I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will explain the grounds on which the Local Government Board, on 27th February, 1890, sanctioned the increase of salary from £300 to £600 per annum to the Medical Officers of Health for the St. Giles'-in-the-Fields District?

The Medical Officer of Health referred to, prior to his re-appointment, was not required to devote his whole time to his duties. This condition was imposed upon him when he was re-appointed, and it was in consideration of this that the Vestry assigned to him the higher salary. The matter appeared to have been fully considered by the Vestry on more than one occasion, and the Local Government Board did not think that the circumstances were such that they should withhold their assent to the proposal. At the suggestion of the Board, however, it was made a condition that the medical officer should agree that, in the event of his losing his office by reason of the appointment of a Medical Officer of Health for an extended area including the whole or part of the district assigned to him, he would make no claim to compensation for any loss of, emoluments exceeding the salary of £300 per annum, which he had previously received.

Will the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury state at what time the Second Reading of the India Council Bill be taken? Will it be taken before Whitsuntide?

It is impossible for me to say at the present moment when the Bill will be taken. I will endeavour to give ample notice, and I may assure the hon. Member that, at all events, a few days' notice will be given.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Secretary of State has received a Memorial from M. Auguste Desvaux, of the Mauritius, alleging arbitrary action by the Acting British Consul at Tamatave in prohibiting M. Desvaux from practising in the Local and Consular Court; and whether the Government will make any inquiry in the matter?

The matter is now in the hands of the Supreme Government of the Mauritius, over which Her Majesty's Government have no authority, and to the proceedings of which, even if they disapproved of them, they could not effectively object. The proper Court of Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Mauritius is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Acting Consul will be defended in the action brought by M. Desvaux by the Procureur General of the Mauritius.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if, by virtue of the powers given to County Councils by Section 6 of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties Bill, in respect of premises ceasing to be used for the sale of intoxicating liquors, such Councils may make pecuniary compensation to all persons having such interest as is there indicated; and, if so, upon what principle or mode of calculation such compensation may be assessed and paid?

The powers proposed to be given to County Councils in respect of the extinction of licences are purely voluntary. They are not bound to buy, nor those interested to sell. This being so, it did not seem to the Government to be necessary to lay down any principle or mode of calculation by which the extinction of the licence should be secured.

Are we to understand from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that "purely voluntary" means that it is in the discretion of the County Council to give or not give in various cases of the same quality and degree?

Unquestionably; it is entirely within their discretion. They will never spend a penny unless they like, and the mode in which they spend it is entirely within their own option.

Is there to be any other means of dealing with the money except through the County Council?

No, Sir; no other means.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount received last year for licences for the sale of intoxicating liquor in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively; and whether he will grant a Return showing the amounts so received from each county and county borough?

I must ask the hon. Member to repeat the question on Thursday. It will not be possible to procure the information for some time.

Will the information be given before the House goes into Committee on the Licensing Bill? because it is upon this basis that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to allocate the money.

I think the Government will be able, in the course of a few days, to give the information in regard to each county and county borough. I will see what can be done.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is a fact that King Ja Ja, of Opobo, is being removed, or about to be removed, from his place of captivity at St. Vincent; and, if so, whether it is proposed to re-instate him in his own country?

It is not a fact. Her Majesty's Government have no such intention at present.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a verbatim copy of the shorthand notes taken at the Mossfields Colliery Explosion Inquiry held before A. Flint, esquire, on 22nd February and following-days, upon the bodies of 59 men and boys; whether, notwithstanding the expressed opinion of Mr. Harold Thomas, barrister at law, as stated in his Report to the Home Office, he will order a prosecution of the late manager of the colliery, seeing that Section 21 was violated and General Rule 7 disregarded and censured by the coroner, and especially Laving regard to the great loss of life consequent upon such violation and disregard of the Mines Act of 1887; and whether, taking all interests into consideration, he will order a special inquiry into the cause, or causes, of this explosion, as provided in Section 45 of "The Mines Act, 1887?"

In view of the specially interesting nature of the questions raised in this case, the Secretary of State is willing to make an exception here, and to present to Parliament a print of the evidence taken at the inquest. The three months mentioned in Section 62 of the Coal Mines Act, 1887, having expired on January 16, no prosecution for offences against that Act can now be instituted. The Secretary of State has doubts whether any other criminal proceeding could be instituted with reasonable prospect of success; but he will refer the evidence, when printed, to the Director of Public Prosecutions for his examination and Report whether any such proceedings should be taken. The Secretary of State is taking steps to carry out Mr. Thomas's recommendation as to the alteration of one of the Special Rules. He does not propose, having regard to the great care that was given to the inquiry before the coroner, to order a fresh inquiry under Section 45.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a verbatim Copy of the shorthand notes taken at the coroner's inquest on the 176 bodies killed by the explosion at the Llanerch Colliery, Monmouth, on 6th February, 1890; whether he will give instructions to prosecute the manager and firemen for having violated General Rules 4, 8, and 12 of "The Mines Act, 1887;" and whether, having regard to the safety and well-being of our miners generally, and the Llanerch miners in particular, he will institute a special inquiry into the cause or causes of the explosion at this colliery, as provided in Section 45 of '?The Mines Act, 1887"?

The Secretary of State is daily expecting the Report of the learned counsel who represented the Home Office at the inquest. Pending its receipt, he is not in a position to reply to the questions of the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Return of Experiments authorised upon animals in 1889 for the advancement of medical knowledge of the living body will be ready?

The Return was produced on Saturday last.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is possible to give any compensation to the men Gleeson, Brady, Brooks, and Whaley, for false imprisonment?

The Secretary of State has nothing to add to the answer which he gave to a similar question of the hon. Member on the 21st April last.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has observed the statements in the Spanish newspapers that the Jesuit College in Barcelona is registered as belonging to British subjects, although there are neither English priests nor English collegians there, and that the same is the case with regard to the Jesuit College at Valencia; and that the British flag was raised over the latter college during the recent riots in that town; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into this matter, in regard to which very strong protests are being raised by the Spanish Press?

The hoisting of the British flag over the Jesuits' College at Valencia has been reported to Her Majesty's Government by Her Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid, who states that the building appears to belong to a British subject. No representation on the subject has been made by the Spanish Government.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is true that the survivors of the slaves with which the Stanley Expedition was manned, and which were originally hired from Arab and other owners at Zanzibar, have been handed over to their original owners, and returned into slavery at Zanzibar; and whether it is a fact that the wages they earned on the Expedition have been appropriated by their owners? I also wish to know whether the attention of the Government has been directed to certain telegrams that have appeared in the Times newspaper, from Zanzibar, more especially one dated 29th April, in the Times issue of 30th April, in which the following statement occurred:—

"A German steamer sailed to-day for the Congo with 400 mixed slaves and freemen, recruited here for the Congo Railway;"

whether Her Majesty's Government have any information, confirmatory or otherwise, with regard to the allegations that numbers of slaves are being shipped from time to time from Zanzibar to the Congo State, to supply labour for the construction of the Congo Railway; and whether he has any information to show that the export of slaves from Zanzibar, whether as slaves or under the colour of engages has greatly stimulated the Slave Trade in the Lake districts?

We have been informed by Her Majesty's Consul General in Zanzibar that the steamer in question sailed after an inquiry had been held on board by the German Authorities on the East Coast. It is understood that the Zanzibar Government is in communication with the Congo Government on the subject. No information has reached the Foreign Office to the effect stated in the last paragraph of the question. Her Majesty's Government are informed that the engagement of these persons is perfectly free on their part. It would be preferable from our point of view that they should take service with the East African Company at Mombasa, but they elect to go to the Congo, and it is possible that the liberality shown to the porters of the Emin Relief Expedition have influenced them in their choice.

Is it the fact that the slaves were returned to their masters at a date subsequent to the decree of November, which declared all slaves free, entering or returning into the territory of the Sultan?

The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I did not say that the slaves were returned to their masters, but that they voluntarily went back. The Relief Committee had nothing to do with the matter at all. The men voluntarily engaged themselves, and when their service was ended they returned.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of the hon. Member's question, namely, whether the export of slaves from Zanzibar, whether as slaves or under the colour of engages, has not greatly stimulated the Slave Trade in the Lake Districts?

I have stated that no information of the kind has reached Her Majesty's Government.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in the United Service Gazette of Saturday, 26th April, stating that a certain Major General, compulsorily retired, had asked for, and been refused, the actuarial calculations upon which the rate of compensation was fixed; and, if so, why was it refused; and, if those calculations were correct, why was the data upon which the calculations wore founded given in the case of a retired Colonel of Engineers, and refused to the other officers?

Actuarial calculations as to the retired pay of officers are confidential documents for the assistance of the Secretary of State in fixing the amount to be awarded. I am not aware that the actuarial calculations have been given in any recent case.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he will call the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the facts and allegations connected with the Salford gas contracts, with a view to proceedings being taken against all persons who have not yet been brought to justice, with respect to whom primd facie evidence exists that they have been engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the ratepayers of Salford?

I have not sufficient information to enable me to reply to the question. If any statement is laid before me I will take care that it is submitted to the Public Prosecutor.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will consider the propriety of introducing a Salford Corporation (Commission) Bill, on the lines of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Commission) Bill, which was introduced into this House by the Home Secretary, the First Lord of the Treasury, and the Under Secretary for the Home Department, in the year 1888?

I would remind the hon. Member that the Metropolitan Board of Works (Commission) Bill was only introduced after an Address to the Crown had been moved by the right hon. Lord the Member for Paddington, and after he had shown that there was no legal remedy open to those who felt themselves aggrieved. As regards Salford, the Government are not at all satisfied that the legal remedies have been exhausted. I In the absence of proof to that effect, and in the absence of an Address to the Crown, the Government as yet see no reason why they should be expected to take the initiative.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will prepare and present to the House a Return of the licensed houses (distinguishing full licences from licences for "beer on") in each licensing area in the country, and setting out the situation of each such House, the name of the owner, and the name of the ostensible licensee?

The Return presented on the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington seems to me to answer every necessary purpose. The Return the hon. Member asks for would be exceedingly difficult to obtain; it would be most costly, and is not required for any necessary purpose.

If the right hon. Gentleman will inquire I think he will find that every clerk to the Licensing Justices has at this moment a Return in his possession for the present year. I have seen a Return for one borough, and I could easily obtain similar Returns for other boroughs. I would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the matter, and to request these gentlemen to forward copies of the Returns, as they contain information of extreme importance.

I will, of course, in answer to the request of the hon. Member, consider the matter; but I think he will see that a complete Return would be of a most voluminous character, seeing that some 110,000 persons or houses are licensed, and to give all the information asked for by the hon. Member would involve a considerable amount of labour and expense.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consent to postpone the Second Reading of the Local Taxation Bill until the County Councils have had ample time to express their opinion on those provisions of the measure which impose on them the obligation of negotiating for the purchase of licences?

The hon. Baronet has already announced his intention of doing his best to defeat the Local Taxation Bill, and the Government do not feel called on to help him in that object by postponing the Second Reading of the Bill.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on what date the prisoner M'Caffrey, who was removed to London to give evidence before the Special Commission, was brought back to Downpatrick Convict Prison; for what period he was detained in London; and whether he was called as a witness before the Commission; whether he has been kept in solitary confinement, or otherwise punished, and for what periods, since his return; and if he can state the reason for his punishment, and at whose instance he was brought to London?

The General Prisons Board report that the convict mentioned was removed to London, not to give evidence before the Special Commission, but as a witness in the case of "The Queen v. Molloy." In connection with that case he was in London for one period of 19 days ending March 20, 1889, and a second period of nine days. Since his return to Ireland a year ago he has been punished for various breaches of prison discipline and rule on five occasions. His attendance in London was at the instance of the solicitors for the prosecution.

For what period was he punished?

The Prisons Board have not sent me full particulars; but if the hon. Gentleman will put down a further question I shall be happy to obtain them.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have, for the past four or five years, paid a grant to Townavanny National School, in County Fermanagh, the average attendance being under 20 pupils, the manager being the Rev. John Donaldson, Presbyterian minister, the teacher being also a Presbyterian, the pupils attending the school being all Episcopalian; whether he is also aware that the local Episcopalian minister, the Rev. D. E. Dickson, is manager of a vested National School at Rossharbour, with an Episcopalian teacher, and within about a mile distant from the residences of the pupils attending the Townavanny school; and whether the Regulations of the Treasury sanction the payment of a grant to this Presbyterian school, for the purpose of giving religious instruction to a small number of Episcopalian children, when they can, as in this case, obtain such instruction from a teacher of their own creed in the school about a mile from their homes, there being no Presbyterian children whatever in the locality of either school?

I have not received a detailed Report on the several points mentioned in the question; but the Commissioners of National Education inform me that it is the case that the first mentioned school receives a modified and reduced grant. The second mentioned school receives a full class grant, the attendance being sufficient. The Commissioners propose to inquire further into this matter.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that a number of important Judgments delivered in the High Court of Justice in Ireland, in cases under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, have been collected in a volume and published by the Queen's printers in Ireland; whether copies of this volume have been supplied to the Crown Solicitors, Sessional Crown Solicitors, and Resident Magistrates throughout the country;, whether he can say at whose request this volume was published; and if copies, will be supplied to Irish Members of Parliament or to Irish lawyers at a fair price?

The volume referred to was printed by the direction of the Government for the information of Magistrates. It was also supplied to Crown and Sessional Crown Solicitors. It has been the constant practice of Government to have Reports of important cases printed by the Queen's printers for private use, and not for public sale; and there would be difficulty in departing from this course on the present occasion.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the serious charges of intemperance which have been brought against Mr. Hugh Graham, Justice of the Peace, of Dromore, County Tyrone, have been before the Lord Chancellor for several months; whether the Lord Chancellor has yet given his decision, and what is the cause of so long a delay; and whether he is aware that the Magistrate whose conduct has been so gravely impugned still sits in the Dromore Petty Sessions Court?

I am informed by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland that he has suspended the gentleman mentioned from sitting on the Bench of Magistrates. The allegation in the last paragraph of the question does not appear to have been well founded.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how many fair rent applications, served on the Land Commission in respect of holdings in Ulster, still remain undisposed of; and what number of legal Sub-Commissioners are now engaged in hearing cases in Ulster?

The Land Commissioners report that 9,902 applications have been disposed of. The number of Sub-Commissioners now engaged is three, one of whom is partly engaged in the Province of Ulster, and the other two partly in Ulster and partly in another Province. I believe that the number of outstanding cases is being diminished.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what are the instructions to the police in Tipperary regarding the watching and following of persons visiting that town; is he aware that on the 2nd instant when Mr. John Kelly, of Dublin, arrived at the Limerick Junction he was joined by a policeman, who walked by his side keeping step with him and accompanying him everywhere; and whether he will inquire into the practice of the police in this respect, and prevent any provocative conduct on their part towards people visiting the town of Tipperary?

The instructions to the police are to watch persons who may reasonably be suspected of indulging in illegal practices. I believe Mr. Kelly comes under that description, so that it is probable that he was followed by the police on his arrival at Limerick Junction.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Treasury has yet sanctioned the establishment of the proposed Fund for the benefit of the widows and orphans of the Irish National teachers; and, if not, will he say what has caused the delay?

We have taken much trouble in this matter, and have devoted a large amount of time to it. The delay has been due to what the Treasury consider inadequate provisions for the solvency of the Fund. Some of the rules proposed sinned in our opinion against sound actuarial principles, and seemed likely to involve trouble and disappointment in the future.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that Michael Morrisey has now been more than six weeks in prison for having failed to remove certain buildings erected for the shelter of evicted tenants on the farm of Mrs. Kelly, of Clongorey, over which he had no control, he will consider the desirability of recommending his immediate release?

Morrisey is in prison for contempt of Court, and the Irish Executive have no power to deal with the case. It is open to the prisoner to obtain his immediate release by purging the contempt.

said: As far as my memory enables me to say, this man's wife has been released on account of ill-health.

Have the Irish Executive no power to interfere?

No, Sir; I understand not. We have been clearly advised on that point, and I think I have already said so in answer to previous questions. I am told that the Irish Executive have no power whatever to interfere in a case of committal for contempt of Court.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state on what date Mr. Daly and the other prisoners convicted of boycotting the Great Northern Railway at Carrickmacross were transferred from Derry to Belfast gaol; and if he will explain why they were obliged to wear the prison uniform on their journey, and handcuffed when brought through the streets of Belfast?

The General Prisons Board report that the prisoners referred to were removed from Derry to Belfast Prison on 8th April. These prisoners elected to wear the prison dress while in prison, and were, as usual in such cases, transferred in that clothing. They were handcuffed in accordance with the practice which is adopted by the constabulary in the case of prisoners under their charge when passing through a thickly-populated town, when the escort happen to be also strangers to the town.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a man named Dunlop, who was lately convicted of forgery, and who was suspected of complicity with murder, was taken to prison in his own clothes, and was not handcuffed?

I am not acquainted with the case; but, of course, the duty of the police would be regulated by the circumstances of the case.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is true that the new Tariff Bill submitted by the Committee of Ways and Means to the House of Representatives of the United States of America provides for the practical prohibition of importations of Sheffield cutlery and edge tools by an increase in the Import Duties of from 50 to 100 per cent.; and in the event of the adoption by a friendly Power, whose productions are admitted to a free market in the United Kingdom, of proposals so serious to British industry, if Her Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of extending the doctrine of commercial reciprocity adopted by this country in the case of Greece?

It appears to be intended in the Bill on the whole to increase these duties, though in some classes of edged tools a decrease seems to be intended. Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to judge what the amount or value will be, and the proposals are subject to alterations during the progress of the Bill. It would be impossible to object to such proposals, because they are founded upon a fiscal policy different to our own; and there is no opportunity of procuring reciprocal reductions unless we are imposing duties upon staple articles of production from the country in question, as was the case in regard to Greek currants.

I wish to put a question to the President of the Local Government Board in reference to the Allotments Bill. I had an Instruction down upon the Paper on Friday, which I was prevented from moving; but I wish to know if the right hon. Gentleman will introduce clauses for the purpose of cheapening the procedure under the Act in the direction of the Instruction I had intended to move, which Instruction was to the effect that in case of compulsory purchase now extra allowance should be made; and also clauses to provide that the Local Authorities shall have more freedom as to the extent of the land they may require for the purpose of allotments. Will the Government introduce clauses of that nature now, or will they re-commit the Bill at a later period, with the view of inserting clauses to cover those purposes?

