whole area; and while it is true that the number of small holdings in the crofting counties is increasing, it is also true that the number in the non-crofting counties of Scotland, with the exception of three counties, is decreasing. The decrease is not very great, but it is all over the area of the non-crofting counties. I maintain that it is the duty of all Scotsmen and of all lovers of their country, to use all their vigour, all their vigilance, and every lawful means in their power, to better a condition of things such as I have described.
I now part from this subject, upon which it is not agreeable to dwell,

951
because I desire to avoid anything in the nature of rhetoric in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, and to confine myself to as simple and clear an explanation of the scheme propounded in the Bill as I can put forward. I cannot touch all the points, all the details, but I wish, if I can, to present an intelligible picture of the scheme propounded by the Government. The Bill, to begin with, establishes two fresh authorities, one of them an Agricultural Commission, consisting of three persons, of whom it may be said in substance that they will form a Board of Agriculture for Scotland. One of the Commissioners, called the Commissioner for Small Holdings, will be specially charged with the duties of the Board relating to small holdings. Another authority constituted will be a Land Court consisting of five members, of whom one must be a lawyer, and one must be able to speak Gaelic; the other three are not required to possess any special qualification. I am perfectly aware that great importance must necessarily attach to the persons selected to hold those important offices. I asked my right hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland, and he told me that he had not even thought of the names as yet, but that it was his fixed resolve, if the Bill passed, to appoint absolutely fair, just, and impartial persons to offices of such considerable importance. In the Bill, so far as practicable, the administrative duties are confined to the Agricultural Commissioners, and the judicial or quasi-judicial duties are reserved for the Land Court.
The policy of the Bill is to afford security of tenure, to begin with, to existing small holders, with appropriate limitations and restrictions, and my contention is that in substance the change in the law as regards existing small holders is not greater than that which is required to prevent the right of arbitrary ejectment or eviction being exercised together with the consequences that flow from that principle being laid down. That necessarily involves the fixing of a fair rent, and the Bill provides that, unless the parties agree, a fair rent shall be fixed by the Land Court, and that the tenant shall be irremovable except under certain specified statutory conditions. In order to obtain a fair view of what is meant let me enumerate to
952
your Lordships the limits and conditions which are to attach to this new tenure. What class of holdings, to begin with, are to come within the Bill? None are to come in except those which are under fifty acres in area, or under £50 in rent. No holdings are to come within the Bill which are held under a lease exceeding a year until after the lease has expired, nor any garden ground, market garden, land within burgh boundaries, ground held for public purposes, woodland or park, permanent grass parks held temporarily for the purposes of a business, such as a butcher's business, nor any glebe, small allotments, or home farm—those are the restrictions preventing a certain class of holdings coming within the Bill.
When the Bill does apply, a new tenure, as I have said, is created, namely a fair rent, fixed, if not by agreement, then by the Land Court, coupled with irremovability except under specified statutory conditions. The landlord under such conditions may dispossess a tenant if he deteriorates the holding or delapidates the buildings, or fails to pay the rent for a certain period, or ceases to cultivate the holding by himself or his family, or becomes bankrupt, or if he sub-divides or sub-lets the holding, or erects any additional dwelling-houses without the landlord's consent, or if he breaks any condition approved by the Land Court for the protection of the landlord, or if he obstructs the landlord in the exercise of his reserved rights. It is difficult to think of any legitimate reason for evicting a tenant that is not one of those I have just specified. There is no power of sale of the tenant's interest, nor any power of assignment. All that the tenant can do is to bequeath the holding within his own family, but not outside.
The rights of the landlord are reserved to the landlord in regard to mining, quarrying, cutting of timber, the making of roads, fences, and drains, and in regard to sporting; and, in addition to that, power is reserved to the landlord to resume the holding if the Land Court is satisfied that he desires to do so for some reasonable purpose having relation to the good of the holding or of the estate, and among other specified reasonable purposes there are feuing for the general benefit of the estate, occupation

953
as a residence by the landlord if it is only estate, building of dwelling-houses or churches or schools, or planning or making roads—for all those purposes the landlord is entitled to resume the holding if he establishes that his is a bona fide purpose. When these relations have been established the landlord will, of course, receive his rent, and enjoy all those rights that are reserved, and no trouble can arise. But there may be a renunciation of the holding by the tenant, or the tenant may be removed, and I think it right to state what the consequences are in that event. In that case the landlord may re-let, but the holding remains subject to the Act unless it is released from that tenure by the Land Court. The landlord must pay the out-goer the value of his improvements, deducting any rent due to himself. If he re-lets then, of course, he will be at once recouped. If, however, the holding cannot be re-let, and remains vacant, the Land Court must require the Agricultural Commissioners to provide compensation to the landlord so long as the land is not released from this tenure. That, my Lords, is putting as shortly and tersely as I can the nature of the tenure which is created by the clauses of this Bill.
I now pass to another part of the Bill—namely, the creation of new small holdings. In regard to them, when they are created their tenure will be the same as that which I have already described in the case of existing holdings. And how are they to be created? In the first place the Bill aims at promoting voluntary agreements, and indeed we hope and believe that the exercise of compulsory powers in Scotland will be comparatively rare, and that the good offices of the Agricultural Commissioners will bring about agreements in the great majority of cases. The Small Holdings Commissioner, if he is satisfied that there is a demand and suitable land is available, may negotiate with the landlord as to a scheme, and advances of money may be made by way either of loan or of gift. As your Lordships are aware, the great difficulty in the case of small holdings is the cost of equipment. For that reason loans are allowed to be made either to the landlord or to the tenant, or, indeed, to anyone who in the judgment of the Agricultural Commissioners can further the scheme. Loans are allowed for dividing the land,
954
for fencing it, for road-making, for drainage, for building or for any similar purpose. Gifts may also be made, but not the building; and in order to achieve the purpose by voluntary arrangement the services and assistance of any Association or of any person likely to help may be made use of by the Agricultural Commission.
Where agreement fails—I hope in comparatively rare cases—the Agricultural Commissioners must prepare their scheme and submit it for the consideration of the Land Court. The Land Court will hear all parties, consider the matter independently, and having decided on the scheme they will fix the rent and award compensation, and in regard to this transaction two features are noteworthy. The first relates to compensation. Compensation must be made to the landlord for the loss on the letting value of the new holding or of the farm from which it may be taken, or on the sheep stock which he may have to take over on valuation from the old tenant—a peculiarity which may be appreciated by those who are familiar with farming in Scotland. Compensation must also be made to the farmer out of whose farm the small holding is cut. No fuller measure of compensation could be given The second feature is, that the Land Court, in selecting tenants, are to consider the landlord's objection to any particular applicant, and to give preference to applicants chosen by the landlord. Those are, in substance, the provisions in regard to the creation of new small holdings.
The Bill also contemplates that the powers and duties of the Agricultural Department in London, so far as they affect Scotland, shall be transferred to Edinburgh, and exercised by the Agricultural Commissioners. I will not enlarge upon that subject beyond saying, that there can be no difficulty in making provision against any possible conflict between the agricultural authorities of the two countries on such questions as cattle disease. I have endeavoured to summarise and to state the governing features of the scheme presented in this Bill. It is impossible for me to enter upon full details, and if I did I should only obliterate the general impression I have endeavoured to make, aiming at brevity for the sake of clearness. I do not know whether the Bill will reach the

955
Committee stage or not. But if it does reach the Committee stage, the Government will be prepared to give an answer to objections if they are fair ones; or if any feature appears unfair they are, of course, prepared and anxious to give the closest consideration to it. But it is impossible effectively to answer objections to detail on Second Reading.
I do not know whether the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh has placed on the Paper is designed for anything further than to set forth the general view that he has upon this important subject and to form the text on which he will explain to us any particular views that he holds. If so, I cannot imagine a more useful thing than that we should be told beforehand the text of the sermon which may follow. But if it is intended, as I sincerely trust it is not, as an Amendment which is to destroy this Bill, then, and in that case alone, let me point out its character. In that case it bears all the notes, marks, and badges of a wrecking Amendment, for it contains no particulars, it suggests no alternatives, and it confines itself purely to vague language which, if it is intended as a text, is appropriate. But this language, if not inappropriate, is undoubtedly unsatisfactory as a method of dealing with a serious proposal if it is intended as a weapon for the destruction of the Bill.
For let us see what it is. The Amendment begins by stating that this House is "anxious to encourage the formation of small holdings under reasonable conditions." I welcome that sentiment; but I should like to know what are reasonable conditions. It is an excellent sentiment, too, that we should "consider favourably such fair amendment of the Acts relating to the tenure of crofter holdings as experience may have shown to be necessary." But what has experience shown to be necessary? It deprecates an "indiscriminate and universal extension of the crofting system." Very good, but what is the discriminate and partial system which meets with the approval of the noble Lord? I suppose the alternative system adumbrated by the Amendment is that which was insisted upon in the House of Commons I rather think by Mr. Balfour, and other distinguished Members of that House—the purchase system. Now, I appeal to your Lordships
956
to say whether any Member in this House believes that the small holding system in Scotland could be established on the purchase method now? We all know perfectly well the difficulties in Ireland under the Act of 1903; owing to the great depreciation of stock and the difficulty of finding money, it is a perplexity of the first magnitude. No one surely can believe that at an early date it is possible even to begin a purchase system in Scotland. It cannot be done; the financial circumstances of the moment are not favourable to it, and I believe that is universally recognised.
But there is another reason. There has been experience in Scotland of the Crofters Act of 1886, of which all who are familiar with it speak in the highest terms. When that Act was passed it was, not unnaturally, the subject of anxiety and apprehension; it was thought that it would invade the rights of property, spell ruin to the landlords, and be a failure. I am quite certain no one will say that those apprehensions have been in the least degree realised. It has been beneficial to landlords and tenants, and the whole neighbourhood, and it has been a blessing to the country. That, I think, is a proposition which will not be disputed. But it rests on divided ownership, not on purchase. I will not enter on the question whether dual ownership has succeeded in Ireland or not. But in one way or another in Scotland the difficulties have been successfully solved, so that while many are anxious to extend the Crofters Acts, no one wishes to substitute purchase for divided ownership in the crofting districts.
I know too much of my country to venture on the differences between the Highlands and the Lowlands, but we are all Scotsmen. I am myself a Borderer, and I believe that in the Lowlands, in the same way as in the Highlands, the good sense, moderation, and intrinsic fairness of the population will produce good results under dual ownership. The evil is admitted on all hands; and there has been no attempt to dispute that the remedy of small holdings, so far as it goes, is a good remedy, and one that it is desirable to put in force. Moreover, no one, save in a vague and nebulous manner, has propounded any other remedy, except that of purchase, which is impracticable partly because of the

957
financial considerations, and partly, I believe, because, after the experience of the Crofters Act, opinion in Scotland would prefer infinitely the system of double ownership. I can only express my most earnest hope that your Lordships will not be deluded by the clamour of the Press, or by the artificial or organised opposition by the more vocal classes in Scotland, into the belief that this Bill is not really desired in Scotland. I myself firmly believe that it is. But, whether it is or not, I maintain that this scheme is one that deserves the closest attention at your Lordships' hands, and that, while it may undoubtedly be improved—and Amendments will be heartily welcomed—it would be fatal to destroy it.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH, who had given notice on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move—
"That this House, while anxious to encourage the formation of small holdings under reasonable conditions, and to consider favourably such fair amendment of the Acts relating to the tenure of crofter holdings as experience may have shown to be necessary, deprecates an indiscriminate and universal extension of the crofting system, sees no justification for establishing in Scotland a Land Court on the Irish model, and declines to proceed with a Bill which introduces into the agricultural districts of Scotland the evils which are inseparable from any system of divided ownership in land,"
said: My Lords, no one, least of all myself, underrates the responsibility which I have assumed in putting down the Amendment which stands upon the Paper to-day for your Lordships' consideration. At the outset I can say with truth that the speech to which we have just listened has done as much as any speech possibly could to smooth the way for the Bill which it will be my duty to criticise. I accept to the full the statement of the noble and learned Lord that the professed object of the Bill is in itself in every way desirable, and I would be glad to co-operate in regard to it and to see, as my Amendment says, in truth, an increase of small holdings on proper terms and any fair and reasonable Amendment of the Crofters Acts. But the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has not dispelled the doubt which I have felt ever since I saw the first print of this
958
Bill whether those who have made themselves responsible for it have really gauged what will be, what must be, its effect upon the land system of Scotland.
This Bill has been put forward to-day as a mild and simple measure for the purpose of increasing small holdings in Scotland, and the noble and learned Lord said he hoped we should be in agreement on the main principles. But, my Lords, what are the main principles? Are the main principles of the Bill merely the extension of the system of small holdings, or do they include a Land Court, a system of fixing rent, and a division of ownership? If we pass the Second Reading of a Bill of this kind we are charged with accepting its main principles; if we do not we are said to stand as mere obstructionists in the way of reform. One thing I venture to say to your Lordships without fear of contradiction, is that on the point of tactics your Lordships will never succeed in pleasing the critics of this assembly. They will find fault with you whichever course you take. I have taken the course which I think is the fair and reasonable one. I have stated, no doubt, as the noble and learned Lord said, in general terms, but still in terms which I really mean, and which I believe the large majority of those on this side of the House really mean, that we would be glad to have an opportunity of doing two things which this Amendment professes our readiness to do. But although we desire to preserve the existing small holdings and to create new ones I am here to say—and I shall do my best to prove it—that in my humble opinion the method which has been adopted in this Bill is the worst that could have been devised for its professed object, because it would give rise to a great number of evils and do damage to our land system in Scotland of a more far-reaching character then any other which could have been brought forward.
It is not universally true that small holdings are diminishing in Scotland. There are more of them than there were twelve years ago. Unfortunately our information is defective as to the kind of small holdings in which there has been an increase. The noble and learned Lord thinks it has been mainly in the case of holdings under the Crofters Acts. Having regard to the

959
counties in which the increase had taken place, I think it has occurred in connection with what I would call garden holdings, or holdings on which fruit and vegetables, are grown, on the outskirts of the towns, or in specially favoured districts. But what I complain of in regard to all those who support this Bill is that they do not show any real understanding of the causes which are handicapping agricultural small holdings in Scotland at the present time. Those causes are just the same as those which are operating against the larger holdings—the fall in prices, the burden of rates continually increasing, and the improved standard of living. Men will not now live—and rightly—under the conditions in the country under which their fathers and grandfathers lived before them. I think that the limit of fifty acres is in itself a mistake, so far as agriculture is concerned. I do not say so much about market gardens and so on, but for agricultural purposes fifty acres is the most uneconomic size that could possibly be devised, because it is too large for a family and too small for the employment of hired labour.
What is operating against the small man in agriculture is exactly the same thing that is operating against him in almost every walk of life. The hand-loom weaver has practically died out except in certain limited parts of the country, when a special industry exists, and the fisherman with the small boat has largely disappeared, and that in spite of much effort by expenditure on harbours to keep him up. All this is regrettable. I am far from saying it is incurable, but I am certain of this, that if it is curable at all it is only by the suiting of means to the end, by endeavouring to enlist by justice and fair play the cooperation of every class from whom you may possibly get assistance. I think that this Bill, in so far as it brings about a sweeping and gratuitous revolution in the conditions under which all holdings are held in Scotland, is liable to prove the greatest obstacle in the way of those very things which its promoters, I believe, most honestly desire. In the first place, the Bill trenches upon the rights of owners to an infinitely greater extent than it benefits the small holder, and by the very form which it has taken it will
960
penalise most of those who have done their best in the past. It will confiscate or render unrealisable a large part of the capital laid out on improvements, and of the rest it will transfer a substantial portion from the owner to the tenant without a penny of compensation or of payment.
I go so far as to say that if this Bill is passed in its present form, it will inflict a grave shock on the faith of all contracts, and on the stability and value of all agricultural property. It is wrong in its root idea of extending the crofter tenure to the rest of Scotland. Let me inquire very briefly what that crofter tenure is. What is its justification? What are its essential principles? And how did it come into being? The case for the Crofters Acts was that the Highland crofters had an inherited customary, though legally precarious, tenure, and had built their own houses and made all the improvements. Let me remind your Lordships what the Crofter Commission said. On page 37 they proposed that valuers should visit each holding, and that—
"any building in serviceable condition or suitable for the working of the holding which can be shown to have been executed by the occupier or his predecessor, and for which he had received any consideration, should not be taken into account in fixing rent."
By the way, I may say that while I think that perfectly sound, the Crofters Act did not proceed on that principle. It took a dead limit of £30; it cut off all below on one side and all above on the other. The Bill was a rough and ready method of carrying the Commissioners' recommendation into effect, and I venture to think that the fixing of the £30 limit, not in itself logical or even just, has been the source of a great deal of the heartburning which has been traceable to that very fact. Sir George Trevelyan, in introducing the Bill, said—
"Their little holdings are not like the rest of the holdings in England and Scotland. They are not equipped by the landlord with all that makes them fit for habitation and cultivation. Their improvements in their holdings and in their houses are made by the crofters themselves."
And he proceeded to show that nothing but a sense of honour prevented them from having their rents raised to an impossible extent, and he gave a certificate to the Highland landlords, as a class, in the most eulogistic terms.

