I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Inspector, Colonel Spaight, has reported that the schoolmaster of Newtownards Union and the clerk of Lisburn Union, the latter it is stated being eighty-four years of age, are unfit to discharge the duties of their respective offices; and in view of the responsible and important nature of the duties which the schoolmaster and clerk of a Union are required to discharge, whether the Local Government Board will call upon these officers to tender their resignations; and, if not, what action do they propose to take in regard to their Inspector's Report?

It appears that the schoolmaster at Newtownards is suffering from bronchitis following upon an attack of influenza, and he has been granted leave of absence on the recommendation of the medical officer of the Union. As to the clerk of the Lisburn Union, I answered a question on the 16th inst. put to me by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McCartan), and perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to refer to my answer given then.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the amount annually collected for maintenance rate in the Lough Neagh drainage district; what are the relative proportions of the sums paid for maintenance of officers' salaries, and travelling expenses of the members of the Drainage Board; and why a yearly statement of expenditure is not submitted to the cess-payers.

The Lough Neagh district drainage rate is in no way under the control of the Government, and I have no official information on the matters referred to.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether his attention has been drawn to the case of an unfortunate Army pensioner named James Thompson, at present an inmate of the Kensington Workhouse, who received four severe wounds during the Indian Mutiny, which lamed him for life, and afterwards received other terrible injuries by reason of an accident at the Royal Small Arms Factory at Sparkbrook; and is he aware that Thompson was for twenty-four years denied the full pension to which a soldier wounded in action is entitled, and that he received no compensation for the injuries he sustained in the Royal Small Arms Factory; and, if so, whether, considering Thompson's advanced age and many injuries received in the public service, and considering that his present pension is appropriated to pay the cost of his support in the workhouse, some allowance will be made him in the shape of arrears of pension or compensation for accident which will save him from dying in a workhouse?

James Thompson served eleven years in the Army. He received a wound in 1857, but was not invalided till 1864, when he received a pension of ninepence a day, the usual rate in such cases, when the recipient is able to supplement his pension by his earnings. In 1888 it was represented that this was no longer the Case, his disability having become worse, and his pension was increased to one shilling and twopence. He was, however, sufficently fit for employment as a labourer in the Royal Small Arms Factory at Birmingham, but before he had been there seven months he sprained himself, and had unfortunately to be discharged, receiving £12 10s. injury pay and £31 16s. compensation in August last. I am afraid that nothing more can be done for him, but of course should he leave the workhouse his pension of one shilling and twopence would cease to be diverted by the Local Authorities.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under what authority have the Local Government Board intimated to the sitting Guardians for the Achill and Dooega Electoral Divisions of the Westport Union that their election as Guardians is invalid, on the plea that the landlord, Mrs. Pike, who never paid rates, whose name is not on the ratebook, and who had not taken out probate to her husband at the time of the election, did not record her votes; and if he will explain on what grounds the Local Government Board have disallowed five out of six votes claimed by the Franciscan community at Achill, whose votes have been recorded without objection for several years past, but have allowed the votes of the Trustees of the Achill Protestant Missions, who contribute nothing towards the rates, and who only hold a religious trust for a non-resident community?

I am informed that the election referred to was set aside by the Local Government Board, who were advised that the Returning Officer had illegally disallowed the votes of Mrs. Pike. The rates were paid by Mrs. Pike's agent, and the receipts taken out in her name in respect of freehold property to which she succeeded on the death of her husband. It was not necessary to take out probate of her husband's will in order to qualify her to vote. With regard to the Franciscan community at Achill, the property in respect to which they are qualified to vote being rated at under £20 (£12 10s.), they are only entitled to one vote. The Trustees of the Achill Missions are rated as such, and entitled under the Act to vote.

; I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of John Henderson, who was sentenced by the Magistrates of Sunderland on 19th May to fourteen days' imprisonment with hard labour, and without the option of fine, for alleged intimidation of one of the officials of the Shipping Federation Company, Limited; whether he is aware that three of the Justices who tried the case were shareholders in vessels entered in the Shipping Federation; and whether he is aware that one of the Justices who tried this case was opposed by the defendant, and defeated at the last Municipal election for the Borough of Sunderland; and whether, in view of the fact that steps are being taken to have this case referred to the Court of Queen's Bench, he will undertake that Henderson shall be released from prison pending the decision of the Higher Court?

Before the right hon. Gentleman proceeds to answer that question, may I be permitted to ask him another which arises out of the question on the Paper, and of which I have given my right hon. Friend private notice? I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that large numbers of Union men now assemble as pickets at the approaches to the shipping offices on the Tyne, the Wear, and the Tees, to forcibly prevent non-Union seamen signing articles of service on board British ships; whether he is aware that bands of such Union men assemble in the public ways, at the docks, on the quays, and even forcibly board some vessels and use violence for the purpose of intimidating non-Union sailors from exercising their right to ship at wages which they are ready and willing to accept; and if the facts are as stated, whether the right hon. Gentleman can take any steps to secure to those men immunity from such intimidation?

In answer to the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division I have to say John Henderson was sentenced on the 19th instant to fourteen days' imprisonment for following with more than two other persons in a disorderly manner through the streets one Laurence, with a view to compel him to abstain from doing acts which he had a right to do. The case was tried before four Magistrates, two of whom were medical men, one a retired draper, and the fourth a publisher. Three of these gentlemen own shares in shipping companies whose vessels are entered in the Federation, but neither of them take any part in the management of those vessels, or in the action of the Federation. I am informed by the Justices' clerk that neither he, nor, as he believes, the Justices, knew anything of the connection of these vessels with the Federation. I am informed that it is incorrect that either of these Magistrates was opposed or defeated by the defendant at the last municipal election for Sunderland. Henderson was never imprisoned. Notice of appeal to the Quarter Sessions was given and he was allowed to leave the Court at once and to complete his recognisances the next day. No steps have been taken to bring the matter before the Queen's Bench. I have received reports to the effect mentioned by my hon. Friend, and I have been in communication with the Local Authorities of Sunderland, Middlesbrough, and Northumberland. I have as yet received a reply only from Sunderland. I am informed that there have been only a few requests made to the Chief Constable there for police assistance, which have been at once complied with, and that he has ample force at his disposal to take all necessary action in the event of any large body of men being assembled for the purpose of intimidation, an event which has not yet occurred.

Is it not the fact, as stated in the evidence given at the trial, that Henderson was passing up on the opposite side of the street to that on which the person alleged to have been intimidated was passing down; and whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that it was the mere fact that Henderson is a delegate of the Seamen's and Firemen's Union which led to his being charged with having incited to intimidation, and that it was mere accident, as shown in the evidence, that he was in the street at the time when the intimidation was alleged to have taken place?

Am I right in inferring that the prosecution was not for intimidation, but under one of the clauses of the Conspiracy Act?

Under the fifth sub-section. I cannot answer the question of the hon. Member without notice.