The very fact of the hon. Gentleman being in order in moving an Instruction to the Committee will show that, unless such an Instruction had been agreed to, neither the Government nor any individual Member could possibly introduce such clauses. Therefore, whatever may be the view of the Government they would be unable to take the course suggested by the hon. Member.

said: The progress of measures now before the House is not so rapid as to afford the slightest chance of a Bill dealing with the questions raised by the hon. Member becoming law, or even to justify its introduction.

I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the statement which appears in the public Press to-day in regard to the Whitsuntide holidays is correct?

No, Sir; there is no foundation whatever for it.

I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question with reference to the late Sitting on Monday when the House did not rise till a quarter past 1 o'clock this morning. The Votes and Proceedings of Friday's Sitting set forth that "it being after 1 o'clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put." Last night, however, considerably after 1 o'clock, and after the Money Bill exempted from the operation of the Standing Order had been disposed of, the House proceeded to deal with between 60 and 70 Orders of the Day. It was a great inconvenience to hon. Members to be kept after 1 o'clock, while the Orders of the Day were being hurriedly gone through, in order to prevent possible mischief in consequence of some Bill being run through without the knowledge and concurrence of the House; and I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will propose such a verbal alteration in the Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House as will prevent any business being taken after 1 o'clock, except such business as either by Standing Order or Resolution of the House can be taken after that hour?

It is somewhat unusual to put a question relating to the Orders and Rules of the House without notice; but in reply to the question of the right hon. Gentleman I have to say that the course pursued at an early hour this morning was, in the first place, for the convenience of the House; and, in the second place, in accordance with the Standing Orders, which provide that after any business exempted from the operation of this Resolution (that is the 12 o'clock Rule) is disposed of, the remaining business of the Sitting shall be dealt with according to the provisions applicable to business taken after 12 o'clock; and it is within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that business taken after 12 o'clock at an ordinary Sitting is gone through for the convenience of the House, and Orders are postponed or, if no objection is made, they are taken, and when the Orders are gone through the adjournment is moved. That was the course pursued this morning, and I think it was one which was for the convenience of the House. I will, however, consider the question, and if there appears to be any general desire on the part of the House that a change should be made, I will see what course can be adopted.

I wish to explain that I thought the matter so important that I wished to call attention to it without loss of time, and had no opportunity of giving notice.

I had intended to ask the Postmaster General whether there would be any objection to grant a separate General Post Office, distinct from the Liverpool Post Office, to the Borough County of Bootle, in Lancashire, which has 54,000 inhabitants at the present time and is increasing; such change of postal arrangements being desired by many persons residing there; but at the request of the right hon. Gentleman I beg to postpone the question until Thursday.

I beg to move, in line 12, page 1, after "parish," to insert "not being within the limits of a borough as defined by The Municipal Corporation Act, 1882.' "I think the Amendment is one of considerable importance, its object being to restrict the operation of the Bill within a borough. Under the principal Act the Sanitary Authority of any district, on the representation of six electors, are placed under an obligation to provide allotments, and under the measure now before the House, on the default of such Sanitary Authority, an appeal is con-ceded to the County Council of the county. It is against this broad and indiscriminate appeal that I take objection. I quite admit the view put before the House by the President of the Local Government Board on Friday, that this Bill does not open up the general question of allotments. It is merely an Amendment Act introduced with the intention of giving greater efficiency to the provisions of the original Bill; and I submit that the Amendment which I am moving does not in any way frustrate the design of the Government to render the original Act more efficient. My object is not to exclude boroughs from the benefits of the principal Act, but simply to exclude them from what I conceive to be the disadvantage of the appeal instituted by the Bill. I will not deal with the question of the county boroughs. I have been given to understand that the Government are disposed to agree to another Amendment on the Paper excluding the county boroughs from the operation of the Bill. I propose, therefore, to confine my remarks to the Amendment, so far as it affects the non-county boroughs. I do not move it in any spirit of hostility to the Government, because I fail to see that there is any Party question involved in the matter, and I hope and expect to receive support from both sides of the House, and especially from those who are the friends of municipal government. I wish the Committee thoroughly to understand that I have no intention of excluding the boroughs from the benefit of the principal Act. I do not object to an appeal from the Sanitary Authority to the-County Council elected on a proper basis, but I am opposed to an appeal from the Municipal Council to the County Council elected on identically the same franchise and with no higher sanction than the authority from which the appeal is made. I fail to see any reason whatever for the institution of an appeal of any sort from the decision of the Town Councils. They are an authority above suspicion. and if they prove recalcitrant and refuse to comply with the wishes of the people in regard to making provision for allotments, the remedy is a very simple one, and will be in operation on every 1st of November, when one-third of the Town Council has to submit itself for reelection. Therefore, a Court of Appeal is already established, namely, the electors themselves. If it is necessary to institute an appeal, I venture to think that it ought not to be to any authority more remote from the place concerned and the parties interested than the Town Council itself. No authority can be in more intimate touch with a place and with those concerned than the electors and the representatives of the ratepayers in the Town Council, and I think there could not be a better appeal than to the constituency itself, which has all the responsibility of the matter, knows its own mind, and is supposed to know its own business. There is no appeal from this House to the House of Lords or to the Crown; but the appeal is back again to the people, who are the source of the power and the authority of the House. I object to an appeal from an authority which has full cognisance of the affairs of the town, and maintain that in all cases it should be to the electors rather than from them. If a Court of Appeal is to be instituted, why should it be to the County Council, which has no higher sanction than the Town Council, and which must, from the very nature of the case, be less fitted for the consideration of the question of allotments than the Town Council can be? It is less in touch with the electors and must know less about the matter than those who live on the spot. It may be urged that the Town Council, according to the machinery of the Bill, will be represented in the County Council, which is to adjudicate in the matter. But the Town Council is only very fractionally represented. Take the case of the West Riding of Yorkshire. The County Council consists of 120 members; but by the machinery of this Bill the Committee will consist of not more than one-fourth, or 30 members, and the two solitary representatives of any particular borough will constitute a very fractional part of that Committee, and they may, individually, be directly opposed to the expressed will of the Town Council itself. Then, again, the representatives will be elected for county and not for local purposes. It may be urged that the County Council will not rush to a conclusion in these matters, but will institute an inquiry on the spot, and will be guided by the evidence brought before them. In reply to that, I say that the very necessity for inquiry is condemnatory of the principle laid down in the Bill. The Town Council would have no need for inquiry, because they would know all the concerns of the place and every interest that affected the ratepayers. Therefore, I submit that the arrangements and machinery of the Bill will lead to the all-important factor of local knowledge and local opinion being swamped by the opinion and views of those who are comparative strangers to the interests of the district concerned. I further maintain that if the opinion of the County Council is opposed to that of the borough it will, if put in force, engender a great deal of friction. The opinion of the County Council cannot be operative except in a case where it is opposed to that of the Town Council, and in the very nature of the case it would be a gratuitous affront to the Town Council and a reflection upon its judgment. What justification is there, I would ask, for making these offensive proposals? The Town Councils in the past have proved themselves equal to all the demands which have been made upon them and their duties have been numerous and multifarious—some of them vastly more important than questions which are now sought to be taken out of their hands. Municipal Government is acknowledged on all sides to be the best form of Local Government, and it has proved itself effective both in small and large matters. I believe that the institution of an appeal from the Town Council to the County Council will establish a bad precedent and one that will be not only dangerous but insidious, leading to greater development on the same lines in the future. If we once acknowledge the right of the County Council to interfere in the local matters of a borough, it will end in the Town Council being completely overshadowed by the supposed greater importance of the County Council. What will the consequence be to the Town Council itself? It will be shorn of its powers and necessarily weakened. It will become a subsidiary body and be converted into a consultative Committee from whose judgment an appeal may be made to the better judgment of the County Council. That will be a heavy blow to the efficiency and independence of the Town Councils generally, and the result will necessarily be that the best men in the borough will refuse to serve on the Town Council, when they feel that all influence is withdrawn for them. I think that we cannot be too careful not to allow anything to pass this House in the shape of legislation which will tamper with our Municipal Government—an institution which has done more than anything else to train the people of this country in the art of self-government—an institution which has been encouraged and fostered by past legislation, and which has proved worthy of the confidence reposed in it. It will be a blow not only unseemly, but premature. It will constitute an appeal from an old authority which has been tried for many centuries to one which has not yet proved itself worthy of confidence, an authority yet untried and which has yet to win its spurs. Public opinion will? effect every remedy that is necessary, because on the 1st of November in every year one-third of the Town Council must be re-elected. If the Town Councillors are opposed to public opinion, public opinion will know how to bring its influence to bear upon them. Then, again, the question of time may be urged in this case—that it may take a long time to bring round the Town Councils to a knowledge of their duties and a desire to perform them. The proposal, however, as it originally stood in the Bill, has been considerably altered by the President of the Local Government Board. Whereas time was to have been given, now, in the case of opposition by the Town Council, the affair is to be taken wholly out of their hands, and put into those of the County Authority. Therefore, as the Bill stands, it is even worse than it was when originally drafted. If an appeal from the Town Council is to be given to the County Council, we shall be adopting the principle of an untried authority, possessing a less intimate knowledge of the locality, usurping the power of the Local Authority, spending the money and pledging the credit of the authority which has been specially appointed to administer the local affairs of the district. That is both a dangerous and an un-Constitutional principle; and a proposal not only arbitrary, but one which casts doubt upon the wisdom and the sense of responsibility possessed by the Town Councils. Yet that is the view which the right hon. Gentleman has taken of the Town Councils, which he says have not in the past performed their duties satisfactorily.

I have no desire to interrupt the hon. Member, but I did not make any statement of the kind.

I am glad to find that I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman.

What took place was this: An hon. Gentleman on the opposite side urged that Boards of Guardians had not performed their sanitary duties in a satisfactory manner, and drew from that fact the conclusion that the Boards of Guardians ought not to be entrusted with the administration of this Act. In reply to that assertion, I said that no doubt there had been Boards of Guardians which had not administered satisfactorily the powers conferred upon them, and I added that there were also Municipal Authorities which had not performed their duties satisfactorily.

That is exactly what I said.

I was not referring to the administration of the Allotments Act at all, but to ordinary sanitary administration—water, drainage, and so on.

I naturally thought that the application of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks were to the Bill before the House.

That was not so.

I do not propose to deal with the county boroughs in the matter. They are quite capable of taking care of themselves. There are 226 non-county boroughs, and I have addressed a communication to each one of them in regard to this Bill. I have received replies in 160 cases. In 124 of these, Town Clerks report that no application for allotments has been made under the original Act. But in 36 cases such application has been made. In 20 allot- ments have been provided, leaving only 16 to be accounted for. Of these 16, four have the matter at the present moment under consideration, and are awaiting further information on the subject. Of the remaining 12, Abingdon has not put the principal Act in force because there are plenty of allotments already available; Bewdley did not put it in force because land is already provided; in Buckingham the Town Council hesitate to take compulsory powers because voluntary measures have not yet been exhausted; in Jarrow the matter has been carefully considered, but it is found that land cannot be provided, except at too costly a rate; in Louth there have been a considerable number of applicants, but they refuse to give a market value for the allotments they desire to have; in Lyme Regis considerable difficulty has been found in securing land at a sufficiently low rent to make the Act workable; in Newbury the matter has been postponed; in Tenterdon compulsory powers have not been exercised, and landowners have not yet offered their land; in Tunbridge Wells the Act would have been put in force, but it was found that the only land available is at too great a distance from the cottages occupied by the applicants; in Weymouth an advertisement was inserted in a local newspaper, resulting in 100 applications, but it was found that the applicants were not disposed to pay a price which would cover the cost of acquiring the land and administering the Act; at Wokingham the same remarks apply; and in the case of Workington the Act has not been put in force because the applicants wore found not to be bond fide labourers, but a class for whom the Act was never intended. I maintain that these oases show that the principal Act has been put in force wherever it was possible, consistent with the interests of the locality, and that the Municipal Authorities have not shown any spirit of opposition to the working of the Act. I leave the case now in the hands of the Committee, and I hope that the President of the Local Government Board will see his way to leave the question an open one, so that Members may discuss it and vote upon it without feeling themselves trammelled by Party ties.

A similar Amendment stands on the Paper in my name, and I therefore beg to second the proposal of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Oldroyd). In doing so I hope I may appeal to the President of the Local Government Board to have regard to the wishes of a very large portion of the House upon this subject. Almost without exception the feeling in the Municipalities is extremely strong and unanimous, and I believe that my right hon. Friend will both serve the State and the interests of his own Party if he will consent to recognise the prevalence of that feeling. I am quite sure that if we are compelled to divide upon the question there are many of us who will have regard to old municipal feelings— which are even older than Party feelings. As far as the county boroughs are concerned, the right hon. Gentleman has intimated to me that if the Bill is doubtful as to their inclusion in this clause a new section will be inserted to make it clear that there is no intention of establishing an appeal from the county boroughs to the County Councils. I hope that concession will not be limited to the county boroughs. I think there are the strongest reasons for extending it to the non-county boroughs. It is a distinct innovation to give an appeal from one representative body to another, especially when the latter is a collateral representative body. I do not hesitate to say that if the boroughs have to choose between an appeal to a Public Department and an appeal to a collateral tribunal of a similarly representative character to their own, they will choose the former. If I wanted to illustrate the strength and universality of the feeling in this matter I could not do better than refer the right hon. Gentleman to his own Transfer of Powers Bill of last Session, which encountered so much opposition because it was based on similar lines to the present proposal. The clause would have a tendency to make an inroad on the sense of responsibility of Town Councils. It must be remembered that the responsibility of these Councils has been exercised by them for a very long period—many of them have existed for centuries. The County Councils, much as we esteem them, are but the creations of yesterday, and have not that experience, that prestige, and that responsibility which attaches to the Town Councils. My second objection to the clause is that this is a distinctly local question, and that it is a matter to be dealt with in small areas and by communities themselves on the spot. What are the questions on which Local Bodies are called upon to act in this matter? The first is, whether there is a need of allotments; and the second is, can they be obtained on voluntary and reasonable terms? Surely these are essentially local questions. Who can know better than those who reside in the locality whether there is a need of allotments and how they can best be obtained? I hope our action on this point will not be misinterpreted. The more people we can associate with an interest in the land the better for those principles we support on this side of the House. It may be information to this House that the best illustration of the application of the allotments principle in this country is the case of the City of Nottingham. I know of no instance in which a progressive Municipality has done so much in various directions, and especially in the direction of providing allotments close to the floors of the people. I ask whether, if the wishes of the labourers are overlooked by their own representative body, it can be expected that they will appeal to a distant tribunal? If they do and are successful, there will be great friction; and whether they are successful or not there will be great feeling. I believe the feeling against this proposal is not confined merely to the boroughs. You will, I think, find it expressed even by those representatives who represent county constituencies. They feel that if the County Councils are to be called upon to interfere in a number of local matters, the chief reasons for their establishment will be jeopardised. I can quite understand that new bodies, which are themselves on their trial, which so far have succeeded admirably, and which have a great deal to do in the future, should say in this matter "Save us from our friends." I hope this demand will not be persisted in, and that the Government will see their way to assent to the Amendment.

I hope the Committee will not be carried away by the two very able speeches which have just been delivered so as to overlook the very serious disadvantages this Amendment, if adopted, will produce all over the country. I think there is a general agreement that we should not spend much time in discussing the case of the county boroughs, because they have been already left outside the present county system, and it would be absurd to include them in it under this Bill. But with regard to the small boroughs the case is entirely different. There are at present over 200 of these boroughs which are fairly represented according to population in the County Councils. At least half of them have a population of less than 10,000, whilst 72 have a population of under 5,000, and 14 of under 2,000. The proposal is, therefore, to exclude from the operation of the Bill a large number of towns with extremely small populations, and which, by the deliberate judgment of the House two years ago, have been included in the county system for all purposes, whilst at the same time leaving within the operation of the measure a large number of towns of infinitely more importance in point of population. There are no less than 34 sanitary districts with a population of over 20,000, and these are not touched by the Amendment. I wish briefly to call attention to the extraordinary anomaly that will be produced in every county if the Amendment be carried. In Glamorgan, for instance, I find there are Local Government districts with populations of 33,000, 48,000, and 55,000 respectively. These would be included within the operation of the Bill. On the other hand, there are two boroughs with populations of less than 5,000, which, under the Amendment, would be excluded from its operation. Almost as great anomalies would be produced in every county in England and Wales. This Amendment, if carried, will be taken as a precedent in the future for excluding the non-county boroughs from almost every new proposal giving fresh powers to the County Councils. Everyone familiar with the working of the County Councils must admit that the concession made two years ago by the Government in excluding the large boroughs from the county system has been a very serious blow to the administration of county government, and has crippled it to a very considerable extent by taking out of counties like Lancashire a large number of their most important towns. I trust the Government are not prepared to carry that principle further. There is no danger of the boroughs being unfairly treated. We are always anxious to get as many representatives of the boroughs on the County Councils as possible, and under Clause 4 of this Bill the boroughs will always be very largely represented on the Allotments Committee of the Council. I beg to propose the Amendment of which I have given notice.

As a Member representing a county constituency in which there is one very small borough, I wish to support the original Amendment. If you exclude municipalities from this Bill, it seems to me you will carry out the principle that the people who live in the localities should be called upon to deal with matters which affect the localities. I know I am speaking the opinion of my -constituents when I say they heartily support this proposition to exclude the municipalities for the operation of the clause.

As a Representative of one of the boroughs which at present are included in this Bill, I wish most earnestly to press on the attention of the Government the extreme irritation that will be caused should the measure become law in its present form. The hon. Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) has founded his argument mainly on the population of the different boroughs. It seems to me that, besides population, he ought also to look at the prestige of and the good work done in the past by Municipal Authorities. This is by no means a Party question. It seems to me to be as fully a Conservative as a Liberal policy to support institutions which have been in existence for a long time and have carried out the duties imposed upon them in an efficient and satisfactory manner.