961
I stand here to say that the general rule laid down by Lord Napier's Commission is perfectly sound. It seems to me as sound to-day as it was twenty-one years ago. If the landlord has done the improvements, the whole market value of the subject as tested by free competition and bargain belongs to him. If the tenant has done the improvements, then the landlord's share is the market value, less the value of the tenant's improvements not compensated for. If you are going on this line at all, the proper thing to do is to ascertain the facts in each case, and then to regulate the respective rights in accordance with those facts. Now, contrast the situation in regard to the whole of the rest of Scotland. A fully equipped farm represents capital, and capital belonging to two people. All that part of it which is not properly removable belongs to the landlord; that which is properly removable belongs to the tenant. The tenant is protected by the Agricultural Holdings Acts; the protection of the landlord is, in the last resort, his right of resumption of the holding; and the rights between these two people all over Scotland rest upon the faith of well-defined, well-understood contracts. Landlords have laid out a large amount of capital, sometimes in the purchase of their estates, but more often in improvement of them. They have incurred obligations for the benefit of their property and their tenantry which, except on the faith of the stability of contracts, they would not have undertaken. Where any improvement is due to the tenant and is made under proper conditions let the tenant's property be secured to him. Tenant right, whether in Ireland or in Scotland or anywhere else, is a subtraction from the rent, and, as I have said, it is proper and sound if the tenant has legally earned it, but it is wrong if he has not. Once admit tenant right without discrimination, as this Bill does to a large extent, and you place the landlord in the position that he cannot in any way alter the condition of the tenancy; he can neither raise the rent however justifiable, nor get rid of a bad tenant, nor maintain the standard of agriculture.
While the Bill will deprive the landlord of his just rights, it will also—
962
and this is perhaps the worse part of it—discharge him from the obligation to do what he has previously considered his duty. Over the great part of agricultural Scotland the rights of the owner and occupier have rested, not upon the confused customary tenures which obtain in the Highlands, but on free contract between an owner with equipped land to let and a tenant with capital, in the form of stock, or implements to work it. There is no particle of distinction in principle between large and small holders; they sit in each district side by side and under similar conditions; they may move from one tenancy to another, and you will find wherever you go that the capital expenditure has been equally made for the benefit of the large and of the small. The essence of ownership is the permanent right; the essence of tenancy is the temporary hiring of land. Under the circumstances as they exist in Scotland I say that the grant, whether it be to a large or to a small holder, of fixity of tenure and of a rent court has never yet been justified, and I believe it not to be justifiable.
The noble and learned Lord took credit for not having assignation in the Bill. Assignation was in the Bill to a large extent when it was introduced, and I do not see myself, if it is right to give the privilege of a fixed rent and a tenant right, how you can logically stop without allowing him to assign it. I do not believe it is a logical resting place, and if you once give the right of assignation you will be pressed on the downward road to giving free sale; and with fixed rents, permanency of tenure, and free sale there will be nothing between us in Scotland and all those troubles and difficulties which we have so often to deal with as regards Ireland. I make no objection whatever on the point of such compulsion as may have to be applied. I should hope that if landlords were satisfied that they were likely to get justice there would be very seldom occasion for having recourse to it. At any rate, in principle it seems to me too late in the day to object to it. We all of us admit that we hold our property subject to the right of Parliament to expropriate it for a public purpose upon fair terms, but we must

963
jealously examine whether this new principle of compulsory hiring can be safely admitted.
There is a difference between the English and the Scottish proposals in this respect. As I understand the English Bill, the landlord there will be sure of a solvent and a suitable tenant. He will have a responsible body from whom he can claim compensation for deterioration and so on. I will not go further into that point in a Second Reading speech. I should like, however, to say a word in answer to the reiterated objections of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that a system of purchase is impossible. Again, it is being proposed for England as an alternative to compulsory hiring. Is it not pertinent to ask why we in Scotland are to be treated worse than England in this respect? But I know it is a cardinal point with the advocates of this Bill, because there is no matter in regard to it which from first to last they have been paying themselves more extravagant compliments than upon this. The Lord Advocate is reported on the Second Reading of the Bill, and also outside Parliament, to have said that the difference between the cost of settling a family by purchase and by hire is the difference between £800 and £23. The details of the calculation have never been given; they would be interesting.
I suggest to your Lordships that there is, comparatively speaking, no difference at all between the cost of establishing a small holding by purchase and by hire. I will give my calculation, and if any noble Lord opposite wishes to challenge it, I hope he will do so while I am speaking. Suppose I take a plot of land worth £500 a year for small holdings, subject to all burdens. Twenty-five years purchase of that amount comes to £12,500. What does it matter to the small holder whether he pays £50 a year as rent to the landlord or as interest on an annuity to the Government? The Government's credit would, I think, enable him to get better terms through the Government for purchase than from the landlord in the form of rent; but, whether that be so or not, the cost of buildings, of the dwelling-house, of laying out the land in roads, and of fences, drains, etc., would be the same in either case. In the one case the
964
landlord gets the rent; in the other case the Government gets the annuity. The question of certainty of payment does not touch the argument, because it is one of the cardinal points of the supporters of the Bill that it is a delusion to say that the settler will not meet his obligations. That is my answer to the statement that hiring is much cheaper than purchase.
We have heard of the proverbial Chinaman who burnt down his house for the purpose of roasting his pig. He is never regarded to have been a very sane person; but what would you have thought of him if he had burnt down his house and failed to roast his pig in the process? I propose to prove that, while every interest with the exception of one is damnified by this Bill, there is not one interest concerned which on the balance will get a benefit. Let me take first what are called the qualified leaseholders. In the Lowlands of Scotland there are practically no eviction grievances at the present time. If there are any harsh cases on record they are practically a thing of the past. It is more difficult—and I speak both with knowledge and feeling on this point—for a landlord to get a good tenant than it is for a good tenant to get a farm. Freedom of cultivation has been established; security for the investment of capital in the land has been established; and it is difficult to say what actual benefit the small holder will get under the Bill, unless you think it legitimate to give him the landlord's property at less than the landlord could get for it in the open market, for as long as he likes and with liberty to throw it up on twelve months notice whenever he chooses. If that is the benefit—and I believe it to be the only one that can be pleaded—the less said about it the better. In every other respect the existing small holders will be in a worse position than now with regard to future improvements, for the owners of the land will not lay out money on holdings over which they can exercise no control or management, which do not revert to them in full property, and as to which they are reduced to the position of being a mortgagee, a tax collector, and a tax payer.
There is no provision in the Bill for assisting the existing small holders by way of loan, and the difficulties that they

965
find themselves in will be great when they have to renew their buildings, keep up their march fences, and find drain pipes at their own expense. At the present time, almost without exception, the landlord finds these things in consideration of payment of an agreed rent under a free contract. But if this Bill passes I believe it will be found that the tenant will have to raise money for them on more onerous terms than the landlord is able to obtain. I have had put in my hands the complete accounts of a group of eleven estates in one of the most prosperous parts of the eastern counties of Scotland, on which there are mixed holdings. On the eleven estates managed from one office there are eighty-four holdings, ranging from £10 to £850 in annual value. There are thirty-two under £50, and hardly one of these pays interest on the buildings, fences, and drains. Not one of those holdings would be economically sound if it were set up at the present moment; and yet they are being carried on, partly because a wise landowner does not look into the detail of his expenditure on this or that holding, when it is for the general benefit of the estate that they should be maintained; and if these holdings had not been carried on for the benefit of the estate as a whole, at the expense of the larger holdings, they could not have existed.
Only yesterday morning I received a letter—I can give the name of the writer if necessary—from a personal friend of mine, formerly a Scottish Member of Parliament, who states that there is a small holding on his property, seventeen acres in extent, with a rent of £21. It is held on a yearly tenancy. The tenant keeps cows and manages a dairy-farm for the sale of milk to a neighbouring small town. The sanitary authority has come down upon him—probably most properly—for some repairs and improvements. The tenant brings this notice to the landlord, and the landlord having inquired into it, finds that it will cost him about £100, or something more than five years rent, to put the place in repair. The landlord tells the tenant that so long as this Bill is proceeding he dare not spend that money, as there is no security that he can make a bargain with the tenant, although the latter is willing to make it. But for this Bill that work might have been gone
966
on with without delay. The man cannot find the money himself, and it is idle to say that his position would not be infinitely worse than it is at the present moment if this Bill were passed. So much for the present tenant.
Let me come to the new holder. Your Lordships will find the provisions about him in Clause 7 of the Bill. I do not wonder that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack shrank from expounding the provisions of that clause, or, at any rate, thought it expedient not to do so on the Second Reading. It is a marvellous clause; there are about seventeen subsections in it, and it extends over five pages. The tenant, the landlord, the Land Court, the Agricultural Commissioners, and all the rest of them, are mixed up in inextricable confusion. I have carefully examined the clause, but I do not feel that I can claim to understand it. But where are the new small holders to come from? There is no limit in the Bill. They may come from any part of Scotland to any other part. They may come from Glasgow or Dundee, or from the crofting districts, to the most fertile lands of the Lowlands and of Forfarshire; and so far from the position of those who want new holdings in the future being benefited, it will be very much more difficult to make a new holding in the future than it has been in the past. It will be a most philanthropic landlord who does it voluntarily, because he will part with all control over his property, and if you have to put in force compulsion you will greatly increase the difficulties. No landlord wants to have a tenant he does not know and therefore cannot like. He does not want to have a man dumped upon him on terms to which he would not have voluntarily consented; and with the prospect of a pecuniary loss against which he would be powerless to take precautions, I venture to say that, except with the maximum of friction and difficulty, you would not be able to establish new holdings at all.
Let me try again to make a calculation. I am very anxious to be fair, and if I have erred in this calculation it is on the side against myself. Take forty-five acres of occupied land, farmed at present at a rent of 18s. per acre, for small holdings; it would probably be fair to reduce the

967
rent to 15s. per acre, in respect that it will cease to have the use of buildings to which the land was formerly attached. The gross rent then of the land would be reduced from £40 to £35, but the new man will have to have a house, and he will have to have buildings. A water supply, roads, and so on, will be necessary. Supposing all these things cost him £600, which I believe to be a moderate estimate, and you charge 5 per cent. on that outlay to allow for interest and depreciation, that will come to £30 a year. Added to the £35 which I have already mentioned, this makes a total of £65 a year, or something like 27s. an acre to the small holder instead of a present rent of 18s.; and, if you are to be fair to the other interests, there must be some compensation to the existing tenant and the landlord. It does not seem to me that the prospect of farming the new holding under this Bill is very attractive.
You do not know whether there is any real demand for these small holdings, you conjecture it, but you have had no inquiry whatever to establish that there is a demand; and in so far as there has been any inquiry, it is contrary to the actual reports that have been made that there is any real demand. Let me now consider the effect this Bill would have on existing tenants and the condition of agriculture generally. In the agricultural districts you have a system under which there has been a larger expenditure by the landlord and tenant than in any other part of the world. The expenditure by the tenant is now rightly protected from confiscation by the landlord. The result is the admiration of agriculturists everywhere. But the Government propose, by this Bill to introduce into this highly developed system one transported from the Highlands, the most agriculturally backward in the British Isles. If land is taken from the farms to which I have referred, much more is taken from the landlord than the original value of the soil. All that has been put into it by the owner and his predecessors is taken away. That is bad for agriculture, it is bad for the community. I go further and say that in so far as this Bill puts a check on the elimination of bad tenants, it is bad in itself, bad for agriculture, bad for the community, and especially bad in this,
968
that, as it takes away the self-interest of the landlord, it takes away the only guarantee which you have for the maintenance of a high standard of agriculture.
In addition to that the proposals of this Bill would create extreme uncertainty and unsettlement among tenants. No one would know from day to day, from month to month, or from year to year when applications would be made and to what extent slices were to be taken off his farm. Refusal to-day does not prevent renewed application to-morrow. Confidence in the future, which requires to be definite and assured, is destroyed. Rotation may be thrown out of gear for years by the reduction in the size of the holding. It is no use to say you will get compensation, for the loss resulting from uncertainty cannot be put into figures; it cannot be compensated for in the coin of the realm. That this point may not rest on my testimony I venture to quote a statement by one of the best authorities on the subject. Dr. Gillespie, whose name is a household word in agricultural Scotland, said—
"According to an immemorial adage, the profits a farmer ought to make is an annual sum equal to the rent of his farm, and that is not an overstatement of the case. Thus, if fifty acres is taken away and rent diminished by, say, £45, the farmer who has compulsorily been ousted ought to be paid £45 during the remainder of his lease, besides the value of the improvements from manures, residue of feeding stuffs, etc., he has effected on the land. But that is not all. His farm has been put out of gearing, inasmuch as the taking away of so large a slice of it has made it impossible for him to cultivate it in the usual and proper rotation. Outsiders who are ready to pronounce glibly on agricultural matters, as if to the manner born, know nothing of the inconvenience and heavy loss this would entail, but practical farmers are well aware how important this feature of the case is."
I turn for a moment to the effect on the landlord, not that I suppose he is considered worthy of a thought by the friends of noble Lords opposite. For him the Bill will to a large extent involve a gratuitous destruction of value. It is in part a personal transfer of property from one person to another; but that is not the worst of it, because by dividing the interests you destroy the property in such a way that it does not even pass in full to the other man. It is unjust to

969
present to a man who has been only a short time in the tenancy all these rights at the expense of the owner. An indiscriminate gift of this kind is impolitic as regards agricultural efficiency. The rights conferred are of little value to the industrious tenant whom every person is running after, and the lazy and dishonest tenant is entrenched in a position of advantage, and the owner is deprived of power to secure the proper upkeep of buildings and the maintenance of the fertility of the soil.
The real security for the owner is his power of resumption and his right of selecting a tenant. These, fairly exercised, are the appanage of ownership of which you have no right to deprive him. Underlying this Bill there seems to be the assumption that the landlord's only interest is money, that the interference of an official in Edinburgh, or, I would rather put it, of a whole army of officials, can supersede his personal interest in his own property and in those who have been associated with him sometimes for generations. The real interest of the owner is his security for the permanent fertility of the soil, and in that the interest of the community coincides; but in this Bill you are diminishing the power of the owner to maintain that fertility. A tenant can go from the farm when he likes, no matter how disgraceful the state in which he leaves it, and in ninety-nine cases out of 100 any attempt to claim damages is absolutely worthless. You are proposing to give by this Bill not only immunity to the bad tenant, but you are placing a premium on fraudulent proceedings to an extent which can only be realised by those who have practical knowledge. The machinery of the Bill is nothing but an expedient for taking property without the payment of a just price. It would be possible to cut up property in a way which would produce extravagant depreciation of value, and this Bill puts the absolute right in this body of persons sitting in Edinburgh to divide up the estate how and when they please without a shadow of control or appeal.
There are two other interests to which I will advert for a moment, that of the farm servant who wants a holding and that of the community. All the difficulties which I have indicated in the way of the establishment of new holdings will
970
act as a bar to advancement of the wishes of farm servants. It will be much more difficult to settle them in the future than it has been in the past, and for this reason. It is part of the advantage of the present system that in some districts tenants move from small holdings to larger ones and leave the small holdings vacant for farm servants to go into. The effect of the proposals of this measure will be to stereotype the present holding, so that it will be difficult for new men to come in in the first instance. With regard to the town population, I should be the last to minimise the effect of the quotations which were given by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I believe the state of things to be as he describes; but if this Bill were passed, to what extent would it remove the congestion either in Edinburgh, in Dundee, or in Glasgow? It is a pill for an earthquake. If you spend the whole of your £65,000 on new holdings you would not establish 100 new holdings in a year, and what will 100 holdings do in the lifetime of any of those who are here for the relief of the present congestion in the town?
I will not labour these points, but I say distinctly that only one interest will be benefited by the passing of the measure—the interest of the existing crofters. There is a case, I will say even a strong case, for a fair, reasonable, and considered amendment of the law regarding crofting tenure. Few people know it better than I do, because I have been over every congested district and almost every parish in Scotland comprised in those areas, and I say frankly that there are some of the provisions of this Bill as regards those districts which are eminently reasonable. I like the new definition of the crofter; I like the increase of the power of the Agricultural Commissioners who are to represent the Congested Districts Board; I have no objection to the extension of powers under the Congested Districts Acts; I think it is reasonable to open up the subsidiary occupations to crofters; I see no objection to the enlargement of holdings at the instance of a single applicant; and I would rather approve of the provisions for the resumption of some of the holdings for feuing. There may be other points, and I sincerely hope that we may be able to get to a position in which those things can be fairly considered upon their

971
merits but the way is block by the preferred folly of the greater part of this silly Bill.
There is one other interest which is, curiously enough, neglected in this Bill—the interest of the ratepayers. It is not altogether a very easy point to explain to a largely English audience, and I therefore appeal for indulgence. Under the Crofters Acts, or rather, perhaps, I should say, under our system of valuation, the entry upon the valuation roll on which rates are fixed is made in the name of the owner; that entry is the rent which the tenant pays; and the tenant's name has under it the rent which he pays. So that in ordinary circumstances the entry for the owner and the tenant is in the same figure, and all over Scotland it does represent the value of the subject. But under the Crofters Acts the owner has ceased to be owner of the whole value of the holding, because the improvements are made by the crofter. It is reasonable that the crofter should not be rented on them. But it is not reasonable that he should not be rated on them. Seeing that everyone else is rated on his improvements. I know of one case in which a crofter, having obtained money from a friend in India, expended £800 on the building of a house, but that house rightly, not being the property of the owner, is not entered on the valuation roll, and the crofter only pays rates upon the original £5, which was the value of the croft before the house was built. That unfair exemption and unfair privilege is going to be extended to all the small holders under this Bill.
Let me imagine two holdings in the same parish. One is fifty acres, at £3 an acre, the gross value being £150. The occupier of that holding would come under the Bill. Another man—a poorer man—rents sixty acres at 30s. an acre, the value being £90. Although he is the poorer man he does not come under the Bill. The first will have the whole of the advantages and will not be rated on any improvement which he makes, either with Government money or his own; but the second, the poorer man, will have additional burdens to discharge on behalf of the other because a reduction of value naturally increases the pressure of the rates on others. If land is taken away from the buildings, and they are, so
972
to speak, depreciated in value because they serve less land, they will be entered on the valuation roll in a lower sum, and the poorer man will be subject to an increase of the rates for two reasons—first the gross valuation of the parish will be reduced, and, the rate per £ will be increased. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack made a great point of the dislike of the crofter holders to purchase. This is one of the main reasons why they dislike purchase. They see that so long as they remain tenants, and tenants only, they escape rates which they ought to pay, and if they were made owners they would in future be liable for the owners rates as well as those exigible from the occupier, and the subject would be fairly valued as is not now the case.
I think I have proved that with one exception there is not a single interest which is likely to derive any benefit under this Bill, and I am entitled to say that the whole weight of expert opinion is overwhelmingly against it. The Highland and Agricultural Society is against it, the Chamber of Agriculture is against it, and there is not, so far as I know, a single practical estate manager who has said a word in its favour. The Danish Commission selected by the Secretary for Scotland went to Denmark and studied the question, and eighteen out of twenty of the members of that Commission have, since their return, signed a paper in which they say that the Bill will not serve the purpose for which it is intended. Meetings of agriculturists throughout the country have condemned the Bill, and the meeting held at Perth some weeks ago, which the promoters of the Bill appeal to, was mainly composed of party politicians who shout with their leaders; but there was one agriculturist at that meeting—a Mr. Wallace—from the south of Scotland, and he spoke against the Bill.
I wish someone would explain to me what really was the origin of the scheme in the Bill, and how it came to be selected. There was an allusion in the King's Speech of last year to this subject. In that Speech there occurred this sentence—
"The social and economic conditions of the rural districts in Great Britain require careful consideration. Inquiries are proceeding as to the means by which a higher number of the population may be attracted to and retained on the soil, and they will be completed at no distant date."

