asked the Secretary of State for War when it is proposed to issue an adequate supply of mekometers to the Territorial Force, one only having so far been supplied to each regiment and battalion?

Mekometers will be supplied to the Territorial Force as soon as they are released from the Regular Forces by the issue of new instruments to the latter. It is not possible, at present, to say when the supply will be completed.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he would give a brief abstract of the figures of the chief resident engineer of the Kowloon Railway, showing how it is alleged that that railway can ever pay working expenses, interest, and repay the principal spent on its construction, even as an extension of the Canton Railway, in competition with the shorter navigable river which has cost nothing; and whether he has any corroboration of those figures from any competent person not dependent on the Crown Agents?

I understand that the Chief Resident Engineer is now preparing a revised estimate of profits, and, in the circumstances, it would be useless to give an abstract of the figures supplied some years ago. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the direct profit to be obtained is not the only matter to be considered. What is far more important is the indirect profit which will accrue to the Colony owing to the improvement of the facilities for trade with the interior of China.

asked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether he will submit to this House, or make available to Members, the speeches addressed by His Excellency the Governor of Hong Kong to the Legislative Assembly of that Colony, on the 6th February and 13th May, 1909, acknowledging that the Kowloon Railway was being constructed under the Crown Agents with money advanced by them on the security of the funds of the Colony; and if he is aware that this project, which has already cost more than twice the sum for which it could be completed, is being continued in this manner without the free consent of the Government and Colony of Hong Kong?

It is not proposed to lay any papers on the subject. In saying that the line has cost more than twice the sum for which it could be completed, the hon. Gentleman is presumably referring to the increase in cost over the original estimate. That estimate, however, was very rough, and was never intended to be exact. It was based on a preliminary survey and included no calculation of quantities. It did not provide for rolling stock, workshops, and other important items. The line is being constructed with the full consent of the Colonial Government.

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman deny that it is being constructed by money advanced by the Crown Agents, and under their control?

No, Sir; it cannot be said to be under their control.

Is it not being constructed by money advanced by the Crown Agents?

I am not quite certain about that; if it be so, I do not know that it makes any difference.

The Governor has stated that it is so.

asked the Undersecretary for the Colonies whether his attention had been called to the statement made at the opening of the Johore Railway that it would be long before night trains could be run over the swamps owing to the imperfect construction of the line in those parts, notwithstanding that its construction departmentally has cost £792,000 more than the sum for which the Sultan and Government of Johore could have got an efficient line constructed; and will he give the House the reason for permitting such waste?

I am not aware that any such statement has been made officially. As I stated on the 20th of July, no comparison is possible between the line as now constructed and the light line for which an estimate of £608,000 was made eighteen years ago.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state how many houses there are in England and Wales of the annual value of £ 8 where beer is brewed for domestic use?

This information is not available. The occupier of a house not exceeding £8 in annual value who brews beer solely for his own domestic use does not require a licence to brew, and consequently there are no Revenue statistics on the subject.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has received a memorandum from the managers of the Victory Place Schools, Walworth, stating that the schools are so badly lit as to cause injury to the children's eyesight, that the sanitary arrangements are insufficient, that they are inefficiently equipped in case of fire, and showing that these complaints are supported by His Majesty's inspectors; whether the memorandum draws his attention to the delay on the part of the late School Board and the London County Council in remedying these defects; and whether the Education Department proposes to compel the education authority to take immediate action regarding this school?

I have received a memorandum from the managers of this school, which includes the criticisms to which the hon. Member refers. The condition of the premises has been adversely reported upon by His Majesty's inspector, and the Board have already been in communication with the London County Council on the subject. The managers' memorandum will now be referred to the Council for their observations.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether and when the Memorandum on Physical Training in Schools, which has apparently been supplied to newspapers, will be laid upon the Table of the House, and will be available to Members of the House?

It is proposed to issue this Memorandum as a Stationery Office publication, and not as a Parliamentary Paper. Owing to difficulties in connection with the printing, the supply of copies will not be available for public use until about the third week in September. A small number of advance copies were secured for the use of students and teachers at the Summer Course of Instruction which is now proceeding, and copies were supplied to the public Press in order to obviate the possibility of some newspapers, and not others, obtaining the Memorandum from individuals attending the Course of Instruction. If the hon. Member desires to have a copy I should be glad to send him one.

Will it really take three weeks to have the Memorandum circulated to Members of this House?

I do not state that on my own authority. I am only giving the information that has been given to me. The printers tell me that they cannot have it circulated before the third week in September. At least 20,000 copies will have to be printed.

Could not 670 copies of the Memorandum be printed for the use of the Members of this House? Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether the resources of the printers are equal to that?

I have already made inquiry. The Stationery Office tell me that it will be extremely inconvenient to strike off a small number of copies.

May I ask whether it is not customary that such matters should come before the House in the first place, and before publication?

It has not been done, as on the present occasion, on many occasions. This is not published as a Parliamentary Paper.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give advance copies to any Member of the House who asks for them?

Certainly, I shall be glad to; but hon. Members will quite realise the edition is in an imperfect state. and is subject to corrections in proof.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government has authorised the Government of Hong Kong to advance to the Chinese Government £1,100,000 to repurchase from an American-Belgian combination the concession for building the Hankow-Canton Railway for the purpose of preserving from foreign control a railway of which the southern terminus was to be at Canton; whether Chang Chi-tung, in return, gave the British Government on 9th September, 1905, an undertaking that British capital and materials should have the preference whenever China decided to construct the line; and whether Germans have since succeeded in securing for themselves the contract for building and financing the railway; and, if so, whether any, and, if so, what, steps were taken by the British Government to secure the performance of the undertaking given by Chang Chi-tung and the interests in respect of which the advance of £1,100,000 was made?

The reply to the first point in the question is in the affirmative. It is true that Chang Chi-tung gave an undertaking that British capital and materials should have the preference whenever China decided to construct the line, but only if the terms offered by foreign financiers were not more favourable. A German group offered China in the spring of the present year terms which the Chinese considered more advantageous, and which they consequently accepted. It was to recover at any rate some portion of the Hankow-Canton Railway loan that the British and French groups, who were working together, decided to admit the German group to participation in the Hankow-Szechuan line, each group having an equal share in the loan and the material, but the British group supplying the chief engineer on the Hankow-Canton line and the chief engineer for one-third of the Hankow-Szechuan line. To safeguard the control of the loan funds by the lenders certain modifications were effected in the terms originally offered by the German group. Subsequently an American group expressed a wish to participate in the Hankow-Szechuan loan, and the negotiations with regard to the share to be allotted to this fourth group are still proceeding.

Is it not the fact that the Chinese Government did, in fact, break the undertaking previously given?

I am not prepared to say that, because undoubtedly the terms offered to them by the German group were more favourable to the Chinese Government than the British were prepared to offer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if His Majesty's Government proposes to take any further action with a view to preventing the gross cruelties practised by order of the Sultan of Morrocco upon prisoners of war?

His Majesty's Consul at Fez has been instructed to associate himself with the action taken by his French colleague in protesting against mutilation and torture. A further protest by the whole diplomatic body at Tangier is under consideration.

Is that the first protest?

Well, the first protest has only recently been made.

asked the President of the Board of Education what special grants have been made under Sub-head C 6 and Sub-head C 7 of the Education Vote during the present financial year, and to what local authorities have such special grants been made?

I will send the hon. Member a list of the grants paid under Sub-head C 6. Grants under Sub-head C 7 are not paid until towards the close of the financial year.

asked the President of the Board of Education if he was aware that, in consequence of the dispute between the Carmarthenshire County Council and the Llanelly Urban District Council, Llanelly children have been away from school for five months; and if he can see his way clear to insist on the children going back to the Old Road School, Llanelly, until the quarrel between the two local authorities has been settled?

I am not yet in a position to make any statement as to the settlement of this unfortunate dispute. But I do not think I should be justified in directing the Urban District Council for Llanelly to admit children whose parents are resident outside their area unless the Carmarthenshire County Council are willing to make a contribution under Section 52 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, towards the cost of educating them.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a number of traders living in North Longford are subjected to inconvenience in not having a goods siding at Drumhownagh Station on the Midland Great Western Railway system; and will he call the attention of the directors of that system to this admitted inconvenience, and ask them to remedy it by providing a goods siding and loading bank there?

I have communicated with the railway company, and have received a reply, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if the railway company do not see their way to make the siding, he can put any machinery in motion to enable these proceedings to be brought before the Railway Commission?

I should like to have notice of that question, but I think the hon. Gentleman had better read the answer of the railway company and frame another question upon it.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the answer of the railway company is yes or no?

I have not seen it.

asked whether, in the appointment of any of the officials in connection with the labour exchanges, any age limit will be fixed in making the selections; and if any ex-Transvaal official's claim would be considered?

I have not so far contemplated fixing any hard and fast age limit of general application, but naturally age will be taken into account in making the selections. I do not wish to exclude from consideration the claims of any class of qualified applicants.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the clerks of sub-committees under the Old Age Pensions Act in the county of Galway have yet been paid their fees for the quarters ended the 31st March, 1909, and 30th June, 1909; whether the accounts rendered by them have been found in comparison with the numbers furnished by the pension officers to be correct; and, if so, will he state why they have not been paid up to the present?

Subject to the reservation of one or two items which are still under inquiry, the accounts for the March quarter have now been paid. The account for the June quarter was not received by the Treasury until the 10th instant, and the charges for claims and questions contained therein do not agree with the pension officers' returns. The discrepancies are under investigation, but in the meantime payments on account are being made to the clerk of the committee and to the clerks of the various subcommittees. The delay which has occurred in connection with the accounts for the March quarter has been due partly to the fact that the numbers of claims and questions charged for in the various sub-accounts did not agree with the officers' returns, and partly to complications arising through claims arising in the district served by one of the sub-committees having been dealt with by another sub-committee.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the same grievance obtains in Cork, where people have not yet been paid who should have been paid on 31st March?