Hon. Members who oppose this clause argue as if it would interfere with the working of our Municipal Bodies. As I understand it, it goes no farther than to establish a Court of Appeal in case Local Authorities do not endeavour to carry out the Act. If the work of the County Councils is to be limited to the subjects which the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. H. Gardner) seems to suggest, namely, only those matters which affect the whole county, I think the County Councils will have very little work to do. I quite concur in the suggestion that the self-contained municipalities should not be included in the clause. I would point out, however, that the proposition contained in the clause is an advance on real municipal life. The hon. Member for Islington (Sir A. Rollit) admitted that there must be a Court of Appeal even for Municipal Bodies on certain matters. The proposal now is that, instead of having that appeal to a Central Body, we should have it to a Local Body. That is decentralisation, and follows, as I contend, strictly municipal lines. If the Amendment be carried, the result will be that in large districts, with populations of 10,000, 15,000, or 20,000, the agricultural labourers will have a right of appeal if the authorities refuse to put the measure in operation, whilst in districts with populations of, perhaps, 3,000, 4,000, or 5,000, the labourers will be able to obtain no benefit whatever under the Bill if the Local Authorities refuse to Act. As to the opposition to the proposal to give this work to the County Councils, I would remind the House that we have been crying out continually, "What are we going to give the County Councils to do?" For my own part, I cannot fancy that the County Council would be the most effectual Court of Appeal in the small rural boroughs; but what I mainly look to is the supply of allotments to the agricultural labourers. If the Amendment be carried, and if all these small boroughs—many of them not larger than mere agricultural villages—are to choose whether or not they are to put the Act in force, the labourers who live in them and who, although a minority, are a large minority, will derive no benefit from this legislation. Therefore, while there is ample ground on municipal lines for excluding the larger boroughs which are self contained, and are properly represented in the Town Councils, there is every reason on the principles of municipal government why the small boroughs should have a right of appeal to the County Councils for the districts of which their localities form part, though an exceedingly small part as compared with the county areas themselves. Therefore, in the interests of the labourers who would have no benefit under the Act if the Government decline as they are doing to take action— because I know of several cases in which action has been indefinitely postponed —I say they might as well have no Allotments Act at all as be denied the right of appeal. Where the Act is carried out there is no hardship, because, if the Local Authorities carry out the Act, no appeal is necessary; but will anyone say that if they decline to put the Act in force these poor men should have no means of ensuring that it should be enforced?

I would suggest that we are now discussing a larger question than would at first sight appear. Two hon. Members who have spoken in favour of this proposal from this side of the House have suggested a feature in the municipal government of the smaller towns which I think will surprise the residents in those places when they see the suggestion in print to-morrow morning. I understood one hon. Gentleman to say that in order to promote the harmonious municipal life of the counties, the municipal life of the towns should be merged and sunk in the counties. I ask, is that proposal one which at all follows the linos of municipal life as it now exists among us? It appears to me that the proposal is that in every Act of Parliament which confers a possible benefit on the residents in the towns there ought to be an appeal to the County Council; that in the case of Free Libraries where a Free Library is refused by the ratepayers there ought to be, according to the argument we have heard, an appeal to the County Council, and that the same principle should apply in the case of baths and wash-houses and other establishments of a like kind, which are not at present under the initiative of the Corporations. I trust the Committee will pause before sanctioning such a suggestion as this. To my mind, the reasonable view of this matter is that the provisions in relation to this subject, as they appear in this Bill, are simply attributable to a mistake in the drafting of the measure, and that it was certainly not intended by Her Majesty's Government that they should bear the construction put upon them; but this, I think, will be seen if hon. Members have regard to the discussions that have previously taken place on this matter. There has not been a single charge made against any Municipality in reference to this question, and I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board affirms this. Surely, then, we have a right to ask that some strong case should be made out for the new legislation now proposed. I claim that, in fairness to the boroughs we represent and to the Governing Bodies of the counties, this question ought to have been introduced in a very different manner, while in the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill not a word was said regarding this proposal. Perhaps some of us are to blame for this, but it never entered my mind to suppose that the Bill intended to set up an appeal from the Corporations to the County Councils. I thought the Bill went completely in a contrary direction, and never supposed it contained provisions of this nature. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wiltshire stated that the failure of the Allotments Act has been due to the want of a Court of Appeal from the Boards of Guardians, and the President of the Local Government Board said, in speaking on the Second Reading, that an appeal to the County Councils was justifiable only on the ground that that body was elected on a broad franchise, which the Sanitary Authority was not. Consequently, both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member I have quoted grounded the whole of their case on the special circumstances of the difference between the franchise on which Boards of Guardians and County Councils were elected. Now, Sir, I would venture to ask, is it conceivable that a measure which is viewed with great apprehension on the part of the boroughs should work well? We are abolishing dual ownership in Ireland because of the friction it creates between landlord and tenant, and to propose a dual arrangement between the Borough Authorities and County Councils is to propose a scheme which I do not think would work, and which I cannot but regard as a most extraordinary one. I think that in every way this is a most undesirable proposition, and I trust that Her Majesty's Government do not intend seriously to press it upon us. No case whatever has, in my opinion, been made out for so great a change, and I trust the Committee will seriously pause before anything is done in the direction proposed.

I think we are bound to recognise the non- Party tone of the hon. Member who has moved the Amendment, and I must say that, in my judgment, this is a non-Party question. All we are anxious to do is to advance a mode of acquiring allotments in a reasonable and proper way. It seems to me that, with regard to an appeal from the Municipal Borough Authorities, that is an entirely new question, and might well be deferred until the County Councils themselves have had the opportunity of discussing the view they may take of it. As far as I know, the question is one which has never yet been submitted to the County Councils for their opinion, and I should be only too glad if the question were deferred until that opinion can be taken. Another point on which I feel strongly is that the proposal is one which may possibly give rise to a considerable amount of friction. Though the County Council over which I preside consists of various component parts, it works in the most harmonious manner. Many of the Members come from the large boroughs, being Town Councillors. But I cannot help fearing that if this proposal were carried out, it would lead to friction, where harmony now prevails, and I respectfully urge the Government to pause before proceeding further. I believe the feeling of the municipal boroughs is unanimously against the proposed Court of Appeal; and I believe the Government would certainly not wish to disregard the opinion of the large municipal boroughs. In view of the friction that would be created, and in view of the fact that the matter has not been submitted to the County Councillors themselves. I would ask the Government to consider the representations that have been made.

My hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding has had so much experience in connection with the administration of county affairs, and is one who always forms a judgment well deserving consideration on all matters on which he addresses the House, that I am sure his appeal must naturally have very great weight with the Government. Certainly it is the very last thing to be desired that any action of ours should create any friction between the members for the boroughs and the Representatives of the rural parts of the counties on the County Councils So far as our information goes, we have every reason to believe that these two elements on the County Councils at present work harmoniously and agreeably; and certainly it would be a matter of great regret to us if we disturbed by our action that state of things. The Government are entirely at one with hon. Members in their appreciation of the manner in which Municipal Corporations have fulfilled their duties, and I think the fact that the Government took the pattern of the Municipal Corporation as the ground work of their Local Government Reform, is sufficient guarantee that the proposals of the Government cannot be, and are not, intended, to use the word of an hon. Member opposite, to affront the Municipal Corporations. The object the Government had in applying this Bill to the towns situated in the counties was to secure a regular and organised administration throughout the country, upon lines similar to those which we hoped would be adopted for all matters in which town and country are concerned. We desire to transfer to an elective body, on which all the Local Authorities within the county would be represented, the powers which are at present in the hands of the Central Department. The main object of the Local Government Act was decentralisation. As the House is aware, boroughs in the exercise of the powers conferred upon them are not altogether independent. If they fail in the performance of their duties, the Local Government Board can apply to the High Court for a mandamus compelling them to fulfil those duties. It is perfectly certain that the Local Government Board is not the authority to determine appeals, and we thought the County Council was exactly the kind of body to discharge that duty. But it is perfectly obvious, from what has taken place to-day, that this proposal is regarded with the greatest amount of jealousy by the Municipal Corporations, and the objection is largely supported by representatives of the rural parts of the counties on the County Councils. It is a view which, obviously, the Government cannot disregard. I think what has transpired inflicts a serious blow on the whole plan of Local Self-Government in this country. While I acknowledge, so far as this very question is concerned, that it stands on a somewhat different footing to other matters which the House might possibly have to consider in connection with Local administration and county administration, yet, by the House assenting to the proposal now before the Committee, I feel that it will do much to weaken the hands of the Government in transferring to the County Councils the various powers and duties which at one time they proposed or hoped to transfer. My hon. Friend who has moved an Amendment to the Amendment will have gathered that his proposal is one not likely to find acceptance. I would represent to him, therefore, the advisability of withdrawing his Amendment, and allowing the Committee to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dewsbury. I do not wish to conceal that I am suggesting something which I greatly regret. But I hope when the County Councils have been longer in existence, and when the administration of the powers they possess has created more confidence in them, the feeling of the municipalities will change. After the expression of opinion from all parts of the House, I think my hon. Friend would do well to withdraw his Amendment and to allow the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dewsbury to pass.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that by the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dewsbury a serious blow will be dealt to Local Self Government in this country; but I do not think the fault, if fault it be, is to be attributed to the step which the right hon. Gentleman is now taking; rather I think it is due to the form of his Bill to establish a Court of Appeal. Although in the marginal note to the clause the word "appeal" is used, I should say that the power which the Bill gives the County Council in certain circumstances is the power to over-ride the decision of the Local Authorities. That is rather more than an appeal. The Bill, in its original form, was to make the County Council the Court of Appeal in the event of the Local Authority not carrying out the Act; but the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has on the Paper proposes to give the County Council power to over-ride the decision of the borough, and it is itself to carry out the decision. Nobody will regard me as unwatchful of any attempt by the boroughs to diminish the power and authority of the County Councils. In Committee, on the Local Government Bill, I endeavoured to resist, as far as possible, what seemed to be encroachments on the rights conferred upon them. Yet I join in the appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for East Somerset not to press this point. After all it is a small matter. Questions may arise on which it will be necessary to maintain the powers and rights of the County Councils. I doubt whether this is a matter sufficiently large to be worth fighting for. County Councils, I think, do not feel strongly on this point. It is important that borough and county members of County Councils should continue to work well together, as happily they do, as the hon. Member for Ripon has explained. There is some danger, if a clause of this kind is passed, of causing friction between the county and the borough members in reference to small matters. To my mind this Bill is scarcely of the slightest importance. I do not think it will have much effect, and I certainly do not think that in bringing in County Councils to over-ride the decisions of the boroughs in respect to these allotments you would accomplish anything at all. I would join in the appeal to the hon. Member for East Somerset not to press his Amendment to the Amendment.

I desire to point out the extraordinary state of things which will result in some counties if the Amendment is accepted as it stands. The smallest municipality will be free from appeal to the County Council, while the largest Local Board district will still be subject to appeal. In my own County of Devonshire, Torquay, which has a population of something like 40,000, is under a Local Board, and if the Amendment is accepted, there will be on the question of allotments an appeal from the Local Board to the County Council. The same thing will happen at Stonehouse, which has a considerable urban population: and, on the other hand, there is in another part of the same county a small municipality which is joined with seven other parishes to make up a sufficient area for the election of a County Councillor, and that municipality will be free from appeal. I venture to submit to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Local Government Board that if he accepts the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Oldroyd), he ought to extend it to places which have urban districts under Local Boards. I would further suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the operation of the Amendment should be limited in both cases to places with a population of 10,000 and upwards.

I shall feel inclined to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Somerset if it is pressed to a Division. Some of the larger municipalities, no doubt, could be trusted—perhaps better than the County Councils to give an opinion in these matters, but, under the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dewsbury, it seems to me that some of the smaller boroughs would refuse to listen to the demands of the labourers, who would be absolutely without appeal at all. Under the Amendment large Local Boards, representing a population of 17,000, could be compelled to give the labourers allotments, whilst small municipalities, representing no more than 2,000 people, could ride rough-shod over the petitioners.

I think that in discussing this matter we ought to remember that the Franchise is very different in Local Board districts and municipal districts. We regard the whole of the difficulty that has arisen to-day as due to the fact that the Government have not carried out their promise to give us District Councils. Until we have such bodies the Allotments Act will never be administered to the satisfaction of the labourers; but as to the Amendments before us, it must be borne in mind that, in the case of a municipality, if a Town Councillor does not respond to the wishes of the labourers, though they be a small minority in the constituency, they have the means, at election time, of testifying their disapproval of his conduct by their votes—and the desires of a minority, such as these labourers, are very likely to be supported by the bulk of the electors. The case of Torquay has been quoted, but I protest against singling out an instance of a town which has been so backward that, although it has 40,000 inhabitants, it has not yet obtained a charter. Take an instance, in Warwickshire, there we have three boroughs in close proximity—Coventry, Warwick, and Leamington. Two old boroughs and a modern one. Why should Coventry, as a county borough, be independent. but the ancient borough of Warwick and the modern borough of Leamington be made subservient to the County Council? Is there any reason why there should be an appeal against their decision in this matter? I do not think so, but, on the contrary, I think that the more responsibility you place on the shoulders of such municipalities the better will they do their work. It is because I believe that small boroughs are able to do their work well, and that. under the pressure of public opinion, they will do it well, that I support the Motion of the hon. Member for Dewsbury. The boroughs, as has been shown in the course of this Debate, have responded very satisfactorily to the demands made upon them by labourers under the Allotments Act— much more satisfactorily than the Rural Sanitary Authorities—and that being the case, I think they should be saved from the degrading review of the County Councils.

I hope that, as the Government have stated their intention to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Dewsbury, the hon. Member for East Somerset will be content to withdraw his Amendment. On the whole that seems to be the course which will best forward the interests of allotments, and the Committee may proceed then to make some further progress with the Bill.

After the appeal, made to me by both Front Benches, I should not be justified in putting the House to the trouble of a Division; but in withdrawing my Amendment I would ask the Government whether, at some future stage of the Bill, they could not take some step such as was suggested by my noble Friend (Lord Ebrington), for classifying the Local Authorities in a more satisfactory manner.

I attach some importance to the proposal made by my noble Friend the Member for Devonshire as to Local Boards, and I would suggest to the Government that as the Bill is confessedly a temporary measure it should be confined to rural parishes. I can bear testimony from experience in my own Division as to the fitness of Local Boards to deal with the Act.

I beg to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in my name, namely Clause 2, Page 1, line 12, leave out "six," and insert "two." On the Second Reading of the Bill, I pointed out that one of the difficulties we experienced in obtaining a proper administration of the Act, was that labourers in many parts of the country were afraid to take the initial step for obtaining allotments, lest they should offend the members of the Rural Sanitary Authorities, frequently including, as those bodies did, their own employers. It is surprising on looking down the list of such Public Bodiesas have not put the Act in motion to find what a large proportion of them are Rural Sanitary Authorities. The farmers are, in many cases, opposed to their labourers having allotments, and the labourers are afraid very often to go before the body largely composed of the farmers, to request them to put the Act in force. Well, if it is hard for six labourers to sign the original application, it will be doubly hard for them to sign an appeal against the Local Authority. The labourer ought to be able to trust not to generosity or to patronage but to his rights under the law, and he ought to be able to enforce those rights without being-obliged to get five other persons to support him. I move my Amendment with the object of limiting, as far as possible, the odium which will necessarily attach to those labourers who seek to put the law into force in opposition to an unwilling authority.

The Government cannot accept the hon. Member's Amendment which, I may say, I scarcely think he is serious in moving. It is absurd in these days to talk about labourers being afraid of enforcing their rights or of signing a requisition. It is a remarkable fact that it is only hon. Members opposite to whom labourers have expressed any fear that they will run a risk of losing their places or incurring any odium by signing such a requisition. I do not think that the County Councils ought to be set in motion under this measure unless there is a reasonable representation on the part of the district that there has been a failure to take action on the part of the Local Authorities. The principle here is the same as that in the original Act, and to that I am afraid we must adhere.

I give the hon. Gentleman full credit for sincerity when he says he is not aware there is any sense of intimidation amongst the labourers of the country.

I did not say that.

Amongst those with whom he is personally acquainted. If hon. Members opposite have not received communications from labourers expressing the fear they have to sign requisitions, it only shows that the labourers are unwilling to explain their grievances to Conservative Representatives. What is the position of the men who appeal in this case? They have already been, by the action of the Government, brought before the Guardians, and received a refusal from the Guardians. The people who are interested in getting allotments have made themselves obnoxious to a powerful body of men on whom very generally they depend for a livelihood, and, therefore, I submit my hon. Friend is right in suggesting that a smaller number of persons should be entitled to make this representation to the County Council. If the Government do not yield on this point, I trust my hon. Friend will press his Amendment to a Division.

The Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Long) has not given us any reason why the number should be "six;" he has only said he does not see any reason why the number should be "two." There would be no difficulty in many parishes in getting six men to sign, but three or four of the six Would assuredly suffer for the action they had taken. This is a small point after all, one in which the Government might very well give way. If there is prima facie evidence by two people, surely that is enough.

I should like to put a practical point before the President of the Local Government Board. The hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division (Sir W. Foster) thinks, as I do, there will be more difficulty in getting six signatures to a representation complaining of the action of the Sanitary Authorities than there would be in the original case—in getting six ratepayers merely to sign a representation that allotments are required. I admit that, in many cases, there would be no difficulty in getting six men to sign a re- presentation to the Sanitary Authority that allotments are required. That is a very simple matter, but it is a totally different matter when you come to complain of the action of the authority. I think we made a mistake in the original Allotments Act in not reducing-the number. When I moved an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill last Friday, I called attention to the large number of very small parishes, and I was told by Gentlemen opposite that it would be an insult to small parishes to join them to larger parishes. It is quite clear that, in a great number of parishes, it is impossible to get six ratepayers to sign a representation to the Sanitary Authority, because there are not six ratepayers in the parish. The Secretary to the Local Government Board laughs, but from a Return which one of the officials of the Local Government Board was good enough to provide me with. I find that in 1881 there were 331 parishes in England and Wales, the population of which did not exceed 25, and it may fairly be assumed that only one-fourth or one-fifth of these were ratepayers. There wore 852 parishes in which the population was under 50, that means where there were only 12 ratepayers, and surely every one can see there must be considerable difficulty where there are only 12, and still more where there are only six, ratepayers in getting six ratepayers to sign a representation, firstly that they require allotments, and secondly complaining of the Sanitary Authority for not providing them with allotments, If there is only one man who requires an allotment, surely it is the intention of the Allotment Act that he should have just as great a right to have the Act put, in force as a large number of men.