973
The final paragraph of the speech contained a promise—
"for amending and extending the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act."
That was, I suppose, the genesis of this Bill. But the result of the inquiry referred to in the first part of the Speech was not waited for, with foreknowledge, perhaps, that the result would not favour these proposals.
I think I am entitled to remark upon the fact—and I do so in order that we may have such explanation as may be given to us—that there has been almost entirely, with the exception of the Law Officers of the Crown and Mr. Sinclair himself, a conspiracy of silence on the part of the members of the Government about this Bill. Noble Lords who sit opposite know Scotland and the conditions of that country. I hope we shall hear something from them in the course of this debate, from the noble Earl the Colonial Secretary and the First Lord of the Admiralty, but, so far as I know, they have not as yet made any public pronouncement in favour of the Bill. Mr. Haldane, who sits for a Scottish constituency, has carefully abstained from saying a word in its praise. Mr. Asquith, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has spoken on the financial side of it in the House of Commons, but in other respects he has been silent. Sir Edward Grey, to whose opinion I would attach great value, has, as far as I know, never said one word about it. Even the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture has abstained from any praise of the measure. I do not know whether he likes, or whether he consented to, the provision for transferring part of his duties to the Secretary for Scotland. I shall not inquire. But last year, on 10th October, in Edinburgh, three months after the Bill was published and circulated, Lord Carrington, discussing the Land Tenure Bill, as it was then called, and the question of compensation as payable by the landlord, went on to say—
"It is a strong measure to interfere with his contractual rights, and to limit his freedom in negotiating with an incoming tenant the terms on which he will let his land. Such legislative regulation of the terms of contract is really the first step in the direction of valued rents and a Land Court, and without saying whether they are good or bad I doubt whether the members of the chamber are prepared to
974
enter upon that right without much fuller consideration."
The Bill had been circulated about three months at that time. I should like to know if the noble Earl had really considered it. If he had, how did he come to speak of it in terms like those? If he does not agree with the Bill, it is not difficult to explain. But he cannot both agree with it and have deliberately spoken in that way.
If this were a Bill for the creation of small holdings or an amendment of the Crofters Acts, it would have no warmer supporter than myself. If it can be transformed into one or both of these things it will still have my warm support for what it is worth. But, in my humble opinion, as it is, it is nothing short of an agrarian revolution for Scotland. The system, bad as it is, proposed to be set up by this Bill cannot stand; it is no permanent settlement. It is not even logical on its own stupid lines. It goes either too far in the direction of divided ownership, or it goes not far enough. How can a system stand which produces such anomalies as I have instanced to your Lordships? I will give you one more. There may be two tenants side by side, one paying £150 for a 200-acre agricultural farm; the other man paying the same rent for 50 acres of better land on which he grows fruit. The one has his rent fixed by a Court, security of tenure as against his landlord if he wishes to stay, the right to go if he chooses and freedom from rates for his expenditure. The other man not only has none of these privileges, but he is saddled with liability for additional rates for the benefit of his richer neighbour, coupled with the oppressing apprehension of losing at any moment 50 acres of his own farm.
I should like to make one personal reference. By one of those extraordinary coincidences which sometimes happen this is the anniversary of the day upon which I entered into the responsible ownership of my estate such as it is. This day forty-three years ago I became an owner of land in Scotland. Since that time I have resided on my estate. I have dealt personally with my tenants, and since I came of age not one letter has been written, and not one bargain made, which has not come under my personal cognisance; and I venture to

975
think that with that experience I may be said to know nearly as much—I put it modestly—as a man who has been Secretary for Scotland for fifteen or eighteen months. I say that in this Bill you are disregarding economic conditions; you are disregarding all reasonable provision for security of property, on which the comfort and prosperity of every man, rich or poor, in every civilised country depend. For a successful scheme of small holdings you want, and you ought to have, the cooperation of landlords as a class; but in this Bill you have taken the most elaborate precautions to make that cooperation absolutely impossible.
I am obliged to speak strongly because in this matter I feel strongly. I say that this Bill has been born in ignorance, it has been nurtured in obstinacy, and it is being supported by class hatred and political spite. I care not whether this House rejects the Bill or amends it and makes it a reasonable measure. I believe it will be very difficult to do that unless we have the consent of the Government. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack says he is a Scotsman and knows his fellow-countrymen. My Lords, I too, know my fellow-countrymen, and I tell your Lordships that if I allowed this Bill to pass as it stands I should be ashamed to go back to the north side of the border. My countrymen do not want a Land Court or divided ownership. Keep those things in the Bill and it will have my undying and relentless hostility, and I shall not be afraid to go before any audience in Scotland and defend the position I have taken up. Take out these things, and, as I indicate in the terms of my Amendment, the Bill will have no more sincere, earnest, or cordial friend.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out all the words after 'That' and insert 'This House, while anxious to encourage the formation of small holdings under reasonable conditions, and to consider favourably such fair Amendment of the Acts relating to the tenure of crofter holdings as experience may have shown to be necessary, deprecates an indiscriminate and universal extension of the crofting system, sees no justification for establishing in Scotland a Land Court on the Irish model, and declines to proceed with a Bill which introduces into the agricultural districts of Scotland the evils which are inseparable from any system of divided ownership in land"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord TWEEDMOUTH): My Lords, we have had a very long and weighty speech from my noble friend Lord Balfour, and I think that part of it was not well phrased in which he made so severe a stricture on the present Secretary for Scotland. We, too, are Scots and we, too, think that we know something about the wishes of our country. The speech of the noble Lord was an absolutely non possumus speech. Lord Balfour used the very strongest language with regard to this Bill, language which entirely washes away the preamble of the Amendment which he has presented to the House. The speech of the noble Lord leads to no possible conclusion except the rejection of the Bill on Second Reading. I do not say that my noble friend has gone quite the length of his namesake in the other House of Parliament. In the other House Mr. Balfour said the Bill had the unique peculiarity of offending every canon of legislation, and that there was no responsible statesman, politician, or theorist in the country who would not be offended by its provisions.
If those are the sort of opinions held by noble Lords opposite, by the Opposition in the two Houses, the only just and proper course for the Opposition to pursue is to reject the Bill at once and consign it to limbo. But, as a matter of fact, the charges which are made against us, both in public speeches and in the Press, are really founded on a tissue of misapprehension, misunderstanding, and exaggeration. I think the preamble of my noble friend's Amendment is one on which we can all agree. I believe we are all agreed that it is necessary that a greater number of small holdings should be established in Scotland, and the noble Lord who has just sat down has not suggested a single alternative method or plan for carrying out that object. Speaking for myself, I admit that I do not accept the Bill verbatim et literatim, but I thoroughly accept its main principle, and the basis upon which it is founded, and I think the case for bringing forward a Bill such as this is absolutely unanswerable.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has already given some figures to show what the condition of the country now is. I venture to return to those

977
figures, though I shall deal with them in a somewhat different way. Taking the census returns, which gives very full information of what is taking place, for the twenty years between 1881 and 1901–1901 was the date of the latest census—I find that in 1881 the population of the whole of Scotland was 3,735,573; in 1901 it had risen to 4,472,103, an increase on the twenty years of 736,530 persons. But what has happened in the rural districts of Scotland during the same period? I am taking the figures from the following classes in the census lis, namely, farmers and graziers, farm bailiffs, shepherds, and farm servants; and I find that in those four classes there is a decrease in the twenty years from 204,948 in 1881 to 161,226 in 1901. That is to say, though there was an increase of about 20 per cent. in the total population of Scotland, there was a decrease in the rural population during the same twenty years of rather more than 20 per cent. Then it was rather argued in the noble Lord's speech that there was no demand for small holdings in Scotland; that small holdings were not liked, and were not asked for in Scotland.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I did not say all that the noble Lord is attributing to me. I said there was no proved demand.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: It is a most curious thing that, taking the farms in Scotland of all sizes, the number of small holdings is infinitely greater than that of large holdings. The total number of holders of agricultural farms in Scotland is 88,000; the persons who hold small holdings number 62,000, and they hold land worth only £690,000, whereas the other 26,000 persons farm land of the rental value of £4,674,000; that is to say, out of the total rental you have 62,000 persons holding land only of the value of £690,000. I think that shows that there is a great demand for small holdings, that the people are desirous of getting small holdings, and that they have been put off so far with a very small amount of land, and that of the worst and cheapest there is in the country.
What is this Bill founded on? It is founded on the Crofters Act, 1886, and
978
on the Congested Districts Act, 1897. The noble Lord asked how the amount was fixed in this Bill at fifty acres. A limit of fifty acres was in a Bill that was introduced when he himself was in office in 1902. This Bill makes no change in the law so far as the crofters are concerned, except the introduction of the principle of compulsion, and that principle, I was very glad to note, the noble Lord opposite accepted. He accepted the proposition that it is necessary for the State to have the power of compulsion in order to obtain for the people of the country the rights that we are desirous they should have. My noble friend raised the question of dual ownership of land under this Bill. I think it is very difficult to say where dual ownership ends and where it begins. When you have two people occupying the land in the relation of landlord and tenant you have at once a dual ownership. The system of cultivating land under a lease is essentially a Scottish system. From the Tweed to Cape Wrath you have the system of feus, which is nothing in the world but the leasing of land, with certain rights reserved, for very long periods or even for perpetuity. That is the very essence of the Scottish land system. I say, therefore, that the holding of land on lease for the purposes of agriculture is a good old Scottish custom which it is right should be extended.
It is admitted that the result of the experiments under the Crofters Acts has been extremely successful. I think even some of the great landlords of the Highlands will themselves admit that they and their tenants have gained considerably from those Acts. The noble Lord who denounced this Bill made light of it, because he said that under no possible circumstances would more than 100 small holdings be created every year. If that is the view of the noble Lord, it does not seem to me that he need be very anxious in the matter. If that is the amount of disturbance that will be caused by the Bill I fail to understand the strong objections to it entertained by the noble Lord. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor very clearly stated the different conditions by which the crofter was edged in, and a small landholder under this Bill has exactly the same conditions imposed upon him as now exist under the Crofters Act. But there

979
are a great many other advantages that will be obtained under this Bill. In the first place the landholder, when a small holding is instituted, will be absolutely compensated for any damage that may be done to him in his rent or for any loss sustained over the rest of the land from which the small holding is taken. It has to be considered that the men who are to be appointed either as members of the Land Court or as Agricultural Commissioners will be men of the highest weight and the greatest experience, and I believe that you can safely entrust to them the duty of carrying out the regulations of the Bill with honesty and with a desire to act fairly to all interests. To suggest that these men are likely so to deal with land as to produce the results depicted by some of our opponents is really most ridiculous.
For my part I most earnestly urge on the House that they should not take violent measures with this Bill, which I believe will be an admirable commencement of the change which we all desire to bring about—an increase of the small holders and of the rural population. I do not think that the landlords need be afraid that their big holdings are going to be torn up, or that they are likely to experience any great difficulty from the operations of the Bill The natural tiling is that certain areas should be taken suitable for small holdings, and that on those areas small holders should be established. It is perfectly evident that a small holder has a much better chance of getting on in the world and of doing his business if he finds himself grouped with others of the same profession and the same desires as himself, so that they may co-operate together and do their business in a good and sensible manner. Besides that they then have the advantage of common communication from the outside world, both for the goods that they want to sell and for the things they want to bring in to help in the cultivation of the land. I urge that this Bill is deserving of careful consideration, and that it is worthy of tender treatment at your Lordships' hands, and I hope that, though you may wish to amend it in some of its details, you will accord to it a Second Reading.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords I am very sorry that I cannot vote
980
for this Bill; and for a very simple reason. I am going to vote for the English Bill, and I cannot stultify myself by voting for both. I am very sorry I cannot vote for this Bill, because I have never yet voted against any measure of the Government which I worked hard in my humble way to bring in, and to which I sincerely wish well as a bulwark of free trade. I hope I shall not have occasion to vote against them again. I am not sure from the speech of ray noble friend Lord Balfour whether he intends to press his Amendment to a division. I will not ask him the question directly, because it may not yet be in his mind to answer it. But I would print out that my noble friend spoke very warmly and kindly of the crofter clauses of the Bill, whereas, as far as I understand his Amendment—and I applaud the sentiments of the Amendment entirely—it would put an end to the whole of the Bill if it were carried, crofters' amendment and all. Perhaps my noble friend might be inclined on reflection to modify the words "declines to proceed with a Bill" in his Amendment, which seem to place an absolute negative on the Bill.
We in the House of Lords are in a very strange and anomalous position with regard to all measures connected with land. In all probability—I say it in all humility—we know, by experience not always pleasant, much more about land than the Members of the other House of Parliament. But yet, when we are called on to discuss it, there is a suspicion of our dealings with land, which I will not say is unreasonable, but which I do not think is always well founded. We are considered as children of wrath, as landlords, and as viewing land only from the landlord's point of view. I am not conscious of being a child of wrath, and I hope I shall not have occasion to discuss this Bill from a landlord's point of view. And not merely are we children of wrath, but, as Mr. Gladstone would have said, we have a double dose of original sin. We are not only landlords, but Peers, and everything that landlords may do, or Peers may do, at this moment, is subject to the suspicion and irritation of a large number of our otherwise well-meaning fellow creatures. That is an anomalous position, but I want to point out that, after all, this is not in essence a landlords' question at all. I hope none of your Lordships intend to proceed to a

981
division with any idea or conviction that he is a landlord dealing with a landlords' Bill. This is a matter for the State, it is a matter of high Imperial necessity, and of intense municipal stress. All the figures which were quoted by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and requoted with pleasant iteration by my noble friend who has just sat down, tend to point to the fact that this is a question not for landlords, not of agriculture, but of high State and Imperial importance, and that the Bill rests its arguments on the interests of the State as a whole. I should be very glad if your Lordships would clear your minds of any economical or agricultural aspect of the Bill. If it has an agricultural aspect, which I gravely doubt, it has been completely disposed of by the exhaustive and able speech of my noble friend the late Secretary for Scotland.
I will go a little further into this matter, because it is not without interest. The other day in Edinburgh, a town of which I have the honour of being a citizen and in which I am closely interested, a rising, or I might say a risen, member of the Government, though young, took the occasion to apostrophise me not to desert the democracy in this great struggle about land, and not to be deterred by personal possessions from enlisting under that standard. I am sure that the hint about possessions was kindly intended, but let me assure him it was not needed, because so far as I can understand my material interest in this Bill is limited to a single tenant who pays me £12 a year. Long may he continue to pay it, and if he receives the farm which he took under one tenure under a totally different tenure by the benevolence of this Bill, let me assure him that I do not grudge it in the slightest degree. That is the extent of my interest under the Bill. I was asked by Mr. Churchill that I should not dissociate myself from but should associate myself with the democracy in their great struggle about land. Well, I would ask which democracy—is it the English democracy or the Scottish democracy? I know very well what the wishes of the democracy mean in the mouth of a Minister, I am far from saying that, I have never used the expression myself—it means the particular Bill of which the Minister is in charge. I venture to ask which democracy
982
I am to serve. Is it the English democracy or the Scottish democracy? As embodied in the English Bill or the Scottish Bill? I could not, obviously, serve both.
I would go further, and ask which Minister I am asked to serve. In the House of Commons on the Second Reading of this interesting measure, which I may remark in passing I think is by far the most amazing ever presented by a responsible Government to Parliament, Mr. Sinclair, the Secretary for Scotland, went out of his way to declare that he was in no way responsible for the English Small Holders Bill. I presume that Mr. Harcourt returns the compliment, and, I should think, with much more gusto and zest, and refuses to be responsible in any way for the Scottish Bill. I sympathise more with Mr. Harcourt than with Captain Sinclair. But what an extraordinary idea of Ministerial responsibility we have come to, when these two gentlemen, each with his Bill under his arm, totally different in principle and precept, come down and adjure us in the name of democracy to pass his Bill and no other, and say that each is not responsible for the other.
I do not quite understand why there should be this great difference of attitude with regard to the land question in England and Scotland. This year the Tweed marks a rampart and boundary between the agricultural circumstances on each side. I now understand why it is that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack takes such an interest in the Bill, because he has described himself as a Borderer, and probably, therefore, from his rural retreat he can see the operation of both systems at once. But though this year the Tweed is an insurmountable barrier between the agricultural systems of England and Scotland, last year the Tweed had so completely disappeared—like the river Mole in Surrey—that at the tag end of an English Land Bill Scotland was introduced as an afterthought, and thrust in to mark the completion and completeness of the two systems of agriculture. Now either the Government were wrong last year or the Secretary for Scotland and the First Commissioner of Works must be wrong this year. They cannot be right on both occasions. On which leg do they mean to stand—on their English leg or their Scottish