As I gather that in this case the members of one Union were engaged in trying the members of another Union, may I ask is there any way of preventing the recurrence of such a case in which Union men were tried by magistrates connected with the Federation, the two organisations being in conflict?

The mere fact of a magistrate owning a share in a Shipping Company whose vessels are entered in the Federation would not disqualify that magistrate from trying such a case. I should imagine that there are few magistrates in these ports who do not own one or more shares in Shipping Companies.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is his intention to establish a mail car service between Mullingar and Multyfarnham, County Westmeath; and, if so, can he see his way to extend the service to Bunbrusna, a distance of two miles further on, in order that letters and parcels posted in Mullingar after nine p.m., also those arriving by the 3·15 a.m. mail train at Mullingar, may be delivered in regular course?

It is not intended to establish a mail car service to and from Multyfarnham, which is very conveniently served under existing arrangements. A mail car would entail additional expenditure not covered by the revenue.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the resolution unanimously passed by the magistrates and cesspayers who attended the Clare County at Large Sessions, pointing out that the state of the county having warranted the removal of the three military detachments in Clare, and as the present force of extra police forms a grievous burden on the cesspayers, they would respectfully request the Chief Secretary to invite the attention of His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant to the case of the county, with a view to having the strength of the free force augmented by the transfer of a large number of the extra police to it, as has been done in County Kerry; and what action the Irish Government intend taking on this representation?

Within the past year the extra police force in the County Clare was reduced by forty-two men, and there has recently been a still further reduction of thirty-five men of the extra force and twelve men of the reserve carried out. There is no legal power to consider the question of increasing the free quota of the county until the next triennial re-distribution, when the cases of all counties will be considered, having regard to their claims in respect of population and area.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in the contract held by Messrs. Pocock Brothers, of Southwark Bridge Road, for the supply of boots for the use of the Metropolitan Police, there is any understanding that the wages paid in the carrying out of the contract shall be in accordance with the terms of the Resolution of the House; and is he aware that a portion of the work is done at the employees' own homes at wages which return them less than threepence per hour?

The contract with Messrs. Pocock Brothers for the supply of boots for the use of the Metropolitan Police contains a clause which embodies the conditions of the Resolution passed by this House on 13th February, 1891. That portion of the work referred to in the second paragraph of the question known as "clos- ing the uppers," is paid for at the rate of threepence halfpenny per pair of boots, and at this rate a good workman can earn from fifteen shillings to twenty shillings a week. This work, according to the custom of the trade, is always done at the homes of the workpeople, and for it there is no recognised rate of wages current in the trade. The work is generally done in country villages by boys, girls, and women.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state if the barrier between first and second class officers of Excise is maintained in the interests of discipline and efficiency, why it is that all second class officers are kept for years behind the barrier at a stationary salary before their qualifications for promotion are inquired into; what is the difference in the nature of the duties of first and second class officers; whether a first class officer has disciplinary power over a second class officer; and whether it would be possible, to so increase the maximum of the second class and the minimum of the first class officer that, when an officer reaches the maximum, there would be a possibility of a vacancy arising in the class above to which he might be promoted if found deserving?

The rate of promotion from one class to another in the Excise depends upon the occurrence of vacancies in the higher class. It is the practice of the Inland Revenue to inquire into the qualifications for promotion of officers in the lower class whenever vacancies are likely to occur. Broadly, the difference between the duties of a first and second class officer is that the larger and more responsible? duties are entrusted to the former and the smaller and less important duties to the latter. My answer to the third and fourth paragraphs of the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Mr. Talbot who received the concession for a tobacco monopoly in Persia is the same person who has stood for some years, and still stands, on the official list as Supervisor of the Store Department of the Secretary of State for India in London; whether he was in possession of that appointment when he obtained the concession; whether he obtained the concession with the cognizance of the India Office; and, if so, under what rule of the Service; and whether any action has been taken in regard to his position at the India Office since the facts as to his obtaining the concession have been made known?

The answer to the hon. Member's question is "No."

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the name of the concessionaire of the Persian Tobacco Monopoly is G. H. Talbot, who is the brother of Major A. C. Talbot, the Political Resident in the Persian Gulf, and whether he possesses military rank; and, if so, in what corps?

The Foreign Office has no special knowledge with regard to the military rank or the corps of the gentleman in question. Perhaps the hon. Member will find the information for which he seeks in the Army List, or he might obtain it from the War Office.

What about the initials?

I believe the initials of the gentleman referred to are G. F., not G. H. I thought it was a misprint.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to a case which appeared in the Daily News of the 12th instant, where a Customs' officer was summoned to the Thames Police Court by a seaman for detaining twelve ounces of tobacco and a bottle of Florida water, and to the comments of the magistrate on the proceedings of the Customs' authorities; whether, in the inquiry held by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1891, into the complaints of the officers of the Outdoor Department of the Customs, that while superior officers receiving large salaries were granted substantial benefits, the subordinates—namely, boatmen, receiving very low pay, where granted nothing, but sustained pecuniary loss by the abolition of classification, and that, in consequence, a great deal of discontent prevails amongst the officers of this class; and whether, in view of the temptation to improper exercise of their duties which is caused by the low scale of salaries, the Treasury would grant an improvement in the position of these officers?

The Board of Customs have had under consideration the circumstances referred to in paragraph No. 1 of the hon. Member's question, and have directed an inquiry to be made as to the proceedings of the officers in the case. I may mention that the officer in question was not a boatman, but a preventive officer. With regard to the remaining part of the question, it gives an entirely wrong impression of what was done in consequence of the inquiry held by myself in 1891. The change to which the hon. Member alludes, by which the distinction between the two classes of boatmen was abolished, was granted by me, not without some compunction, as a concession to the officers and on their request. I considered that there was force in the argument that there was scarcely sufficient space between the minimum salary of the lower class and the maximum of the higher class to warrant a division at that particular-point. This separation of the two classes having been abolished, the boatmen were to move up, by increments of £1 a year, from the bottom through the whole of what was formerly two classes, instead of being stopped half-way and having to wait for promotion before they could continue their annual increment. This was, generally, a boon to the class, or was intended to be so; but I understand that there have been individual cases where boatmen have been at the maximum of the second class and would on promotion into the first class have received a £5 increment, and where, therefore, the change operates to the disadvantage of such individuals. In all re-organisations where boons have been conferred, I have found, to my regret, that individual grievances of a plausible character arose with which it was difficult to deal. Generally, the intention was to improve the boatmen's position, and to open up to them better chances of promotion than they enjoyed. In estimating the effect of the changes made upon the position of the boatmen generally, it is important to take into account the great improvement made in their prospects of promotion. This apparently has not been done by the hon. Member's informant. Some minor grievances—for instance, one connected with Sunday pay—are at present under my consideration.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to a passage in the Overland Times of Ceylon, which states that—

"Mr. T. J. Lipton left for China to-day in the P. and O. s.s. 'Thames,' and said good-bye to Arabi Pasha before he went on board, but later on Arabi went out to the 'Thames.' We believe this is the first time Arabi has been, afloat since he has been in the Island";

I rise to a point of Order, Sir. I beg to ask you whether my hon. Friend is justified in asking a question arising out of solicitude for an unfortunate exile, in allowing such question to be made the medium for a vulgar advertisement, Mr. Lipton being the well-known advertising tradesman?