In a great number of counties it is unfortunately the case that the accounts have been rendered late, and when rendered late have not been accompanied by similar accounts rendered by the pensions officers, by which it might be seen whether they tallied. It is a reasonable delay.

Where they have tallied what is the cause of the delay?

Where they have tallied, so far as I know, there has been no delay.

asked the Attorney-General for Ireland if he is aware that the costs of making title to plots acquired by rural district councils, under the Labourers Acts, are wholly disproportionate to the value of the lands so acquired, and that the Local Registration of Title Acts, instead of reducing the costs, has increased them, particularly in cases where the purchasing tenant who had neglected to discharge the equities is dead and legal personal representation has not been raised; and will he consider the advisability of introducing legislation which will relieve local authorities in Ireland from liability to pay the entire cost of making titles to holdings, portions of which have been acquired by them, and will throw upon the council the liability for a part of the legal expenses proportionate to the value of the portion of the holding so acquired?

I am aware that in occasional cases of the nature referred to by the hon. Member the costs of making title to plots under the Labourers Acts are somewhat out of proportion to the value of the plots to be acquired. With regard to the second part of the question, I may point out that under Sections 21 and 22 of the Labourers Act, 1906, the registration is made free from rights and equities, and no registration fees are charged. In the case of a purchasing tenant who has died and neglected to discharge the equities, the difficulty is that unless representation is taken out to his estate, there would be no one capable of giving the statutory receipt or other instrument transferring the lands. Of course, if default is made in taking out representation, the Rural District Council can lodge the amount of the compensation in court in accordance with Section 11 (8) of the Labourers Act, 1906, and the costs of taking out representation of the estate would then be a matter within the discretion of the court. The course suggested in the last part of the question is one which, I fear, would be attended with many difficulties. When the Labourers Act of 1906 was before the House, the then Chief Secretary, Mr. Bryce, did all in his power to introduce provisions for the purpose of lessening the cost of showing title, and I fear it would be impossible to do more by legislation than has been done by that Act. The hon. Member must bear in mind that in most cases the cost of proving title to a portion of a farm, however small, is exactly the same as for the whole farm.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case he referred to it will deprive the labourers of getting cottages?

I do not think it does deprive them of getting cottages, but the way to avoid that would be for the guardians to take plots for people whose title-is simple.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it an unreasonable: thing that in a case where the representation is to be raised, say, on a £5,000 estate, the costs should be thrown upon the local body for acquiring a plot worth £10.

Yes; but I pointed out in my answer there is a course open to the guardians of lodging the money in court, and in this case the cost of the representation would be at the discretion of the court.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any single property in Ireland where the title is simple?

Oh, yes, Sir.

asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the dismissal of numbers of the established employés of the National Telephone Company in the Stoke-on-Trent district, on the ground that the company's undertaking is about to be transferred to the Post Office; and whether he can say how he intends to work the system acquired if the experienced men now working for the company are dismissed prior to such transference, or does he propose to re-engage the dismissed servants of the company for that purpose?

The numbers of the construction staff of the National Telephone Company are constantly fluctuating. I am informed by the National Telephone Company that since the beginning of this year they have discharged eight men and one boy from their construction staff in the Potteries District owing to slackness of work. There appears to be at the present time a considerably reduced demand for the extension of the telephone system, due partly to the fact that the telephone system has made very rapid extensions of late years, and that there is therefore not the same opening for new construction; and, further, that the state of trade has of late seriously affected the demand for new telephone installations. As regards the Post Office system, there is also, for the time being, less work in connection with renewals, as the old plant has of late been largely superseded by new and more permanent plant. As regards the Trunk lines also during the last few years lines have been added in anticipation of traffic, and there is at the present moment less opportunity of extending them. There is thus, just at present, both on the part of the National Telephone Company (so I am informed by them), as well as on the part of the Post Office, a somewhat diminished demand for construction work. This being so, it is not possible, unfortunately, to undertake to engage men discharged by the National Telephone Company on Post Office work, but we do so as far as possible. I am glad to say, however, that, as already stated in the House, I have come to an arrangement with the National Telephone Company in regard to certain construction work, and am also in communication with them in regard to a proposed arrangement to enable them to continue to open new exchanges in their areas, in order that the work of construction shall be continued without interruption between now and 1911.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that letters which reached Bundoran at 9.15 a.m. were not delivered in that town on 21st August till 11.45 a.m., owing to the want of a proper staff; and whether, having regard to the fact that undue delay in the delivery of letters in this town after the arrival of the morning mail is of frequent occurrence, immediate steps will be taken to remedy a system attended with inconvenience to the people of the locality?

I will inquire into the matter.

asked the Attorney-General if his attention has been called to an article in the "New Age" newspaper for 26th August in which the murder of Sir Curzon Wyllie is partially condoned, and in which an Indian Lieutenant-Governor is accused of deliberately carrying out an illegal execution; and if he proposes to take any proceedings in the case?

I have seen the article, and I do not propose to take any proceedings.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the article suggested that the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal carried out an illegal execution?

I do not think the suggestion is as explicit as the Noble Lord puts it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman in want of an amateur Crown prosecutor?

asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the disease of black scab in potatoes extensively prevails in certain districts of England; and whether, in view of the fact that potatoes in considerable quantities for seed and other purposes are imported from England to Ireland, he will take steps, by prohibiting such importation or otherwise, as he thinks fit, to prevent the introduction of this disease into Ireland?

The Department are aware that the disease in potatoes known as black scab exists in certain districts in England, and they are fully alive to the necessity of preventing the introduction of this disease into Ireland. The Black Scab in Potatoes (Ireland) Order, 1908, made by the Department in pursuance of the powers conferred on them by the Diseases of Insects and Pests Acts, 1877 and 1907, prohibits the landing in Ireland of any potatoes affected, or suspected of being affected, with black scab.

Are there any cases reported in Ireland of this black scab?

None.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that a Provisional Order was issued, and came into operation yesterday by the Jersey States Department of Agriculture, prohibiting the importation of potatoes into the Channel Islands from the United Kingdom owing to black scab, and whether, as black scab is not prevalent in Ireland, he will make representations to have Ireland exempted from that Order?

I am aware of this Order having been issued, and I am disposed to take the same steps as the Department took in regard to Malta last year when they issued Orders in reference to black scab.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the forms are now being issued for the return of the Petrol Duty; if he is aware that, on the forms being duly filled up and the amount of petrol not liable to duty being agreed, the amount of the duty to be returned is admitted, but the officers state that the repayment cannot be made until the Finance Bill is law; and will he explain why the money is retained by the Government, seeing that whether the Finance Bill becomes law or not the money is, in any event, repayable?

Forms are being issued by the Board of Customs and Excise to all persons who desire to claim return of the duty on motor spirit. This is being done to meet the convenience of the public and of the Department, so that repayments can be speedily made when the Finance Bill becomes law. At present the Department has no authority to make any repayment.

The right hon. Gentleman has given no explanation in regard to repayment.

The Resolution of the House of Commons which authorises collection does not authorise repayment, and therefore it must wait until the Finance Bill becomes law.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will grant a Return showing the average charges for royalties or way leaves in each of the following counties: Derbyshire, Durham, Cumberland, Westmoreland, Northumberland, Stafford, Lancashire, Cheshire, Yorkshire, Glamorgan, Monmouth, and Warwickshire?

I regret that the information asked for by the hon. Member is not available, and my right hon. Friend is therefore unable to grant the Return.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether royalties and way leaves payable for the getting of chalk will be subject to the tax on minerals provided in the Budget?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make a statement to the House as to the particulars of the suggested changes necessary to remove the Income Tax on land from Schedule A to Schedule D?

I may refer the hon. Member to the reply of my right hon. Friend on the 17th instant to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to change the Death Duty of 50s. now payable on an estate where the gross value does not exceed £500, or the duty of 30s. now payable on an estate where the gross value does not exceed £300; whether he will state the total amount received in Death Duties from Ireland last year on estates under £500 net; and what will be the increase under the new scale?

It is not proposed to alter the law under which fixed duties of 50s. and 30s. can be paid where the estate does not exceed £500 or £300 (gross) respectively. The total amount received in Death Duties from Ireland in the year 1908–9 on estates not over £500 (net) was £9,306. There is no new scale proposed for estates of this size.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the total amount of Licence Duty which was paid on the 141 licensed houses acquired by the London County Council between March, 1889, and February, 1907, and what the total amount would be under the proposed scale in the Finance Bill, and what percentage would the increase of Licence Duty represent on the compensation of £344,550 paid to the owners; whether the compensation so paid represented, in addition to the value of the licence, the goodwill of the business created by the owner; and whether, after the passing of this Bill, when public authorities or other bodies seek to acquire the sites of licensed houses for public or progressive purposes, the Government will demand compensation for loss of revenue to which the State will be entitled under the Finance Bill when passed into law?

As regards the first four parts of this question, my right hon. Friend regrets that he has no information. As regards the last part, he is afraid that he does not see his way to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement said he had an account before him of the compensation paid in these cases?

No, Sir. The Budget statement was rather a long one, and I cannot carry all these matters in my head.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will the estimated increase of Licence Duty, proposed by the Finance Bill, amount to in the administrative County of London calculated on half the annual value: what ratio will the estimated increase be to the total increases on Licence Duties in Great Britain; and whether he will state how much per head of the population the increase will amount to in the London area?

I assume that the hon. Member refers to publicans' licences. Any estimate of the increased yield from this Licence Duty in London on the lines suggested by the hon. Member would, I think, be misleading, as it is not proposed in the Finance Bill that the duty on all such licences should be assessed at half the annual value of the premises. Under paragraph 3 of the "Provisions applicable to retailers' on-licences," on page 53 of the Bill (as to which my right hon. Friend has placed some Amendments on the Notice Paper), the licence-holder has, in certain cases, the option of the alternative method of assessment explained in Sub-clause (2) of Clause 30, and it is not possible at present to say what the Licence Duty under this alternative will be.