983
leg? It is quite impossible that they can take up a firm position on both. They wobble beneath them. I wonder what the Ministry will say when they come to the English Bill here. Will they drag out their forlorn wooden Scottish leg once more, or will they take a manly stand upon the comparatively safe leg which the First Commissioner of Works has presented?
I confess there is something sinister in the difference of attitude of the Government as regards the land systems of Scotland and England as between last year and this year. I remember that last year the Minister for Agriculture went to Edinburgh, where I had the pleasure of sheltering him under my roof. The noble Earl betrayed a strange and marked indifference to the Scottish Bill and some ignorance of its provisions. The schism was then beginning; it has now developed in a concrete form. What is the reason of this? It makes one think there is something below the surface—something sinister—when a Ministry comes at you with one barrel loaded with elephant shot and the other with snipe shot. People ask which game they mean to bag. I know there are some people in the country so scandalous as to say—I hope beneath their breath—that the one barrel, the English barrel, is meant for use, and the other barrel, the one loaded with elephant shot, is intended to bring down the House of Lords, to act as a topic for the autumn campaign.
Now, I want to say a word or two as to the object of the Bill. It seems to be perfectly logical, and near to the heart of all of us—nearest to the heart of those who call themselves Imperialists, and who wish to rear an Imperial race fitted to govern and colonise. The object of the Bill may be defined to be that we wish to plant, or replant, a race of yeomen in the country, and that we wish to prevent the migration of the rural folk into the cities. I think the figures which have been produced go to establish that contention, but although the Government are so copious with their figures they have omitted two considerations. One is that the figures to which they call attention are not to be largely remedied by the operation of this precise measure, and therefore they form a bad foundation for argument in its favour.
984
The second point, of which my noble friends seem wholly unconscious, is that this state of things is by no means confined to Great Britain or to Scotland, but prevails universally in all the older and in some of the newer civilised countries, and under conditions much more exaggerated than our own. Take the case of France. Lord Lansdowne the other day read an extract from a pamphlet by M. Meline, which pointed out the great and growing evil that is prevailing in France—the general transmigration of the rural population to the cities. Yet that is a nation of small holders. Therefore I do not think it is absolutely proved that the remedy of His Majesty's Government will meet the disease.
Let us take another case—the case of Germany. Germany is a very prosperous-nation, and we are constantly asked to take advantage of its experience. There was a telegram from Berlin published only last week to this effect—
"The ever-increasing movement of country people towards the towns is making itself felt in Germany to so great an extent that it is almost impossible in some districts to carry out the cultivation of the soil, and the military authorities have been compelled to delay the calling out of Reserves for their annual training, and in some cases to grant furlough to the greater part of the men so that the harvest may be gathered in."
That is the case in Germany. What is the case of the United States? In the United States there is none of this "curse of landlordism" which lies like a blight over this melancholy island of Great Britain. There they have boundless space, and there there is what is not so much respected now in Great Britain—boundless liberty. There there are the same evils only in an aggravated degree. There also appeared in the papers last week the following—
"The announcement that farm lands in the State of New York have fallen off 170,000,000 dollars in value in the last twenty-five years, and that there are now within its borders 12,000 abandoned farms, capable of rearing a population of 250,000, excites no little chagrin and amazement."
That is the condition of things outside these islands. My noble friends have cited their figures with signs of amazement on their faces as if these things were known for the first time.
My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, who would give the Bill every recommendation that eloquence and

985
reasoning power can give it, having given the House those figures, proceeded to recite the provisions of the Bill. "What alternative plan have you?" asked the Lord Chancellor. Why there is the Government's own alternative plan which is being discussed in the House of Commons at this very moment. The Government seem to be totally unaware of another circumstance which is not without its force. They never seem to think that small holdings had ever been tried here before. Anybody who has an estate in Scotland that has been in his family a century cannot fail to know that a century ago the rule in Scotland was entirely small holdings. Why have they disappeared? They have disappeared not because anybody wanted to get rid of small holders, but because the small holders found it did not pay to cultivate the land in small holdings. It is a question of political economy.
It may be, and I think it is, a wise thing to try to restore the small holders on the land, but we must not proceed simply on the figures of the number of people crowded into one room in the large towns, and then argue from those figures that this Bill is the only remedy for the evil. I am not so sure as the Government are that small holdings would be profitable Scotland. People can have small holdings now without much difficulty. I was reading the other day in a weekly newspaper a review of five biographical accounts of very successful small holders, beginning with Harriet Martineau and coming down to the present day. These small holders were extremely pleased with their success, but the pertinent remark that applies is that in none of the cases did they clear £45 a year, which is not the average earnings of a working man in Scotland, and, if my estimate of the shrewdness of my fellow-countrymen is not altogether unfounded, they will infinitely prefer £52 a year without risk to a precarious £45 with every risk under the sun, with every penalty of climate, and even with the advantage of holding from the Land Commissioners of Scotland.
I believe this to be an affair not of the landlords nor of the tenants, but of the State—an Imperial affair—a matter of grave concern to this kingdom. What is the conclusion? The conclusion I draw is
986
an irresistible conclusion, one from which even this Government cannot flinch. It is that if this is a matter of Imperial concern, of municipal concern, and of no other, it is an experiment for which the State should pay, and not the landlord. If the Government wish to try this experiment let them try it honestly and straightforwardly at their own expense, and not come forward cowering under the shadow of an imaginary landlord, and say that you are going to perform great things by establishing 100 small holdings in a year and entirely removing the excess of our city population.
Passing from that aspect, I confess that I view the source of this Bill with the greatest suspicion. The Secretary for Scotland, Captain Sinclair, has yet to win his spurs, and I have no doubt that he will win them, and he may yet become acquainted with the elements of Cabinet communication and common responsibility. But I must say that he is a very young Minister—I do not know what his age is; I am speaking of his experience—and his public record is not such as to induce us to place a blind confidence in his agricultural legislation, because the Committee which he despatched to Denmark to report as to the condition of agriculture there reported almost unanimously in a sense adverse to his Bill. His record does not give us any encouragement for following him blindly in his agricultural experiments, and I am certain that even were Mr. Gladstone to rise from the dead with his great, his universal, capacity and unrivalled experience, it would require much to make his most ardent followers, so far as they were not merely Party hacks, follow him in so vast an experiment.
The Secretary for Scotland has the advantage of the assistance of the Law Officers of Scotland and the Lord Advocate, but they are locked in a death struggle as to what constitutes rent, and they have not even arrived at my noble friend's easy definition of feu, imperfect as I think that definition was. Until they have made up their minds upon that fundamental question in relation to land, I cannot extend to them more confidence than I do to the Secretary for Scotland. Until they are agreed, it is useless to seek what their intentions may be. I am willing to concede to the Secretary for Scotland every moral quality. He may

987
be an angel for all I know; but an angel with discordant wings is not likely to fly very far.
There is another doubt with regard to the source of this Bill which was touched upon by my noble friend—the total want of that inquiry and investigation that should have preceded a Bill of such phenomenal importance. This Bill establishes fair rents and fixity of tenure. How many years of investigation occurred before Mr. Gladstone, ardent reformer as he was, embodied fair rent and fixity of tenure in the Bills relating to Ireland? There was the Devon Commission of 1845, and there was a quarter of a century more of inquiry and investigation before Mr. Gladstone could be induced to proceed any further.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Always exceptionally.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I will not note the interruption of my young friend. He is so impetuous that he would lead me into a disquisition that would take me far from my argument. But I will point out that there has been no investigation conducted coram populo. There was a Departmental Committee on small holdings, but their labours are not expected to terminate before Christmas. This Bill may pass before Christmas, or it may not pass before the following Christmas. The Secretary for Scotland, constrained by his two wise lieutenants, might have been able to control his impatience until he saw the result of that inquiry. But he must legislate, at any cost, without waiting for the inquiry of the Departmental Committee. So far as I can gather from the Bill, the Secretary for Scotland, without any considerable knowledge of the subject, has rushed into legislation. A rather strong phrase was once used of a distinguished friend of mine—that he was an old man in a hurry; but the danger of an old man in a hurry is as nothing to the danger of a young man in a hurry.
We might also complain that for this Bill there is no visible or audible demand wha ever. At every meeting I have seen—and I have watched with some care—agricultural or otherwise non-political, which has been called to consider this Bill an almost unanimous protest has been made against it. The Commission
988
sent out by Captain Sinclair to Denmark protested, by sixteen out of twenty-two, against the provisions of this Bill. I know the Master of Elibank, who, I believe, controls the political destinies of Scotland, has written a letter on the information at his command, in which he says there is an immense anxiety for small holdings in Scotland. But he neglected to tell us, what was more pertinent, whether this Bill will constitute a satisfactory reply to that demand, and whether it will not cause infinitely more evil than the present state of things.
The principle of the Bill is essentially a vicious one. If nobody else goes into the lobby against the clause that applies the crofting system to the whole of Scotland, I will go alone, with or without a teller. I do not believe any more vicious or more foolish principle was ever applied to land legislation. What is the crofting system? Is it the survival of the fittest? Is it the highest form of agriculture known to Scotland that we are asked to adopt? Some of your Lordships travelling in the Highlands may have seen thin, sparsely cultivated strips of land, sometimes with a cottage built by the savings of children abroad, by lonely lakes, or by the shores of the sea, or on barren moots. There live men who would rather die than leave their native land, struggling against nature, and trying to secure a precarious crop in a climate totally unsuitable for it, on soil wholly unadapted for it. Rather than leave or migrate they persevere in cultivating that ungrateful soil. All honour to them for it; I respect them for it. But I do not think that is a condition of things that we ought to work and legislate to transfer to the magnificent and fertile fields of the Lothians and the Lowlands of Scotland. I cannot imagine any responsible Minister who knows what a crofter is and what a croft is coming down deliberately to this House and proposing to apply that system to the Lowlands of Scotland. I should have been less surprised had the Secretary for War, in producing his Bill for the Territorial Forces, decided that his new Army should be provided with bows and arrows for defensive purposes. What you are attempting to do by introducing the crofting system is to supersede the highest farming known to Great Britain,

989
and perhaps to the world, by the most backward system in these islands. That is the remedy brought forward by my noble friend opposite in order that the people of Glasgow may live fewer in a room than they do now.
I strongly suspect that we see in this Bill no real attempt to deal with the land question in Scotland, no honest attempt to diminish the evils of overcrowding in urban areas. I believe it to be another specimen of the instalment system that was so eloquently proclaimed at Stirling in December, 1905, and which has been followed with such disastrous results. That instalment system in Ireland has worked in this way—the Government have proffered a loaf to Ireland, and they have received a stone, hurled with some violence and precision, in return. There seems to me to be a deliberate attempt—I cannot in any other way explain the genesis of the Bill—to introduce the Irish system of instalments into Scotland. I can imagine—it is a hideous vision—some maleficent angel brooding enviously over the prosperity of Scotland, seeing its spacious and well-tilled fields, its magnificent manufactures, its general contentment, and saying to himself, "How on earth can I overturn this great edifice of happiness and well-being?" I can imagine him searching with critical eye in every corner and cranny of these islands, and at last, his eye alighting on I the crofting system and finding on the barren moor or by the lonely lake these desolate crofters, occupied very much on the same tenure as the holdings of the peasants in the West of Ireland are occupied, or were occupied in the old days, saying, "Ah, if we could only spread these crofters all over Scotland, if we could only extend this system to the whole of Scotland, why in time we might produce another Ireland. Like a contagion spreading over the dormant Tweed, who knows that we might not make the whole of this island like unto Ireland in its agrarian system, with all the vast expenditure it has caused, with all the bloodshed and all the crime, and all the hostility of feeling that has placed Ireland on the brink of a revolution for the last half century." I am far from saying that it is the intention of Captain Sinclair to embody himself in this vision of a bad angel. I rather regard him as a well-intentioned angel, but with discordant
990
wings. But there is a place which we are told is paved with good intentions, and I do not propose that that place shall be my native country of Scotland.
I proceed from the principle of the Bill, which is to extend the crofting system to the whole of Scotland, to its methods, which I believe to be almost as vicious as its principle. The methods of the Bill are in the first place to adopt the Irish apparatus, the Land Court and Land Commissioners. How the evil angel I have imagined must Lave rubbed his hands when he heard of those names which are to regulate and to sap the independence of the Scottish farmers. The proposal is to establish a well-endowed Board in Edinburgh, and I have no doubt the Commissioners, although we have not been told what they are to get, will receive no starving remuneration. It is proposed to establish this Board of pampered officials to regulate the land affairs of Scotland. I am very much attached to Edinburgh, and I am perhaps foolishly attached to Edinburgh boards. But I remember that when I was responsible for the affairs of Scotland as Under-Secretary at the Home Office, before, I think, the present Secretary could have left the nursery, I was surprised and disgusted to find that the Edinburgh boards were not so popular outside Edinburgh as they were inside Edinburgh. There was a hideous propensity in towns outside to describe Edinburgh boards as Edinburgh jobs. That was the view of the unthinking gentiles who dwelt outside the boundaries of Edinburgh. I must honestly say that this particular board has some of the unsavoury associations connected with that unsavoury word. I suppose it is said that there was a great national demand for this Board. I suppose there was such a mob of agriculturists who had laid siege to Downing street coming up from Scotland that it could not be resisted for a moment. But all the tangible evidence we have would rather show that this Board is not desired. There are ninety-three correspondents of the Board of Agriculture in Scotland. They are not merely correspondents; but they are held practically to represent after examination the opinions of the farmers and agriculturists in their neighbourhood. They were asked the other day, not by the Board of

991
Agriculture, but in an impartial inquiry, whether they wished to remain under the Board of Agriculture or to come under the new body. Seventy-three of them answered out of the ninety-three, and seventy-one out of the seventy-three replied, with an emphasis that I can understand, that they very much preferred to remain under the Board of Agriculture. It was not the representatives of the Government who informed them of the agricultural feeling of Scotland. There must have been some inner consciousness some secret communication which is not visible to any Member of your Lordships' House outside the Government.
I myself do not particularly welcome the appearance of this Board. The Lord Chancellor found consolation for the constitution of the Board in the fact that the Secretary for Scotland would only appoint persons of the highest character in whom he had the highest confidence. I never heard of any appointment that was not justified by remarks of this kind. Every appointment I have been instrumental in making—and I am sure I may speak for those who were my colleagues at that time—was entirely made with a view to the worth of the individual and his fitness for the particular post to which he was appointed, quite divested of any idea of political partisanship. These ideas are the source of all appointments. Such observations from my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack make me think that since he gave up practice at the Bar he has lost some of that guile which is supposed to be the characteristic of members of his profession. I take comfort to myself in thinking that a series of upright and independent men will be appointed by the Secretary for Scotland; but I feel pretty sure that I know the sort of man who will get the appointment.
One other curious point to which I may call attention in connection with this Board and which will fortify the unsavoury idea of a job is that when the first Bill was introduced the Commissioners were to have £1,000 a year apiece. On the second introduction of the Bill the Secretary for Scotland thought this was wholly inadequate, and under the closure, not by the spontaneous wish of the Committee, he raised the salary of the Commissioners
992
by £200 a year each—from £1,000 to £1,200—which was, of course, for the purpose of enabling him to obtain people of that high standing and impartial character whom he would not have been enabled to obtain by the lower tariff.
There is another fact about the machinery of the Bill which inspires me with the deepest distrust. The Secretary for Scotland never wearies of telling us that the essence of his Bill is the preservation of the landlord. That, he says, is the keystone of the Bill—to preserve the landlord! Some of your Lordships in early youth on the 5th of November may have followed a small, but melancholy, procession carrying a grotesque effigy, amidst the plaudits of those who should have known better, which was destined after a brief and melancholy existence to be burned at a common bonfire. I am reminded of the procession of Guy Fawkes when I am so constantly told that the existence of the landlord is necessary as the keystone of the Bill; because it seems to me that under the provisions of the Bill I see the landlord paraded like that effigy, applauded by the single taxers of the West of Scotland, borne on his way to his melancholy annihilation at the hands of some supplementary Bill.
What is the position of the landlord under this Bill? The Solicitor-General for Scotland, who is also my esteemed representative, so far indeed as a Peer can be said to have any representative, in the House of Commons—or, indeed, any friend—is never weary of telling us that the landlord loses no rights under the Bill—that everything he values is reserved to him. He can shoot over the land if there is any game. I think that, as far as I recollect, is the argument. I will point out to the Solicitor-General that the position of the landlord is not precisely of the character he tries to indicate. Under this Bill a Land Commissioner, who, by-the-bye, may investigate any land or enter any building in the course of his investigations—an Englishman's house is his castle, a Scotsman's is not—a Land Commissioner may at any moment select a piece of land which he, in his own unaided judgment, may consider suitable for a small holding. If that unaided judgment is confirmed by the more deliberate views of the pampered Board in Edinburgh, the Land Commissioners