No point of Order arises.

May I ask is it not the fact that Arabi Pasha has only twice, during the time of his detention, been out of Colombo because of his inadequate allowance?

Questions on this subject should be addressed to the Foreign Office; the Colonial Office knows nothing about these matters.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Government of His Highness the Nizam has offered to raise, equip, and maintain, at its own cost, a strong military force to aid in the defence of the Empire; and whether Her Majesty's Government has accepted this offer; and, if so, what effect has been given to the acceptance by the Government of India, and what recognition has been accorded of the spirit in which the offer was made?

In 1887 the Nizam offered to contribute a large sum of money to the defence of the Empire, or, to use His Highness's own words, "in time of war, his sword." This loyal and generous offer was utilised in the organisation of the scheme of "Imperial Service Corps," under which the larger Native States maintain a portion of their troops on a footing to take the field in line with the British Army. In Hyderabad this scheme is still in course of evolution.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Registrar of Friendly Societies demands that the "Wishaw Building and Investment Society" should change its name to the "Wishaw Investment and Building Society," and, seeing that this Building Society was established in 1858, and incorporated under the Building Societies Act of 1874, and that the said Society lately resolved to alter and amend its Rules, whether it is compulsory for the Society to alter its name although unwilling to do so; and whether Section 7 of the Treasury Regulations, as to the names of Societies, applies only to Societies established at a date subsequent to that of the Act of 1874?

I will answer this questson for my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that the Assistant Registrar of Friendly Societies for Scotland as Registrar of Building Societies in Scotland has "demanded that the Wishaw Building and Investment Society should change its name." It is not "compulsory for the Society to alter its name if it is unwilling to do so." As regards the last paragraph of the hon. Member's question, Regulation 7 of the Secretary of State's Regulations—to which I presume he refers—as to the names of Societies, does not "apply only to Societies established at a date subsequent to that of the Act of 1874," but, so far as regards a change of name, applies to all incorporated Building Societies. The facts of the case to which the hon. Member alludes are that, under Regulation 5 of the Secretary of State's Regulations, the Assistant Registrar of Friendly Societies for Scotland has refused to register a complete alteration of rules for the Wishaw Society until such complete alteration or new set of rules has been brought into conformity with the Building Societies Acts by the Society's adopting a name of which the last words shall be "Building Society"; but under Regulation 4 he has offered to register a partial alteration of Rules under the Society's present registered name.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he could see his way to appoint a Resident Inspector in each of the territories of the great Chartered Companies in Africa?

The appointment of a Resident Inspector in each of the territories of the Chartered Companies would entail a heavy expenditure. A residence, staff, and independent means of locomotion would have to be pro- vided for. These requirements in uncivilised countries would represent large sums of money, out of proportion to the advantages likely to be derived from their, presence. There are at present Government officials stationed in the neighbourhood of all the territories referred to, through whom local investigations could be conducted if required, and to whom complaints could be made if desired.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has come to the knowledge of the Chancellor that Mr. Thomas Ferguson, J.P., of Banbridge, County Down, recently made a composition with his creditors; and whether, in consequence, it is proposed to remove him from the Commission of the Peace and ex-officio Guardianship of the Poor?

No information to the effect alluded to in the question has come to the knowledge of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and his Lordship's Secretary is informed by the proper officials that no proceedings of any kind have been taken either by or against the gentleman referred to in this question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has seen a letter from Geraldo de Lima in the African Times, of 1st February, in which he says—

"In good faith I have recommended the English people to the Awoonahs, and to the King also, and have always advised them to be loyal to the British Government and laws, notwithstanding the treatment I received years ago. … I was never a slave dealer in the sense my late master Cæsar de Lima was, and since his death my trade has always been free trade. And, because my name is de Lima, I have to suffer. … I do not know on what charge I was deported to Accra. I was never tried at all";

I have seen the letter to which the hon. Member refers, but I need scarcely point out that the statements it contains are of an entirely ex parte character. There is no information in the Colonial Office as to his alleged claims against the British Government, or that their justice has been "urged by men of influence and integrity at the Gold Coast." The Governor will, however, be asked for a Report on the subject, and also to state whether he can now recommend de Lima's release,

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Mr. Pelham has sent in his Report on the proposed scheme for establishing a rifle range in the New Forest; and whether the Report will be laid before the Committee on the Military Lands Bill before they take evidence on the subject of the New Forest?

The Report has been forwarded to the Secretary of State, who is on the continent, and it will be presented to the House as soon as possible. I cannot promise that it will be in the hands of Members on Monday.

Will it be placed in the hands of Members as soon as possible—before the conclusion of the Committee?

I cannot say how long the Committee will last.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a Convention has been signed by the Governments of Spain and France, under which France is to receive the "most favoured nation" treatment until 1st July, and afterwards to be charged the lowest duties of the Spanish tariff; and whether any efforts are being made to obtain a similar Convention between the Governments of Spain and of the United Kingdom?

The Foreign Office has been informed that a provisional agreement has been concluded between the Governments of Trance and of Spain. France will give her minimum tariff to Spain in exchange for the Spanish conventional tariff which is in force for Treaty Powers until 1st July. This agreement it is undertood will only last until 1st July. As Her Majesty's Government enjoy the present Spanish conventional tariff until 1st July, French trade will not be placed in a more favourable position than British by this arrangement.

The hon. Gentleman has not adverted to the second paragraph of the question.

I have informed the hon. Gentleman before that negotiations are going on with the Spanish Government with a view to the extension of the Commercial Treaty, but at present I am not able to give the hon. Member any further information.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the engagements or undertakings given to the Holy See as to the Maltese Marriage Law and the other matters broached by Sir Lintorn Simmons at the Vatican have been fulfilled, or has any remonstrance been received by Her Majesty's Government as to their non-fulfilment?

Will the hon. Gentleman also say whether anything has been done to enable British subjects in Malta to contract marriages under the Act of last Session?

May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will postpone his question till Monday. I have not yet been able to obtain the necessary information, but I will undertake to give him an answer on Monday.

I suppose there will be no objection to postpone the Vote on Account till Monday also?

I will endeavour to get the answer down from the office as soon as I can, and if the hon. Member wishes to have this information before the Vote on Account I will communicate it privately before the Vote comes on.

I am satisfied.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what the cost of collecting the Excise for the financial year 1884 was, and what that for 1891 was; and what the amounts of Excise Revenue brought in charge in those two years respectively were; and whether, in the year 1884, the officers of Excise received £11,000 for collecting the Agricultural Statistics, and if that amount is still paid to them? I must apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for not being in my place when the question was first called, but I was detained upstairs with Committee work.