I would ask the Government to accept a verbal Amendment to line 17. As the clause reads "such persons may petition the County Council;" well, of course they can do this, any person may petition the County Council, and it does not require an Act of Parliament to declare that. I submit that the word "if" should be inserted after the word allotment; "if such persons petition the County Council" and so on to the end of the clause "the County Council shall proceed, etc., as hereinafter mentioned." It makes it mandatory instead of permissive.

I beg-to say I would not have challenged a Division but for the discourtesy of Members of the Government, who refused to make any answer when the Amendment was moved.

Order, order!

On behalf of the right hon. Member for Derby I desire to move the omission of the words. From "on," in line 22, to "petition," in line 23.

The hon. Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) has given notice of a similar Amendment, the omission of these and other words, for the purpose of making the clause apply so that the County Council shall act at once; perhaps it would be better to allow the hon. Member for East Somerset to move his Amendment, which embraces the omission the right hon. Gentleman desires to make, and then when we arrive at the proper point the consequent Amendment to line 23 may be moved.

This Amendment stands in intimate relation to the proposed Amendment to line 23 to insert the words "within two months after the receipt of such petition." I think it best to move the Amendment, that the Government may express their intention as to the course they will take.

As a matter of convenience the hon. Member may raise his Amendment on the Motion to omit these and other words of which the hon. Member for East Somerset has given notice. The omission of words is the preliminary Amendment.

Do I understand that if the hon. Member for East Somerset moves his Amendment my hon. Friend (Mr. Stevenson) can move the insertion of the words suggested by the right hon. Member for Derby? It will be observed that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Somerset goes to the omission of words beyond the omission now proposed.

The operative part of the clause follows, but first it is a question of the omission of the words. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Somerset is accepted these words disappear from the clause, and then will follow the question of inserting other words, as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby.

But the result will be to weaken the effect of the second Amendment.

The word proposed to be inserted should the Committee accept the omission would be "forthwith," having a more immediate effect than the words "within two months." The object of the Amendment as I understand is to make the operation of the clause more immediate, and that is also the object of the hon. Member for East Somerset, and either hon. Gentleman can carry out that object by moving the insertion of words.

There are two objections to that course, and both on the same ground—that the proposed words are vague. There is something explicit about the words "within two months," but there is a vagueness about the word "forthwith," and that also attaches to the phrase "on prima facie evidence being given," which occurs both in the body of the Bill and in the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Somerset.

These words the hon. Member will move to strike out; it is then for the hon. Member to move the insertion of such words as he may desire.

I think, to prevent subsequent misapprehension, I had better move the Amendment now.

The hon. Member can absolutely move the same Amendment subsequently; he is in no way prevented from carrying out his object by postponing it.

Will not that exclude the words "shall cause a local inquiry into the circumstances"?

No; the proposition in the Amendment to line 32 is that there shall be a reference to the Standing-Committee.

The object of my Amendment is the same with that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby—to accelerate procedure. Under the Bill as it stands the petition must first be considered by the Council as a whole, and then referred by order to the Committee: but if my Amendment is adopted, then, as a matter of course, and without delay, it will go first to the Standing Committee, and it will be obvious this will be a saving of time. The Standing-Committee will be called together with more ease and much more quickly than the Council itself.

I do not rise to oppose this but simply to ask a question. I rather gathered from the right hon. Gentleman on Friday that he differed from me in the opinion I expressed that the effect of the operation of the Bill would be, in certain cases, to oust the authority of the Sanitary Authority and substitute that of the County Council for administering all the powers under the Act of 1887. I am not quite sure of the meaning and intention.

The hon. Member is, no doubt, quite right as to the powers with which the application under this Bill is concerned, but should there be any other allotments they would still remain under the administration of the Local Authority. The County Council may, if they think fit, re-transfer the power.

There is an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mid Devon (Mr. Seale-Hayne) in relation to this provision which I should like to move as an Amendment to the Amendment now before the Committee, that is to strike out the word from "provided" to the end of the Amendment.

First, we have to decide on the omission of the words; the Amendment will come in on the words proposed to be inserted.

I have an Amendment to propose which does not, as an alternative course, interfere at all with the Act of 1887, or affect the Bill so far as it is an Appeal Bill. It is only directed to the new face placed upon the Bill by the right hon. Gentleman, when the Bill becomes, as I think I can show, an Administrative Bill of enormous dimensions under circumstances full of difficulty. Originally it was contemplated that this appeal from the Sanitary Authority should be heard, and that the matter should then, if desirable, be referred back to the Sanitary Authority as the Executive. In fact, there would be communications passing, during which the Sanitary Authority under pressure would have time to re-consider its decision. I feel there is likely to be, under this provision, a very large transference of action under the Act of 1887 to County Councils, because, rightly or wrongly, and probably because of much that has been said about them, Rural Sanitary Authorities are heartily sick of the Act. Now, the Amendment must be read in the light of Section 4 of the Bill, and then it will be seen that the County Council is to keep separate accounts, and, in fact, to have all the machinery for administration of the Allotments Act, and to create a vast bureau nominally directed by the Standing Committee of the Council, but only nominally, because it cannot be said that the County Council will know anything about allotments in, it may be, 200 or 300 parishes throughout the country. Therefore, although the Standing Committee will be supposed to bear the brunt of responsibility, really you are going to create under the Act an enormous agency of inspectors, lawyers, valuers, clerks, a long, tortuous, cumbrous machinery, through which I think very little of the wishes of the inhabitants will filter. It must be the view of most hon. Members you are going to create on an immense scale a system of State landlordism or County Council landlordism throughout the country, which, I think the Committee will agree, is uncalled for and unnecessary. The County Council will have to manage allotments, make rules and enforce them, collect rents, and when allotments fall out of occupation the County Council will become occupier. All this will be diffused throughout the country in relation to matters often of very trifling value. I feel very seriously that, by refusing to the inhabitants of a district the management and responsibility to which the people are entitled in reference to a purely local matter, you will keep up a seething mass of dissatisfaction. I know it is said you are to proceed by way of local inquiry, but I know something of these local inquiries. An Inspector goes down to a place altogether strange to him, and he has to collect evidence. The agricultural labourers to whom this gentleman will appear in the guise of a lawyer hold aloof in suspicion, and will have nothing to do with him; he then makes acquaintance with others in the district, is fed mentally and bodily, and returns to concoct a Report for the edification of the County Council. How natural is the alternative! It is only to give the inhabitants of the parish power to agree among themselves. And I believe that such a provision would be operative. I have had a good deal to do with allotments, and I say that this question can only be dealt with properly by those who live in the parish, and who, of course, know whether the land to be utilised for the purpose is suitable or not, who know with whom arrangements can be made, and whom it is useless to approach for the purpose. No mere local inquiry by a Committee appointed by the County Council could extract the necessary information. And, again, the inhabitants of a parish have many advantages for dealing themselves with such a matter. Why, then, cannot they be allowed to do it, with the restriction, of course, that what is done shall be voluntary. I agree that nothing could be more unwise than to give parishes compulsory powers which they are entirely unfit to exercise. Such a policy could only give rise to great difficulties. But I believe there are good prospects of the inhabitants agreeing among themselves, if only the President of the Local Government Board exercises the pressure which he will be enabled to, and I am confident that the result will be to secure general co-operation among the villagers. Supposing the parishes are small, you have good security for the good management of the allotments in the fact that it becomes almost a personal and private affair in which everyone is interested. And suppose that you have only two or three tiny allotments, is it not less rational, is it not less endurable, to put in force the cumbrous machinery which the County Council will employ? I believe that the machinery I have to suggest will prove one of the most successful forms of Local Government. I hold that, in the first place, if you appoint a Committee for a specific purpose you get the work done a thousand times better than if you appoint a body for general purposes and for a definite period; because, if, you find your Committee neglecting its duty, or going outside the limits of the reference to it, you can promptly bring it to book, whereas if your general body is elected for a year, you may have to wait months before you can deal with it, Under the proposal of this Bill you will not enjoy the advantage of local knowledge, nor will the body you appoint be in harmony with the inhabitants of the village. How, then, can you expect the plan to work successfully? My personal experience in the matter of allotments has shown me how very Conservative men are in these matters. Some years ago a body of men applied to me for land for allotment purposes, and I lent it on the sole condition that they should manage it themselves by a committee of allotment holders and allotment workers. For two years I never went near the land; but when at last I did go I found everything in must satisfactory order. One entrance gate was locked, and near the other was posted a notice, which I commend to hon. Members opposite, that "Rents is now due, and must be paid according to Rule 20, or the lots will be forfeited." I found that the plots had been admirably managed by the committee of holders and workers. Now, I think we must all confess that the Act of 1887 has not proved a success. I am sure we are all anxious, both on this side of the House as well as on the opposite side, that this Bill should be a success. We are anxious that its provisions should be taken advantage of; we are desirous to take this opportunity of retrieving the mistake made in 1887. I do not believe that the Government will prevent our utilising the opportunity for so doing. I wish this Bill to meet with general approval throughout the country. I wish the Government to avoid the discredit and danger which must follow from "failure No. 2." I wish the Bill to be on lines which will accord with the general sense of the country. And having this desire I appeal to the Government to accept the suggestions I have put on the Paper.

May I, as a point of order, ask you, Sir, what we are discussing now? I was under the impression that we had not yet reached the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hornsey.

I asked the indulgence of the House to make the remarks I did because the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman now under Debate is inconsistent with the Amendment which I have put down, and if the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment were passed it would be incompetent for me to move mine.

I shall have to put to the Committee, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, the insertion after the word "authority," of the words" in an urban district."

Nobody desires to question my hon. Friend's practical experience in allotment matters, or his bond fide desire to make this Bill satisfactory: but I do not think that he has shown to the House any reason for believing that the Act of 1887 has been a failure. When I find hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have distinguished themselves in connection with this subject by advocating the most extreme views as to the extension of the Local Government, cheering the hon. Member for Hornsey I am led to the conclusion that extremes are, indeed, meeting under this particular Bill. But while hon. Gentlemen opposite advocate the setting up a Parish Council, to be elected by ballot on the principle of one man one vote, and placing in their hands the control of all parochial affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey makes a very different proposal. In his proposal there is no voting by ballot, no one man one vote, and the result of the adoption by the Committee of his suggestion would be, in my judgment, to seriously delay any advance and reform in the system of Parochial or Local Government; because, as the hon. Gentleman must know fall well, one of the greatest difficulties in the way of reform exists in the complexity and number of existing areas, and of the powers they already hold, and the obligations they have already incurred. Now, my hon. Friend's proposal, if adopted, would have this extraordinary result: that it would, in the case of urban districts, transfer the power to the County Council; but in the case of rural districts it would set up a new authority on the old system of election. and would add a new authority to the sufficiently large number of authorities already existing I contend that my hon. Friend has not given the House any reason to believe that a greater prospect of success attends his proposal than that of the Government, which does not add to the existing authorities, and proposes the same machinery for the urban and the rural districts. My hon. Friend has drawn a painful picture of the terrible expenditure incurred under the Act of 1887. And when he says that all admit that Bill to be a failure I am not sure that he speaks for anybody but the hon. Member for Hornsey, at any rate on this side of the House; and I think my hon. Friend can safely leave hon. Members opposite to give expression to their own views. But to return to the question of cost. I should like to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that there are standing in the name of my hon. Friend certain Consequential Amendments; and I think the Committee, after hearing the remarks of my hon. Friend with reference to the cost of working the Act of 1887, will be astonished when they read the last of those consequential Amendments, whereby my hon. Friend proposes that the new authority—

"Shall appoint and may remove at pleasure such officers and servants as shall be necessary for the business of the Committee, …and with the approval of the vestry may appoint reasonable salaries, wages, and allowances for such officers and servants."

If the proposal of my hon. Friend is agreed to the result will be to set up new authorities with power to provide salaries and allowances for the officers whom they may appoint, and this might very well lead to increased expenditure. There are, I hold, sufficient Local Authorities already, and it would be unwise to add to their number. Therefore, the Government recommend the Committee to adhere to our proposal, and not to adopt the somewhat remarkable recommendations of my hon. Friend.

I desire to support most heartily the proposal made by the hon. Member for Hornsey. I confess that, as a matter of order, I do not know the exact position in which we stand with regard to it, and so I will state broadly my opinions on this matter. I believe the Amendment before us deals with the urban districts, but I am more particularly concerned with the rural districts. I say distinctly that if the entire control of allotment matters is given to the County Councils they will have a great deal too much to do. Allotments should be regulated by committees appointed by the allottees themselves; and, therefore, although the Amendment put on the Paper by the hon. Member for Hornsey is not all we desire I shall support it as strongly as I can. I know that in the case of allotments in which a rev. friend of mine is interested they are governed by a committee appointed by the allottees themselves, with the vicar of the parish as chairman, and everything works admirably. Such committees have the local knowledge which is so valuable an element when allotment questions are under consideration. The fear that needless expenditure will be indulged in by such committees is groundless. At Stockton, near Rugby, where a system of the kind has been tried, a great success has been achieved. It has been said this afternoon that the Allotments Act is not an admitted failure. The Member for Devizes said the hon. Member for Hornsey was wrong when he declared it to be an admitted failure. No; the failure is not admitted, but it is a gross and notorious failure all the same; and if the hon. Member had used the word "notorious" instead of "admitted" he would have been strictly accurate. The acceptance of the present proposal would introduce a beneficial change, because it will convert a wretched fiasco into something like a benefit to the working classes.

The situation at which we have arrived is a somewhat surprising one. The hon. Member for Hornsey is evidently giving the Government a last chance of obtaining salvation. I do not for a single moment suppose that he binds himself to every letter and every sentence of the Amendments he has on the Paper; I suppose, rather, that he is offering the Government a chance to carry out in connection with the rural districts the principle which we have this afternoon decided to apply to the urban districts, and to ensure that the allotments question is dealt with by a Committee possessing local knowledge. I admit several of the contentions of the hon. Member for Wiltshire, and I agree that a Committee constructed on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Hornsey would hardly be strong enough to deal with the financial questions involved. But I would urge the Government to give further consideration to this matter, and to see if they cannot, on the Report stage, bring up a clause for the creation of a Local Authority for the purposes of allotments in small areas. Having some knowledge of this question, I say that the Bill, if passed in its present form, will prove a mere fiasco, and will not achieve the objects which the Government have in view. I cannot support the Amendment in its present form; but I do urge the Government to apply to rural districts the principle which we have decided to apply to urban districts.

I should like to know if the Government are willing to re-consider their decision in this matter. I am not going to discuss whether the Act of 1887 is or is not a failure. We have sufficiently discussed that point already, and we all have our own views upon it. It seems to me that the only difference between what I advocated on Friday last and the proposal of the hon. Member for Hornsey is one of name. He proposes to appoint a Committee which is to be elected by the Vestry. I know that there are objections to the mode of election by Vestry; but I venture to think that if the hon. Member's suggestion is accepted it will be necessary to elect the Parish Committee or Parish Council by ballot, and on the principle of one man one vote. The Secretary to the Local Government Board has suggested that a Parish Committee might incur expenses for offices. We shall want nothing of the kind, because in almost every village there is a schoolroom, partly maintained by the State, and these can be used for the purpose. I do not know if the hon. Member is aware that before the Bill of 1887 was brought in a proposal was made, in a Bill which I introduced, to appoint these very Committees, and that it was met by a promise on the part of the Government to deal with the question in a more satisfactory way. When the Bill was produced, however, it turned out that the Government thought Boards of Guardians to be more suitable authorities than Village Committees. The inhabitants of the villages hold a very different opinion. They prefer a Parish Council or a Local Committee. The hon. Member for Wiltshire has twitted us with giving up compulsory purchase. But I and my friends do not wish to abandon compulsory purchase; we leave that to the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division, who having for many years loudly advocated compulsory purchase as essential in dealing with allotments and small holdings, omitted altogether the Compulsory Clauses in his Bill last Session, and gave evidence in the same direction before the Select Committee on Small Holdings. I join in the appeal of my hon. Friend to the Government to consider whether some agreement cannot be arrived at.

The Government cannot undertake anything in the direction the hon. Gentleman suggests. The same question was discussed on the proposed Instruction to the Committee, and the right hon. Member for Derby said—

"The Government might well flinch from accepting the proposal of the hon. Gentleman to set up a new authority in the parish for that particular purpose. If a new authority were set up it ought to he for other purposes. It would require great consideration, and, under the circumstances, he was not surprised at the Government declining to accept that portion of the proposal"

—the proposal which we are now discussing. The Government are now asked to embark in the creation of a new authority, and that in the face of the fact that hon. Members are not agreed as to what kind of authority it should be. I ask the Committee to consider the difficulty and complexity of the question we are asked to take up at this stage. It means practically the abandonment of the Bill. It may be a good Bill, or it may be a bad one. Hon. Members have different opinions on that point; but the Government think it a good Bill and much wanted. We are asked to set up that new authority, not for the purpose of managing the new allotments generally, but only those which shall be supplied by the County Councils on appeal. I cannot imagine that the Committee will ever consent to any such proposition as that of the hon. Member.

The authority which the hon. Member for Hornsey proposes to establish is not altogether new; it is identical with that established under the Free Libraries Act. In many counties, and especially is it the case in North Buckinghamshire, the County Councils are largely composed of Guardians, in North Bucks two-thirds are Guardians, and the appeal would, therefore, be from Guardians to Guardians. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman realises the time which would be lost in taking action if his proposal is carried. At least, two years would be lost before a spade could be put into an allotment by the Twyford labourers, who have already waited three years. In the first place, the advertisement of action must be published in August or September; then the meeting cannot be held till December; then the Provisional Order can have no force until it is passed in this House in the next Session; and then at the succeeding Michaelmas a year's notice must be given to the tenant. And all this is supposing the proposal meets with no opposition, and that everybody is willing. Now we want a sharp and prompt remedy. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the decision just come to by the House is a blow against Local Government. I say it is precisely the reverse. Whoever heard of one Elective Body appealing to another Elective Authority?

