asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a speech made by Lieutenant-Colonel C. T. Mander, D. Squadron, Staffordshire Yeomanry, in which he complained of the Budget, and said that no drill hall or riding school would be provided until there was a new Government; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?

The Army Council have now considered and report that, in view of all the circumstances, and of the fact that the officer has expressed his regret for the indiscretion, they do not propose to take any further action beyond administering a severe reprimand.

asked the President of the Local Government Board if any further report has been received with regard to the condition of the Chinese pork now at the docks; how many further carcases have been examined; and how many, if any, have been condemned by the inspector?

I am informed that since 7th October, the date of the hon. Member's last question on this subject, 1,469 carcases have been examined, and of these 83 were condemned.

As to 3,000 or 4,000 carcases being left over, are these being kept back for the Christmas market?

I have no information to that effect.

asked if the inspectors have reported if it is possible to distinguish Chinese pork, when exposed for sale, from English or Irish pork?

I do not think it would be possible to distinguish Chinese pork from English or Irish, except in its fresh and uncured condition, when the inspector might be able to say that the pork had been frozen, and, therefore, was probably not English or Irish.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is damaging the sale of English pork in the market as the people fear they may be buying Chinese pork?

That is a matter of opinion.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the proclamation issued by the Chinese Government against the boycott of British trade on the Yangtze, orders that no man shall boycott British trade on the Yangtze on account of the murder of Yu-Fa-Cheng by the British constable at Kiukiang; and whether, in view of this proclamation of the Chinese Government that the killing in that case was murder, a trial will be ordered before the British court of Shanghai to settle the question whether the killing was murder or not?

I have nothing to add to what I have already stated in previous answers to the hon. Member.

Is it the intention of the Government to leave in China as the representative of this country a man believed by the Chinese Government and people to be a murderer?

I have already explained to the hon. Member that the person is not a representative of the British Government.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the firm of Messrs. Ransomes and Rapier, Ipswich, are contractors to the Admiralty; if so, whether he is aware that the rivetters and platers in their employ are paid 22s. per week, the district rate being 32s. per week; and whether he will take action to have the Fair Wage Clause complied with?

The inquiry which I undertook to make on 26th October is not yet complete, and I will furnish the hon. Member with the information as soon as I receive it.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty circular of 30th January, 1906, directing the suspension of the King's Regulations respecting the birching and caning of boys and youths in the Royal Navy, is still in force; and whether the use of the cat is now entirely abolished in His Majesty's ships?

No change has been made since my Noble Friend the late Parliamentary Secretary made his statements on this subject on 21st February and 1st March, 1906. The use of the cat has been suspended by Admiralty order since 1881.

Can it be renewed by Admiralty Order?

Yes; it can be renewed by Admiralty order, and I apprehend that my hon. Friend would take the earliest opportunity of drawing attention to that.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the large armoured vessels which have recently been offered as contributions to the British Navy by certain of the self-governing Colonies are in addition to, or included in, the eight large armoured vessels sanctioned by Parliament during the present Session?

The large armoured vessels offered by the Australian and New Zealand Governments are not included in the eight armoured ships sanctioned by Parliament this Session?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that it is the custom in many parts of the country for rate summonses to be served upon poor people by police officers in uniform; and whether he is in a position to take any step or make any representation with a view to abolishing this practice?

I believe it is usual for a police officer to wear a uniform when serving a summons. In so doing he is performing a duty as a constable, and it is convenient and right that he should wear a uniform which indicates his office.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that for an offence which is in no sense a criminal one a plain clothes' officer might be entrusted with the service of these rate summonses?

It would be very inconvenient for the police-constable to have to change his clothes for the purpose.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at a recent inquest at Hammersmith upon the body of Edith May Clark, aged two years, who, being left outside a public-house whilst her mother went in to buy some supper beer, ran into the road and was knocked down by a motor omnibus; whether he has also had his attention drawn to the observations of the coroner, to the effect that an accident of this kind was one of the dangers of the public-house Clause in the Children Act, and was liable to frequently happen; and whether he has yet completed his promised inquiry into the working of the clause in question?

I have seen a newspaper report of the inquest referred to. The point will receive attention when the observations upon the working of the Act, which are still in progress, are completed; but there is nothing in the Section mentioned to justify or excuse a mother who leaves infant children unattended in a crowded street.

Has the right hon. Gentleman also received a report from the police officer, and has his attention been called to the fact that there has been an enormous increase in the number of lost children who have been brought to the police since this Clause has been passed?

I have no information.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the numerous robberies on board ships in London docks and to the alleged inefficient police protection there; and if so, whether he will take steps to reinforce the police and make inquiry into the alleged inefficiency and the causes thereof?

My attention has not been specially called to the number of robberies in the London docks, nor have I any reason to suppose the police arrangements there are inefficient. In any case, this is a matter for the Port of London authority, of whom I am making inquiry.

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a case at the Marlborough-street police court, on the 27th of October, where several members of the National Amalgamated Furnishing Trades' Association and the French Polishers' Society, who had been peacefully acting as pickets in connection with a dispute with the Orchestrelle Company, Bond-street, London, were fined 2s. 6d. each for obstruction; whether he is aware that the men, at the time of the alleged offence, were simply walking along in single file, and that they were stopped by the police and marched off to the police station; and whether he will favourably consider the remission of the fines inflicted and take steps to secure that the right of peaceful picketting shall be vindicated?