I think that only refers to houses valued at over £500.

I am afraid I do not follow that. If there is any substance in it, perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question, and then I shall be glad to answer it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a letter, Reference No. Kir. 196, was addressed to a gentleman residing in Ayr- shire asking him for information regarding a visitor staying in his house who had claimed Income Tax abatement, and enclosing him all the papers connected with the claim, with full particulars of income from every source; whether the Inland Revenue authorities are in the habit of making public information submitted to them in confidence; and whether he will take steps to prevent such a breach of confidence in the future?

If the hon. Member will furnish my right hon. Friend with more detailed particulars of the case which he has in mind, he will be happy to make inquiry into the matter.

Is it not a fact that this kind of thing is constantly occurring?

No, it is quite an unusual procedure; as far as I know nothing of the sort has ever come under my notice before.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state what has been the annual increase in the Estimates of each Government Department since 1875; and whether he could generally state the causes for these increases?

The hon. Member will find the figures he requires succinctly set out in the analytical tables which precede the printed Estimates for each year, the causes of the respective increases being briefly described in the memoranda which accompany them. It would not be possible to give the figures in detail or to attempt any general description of the various causes which have contributed to the increases under the several Votes within the limits of an answer to a Parliamentary question.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in the case of a dispute between members of a local education committee and an inquiry being called for, the question will be inquired into by an inspector of the Education Department or the Local Government Board?

There is no provision in the Irish Education Act, 1892, or in the Rules made there under for the inquiry by the Commissioners of National Education, the Local Government Board, or any other authority into disputes between members of a school attendance committee.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that on Sunday night, 15th August, Police Constable Begley, stationed at Longford, violently and without cause assaulted Joseph Daly when walking past him in the public street; whether, when proceeding to the barracks to complain of the assault, Begley again met Daly and struck him a violent blow in the face; whether the local magistrate has declined to issue a summons against this policeman; and, if so, will he direct the local resident magistrate to do so?

As I am informed, the facts as to this alleged assault are as follows: About 11.45 p.m. on the 15th instant, Constable Begley, who was on leave and in plain clothes, was standing at the door of a friend's house speaking to a girl friend, when Daly and two companions approached. Daly stopped and looked into the constable's face. The constable told him to go away, but, instead of doing so, he called back his two companions and lighted matches, which he held up in an extremely rude manner in the face of the constable and his friend. Naturally annoyed, the constable pushed him away, and the assault, if any, was a very trivial one. There is no foundation for the statement that the constable met Daly a second time and struck him. An application was made to the petty sessions on the 18th instant for a summons, but the four magistrates present unanimously refused to order its issue. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has no power to order them to issue one, even if he were disposed to take that course?

Is it not a fact that the reply which the right hon. Gentleman has given is practically Constable Begley's version of the story?

I do not know. I have got this reply from my ordinary channels of information, namely, the district inspector.

Why should there not be an opportunity given for a further investigation into the facts?

My hon. Friend must be aware that Joseph Daly can bring a civil action if he pleases. The Government has no control in the matter, and they cannot compel a magistrate to issue a summons.

In the event of proceedings being taken by the aggrieved person, will the police be defended by the right hon. Gentleman or anyone representing him?

Certainly not.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this police officer in court made an appeal to the solicitor who applied for the summons not to go on with it?

No, Sir, I was not aware of that fact.

asked whether the Estates Commissioners sent an inspector to the lands of Mr. Richard J. Walsh, on the estate of Mr. Pierce Gun Mahony, at Cordal, county Kerry, immediately before the recent eviction of Mr. Walsh; whether the inspector made a valuation of the lands; whether the same was communicated to and refused by the landlord; and whether such valuation showed that the price demanded by Mr. Pierce Gun Mahony was excessive?

I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland to a question on the same subject asked by the hon. Member on 21st June last.

I never asked a question of this kind before. I want to know whether it is not a fact that the Estates Commissioners' valuer went over this land and declared the rent asked by Mr. Mahony to be excessive? That is a very simple question.

I think the hon. Member is mistaken. I believe he put a similar question down on 21st June.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the estate of Thomas Miller, a minor, situate at Clontead, Coachford, county Cork, has come under the notice of the Estates Commissioners; have any agreements for a sale been filed with them; whether it is now sought to create a tenancy in favour of one Daniel Halloran, a caretaker of a farm on this estate from which Jeremiah O'Mahony was evicted for non-payment of rent in June, 1883; have the Estates Commissioners power under any existing Act, or is it proposed to invest them with power under the present Land Bill to exclude tenancies of this kind, created for the purposes of a sale and with the object of excluding the claims of the evicted tenants from the general sale; and, if not, will he state what steps it is proposed to take to safeguard the position of evicted tenants whose holdings are at present occupied by caretakers who may at any moment be converted into bogus tenants?

The Estates Commissioners cannot identify any estate of Thomas Miller, a minor, as pending for sale before them. The Commissioners have inquired into and considered Jeremiah Mahony's application for reinstatement in a holding formerly occupied by him, and have decided to take no action in the matter.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he can state the number of blind persons in Ireland in the workhouses and other institutions respectively, and the nature of their employment, if any?

According to the Census of 1901, the number of totally blind in Ireland was 4,253, of whom 766 were in workhouses and 361 in other institutions. Table 105 of the General Report of the Census Commissioners, which has been presented to Parliament, gives the occupations of the totally blind. The nature of the employment of those in workhouses and other institutions are not shown separately.

asked the Chief Secretary whether it is the intention of the Government to reintroduce the Afflicted Children (Ireland) Bill; and, if so, on what date?

I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to a question asked by the hon. Member for South Belfast on 26th October last to the effect that he would be very glad to introduce a Bill on the subject if he had any assurance that it would meet with general approval. It is obvious that no such legislation can be introduced this Session.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Bill is very much wanted in Ireland, and that it is approved of on all hands?

I am well aware of that fact, and I deeply regret that it is impossible to make it a non-contentious measure.

asked the Chief Secretary if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners have purchased the untenanted lands on the Vereker estate, situate near Abbeyfeale, in the county of Limerick; if so, whether they have yet apportioned them, and to whom; and whether they have given the labourers of the district any portion of the lands?

The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have allotted the 81 acres of untenanted land on this estate among five of the tenants on the estate.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the claims of the labourers in the district were considered in allotting this land, and whether it is a fact that the Estates Commissioners have given a large portion of it to a farmer who already holds 70 acres?

I am afraid I cannot answer either of those two questions. The hon. Member had better put them down upon the Paper.

asked the Chief Secretary if he can state, approximately or otherwise, the number of occupiers of houses which have been medically condemned as unfit for human habitation under the Labourers Acts, who have had their representations for cottages and allotments thrown out by rural district councils in the first instance or rejected by the inspectors of the Local Government Board in the second?

The Local Government Board have no returns giving the desired information, which could not be obtained without an examination of the records of every rural district in Ireland.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners received in February, 1904, a statement of claim from an evicted tenant named John Shea, formerly of Carrigculteen, Mill-street, county Cork, and now of Brockton, Mass., U.S.A.; were the circumstances under which this eviction took place investigated by the Commissioners, and was it found to be due to the non-payment of rent of £60 a year; and, if the claimant returns to Ireland to prosecute his claim, will his evidence be taken by an inspector of the Land Commission before any final decision be come to in his case?

The Estates Commissioners have inquired into and considered the application of Catherine Shea for reinstatement in a holding formerly occupied by her husband, and have decided to take no action in the case.

asked the Chief Secretary whether a large force of police recently accompanied the sheriff's bailiff to make seizures on the Potts property at Moore, county Roscommon; whether the police were present for any other purpose than for the preservation of the peace; whether he is aware that the acting sergeant of the Cloonfad barracks carried a whip and actually acted as cattle drover; and whether he will state if it is a portion of the police duty to act in this manner?

I am informed by the constabulary authorities that on the 23rd instant a force of 20 police accompanied the sheriff and his assistants when making seizures for rent on the Potts estate. This force was subsequently augmented by 15 men from Ballinasloe. The police were present solely for the protection of the sheriff, and confined themselves exclusively to that duty. The acting-sergeant referred to took a whip from a man who was about to strike one of the sheriff's assistants and brought it back to the barracks with him. He did not use the whip or drive cattle with it.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the lands of Willsgrove, in the county of Roscom- mon, which have been in the possession of the Congested Districts Board for the past three years, are now about to be divided without reference to the needs of the occupiers of uneconomic buildings in the locality, in the face of an understanding which existed that no scheme for the distribution of these lands would be carried out until the passage of the Land Bill into law, in order that the increased powers of the Congested Districts Board should be used for the benefit of small occupiers in the district; and whether the Congested Districts Board will suspend this scheme until these powers will enable them to carry out a distribution equitable to the people of the district?

The hon. Members appears to have been misinformed. The lands of Willsgrove are not being divided by the Congested Districts Board without reference to the needs of uneconomic holdings in the neighbourhood. On the contrary, the Board are awaiting the passage into law of the Bill now before the House for the purpose of extending their powers, and in anticipation of obtaining such powers all holdings under £10 rateable value adjacent to the lands acquired have been mapped and land for their enlargement has been reserved.

asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been directed to the complaint of Mr. John Graham, contractor, of Dromore, county Down, that when he was carrying out a contract at Roscommon he had to stand with revolver in hand to protect his Protestant workmen; whether any complaints were made to the police as to attempted boycotting or sectarian opposition to Mr. John Graham's workmen, whilst he was engaged in the county; and, if so, what action was taken by the police upon such complaints and with what results?

My attention has been called to a newspaper report of a speech made by Mr. Graham to the effect stated in the question, but I cannot of course vouch for the accuracy of the report. I am informed by the constabulary authorities that there is no truth in the statement that Mr. Graham or any of his workmen were boycotted. Mr. Graham was employed as a contractor for the repair of the waterworks at Boyle about four years ago. He had only in his employment, so far as the police are aware, two Protestant workmen, neither of whom were molested in any way. One of them got married, and settled down in Boyle, where I believe he is now living happily. No complaints whatsoever were made to the police of any attempt to boycott, or any sectarian opposition to, these men, and the police report that in their opinion the allegations about boycotting and intimidation are purely the results of a fertile imagination.