993
may take any piece of land they choose belonging to a landlord, at any rate they may fix, and place on it any tenant. The landlord may like or dislike him. That is a matter of total indifference to the land commissioners. That is the position of the landlord under this Bill, which we are assured by the Solicitor-General for Scotland is entirely uninjured by its provisions. What is left to the landlord except to be a rent-charger, to watch the transfer of his land to tenants not selected by him except in cœteris paribus conditions (which I do not understand), to watch a procession of tenants passing through his small holdings and perhaps ultimately receiving rent? There terminates the old beneficent—mutually beneficent—relationship of landlord and tenant in Scotland; it may be regarded as buried; and if this Bill be passed, this Bill will be its sepulchre.
There is another point to which I would call attention with regard to the landlord. The Scottish Department in the House of Commons never cease to deny that there is any question of dual ownership under this Bill. I remember a very indignant invective from one of the Law Officers who asked where you could find dual ownership in the Bill, and expressed the hope that I would read the Bill and indicate where the dual ownership could be found. It is some satisfaction to me under this united and harmonious Government to find that the noble Lord took the dual ownership as a matter of course, and that my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, in a sentence of which I could not clearly comprehend the meaning, said it was not clear where the dual ownership began and ended, and then went on to some argument about a feu, which I was not able to follow, but which indicated the total acceptance by the Government of the fact of dual ownership under the Bill.
That is a very grave change to be brought in at a moment's notice on the first accession to power of a Government by a Minister previously untried. I wonder if your Lordships realise how deeply and profoundly that principle reaches down into the very bases of our social structure; how, if recognised, it cannot be limited by its present limit of rental; if accepted, it cannot be constrained by the Tweed. It must proceed forward; having given a fair rent
994
and fixity of tenure you cannot in the nature of things resist the logical extension to free sale, and then you will have realised what you have been trying to do all along by this large, but subtle, instalment—makinganother Ireland of Scotland, and making that agrarian system prevail ultimately throughout this island.
The noble and learned Lord challenged those who objected to this Bill, with the conduct of which he seemed to feel complimented, to produce an alternative plan. It is said, "what are your arid criticisms? We want something substantial to substitute for a Heaven-sent measure." I do not wish to define the place whence the Bill came, but there is an alternative plan. I am not completely satisfied with the Government plan for England, though I shall vote for it, as being founded on comparatively sure and safe principles and working methods. The Government have no right to ask their critics to furnish an alternative, and as things are now regulated in Parliament it is not possible for a private Member to get a measure through, and the attempt is waste of time and effort. On this occasion, however, I depart from rule and will make a present to the Government of what I believe to be an alternative and right plan for dealing with this question.
The only right and honest way, to speak plainly, of proceeding in this business is by way of purchase. Let the State try the experiment. I do not necessarily say the method of giving freeholds is the best, or that more experience is needed in Great Britain. I deprecate the extreme rashness of the Government, and cannot understand why the Government, which has large estates in England on which they could try experiments, should not equally purchase estates in Scotland, and become the superior, or landlord, of tenants. The advantage of agricultural colonies—that is what it would come to—is that you would be able to secure the co-operation the Bill will not be likely to give. You could, moreover, have afforestation, which, in the belief of many who are more skilled than I, is a remedy for the desertion of the land and for a mass of unemployment. Conveniently land banks might be instituted for such colonies, which would be an inestimable boon to the small holders. Lastly, it would be an immense advantage to have a community of small holders, one vying

995
with another, one encouraged by the experiment of his neighbour, instead of the small holders being in scattered fragments.
If you ask me how I would provide for the government of such a labour colony, I say I would have Commissioners for the whole island—not in Edinburgh—attached to the Board of Agriculture, for the establishment of uniformity of treatment. Further, I would suggest that the man who would imcomparably be the best head of such a department would be Sir Horace Plunkett of whom Ireland was not worthy. I am not alone in believing that in some such system a solution of the problem could be found. Captain Waring, the Member for Banff, repudiated indignantly the idea that there is a wish for leasehold as compared with freehold tenures. I am encouraged by that testimony, and firmly believe that deeply rooted in the Scottish character is the desire for a freehold tenure to develop with all their energy.
I know there is an objection to my proposal, and it was not obscurely hinted at by some members of the Government. The Solicitor-General for Scotland, on the Second Reading in the other House, spoke of the rigid opposition the Treasury offered to all financial demands for Scotland—a candid confession. But I should think, if I had anything to do with the working of such a scheme as that, I should not go with all the pomp of red tape and say, "The Government want this or that estate;" I should purchase as an ordinary buyer. If you buy for the Government you buy much too dear; if you buy as a private individual you pay the market price. I do not think it can be said this cannot be done. It can be done. The London County Council, the second body in the kingdom, after Parliament, in some respects a more important and more satisfactory body from an administrative point of view than is Parliament itself—I have the warmest regard and respect for that body—the London County Council finds no difficulty in buying cheap land. To my life-long sorrow I found that so when they purchased an estate near my own and covered it with a lunatic asylum. What the London County Council can do the Government can do, if only it will untie a few knots of the red tape with which it is swaddled and behave like a rational individual
996
seeking a rational thing in a rational way.
That brings me to my last, and I think my greatest, objection to the provisions of this Bill, the gross affront and disparagement implied to Scotland. In the course of this or next week you wilt have the opportunity of considering the English Bill of the Government. In that Bill you will find that the English county councils, with, I know, some stimulus from the Agricultural Department in case of neglect on their part, are to be entrusted with the work of dealing with this question on their responsibility as popularly elected bodies representing the wishes of their constituents. Look all through the Scottish Bill produced by this Liberal Government and you will not find one jot or tittle of confidence in the elected bodies of Scotland. English county councils are, forsooth, such estimable bodies, chosen by such more intelligent people, that they can be entrusted with, functions denied absolutely to members of Scottish county councils. England, under the English Bill, is treated like a self-governing colony; Scotland is to be treated like a Crown colony and despotically governed by an Edinburgh board. Her representatives, except in the House of Commons, are to have no voice in the control of the business, they are expressly and insultingly excluded from any participation in that work which is granted in the case of England. No greater affront or insult could be offered to Scotland than is to be found in the Bill.
I take another point, in which I think we have some reason to complain. You admit the vicious principle and do not give money enough to carry it out. You admit your vicious principle but you starve it. Scotland is accustomed to be starved by every Government, but it certainly has reached the acme of starvation under this Government, which cannot provide a loose box for cavalry horses in Scotland for want of money. I wonder how long Scotsmen will submit to this persistent style of disparagement, all the more marked from the fact that most of the members of the Cabinet are Scotsmen or represent Scottish constituencies? Their self-denial, their determination that no suspicion of self-interest, or undue-partiality for their country shall attach to their actions has been carried rather

997
too far. I beseech them to east away the fear of suspicion of this kind, for I can assure thorn it does not rest upon them in Scotland.
I myself yield to none in a desire to promote small holdings. A sum of £650,000 a year for ever was included in the new Irish Government Bill. It was offered to Ireland as part of the legislative proposals of that Bill, but it was rejected by Ireland as wholly inadequate. Mr. Redmond shortly afterwards made a speech in which he said that every Department in Ireland was starving for want of money. How long is it likely to be before we in Scotland have a chance of turning up our noses at £650,000? I can assure the Government we will not insult them in this way; £650,000 for three years—the sum indignantly rejected by Ireland for ever—would go far to solve this question of small holders in the whole of Great Britain. I beg noble Lords opposite to consider this matter and see if they cannot act somewhat more liberally in regard to Scotland, and that, at any rate, if the Bill is destined to become law, they will considerably enlarge its financial provisions.
I say, then, on all these grounds I am unable to vote for this Bill so far as it relates to the Lowlands. I cannot vote for it, but, as I said at the beginning of my speech, I am going to vote for the English Bill, and I will not willingly permit a damaging comparison to be drawn between the north and south side of the Tweed. I will not vote for elected bodies south of the Tweed, and for a close Edinburgh board on the north. I will not vote south of the Tweed for responsible ownership and for dual ownership, with all its ghastly consequences, on the north. I will not vote south of the Tweed for the principle of purchase, and for the principle of hiring, meagre hiring, on the north. In a word, I will not vote for England south of the Tweed and for Ireland north of the Tweed. I will not be a party in any way, direct or indirect, to the introduction into the healthy body politic of Scotland of the poisonous bacillus of the Irish agrarian system.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, this Bill which we are asked to read a second time is in reality three Bills. It is a Bill for the establishment of a Land
998
Court and Agricultural Commission in Scotland, a Bill for the preservation of the small holdings created under the Act of 1886, and a Bill for the creation of new holdings. The whole of the proprietors, very nearly the whole of the farmers, a very large number of the crofters in the various districts, all entirely object to the first of these suggestions—the establishment of a Land Court—and I am bound to say I thoroughly agree with them. The Scottish Chamber of Agriculture has condemned the setting up of a substitute for the Board of Agriculture and the directors of the Highland Agricultural Society have stated that in their opinion the transference of part of their work from the Board of Agriculture to the Secretary for Scotland's Department would be detrimental to the interests of agriculture.
The Minister for Agriculture, who is not in his place just now, attended a meeting in Edinburgn in 1904, I think it was, and he heard from that body a resolution to the effect that—
"This Conference, while favouring the creation of small holdings where a demand for them exists, is of opinion that fuller information, should be obtained on the subject before legislation is introduced, and is opposed to those provisions of the Small Holders' (Scotland), Bill by which it is proposed to establish a system of dual ownership of land for Scotland."
My Lords, we heard that the Minister for Agriculture very much enjoyed his journey up to Scotland, and I trust that he enjoyed the conclusion to which the Board came.
There is also fixity of tenure to the landholder, but I should like to point out that it is a very one-sided fixity of tenure, because it is binding on the landlord but terminable in any year at the option of the tenant. The landlord, if he chooses to take back the ground for any purpose which may be perfectly legitimate in itself may be debarred by the Land Court, unless he can satisfy that Court that, having relation to the good of the holding and of the estate, it is desirable he should have it, and then he can only get it back upon payment of full compensation to the tenant. Of course, it is a most one-sided bargain, as it puts the landlord in an entirely different position from what he has been accustomed to, and it gives the whole position into the hands of the tenant, who can at his option leave or

999
remain. Then, of course, the Bill strikes entirely at the system of long leases, and sales will be almost if not quite impossible. By giving fixity of tenure, and by creating these small holdings, the value of the land is very greatly decreased, and it makes it very, very difficult for anybody whose whole capital is in the land which may belong to him to release that capital for any other purpose which he may choose to use it for.
Then I come to the fair rent. It is open for the landlord as well as the tenant to apply to the Court for the adjustment of fair rent, and of course the Land Court may possibly, upon the application of the landlord, increase the rent. But supposing the tenant is not satisfied with that, he can refuse to pay the rent; he may give a year's notice, terminate his tenure, and leave the place, and in addition to that the landlord has to allow him full compensation for improvements. So that in fact the landlord is absolutely bound by the fair rent which the Court may fix, and the tenant is perfectly at liberty to go away at any time. It seems to me that that is a very hard thing for those who are in the position of a landlord.
Then we come to the law as it is at present. The landlord who has been found liable for compensation to the tenant in respect of improvements which have been made is entitled to set off against the liability his claim Against the tenant for rent. This Bill removes the right, as it gives the Agricultural Commissioners a first charge on the landholder's claim. In other words, this simply restores the old law of hypothec which was done away with in the year 1880, I think it was. Under that law the landlord had a first claim on the belongings of the tenant for any loss which might accrue to the landlord through the tenant leaving. Supposing the tenant become a bankrupt, the landlord is then in the position of having to pay, because he is a creditor, and also a debtor, to the bankrupt, so that he has to pay his own indebtedness in full and to accept, in respect of his own claim, such dividend as may remain after the first charge has been paid to the Commissioners. Surely this is absolutely contrary to the general Saw of the land, and I think it is a most extraordinarily hard case, and most
1000
certainly would require amendment. Then supposing we take five farms, or take one farm of 250 acres and divide it into five other farms of fifty acres each. It is very natural that the five farms will be far more expensive to equip than the one farm of 250 acres. You have the houses and the steadings, the roads, fences and all other requirements for farms which have to be provided, and although in theory the yield of the five farms may be greater, in practice that is not found to be the case. There is another thing to be said about that, which is that fifty acres is a most uneconomic size for a farm, and for this reason—that a farm of fifty acres must have a pair of horses to work it, and yet there is not work for the pair of horses. An economic farm is from seventy to eighty acres, according to the nature of the soil and the heaviness or lightness of the land, and there the pair of horses have their full work—they are fully employed on the land, and it can be worked in an economic fashion. But it is perfectly obvious to your Lordships that one farm of 250 acres is very much easier and very much cheaper to work than five farms of fifty acres each. Then the expenses of cultivating, of harvesting, and of marketing are naturally very much larger on the five farms than on the single farm, and it is obvious that a smallholder with fifty acres or less is quite unable to employ the labour saving machines for harvesting and so forth which are used by all large firms. So that the conclusion of the whole matter is that the larger farm is very much more economical than the small farm.
I would also point out that the rent of the land of the farm is in reality a very small item. I know myself that I have spent a fairly large sum since I succeeded in putting buildings on various farms—I have made a great number of small holdings, and what I find is that the rent I get for these farms is simply the interest upon the money which I have laid out in providing buildings and so forth, and you may take it that when the nineteen years—we may put it at nineteen years because that is the term of the lease—have expired you may look for no rent, or at any rate the rent will be very small—I should put it down at less than half-a-crown an acre. A letter

1001
appeared in the Scotsman on the 7th May, written by a Mr. James Macdonald, in which he compares the dual ownership system proposed in this Bill with the hiring system at present in general operation in Scotland as regards tenant farming. He points out that under the first-named system the occupier—that is the tenant—finds the entire capital. The landlord provides the land, and the occupier provides a portion of the equipment and finds the labour for working and stocking his holding. Under the Scottish system the landlord pays the whole of the equipment and the occupier's capital is employed in stocking and working the holding. Then he brings this out to a conclusion, and he arrives at the figures by assuming that with land of moderately good quality, rented at about £1 an acre, the price would be about twenty-five years' purchase of its rental, and that it would be used for ordinary agricultural purposes. And then under the third system of stocking and working the holding, £8 per acre would suffice. Under those circumstances he finds that the amount of capital for a twelve acre farm in the first system which I have noticed—that is the dual ownership system—would be £250, but that under the Scottish hiring system that £250 would furnish a thirty-acre farm. There you see is an enormous difference, and of course as it goes on, the amount is very much increased. For instance, £3,000 would equip, under the dual ownership system, 170 to 220 acres according to the nature of the land, and under the present Scottish hiring system it would equip 400 acres. I think that is a great point. It practically comes out that for the purpose of dual ownership a small holder would require £15 to £20 per acre, and under the present system he would only require £1 an acre. Of course we all agree that if it were possible to put the population back on the land, it would be a most excellent thing for the State to have a strong and healthy population going on the land, but I submit that if the advantage is so great, surely any loss should be borne by the State, and not by one class only of the community. It has also, I believe, been said that the scheme is calculated to increase the capital value of land by adopting a system of purchase. It this is the case, the State would get the increment; but if, on the contrary,
1002
it were to decrease the capital value, it is surely very hard that the loss incurred for the good of the State should be laid on the landlord. It seems to me that this is a very great revolution of the whole conditions under which land has been held for many years, and one which very unfairly penalises those land lords, and penalises most those very landlords who have done most to maintain and improve the condition of the land. It disturbs the rights of property, and it also is liable to transfer valuable elements of proprietorial right from one-class to another without any compensation.
There are one or two other things, which I should like to call to your Lordships' notice. One or two have already been noticed, I think, by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and also by Lord Rosebery. In the first place there is no doubt that wherever a proprietorship is existing, whether in France, in Ireland, in Canada, or in, America, the burden of debt which has been incurred in raising capital for the carrying on of the farm, or the paying off of relations and other things, has always been hanging like a millstone round the neck of the small holder. Denmark has also been alluded to, but I would like to point out that the farmers in Denmark live under entirely different conditions from those which apply to the farmers in this country. In the first place they have a protected market, while we have not, and that, I think, is a very important matter. In the second place, they have a very extensive co-operative system, excellently-worked and excellently arranged, and there is no reason that I can see why we should not have some such system in our own country. I confess I have tried to get tenants to see it in the same light, but there is a great deal of independence amongst our people in the North; each man likes to do the best he can for himself, and is jealous of any interference from his neighbour; and as far as I can make out I do not think that co-operation seems to appeal to them. What they try to do is to lot each man work for himself, and to make the best he can of his farm, and I must say they do it in a most gallant and excellent way. There are no hotter farmers and no better tenants than we have in our northern country. Then there is a third reason, and that is that in Denmark the State, before they made