Order, order! The hon. and gallant Member is scarcely speaking to the Amendment.

I hold that two divergent principles are embodied in the Amendment; in one case you transfer certain powers from Urban Authorities to the County Council, or from a lower to a higher authority, and in the other you transfer power from the County Council to a Parish Committee, or from a higher to a lower authority. I think we should have an opportunity of dividing on each of the principles. I am opposed to the transfer of the powers under the Act to County Councils, but in favour of those powers being given to the Parish Authorities.

The Act of 1887 only placed compulsory powers in the hands of the County Authority; and as a parish is not a County Authority, I do not propose to give the parish compulsory powers. There is the greatest possible difference between what I propose and the proposal of the hon. Member for the Rugby Division. I propose the ancient operative Executive Body of the parish—the oldest authority we have, and which has exercised these powers with success, and never failing in their use. As to the officers, I admit the unfortunate slip made in the Amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded; but, of course, these officers will never be wanted; all the powers have been taken, and it is quite absurd to suppose that any expense will arise. It will be possible for this Body to administer the affairs of the parish without officers. That may be a grievance, but it is not one which will be felt by the ratepayers.

I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the position in which we stand. We have an Amendment of very wide range and great importance moved by the hon. Member opposite. That Amendment, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Spalding, raises two contradictory propositions. In view of the attitude taken by the Government towards the Amendment of the hon. Member and your suggestion, Sir, that we should be allowed to draw up an Amendment to avoid the difficulty, I beg to move, as that cannot be done in a moment, that you now report Progress.

I hope the Committee will not assent to the proposal. We have been engaged now for a very long time in considering the matter, and the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, though apparently complicated, is in reality very simple. What he proposes is that the Urban Sanitary Authorities shall remain as the Bill has placed them; and, so far as the Rural Authorities are concerned, he proposes that when an appeal has been made to the County Council, and they decide that allotments shall be supplied, they shall go to the Vestry Committee appointed by the rural vote; but that the Committee shall have no power whatever of acquiring lands if they have to acquire them compulsorily. If this matter goes to a Division, you will divide on the question whether the County Council shall, by their Committee, acquire the allotments, or whether it shall be referred to the Parish Authority elected in the way the hon. Gentleman proposes, to carry out the behest of the County Council, but with no power of compulsory acquirement. I hope the Committee will now be allowed to come to a decision.

If I am in order, I would suggest the division of the Amendment, and the question which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to settle could at once be brought before the House. Will the hon. Member for Hornsey accept the following Amendment, to leave out the words after the word "authority" in the fourth line of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, and insert after "authority" the last five lines of his own Amendment, beginning with the words "in a rural district to a Committee," and so on, down to the end of the latter? That would at once raise the question whether the Committee would consent to the creation in a rural sanitary district of a Local Committee for this purpose. It is a perfectly plain issue to put before the House. I do not see why we should delay one moment if the right hon. Gentleman and the Member for Hornsey will consent, and in this case I would suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston to withdraw his Motion. Then I would suggest that the question of the Urban Sanitary Authority could be dealt with in a reasonable form which would command general support.

I think the suggestion of the hon. Member is a perfectly reasonable one. It is quite obvious that the Urban Authorities stand upon a totally different footing. I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

I beg to withdraw my Motion.

May lask whether the right hon. Gentleman accepts and adopts my statement that if his Amendment is carried the labourer cannot got his spade into the land until next Michaelmas two years?

Certainly not.

I only wish to state the issue which is before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman says we are going to divide on the question of whether or not compulsory powers shall be included. I have explained that in voting for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hornsey I am voting; against compulsory powers.

I was dealing with the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. Now we are dealing with a different proposition.

As the measure is one in which hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies take considerable interest, I should be glad if Her Majesty's Government would give the House some assurance that it will be definitely proceeded with on a given day.

Last night we understood from the First Lord of the Treasury that this Bill would be taken as the first Order to-day.

No.

I must ask the Government to give us some definite assurance which will really conduce to the progress of business.

May I ask the Government, looking at the urgency of the Allotments Bill and the slow progress we are making with it, whether they will continue it on an early day?

rose, pursuant to notice, to move the following Resolution:—

"That, in the opinion of this House, a measure is urgently needed enabling Town Councils and County Councils in England and Scotland to acquire by agreement or compulsorily, on fair terms and by simple and inexpensive machinery, such land within or adjoining their several districts as may in their judgment be needed for the requirements of the inhabitants."

interposing, said: I am bound to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman what I have had an opportunity of pointing out to him in private before, that the Motion which he proposes to introduce anticipates discussion of the subjects dealt with in two measures that are already before the House. I refer to the Bill standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Leith District—Local Authorities (Scotland) Acquisition of Lands -and to another standing in the name of the hon. Member for Forfar—Land Purchase and Division (Scotland). Although I am unwilling to put any impediment in the way of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not see how he can make any statement without infringing on the principles contained in those two measures. The allotments question is clearly debarred, and the question of town holdings in Scotland and the acquisition of land by Town Councils and County Councils in Scotland appears to be specially debarred by the two Bills I have referred to. If, however, the hon, and learned Gentle- man can discover any means of escaping from the difficulty I shall be very glad.

On the point of order I desire to advert to the terms of my Motion. It is quite true that Bills are being constantly brought forward to confer powers for various purposes on Town Councils and County Councils in Scotland-. My proposition is to move a Resolution which should enable them to use their own judgment in regard to the purposes for which they take land; or, in the words of the Motion,

"To acquire by agreement or compulsorily on fair terms and by simple and inexpensive machinery, such land within or adjoining their several districts as may in their judgment be needed for the requirements of the inhabitants."

My proposition is that they should act generally, and in that sense I desire to move the Resolution.

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is entirely out of order, according to the decisions laid down by the Chair, in referring by anticipation to matters dealt with in Bills already before the House. This is clearly a case of anticipation. One of the Bills I have mentioned is to enable County Councils in Scotland to acquire building land compulsorily, and the other—the Land Purchase and Division (Scotland) Bill—is-for enabling Local Authorities to acquire land compulsorily for any purpose authorised by Act of Parliament, for sites for cottages, for allotments, and so on.

May I ask you, Sir, whether the two Bills you have mentioned do not relate exclusively to Scotland?

Yes.

Then I presume that if my hon, and learned Friend were to withdraw the words "and Scotland" from his Motion he would be in order.

I made that suggestion to the hon. and learned Gentleman; but he, seeing that he represents a Scotch constituency, appeared unwilling to make the alteration. It is a matter for the discretion of the hon. and learned Member. If he is willing to withdraw the words "and Scotland" from his Motion, that appears to me to remove the objection. If those words were omitted, the hon. and learned Gentleman would be in order.

I will move the Resolution with the reference to Scotland omitted, and although I do, no doubt, attach very great importance to everything affecting Scotland, still I do not think that the Resolution will be impaired in its force or value when applied simply to the case of England. It will have the advantage that I shall be enabled to curtail my speech and give English Members more opportunity to present their views to the House. For a considerable period there has been a strong feeling growing that the land system of this country cannot be adequately dealt with on the basis of what I may call old-fashioned reform, which suggests improvements in the registration of titles and the means of transfer of land. The fact that so many Bills have been introduced to enable different localities to acquire land for various purposes is of itself one of the strongest arguments which could be adduced in support of the views I propose to submit to the House. So strong has been the growth of this feeling that there is what some may call a revolutionary feeling existing on the land question in the last few years. In order that there may be no misunderstanding of my position, and in order that my silence may not seem to give encouragement. let me say at once that I have no sympathy whatever with any attempt to take land from anybody who owns it except upon fair and honest terms. In what I have to say in regard to landowners, I wish to speak of the system, not of the men, believing as I do that human nature is very much the same all the world over, and a great many of the critics of the conduct of landlords would themselves follow the same course if they happened to become landlords. In England there is, undoubtedly, a very strong opinion that the ownership of land, uncontrolled by the action of any Local Authority, has been considerably abused, and has led to the depopulation of some parts of the country and to enormous congestion in the population of other parts. It has led to discomforts and injustice which the people are not entitled to be called upon indefinitely to endure. We cannot deny the necessity of putting-some pressure upon landlords when we see the approval of the principle in the Allotments Bill of the Government, which I will not, of course, now discuss. I think that hon. Members who have knowledge on this subject will agree that these powers of compulsion cannot stop here. It is needed, for example, for small holdings; but without specifying any particular class of needs, I think I may appeal to hon. Members, do they not know instances of villages stunted in their growth and development, and of inhabitants restricted in occupation and debarred from the enjoyment of a home of their own, by the refusal of the landlord to sell land or to let. except upon impracticable conditions? The leasehold system which obtains so generally throughout England, I think, is now generally admitted to be detrimental to the interests of the population at large. I go further, and condemn the precarious tenure upon which so many persons occupy their houses. How can we hope to see the standard of comfort raised in England; how can we expect to see the people elevated by education and other benign influences, which are not. likely to go very far in that direction, unless the people have the comfort of what they may call a home of their own? To very many people this is denied, and though I do not say it is general there are many instances of people being harshly evicted from their homes for very slight reason. I can give as good authority for my statement Mr. Froude, who, in the Nineteenth Century for September, 1880, has the following:—

"Not a mile from the place where I am now writing an estate on the coast of Devonshire came into the hands of an English Duke. There was a primitive village upon it, occupied by sailors, pilots, and fishermen, which is described in Domesday Rook, and was in habited at the Conquest by the actual forefathers of the late tenants whose names may he read there. The houses were out of repair. The Duke's predecessors had laid out nothing upon them for a century and had been contented with exacting the rents. When the present owner entered into possession it was represented to him that if the village was to continue it must he re-built, but that to re-build it would be a needless expense, for the people, living as they did on their wages as fisher been and seamen, would not cultivate his land, and were useless to him. The houses were therefore simply torn down, and nearly half the population were driven out into the world to find new homes."

I do not believe that such cases often occur on a large scale in England, but there have been many cases where indi- viduals have been driven from their homes. I should like to illustrate what I have to say by some brief reference to Scotch experience. I take the cases in order to show what the power of the landlord may be. The case of the crofters in the Highlands is a conspicuous instance, and not even the annals of Irish landlordism can exceed in horror the devastation of the Highlands some years ago. I hope that some hon. Member opposite will give the House the horrible details of the clearances that were effected in Sutherlandshire, where thousands of people were turned out of their ancestral homes to make way for sheep, and eventually for the land to be turned into deer forests for the amusement of English, Scotch, and American sportsmen.

How long ago?

These things began 70 years ago, and have been continued until 2,000,000 acresout of the 19,000,000 acres which Scotland contains have been turned into deer forests, with the result that land cannot be obtained for any other purpose. I have mentioned in the House before, how, in some places in that country, the tenants hold under a six months' tenure, and they can only bequeath their property with the consent of the landlord, who frequently disregards their bequests. Ten miles from Dumfries there is land admirably situated on the shores of the Solway for the establishment of a village or small town, and there is a strong desire for this, but not a feu will the landlord grant. The town of Kilmarnock had to wait 12 years before the Local Authorities could purchase land for a public park with the sum of £10,000, which had been left them for that purpose. Again, at Greenock I believe the adjoining land belongs practically to one owner, who refuses to sell or let for building, and the borough suffers severely from the artificial price of land, created by the absence of all competition. I will go no further with Scotch illustrations, for I feel it would not be right to do so. London offers the most horrible cases of all, which are the result of overcrowding, giving rise to disease and immorality of the most frightful description. The freeholders, as a rule, exercise no supervision whatever over their property, and, indeed, are powerless to do so in conse- quence of the length of the leases they have granted. The result of this system has been shown by the evidence taken by the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Poor to be appalling. Hundreds of thousands of people are paying enormous rents for abominable accommodation. I may be allowed to quote a few words from the Report of the Commission in reference to London. On page 14 the Commissioners say—

"Among adults, too overcrowding causes a vast amount of suffering which could he calculated by no bills of mortality, however accurate. Even statistics of actual disease consequent on overcrowding would not convey the whole truth as to the loss of health caused by it to the labouring classes. Some years ago the Board of Health instituted inquiries in the low neighbourhoods to see what was the amount of labour lost in the year not by illness, but by sheer exhaustion and inability to do work. It was found that upon the lowest average every workman or workwoman lost about 20 days in the year from simple exhaustion, and the wages thus lost would go towards paying an increased rent for a better house. There can be little doubt but that the same thing is going on now, perhaps even to a greater extent.…Nothing stronger could be said in describing the effect of overcrowding than that it is even more destructive to general health than conducive to the spread of epidemic and contagions diseases. Unquestionably, a large amount of the infection which ravages certain of the great cities is due to the close packing of the population. Typhus is particularly a disease which is associated with overcrowding, and when once an epidemic has broken out, its spread in overcrowded districts is almost inevitable. In Liverpool nearly one-fifth of the squalid houses, where the poor live in the closest quarters, are reported as always infected; that is to say, the seat of infectious disease. It is not surprising to learn that among the fever dens of that city overcrowding is growing less, owing to the fall of the population which mortality produces."

The reason is to be found a few pages further on, where the Commissioners say—

"Turning to the unquestioned causes which produce overcrowding and the generally lamentable condition of the homes of the labouring classes, the first which demands attention is the poverty of the in habitants of the poorest quarters, or, in other words, the relation borne by the wages they receive to the rents they have to pay."

Charity and private enterprise are wholly unable to deal with matters of this gravity. Only on the lines of this Resolution and by a Government Bill can we grapple with the state of things existing now in London. I do not think it would be wise on my part to multiply instances, nor have I quoted these for the purpose of holding landlords up to odium, but to show how inadequate is our present system to deal with evils of this nature. Last year the President of the Local Government Board, in replying to me said we might safely rely on the interests of the landlords themselves; but it is precisely the self-interest of landlords that has given rise to such evils as make a Resolution of this character necessary—selfish interests and competitive rents. Nor can a local Act of Parliament effectually deal with the subject. To obtain an Act of Parliament is a costly proceeding. The smaller towns in England cannot afford the large expense of obtaining a local Act or even a Provisional Order, to enable them to put an end to these great and growing evils. The costs of the litigation which follows the obtaining of a Provisional Order are most excessive and in many cases absolutely unnecessary, and with those costs the community are almost invariably saddled. After a Provisional Order is obtained it is necessary to have litigation for the purpose of ascertaining the true value of the land; and, as litigation on that subject is now conducted, no one who has any experience will dispute that the costs are frightful, most excessive, and absolutely unnecessary in many ways. Not only must there be a large array of so-called scientific witnesses for the purpose of proving the value, but every separate interest in any part of the land may be valued separately, and the community is saddled with the cost. No matter how unreasonable the owner of the land has been in refusing accommodation or in refusing a fair price, he never can be made liable for one shilling of the costs. He may have to pay his own costs in some extreme cases, but the Local Authority taking the land always has to pay its own Besides, Provisional Orders can only be given for certain prescribed purposes. Suppose that the Burgh of Thornhill was desirous of buying out its landlords and of placing all the persons in the ambit of the town in an independent position, they could not do it by a Provisional Order, and it would be hopeless to try and do it by Act of Parliament, because this House has now about 20 times too much to do. Under these circumstances it is that I propose to confer on the Town Councils and County Councils the power to take land. Of course, the land should be taken on fair terms—I mean at an honest price. I also think that some check should be placed upon the action of the Local Authorities. I should say that the President of the Local Government Board ought to have power to prevent any unfair use of their power by a Local Authority. Suppose, for example, the Local Authority wanted to take a private park, or a garden. or anything of the kind, it is quite right there should be some power to check them. Then, I think land should be taken by means of simple and inexpensive machinery. I should prefer that it should he done below a certain amount by the County Court Judge, with an assessor; or, in the ease of large sums, by a Judge of the Supreme Court, also with an assessor, and I think that power ought to be given to deal with the costs of any inquiry in such a manner as to prevent those who had to part with the land being stimulated to ask and require unfair terms. If, in the opinion of the tribunal, such people acted unreasonably, the tribunal might be able to order them to pay the costs. Subject to these conditions, I would leave to the County Councils ample and complete discretion. The needs in the different Parts of the country are very different, and the Local Authorities alone know what the requirements of their localities are. We have no time to ascertain the needs of localities, and if these things are to he done at all they must be done by the Local Authorities. It may be asked from what source the money is to come. I might with great ease point out that if the Government are prepared to give £33,000,000 to Ireland, which the Irish have never asked for and do not want, they might be prepared to give a little assistance for purposes I have spoken of. But I do not think it is at all necessary to make use of Imperial credit or funds in this case. Public works in Municipalities or counties will in the future, as now, be paid for out of local funds; but in cases where there are such requirements as I have been adverting to, as, for example, where a town requires an extension, and it is necessary to take land for the purpose, I believe that through the agency of Building Societies or Benefit Societies, which might combine for the purpose, it would be perfectly possible, and in many cases would happen, that the Town Council or County Council would exercise the power, and that the whole of the money would be found by those who would reap the advantage in common with the rest of the town. I believe if such powers as I propose were conferred, they would do a great deal of good, especially in villages, for example, which are oppressed by the leasehold system of tenure, and there are not a few in the South-West of England. The leasehold system would be put an end to at once if the County Council or the Town Council thought proper to interfere. Towns will be able to expand, and to do so at no unreasonable cost. I do not say that these would be powers sufficient to settle or dispose of these difficulties, nor do I suppose that I have been able to put an adequate number of illustrations before the House in the short time at my disposal. But I appeal to the private experience of individual Members, and I submit that land reform must take the direction of increasing the powers of Municipal Authorities. If those powers are increased great advantage will, I submit, ensue. I desire to see these reforms in order that, by means of prompt and kindly concessions, we may be able to avert the danger of the spread of discontent, which I regret as much as any man in this House, and which could never be harboured by people in this country unless it is founded on a refusal to remove a real grievance.