May I ask whether a report of the speech of Mr. Graham, for which the right hon. Gentleman has told the House there is no foundation, was circulated in a pamphlet headed "Grievances from Ireland," by Lord Ashtown?

No, Sir; I have not seen the pamphlet.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the local authority who employed Mr. Graham to carry out these works was a Nationalist authority?

The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

asked the Prime Minister if he will grant a Return showing the total estimate revenue, the total revenue received, the total net revenue available for services of the State after rebates, deductions, etc., and the actual cost of collection in each year, from 1875 to the present year?

The information which the hon. Member desires is contained in a readily available form in the Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom for each year, and I do not think that the publication of specially arranged abstracts of figures, which are already available, serves any purpose of sufficient public utility to justify the labour and expense involved in their preparation. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer regrets, therefore, that he does not see his way to granting such a Return.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether a scheme for the formation of an education authority for the borough of Southend has been submitted to him; whether it con- tains a proviso that no clergyman or minister of religion is to be co-opted as a member; and, if so, whether he will defer his approval of this proviso until public opinion in Southend has been tested in regard to it?

The draft of a scheme containing the proviso referred to has been submitted to the Board. Before the Board's approval is given steps will be taken to give publicity to the provisions of the proposed scheme in accordance with Section 17 (6) of the Education Act, 1902, and any objections or suggestions which may be received will be duly considered.

To mover "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to provide for the complete dissociation of the compensation payable under the Town Planning Clauses of this Bill from the Land Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845."

To move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert Clauses in the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Bill, providing for the separate valuation and assessment of all lands and of buildings acquired or erected in connection with any scheme carried out under the provisions of this Act, and for acquiring for the local authority all increments of value in lands which can be traced to improvements or schemes carried out under the provisions of this Act."

Instructions in like terms.

To move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to provide for compensation arising from damages from mineral workings, and that, on a local authority acquiring the surface, this shall carry as of right the property in the minerals beneath the surface."

To move, "That it be an Instruction to the Com- mittee that they have power to insert Clauses in the Bill providing for the improvement of existing and construction of new through routes for traffic, and empowering the Local Government Board to prescribe a minimum width for through or arterial routes of traffic."

To move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to extend the scope of the Bill so as to make provisions with respect to the appointment and duties of borough and district medical officers of health."

To move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two parts."

To move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that Part II. of the Bill shall not apply to Scotland."

There are a number of Instructions upon the Paper. The first, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), can be moved as an Amendment to the Bill. The next Instructions, standing in the names of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie), the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes), and the hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Jowett) are all mandatory, and therefore out of order. The next, standing in the name of the hon. Member for North-East Lanark (Mr. Findlay), combines in itself two separate Instructions, and ought to be divided. They cannot be treated together as one question. The next Instruction, standing in the name of the hon. Member for North-West Manchester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), is beyond the scope of the Bill. The next, standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division of Derbyshire, is also mandatory, and therefore out of order. I am afraid I cannot understand the object of the Instruction standing in the name of the Noble Lord the hon. Member for East Marylebone to divide the Bill into two parts, because the Bill is already divided into four parts. The next, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Sutherland-shire, is a mandatory Instruction, and therefore out of order. None of the Instructions being in order, I will now leave the Chair.

Bill considered in Committee.—[ First allotted day. ]

[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]

(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

I rise to oppose Clause 1 for two reasons: First, because it casts doubt upon the capability of the local authority to decide what is good for the needs of the neighbourhood; and, secondly, because it gives arbitrary powers to the Local Government Board. It, in fact, makes the President of the Local Government Board a sort of Emperor, a kind of Julius Cæsar, who, of his own sweet will, is to direct the fortunes of his poorer and less fortunate fellow men. I shall certainly, for these two reasons, vote against the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill. I feel astonished such a proposal should come from right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, more especially, from the right hon. Gentleman himself (Mr. John Burns), because I can remember when the right hon. Gentleman and myself were new Members of this House, there was no Member on either side who was more strongly in favour of great powers being granted to the local authorities, or who held more strongly the view that the local authority was the fit and proper body to decide almost anything than the right hon. Gentleman. I fancy at one time in the political career of the right hon. Gentleman he thought the London County Council a far better authority than the House of Commons. Of late years he has changed his opinion, and he is now gradually coming round to the idea that the local authority is not fit to decide what it ought to do in its own district. If we allow this Clause to pass, what will be the effect on the local authority? Part III. of the Act of 1890 applies, I believe, to rural sanitary authorities, which are now represented by the rural district councils. Surely a rural district council is a body which should have some knowledge of the needs of its own district. I am not altogether in love with the elective principle. I think it can be carried too far, and hon. Members below the Gangway who cheer that remark can not themselves be enamoured of the principle, and at the same time vote for this Clause, because it does away altogether with that principle. What is the use of electors in a rural district going to the poll, very often at considerable trouble to themselves, and electing rural district councillors, if their representatives are not to have the right to say what they believe to be good for the people of the district. It seems absurd altogether, and the sooner you abolish the rural district council and make the Department in Whitehall supreme the better. I can conceive no other alternative. I have a great admiration for the right hon. Gentleman, but can he tell me how he can possibly know the needs of every rural district in England and Wales; he surely cannot be so well acquainted with them as the chosen representatives of the people. Clause 10, which must be read in conjunction with this Clause, is very important and far-reaching. We will presume—as I am afraid will be the case—that I am not successful in my endeavour to strike out Clause 1, which, therefore, becomes part of the Bill that eventually passes into law. What will be the result? Take a given area where the district council has been elected after a considerable contest as to whether or not steps should be taken under this Clause. The ratepayers have decided that there is no need in that particular district for additional housing accommodation, and that the district is not in a sufficiently strong financial position to indulge in the luxury of building new houses. Under Clause 10, four people, who, while being householders, may not pay any rates at all—

How can a person be a householder without paying rates?

If the hon. Member will go into the country he will find any number of people living in cottages, and possessing Parliamentary and local voting powers, who do not pay a farthing in rates. They pay for their cottages 1s. or 1s. 6d. a week, but the landlord pays the rates to keep the cottages in repair; yet the occupier has the vote. Well, four such people, paying Is. a week rent, having a vote, but paying no rates, will have a right to demand an inquiry. Inquiries are exceedingly expensive, and the cost has to be paid by the ratepayers, and should the President of the Local Government Board come to the conclusion—although I venture to say no holder of that office will really be capable of knowing what are the real needs of the district— but should the President of the Local Government Board think the complaint well founded, he may order an expenditure of £50,000 or £100,000, and he may have houses erected in a rural district where there are no inhabitants except farm labourers, who cannot afford to pay more than 1s. or 1s. 6d. a week for cottages. Yet it may be the case that the houses erected cannot be let, except at a loss, for less than 6s. or 7s. per week, and the ratepayers will consequently have to pay for the fad of that particular President of the Local Government Board. If this Clause is adopted it really means the extinction of the local authorities as far as regards their work under this particular Section. They will have nothing whatever to do. They will not be able to say, in our opinion, as chosen representatives of the district, we believe such and such things ought to be done. They will be at the mercy of the Local Government Board moved by four people.

Some ardent Socialist, desirous to benefit the people at somebody else's expense, may go down into a district and easily induce four people to demand this expensive inquiry, and eventually the unfortunate ratepayers will have to bear the brunt of the burden of this fad of the right hon. Gentleman. Has the right hon. Gentleman carefully considered what will be the effect of this fad? I presume I shall not have a chance of converting him, although I believe he is always open to reason. But possibly he may not have considered the effect of this Clause on his Bill. The omission of the Clause would not interfere with the other parts of the Bill, which could still be adopted all over the country by those who desire to adopt it, and that in my mind is the only safeguard for Bills of this sort. Still, I am afraid I have not been successful in convincing the right hon. Gentleman, and therefore I appeal to the House generally, and especially to the Radical Members of this Committee, who have always been loud in their praise of the elective principle, to support me in my endeavour to preserve to the elected of the people the power to choose to do what they think right for the benefit of those who have elected them.

I think there is no doubt that this Clause goes very much further than it need, if the only object of it is to facilitate the adoption of Part III. by rural district councils. Of course, in the past, we all acknowledge that certain county councils have no doubt thrown obstacles in the way of rural district councils, putting up cottages under Part III., but that difficulty can be done away with by taking away the power of veto from the county council, and giving this same power of veto to the Local Government Board instead. If the right hon. Gentleman restricted himself to that Amendment of the law, I think the majority of us on this side of the House would have agreed with him, but of course this Clause goes a great deal further. Its real object is to pave the way for the Local Government Board, compelling every district, whether it is necessary or not, to go in for schemes of housing under Part III. They obviously cannot compel districts, unless they do away with the necessity of adopting Part III., because it would be a defence against the Local Government Board compelling them, that the authority could not act if Part III. had not been adopted, and until it was adopted any action would be ultra vires. Therefore the whole foundation of this Clause is to enable the Local Government Board to compel local authorities to adopt Part III. of the Act. Clause 10, I suppose, will not be discussed at all under this Resolution. It is very regrettable that it should not be discussed, because I think it is the most important part of the Bill from the housing point of view. Under that Clause small authorities will, with the assistance of the Local Government Board, be able to compel large authorities, large authorities will be able to compel small authorities, and four ratepayers will be able to compel any kind of authority. The Bill has been very justly criticised as a measure which is designed to set up the uncontrolled bureaucracy of the Local Government Board, and I think there is no greater instance of this defect than this proposal about the adoption of Part III. I believe that, quite apart from the administrative danger of centreing all these powers in the Local Government Board, there is very great danger to the cause of housing. I think it is disastrous to transfer the responsibility for action of this kind from the local authorities to the Local Government Board. Even where the Local Government Board does not exercise these powers, it is perfectly certain that their power to do so must very much discourage housing. After all, the housing question cannot be solved by the local authority alone; however much money they devote to the purpose they can only touch the fringe of the question, and we must depend for the better housing of the people upon private enterprise controlled by the local authority. If this Clause passes and the superstructure passes, and the Local Government Board can compel the local authorities, they will put up houses, and be quite regardless of the heavy loss which will be thrown upon the rates.