I was about to apologise to the hon. Gentleman for being absent myself. I am unable to separate the cost of collecting the Excise from that of the collection of Inland Revenue generally. The Excise Revenue was £27,306,000 in 1884–5, and, including that paid to the Local Taxation Account, £30,884,000 in 1891–2. The second question has been answered more than once recently, the last answer having been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 17th inst.

My object in putting down the question is to ascertain this. In 1884 the amount was3·9, and a sum was charged for agricultural statistics, whereas in 1891 when the amount was 3·26 that sum was not so charged.

The hon. Gentleman must give me notice of that question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the "Provisional Regulations" of the Suez Canal Company in regard to bulk transit in the Suez Canal, under which new systems of anchorage and compulsory convoyage are required, constitute an infringement or modification of the pledge which was given by the Delegate of Turkey at the International Tonnage Convention held at Constantinople, in which it is stated that—

"No modification for the future of the conditions for the passage through the Canal shall be permitted, whether in regard to the navigation toll or the dues for towage, anchorage, pilotage, &c, except with the consent of the Sublime Porte, which will not take any decision on this subject without previously coming to an understanding with the principal Powers interested therein"?

In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government the Provisional Regulations do not constitute any infringement of the Declarations of the International Tonnage Convention, as the navigation tolls, towage, anchorage, and pilotage dues are not raised or altered. The question of the legality of the Provisional Regulations is one rather for the consideration of the Suez Canal Company than for Her Majesty's Government.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has consulted the Law Officers of the Crown as to the definition of "average attendance" in the Code of last year, upon which the amount of the fee grant depends under the new Education Act; and whether, in their opinion, that definition is in certain cases inconsistent with the general intention of the Act, that no existing school should be compelled to receive a less fee income than they did before its passing?

In compliance with the undertaking which I have entered into, instructions have been given for the preparation of a case to be submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown.

Should I be in Order in putting a question to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs without notice?

No, not without notice. The hon. Member may put a question on the Paper for Monday.

I see the Vote on Account is the second Order on the Paper. I have no reason to suppose that it will not be carried at the Morning Sitting, but in the event of its not being carried, does the First Lord of the Treasury intend putting it down for the Evening Sitting?

I am very unwilling to contemplate the contingency to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I thought I had reason to hope that the discussion on the Small Holdings Bill would take but a short time, and that we might finish the Vote on Account by ten minutes to seven o'clock. If, however, it is not carried, it will certainly be put down for this evening, because it is necessary for the purposes of the Treasury that the money should be voted.

I do not think the discussion will take long, but it would be unfair to closure the Debate at the Morning Sitting.

I am very anxious that hon. Gentlemen should have an opportunity of raising any question they like, but I hope the House will cut down anything in the nature of unnecessary discussion.

I should like to ask with respect to the fourth Order on the Paper, the Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill, whether arrangements will be made to take that Bill to-day, or at a Saturday Sitting, or at some other early period?

I hope we shall be able to deal with this Bill, which we are exceedingly anxious to pass. Perhaps if we get through the Vote on Account at the Morning Sitting, we may do something with this Bill this evening.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that the Notice relating to the Orders at the Evening Sitting are in the names of his own supporters, he cannot arrange to take Supply immediately after 9 o'clock if the Vote on Account is not finished at 7? Will he also tell us what business he intends to take on Monday?

I have already answered the first question, and if the hon. Gentleman had been in his place he would have heard that if the Vote on Account is not finished before 7 o'clock, we shall take it at the Evening Sitting. With respect to the second question, it is probable that we shall take the Second Reading of the Irish Education Bill on Monday.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will say definitely, because if that Bill is taken the Irish Members will want to be here. If the Bill is not taken on Monday, they can be better engaged elsewhere.

It will certainly be taken on Monday or Tuesday; probably on Monday.

I beg to address to the First Lord of the Treasury a question of which I have given him private notice. A rather serious statement is made in this morning's papers by the Rev. Dr. Jessop, a well-known writer on agricultural matters, and rector of the parish of Seaming. Three of his parishioners being dissatisfied with the wages paid as agricultural labourers—namely, 12s. a week—obtained employment with the Great Eastern Railway Company. Shortly afterwards they were dismissed, as he asserts, at the instance and under the pressure of the Farmers' Alliance. If the facts are as stated here, that discloses a case of conspiracy similar to that which was taken up by the Public Prosecutor in Scotland, when two working men were last year prosecuted and punished. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can promise, on behalf of the Government, that an immediate inquiry shall be made into the facts in order to ascertain whether they are as stated by the reverend gentleman, and whether they would come under the Law of Conspiracy?

I received notice of the question a few minutes ago, and I would suggest that the hon. Member should put a question to the Attorney General on the subject, as this is a legal question that I am not competent to deal with. I do not know that any machinery exists by which an inquiry could be made; but the Attorney General or the Public Prosecutor will probably do anything that they may think necessary. The hon. Member should put his question to the Attorney General.

As the House knows, I move this clause in fulfilment of a pledge I gave during the Committee stage of the Bill. I then undertook to look carefully into the matter, although I saw considerable objection to the proposal embodied in the clause. This clause is the result of subsequent consideration, but I am bound to say, at the same time, that the objections which I took to the clause at that time are still undiminished, as I think it eminently undesirable to deal with such a large matter in a Small Holdings Bill. Still, I felt that I should be departing from a pledge if I had not brought in the clause. I beg to move that it be read a second time.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will return to the better opinion he held a week or two ago in this matter, and withdraw the clause altogether. The proposal is to impose an exceptional treatment of these small holdings, as distinguished from other land, and I think that is unnecessary and objectionable. I understand the right hon. Gentleman only moves the first of the two clauses now, the one dealing with Succession Duty.

Yes, the Succession Duty Clause.

I do not quite Understand what is meant by the concluding part of the paragraph "rules of law as leasehold land." What are the rules as to leasehold land distinguishing it from other personal property? I am not aware of any special rules of law dealing with leasehold land, and I cannot understand what the words refer to. The clause would be quite clear if the words after "personal property" were left out. The subsequent words only suggest and introduce difficulties in dealing with it.

I will undertake to have the wording altered if that will satisfy the hon. Member.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will preserve the clause—not necessarily in its integrity as to the wording; but the substance of the clause is only introduced to carry out the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman as announced to the Committee. I have always thought that the easiest way to deal with real property subject to Succession Duty was to treat it as leasehold property. The clause is a reasonable and proper one for carrying out the promise of the right hon. Gentleman to the Committee.