My hon. Friend, in the interesting speech which he has delivered, stated that he had asked me to say a few words on the question so far as it refers to English villages, and to that point I will, therefore, restrict my observations. But I wish, first, to make three preliminary remarks. The first has reference to the question of compulsion. I suppose we may admit, now that the Government have got an Allotments Act, that the question of compulsion is not worth discussing as a matter of principle, for it has already been conceded by the Government. When I first entered the House the acceptance of the principle seemed to be very far off indeed. I remember how the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division, who then represented Ipswich, was attacked by the present Minister of Agriculture for advocating this principle. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the "predatory instincts of a class whose Socialistic schemes were so admirably represented by the hon. Member." I suppose that it is we who have predatory instincts and Socialistic schemes at the present moment; but it seems to me that the matters for which we plead are quite as important, and not in any way more dangerous, than the principle of compulsion which the Government have already conceded. I agree with my hon. Friend that we might trust Local Bodies, if the application of compulsion is extended, not to infringe upon the amenities which may justly be claimed by landowners or others. For the purposes for which land is wanted in English villages, security of tenure is even more important than that the freehold of the land should be acquired. I quite agree that the Local Authority should retain some power over the land which it purchases, in the same way as Building Societies do, and that they should secure the annual increment by valuation from time to time. In the next place, I hold that there should be a common management of the buildings erected upon the land by the people for the people. I hold that it is most desirable to develop some kind of public opinion in the villages, because in too many at the present time there is hardly any public opinion. I believe that many landlords are now beginning to see clearly that this question of country, life is not a mere question of how many pounds of beef or how many bushels of corn can be produced per acre; there is a question of human life. It is no answer to say that in some villages the state of things is everything that can be desired, because we know perfectly well that other villages are sadly neglected; while even in some, which are under a kind of benevolent management, there is no real free- dom. The history of land shows that the tendency has been to put all the power in the hands of one man. and Mr. George Brodrick in his book says—

"All these changes have by no means weakened the power of the squire, who, on the contrary, is a greater man than ever relatively to the other classes in the village community, since he is no longer jostled by independent yeomen, but surrounded by obsequious tenants and labourers. This potentate concentrates in himself a variety of rights and prerogatives which in the aggregate amount to little short of patriarchal sovereignty."

It is true that in many villages there is something of this patriarchal sovereignty. For certain purposes the inhabitants of villages have a fair claim to the use of pieces of land. There is the case of village halls, which are wanted for entertainments, for labourers' meetings, for the meetings of friendly Societies, and for the formation of libraries. Only a few days ago I heard of an excellent village hall which was largely used by Churchmen; but when Dissenters asked to be allowed to give an entertainment in it, the vicar and the squire said "No." A Dissenter in the village thereupon went to the vicar and said, "It is very hard, sir, to be a Nonconformist in this village." If that is not boycotting it is something very like it. Possibly the hall was built mainly with the money of Churchmen, and if they chose they could, of course, keep the Dissenters out of it. The next purpose for which land is wanted is for use as recreation ground. In many villages there was no recreation ground for the people. Mr. Jessopp, a well-known writer, speaking of the East of England, says—

"The plain, ugly fact is patent to all who do not resolutely keep their eyes shut, that the agricultural labourers life has had all the joy taken out of it, and has become as dull and sodden a life as a man's can well be made. There are scores, perhaps hundreds, of villages where the inhabitants have absolutely no amusement of any kind outside the public house, where cricket or bowls or even skittles are as unknown as bear baiting, where the children play at marbles in the gutter in bodily fear that the road surveyor should come down upon them."

A clergyman told me recently that in his parish it was utterly impossible, without an expenditure of money he could not afford, to get a field for his lads to play cricket in, the only place where they could play being the bottom of a dried-up pond. Then, again, there is the case of Working Men's Co-operative Societies, which ought to have a fair opportunity of securing a footing in every part of the country. Every North Countryman knows the splendid work which these societies have done; and I, therefore, advocate this, whatever hon. Members may think on the vexed question of the relationship of these societies to individual shopkeepers. Mr. Albert Pell, a late Member of this House, said, in his evidence before the Small Holdings Committee—

"If there was legislation for the compulsory taking of land in parishes or villages I should like to see legislation enabling Industrial Societies to get hold of freeholds for Co-operative Stores. My experience with regard to those societies is that they are at an enormous disadvantage in England from the inability to get into a village. People are always saying, 'Oh, you will disturb some old woman,' or 'You will give offence to somebody.' My own experience has taught me it is very difficult for the co-operative movement to get on from the difficulty which exists, especially in smaller villages, to get a place where they can securely carry on their business."

I know of some villages where the societies cannot possibly obtain a footing except by the exercise of compulsory powers. The societies occupying premises on a tenure terminable at six months' notice cannot possibly be expected to develop. They may be excellently supported by the squire or the vicar, but the squire may die, and then what may happen? Somebody may succeed him who does not care for Co-operative Societies, and submit that the only way in which they can develop would be by investing their savings in the form of new buildings, and they cannot be expected to do that until they are assured of security of tenure. I should like to give an instance of the control of our village schools in its direct bearing on those Co-operative Societies, which, I know, have the sympathy of many Gentlemen opposite. One of my Co-operative friends wrote to me the other day stating that he had been trying to establish branches of the Cooperative Stores in small villages, and, with that object, had endeavoured to get up entertainments for raising funds. In the first instance, a clergyman, as manager of a school, refused an application for the use of a school room for an entertainment; and, in another instance, a School Board made a promise to grant a school room on an undertaking that votes would be given for members who pledged themselves to grant such facilities. As my friend remarks, a refractory Elective Board can be dealt with successfully, but a refractory clergyman cannot. The short tenure of many Nonconformist Chapels, especially in Wales, and the fact that it is frequently uncertain how far any chapel can get a really good site in any village, must make us all feel that Religious Bodies ought to be treated on equal terms, and that any Religious Body who bond fide desires a site ought to be able to get it. I turn now to the case of village societies. Mr. Albert Pell says that he does not think there is a great desire to obtain land with a view to cultivation, but that there is a desire to obtain a bit of land to build a house on, with a garden adjoining We all know the ordinary agricultural labourer cannot buy his house, but there are scattered about in many of our villages artisans, wheelwrights, blacksmiths, carpenters, shopkeepers, and others, who, if they were living in towns would take advantage of Building Societies to become owners of their own houses. I see no reason whatever why a genuine Building Society should not be allowed to provide for the wants of men of this 'sort in country districts. I think, also, there ought to be power to obtain land compulsorily, if necessary, on which to build intermediate schools in the best positions in towns and villages. Of course, none of these suggestions can be completely carried out until we get District Councils; but some step, at all events, can be taken in the direction we advocate. My hon. and learned Friend has alluded to the leasehold qnestion. A good many landlords are saying, "If you propose leasehold enfranchisement we will grant no leases at all." The effect of adopting a policy of this kind will be that poor people will have no tenure whatever except from month to month. All I can say is, if landlords take this unreasonable line they must not be surprised at the extreme views some men adopt, especially in the towns. It is because I think we may find some intermediate method between boycotting on the one hand and violent measures on the other that I support this Motion. The son of a very liberal landlord said to me the other day, "If you were to give these powers to Building Societies you might find two or three cottages going into the hands of poachers." Another argument used against us is that unsanitary dwellings would spring up. What are our Sanitary Authorities for if they cannot keep our villages in a proper condition? Such arguments as these are thoroughly bad. There are two sides of village life, and one of them is usually concealed in the minds of the people themselves. I personally came across this case the other day. A carpenter, who devoted himself to social work, and the work of education among his fellows, happened to fall out of work, and accepted a situation as estate carpenter on a large estate in the South of England. After a year or two he went back to his native place and detailed his-experience. He began first of all, he said, trying to get up concerts in the village in which he lived, but this was soon put a stop to He said no effort whatever was encouraged among the people themselves unless it was brought to them from above, and he stated that the life was almost intolerable, because, as he said in his homely way, "It knocks all the manliness out of a man." I do not directly blame the agent, or the landlord, or the clergyman of this village, because I do not suppose they were conscious of the effect of the policy they adopted. I should, however, be inclined to say to any independent-minded man of fair education, who was wavering as to whether he should remain in or leave the village in which he lived: "If everything is done for you from above go to a place where you will find a more independent atmosphere in which to live." This is not a question to be settled by charity or money. I remember the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking on the Irish Question in 1885, remarking that people who had become extremely rich thought that their chequebook could solve all questions, and his observation might well be applied to the state of things in our villages. It is not by making model villages, model reading-rooms, and all the rest of it, that you are going to develop an independent spirit among working people. Give them something to manage for themselves; let them have halls of their own, libraries of their own, opportunities for acquiring bits of freehold land in good positions for Co-operative Societies, chapels, an deven houses of their own, and then you will bring out the best of them, and they will be happier and pleasanter people to live among than they are at present. I think, on the one hand, there are many who imagine they are going to do the people good by Primrose League festivities; whilst, on the other hand, there are people who think they are going to settle all the questions that concern the land by wild and revolutionary schemes. Is there, I would ask, no intermediate course? I think there is. Though our proposals may seem small,. I think that, if properly worked out, they will lead to more community of feeling among the poor, and to a greater sense of responsibility for their own affairs, such as will make a man a man. These things may work slowly, and will work slowly, but they will, I believe, give independence to many who now are not in the best sense of the word independent, and will lead to greater happiness by the road of wider and fuller opportunities.

I think the House has some ground for feeling disappointed with the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. R. T. Reid)—I do not mean because he has not been allowed to go much into the question, but because I think the Resolution he proposes is a totally different thing from that which he has attempted to advocate in his speech. The Motion declares that a measure is urgently needed for enabling Town Councils and County Councils in England to acquire land compulsorily for the benefit of the inhabitants. Now, a Town Council is a body created by statute for particular purposes of Local Government, and County Councils have been created in like manner for the purposes of County Government. My hon. and learned Friend wishes to show that these bodies have not the requisite powers in regard to the acquisition of land to enable them to fulfil the purposes of their existence. But he has not attempted to prove that these bodies have no powers. There are many duties cast on Town Councils, such as the duty of providing for drainage, providing recreation grounds, libraries, water supply, and artisans' dwellings, which necessitate the acquisition of land. Wherever it has been found necessary for Town Councils or Rural Boards to have power for acquiring land com-pulsorily, Parliament has conferred that power on them. As it has not been shown by either the Mover or the Seconder of the Motion that these bodies have not the requisite power for the purpose for which they have been called into existence, I suppose they are contented with the powers which exist in that respect. Then what is the proposition? The hon. and learned Gentleman began by dwelling on cases of hardship in regard to individuals, and insisted on the necessity for giving powers to Local Authorities for the acquisition of freehold property. Well, I know that it is desirable in some cases that powers for the acquisition of freehold should be given. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned a case in Devonshire, not within his own knowledge at all, but based on a statement by Mr. Froude, the historian—and here I may say that, though one is always happy to take Mr. Froude's opinion on a matter of history, it does not follow that his opinion is worth more than any one else's on the every day transactions of life. Then, having dealt with the case of alleged hardship in Devonshire — only one solitary case—the hon. and learned Gentleman flew off to Scotland. I will not go at length into the Scotch question, but I must say I have a lively recollection of what took place in the House in 1886. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the crofters, but he entirely ignored the enormous rights and powers which, in 1886, were conferred upon the crofters where their holdings were too small. The hon. and learned Member challenged me to say in what cases I would give the powers he advocates. Well, I will tell him. Let him give me an instance in Devonshire, or any where else, where there are landlords so cruel and senseless as to refuse to let land which is needed for the interests of the inhabitants, and I shall be quite prepared to give power by Provisional Orders to enable a municipal Corporation or County Council, or some body responsible to this House, under proper check, to acquire land for the purpose of the people. That is where I would meet my hon. and learned Friend. Let him show me a case where he could prove the Preamble of a Bill or a Provisional Order for affording the relief he speaks of, and I will meet him. He has not, however, produced a shadow of a case. Having started in Devonshire and wandered off into Scotland—ignoring the liberal provision made in that country for the crofters—my hon. and learned Friend came back to London and declared that the case of the Metropolis is the most horrible of all. Well, what is the result of his statement? Why, that in London rents are absolutely competitive. I would ask why rents should not be absolutely competitive? Is there any part of the United Kingdom, or of the world, where rents are not competitive or in which anything else that is to be sold or hired is not governed by the laws of demand and supply? Hon Gentlemen opposite seem to lose their heads over this question; they seem to think that different principles are to be applied to land as compared with any other property. That might be a good cry if we were dealing with the origin of society, and starting the question of a new State where a large number of people are suddenly thrown upon a tract of land which is only capable of accommodating a certain number, but here we have to deal with a country where the land has for centuries been in the occupation of somebody, and that somebody has been recognised by the State and by society as the owner of the land, who can give up the land in consideration of money paid for it. Land and money are convertible terms, and men who have made money should be encouraged to invest it in land. I am at a loss to see why a man who invests his money in land should be condemned when he looks for a fair interest upon it. My hon. and learned Friend, by way of illustrating further the horrible character of London, said that many people, hundreds of people, there are paying rents they could not afford. I am afraid that has been my own case through the whole course of my life; I really do not know anybody who does not think he is paying too much when he is asked to pay his rent. But what about the thousands and tens of thousands of people in London who are paying more than they can afford for food and other necessaries of life? And this argument applies not only to London but to every part of the world. It is idle to make a complaint of that kind. My hon. and learned Friend says that we have in London fever dens. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman ignore the fact that here come in the powers of Municipal Bodies? Does he ignore the fact that the Municipal Bodies, when they find these fever dens, have power to destroy them, to proscribe whole areas, and to provide for the erection of new buildings? My hon. and learned Friend contended that something must be done, either on the lines of the Resolution or by confiscation. I thought from the first that my hon. and learned Friend meant confiscation. I agree with him that it does mean something on the lines of this Resolution, or by confiscation. My hon. Friend spoke of fair terms and simple machinery. What is meant by fair terms? I cannot but think that in the use of those words my hon. and learned Friend meant something in the nature of the so-called fair rent in Ireland to which the competitive value of the land has been reduced. Fair terms in the sense of the Resolution mean favourable terms for the tenant, but utterly unfair and harsh and wicked terms as against the owner of the property. It is a singular fact that the only instance in which my hon. Friend descended to particulars dealt with matters which Municipal and County Councils already have power to deal with. He quoted the demand for village halls. Well, town halls are now erected by Councils in nearly all boroughs, and vestry halls in nearly all Local Board districts; while the same authorities also have power to provide recreation grounds. School Boards, too, have compulsory powers for the purchase of land. But suppose the Municipal Authorities do get these powers, and do acquire land, they must charge a rent for it, and that rent will have to be fixed either by some rule of their own or on the competitive rule. It must come to exactly the same thing. I object to any increased powers being given, as proposed by the Resolution, until it has been pointed out specifically what those powers are to be.

I think I ought almost to apologise to the House for venturing to rise to second the Amendment, and my only excuse for doing so is to point out that rural districts are equally with urban interested in this question. It seems to me that the scope of the discussion has separated itself under two some what different heads, and I think the House will see in the speech of the Seconder of the Resolution that very different matters were alluded to to those which were touched upon by the Mover of it. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman who seconded the Resolution that in all he has said as to village life, and in all his aspirations for the development of manliness among the rural population, he has many a warm sympathiser on this side of the House, and he has no more hearty and sympathetic partisan than I profess myself to be. The only point is that we differ somewhat as to the means to be adopted in order to attain the end the hon Gentleman has in view. We think that end is not to be secured by perpetually calling in question the good motives and operations of the landlords, but that it is more likely to be promoted by freely acknowledging that they are doing a great deal to forward his object. So far as the operations of the landlords are concerned, I think that, although the hon. Gentleman has made out a good case for increased interest and philanthropic exertion, he has hardly brought forward any practical argument that would justify the House in supporting the Resolution that he has moved. But beyond that part of the question which refers to rural life, I notice that the Mover of the Resolution dealt more especially with the powers which it is proposed to give to Town Councils; and on that subject I think it would, perhaps, not be out of place to consider what use has been made by Town Councils of the powers which they already possess, and how far those powers have been used discreetly and moderately, and without inflicting injustice upon other interests with which they come in contact. I think the hon. Gentleman has been somewhat unlucky in the day on which he has chosen to move this Resolution; for, with his interest in legal matters, he will probably have noticed a case in which judgment was yesterday delivered by Lord Justice Fry. It was a case which bears directly upon the behaviour of Corporations towards rural localities with which they are brought into contact. The Corporation referred to in this case was that of Wolverhampton, and the allegation brought against it was that it had acquired certain land for uses which are intended to be amplified by the present Resolution. The allegation was that the Corporation had, by their action, changed a pure brook stream into a filthy and offensive stream; that they changed water formerly fit for cattle and domestic purposes into water unfit for such use: that they rendered the land where the water flowed unfit for the purpose of agriculture; and that they turned a pleasant trout stream into a filthy ditch. Now, this is a case in which a Town Council had exercised powers which it already possessed to acquire land for the purpose mentioned in this Resolution. They had acquired land, and they had used it in such a manner as to produce the results mentioned in the allegation; and in the end an injunction was granted restraining the Corporation from further polluting the brook. That injunction was granted in August, 1886, and yesterday Lord Justice Fry, in delivering judgment, found the Corporation guilty not only of disobeying the injunction, but of having wilfully disobeyed it; and in the end he granted what, in legal phrase, is termed a sequestration of the property of the Corporation. That surely is a strong case, and shows that there is, at all events, a reason for hesitation before the House grant increased powers to the Councils. The case of the supporters of the Resolution would be strengthened if they could show that the powers already possessed by Councils have been always exercised for the benefit and not to the injury of the community at large. Another fact within my personal knowledge has a direct bearing on this question. The Corporation of Wolverhampton have also acquired land, on which they have erected machinery for pumping water for the use of the town. In this particular case the Corporation have entirely deprived a considerable district around them of a large water supply, by the process of boring deep wells. There are, at this moment, several farm-houses and cottages in which not one drop of drinking water can be obtained, through the action of the Corporation. I personally waited on that body, and, while they admitted that this denudation of water was the direct result of their action, they told me that if there were more water they would take that as well. I adduce this case as another instance where the powers now sought to be amplified extend to a degree which enables a direct injustice to be inflicted on a rural district with out any chance of redress. I repeat that the House should hesitate before it accepts a Resolution, the object of which is vaguely to increase and enlarge the powers which, it can be shown have, in the past, been used mischievously and unfairly. I think that the Amendment, which goes in the direction of limiting the vague and visionary language of the Resolution, would, if adopted, save the country from what might easily become a danger to the cause of justice and fair play.