Hitherto local authorities have shown a great amount of common sense in this matter. They have realised that it does not pay in the long run to put up houses unless they can make both ends meet, but once the responsibility is taken off the shoulders of the local representatives, and they can go to the ratepayers and say: "It is not our fault that this heavy expenditure is cast upon the rates but the Local Government Board's fault," they will only be too ready to bribe certain portions of the electorate by providing these houses. Of course, the Local Authorities are handicapped in competing with private enterprise. Although they have cheap money, they have to pay back during the sinking fund period the whole cost of the buildings and the land; and, of course, they build in a very much more extravagant way than private enterprise, and they suffer from the general extravagance which you always find in municipal trading, when the managers do not suffer in their own pockets by insufficient attention to detail. When encouraged by the Local Government Board they are certain to pay rent out of rates. In the past, of course, the adoption of Part III. was confined to those parts where it was absolutely necessary, and where private enterprise did not supply the want, or where it was possible to put up buildings of this kind without loss, but now it will become the general rule to build, regardless of financial consequences, and this must inevitably discourage private builders, both in the country districts and in the towns. There are many country districts where the owners of land put up houses at rents which do not pay reasonable interest on the cost of building. They certainly will not go on doing that in the future. They will not consent to pay twice over, and if they have to pay very heavy rates to provide unremunerative houses they will cease to build cottages of their own. In the same way in towns, it is inevitable that building will be checked. Rate-aided competition must prevent the builder from putting up houses to meet the local demand, and the eventual result will be that the local authority will have to do the whole work; because builders will be so alarmed that they will leave the provision of working class accommodation, where they may be undercut by the competition of the local authority, entirely to that body. I must say I think it is a very dangerous proceeding to start compulsion in these matters where the central authority does not make any grant.

Compulsion has been limited hitherto to those services such as public health and education and poor law services, where the local authority gets help from the central authority. The ground on which the central authority has given this help has undoubtedly been, that these objects were national objects, and that the neglect of giving the service in the district might bring disastrous results, not only upon that district, but on a far larger section of the community. I think the demolition of slums, where the Local Government Board has had this compulsory power may be looked upon as a public health service and one in which the Local Government Board should have this power of compulsion. Part III. is on a different ground. It is not a sanitary service in any way; it is a matter which concerns the local authority alone, and it is quite arguable that in the majority of cases, much more will be done to encourage sanitary houses by the local authority encouraging private enterprise and controlling and instigating these enterprises than by driving them out of the field by rate-aided competition. There is no necessity for making Part III. universal because if the ratepayers want it adopted they can easily make their views known to the local authority, and get them to adopt it. The right form of building for the local authority seems to be that which does not tempt private enterprise. In London, for instance, private enterprise goes in for providing large tenements, where the site is not much larger than that of small tenements, and where the amount of sanitary accommodation is much less. For these reasons it is much more profitable to put up large tenements. That is a typical case where Part III. has been adopted, and where very great service has been done by doing so; but it seems to me that local authorities are undoubtedly the best judges as to whether they can best encourage housing by building themselves or leaving ground for private enterprise; and it is because I believe that this Clause and the compulsion which will hinge upon it will really hinder the progress of sanitary housing of the working classes, that I shall certainly follow the hon. Baronet if he carries the matter to a Division.

I think we have now reached a stage in the history of our public health legislation when the adoptive Act of 1890 ought not to be left to the discretion of the local authorities. The history of all of these statutes is that you have had an adoptive Act which has been largely taken up, and has had an operation in yearly extending areas. Then, after experience has shown their wisdom, the provisions have been made general by statutes for that purpose. That is really the drift of this Clause, and I myself, having a deep interest in the public health of our great towns, think the time has come when we should take another step in advance in this matter. It does not follow in any degree that we are to sanction the Act of 1890 in every particular. On the contrary, I think there are several provisions in the Bill before us which are capable of very great improvement and valuable Amendment. This Clause was brought before the Committee at their first sitting. There were 53 Members present, and after an Amendment was negatived, the Clause was carried by a unanimous vote. A decision so made is entitled to consideration in the House. This is really a large question affecting the health of large numbers of our people, and I feel sure in my own mind that to reject this Clause would be a retrograde step.

The admirable speech of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Powell) entirely disposes of the speech made by the preceding hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), who was under the impression that this Clause had for its object the increase of the Cæsarean powers of the Local Government Board over local authorities, and he thought the time had arrived when some restriction should be placed upon the grasping power of the Department that I represent. But, oddly enough, this Clause has the very opposite intention and effect. Its object is to allow the 671 rural district councils to which it applies to cut themselves free from the shackles and restraints of the county councils, and to put themselves, so far as the initiation of housing is concerned, outside the supervision of the Local Government Board and for them to be allowed to include in their ordinary sanitary and public health duties automatically, as they discharge other duties, that of housing, which is now denied them. Why should a rural district council have to go cap in hand to a county council, the centre of which is very frequently removed from the source of the overcrowding and the insanitation that bad housing means? We have 671 rural district Councils, and, in consequence of the restraining action by the county councils, only nine rural district councils have been able to put housing powers into operation. We consider that in this question of housing, where the greater portion of the difficulty and the greater portion of the complaint arises in rural district council areas, many of which are rapidly becoming urban district areas, these authorities ought to have that power without going to the county council or even to the Local Government Board, and this Clause enables them to carry out that power.

4.0 P.M.

The hon. Member (Mr. Guinness) thinks this Clause goes farther than it should, and he suggested that if rural district councils had this power we should find them universally embarking upon expensive and extravagant schemes of housing. The hon. Member knows probably better than I do the attitude of rural district councils on this and many similar matters. I do not picture to myself at this moment, even with this power, rural district councils bankrupting the local ratepayers by charging the rates with extravagant housing schemes. On the contrary, I believe even with those facilities and this increased power both the county councils and the Local Government Board will be compelled even to persuade and bring pressure to bear upon the rural district councils to carry out their legitimate sanitary duties. The hon. Member also said that local authorities must depend upon private enterprise for housing generally. That may or may not be the case. The hon. Member is honourably associated with the name of a family which, to its credit, has done its very best in the large towns for the unskilled labourers. Does he find in his experience that that enterprise has had that effect, or that conversely the action of local authorities has materially depressed private enterprise? That applies to the towns and cities. Where is there any evidence of local authorities in rural district council areas so seeking to build as to compete prejudicially with private enterprise? I need not go into the figures with regard to defective, insanitary, and insufficient housing in the rural districts of this country, which is such a scandal that anything that would stimulate competition between private enterprise and the public authorities in the matter of providing houses where they are now insufficient would be an advantage rather than a disadvantage. Therefore, on the ground of this Clause dissuading or discouraging private enterprise there is really no argument in the speeches to which we have listened. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. W. Guinness) state that this was not the way in which to do this work. He thought probably that there was a way out in the central authority construing housing to be more a matter in connection with public health administration than it is now, and that probably public health could be promoted by means of subsidies and contributions, which they now indirectly receive. If he means that, it is just as much a charge on the taxpayer and ratepayer as if the local authorities compete with private enterprise. So far as the money of the taxpayer is concerned, there is not much difference, and not much to choose between them. In conclusion I would say that what this Clause does is simply to remove the restraints now upon the rural district councils and to give them equal facilities to those now enjoyed by the urban authorities. In a word, it is to give the rural district council the same capacity to grapple with the housing problem as the London County Council now enjoys with regard to its particular area. As to the suggestion of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) that this is not a thing to be lightly done, I would say that our experience is that it is not an easy matter to get four people to complain to the rural district council, the county council, or the local authority. The reason why I will leave the hon. Baronet himself to determine, psychologically, when he is in the seclusion of his own rural domain. The fact is, in the first place, it is very difficult to get four villagers to complain about anything. Secondly, even if they do complain, the request for housing is to be subjected to the ordeal of a local inquiry. When a local inquiry is to be held, experience shows that the wrong people appear, and try to make it appear that the rural area is an Arcadia, and that nothing is required to be done. Then comes in the Local Government Board to consider the report of the inspector who holds the inquiry. It is not compulsory upon the Local Government Board to adopt the report of an inspector unless he can give good reason for the report being adopted. I can assure the hon. Baronet that he is entirely mistaken if he thinks the Local Government Board on the complaint of four householders or four persons who have been for a short time there, is going to sanction housing schemes in the centre of Salisbury Plain, because these four persons of advanced views, who have been exercising in the recent Territorial manœuvres, say there is a housing grievance. This Clause was discussed in Grand Committee from all points of view, and it was unanimously adopted. It meets with the approval of nearly all the local authorities. It has received practically little criticism up to this stage. No argument has been adduced against it in this House, and I sincerely trust that the hon. Baronet's Amendment will be rejected.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Sir F. Powell) pointed out that this Clause was passed unanimously in Committee. It is quite true, but he has not pointed out that we had not in Committee an opportunity of discussing Clause 10, which materially affects this Clause. In fact, this Clause depends upon Clause 10, and unfortunately, owing to the procedure adopted by the Government, the chances of our being able to discuss that Clause are of the very slightest. The President of the Local Government Board repudiated bureaucracy in this matter, but, I am afraid, it was only lip service. He said that what we are doing away with was the necessity for a district council going cap in hand to the county council to ask for powers to deal with their local areas, but those persons will have to go cap in hand to the Local Government Board. I fancy that a rural district council would far prefer to go to a county council, to which they themselves fiend representatives, than to go to White- hall, even to the right hon. Gentleman. For my part, I do not think it makes much difference whether we reject this Clause or leave it in the Bill, for it depends on Clause 10. If we were to arrive at Clause 10 we should discover that when the Bill has not been adopted it would then be incumbent on the Local Government Board to hold an inquiry, and, having held that local inquiry, the Act could only be put in force in cases where the powers ought to be exercised. That is a very difficult thing to settle, and I think the Local Government Board will find it is practically impossible to force the local authorities of this country into any very break-neck pace, because all that is proposed by this Bill depends upon money. I gave the Bill general support, and I support it still; but I am afraid that, like some of the other ambitious measures which the Government have brought in. with a great flourish of trumpets, this Bill which we have been told is going to revolutionise the country side and bring about what has been called the colonising of England, will, when passed, show that not very much will happen. I fancy the Local Government Board will find that if they attempt to put burdens on the shoulders of the local authorities beyond what is humanly possible for them to bear, the local authorities will strike, to use a convenient coloquial word. At any rate, it is certain that if the Central Government go on piling these burdens on the shoulders of the local authorities, there may be an informal strike, for even if local authorities were willing to carry out this work, they will find themselves absolutely unable to undertake it, because the finance is not there. But, for my part, I believe that the Clause which allows an extension of the time and gives cheap money is likely to do far more good in bringing about housing than all the coercive action of the Local Government Board and the right hon. Gentleman. For these reasons, I believe it is not really material whether we leave this Clause out or not.