1003
small holdings, honestly bought the land they wanted, and then created the small holdings on that land. If that were done, I am perfectly convinced that there is not a single person who would object to the provisions of the Bill; in fact, it is practically what was suggested by Lord Rosebery—that purchase should be introduced instead of the scheme that is before us.
In 1904, as has already been stated, Mr. Sinclair got together a Commission which he, I believe, paid for and sent out, to go into and find out about the root causes of the Danish agricultural success. The members of the Commission, I think, are rather important. They included a member of the Congested Districts Board, and also of the Crofters' Commission, as well as representatives of the Highland Agricultural Society, and the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, teachers from the Agricultural Colleges, and many practical farmers. That was the composition of the Commission which Mr. Sinclair sent out, and the result that they came to after their labours was unanimously agreed upon, and was to this effect—
"Combining the example of Denmark with their experience of Scottish agriculture, the Commission are clearly of opinion that without raising questions of land tenure too wide for this Report and without imputing failure to bring such holdings into existence, the credit of the State could safely be used, and the principles with which the Legislature is familiar suitably adjusted to Scottish conditions."
I think that is a very strong report from the Commission which was sent out by Mr. Sinclair, who afterwards became the Minister for Scotland, and has introduced the most extraordinarily revolutionary agrarian Bill which has ever been put before this country.
In conclusion, I should like to tell your Lordships of a case which occurred to myself. There were five small holders, the largest of whom loft and went to a larger farm—I think of about sixty or seventy acres—on my own estate. The crofters went up in rotation, each into a larger holding, and finally there was one croft left of from fifteen to twenty acres—I am not quite sure about its size. The tenant who was a "grieve," amongst others, applied for this, and it was given to him at an agreed rent, and I caused this
1004
question to be asked him: "Would you like to stay here, as crofters usually do, on a year-to-year lease, or would you like to have a nineteen years lease, or what lease would you prefer?"—and the answer was: "If I could contract out of that Small Holdings Bill I would take a nineteen years or a thirty-eight years lease." He got a nineteen years lease, and there he is now perfectly happy, and I am quite convinced that the whole of crofters or small holders, of whom there are now a very large number on my estate are perfectly happy under the conditions under which they have all held the land for very many generations. I think that this Bill is a most objectionable Bill in every way. There is only one fair way to arrange this question, if it must be arranged—if it cannot be left alone—and that is by some scheme of land purchase. But I most sincerely trust that your Lordships will follow the scheme which has been so admirably put forward by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and that you will have the courage of your opinions and reject the Second Reading of this Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: My Lords, the case against this Bill has been so admirably put in the able and eloquent speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and of my noble friend Lord Rosebery, that I do not propose to follow the details of the criticisms which have been directed against it. I should like, however, to call attention to one or two points which have perhaps been rather overlooked. The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of the Bill alluded very confidently to the feeling in Scotland in favour of the measure. I have no doubt he spoke for the part of Scotland in which he himself is so well known; and I, on my part, can only speak for the portion of Scotland where I also am well known. I may say decidedly that there I have taken particular pains to take the opinion of small holders, of labourers and of those interested in agriculture; and, although there is a very strong feeling in favour of small holdings, there is also a very strong feeling, and indeed a much stronger feeling, against the methods of this Bill by which it is proposed to create small holdings. I find unanimously amongst that class of men—men who have risen from being what we call "grieves," who have taken a small

1005
holding and then have gone to a bigger I farm—there is an opinion that if this system becomes the law of the land, there is no chance of a man's rising from the position of a labourer into being an affluent farmer; and there are many such instances to my certain knowledge round my part in Scotland.
The next point to which I should wish to allude is the question of the decrease in the population. I think Lord Tweedmouth put the decrease at 20 per cent. in the rural districts among those classes interested in agriculture, as compared with a very large increase in the towns in Scotland. That may be so—I do not quarrel with the figures—but I may say that in that decrease Scotland does not compare unfavourably, as the noble Earl pointed out, with other countries. There is not, in my opinion, much comfort to be got by comparing ourselves with other countries; we ought to look rather to the causes of that decrease. Many causes have been put forward for it; but, in my opinion, we have only ourselves to thank, in a great measure, for this decrease of the population of rural districts. Ever since the first Education Act was passed, oar system of education in the rural districts of Scotland has been entirely antagonistic to the teaching of the child in rural pursuits. There has certainly been a change for the batter of late years in that I direction; but, for the first twenty-five years after the Education Act came into force, the system was to encourage the child to go into other pursuits apart from agriculture; his education was directed to fitting him to be a clerk, or to follow, some industrial occupation, and the whole tendency was to encourage him in getting better and larger employment in industrial and manufacturing pursuits. Can we complain, then, that the child grew up without any knowledge of agriculture? I am glad that, as I have said, within the last two or three years a change has come about for the better. At the present time nature subjects, horticulture, botany, and other subjects of the kind are allowed to be taught in our schools; and I think that if we only encouraged the child in rural districts to learn those pursuits that are natural to a country life, we should do far more to get the next generation to come back to the land than by trying to bring back from the
1006
big towns those who have gone there from the country. That is, I am confident from having had experience in rural districts, the real system which we should employ in trying to get back our population to take an interest in the land. One warning I want to give, when we talk of small holdings. We are going to have a discussion upon another Bill, and I would point out that it is no use thinking that every small holding will be successful. If you take a man and put him down upon a small holding, and he does not understand his work, that small holding will be a failure. You cannot provide small holdings unless you first of all see that the people you are going to put upon them are qualified, experienced, and competent; if you do not do that the thing will never pay.
I should like to allude to one point which was alluded to by Lord Tweed-mouth. He rather claimed that this system was no stranger to our system in Scotland, and he alluded to the feuing system as evidence in favour of that contention. But I would point out that in the question of granting feus, where no doubt the superior remains the rent charger, the buildings are there as security for his rent, therefore the landlord under this Bill would not be in an analogous position to that of the feu superior, because he would have no security whatever for his rent.
The last point is one which affects the district of Aberdeenshire and the northern parts of Scotland more than any other part of the Bill, and that is the daring proposal to transfer from the Board of Agriculture the duties they fulfil to a separate Board of Commissioners in Scotland. If there is one experience that we know of in the north of Scotland it is that we are satisfied that the Board of Agriculture, having the sole control over our flocks and herds, are able far better than divided bodies to control such outbreaks of disease as we have experienced. If you had a divided body controlling the imported live stock, locking after disease, and other things of that kind, you would instantly return to the chaos we were in before our flocks and herds were decimated by disease. There may have been opposition originally to the methods and the work of the Board of Agriculture, but experience has taught us, and I am confident that all

1007
breeders of live stock within the United Kingdom and Ireland will agree that the system which has worked under the Board of Agriculture has been most successful, that we see the value of our flocks and herds in this country increased by the work and the provident care with which the Board watches over them, and that we dread any divided authority arising which may place in danger those flocks and herds to which we look so much for our profit.
Now, my Lords, I agree with the strictures which have been passed upon this Bill, and I do not and cannot myself see how you can possibly, by what is suggested—introducing the clauses of the English Bill—amend this measure. I am not a lawyer, and therefore I cannot say anything as to that. I would sooner myself have voted—as I shall vote if it is put to the Question—for Lord Balfour's Amendment, thus getting rid of the Bill and leaving another measure to be brought forward upon saner, and what we consider better, lines. If it can be put right—if you can amalgamate the English clauses with this Bill, and can improve it in that direction—I shall be only too pleased, but I would far sooner see it go to the wall, and I shall therefore vote for Lord Balfour's Amendment if he carries it to a division.
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: Both the noble Lords who have just spoken come from Aberdeenshire; I am sorry that my noble friends are not able to support this Bill, but, as I also hail from that quarter, I should like to be allowed to put in a word in the opposite direction. Perhaps that is sufficient excuse, if excuse is needed, on my part for intervening in the proceedings of your Lordships' House at the present time. I have another reason, or pretext, or ground for speaking, and that is that there have been several allusions made publicly in Scotland, not only to the county to which I belong, but to an estate with which I am connected, implying that the experience on that estate told against this Bill. Before further referring to this personal matter, I may in passing remark that, although a good deal has been said this evening about the absence of any inquiry preceding the introduction of this measure, it must be pretty well known, at this time of day, that there is a need for the
1008
encouragement of small holdings, and that small holdings are desirable. This is not the first time that a measure dealing with this subject has been introduced into Parliament. If I am not mistaken, in the year 1892 the Government with which my noble relative Lord Balfour of Burleigh was associated brought in a Bill with reference to small holdings. That Bill, too, was founded on the report of a Committee; and not only so, but the county councils were included in that measure as an operating authority. But, so far as regards Scotland, that Bill, I believe, has had little or no effect it has been practically inoperative. I believe that one county has been subject to some of its operations, but we have heard very little about it. That Bill, as I say, was one which followed inquiry and included the county councils. Now, after all, what were we to inquire into? No one could be doubtful about the success of small holdings under favourable conditions; and I think it may safely be said that the essential condition necessary to promote the success of small holdings, and especially the system of co-operation between the occupiers of small holdings, is security of tenure. We had an eloquent tribute from the noble Earl (Lord Rosebery) who, as usual, held the House to-night, as to the work of Sir Horace Plunkett. I am sure that we are all agreed as to that work, and I think it cannot be gainsaid that one of the leading features of Sir Horace Plunkett's work was a successful application of the system of co-operation. But I rather think that the success of the system of co-operation followed the introduction of fixity of tenure in Ireland. Again, we are told to-night that there is no demand in Scotland for a change, or for the encouragement of small holdings. My own experience does not lead me to agree with that; I think all landlords will agree that they have no difficulty in letting small holdings, and that in fact they are much more easily let than large ones. If one may be allowed to speak of one's own experience, I may say that on my own estate we have a large-number of candidates for small holdings, especially for those from about thirty-five to one hundred acres in extent, waiting in a sort of queue for an opportunity to take a small holding. The estate is one which is perhaps illustrative of the present discussion, and

1009
it has been quoted in a sense which is not borne out by the facts. My noble friend Lord Kintore, who will, I think, be here to-morrow, though he is unable to be present to-night, informed me that he had heard that upon the estate there had been a large reduction of small holdings. He presumed it was because the tenants of the small holdings could not make them pay. I at once explained to him that he was under a misapprehension. His impression was gained apparently from a statement made somewhere in the country that there had been a reduction of about a hundred small holders on one portion of this estate. That was evidently a misapprehension. That statement was not made. The gentleman who is said to have made the statement explained to me that what he had said was, that one would not need to go over many parishes in some parts of the country to find that within the last forty years as many perhaps as a hundred small holdings had disappeared. He was not speaking of the estate to which I am alluding, but of a number of estates. As to the actual condition of that particular estate, it is one which may be described as a small holding estate; there are 48,000 acres of arable land, with an average rent of about 16s. 6d. per acre. The total number of holdings is 809; and of those, no less than 540 are under sixty acres; under twenty-five acres there are 416; and under five acres there are fifty-four. The number of holdings has actually increased during the past thirty-seven years, the period during which I have been responsible for the charge of the estate, and there are now 958 holdings as compared with 935. That includes cottages with gardens. As to the disappearance of any small holdings since the year 1870, there may be about fifty which no longer exist, but this apparent reduction includes such readjustments as the combining of two small holdings or the addition of a very small holding to a medium holding. The other cause of disappearance has generally been the death of the tenant, or the absence of the tenant, without any immediate successor claiming or desiring occupancy. I have already alluded to the demand for small holdings, I and perhaps it will not be irrelevant to mention that on this estate of which I am speaking £85,000 has been spent on
1010
houses, and £80,000 on steadings, and so on. But I will not trouble the House with any further figures as to this. My point is that there is a demand there for small holdings, and I believe that the success of these holdings might be, and would be, increased by such a measure as that which is now before us.
There has been a good deal said about the "feeling" in Scotland. I could not help thinking that my noble friend on the cross benches (Lord Rosebery) was rather severe about the Edinburgh boards. He seemed to think that to be a member of a board in Edinburgh was not a very estimable thing. He knows as much about Edinburgh as any man living, and I am sure he will agree with me that his words on this subject are not to be taken too literally. I, too, am a citizen of Edinburgh—in fact I was born there—and when one thinks of the Lunacy Board, the Prisons Board, the Public Health Board, and others, it is to be hoped that members of those boards will not take to heart too much what the noble Earl said when he used the rather severe word "jobs" in connection with those institutions. At any rate, I claim that a board, whether sitting in Edinburgh or anywhere else, consisting of Scotsmen who thoroughly understand their country and are fully alive to the responsibilities of such a position as they would be placed in, are as fit to be trusted in even such delicate operations as those which they would have to perform as men in any other position of similar responsibility would be. After all, as to Scotland's feelings, we have heard a good deal before now from my noble friend about the Scottish nationality and the claim that Scotland should be treated on occasion in a different way from the rest of the country, because of the fact that she is in some ways a distinct nationality, owing to the difference in her conditions and history as compared with those of England. I will conclude by saying that it is no wonder there should be a consensus of opinion with regard to the desirability of the encouragement of small holdings, for many reasons, and especially this—that the type of person who seems to be produced by such homes as these is something that may well be described as a national asset. I am sure that any schoolmaster in Scotland would say that his most promising pupils, and those who

1011
have been the greatest successes in after life, have been those who have had the advantage of being brought up not only in a home but a homestead, amongst all the surroundings of rural life, the live stock and the various little amenities which go to make up a home of this kind and cause such homes to be so earnestly sought after. I would like to add this to what I have said, very inadequately, in support of this measure, that I most honestly, without any arrière pensée, without giving way to any of those mysterious designs of which we have heard, desire to say a word of support and hopefulness regarding it. We have heard of the evils of migration into towns. That is an evil which is common to all towns in all countries. Other countries are striving to combat that evil. The present Bill is a deliberate and a carefully thought-out proposal with that object, and I think a heavy responsibility will rest upon us if we reject it.
LORD LOVAT: I rise to speak with some reluctance, because I do not wish to take up the time of the House if some member of His Majesty's Government is to make a statement with regard to the Highlands and its treatment under the Bill. As this does not appear to be probable, and as moreover it is a misfortune of the Highlands to be represented in another place entirely by south-country gentlemen, I think it is my duty to-night to make some reference to one or two issues with which the Highlands are intimately connected.
May I say at once there are several points in this Bill which commend themselves very favourably to me, and although I am unable to accept all the principles which underlie the Bill there is much I feel would work for the benefit of the Highlands as a whole. With the general objects of the Bill in the first place most of us can see eye to eye, the increasing of the welfare of the crofters, and the increase in the numbers of them. I am afraid I do not take the rosy view which the Secretary of State for Scotland does of the possibilities of developments of crofter settlements, but I believe that within certain limits the number of crofter holdings can be extended, and extended for the benefit of the community as a whole. The actual
1012
clauses, or main headings, which I think will commend themselves to those interested in the Highlands are the increase of the money grants and the extension of the area over which the Congested Districts Board rules. Under the Agricultural Commissioners—who practically are a glorified Congested Districts Board—we may hope for the benefits throughout the Highlands which have been given by the Congested Districts Board on the west coast. I think that anyone who has seen the work of the Congested Districts Board in improving lines of communication, opening up routes for trade, improving stock, helping fishing by experiments and markets, assistance in making new and extending existing holdings, will view with favour the possibility of similar work being done by Agricultural Commissioners in other parts of the Highlands. The extended reference of the word to include forestry is admirable, and it is there that many of us hold that the royal road to repeopling the soil lies. I would here at once ally myself with what has fallen from several noble Lords who have argued that the Agricultural Commissioners should have their work confined to work such as I have mentioned, and should not have the administrative functions of the Board of Agriculture tacked on to them as adumbrated by the Secretary for Scotland. I think all those interested in agriculture in the North as well as in the South of Scotland, wish the central Board of Agriculture in London to control the agricultural situation throughout the United Kingdom.
Then, my Lords, there are certain clauses affecting the position of existing crofters, which I for one would heartily agree with. I am certain that the provisions as to the letting of houses for summer visitors will add very much to the prosperity of crofters, and at the same time will tend to make their buildings more sanitary and more healthy than they are at present. I can speak from experience of a number of my own crofters who actually do take in summer boarders, and I can speak from first hand information as to the money that they receive, often four times their rent, and the improvement of the houses which has resulted. Then on the subject of leaseholders, that is a matter on which a great many proprietors in the Highlands voluntarily abandoned their power of