I think that hon. Members on this side of the House may congratulate themselves on the extreme candour of the arguments brought forward by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. The last speaker argued not only that the powers now possessed by Town Councils ought not to be extended, but that they have been abused, and ought, therefore, to be curtailed.

I never hinted that the powers should be curtailed, though I urged that the House ought to hesitate before it further amplified them.

I am in the judgment of the House whether, if the hon. Member's statement is correct, it is not a legitimate inference that the powers ought to be curtailed. Members on this side of the House, however, are of opinion that the powers at present possessed by Municipal Councils have been exercised with the utmost advantage to the country, and they are in sympathy with the argument of the hon. Member for Rotherham, when he said that, with the view of stimulating the manliness and independence of village communities, he was prepared to take the very distinct step in advance proposed in the Resolution. The Mover of the Amendment contended that this is, and ought to be, a pure question of supply and demand. There, I think, we approach the kernel of the question. I do not think that any Member of this House can complain of the moderation with which the hon. Members for Dumfries and Rotherham presented their views, nor can it be said that there was anything revolutionary in their proposals. By this Motion we aim at two things. We aim at obtaining a much-needed practical reform which we desire to get for purposes of an urgent character. But we also hope that the House will accede to the Motion as indicative of a certain stage in the advance of public opinion, and as a means of registering its view, that the use of land is not merely a question of supply and demand but is one in which the public and Parliament have a legitimate concern. We all know that it has been too much the custom to apply the phrase "A man may do what he likes with his own" to the possession of land. Hon. Members on this side of the House consider that opinion to be not only an erroneous one, but very far indeed from being a Conservative opinion. We consider it to be an opinion which is dangerous to the security of property; and it is, to a large extent, in a Conservative interest that we advocate this Motion. The arguments which have been urged by the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment would lead to this result—that supposing a man by his title deeds possessed a whole county in England, he might clear it of population and make it a desert, and no one in this House would have a right to challenge the owner. We demur to and dispute this proposition. We are not advocates of any revolutionary disturbance of land tenure as at present in force. Indeed, I consider the systems of land nationalisation which are advocated as unsuitable if not fundamentally impossible; but if anything would bring into prominence those violent and revolutionary views it would be such arguments as were used by the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment, to the effect that a man may do what he likes with his own and sweep off the face of his estate cottagers and everybody else and if it suits him to do so.

I never said anything of the kind, and it will be in the recollection of the House that I distinctly asserted that if any such case could be made out it would form a ground for the intervention of this House.

I am not surprised that the hon. Member has made that remonstrance. I am aware that he does not desire his arguments should be too stringently construed, but I would remind him that, when he was ridiculing the arguments of my hon. Friend in allusion to competitive rents, the hon. Gentleman said—"Why not have competitive rents in land? What is the difference between land and any other commodity? It is a pure question of supply and demand." Therefore, I say, I was only drawing a fair inference in stating that the hon. Member would deem any landowner justified in sweeping off every cottager from his estate. We all know how largely that sentiment prevails in the country. I have known, within my own experience, landlords, good and benevolent men, who had avowed that because they were not pleased in a case where there was a tendency in a village to extend in the direction of their houses, they would not allow cottages to be built in the direction of their estates. [Cries of "Name."] I know a case of hardship in this connection in Scotland There is a very important and growing town in my own constituency which is rapidly increasing. There are mineral fields in the district, and the only terms upon which the landlord will permit houses to be built are, first, he exacts that a good and substantial house, sufficient to be a security for the ground rent, should be built, and that if the coal is taken out from below the house, and the house should tumble about this man's ears, the occupier is to have no claim for compensation. That, I say, is a tyrannical and dangerous use of property, which forces on the minds of the people of that county the fact that, though born there, they really have no place to live in. And things are getting worse in Scotland as well as in England. So far as our studies and knowledge carry us, I agree with the quotations from Mr. Brodrick's book which have been read, to the effect that the squire in England is now a more powerful man and the cottager possesses fewer rights than in former times. In several parts of the county that I represent it used to be the custom for the miners to save money and buy a house and plot of land of their own, and under that system a peculiarly fine type of men was cultivated. Under the present system, where, as a rule, miners' cottages belong to the landowner and where the tenant is not secure the condition of the workmen, neither morally nor physically, can be compared to that of the older race of men who acquired an interest in their houses. We are aware that this Motion, in its operative part, must, under the Rules of the House, be restricted to England, but the question is one which interests my constituents most deeply, and that is my apology for intervening in this Debate. It is a question which touches their imagination more, perhaps, than any political question of the day. I feel assured that there is nothing in the Resolution which need prevent hon. Members opposite from voting for it. Many of those hon. Gentlemen profess their sympathy with the working man, and their desire to aid him in obtaining a more independent position. Why, then, should they not assist in confer ring on Municipal Bodies the right of acquiring land for the benefit of the working class? There is, at any rate, no argument in favour of the Motion which presses more upon my mind than that it is, in the best sense of the word, a Conservative Motion, and that, if hon. Members opposite will vote for it, they will do much to promote that security of tenure in regard to land in this country which they so much desire to ensure.

I desire to state, in addressing the House on this question, that I am not in favour of any doctrine of confiscation of landlords' property, and that on this side of the House, at any rate, contracts are held sacred, except where the interests of the community require any alteration. I desire to say a few words in reference to the acquisition of freehold for public buildings. In my own district, when a vestry hall was required, it had to be erected on a leasehold tenure, because it was not possible to buy the freehold. We are now looking for a central site for our baths and wash houses, and are unable to get anything but leasehold land. In the same way our free library could not be placed in the middle of our population on a freehold site. I can imagine no reason why Local Authorities should not have power to acquire land by compulsory purchase, for the purpose of erecting baths, wash-houses, libraries, town halls, and other public buildings. The sooner some legislation is passed to carry into effect the recommendations of the Town Holdings Committee, even to a limited degree, the better it will be for our great populations. With regard to houses, there is, no doubt, considerable difficulty in allowing one man to purchase his freehold while another may not choose to exercise that power. I recognise the extreme difficulty of putting compulsory powers in the hands of individuals. But that difficulty would not occur where Local Authorities purchased, not one or two houses, but whole estates for the benefit of the community. In the parish of Plumstead, where I live, I recollect the land being let for agricultural purposes at £3 per acre in 1845. The income of an estate of 250 acres in Plumstead in 1845 was, therefore, £750 per annum, and the capital value of the estate at 20 years' purchase was £15,000. In consequence of the increase of the Government work at Woolwich, immediately after 1845 and after the Crimean War, it was necessary that additional houses should be erected for the accommodation of the workmen employed in the Government Establishment. If an Act such as that now asked for had been in operation, this 250 acres could have been acquired and about 5,000 houses built. But as the freehold could not be bought the houses had to be built on leasehold tenure. After making roads about 20 houses per acre were built on the leasehold tenure, for which £3 per annum ground rent per house was paid. The result is that an estate which was bringing in £750 per annum, and the capital value of which was £15,000, now brings in an income of £15,000, or its original capital value, every year, in consequence of the lucky circumstance of houses being required for workmen who are obliged to live near their work. The houses were built on leases for 70 years, which have now about 25 years to run. The landlord will have received about £1,000,000 in extra rent, without reckoning interest thereon, and in 25 years the houses, which cost £200 each to erect, will revert to him, and he will get another million of money., These 5,000 men who built these houses, chiefly with the aid of Building Societies, or paid heavy rents for these houses, will not have a relic left of that which they put on the ground; some people will have become millionaires, and others-will have reverted to their original condition. In fairness, I ought to admit that those who have the leasehold houses, and let them, do not make a loss, because the rents charged enable them to recoup themselves for the money laid out and the interest upon it. This loss really falls on the workpeople in excessive rents. Now, if the community had stepped in, in the first instance, either the enormous profit I have mentioned would have belonged to the Municipality, or the rents would have been less during the whole of the time. It may be said that all that is past and gone, and nobody wishes to take the landlord's property away. But what is to be done now? It would be a very good thing, in my opinion, even now, if the municipality were to step in and make an arrangement by which the £3 a year ground-rent should be increased to £6 and give a perpetual lease. The result would be that those houses would not be forfeited, the 5,000 leaseholders would still retain their property, subject to a £6 ground-rent, and that ground-rent would at once double the freeholders income, or could be sold for £150, and it was better to have £150 in cash 25 years before the lease expires than a house worth £200 25 years hence. There would be no loss in an arrangement of that kind; the landlord would he benefited, and the workmen would remain in permanent tenure of their houses. It only wants business men to consult together in order-to effect some arrangement by which the thrift of the working classes can be permanent instead of evanescent. I give this practical example in answer-to my hon. Friend who wished for practical instances. I leave the House to deal with a matter which affects the well being of the country. Working men are fully alive to the importance of having permanent homes — they value them very much, especially those who desire to live in the same locality. Certainly it is a desire which ought to be encouraged, I hope, by the whole of us. Permanent thrift will make the lives of the working people and their children happier than they have been in the past.

Mr. Speaker, if the result of this Debate had only been to have caused the hon. Member to deliver the speech to which the House has just listened with a good deal of interest, it could not be described as otherwise than profitable; and entitle the Mover of the Resolution to our thanks. The speech with which the hon. Member who moved the Amendment favoured the House appeared to me to be one that might have been made 100 years ago, when it would have been in keeping with the their existing order of things. The hon. Member has apparently come into the world too late. It is a pity, because he might have been able to influence past generations, but we have outgrown the fossilised views he expressed in regard to the rights of property. There was a marked difference between the speeches of the Movers of the Motion and Amendment. The one pleaded for humanity, the other, from first to last, almost exclusively for property. The hon. Member does not seem to have any sympathy with anybody or anything in the world except the holders of property. The hon. Member for Harrow asked the Mover of the Resolution to produce an instance of hardship, and then he would consent to some power being vested in the Local Government Board. But what the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution pleaded for was that the people should have the opportunity of accomplishing their objects themselves. With that suspicion. which is still entertained of the working classes, the hon Member said, "Prove to us that you suffer hardships and we will do something for you." But the people have outgrown those ideas. They are anxious to redress their wrongs in their own way. And I am satisfied that the people themselves are better acquainted with their own wants and aspirations than ever the hon. Member for Harrow can possibly be; and that they are better qualified to redress them than even he is. The speed res of the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution, I thought, bristled with instances of hardship, and the House has just heard another very remarkable-case from the hon. Member for Woolwich. I can quite understand the hon. Member for Harrow saying to himself, during the delivery of the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich, "Save me from my friends," because the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich supplies him with one of the most remarkable instances ever, I think afforded to this House, of the hardship, cruel wrong, and suffering inflicted upon the industrial classes. I hope after this the hon. Member for the Harrow Division will never again use the term "confiscation," or try to frighten the country out of its propriety, by talking of the danger there would be in giving Local Authorities the power of confiscating the property of the landlords. What have they been doing at Plumstead but confiscate?—["Oh !"]—I use the term advisedly—not land, but bricks and mortar, the dwellings which these men have raised by their money and skill. I am simply voicing the opinions entertained by the people with regard to this iniquitous system. The talk of confiscation comes from the hon. Member for Harrow with a very bad grace. The Seconder of the Motion treated the House to two remarkable illustrations of the danger of conferring on Local Authorities the power of doing that which we are asked, by the Resolution, to enable them to do. He told us that the Town Council of Wolverhampton had deprived certain cottagers and dwellers in farm-houses of a proper supply of water. Well, it has fallen to my lot to travel through many of the villages of the United Kingdom, and I have seen many instances of hardship in the matter of water supply inflicted on the villagers, not by Town Councils or Local Authorities, but by landlords. There are hundreds of villages throughout the country in which, owing to the action of the landlords, the people have no water supply other than that of the village pond, which contains water full of animalcule, not fit even for animals to drink. If this Resolution is carried into effect it will, as one of its results, enable the people to remedy this state of things. A great deal of socialistic agitation now prevails, led by men nearly all of whom are terribly in earnest, and it is the experience which these men and their followers have obtained of rural life and of the sufferings to which the agricultural labourers have had to submit that has embittered their feelings. The ranks of Socialism in London and our large towns are becoming a dangerous force in the country—and I use the term "dangerous"advisedly—to the supporters of the existing state of things; they have been swollen by the influx of men from our villages who, in their country life, have suffered grievous wrongs and hardships such as those it is now sought to remedy. I would, therefore, ask hon. Members on both sides of the House seriously to consider whether by the adoption of a beneficial and practical Resolution such as that now submitted to us, they would not be doing something to deprive the advocates of ex- treme, and very often foolish, measures of the power they already possess and of their influence which increases day by day.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down speaks of the benefits which would result if this Motion were passed, but he has omitted to point out in what particular way the Motion would benefit anybody.

I suggested that it would benefit the villages by enabling them to obtain purer supplies of water.

I was about to say that all I could gather from the speech was that if this Motion were passed the animalculæ in village ponds might in some mysterious way vanish. But if all that is to happen is that the animalculæ in village ponds are to be replaced by the animalcule in town ponds, I do not see that much will be gained. The hon. Member did not suggest what powers should be conferred on the Town Councils which they do not already possess for dealing with sanitary matters. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire made a general sweeping statement—which seemed to be founded on nothing more than gossip—as to the desire of certain landlords to drive everyone off their land. He did not mention the names. He found fault with the Seconder of the Motion for mentioning some cases of Town Councils in connection with which alleged hardships had occurred, and he would have been the first to complain if the names of those Town Councils had not been given; but he himself omitted to tell us who were the individuals of whom he spoke. I am surprised that the case of Scotland should have been gone into after your ruling, Sir, but it was touched upon, and the hon. Member who touched upon it dealt with a case with which I am tolerably familiar. The Mover of the Amendment instanced the case of Greenock, as to which he must have been misinformed, for during the last 40 years land has been acquirable by the Corporation of Greenock, and could have been acquired on fair terms. Tested by this case, the other examples of hardship adduced are of little weight, and therefore no case has been made out for the Motion, and it has not been shown that things would have been different if effect had been given to the Motion by legislation. For these reasons I shall support the Amendment.

I believe the Debate on this Resolution will he productive of great good in the country. It states in a simple and plain way what is a great public need, and it is evaded by an Amendment which speaks about being-ready to consider 'definite proposals, "but declining to assent to" general propositions. "We heard in the earlier part of the evening my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade say something about" A true blue argument. "Well, I think the hon. Member how moved the Amendment made a speech which was worthy of being described as a very" true blue "speech; but, fortunately, we have heard from the same side of the House a speech of a very different character—I allude to that of the hon. Member for Woolwich. I would commend that speech to the attention of the Government and the Party opposite. I rejoice in this Debate, which indicates the greater interest taken in agricultural labourers since they have votes. Their interests are no longer the preserve of the hon. Member for Bordesley, whom I do not see in his place to-night. This Motion affords a touchstone and a test which will enable the labourers to determine who are their real friends, and who will assist them to obtain a greater enjoyment of the land which they believe is intended for the happiness and the use of all. True, the Resolution does not say how it is to be done; but while it deprives opponents of the opportunity of fastening upon details, it lays down a broad general principle which it is for statesmen to carry out. The labourers want land on fair terms free from the personality of the individual landlord, and under conditions which will save the unearned increment to themselves and their children, instead of allowing it to be appropriated by landlords big and small. Now, this Resolution fulfils all these conditions, and therefore, I for one, most loyally support it. The labourers know the interests of those who are against them--the landlords who for generations have fattened on the unearned increment of the community. An instance has been given of this by the hon. Member for Woolwich; and cases of this kind must be within the knowledge of every Member in his own constituency. I came across a case the other day, where a landowner was charging at the rate of £2 10s. for a tenth of an acre. That landowner is a Member of this House sitting on this side—though he does not vote with us. £25 a year for an acre of land let to agricultural tenants as garden allotments while the adjoining land is let by him at between £4 and £5 an acre. These cases are not singular; there is hardly a district in England in which they do not occur. The building lease dodge is another means by which the landlord fetters the growing community. The communities grow; they want elbow room, and the private owner of land fattens on the very needs of their existence; whereas I maintain that if communities were allowed to acquire lands around themselves on fair terms, so that they should receive the unearned increment, in 50 years' time there would be a property valuable enough to pay the whole of the local and poor rates. I would not intefere with any man's property unduly; but I hold that all individual ownership of land is subject to the general ownership of the community. I am one of those who hold the doctrine—Radical doctrine if you like to call it so—that God never intended the land to be possessed and enjoyed by a few people, but that He intended it for the benefit and enjoyment of all. And as I am in the habit of saying these things on village greens, and in village school rooms, I should he ashamed of myself if I did not say them here as well when opportunity offers.

The last speaker, so far as I understood him, alluded to the want of small holdings in England and Wales; but if it is not a matter of ancient history, I would remind him that the Party to which he belongs, in 1886 having turned out a Conservative Government on the question, had an opportunity of going on with the measure, but failed to avail themselves of it. It seems to me somewhat strange that so eminent a Member of the Party in power in 1886 should twit the Conservative Party— who really have done something towards enabling labourers to acquire small holdings—with not doing that which his own friends neglected to do when they had the opportunity. The Motion, so far as I understand it, is to enable Town Councils and County Councils, in some fashion not stated, to buy land for certain purposes which are very vaguely set forth. They are to be empowered to spend the ratepayers' money for some purpose, as to which the hon. Member has not been good enough to enlighten us. I came down here to-night expecting to hear an eminent lawyer—for the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries is a very eminent lawyer—propound a new Land Law for England; but I must say that I have received very little enlightenment. The hon. and learned Member began by stating that the landlords in England behaved very ill indeed. I was anxious to hear him give instances to prove his assertion, but he did not give any. All that he told us was that something unfair had been done in a fishing village on the coast of Devonshire.

I did not say that all landlords had behaved very ill indeed, or else I must have very ill indeed expressed my meaning. I said there were many cases of hardship, but that there were good landlords as well as bad.