I rather hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton). Apparently, the intention of the clause is that the holding shall be treated as real property in all respects except one; and that is, that it shall be divisible among the survivors of the owner as personal property; but before the clause is withdrawn or modified, I should like to know what was aimed at by the draftsman who put in those words? With regard to the rules of law as to leasehold land, the first is that at the end of the lease the land goes back to the person who granted the lease. That is the only distinct law to which leasehold land is subject. How long is this lease for? As long as the right hon. Gentleman is in office or for a shorter term? How long are the holdings to be subject to these rules? This tinkering with the law relating to land will lead to great evil considering what this Bill is to do. We are about to fix on the soil a most deserving class, something like the old yeoman farmer, in whose case the land passed from father to son for generations. Suddenly the right hon. Gentleman says every time a tenant dies there is to be a division among his family, or, if the holding is too small, it is to be sold and the proceeds divided. This is a question of principle and not of form, and before we pass the clause I should like to know exactly what is meant by saying that the holdings are to be dealt with like leasehold land?

I think anyone will agree that the alteration of this clause is a step in a direction which ought to be very carefully considered before it is adopted. We are taking a step which may extend to all real property in the country. I say that we ought not by a side issue in the middle of a Bill propound a proposal of such magnitude and importance as that in this clause. My right hon. Friend may not have altered his view on the matter; but had I been in his place in the Committee, I would have gone to a Division and been defeated, if it was to be so, on so grave a point rather than have given way. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that leasehold property reverts to the owner at the expiration of the lease; but is there not something more in the wording of the clause?—

"Land comprised in a small holding shall be and shall remain personal property."

I should like a little more explanation of the last two lines of the clause. Apparently in some cases the holding will be sold and the money divided; and I fear in that case the successors would have to pay both Probate and Legacy Duty, and not merely Succession Duty, which would be very unfair on these poor people on whom we desire to confer the benefit of paying only one duty. If the explanation of that part of the clause is not satisfactory, I shall move an Amendment unless I should be in order in moving it now.

The hon. Member must move his Amendment after the clause has been read a second time.

I wish to say a few words in support of the protest my hon. and gallant Friend has made against the adoption of this clause. It seems to be objectionable on two grounds: It deals with an important question by a side wind, and practically abolishes the law of primogeniture in a Bill dealing with small holdings; and I do not think this is the proper time to discuss such a matter. If the clause is adopted, it will defeat the object of the Bill. I hope my right hon. Friend will adhere to his former view and withdraw the clause

No one who has followed the action of the right hon. Gentleman opposite will protest against the introduction of this clause. The principle was assented to after a good deal of discussion, and it cannot, therefore, be now withdrawn. My own opinion is entirely in favour of the adoption of the clause. As to the wording of the clause, that is a matter which can be considered after it has been read a second time. I may point out that the rule of descent is one of the rules of law as to leasehold land.

I stated at the commencement of my observations that this clause was introduced by me on this occasion in virtue of what I considered, after carefully re-examining the question, to be a pledge binding on me, and from which I could not depart. I stated, also, that my own objection to the clause was undiminished; but that in virtue of the pledge I took the only course open to me. I must remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman behind me (Sir Walter Barttelot) that upon the question of principle the-Government were pledged already, as the principle of this clause is embodied in a Bill they have already introduced themselves; and the only ground, therefore, which I had to consider was the ground of expediency. I repeat that, personally, on the ground of expediency, I do think it unreasonable that this question should be dealt with in a fragmentary way; but it is beyond the scope of this Bill to deal with it as a whole, and I felt myself bound to carry out the pledge to introduce this clause. I will take care that words shall be inserted in another place, if necessary, to make the meaning perfectly clear. But I believe myself the clause will be sufficient in itself. Under these circumstances, I hope the Committee will agree not to discuss the question further, but come to a decision without delay.

I think hon. Members opposite very much magnify this matter. As I understand it, this was simply intended to prevent the misfortune which these small holders are liable to fall into—that is the misfortune arising from these small holders dying without making a will. It is well-known that these small men will not make a will; and there have been a good many instances, in the absence of a clause like this, where a man has died without making a will, and his-wife and children have lost all their little property, which has gone to a stranger, or to some cousin, or other person as the next heir.

I beg to move the omission of the last two lines of the clause. I do not think it fair or right that this provision should be put in at all. When we are introducing a new class of landowners in this way, I think we should be taking a very false step to adopt such a provision as this. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will agree to the omission of these two lines—four and five of the clause.

I now have to move another clause, which is again in fulfilment of a pledge which I gave when this Bill was going through Committee. The point was raised in debate on one occasion by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) that at the close of the ten years during which the new owner would be subject to certain conditions, and after the period when he had paid off the whole of the purchase-money, it might happen that land which had been taken from and sold by an adjoining landlord might be used for purposes which might be a nuisance and a great injury to the community; and that, therefore, the owners of property, with that fear and apprehension in their minds, would be slow to sell, and thus prevent the bringing of the provisions of this Bill into operation. The right hon. Gentleman stated as a compromise between his view and my own that I might introduce a clause providing for the pre-emption of the land by either the adjoining owners, or the original owner, or the County Council, in the event of the new owner of the holding desiring to part with it for purposes other than agriculture. I have considered the question, and I have submitted the clause in its present form for the consideration of the House. I think it will meet the main object which the right hon. Gentleman has in view; that is to say, to remove the fear of injury or the unwillingness to sell the land on the part of the existing landowners. I hope the House will agree to accept this clause.

I can only repeat the protest which I made against putting this embarrassing infliction upon the people, who, you propose, should become landowners under this Bill. I believe the object of the clause is to have some provision or condition hanging over the property to prevent it being speculated in by persons who want to build on it or to make profit out of it rather than to cultivate it themselves; but I do not think this clause will effectually carry out that object. I think the practical effect of this clause will be to make this property almost unmarketable. The provisions of the Lands Clauses Act are inapplicable to these small holdings; and if this clause be adopted it will necessitate long and expensive inquiries, which may entail heavy costs upon small holders. These people having paid their money and bought their little property ought to be as free to deal with it as any other owners who have purchased property. Why you should inflict possible loss and practical restriction upon the land is beyond my comprehension. Your object is to encourage these men to invest their little money in the purchase of these properties; and while you have that good object in view, you propose to hang over these people the right of compulsory purchase by an adjoining owner. Why adjoining owner? Why should it not be the original owner? And if adjoining owners, which of the adjoining owners? After cutting up land into sections for these small holdings adjoining owners would probably be two or three of these small holders, whose land may bound this land which you propose to sell. Which of these small holders is to have the right of purchase? You are hanging over these small properties a condition which will be absolutely destructive to them in the market. Who would buy with the liability of being compelled, in certain events quite likely to happen, at any time to sell by arbitration, with the liability to pay the costs of the arbitration? It is altogether a most damaging and injurious provision. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way, in view of the difficulties it would cause, to withdraw the clause altogether; but in its present form it is quite clear that it ought to be amended.