I would point out that not only shall we not be able to discuss Clause 10, but we shall not be able to divide against it, because all the Clauses are going to be put together. Therefore we will be in this awkward position, that we cannot vote separately against the Clauses we disapprove of, and for the Clauses we approve of. Therefore, the only opportunity we have, or are likely to have, of signifying our disapproval of Clause 10 is by voting against Clause 1, which has to a certain extent to be read with Clause 10. The right hon. Gentleman said it was not necessary to answer my remarks, because the hon. Member for Wigan (Sir F. Powell) had made a speech in which he said that the Grand Committee was in favour of the Clause. I venture to disagree with my hon. Friend. The mere fact that the Grand Committee, composed mainly of hon. Members on the other side of the House, were in favour of the Clause, was, in my opinion, evidence that it was a bad Clause. It would certainly be no reason for supposing that it was in any way a good one. The right hon. Gentleman said that I really did not know what this Clause meant, because I had not read Clause 55 of the principal Act. I have read that Clause, and I think I thoroughly understand it. I think the person who does not understand the Clause in the Bill is the President of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman said this Clause was to remove the restraints now existing on the rural district council. Then he went on to say that they had to go cap in hand to the county council, and that they could not do that which they thought they ought to be allowed to do. I beg to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Clause does nothing of the kind. It does much more than that. It does not allow a district council to say whether they will adopt the Clause. On the contrary, it forces the district council to adopt the Clause, which is a very different thing. If the right hon. Gentleman really desires the Clause to carry out what he says it carries out, he ought to amend the Act of 1900 by removing the veto of the county council. Then the Clause would carry out what the right hon. Gentleman says it does. Under those circumstances I think I should be justified in asking the right hon. Gentleman to acquiesce in the omission of the Clause, and to bring up on the Report stage a Clause corresponding to what he says it will carry out. If the Clause merely removes the veto of the county council and allows the district council to judge for themselves, with the consent of the Local Government Board as to whether or not they should adopt the Act, I am not sure that I would object to it. Certainly, if I did not object to it, I should not view it with very great favour or hostility. When it takes from the district council the power of initiative of their own, and prevents them from doing what they might like to do, then I object to the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman says it is not easy to get four people to complain. I do not agree with him at all. I believe it will be very easy to get four people to complain. I think that, human nature being what it is, there will be a certain number of people only too glad to get the opportunity of complaining. Probably they will be chosen by the Radical caucus. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that the Local Government Board is not under compulsion to do anything in the way of building houses on the complaint of four people who may have been to Salisbury Plain. We cannot legislate for the Local Government Board being represented for all time by the right hon. Gentleman. We must look to the future, and we must remember that there will be other Presidents. I should be the last person to say anything against the right hon. Gentleman. In the course of time, and possibly in the changes of Government which are not improbable, there may be other Presidents of the Local Government Board, and consequently it is giving to Presidents of the Local Government Board a power which ought never to have been given to any single official. For these reasons the speech of the right hon. Gentleman has not satisfied me at all, and I will vote against the Clause.

I would like to ask, after what the hon. Baronet (Sir. F. Banbury) has said, whether we shall have a chance of voting against Clause 10, or whether our only chance of voting against Clause 10 will be to vote against Clause 1?

It seems to me I have no discretion with regard to this matter. The Order of the House says: "And on the Committee stage of the Bill the Chairman, in the case of a series of clauses to which no notice of Amendment has been given by the Government, shall put the Question that those clauses stand part of the Bill without putting the Question separately as respects each clause." Therefore, I do not think that I have any discretion.

Does that mean that any clause of which notice of Amendment is standing on the Paper can be divided on?

Any Government Amendment, yes. Because in that case I shall put the clause separately.

Under these circumstances, as the Government has told us nothing about their ideas as to whether this Bill is to be self-supporting or not, and have given no reply to the figures which I ventured to bring before the right hon. Gentleman on second reading as to the cost that might be involved, involving possibly an increase in the rates of even 2d. or 3d. or more in any housing scheme, I feel that our only chance of voting against the power of the Local Government Board to force expenditure on the local authorities under the Bill is to vote against this Clause. I am certainly not hostile to the general principle of the Bill, but if we are to have an opportunity of voting against that compulsion and that increase in the rates, possibly against the wish of the local authorities, which under these circumstances I think absolutely unjustifiable, it seems to me that the only opportunity given to those who object is to vote against this Clause.

I would ask the hon. Baronet and hon. Members opposite to consider, as the general question raised has been very seriously discussed in this House and in Grand Committee upstairs, whether, if we had any time at our disposal, we could not make some progress in discussing the real points raised in the Bill? There are, no doubt, points on which there is great divergence of opinion. On the other hand, there are many points as to which both sides of the House are tolerably agreed. But the real Committee points might be dealt with if you left the more general question as much alone as possible. I would urge the House to consider the expediency of devoting as little time as possible to the general question, and to come to the real Committee points, so that a Bill which many of us agree is a most important Bill should receive the fullest consideration possible on the points of the greatest importance.

The speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down illustrates in a most practical way the disadvantages of the guillotine. If the hon. Gentleman and his Friend desire that the Bill should be properly discussed before the House then they should not have brought on the guillotine Resolutions.

I cannot help a passing reference to the guillotine. It is, however, out of order for hon. Members to reflect on the decision of the House.

I must thank you for your guidance. This is the only opportunity we have of discussing this part of the Bill. The principle of this Clause is extended under Clause 10. The Local Government Board ask for power to bring pressure upon the rural district councils. The Local Government Board take no kind of responsibility in the matter. They merely wish power to force expenditure upon the people, and the local ratepayers have got to find the money. All the Local Government Board do is to bring the pressure, and we in our various localities of the country will have to provide the funds necessary for carrying out this work. With all the desire in the world that there should be an abundant supply of good cottages for labourers, we must remember the fact that cottages under the normal conditions cannot be built at anything like a return for the investment. I have had the same experience, I expect, as most hon. Members of this House who have a little land, and build cottages from time to time. One knows very well that if cottages pay 2 per cent., or a little over 2 per cent., it is as much as anybody can expect them to pay, or is likely to find them pay. Then I ask, is it a fair and reasonable thing to call upon local ratepayers to provide the balance of rent which is represented by the difference between, say, 2 per cent., which the ordinary labourer could afford to pay, and the reasonable interest which must be paid upon the loans or money otherwise obtained? It is a most difficult question. This is not giving power for adoption of a plan of this sort, but positively forcing the local authority to adopt it, which is a rather unreasonable thing. However much we may desire to have good cottages it is extremely unjust towards the people in the locality to bring compulsory power to bear on them. Landowners, I should say, would be very glad to have plenty of cottages provided, because if they are not provided as a rule in other ways we have to provide them ourselves, and we always do provide them ourselves; and I think, in my case, I do not charge any rent at all for many of the cottages which I have got. No fair, reasonable return could be expected by any local authority from erecting cottages under this Bill. Is the country prepared to make up the difference? Are the ratepayers willing to undertake this increased burden? I do not know of any district myself where the ratepayers are complaining of the rates being too low. We hear a great many complaints from different sources of the rates going up by leaps and bounds under this Radical Government.

You say that which is not true.

The hon. Member ought to know that. Reference has been made to the grasping power of the Local Government Board. We do not complain of the grasping power of the Local Government Board. It only relaxes its grasp too easily at present. It is not a grasping power. It is a diffusive power, to which the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to add coercive power not at all tempered with mercy. It is extremely hard on us to divide against this Clause and all that it means when there are many provisions under the Bill which we should like to support. But now this has to be dealt with with a large number of other clauses under this guillotine arrangement. If the local authorities are prepared to face these losses and to provide as one hon. Member already pointed out half the rent out of the rates I am afraid that they will have only themselves to blame. But I do not think that that is the attitude of the local authorities. I think the right hon. Gentleman and his friends will find out later on that the local authorities do not approve of having coercive vigorous force brought to bear upon them to provide rent out of the rates in localities where small houses may be in some demand. I think they will find that this is a policy which is not likely to meet with general approval. I do not know that we have power to do any more than to divide against this proposal, but I trust that some further opportunity may be given for discussing the provisions of the Bill.

As a member of the Rural Cottage Society all I can say is that our secretary has been written to from districts where houses are required, and we have found on investigation many cases in which there was practically no opportunity of having houses. We have found cases in which people could not be married simply because there was no cottage within miles open to them or only cottages without any water supply, or in which defective sanitary conditions prevailed. We have sent down an inspector, and when that inspector made his report we communicated with the Local Government Board, and they sent down their inspector, who agreed with the report of our inspector. But when it came to practical work the Local Government Board had no power to enforce rules as to sanitary conditions or the general condition of the house. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last mentioned that local bodies would not advance money or take any steps under present conditions. That seems to me the strongest argument why we should give these powers to the Local Government Board, which are contained in Clause 1 and Clause 10, and therefore I shall have very great satisfaction in voting for Clause 1.