I am glad that I have elicited from the hon. and learned Member the confession that there are good landlords in England; but I must say that the hon. and learned Gentleman gave me the impression—and I think I shall be in the recollection of the House when I say that the general impression he conveyed was—that, as a rule, the landlords did not behave well. The hon. and learned Member went off to Sutherland-shire and talked about deer forests, and then he came to London, but I could learn absolutely nothing from his observations. The Seconder of the Motion made, as he always does, a very interesting speech; but it had very little to do with the Motion. He gave us a most interesting disquisition, chiefly in regard to co-operative 'stores and village halls; but in my county, at least, nearly every village hall has been built by that much-maligned individual, the great landlord. As no definite proposals for altering the system of land tenure have been submitted, there is really nothing to vote about. By carrying the Motion the House will be binding itself to great and fundamental changes for which no reasons have been adduced. That being the case, I shall feel bound to give my vote for the Amendment.

One hon. Member who spoke awhile ago expressed his desire not to interfere with the property of the landlords unduly, and at that a cheer went up from hon. Members opposite. But we have been complaining all the evening that the property of those who are not landlords except in name, namely, the leaseholders, have been unduly inter fered with, and we trust that hon. Members opposite—kindly men as we know them to be—will extend their sympathy to this class. I listened with the utmost regret to the words which fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. D. Crawford). The body of laws known as the Land Law of England has no worse result than this, that they brutalise the men who benefit by them. My hon. Friend will, I believe, be as kind a neighbours in Lanarkshire as my neighbours the great landowners are in Cheshire. I have seen a great deal of the difficulty of obtaining a pure water supply in villages, and if only on this account I should like to see this power conferred not only on Town and County Councils, but on all Rural and Urban Sanitary Authorities. Not long ago, I knew of a case of a landlord from whom the Sanitary Authority had obtained the lease of land from which to obtain water, charging a rent for the water obtained by his neighbours—most of whom were his tenants—while the waterworks were being executed. The water was running to waste, and though the landlord was losing nothing of any use to him he insisted on a rent. [Cries of "Name!"] No, Sir, I should be ashamed to give the name. I am not here to speak ill of my neighbours. The gentleman to whom I allude is a very kind man. He is respected wherever he is known, and comes of a Cheshire family, which has been respected as long as the records of this House have been on paper. Nevertheless, this man did not think it beneath him to charge a rent because his neighbours got the benefit of that which had cost him nothing whatever. If for no other reason than this, that the existence of this law hardens the feelings of the rich against the poor, I shall support the Motion.

I have listened to the Debate with the greatest possible attention; but I confess I am very little wiser than I was when it began with respect to the specific object which hon. Members opposite desire to obtain by the proposal submitted to the House. For I am bound to say that a vaguer or more indefinite Motion, supported by vaguer or more indefinite speeches, I do not recollect having ever listened to. The general drift of some of the speeches was tolerably clear, and undoubtedly it seems to me unhappily to be the case that we live in days when some politicians, at all events, appear to have as one of their chief objects a desire to obtain popular applause and popular support by appealing to the not unnatural wish of some classes of the people to become possessed of property which is not their own-What is the Motion before the House? It asserts that a measure is urgently needed to enable Town Councils and County Councils in England and Scotland to acquire by compulsion, if not by agreement, on what its supporters are pleased to describe as fair terms, such land within or adjoining their several districts as may, in their judgment, be needed for the requirements of the inhabitants. The first thing that occurs to me to ask is, What about the needs of the inhabitants in those districts who are to be deprived of their land? Surely their claims are entitled to some consideration; but those claims have not entered the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite even for a moment. How has the Motion been supported? The hon. Member who seconded it referred to some observations which I made on a former occasion with regard to the principle of compulsion. I acknowledge—nobody in these days disputes it for a moment — that the principle of compulsion with regard to the taking of land for a specific or definite object that is proved to be for the public good is undoubtedly accepted. It has been accepted by the present Government, and we do not deny that the Legislature, if it think fit, has the right to take land by compulsion. But the Legislature is bound not to think fit to do so unless it is clearly shown to be for the public good. Has it been shown in any one of the speeches this evening that there is any specific or definite object for the public good in the minds of Gentlemen opposite for which they desire to obtain the assent of the Legislature to the acquirement of land by compulsion? The hon. Member who seconded the Motion spoke of the necessity of obtaining free libraries and cricket grounds in various places where they are needed; and he dwelt on the subject of Cooperative Stores in some districts, expressing the opinion that it is most desirable that the use of the village schools should be allowed for the purposes of those who wish to promote the formation of such societies. In that last observation I cordially agree with the hon. Member, for I think that the use of such schools for purposes of that kind would promote an object which is for the general good of the inhabitants of the parish; but I have yet to learn that it is necessary that the House should assent to a vague proposition which would enable Town Councils and County Councils in all parts of the country to take land by compulsion under any pretext and for any purpose whatever. To whom do the people go when they want free libraries, cricket grounds, or public halls? Why, to the landlord of course. And can hon. Gentlemen opposite name any instance in which any landlord worthy of the name is not foremost in promoting such objects? Turning to the observations of the Mover of the Motion, I must say that in some respects I have never heard a more surprising speech. The Motion is one to enable Town and County Councils in England to acquire land by compulsion; yet the hon. Member found it necessary to travel to the North of Scotland for an illustration. He talked of the horrid scenes and the atrocities which occurred through the eviction of tenants in Sutherland.

I said devastation.

The hon. Member may use what term he pleases. He referred to occurrences of 80 or 100 years ago. A more unfortunate or inaccurate reference could hardly have been made. What are the facts? I have myself had the opportunity of learning them from a man who devoted the whole of his life to the improvement and benefit of the people living in the interior of that country. The best proof of that is to be found in the monument erected to his memory. The fact is that year after year, owing to the climate and natural causes, the people were placed in such a condition of destitution, very often approaching starvation, that it became absolutely necessary for a landlord possessing any instincts of humanity at all to endeavour so to deal with the matter as to improve the condition of the people in the future. Steps were accordingly taken for the purpose of removing those people. [Ironical Opposition cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen would do well not to cheer too soon. Steps were taken to remove those people from the interior, in which it was almost impossible for them to live, to the coast of the country. That was done for two reasons—in the first place, the land near the coast was far the most fertile in the county; and, in the second place, the people were thus enabled to supplement their agricultural pursuits by fishing. The hon. Member made the alleged misconduct of the landed proprietors one of the main props of his wretched, indefinite Motion, but let me give a few of the facts. What was the condition of the people? It was described by a man who had visited the country over and over again, The description given was that—

"During 1816–17 these people suffered the extremes of want and human misery, and they existed on the bounty of the proprietor. Those who lived in the interior and had no cattle subsisted on nettle broth thickened with a little oatmeal, while those who had cattle resorted to the device of bleeding them and mixing the blood with meal Every exertion was made by the proprietor. To those who had cattle he advanced money to the amount of £3,000, and to supply those who had no cattle he sent meal to the amount of £9,000."

That is the work of a single year on the part of a landed proprietor, and it is work that has to be done year after year in the County of Sutherland to preserve these people from starvation.

Does the right hon. Gentleman justify the Sutherland evictions?

Unquestionably I do. Why ask me such a question after the statement I have made to the House? Would the hon. Member have justified the retention of those people in a perpetual condition of misery and starvation? When I learn that the hon. Member has ever performed any acts of justice and humanity at great cost to himself such as I have just described, I will admit, what I do not admit at present, the right of the hon. Gentleman to pose as a critic in this matter. Then the hon. Member referred to a matter of quite a different character. He said there was great pressure at the present time for allotments and small holdings. The question of small holdings is one of great interest and importance, but as it is now under discussion before a Select Committee the hon. Member will excuse me if I reserve my opinion upon that question until the Committee has reported. The Party on this side of the House have not been backward in yielding to the demand for allotments, or in making arrangements and introducing legislation for their more numerous provision in the future. They have done so because they are convinced allotments are wanted. The hon. Member spoke of the tenants' precarious tenure of their cottages; but how does he propose to ameliorate their position? If the Local Authorities are substituted for the landlords, what guarantee is there that the tenants will be one whit better off? Nine labourers out of ten, if they were given the choice of holding their cottages either under an average landlord or under some Local Authority, some Parish Board, would not hesitate for a moment, but would choose the landlord. The hon. Member spoke of the uncontrolled power exercised by landlords over their land, and said that such power is injurious to the public interest. But whether it is injurious or not depends entirely upon how the power is exercised. Uncontrolled power badly used is undoubtedly most injurious to the public interest, and not only in the case of land. The same thing is true of the uncontrolled misuse of his income by any hon. Member in this House. Then the hon. Member said that the price to be given for land taken by compulsion is to be a fair price, and that by a fair price he means an honest price. But what is an honest price? Surely it is the worth of the land to the owner. Is that the view of the hon. Member, and is the owner to settle the price himself, or does the hon. Member desire that the land should be taken from the owner by compulsion, and that he should be paid less than he wants or holds the land to be worth? The hon. Member for Haggerston (Mr. Cremer) said that the people wish to redress their wrongs; but what are the wrongs which the people wish to redress in connection with this question? I have failed to gather any clear notion of the hon. Member's meaning, unless it is that the wrong under which the people suffer consists in this—that, certain persons happening to be the owners of plots of land, other people wish to possess that land in their place. What wrong can there be in the fact that I or any other person may have acquired by purchase or inheritance certain parcels or quantities of land, and which not unnaturally some other people would like to possess? But the most extraordinary statement we have heard this evening came from the hon. Member for the Cirencester Division (Mr. Winterbotham). After warmly thanking the Mover of the Resolution for the course which he has taken, the hon. Member, in a burst of pious aspiration, said, "Thank God this is an abstract Resolution and not a Bill." I was not surprised at this pious aspiration of the hon Member; because, although hon. Members opposite never lose an opportunity of talking upon this question, they have always been deplorably backward when opportunities for action have presented themselves. The hon. Member candidly avowed that this Resolution was a bid for the labourers' vote. "If you will not do this thing," said the hon. Member, "make room for us." But what would be the use of making room for the Party opposite? Would their conduct be different from what it has been in the past? The labourers have only too good a recollection of their attitude with reference to this question. I have endeavoured, I hope not at too great length, to criticise some of the statements and suggestions in speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I may be permitted, in a few words, to state my position and the position of the Government in reference to this question. We freely admit that the compulsory principle must be recognised when the acquisition of land is proved to be for a genuine, specific, beneficial, and advantageous public purpose. I do not think there need be any doubt in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite as to our feeling when I remind the House, as I am justified in doing, that I was almost the first person in this House, many years ago, to advocate the compulsory principle in a Bill with regard to the payment of compensation by landlords to agricultural tenants. I believe, also, that I was the first person in the House, certainly one of the first on the Conservative side of the House, to propose that: in regard to allotments compulsion should be admitted as a principle where land could not be obtained without it. We did that because we were absolutely persuaded, after careful inquiry, that both of these were objects of great public advantage, which in the public interest it was desirable, and indeed more than desirable, we should adopt. If hon. Gentlemen opposite will show us definitely some good which can be accomplished by their proposal, if they will submit propositions to the House of Commons at any time in a definite shape and in a definite manner, and will prove to us that they are for the public good and advantage, then they may be assured that the Government will not be backward in entertaining these propositions. But we must have before us something more than vague speeches supporting a vague Motion such as has been submitted to us tonight. Until we have something different before us I hope hon. Members on both sides will unite in showing their sense of this vague and indefinite Motion by voting against it.

The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is not really an alarming speaker when he adopts the line he has taken up to-night; because we all remember that he took up the very self-same line when he met a proposal of this kind in reference to allotments, the moment it became serious, with what he described at the time as an "emphatic' No."

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to explain, as I have explained before, that when I gave that reply I said "No," not to the pro- position for a Bill for allotments, which we said the Government were ready to introduce; I said "No" to a Vote of Censure thoroughly undeserved, and to nothing else.

At all events the result, if not the intention, of the right hon. Gentleman's emphatic "No" was to negative the proposal for compulsory purchase. The right hon. Gentleman cannot give an emphatic "No" to that statement?

Yes, I can; a most emphatic "No." I am afraid the memory of the right hon. Gentleman must be very deficient. A Vote of Censure was moved on the Government for not including the mention of an Allotments Bill in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. I answered, on behalf of the Government, that the Government were prepared to introduce an Allotments Bill, a Bill in which, so far as I recollect, the principle of compulsion was included.

This is the first time we have heard that the principle of compulsion was included in a Bill the House never saw or heard of. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes the House to believe that in January, 1886, he was in favour and the Government was in favour of compulsory allotments, of course I unreservedly accept his statement. I look forward very confidently to the day when possibly the right hon. Gentleman himself will bring in a Bill carrying out the proposals which tonight he is going to vote against. I look forward to the time when he will say the Government accept the principle of compulsion. He has said so to-night, but he also says that it is only honest that the landlord should fix the price. Is the House to understand that the right hon. Gentleman seriously maintains that land is to be taken by compulsion, but at a price fixed by the landlord? I can only say that to that proposition we give an "emphatic No." Anybody can see that the time is not very far distant when landlords will not be allowed to fix the price of any land that may be taken, as the Motion suggests, by public bodies for public purposes. Anybody can see that such a principle as that is in these times undoubtedly doomed. The right hon. Gentleman has said exactly what he used to say upon allotments, that, when an improvement is required and land is required for the purpose, then the first person to go is the landlord. He used to say, in regard to allotments, that the people would rather go to a landlord than to a Local Board. True, there are many landlords to whom they would prefer to go, but these are the minority among landlords; but depend upon it the time has come when we have to accept the principle in legislation that popularly-elected bodies must have power to acquire land for public purposes, or what they deem purposes of public utility; and if the right hon. Gentleman doubts that, I would refer him to the speech made tonight by one of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters. If he doubts the truth of what I say, let him weigh the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Colonel Hughes). And, by-the-way, the right hon. Gentleman forgets, I think, the "Acquisition of Church Sites" Bill. He forgets that his own Party passed a Bill for the compulsory acquisition of church sites; but when an attempt was made to apply the same principle to chapels, a Gentleman who sits behind the right hon. Gentleman did his best to block that proposal, and to deny to Nonconformists the same compulsory powers that were given to Churchmen. The charge of vagueness has been brought against the Motion, and the able speeches in which it has been moved and supported. There was no vagueness in the able and, as I thought, most interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Acland). There is no vagueness in the proposition of my hon. and learned Friend; and if anybody wants to know what the recommendations implied in the Motion are, I would refer him to no more recondite authority than the recommendations of the Town Holdings Committee. I am sure the President of the Local Government Board is well acquainted with those recommendations. The recommendations are not, it is true, all in favour of powers being given to County Councils, but they are recom- mendations pointing in the direction in which they may be—probably will be— expanded for County Councils and Town Councils to have compulsory powers. The Committee recommended that all religious bodies to whom land had been granted on lease by the freeholder for a place of worship or school should be allowed to purchase the fee, subject to fair compensation; and similar powers were recommended to be given to educational bodies, even when not elected; also to provident societies with reference to their buildings: and, lastly, and most important, was the recommendation that any public body should have power to procure the enfranchisement of any building required for purposes of general utility, on the ground that security of tenure in such an instance is of great importance to the community. Therefore, the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend is no revolutionary one; in principle and in spirit it has been admitted and recommended by a Committee of the House, upon which, of course, there was a Conservative majority. So far from the proposal implied in the Motion being destructive or violent, it is no more than an extension—and no very violent extension—of the principle which the Government themselves admit and are carrying out in their Allotments Act. The principle of the Allotments Act is that a public body shall have compulsory power to satisfy a certain kind of public demand. Where is the revolutionary character of a proposal to extend the same principle in the direction of other requirements which a locally-elected body may choose to think are requirements of public utility? I am quite sure that the hon. Member for the Cirencester Division (Mr. Winterbotham) gave exceedingly good advice when he said that to assent to, and still more to carry out in legislation, the principle involved in this Motion is a sure and the only way of avoiding a tremendous tide, which, if we do not meet it in time, will submerge a great many institutions which we on this side of the House value as much as hon. Members opposite. The hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment to the Motion has taken up a position which I am sure Gentlemen sitting near the hon. and learned Gentleman must have heard with some consternation, and which will hardly be supported by them, however they may vote to-night. There are not 50 Gentlemen on the opposite Benches who will take the position of the hon. and learned Member, namely, that all these transactions are to be left purely and simply to the principle of demand and supply.

Indeed, I never said anything of the kind. I said that private transactions between man and man should be so regulated; but I admitted that upon legitimate ground being shown a Public Authority might take compulsory powers for public purposes.

Then I must say that very elaborate passages in the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman were ill-conceived and not addressed to the Motion before the House. I am sure the House understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to have insisted on competitive rents remaining the law in the case of all these transactions in which public bodies might have concern; and, that being so, I think that my hon. Friend behind me has not pressed the hon. and learned Member too hard when he said that the Amendment rested upon nothing stronger than the old and, as I should have thought, almost universally repudiated, principle that a landowner can do what he likes with his own. I do not believe that that principle is now accepted in any quarter of the House, except perhaps by the hon. and learned Member himself. The speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich is a fair answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The subject of this Motion is one which undoubtedly, as years go on, will constantly be brought before the House. Large Municipalities, and small Municipalities also, will not endure that their expansion should be throttled and the conditions of their growth checked by the assertion of privileges, or it may be of the legal rights of owners of land, hostile to the welfare of those who have given to that land its real value. The question of the unearned increment will have to be faced within a measureable distance of time. It is unendurable that great increments which have not been earned by those to whom they accrue, but have been formed by the industry of others, should be absorbed by people who have contributed nothing to that increase. I remember when Mr. John Stuart Mill broached the doctrine 20 years ago. Mr. Mill was the last man to accept any modern doctrine of taking land without fair compensation; but if the doctrine of the unearned increment had prevailed at the time when he was speaking with reference to some of the great London proprietors, enough would have been intercepted to satisfy all the public purposes which it is now proposed to meet, and the demands of a great society like that of this Metropolis would have been fairly satisfied, without doing an injustice to a single landowner. These doctrines are in the air, they are now put forward, not quite for the first time, but almost, in this House. The discussion we have opened to-night will not be the last, but is the first of a series of discussions; and it is because I think that the Motion points towards a solution of the problem which is reasonable and moderate and involves no breach of equity towards any owner of property that I shall give it my most hearty support.