I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman seriously proposes this clause, and the objection taken by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down seems to me to apply quite as much to the original owner as to the adjoining owners. Neither of these classes of persons have the slightest or the remotest shade of a claim upon this land, or to a claim to exercise the right of pre-emption. The adjoining owner has done nothing to entitle him to claim to exercise this right over this land to which Parliament thought fit to attach a certain reversion, and with respect to which Parliament gave facilities for creating small holdings. The original owner has no claim whatever upon the land, because he has been paid the full price for it in the open market by a public authority. If the land is to revert at all it should revert to the County Council, the only body that has any claim or any right of preemption over this land, and which represents all the ratepayers within the county. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not ask us to spend any more of the time of the House in trying to force on us a clause which is thoroughly inexcusable, and which, if passed, there is no doubt whatever will cause all manner of heart-burning and endless litigation, and do no good whatever to the community. If the right hon. Gentleman persists in bringing the forces of the Government to bear in order to carry this clause and succeeds, we shall move a number of Amendments upon the clause, the chief one of which will be that the right of preemption shall be given to the County Council of the county in which the holding is situated. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will save the time of the House by giving an intimation that this Amendment will be accepted.

Certainly I think the clause, as it is framed, is open to very serious objection. I understood in the course of the discussion which took place on this subject in Committee that the general view was that if any owner of one of these small holdings desired to sell it for other purposes, the right of pre-emption should be given to the County Council, and not to the former owner or to the adjoining owner. But under the clause the County Council will have no right of pre-emption whatever. The right of pre-emption is given not to the former owner of the property, who sold and severed it from his estate, but to all or any of the adjoining owners of the land immediately adjoining the small holding. Let me illustrate it by a case: Suppose that a small holding becomes valuable for building purposes quite unexpectedly in consequence of a railway coming into the neighbourhood, or for any other reason; under this clause this unearned increment will go not to the owner of the small holding, not to the County Council by whose money the small holder was enabled to become the owner of his holding, not even to the original owner of the property, but to the adjoining owner. ("No, no!") That, I understand, is the meaning of the clause.

The small holder.

Not necessarily. It may be some great adjoining landowner, who would never sell his property. I do not think that can be the intention of the Government. It seems to me that, on the whole, the wise course to adopt would be, if the principle of reversion be introduced at all, if the right of pre-emption be given to anybody, it should be given to the County Council by whom the land was originally purchased from the original owner and sold again for the purpose of small holdings. But I do not think it would be desirable, if the County Council were unwilling to take it, that the former owner should have it. The increment of value arising from this property should go to the owner of the small holding, or else to the County Council. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press this clause in its present shape.

Some clause of this kind is absolutely necessary, not in the interest of the landowner, but to protect the small holder from the land speculator. There are two great reasons why a clause of this kind was asked for. First of all it was held that landlords could not be found to sell under these conditions, when, at the end of ten years, the land might get into the hands of some speculative builder who might erect factories or jerry buildings or anything which might become a nuisance. The other reason was to protect the small holding from getting into the hands of the land speculator, who thought he could do better with it than let it remain a small holding. My right hon. Friend is mistaken in supposing the unearned increment will go to the landlord; it will go to the small holder, because the landlord will have to pay the actual worth of the land at the present time. But my purpose, and the purpose of the Government, is to retain these small holdings as small holdings, and I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the clause should read in this way: We should give the right of pre-emption to the County Council for the purpose of the small holding, and then if the County Council does not want to buy—and for my part I do not care who gets it if it is left a small holding—we should give the right to the original landowner or his successors in title, or to the neighbouring landowner. We are now dealing with the one blot in what is a very good Bill. Under a subsequent clause the small holdings are only to remain intact for ten years. If the right hon. Gentleman will give the County Council the right of pre-emption, and failing them the original landowner or his successors in title or the neighbouring landowner, then I think he will secure, as far as can be secured at present, that these small holdings shall remain as small holdings, and will protect the small holder from his great enemy—the man who wants to take advantage of some needy time in order to buy the small holding from him. If, in addition to that, the right hon. Gentleman will, in a subsequent Amendment, extend the ten years I think we shall make this into a good Bill. The effect of the clause so amended will be to keep the small holding as a cultivated small holding for the utmost possible time.

I think it is quite easy to discuss this, clause without heat, though there seems to be something in the very words, "unearned increment," which is calculated to raise heat. The question of unearned increment going to the landlord does not arise in any shape or form in this clause. There-must be some means of the small holder-dealing with the property, provided that for some reason or another it is undesirable to carry it on as a small holding. This clause gives, in these circumstances, the right of pre-emption-to the landowner of the adjoining holding. I think it really ought to be to the original seller. "Whatever may be the-price, either by agreement or by arbitration, the unearned increment will go to the small proprietor who-originally had it. I think some right of pre-emption should rest with the person originally selling, for these-reasons—that we desire that this Act should work freely; we desire to give the landowners an inducement to sell to those who are willing to carry out the objects of this Act. Well, I think they will be much less ready to sell if, at the time that their property has ceased to be used for the purposes of the Act, it might go into the hands of-the County Council, or of anybody else who might happen to buy it without their having any voice in the matter; and for that reason, seeing it is no—question of the landlord making a profit,, and seeing it will facilitate the working of the Act, I hope my right hon. Friend will adhere to the clause as it stands, subject to this, that he might substitute "original owner" for "adjoining owners."

I am glad to be in absolute accordance with the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) on this question. I think it was distinctly understood that a clause would be introduced by the Government to the effect that, if we are going to advance public money in this way, we would not be checkmated by the land-grabber or the speculative builder, and that these places should not be perverted from being small holdings. Then when it came to the means which we should adopt, I think there was a general concurrence of opinion, first of all, that the County Council, being the popular authority, should have the first right of pre-emption merely in order that they should continue these small holdings as small holdings; and failing the power of the County Council to continue them as small holdings, there is only one person who ought to have the right of pre-emption, and that is the landlord who sold the land in the first instance. I never heard anything more absurd or ridiculous than this question of adjoining landlord. You might have one landlord on the north, another on the south, another on the east, and another on the west. Are they going to toss up who shall have the power proposed to be given? The only person who has any right, when it ceases to be a small holding, is the landlord who has been willing and ready to put his land, without any compulsory powers, into the hands of the County Council for the purpose of these small holdings; and he has a right to be protected from having a lot of buildings put on his property which might very likely be a great nuisance. I cannot imagine why, after that particular Amendment of the hon. Member for Bordesley which carried out exactly what the House intended, and what I believe we all understood, this Amendment should ever have been put on the Paper. It is past altering and past amending, and I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to save the time of the House, and accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bordesley, and settle the question.