I hope it is quite possible for hon. Members while criticising certain portions of other clauses in this Bill, which are indeed great blots upon this, to be able nevertheless to support this Clause. It is not necessary to agree with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board in his picturesque expressions as to the local authorities quarrelling with the alleged tyranny of the Local Government Board. Whatever the point of view from which we look upon this question those who realise how important it is will agree in voting for the first Clause of this measure. It has been said by several speakers, because they object as I object to certain things in Clause 10 and some other clauses, that therefore under the peculiar conditions of Debate to-day, the only way to protest against these other parts is to divide on this Clause. I for one desire to enter my protest against the adoption of that method. Here is a clause, which I believe the vast majority, no matter in whatever part of the House they sit, believe to be a good one, yet because they object to something else later in the Bill, they would put us in the very false position, if they were successful in their attempt of striking out this Clause entirely apart from those provisions which are a step in advance in respect of housing. There is no question of a Government Department tyrannising over a local authority, or one local authority tyrannising over another, and this is a perfectly clear attempt on the part of Parliament itself to make universal that which hitherto has only been partial and none too easy to bring about. I cordially vote for this Clause, although I share the objection of hon. Members opposite and on this side of the House to other parts of the Bill.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 132; Noes, 19.

moved to leave out Sub-section (1).

This is the only chance I shall have of calling attention to the provisions of the first schedule of the Bill. Having regard to the rules under which we are working, it is quite hopeless that we shall have a chance of moving our Amendments under that Schedule. I take exception to Schedule one for four reasons. Hon. Members know that the proposal is that on a compulsory taking of land under this Bill, Schedule one shall take the place, practically speaking, of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act. The effect is this: First, land can be taken, by compulsion without any Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament. Secondly, in ascertaining the amount of compensation to be paid to any owner of property, no person interested will have the right to claim a reference to a jury. For the first time under this Bill, and in an Act of two years ago, the power of claiming the decision of a jury is taken away, and the decision, however large the claim may be, is to be given by an arbitrator. These matters are serious. For myself, I do not take very strong exception to them. I am quite prepared to see the procedure simplified, and to do away with the Provisional Order, and, in certain circumstances, to have a reference to arbitration. But on the next point I am strongly opposed to the provisions of the Schedule. As hon. Members are aware, there is to be a single arbitrator nominated, not by the parties, not by the court, but by the Local Government Board. Practically speaking, the Department is in the position of one of the parties to the reference. It is behind the local authority, and the local authority will have very strong weight with the Board, and that the Department should nominate the arbitrator is, I think, a wrong principle. In many of these cases, under Clause 10, or some other part of the Bill, the whole proceeding may be initiated by the Local Government Board itself. It may have to insist upon the Clause being put into operation, and say that land shall be taken for this purpose. That having happened, an Order is drafted by the authority, and made practically by the Board. Then comes the question of compensation. Under this provision the Board has to appoint the arbitrator, who will determine the amount to be paid to the owner. I think that is wrong. In the Finance Bill a provision was introduced by the Government which had the effect that one of the parties to the litigation nominated the tribunal which was to determine the amount. That was objected to, and the Government gave way and provided that the arbitrator should be appointed by an independent body altogether—the Reference Committee in that case. So here we think that the arbitrator ought to be appointed, not by the Local Government Board, but as provided under the Arbitration Act, that is, when there is no agreement, by the court. The second point is that under the Schedule it is provided that in certain cases, unless the Board otherwise directs, the arbitrator shall not hear counsel or expert witnesses. That is a matter which has been brought before the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Burns) more than once. He received a deputation, who put it before him; and I want to ascertain now, if I can, what is his decision upon it. I can speak perfectly freely on this matter of the employment of counsel, because, in these particular cases, it is impossible that I should ever be retained by either one side or the other. I do think that experience has shown that it is a great mistake to insist that no counsel shall be allowed at these inquiries. It is not the case of a man who employs counsel not paying his own costs: it is quite proper that he should pay his costs except where the arbitrator makes a special order. We had the same point as to counsel upon the Small Holdings Bill, and when that Bill was considered in Committee upstairs I moved to leave out those words in the schedule of the Bill. The answer given was "All we desire is to get control in the matter, and in any case of any real importance sanction will be given readily for counsel to be employed."

We relied upon that answer, and what has happened since under the Act? A number of applications have been made for leave to employ counsel, and every one of them has been refused. Some of the applications were as to matters of great importance, and in every case the answer has been the same, that the sanction could not be given. One case has-been brought before the notice of the Board where the owner of the land at one of the first inquiries held desired to have counsel. That application was refused, and what was the result? The county council in that case were represented by a very expert clerk of their own. The arbitrator himself was a barrister of great experience, and the owner was represented by a man of no experience, who was not able to bring fully before the arbitrator the points he desired to make. The Order was confirmed, and the owner got no redress. That is one case where I think there is a real denial of jus- tice. Let me put a case on the other side that I knew of, a case relating to Northamptonshire. The county council make application for leave to be represented by counsel. In their letter they stated, having regard to the fact that that was the first inquiry as to the confirmation of compulsory orders under the Act, and as certain points of principle and of importance were involved, they thought it desirable the county council should be represented The owner made a similar application, but both were refused. It was a great mistake, I think, that those applications should be refused. It was a breach of the promise given that in all cases of real importance sanction, if asked for, would be given. Having regard to the experience under the Small Holdings Act, I do not think we can rely upon the mere statement that in cases of importance leave will be given. I think, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, this is a serious matter, and that it is very undesirable that the precedent of the Small Holdings should be followed. I do not see the least reason why you could not leave it to the arbitrator either to say whether he will hear counsel, or, which I think better, leave it to him to say whether costs of counsel shall be allowed if they appear. I ask whether he will not himself put down some Amendments to meet the claims of a deputation on the subject, which I thought had been sympathetically considered. I put that point forward, and also press the point as to the appointment of the arbitrator, and without limiting, of course, the objections to the Schedule that may be taken by others I put my opposition to the Schedule mainly on these two grounds, and I beg leave to move the omission of the Subsection.

I have an Amendment on the Paper, and I am sorry the Lord Advocate is not here in order to meet the point I raise. As to what has been said by the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) I quite agree that a reference to arbitration is really necessary for the sake of efficient administration. It will be a cheaper system than the present one, and that is the main reason why I have always supported the Clause. For my part, I should object very much to the introduction of counsel, I do not think they are in the least necessary, and, if I may say so, speaking not as a lawyer but as one interested in local administration, I think there would be very few local authorities that would desire to employ counsel and witnesses, and, speaking as a. landowner, I do not think there is any landowner who would wish to do so either. It might occur in some cases, but I think it is a practice to be discouraged. I think it is most desirable to have a thoroughly independent arbitrator, and I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Member has said about the selection of an arbitrator. From my experience I should say there is very little difficulty as a rule in the local authority and in the individual landowner fixing upon an arbitrator themselves, and I think that is the best solution of the matter. Failing that solution, I should, in my country at any rate, infinitely prefer that the sheriff would have the appointment of arbitrator in the cases where the local authority and the individual fail to agree. I would most strongly urge that as regards Scotland, because whatever may be the worst opinion of the English Local Government Board held by an English Member, it is as nothing compared to the feeling I hold of the Scottish Local Government Board. I would say that not because of the members of the Board, but because the Board, as it is now, is not constituted to deal with these matters, and it is perfectly incompetent, as now constituted, to do so. Very often assurances are given by the Scottish Office that we shall have a reconstituted Board, but there are no signs of it. I, for one, must see the Board reconstituted before I am disposed to submit the destinies either of the local authority or of the individual in Scotland to its fiat. I do not regard the Scottish Local Government Board as a desirable body with which to entrust the appointment of these arbitrators, and I urge that the sheriff should have the appointment, and that his decision shall be final without recourse to court or county councils.

I regard the power under the Schedule with considerable dislike. Under the Bill the position would be that the Local Government Boards without any control of any sort whatever, would be entitled to order the compulsory acquisition of the lands of any person whatsoever in the whole of this country. That, as I understand it, is the proposal actually contained in the Bill. I am connected with a public body and various, public bodies I know have actually acquired lands under compulsory power granted to them by Act of Parliament, and acquired those lands for specific purposes. As far as I understand it, under this Bill the Local Government Board have absolutely no authority to take those lands from those bodies and hand them over to somebody else for any purpose they may decide. It does seem to me to say that land which has been acquired by compulsion can be taken from those bodies is rather a tall order and a stiff proceeding. It makes me think that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board delivered some time ago, in which he suggested that the best thing to do was that the Government of the country should be handed over to him, was no joke at all, and that this Bill is a small instalment of the method of governing which he really seriously believes the right and proper one. As regards the particular lands, those acquired under statutory powers, those lands have always been exempted under previous legislation of this sort. They have been exempted under the Small Holdings Act of 1908, and when I spoke of the same subject in connection with the guillotine Resolution my hon. Friend, who is now Under-Secretary for the Home Office, and who was then Under-Secretary for the Local Government Board, said that those lands were treated under this Act in precisely the same way as they were treated under the Small Holdings Act. He is entirely wrong there, and I cannot help thinking he had it in his mind that the provisions of the Small Holdings Act ought to have been made to apply to the lands acquired by statute and belonging to statutory undertakings. I also draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so far from regarding such land as appropriate matter to be treated lightly, regards commercial development as of the very highest importance, and in amendment of the Finance Bill his putting down a special clause treating land held for development and for purposes of commerce in a very much more favourable manner than was originally proposed. Therefore, on that ground I think we are entitled to ask that property of that character should receive favourable treatment from the Local Government Board as regards these powers of compulsory purchase.