1013
veto. I do not see why this facility of getting a fair rent, which has been given by many, should not by law be given to all throughout the North of Scotland. With regard to the provisions as to applications for enlargement of holdings, I do not think that is a matter which anyone can argue that one number is fairer than another, and I personally have no obection to the substitution of the word 'one" for "five."
Now, my Lords, with these points I agree, but there are certain principles in the Bill which I do not think we can possibly accept. In the first place, there is the injustice which will be done to the occupying tenant, which I do not think has been brought out fully in either House. I am sure that if our Highland representatives were more in touch with Highland feelings, they would know that the most dominant passion among Highlanders is their desire for fixity of tenure and their love of the soil. Why should we consent to do anything which will make the tenure of every tenant in the Highlands, whether his family has been upon the ground for one tenancy or ten, open to eviction by any south country interloper? Wherein has the tenant offended that we should make his occupation of the land insecure? If there is one thing which the proprietor of ground in the Highlands values more than anything else, it is the number of generations of men who have succeeded each other on the same property. Under the Crofters Act, which is in many senses a fair Act, these men at all events had a chance of occupying their dwelling, even if a great portion of their land was taken away. Under Clause 13 of the Crofters Act, these men could retain a portion of their farm, to scale of size, which at all events would give them sufficient ground to dwell on, and cultivation of some sort or kind. Under the new Act, at the end of any lease, any tenant, whatever length of time he may have been on the soil, may be turned out. Is money a compensation for such injustice?
Then there are certain injustices to landlords, of which I do not think the Government have recognised the gravity. Under Clause 13 of the Crofters Act there was protection given to deer forests in a case where the advantage given by an enlargement of the number of holders was not in
1014
proportion to the damage done. I am aware that deer forests are a thoroughly unpopular institution, but as deer forests and sporting rents pay half the rate in many Highland parishes, it is essential to the benefit of the community that they should remain. If any other industries can be found to take the place of deer forests, which will give employment to the same number of men, which will bring capital from outside to build houses, paths, lodges and roads, then by all means lot deer forests go; but until other work is found or until the rating difficulty is got over, I think it will be found a serious menace to the whole community if the rates, which already in some parishes are 10s., 15s. and in one case 20s. 6d., should be further raised.
Now, my Lords, the difference between the views of the Government and the views I hold on the subject of land legislation lies deeper than any of these mere clauses which I have mentioned. The difference lies in this—that I hold that the land question in the Highlands, the question of repeopling the glens is, in the first place, an economic question, and, secondly, a land question. Until you have got some method by which you can give employment outside croft work to the people in these new crofts that you propose to make, you will not be able to make them economic successes. I speak with very small knowledge, but I have divided some farms among crofters, and I have been interested in the dividing by my friends of a very considerably larger amount, and I can say, having watched closely those settlements which have succeeded and those which have failed, that success has only been attained where there has been work outside the work on the croft. In the cases where division of land has taken place and there has not been either fishing, forestry, tourist traffic or similar work, the crofts have either failed to pay their way, been given up, or amalgamated once more into larger holdings. Until the economic difficulties can be got over, the hashing up the farms, the changing from £30 holdings to £50 holdings is merely a shifting from one hand to the other, without making any real advance. The noble Lord (Lord Rosebery) has referred to the narrow strips of soil which we have suitable for arable land in the Highland glens. That says, in a word,

1015
exactly what our difficulty in the Highlands is. It is not a question of the summer grazings which noble Lords see when they are in Scotland in the summer months; it is a question of those narrow strips of ground which keep the stock of the people at the time when the snow covers the hills for six months at a time. That is the limitation which we cannot get over, and cannot help by any tinkering of legislation until we can put some of the people to some work that can be done to make good, or pay for, the wintering of the stock; and any upheaval of the laws which govern sheep farms, and which interfere with the wintering of deer and other stock, unless thoroughly thought out to an end, must end in one result, and that is disaster.
My Lords, I would like to speak for one moment on the subject of the Crofters Act which has been so often mentioned here and in another place, and upon which we have heard such very various views. I cannot speak with the fullness of knowledge of my noble friend Lord Balfour, but I can speak with the experience of some years in managing an estate under this Act. I will say at once that the Crofters Act has been a success from one point of view, and really from one point of view only; and that is the form of tenure which is given to the small holder. It has given a form of tenure, whether you call it dual ownership or whether you do not, in which the landlord does still take an interest in his tenant, while the small holder, with the knowledge and the certainty that he is fixed on the soil, does further assist himself by his own action beyond the point which he would have done if he knew that at any moment his tenure might come to an end. I say at once there are clauses which would not act fairly in any other country except the Highlands, because there we have got a people who by tradition are tied down to the soil. I refer especially to the clause which gives compensation for voluntary renunciation, a clause which has done more to limit the increase of small holdings than casual observers of the crofter question are aware. It is argued here, and it has been argued in another place, that the Crofters Act has been of financial value to the crofter. That I would at once deny. The Crofters Act has really done in actual monetary gain
1016
a very small amount. What it actually has done has been this—where money has come from outside employment this money which would formerly have been put to whiskey has gone into the building of houses. To imagine that the Crofters Act where there was no employment has of itself increased the wealth of the people, is to imagine what is not true. I have heard it said very often that in the county of Inverness-shire £156,000 has been put into crofters' buildings. Let me assure you that where these crofters' buildings have been put up, in each place where you go you will see the building is actually by the side of a pier, by the side of a railway, or where new communications, shooting lodges, or tourist centres, have made more prosperity in the country. If you go to the out-of-the-way parts of Western Ross or Inverness, or to Skye, where fishing or yacht employment is not present, can anyone say that the state of the houses or condition of the people show improvement since 1886.
In conclusion, my Lords, I would like to say just one word about the way in which many of us look at this Bill. You are going to give a board great, in many ways absolute, powers; what expectation have we that the personnel of the board will be such that justice is assured? From the uncontrolled supporters, if I may use the word, of the Government, we have in speech at all events hardly had what was fair. We have read numerous speeches throughout the country on the subject of the rack renting, of the oppression, which is said to exist. Might I quote just one instance, so that you may see how fair those references to rack reuting in the Highlands are? The Crofters Commission, sitting last year, at a cost of £4,450, reduced the total rents in the Highlands of Scotland by some £3 10s. in all. Yet the Government wish to set up another Land Court on a greater scale with larger salaries than those of the Crofters Commission. If, through the rest of Scotland, the rents are reduced by such enormous reductions as you see in the Highlands, is public money likely to be profitably expended? But, my Lords, is justice in speech done by His Majesty's Ministers? We have had statements, such as that most unfortunate statement which was made by the Lord. Advocate in another place, on the subject of the Barra troubles. I do not wish to go

1017
into the question of the rights of the ease, or to discuss whether the Lord Advocate should have been more cognisant of fact—but what I do wish to do is, to ask whether it is likely to increase public confidence, or to help to settle this land question as a whole, that statements should be made which I think it must be admitted are not entirely founded on fact. It was argued by the Lord Advocate that the condition of lawlessness in Barra was primarily due to the action of Lady Gordon Cathcart, who was most unfortunate in the dealings with her tenants. Now, my Lords, I wonder whether there is any proprietor who has done what this lady has done for her people. She has divided the whole of the island of Barra amongst the crofters, she has only retained one farm, and even on that farm she gave cottars land for the growing of potatoes; she has helped in erecting buildings for the fishery people, she has advanced money for boats, and assisted in placing boys out in places on the mainland, she has given gardens and houses, she has given potato land to those who had none, and has sold land to the Congested Districts Board on fair terms whenever they have asked it. I ask if it is likely to assist in any way in the solution of the land question or to give proprietors the idea they are to be treated fairly when a member of His Majesty's Government gratuitously makes trouble between landlord and tenant in the way which has been done by the Lord Advocate.
My Lords, I would like to say, in conclusion, that if we are to arrive at a satisfactory solution of the land question, it must be faced in a way in which the landlord, tenant, and crofter classes are to work together. I think that the work of the Congested Districts Board, and the division of land which has already taken place in the Highlands will shew that so far the proprietors are alive to the necessity of a further division of land, and they would wish to help, as far as they can, in carrying out such a division where it is economically possible. But this Bill in many cases goes outside what may be considered just and fair, and I consider that unless we can have definite assurances on some of the points over which we are at issue, many of us will
1018
feel extreme difficulty in voting for the Second Reading.
EARL CAWDOR: I am sure, my Lords, that whatever may be the views of anyone in your Lordships' House in respect to the merits of this Bill, we shall all have but one feeling, and that a feeling of deep satisfaction that a Bill of this importance and far-reaching nature was placed in the hands of the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack. It is not for me to suggest a compliment to the noble Lord, but I may say that there is no one whose ability, fairness, and straightforwardness are more recognised on both sides of your Lordships' House, and we feel perfectly certain of this in addition,—which is a great advantage to both sides of your Lordships' House—that whatever strong points there may be in any Bill those strong points are certain to be brought out by the noble and learned Lord. But, my Lords, what did he say? How did he deal with the Bill? The noble and learned Lord told us that the objects of the Bill were the creation of small holdings, and giving them security. We are all agreed upon that. We are all agreed as to the desirability of the extension of small holdings. We are all agreed as to the desirability that those holdings should be secure. The whole question at issue between us is the question of how this is to be carried out. The noble and learned Lord then passed on to tell us of the strong desire there was in Scotland for this Bill. We hear of this strong desire, but only from politicians. We hear of it from the Prime Minister, who gave, I think, the other day, as practically his only justification for the Bill, the "strong desire" there was for it in Scotland. I should like, like my noble friend, Lord Rosebery, to see this "strong desire" a little nearer the surface. It may exist, but it is not apparent. But I am not inclined at all to argue this matter upon the question of desire. I want to argue it upon the question of what is best for the country, and that is the issue which I think your Lordships will have to try during this debate. The noble and learned Lord passed on from that point to an interesting discussion on the question of the increase of the population in the towns, and the decrease of the population in the rural districts, and he drew a sad picture of the state

1019
of the overcrowded districts of Scottish towns. He pointed out to us the far greater percentage of overcrowding in Glasgow and other Scottish towns as compared with London, Liverpool, and other English towns; he made a great case as to this overcrowding, and said that the establishment of small holdings was one amongst many things that might to some extent diminish this evil. But, my Lords, the noble Lord did not show us, and did not attempt to show us, in what way this enormous evil that we have to contend against—this overcrowding of the great towns—was going to be touched, even in its very fringe, by the Bill which he lays upon your Lordships' Table. I am not going to attempt to diminish, or to decry the magnitude of the evil, but I do say that the greater the evil, the larger the figures you have to deal with, the more miserable is your attempt to cope with it by this Bill. What do you propose to do? You have thousands upon thousands overcrowding your great Scottish cities, and you propose to spend £65,000 a year to cure the evil.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: £100,000.
EARL CAWDOR: The noble Lord is quite right—it is £100,000, made up of two amounts of £65,000 and £35,000.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: £35,000 in addition to the £65,000.
EARL CAWDOR: £35,000 in addition to the £65,000 makes up the £100,000. But £35,000 of that £100,000 is allocated to the congested districts, and the other part to other purposes. But even taking the amount as £100,000, if you were able to allocate it all to the one thing, which you cannot, because £35,000 is allocated, as I have said, to the congested districts, does the noble Lord even then suggest that that is going to cure this evil? It is absolutely playing with the question for the Government to tell us that they are even touching the fringe of this great evil by the £100,000 a year which it is suggested is going to cure it. I put it to the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) that, with all his fairness, and all his tender-heartedness in regard to the evils which I know he deprecates in these large towns, it is really trifling with these questions to
1020
suggest that under this Small Holdings (Scotland) Bill you are, by the sums allocated for the purpose, doing anything which can have the slightest effect in the world upon the overcrowding of the great Scottish towns.
The Lord Chancellor then passed on to give us a sketch of the Bill. He told us of the Agricultural Commission which is to take the place, as far as administrative duties are concerned, of the Board of Agriculture. There is very much to be said against that proposal. It has been dealt with already to-night, and I do not propose to go into the question at any length. I want to deal as shortly as I can with a few of the main principles of the Bill, and with nothing else. The noble and learned Lord spoke also of the Land Court as being set up for judicial duties. He gave us a sketch, as I say, of the Bill, but he gave us not even a sketch of justification for its provisions. He said nothing to justify the establishment of the Agricultural Commissioners; he said not a word to justify the establishment of a Land Court. His description of the Bill was admirable, and for those who had studied the Bill with care, it was a most admirable and lucid statement of its provisions. But it contained nothing in the way of justification, and if the noble and learned Lord is not able to justify the Bill, I do not know to whom we can turn on the Government side to justify it. The noble Lord said one further thing which struck me at the time, and that was that this Bill—and I think he said the Land Court—was wanted to prevent the eviction of small holders. Does the noble and learned Lord suggest that there are evictions going on to-day? He does not. Then why is this Land Court wanted? It is established for the purpose of stopping evictions which he has told us do not take place.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I ought perhaps to have said more than I did, but I wanted to open the Bill as briefly and as clearly as I could. I do not suggest that there are any evictions going on at this time, but I do say that the difference between a man who has a knowledge that he is protected by law in all the improvements that he makes in his holding, and the man who has not that protection, is generally, or very

1021
often, the difference between a prosperous and an unprosperous tenant.
EARL CAWDOR: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. I did not for a moment mean to suggest that he had not made a clear and lucid statement. I accept of course his statement that he makes no charge that there are evictions going on at present. Upon that I may say that I should have thought that before any Bill was proposed for the prevention of eviction, some slight inquiry might have been made as to when evictions had last taken place. We have it that they are not taking place to-day, and therefore I should have thought that any suggestion as to the necessity for this Bill for the purpose of preventing evictions was practically done away with. Now the noble Lord says that the man who is under no fear of eviction—who cannot be evicted—is in quite a different state as to prosperity and comfort from the man who can be evicted. I deprecate very much the introduction of personal matters, but I can give your Lordships one sample which is at all events within my own knowledge. I have, on an estate of which I have full knowledge, tenants under the Crofters Act, who can at any moment, if they choose, apply to the Crofters Commission for a fixed rent. I have adjoining those, with nothing but a wire fence between them, and not always that, tenants who are not under the Crofters Act, but who have no claim, no right, no power to get a fixed rent. Those people are living side by side, and they have before the Crofters Act was passed, and since, been always treated exactly the same, and each of them is equally contented. Therefore, I say that you cannot set up, and it cannot be maintained by those who know the working of the Crofters Act, that the man who has the Crofters Act is contented, and the man who has not the Crofters Act is discontented, and feels himself insecure. I say that in answer to the noble Lords' comment in the last few words he said.
Now, my Lords, there were two points in the noble and learned Lord's speech which I am bound to say surprised me very much. The noble and learned Lord made no recognition in any shape or form, so far as I can remember, or so
1022
far as I noticed, of the present system that exists as to letting holdings in Scotland. He did not say one word about the existing system under which leasehold tenants under their landlords have lived on the same holding for generations past; and that is applicable to the very smallest holdings as well as to the very largest. Of those holdings, I think we were told by the First Lord of the Admiralty to-night, 70 per cent. in Scotland are small holdings. Therefore in all these matters of which I am speaking I am referring to 70 per cent. of small holdings, and to the balance of larger holdings. Those tenants and landlords are bound together by the ties of generations. The tenancies in many cases are as old, if not older, than the owner's claim to his property. The labourers on these estates work up from being a labourer to being a small holder; the small holder works up step by step to becoming a large farmer of his district, and this is all done by kindly friendship and kindly consideration, and further by the knowledge that the landlord has of the tenantry and labourers amongst whom he dwells. The noble and learned Lord did not refer to all this. Did he know of the state of things? If he did, is it not a little surprising that he at least should with one stroke of the pen, without one word as to the system he was sweeping away, without a syllable of commendation for the merits that that system has in the opinion of those who know it best, be it landlord, be it tenant, or be it labourer—that he was content, without one word of sympathy or one word of excuse, by the Bill which he has submitted to your Lordships' House, to sweep away the system out of the Scottish system of land tenure, and to put upon us in Scotland, if he could get his will, the dual ownership of the Irish land system? Who defends the system of dual ownership in Ireland? The noble and learned Lord does not. Who does? May it be suggested that it is the happy taxpayer whose millions are being expended year by year in order to put an end to a system which has been found to be intolerable?
The second surprising thing in the speech of the noble and learned Lord was that he made no reference whatever to the English Small Holdings Bill now under discussion in another place. So far as the noble and learned