I do not think this clause answers its ostensible object. That I understand is to facilitate the sale of land for the purpose of small holdings, and of offering some inducement to the owner and some prospect that when the small holding ceases to be used for that purpose, there will be the power of re-entry. That will not be the result as the clause stands—the original owner must be the adjoining owner. Suppose, for instance, that the County Council makes a purchase. They would not purchase five acres here and five acres there. They would probably make a purchase of a whole farm of, say, a hundred or two hundred acres, and parcel that out into twenty or thirty small holdings. The result would be that a small holding might be a portion in the middle of thirty or forty others parcelled out of the farm. Under these circumstances, then, the person who would be entitled, under this proposed clause, to purchase the superfluous land would not be the original owner, but some adjoining small owner, or perhaps a dozen small holders, whose lands will be contiguous to the one not used. This seems to be based upon some idea that we are following the clause of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, but there are some important distinctions between that Act and this provision. The most practical distinction is this: that in the case of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act the powers are generally used for the purpose of buying or selling land, to make a railway, and in a case of that character it is very proper you should give the original owner the right to purchase superfluous lands. But there is nothing of the same kind in this case as in the case of making a railway. You buy a whole farm, and parcel it into small holdings. There you have not got a strip of land passing through the estate for a commercial purpose, such as a railway. It is simply the distribution of one whole farm into so many small farms, and the provision in this case is utterly inadequate. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bordesley, and give the right of pre-emption to the County Council, who alone, it seems to me, have a reasonable right to have such a power.

If I vote for the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman it will be in the hope that he will afterwards accept the proposal to place the County Council first in this right of pre-emption. Throughout the Debate on this Bill hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed their desire to protect the small holdings from that land speculator, but I am afraid this would rather play into the hands of the land speculator. My hon. Friend the Member for Bordesley spoke of the County Council having the right of pre-emption, with the sole purpose of that right being exercised in order to keep the land for the purpose of small holdings; but it seems to me that if the circumstances such as were contemplated by the right hon. Member for Bradford did arise, it would be in the power of the County Council to keep the land strictly to the purpose of small holdings. The purchase money might be so great as to prevent the transaction being an economical one. Therefore, in giving the right of preemption to a County Council I would suggest that they should be allowed to exercise the right primarily for the purpose of small holdings, but subject to the consent of the Local Government Board for any other public purpose. It is quite conceivable that these small holdings, at the time this clause comes into operation, may be in the centre of a great town, and be then unsuitable as such; but the land would be eminently suitable for some public purposes, such as a park, and I would give the County Council the right to retain it for such purposes, subject to the consent of the Local Government Board. Although I shall vote for the Second Reading of this clause, as it includes the principle of the right of pre-emption, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will afterwards consent to give that right primarily to the County Council.

Many criticisms have been made on this clause, and questions have been asked as to the adjoining owner who is named in the clause. One gentleman went so far as to say that he never in his life read so absurd a clause. As a matter of fact the clause is well known, it having been taken from the precedent of the sale of superfluous lands purchased by railways; and that hon. Member will find that I have practically adopted the language and meaning of certain sections of the Lands Clauses Act. I recognise that the clause does not meet with general approval as it is, and I am quite willing to try to amend it. I think the best way would be to amend the clause so as to include all the interests, involved, and for that purpose I shall accept the suggestion that the right of pre-emption should be offered in the first instance to the County Council from whom the land was purchased; in the second instance to the original owner or his successor in title; and in the third instance to the adjoining owners, and the mode in which the priority of the adjoining owners is to be settled is prescribed in the latter part of the clause as it now stands. If the House accepts my proposal, and will read the clause a second time, I shall move Amendments to carry it out.

The House will, I am sure, recognise the very conciliatory spirit shown by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, and I imagine that, so far as the question of the persons to whom the right of pre-emption is to be given is concerned, the concession which he has just made will be perfectly satisfactory to the House. But there is one point to which he did not allude—I do not know whether he has considered it—in regard to which I think this clause is somewhat defective. We had two objects in dealing with this matter. The first was that land devoted to the purchase of small holdings under this Act should remain employed for that purpose as long as possible. There may be circumstances which may make it impossible to continue the small holdings; but so long as possible the House desires the land to remain as small holdings. The second object we had in view was to prevent a landlord from being discouraged from selling land for the purpose of small holdings by the fear that, after the land had been acquired for that purpose, the small owner might change his mind and enter into building speculation, and thus, without the consent of the original landowner, make a different use of the land and reduce the value of the surrounding property. Under the clause as it stands at present the owner of the small holding, if entitled to the increased value of the land, will be tempted to make a large profit by selling it for building purposes. Land which a small holder may have bought for £100 near a large town may in a few years become worth £1,000 Here, then, is the temptation to the owner of the small holding to give up its cultivation in order to sell it for building purposes, which is an evil we wish to avoid. The only fair proposition, in my opinion, would be to say that should the small holder no longer wish to keep the land he shall be only able to sell it at its agricultural value. That would take from him the temptation of giving it up for building purposes. Now, that is a most important point; and as the clause of my right hon. Friend does not deal with it, I hope that some provision will be introduced for that purpose.

I take an entirely different view to that of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. It is a great venture to go in for land at all, and I consider that if a man puts his money into a small holding and takes the risk he ought to reap the advantage if the land increases in value.

I am afraid there would be some difficulty in arranging matters with adjoining owners. Suppose there is a small holding bounded on all sides by the property of adjoining owners, how far is the Hinterland to extend? I think it is desirable that we should know that.

I now move to insert, in line 4, after the word "sale"—

"First to the County Council from whom the holding was purchased, next to the person or persons, if any, then entitled to the lands from which the holding was originally severed and then."

I hope the Committee will not assent to this proposition. It seems to me that when once the County Council refuses to take the land for its own purposes, the small holder himself should have the next claim to it.

Most certainly. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with giving the right of pre-emption to the County Council only. Having bought the land the County Council should have power to use it for such purposes as they may think will best serve the interests of the locality.

If the Committee will allow these words to be inserted, we could go on to the next sentence of the clause as to the adjoining owners, and it would not be necessary to deal with the question in three gradations.

I would not object to strike out the words referring to the adjoining owners.

I would suggest that the words "and then" should be left out.

The right hon. Gentleman proposes to give the right of pre-emption to the County Council, but he also uses these words—

"Next to the person or persons, if any, then entitled to the lands from which the holding was originally severed."

Shall I now be in order in moving that the words "and then" be omitted?

No.

I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept only the last clause of the Amendment which stands in my name, as the first part is now practically embodied in the Bill. My Amendment is to add to the New Clause the following:—

"The price of such re-purchase shall be the value of the land as agricultural land, together with fair compensation for all improvements made for the small holder or his predecessors."

I am sorry to say I cannot accept this Amendment. The Committee will recollect that throughout the whole discussion on this Bill I have always claimed for new holders that they should ultimately have the right to acquire the freehold of the property. I could not, at this stage of the Bill, go back from the view which I have pressed upon the House throughout with regard to that point. I can quite understand the arguments that may be used against my view of the case; but I have carefully considered the subject, and I feel that there could be no greater deterrent to the new holders whom we desire to see created from embarking on the purchase of these holdings than the knowledge of the fact that if the holdings should increase in value, and they desire to part with them, they would receive a price which might be much less than the market value—a price which would, in fact, be only the agricultural value.

After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I will, with the permission of the Committee, withdraw my Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 10, after Clause 21, to insert the following Clause:—

I should like to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Scotch law is different from the English law with reference to the protection of rights in such holdings?