5.0 P.M.

Apart from that particular point, I feel very strongly that we ought to have an absolutely independent inquiry by an independent person before anybody's land is compulsorily taken from him. As the hon. Member for Kingston pointed out, the Local Government Board are, in fact, parties to the case. If they have not directly instigated one of the parties to acquire the land, it is their business, and their proper business, to wish to see the land acquired for that particular purpose. That being so, they ought not to be in the position of being judge and jury as well as plaintiff in the case. May I suggest to the Local Government Board that the least they could do is to follow the very proper precedent which was set in the Port of London Act last Session? By that Act they will see that a tribunal was set up for the purpose of obtaining land compulsorily. The substance of the provision is that an impartial person must be appointed to hold the inquiry into the propriety of taking the land by compulsion. In the event of that impartial person reporting against the propriety of doing so, if the Board of Trade or the Port of London Authority wish to proceed any further in the matter, they must proceed by means of a Provisional Order or Bill. If, on the other hand, the impartial person reports in favour of the compulsory acquisition of the land, then, as far as I understand it, the Order of the Board of Trade is sufficient. It seems to me that that would not be at all an unfair or unreasonable way of dealing with this matter. It would not involve any additional expense to that contemplated by the provisions of the Schedule. Under those provisions, if the owner objects to his land being acquired, an inquiry has to be held; therefore, in either case there would be an inquiry; and I cannot suppose that the appointment of an impartial person would be any more expensive than the appointment of a person who is not impartial or who is or may be more or less under the control of the Government. The expense of the inquiry is just the same whether conducted before one inquirer or before another. A further difference is that in the case of an impartial inquiry under the Port of London Act, the Government Department are unable to act contrary to the report of the impartial person; whereas under this Bill, even if the person making the inquiry reports against the propriety of compulsory purchase, the Local Government Board will still have it in their power to proceed. I do not, think that that is treating persons quite fairly, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he might give an undertaking so to amend the Schedule as at least to incorporate into it the provisions accepted last year by the Government when dealing with the Port of London.

This Clause only applies to the purchase of land under Part III., and I should like to ask what reason the Government have for treating land purchased under Part III. differently from neighbouring land purchased under Part I.? The case to which I refer will arise under Clause 6 of the original Act, where improvement schemes may include neighbouring land if the local authority are of opinion that such inclusion is expedient or necessary to make the scheme efficient for sanitary purposes. Where land is required for an improvement scheme no allowance is made for compulsory purchase in the case of insanitary property; but Clause 21 of the original Act makes it clear that this provision as to the allowance for compulsory purchase does not apply to lands which are bought for the convenience of the scheme, and which are not insanitary. It seems to me that if there is a case for refusing this allowance for compulsory purchase in the case of Part III. land, you ought in common fairness, and for the sake of uniformity, to extend that principle to these neighbouring lands in the case of Part I. Personally I do not think there is any case in the majority of instances for compulsory powers in regard to Part III. at all. I have no experience of Part III. except in London, but in the Metropolis there has never been any difficulty in getting any amount of land for Part III. housing without applying for compulsory powers. I am a little uneasy about the justice of this Schedule, because it is laid down that no additional allowance shall be made on account of the purchase being compulsory. I am not a lawyer, but I imagine that that would mean that a man who sells his land will not even get the value of the land to himself. It is quite arguable that he ought not to get the 10 per cent, extra allowed under Land Clauses terms, but I think that he ought at all events to get the value of the land to himself. It may often arise that land has a greater value to the owner than it has in the market. One can easily imagine a case where land has been acquired for the purpose of extending a factory or any other business. That business may have been gradually developed on the assumption that the land would still be available for eventual development, and it may mean a very great loss to the owner if he is to get only the market price on the assumption that he is a willing seller. I should like to know whether this provision as to no additional allowance being made on account of the purchase being compulsory will make it necessary to assume that the owner is a willing seller. If so I think it is very unjust. The owner ought to get not the value as between a willing seller and a willing buyer, but the actual value to himself, in view of his own peculiar position. If this Clause is passed—personally I do not hold a very strong view one way or the other—it certainly ought to be made applicable to neighbouring lands under Part I. I think there is a greater necessity for acquiring land compulsorily under Parts I. and II. of the Housing Act of 1890 than under Part III., because you may house anywhere under Part III., but in the clearance of a slum area it is absolutely necessary to get a particular plot of ground. For that reason, I should like to hear what are the grounds for restricting this provision to Part III.

I have a certain amount of sympathy with the desire of the hon. Member to extend the provisions of this Clause to Part I., but I do not understand why he should be unfavourable to the Clause altogether.

I am only in favour of omitting the Clause if the construction of these words is that the owner will not get the value to himself, and about that I am not in a position to form an opinion.

I suggest that the owner will get the full value of the land, which is all that he is entitled to. The objection raised to this Clause is that it simplifies too much the procedure for compulsory purchase where land is required for housing purposes. The hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) urged a two-fold objection, first, that the arbitrator is to be appointed by the Local Government Board, and, secondly, that he would not be able to hear counsel or expert witnesses except with the leave of the Local Government Board. What hon. Members feel is that this Clause, by making the procedure under the Small Holdings Act applicable to the Housing Acts, will act unfairly to the parties by a too great simplification of procedure. That is the object of the Clause, and if hon. Members object to the Clause altogether that must be their objection.

No.

I am sorry if I have mistaken the hon. Member, but that is what I understood him to say. If that is so, it seems to me that hon. Members are rather out of date. They have forgotten what we have been lately engaged upon. Under the Finance Bill we are to get a complete valuation of the land in the Kingdom. We shall know then what the site value of all this land is, and so far from the task set the arbitrator being a difficult one, when that Bill is passed, it will be extremely easy. All he will have to do will be to take the site value, and then calculate the value of the improvements, which is a far simpler matter than the task now set before him. If there was ever need for counsel and expert witnesses, which I am inclined to doubt, there certainly will not be the need for them when this valuation is made under the Finance Bill. For that reason I sincerely trust that my right hon. Friend will not think it necessary to give any pledge to elaborate still further the procedure for compulsory purchase for housing purposes. What we want most of all in the matter of housing, especially in rural districts, is a simple and easy method of purchasing land compulsorily at its fair market price.

I hope the President will give us his views upon this matter soon. In my opinion the proposals made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Cave) are most reasonable. Personally, as far as the schedule is concerned, I have no objection at all. In fact, I approve of the provision which takes these matters from the present tribunal, which I think a bad one in this case, and gives them to a single arbitrator. It is not at all desirable to have three arbitrators in these cases, as under the Lands Clauses Act, where experience has shown that very often the two assessing arbitrators become advocates of their respective sides, and the umpire is the only one who really performs judicial functions in the case. With regard to the extraordinary proposal that the Department whose conduct is in question should have the sole right of appointing an arbitrator to decide as to the wisdom and justice of the proceeding, I should have thought that, after the experience of the Government on the Finance Bill and the complete surrender they have most properly made upon the subject there, we should not have had any serious contest upon this occasion. I know, however, that the Government often work in watertight compartments; but I should have thought that any assembly would have re- volted from a proceeding which puts in issue a number of very controversial matters—including the expediency of compulsory purchase and the fixing of value—and then leaves that issue to be decided by one of the parties whose conduct is involved in the matter. I know it was said on a former occasion that the conduct of the Local Government Board was not in question, but that contention will not bear examination. Under the Schedule, the Local Government Board may disregard the report of their own arbitrator, and sanction compulsory purchase. That power really ought not to be granted, and I trust the Government will see their way to adopt the precedent of the Port of London, referred to by one of their own supporters (Mr. Holt), so that an impartial person may be appointed in an impartial manner to decide upon this question. Then, as regards the procedure to take place before the arbitrator. The procedure which the Government have laid down is really not the procedure of an arbitration, and it is misleading to say that the gentleman who presides at these inquiries is an arbitrator. The whole of the procedure is not one of arbitration, but of valuation This does not pretend to be a valuation, but an arbitration under the Lands Clauses Acts, with certain modifications. The difference between a valuer and an arbitrator is that an arbitrator has to make up his mind after hearing arguments and witnesses, whereas the valuer acts from his own knowledge, without having before him either counsel or witnesses. I need hardly say that I have ceased to practice, and I have no personal interest in this matter; but I think it right to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are under a misapprehension if they believe that to employ counsel necessarily extends the time. Very often it does not. Probably if you consulted any experienced arbitrator, he will tell you that he preferred to have the matter laid before him with, at all events, the skill and thoroughness which characterises counsel than having inexperienced people splashing about—if I may use the term—in these matters. If it really be the opinion of the Government that this is a valuation and not an arbitration, it is a pity they do not say so, and not, as I think, mislead the country by calling it an arbitration. There is only one further point: I should not like it to be thought that I personally dissent entirely from the 10 per cent, conventional allowance for compulsory purchase not being imposed upon the arbitrator. On the other hand, I think it quite wrong that a person who is compulsorily deprived of his land should not have what is often a much smaller allowance, but still an allowance, which he has lost by reason of the transfer. It may be only two or three per cent., but still it ought to be his. The President of the Local Government Board ought not to disentitle the arbitrator to allow that allowance if the arbitrator thinks it ought to be made.

The President of the Local Government Board not having answered my right hon. Friend's appeal, perhaps the Committee will allow me to have a word or two on this point. First of all, in regard to what fell from the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Morrell). He said that my hon. and learned Friend was against simplification. That is a most misleading way to put the contention of my hon. and learned Friend, who wants an impartial arbitrator instead of a Government arbitrator. There is no reason why an impartial arbitrator should be more complicated than a Government arbitator. Then my hon. and learned Friend wants liberty for the parties who care to do so to employ counsel. That seems to be a matter of common justice. They pay for it themselves. Why should they not employ counsel? Only in that way can they get their case submitted properly to the arbitrator. Why except counsel? Why not prohibit the employment of solicitors too? I think I may say that to the hon. Member for Oxfordshire with some point.