1023
Lord's speech was concerned, no one would have gathered that such a Bill was in existence. We might have thought that we were simply dealing with this particular Bill, and that there was nothing else to be discussed. I hope your Lordships will insist upon this at least—that whatever part or parcel of the Government's land legislation we deal with this Session, we shall know it all and consider it as a whole. So far England and Scotland, as far as small holdings are concerned, have been dealt with under the same Acts. The last Small Holdings Act incorporated Scotland. Scotland and England up to this date stand side by side with regard to the powers of their local authorities in dealing with small holdings. That is to come to an end. But it was so insignificant a matter—a matter so trivial—that it was not worth the notice of the Lord Chancellor in introducing the Scottish Bill to the notice of your Lordships' House. In England the Government have determined to recognise local authorities, and to give them extended powers as to small holdings. May I ask whether anyone on the Government side, during any part of this debate, is going to enlighten us as to why local authorities in England are to be given these powers and to be trusted—I grant under the Government's English Bill only to a certain extent, but still, are to be recognised, and to be the medium of carrying out the extensions of the Small Holdings Acts as they now exist, while in Scotland nothing is to be done through the local authorities? The whole plan of legislation as to small holdings is to be blocked off here as far as Scotland is concerned. We are to be favoured with a Land Act with dual ownership and many other blessings in disguise, but our local authorities in Scotland are apparently unfit to carry out the small holdings system which is applicable to England and which local authorities in England are supposed to be absolutely capable of carrying out. I only ask as a matter of courtesy whether any member of His Majesty's Government in the course of this debate will enlighten us as to the reasons for this somewhat grave and important divergence.
We have had a great deal made of the overcrowding difficulty. No one mini-
1024
mises its gravity; but the difficulty is not peculiar to Scotland. It may be greater in Scotland than it is in England, but it exists in both countries, and if you can get rid of the overcrowding difficulty in England through the English system that is proposed and through the local authority, why should you cast aside your local authorities in Scotland and say that you cannot possibly deal with the difficulties of overcrowding unless you set up a Land Court and adopt the Irish land system? I would suggest to your Lordships that what is reasonable in the amendment of the law as to small holdings in England should be equally applicable to Scotland. I suggest to your Lordships that what there is in the Scottish Bill that is reasonable in so far as the crofting parts of Scotland are concerned it is desirable that we should retain and carry into effect this session. What there is in the Scottish Bill that has in it the taint of Irish legislation I suggest to your Lordships that we should absolutely reject. If the Bill that is now before your Lordships' House is rejected you will not get the amendment of the law that you think reasonable for Scotland as well as for England embodied in the Bill. You will lose the whole of that if you reject this Bill, because, as your Lordships are well aware, Scotland is not included in the English Bill. Again, if you reject the Bill you will lose any opportunity of amending the Crofters Acts in the way in which many of us in this House think they might reasonably be amended. Therefore I make this appeal to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I would suggest to him that he should allow the Bill to be read a second time. I am glad the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Ripon) is satisfied with that. Would he kindly now allow me to complete my sentence? The noble Marquess seems very much amused. Perhaps he will with ordinary courtesy let me at all events explain exactly the grounds upon which I make that suggestion.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON: I am very sorry if I have done anything which is not agreeable to the noble Lord. I was certainly rather amused at what appeared to me to be the sudden change of opinion. I had not the slightest intention of being disrespectful to the noble Lord.
EARL CAWDOR: I am only too glad to have afforded the noble Marquess the slightest amusement, but he laughed considerably when I suggested that we might allow the Bill to be read a second time. Of course, I quite accept the noble Marquess' explanation, and I am sure he will not think that I intended in any way to be discourteous to him. I will now pass on to explain why I make the suggestion which I have made to Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I thought I had already foreshadowed the reasons which induced me to come to that conclusion. I suggest to Lord Balfour of Burleigh that he should allow the Bill to be read a second time on the distinct understanding that we shall be entitled to consider the Government Bills as affecting land as a whole. I suggest that we should enact for Scotland the amended provisions—that is when we have amended the Bill in your Lordships' House or when we have seen the Bill amended in another place—that we should enact for Scotland reasonable amendments such as have been defined by previous speakers in regard to the crofting districts of Scotland, and that we should lastly—and certainly not least—absolutely decline to extend to Scotland the Irish land legislation and the Irish land system as is proposed under the Government Bill—a system which has cost, not alone the country, but I think Ireland itself, very dearly indeed.
LORD CLINTON: I think the noble Lord has expressed the opinion of the House in suggesting that we should consider any proper scheme for the creation and extension of small holdings in Scotland. He has expressed what several noble Lords have stated very fully—that we all object very strongly to the method which His Majesty's Government propose in this Bill. We object to the multiplication and complication of all the machinery provided by this Bill. We object to the setting up of new, unnecessary and expensive bodies of officials everywhere. We claim that popularly-elected bodies in Scotland have every bit as much right to be trusted in regard to the creation of small holdings as similar bodies in England. But above all we object to the setting up of the Land Court in Scotland, and to the extension of the Crofters Act of 1886 to the Lowlands. That Act, as your Lordships are well aware, was an exceptional piece of legislation applied to an exceptional state of
1026
affairs—to meet agitation and to put an end to disturbance in a particular part of Scotland which differed very widely from the rest. It was for the purpose of mitigating undoubted grievances which were felt by the Highland crofters. The grievance which they chiefly complained of was that, while they claimed an hereditary right sanctioned by long usage, to the ground which they cultivated and to the grazings which they held in common, and while they claimed an actual right to all their buildings and improvements, yet they remained only tenants at will, sitting under a tenure which was legally precarious, and liable to be turned out at any time at the whim of a capricious proprietor. Their claims, I think, were fully met under the Act of 1886, but it is now proposed to apply the same legislation throughout Scotland—to that part of Scotland where no grievance of the kind exists whatsoever, where there is no agitation, where there is no disturbance, and where no claim at all is put forward by small holders for any ownership. It is proposed to apply this legislation to all farms under £50 annual value throughout the Lowlands. I submit that in that part of Scotland which I at all events know well, the north-east of Aberdeenshire, the small holders are in an absolutely different condition from what they are in the west. They are not congested districts in any way, and I am certain that the people who occupy the holdings have no wish whatever to be crofters. Their tenure is a perfectly sound one. They sit most of them on nineteeen years' leases; they have the full security which that lease gives them; they have the additional security amounting almost to fixity of tenure granted them by the Act of last year, and they have the full right of compensation for all their improvements under the Act of 1883, and subsequent measures. They are under absolutely the same terms and conditions as to cultivation and everything else, sitting, indeed, under exactly the same form of lease as their larger brethren, the difference being absolutely only one of size. They make no claim to any sort of hereditary right whether sanctioned by long usage or not. Although many of our small holders in that part of the country have occupied perhaps two or more nineteen-

1027
year leases, yet the bulk of those in small holdings are farm servants who have saved a little money during their term of service, and have taken a croft, when they have been able to get one, solely as a stepping stone to better things, and in the course of time rising up until they become occupiers of larger holdings. In fact I think they move about quite as much, if not more, out of small holdings than out of larger farms. It is argued, and has constantly been argued, that this Crofters Act ought to be applied to the whole of Scotland because it has been so great a success in the crofters districts. I believe the Act has been a success. The noble Lord (Lord Lovat), who is so thoroughly acquainted with the crofting districts, has given it a certificate of high character in many respects, and it certainly has accomplished some of the objects for which it was brought in. It has stopped agitation, it has put an end to disturbance, and it has given the fixity of tenure which was so earnestly desired. But all these things were peculiar to a particular part of Scotland, and they are not to be found in the Lowland districts. And it is after satisfying those peculiar districts that the success of the Act stops. The noble and learned Lord who introduced this measure in a speech, the greater part of which I think will find agreement from this side of the House, drew a most harrowing and pathetic picture of the crowding up of families in towns. It is a picture which will draw the sympathy of every Member of your Lordships' House; but that condition of things is not confined to the great towns of Scotland or of Great Britain, I think it will be found in every part of the civilised world. I think it was also suggested that an extension of the Crofters Act would remedy this evil, and indeed the whole of our present smallholding legislation—is put forward for the express purpose of preventing the depopulation of the rural districts. But has the Crofters Act prevented in any way that depopulation where it has been in existence? Some very interesting evidence was put before Lord Onslow's Committee on Small Holdings on this point; it was given by the greatest authority on this question, Mr. Mackenzie, the Secretary to the Land Commission. He stated very plainly that the position of a croft under the Crofters Act stereotyped the crofter in that holding;
1028
it apparently smothered his ambition. When once he had improved his croft as far as he could, there was nothing left for him to do. He was afraid of moving away from the croft to a larger place for fear of losing the benefit of the improvements he had made, with the result that, though he himself would remain in that district, his family, his sons and daughters, being tired of the narrow sphere, cribbed up in that small place, migrated constantly, most of them to the larger towns, and many going to the Colonies, where they could find a freer state of things. I should like to call your Lordships' attention particularly to two questions which were put to Mr. Mackenzie on this subject, in answering which he states the matter exceedingly clearly. I do not think it will be suggested that we could get better evidence upon this point than from the Secretary of the Land Commission. In the Minutes of the Evidence before Lord Onslow's Committee a question (No. 4490) was asked of Mr. Mackenzie—
"You cannot say that the crofter system has altogether stemmed the migration from the country into the towns?"
and his reply was—
"No, it has not."
Further, a few question later, he was asked—
"Is there any other point which you wish to mention?"
and his reply was—
"With regard to the number of inhabitants, I may mention that the population has been going down. Statistics show that this decline in the population has been quite as large since the passing of the Crofter Act as before."
If the Crofters Act has not succeeded in preventing depopulation, what is the excuse for applying it to the Lowlands of Scotland? There is no demand for it in the Lowlands, in spite of some assertions to the contrary. Certainly those who have lived in other parts of the country are not aware of any such demand. The whole of the evidence we have is against the Bill. The Chamber of Agriculture and most of the farmers' clubs have raised their voices against it. A petition was recently presented by the Duke of Richmond from the north-east of Scotland showing that a very large number of farmers, labourers, and others are against the Bill. Of the total signatures against the Bill, 852 were

1029
crofters, and 1,095 were farm servants, all of whom keenly protested against the measure. I submit that if this Bill was a Bill which would prevent depopulation, the evidence would have been exactly in the contrary direction: instead of our being able to say there is no demand for it in Scotland, I have no doubt whatever that if people in Scotland believed that any success would attend this measure, they would be clamouring at the doors of your Lordships' House for the passage of the Bill. We thoroughly believe in the value of small holdings, and not only in those favoured districts which are suitable from their soil, climate, or position, as regards means of railway communication, and otherwise—not only in districts suitable for those reasons for the special culture of vegetables and fruit, but also in the less favoured districts which are purely agricultural; we know that there also they can be a success, provided the occupants are given in addition some subsidiary occupation. In the north-east of Aberdeenshire, we have a very large number of them; they do exceedingly well, many of them make money, many of them are able to take larger farms, and they do well because they have there a very considerable amount of employment in connection with quarries, fisheries, part of the year in peat-mosses, and ordinary work of the estates in connection with game, and so on. All these various forms of employment have enabled these people to make money; and it seems to me the most unfortunate thing that His Majesty's Government should not recognise that so many of our local rural industries have been squeezed out of existence by economic forces, partly due to legislation, and should not endeavour, along with a scheme of small holdings, to bring in an alteration of this kind. I believe that almost every State of Europe does something of the kind, except ourselves; and that in almost every State you will find a system of State forestry which employs almost the whole of its rough labour from among the cottagers, with a small amount of land, living in and round the forests. That that has been successful your Lordships can see from any statistics upon the subject; it would be an advantage to small holders, and it would be of the greatest possible advantage to the State.
1030
I believe this matter has been pressed upon the attention of every Government for the last twenty or thirty years; and there is reason to regret that some action in the matter has not been taken. In this north-eastern country I say we have a very large number of small holdings; we have kept those holdings going and we have re-built them at very great expense to ourselves, because we believe they are of great importance to the State and to the district. Certainly there has not been a commercially profitable return on the investment, or it has been very, very small; but every single one of those will, at the passing of this Bill, be taken out of the hands of the landlord and put into the hands of the Land Court. The tenant understands fully the disadvantages which this Bill, the extension of the Crofters Act, will bring him; he understands that at present, sitting under an ordinary landlord, he has his buildings kept in repair and renewed when required; he understands that when this Act is extended to the Lowlands of Scotland these will be paid for by himself. It is of the greatest advantage to a thriving young farm servant who wants to take a holding at the present moment that he may take it when he has saved a small amount, sufficient to stock the place. If the Act is extended to the Lowlands of Scotland, he will not be able to take it without having saved a sufficient sum of money to keep his buildings in order. Now, if anything, the extension of the Act must add very considerably to the difficulties of management; it must tend to lessen the amenities of our estates. None of us like to see bad buildings on the estates. It is quite certain that once these buildings get into the hands of poor crofters who have little or nothing beyond the stocking of their places, they will gradually fall into a state that we shall not like to see; this will lessen the capital value of the estates, and make them more difficult to sell. People do not buy estates now so much for investment as because of the amenities and the advantages which they bestow; and the amenities and advantages of these estates will be very largely reduced if this Bill is passed.
My Lords, it seems to me that we who have spent a large amount of money and

1031
have done our best to keep up small holdings on our estates, are to be punished and penalised in this way, that we are to be put into a very much worse position than the owners of estates who have not kept up any small holdings at all; and that, because we have adopted in the past a policy which has only been recently taken up by His Majesty's Government, we are to suffer the hardships of this Bill. It is difficult to know why we should be punished and penalised in this way. Can His Majesty's Government say that a landowner is now well advised to divide up his farms into small holdings with the certainty that before long those small holdings will be taken out of his control, and that his estate will be reduced in value? Is that likely to encourage the creation of small holdings? And in reference to the Bill which the Minister for Agriculture is bringing in for England, will it improve his chance of getting land-owners to give their land voluntarily by agreement if the Government pass this Bill? Is it likely that they will stop there? Is it not more probable that they will apply the same principles to England? It is very easy indeed to draw a distinction between the crofting districts and the Lowland districts of Scotland, but it is by no means so easy to draw a distinction between the Lowlands of Scotland and England, and it appears to me to be almost certain that as time goes on, if this extension of the Crofters Act is permitted as regards the Lowlands of Scotland, it will also be brought into England. I believe that extreme measures of this kind will make the voluntary creation of small holdings an exceedingly greater difficulty in future, but if the Government would bring in a well-considered measure for small holdings in Scotland, I do not believe that they would have the least difficulty in passing it. I do not think that we could possibly accept a measure of this kind, which offends against our primary ideas of what is just and right, which is a hardship upon all classes connected with agriculture, and which must fail in the object for which it is nominally introduced.
LORD BORTHWICK: My Lords, the arguments against the Bill have been so ably and eloquently expressed that it is with great diffidence that I offer any
1032
remark at all on its general principles, but I do so because I believe it to be an ill-advised and unwise measure, and contrary to the wishes of a great number of the people of Scotland. If it were likely that this Bill would be of substantial value to any large section of the community, if it were going to prove a remedy for the admitted evil of rural depopulation, I suppose there is not one of your Lordships who would be unwilling that some such measure should pass into law; but the root of that evil lies very deep and is not to be cured by such a remedy as this. The chief result of this Bill will be to disturb the relations between landlord and tenant and labourer, and failure to achieve its object.
When a Bill like this is introduced, which introduces a new principle as far as the south of Scotland is concerned and is to be applied to the whole of Scotland, regardless of the different conditions that obtain in different parts of that country, there should be ample evidence to show that there is a great demand for these holdings which cannot be satisfied on reasonable terms. Unfortunately there is only too much land to be had in many parts of Scotland at a very low price indeed, and it would have been far better if the fair and straightforward method had been adopted for some small experimental measures of purchase outright. But the Bill does not permit this, and instead we have the system of compulsory hire at an arbitrarily fixed rent. I say no word against the principle of such holdings—it is highly desirable that it should be extended and facilities granted when it can be done on reasonable terms and with reasonable chances of success—but I think there is often a disposition to regard the acquisition of land as an end in itself and not as a means of making a profit to its holder. Taking into consideration the condition under which the industry of farming is carried out in this country, when under the most favourable circumstances it is difficult to make more than a small profit, it is a fair assumption that if you put upon the land a large number of such holders, many of whom will have little or no experience of their task, and be further handicapped by lack of capital and having to pay interest on loans for the erection of new buildings and so forth, many of them will make a failure of it, and there is little doubt

1033
where the result of that failure will rest in the end. We were engaged last year in passing a Bill to provide security of tenure to tenants. I do not know what will become now of that security when a tenant is liable to be deprived of perhaps the best part of his farm at any time, or what is to happen to the labourer displaced by the action of the Commissioners to be appointed. I do not doubt for an instant that these gentlemen will perform with justice and moderation the duties allotted to them, but I maintain that on principle it is highly undesirable that such autocratic and arbitrary powers should be conferred on them at all. When land is taken by the State compulsorily for any purpose, that operation should be hedged round with the most careful safeguards and restrictions, and adequate compensation paid to every person from whom the land is taken, and for any loss that is incurred in the taking. I do not know, my Lords, what would be said if it was proposed to take land for a railway company, for instance, under such conditions as obtain in this Bill.
I submit that of all the industries in this country, that of agriculture least deserves to be made the subject of rash experiment and hasty legislation. We hear much of unearned increment and land monopoly. We hear little on the other side of the vast amount of capital spent on making the land fit for cultivation, of the vast amount spent on improvement, of the large sums required; and rightly required, to be spent on providing decent housing accommodation and decent conditions of living for the labourer. Lastly, I think that it should occasionally be remembered that the great benefits accruing to the people of this country from the fact that they are enabled to buy their food in the cheapest market means that the land has to maintain a constant struggle for existence under stress of the severest competition. My Lords, I submit that this great industry should receive that consideration and fair treatment without which no industry can prosper. If it is to be subjected to hasty and ill-advised legislation there is this danger, that the capital which is invested in the land may take fright, and if that should happen you would have mortgages called in on a large scale, heavy and serious loss to thousands and complete ruin to many.
1034
I maintain that for these reasons, my Lords, this is a mischievous and ill-advised Bill, and I propose, therefore, to support the noble Lord's (Lord Balfour) Amendment.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: On behalf of Lord Kintore, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: It was my intention to have proposed that the House should give this Bill precedence tomorrow, but after the very extraordinary remark made just now by the noble Earl (Earl Cawdor), I have been a little doubtful what course to take. However, I believe it would be most for the convenience of your Lordships if the Bill were to have precedence, and under the circumstances I will make this Motion Of coure any discussion of the Bill tomorrow, after what we have been told by the noble Lord, must be of a purely academic character. I beg to move, "That the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill have precedence of other Bills to-morrow."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not quite sure what the noble Lord meant by the intimation at the end of his observations. Of course we entirely agree that this Bill should have precedence to-morrow, but when the noble Marquess went on to say that this discussion is of an academic character, I think noble Lords—at all events, those sitting on this side of the House—will not be inclined to agree with him. I should have thought that after what has passed this evening the noble Marquess and the Government would have realised that this discussion is of anything but an academic character, and is intended to bear very abundant fruit.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I want to say a word as regards order. I do not in the least understand what it is in Lord Cawdor's statement which makes the debate academic. I want to know exactly where we stand. I daresay the noble Marquess has some meaning present in his mind which is not present to mine.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I am quite as much in the dark as is my noble friend who has just spoken. I want to know where we stand. I want to know the meaning of the statement that has

1035
been made by the noble Earl Lord Cawdor. I suppose we shall know in the course of discussion to-morrow. But it appears to me that we shall be engaged in the discussion of a Bill which the noble Lords opposite are going to turn entirely inside out, and to substitute for part of it a perfectly new Bill.
Debate adjourned till to-morrow, and to be taken first.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.