This is entirely a consequential clause. There will be no difficulty in Scotland on the point raised by the hon. Member.

Before the hon. Gentleman moves his next Amendment, I would ask to be allowed to propose that which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Devon (Mr. Seale-Hayne). It is as follows:—Clause 4, page 2, line 40, leave out from "Provided," to "remove," in line 41, and insert "and."

I will now move the following Amendment which stands in my name:—

Clause 4, page 3, after line 2, insert "The County Council shall have power to sell, or, in the case of small holdings which may be let, to let, one or more small holdings to a number of persons working on a co-operative system, provided such system be approved by the County Council."

I do not understand the meaning of the words of the hon. Member's Amendment. I do not know what he means by "persons working on a co-operative system." The words have no legal meaning. It is one of those Amendments put across the floor of the House and accepted, and which later cost a great deal of time and much expense. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will so alter his Amendment that it may have a reasonable chance of being understood. I can only understand the words to mean a Joint Stock Company. In my experience most Co-operative Societies are Joint Stock Companies. I do not know whether the hon. Member deems it likely that a Joint Stock Company will take a small holding.

The Amendment standing in my name merely proposes to carry into effect a promise the right hon. Gentleman gave to the Committee.

I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. When we were in Committee on this Bill I had an Amendment of similar purport, and my object in repeating it is to afford the right hon. Gentleman another opportunity of considering what proportion of the purchase-money shall be advanced. As the Bill at present stands, only eighty per cent. can be advanced to the purchaser by the County Council. My proposal means that, if the County Council thought fit, it should be permitted to advance ninety per cent. I venture to urge this matter upon the right hon. Gentleman, because, as I have before pointed out, we have agreed to advance the Irish tenant the whole amount of the purchase-money. I confess I cannot see why England, Scotland, and Wales should not be treated on equal terms.

The Amendment of the hon. Member is out of Order. It deals with a subject which cannot be submitted while I am in the Chair.

I beg to move the Amendment in my name—

Page 4, at end, add "and an entry in the register shall be admissible as evidence of the title of the person to whom the entry relates."

I have an Amendment to move to this clause. When we were in Committee I proposed to leave out the word "ten." The right hon. Gentleman did not commit himself to any promise, but he said that he was open to consider whether or not he could lengthen the term to which the restrictive clause should apply. I ask him now to make the period thirty years instead of ten. Although I can see objections to making the clause permanent, yet I consider ten years altogether too brief a period. After the land is bought, the small holder will enter on his work, and in a few years will be subjected to the tactics of some land speculator who has an eye on the small holding. If the right hon. Gentleman would consent to extend the term to thirty years, he would do much, I consider, to secure the good working of his Bill. Under Clause 9, Sub-section 6, the County Councils are allowed to sell these small holdings without any conditions whatever, and that seems to me fully to meet any special occasions that may arise.

As the hon. Member says, it is quite true that I made no pledge on this subject. I did, however, make an offer to extend the period of ten years, which was inserted in order to guard against the danger that has been so frequently pointed out. I am not prepared to accept the substitute of thirty years which the hon. Member proposes, but I am willing to make a compromise, and to insert the word "twenty" instead of "ten."

I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

Am I right in understanding that in the case of land inside the limits of a municipal borough, the management is to be composed of two members of the borough, and nobody else?

No; they are in addition.

The Amendment I now propose is one which the right hon. Gentleman promised to consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer about. It is to omit the words—

"Not less than three pounds two shillings and sixpence per cent. per annum."

I have to regret the result of the undertaking I gave. I have conferred with the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, indeed, I may go so far as to say that I earnestly pressed this upon him. I am bound to say, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave reasons to me, which I thought were quite sufficient to justify him in declining to accede to the proposal. I was very sorry to arrive at that conclusion, because I was anxious to attain the same object as my hon. Friend; but I am consoled by this reflection: that the credit of the County Council is so good, and their borrowing powers so ample, that they are not by any means limited to Government loans. They have ample opportunities of borrowing money for this purpose on favourable terms.

I have a similar Amendment to this down on the Paper. The Government have offered to advance money to Irish tenants at two and three-quarters-per cent., and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to show the same consideration for the English, Scotch, and Welsh people in this matter. I think this Motion involves an important point, because in my opinion the Bill will be of very little use, if any, unless the small holders can borrow money at a low rate of interest. If people are willing to pay a high rate of interest the assistance of an Act of Parliament is unnecessary.

I also think some good reasons should be shown for proposing to make the people of Great Britain pay a higher rate of interest for advances than is charged to Irishmen. This Bill is an experiment, and the Treasury ought to be satisfied if they can carry its provisions into effect without making a loss. The amount required will not be so large as to endanger the financial stability of the country, especially in view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been able to pay off a large amount of the National Debt. I think three per cent. ought to be the most that should be charged to these small holders for advances.

I admit that the matter, as far as this particular Bill is concerned, is not one of supreme importance, but from the point of view of the credit of the State and its loan transactions it is of considerable importance. At the present time loans of public moneys are advanced to Local Authorities under a great variety of Acts, and in these Acts a rate of interest is prescribed corresponding to that laid down in the Bill now before the House. For instance, the Sanitary Loans, School Board Loans, and Loans under the Allotment Act, et cetera, are charged three and a-half per cent., when repayable in not more than thirty-five years, and three and three-quarters per cent. when repayable in not more than forty years. Loans under the Housing of the Working Classes Act repayable in not more than twenty years are charged three and one-eighth per cent.; for thirty years, three and a quarter per cent.; and for forty years three and three-eighths per cent. Harbour Loans with collateral security of rates are granted at three and a quarter per cent. for any period up to fifty years. If the rate of interest is lowered in this particular case, all these Local Authorities will come down upon the Treasury and Parliament complaining that they are paying excessive rates of interest for their loans. I hope it is not thought that I am dealing with this matter in any churlish spirit, and I appeal to hon. Members not to endanger the general system of loans granted by the State for the sake of the very small difference in this particular case. My right hon. Friend. (Mr. Chaplin) has pointed out that the credit of the County Councils is such that they will be probably able to borrow at three per cent.; but, be that as it may, I think I have pointed out to the Committee that strong reasons exist for declining this Amendment, much as I am anxious to promote the general success of the Bill.

The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has said that the County Councils can borrow money at three per cent., and I do not think there will be any difficulty about the matter. It seems quite clear that if the loans were granted in this case at three per cent., no higher rate of interest should be charged to the various other bodies the right hon. Gentleman has alluded to.

I beg to move—

In page 11, line 26, after "Committee," insert "or if the holdings are situate within the limits of a burgh, then, instead of the persons elected as aforesaid, two Town Councillors or Commissioners, as the case may be, to be appointed for that purpose by the Town Council or Commissioners of such burgh."

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the word "burgh" refers to a police burgh as well as a Royal or Parliamentary burgh; and, if so, whether he would insert the word "any" before burgh?

I shall have no objection to that.