The learned magistrate, after careful investigation, held that the defendants, eight in number, had caused actual obstruction by parading backwards and forwards over a space of about 19 yards of narrow and crowded footway. His decision did not, in his opinion, affect any right which the defendants might have under the Trade Disputes Acts, 1906, but upon this point he expressed his willingness to state a case for the High Court if the defendants so desired. I see no reason for any action upon my part.

asked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if the Commissioners of the Board have conferred with the county council of the Soke of Peterborough upon the question of providing small holdings for the applicants at Newborough who have been approved by the small holdings committee, and whose approval has been confirmed by the Board's Commissioners but refused by the Council; if the council has at the conference between it and the Board's Commissioners agreed to withdraw its previous refusal, and, if it has not agreed to withdraw such refusal and provide small holdings, if the Board now propose to undertake the provision of land for these approved applicants and charge the expenses upon the defaulting council?

A meeting of the county council took place on the 20th inst., at which one of the Small Holdings Commissioners was present. We have since been informed by the clerk that the council have every desire to provide small holdings and that at the present time they are proposing to purchase 92a. Or. 31p. of land in Newborough and Eye for such purposes, and as soon as other suitable land comes in the market it will be acquired to satisfy the existing demand. The council are not, however, disposed to exercise compulsory powers for the purpose of obtaining land, and they inform us that as there is not at the present time a sufficient quantity of land procurable by voluntary means, they cannot forthwith satisfy the present demand made by the inhabitants of Newborough. The views thus expressed by the council are inconsistent with their statutory obligations in the matter, and the Board propose therefore at once to adopt the measures prescribed by law in such circumstances for dealing with cases of the kind.

asked to what extent black scab in potatoes has been reported in England, Scotland, and Wales, respectively, and when will the results of their investigations be published on this disease?

The disease is unfortunately very prevalent in allotments and cottage gardens in Cheshire, North Shropshire, Staffordshire, South Lancashire and parts of Warwickshire, Derbyshire and Notts. It has been found in certain parts of Fife, but to a much smaller extent. A few isolated cases have been reported from other parts of the country. In none of the districts named does the disease exist except to a very small extent in fields under rotation. We hope that our information as to the results of the investigations which have been instituted will be available in the course of the present week, and they will be at once communicated to every occupier of premises on which the disease is known to exist.

Does this disease exist in Ireland, where potatoes are the food of the people?

That question should be put to the Minister responsible for the Irish Department.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state the number of land purchase annuitants and payers of interest in lieu of rent, respectively, against whom the Land Commission have instituted proceedings this season for the recovery of arrears?

The number of payers of land purchase annuities on the books of the Land Commission in respect of instalments due on 1st May and 1st June last was 142,016. The number of payers of interest in lieu of rent on the books in respect of the gale due 1st May last was 173,785; 5,403 of the former and 4,990 of the latter were included in the schedules for proceedings in the different courts in Ireland for the recovery of arrears, but experience has shown us that a very large proportion of these persons will pay the amount due before the issue of any process.

asked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the opinion expressed by the Law Officers of the Crown that The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, does not apply to sheep stock and other valuations, and in view of the recent decision of the First Division of the Court of Session to a contrary effect, he intends to appeal to the House of Lords or what course does the Government intend to pursue?

asked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the opinion given by the Law Officers of the Crown that Section 1, Sub-section (2), of The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906, does not apply to sheep stock valuations, and in view of the recent decision of the First Division of the Court of Session to the contrary effect, he proposes to take any action with a view either to further declaration of the law or its amendment?

I am aware of the decision referred to. The Government has no right to appeal to the House of Lords, as they are not parties to the litigation, and they do not propose to take any action in the matter.

Is this decision confirmed by some legal opinion on which the House will place more reliance than the right hon. Gentleman's.

asked the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that the Ross-shire Western District Committee have reported that an extension of Wester Alligin footpath to the end of the township is much needed for the convenience of the people, will he state the estimated cost of the work; and why the Congested Districts Board have declined to make the requisite grant?

The district committee applied for a grant to extend a path previously constructed with the aid of a Government grant. The estimated cost of the extension was £65, and the Board took the view that the case was not sufficiently strong to justify them in the expenditure of more public money on this access.

asked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the difficulty recently experienced in constructing a bridge over Applecross River, Ross-shire, is attributable to the proprietor having forced the Western District Committee to accept a site exposed to the full force of the tide; and will he state whether the Congested Districts Board made any effort to induce the proprietor to grant the more suitable site which was selected by the committee?

The Congested Districts Board are not aware of the difficulties alleged. They dealt in the matter with the county council, who applied for, and received, a grant in aid on the usual conditions, that they would complete the works and maintain them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary for Scotland to look into the documents if I send a copy to him?

Certainly.

asked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the bridge recently constructed over Applecross River, Ross-shire, has collapsed owing to the piers not having been carried down to the solid rock; and, seeing that this deviation from the terms of the contract was made under direction of the Congested Districts Board's supervisor, will the Board order an inquiry into the matter, and give instructions for the bridge to be reconstructed at the cost of the Board?

The Congested Districts Board do not admit the allegations contained in my hon. Friend's question. Correspondence is at present passing in the matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary for Scotland to look into the papers if I send him copies showing him that my information is accurate?

Certainly.

asked, in view of the outbreak of typhoid fever in the townships of Borve and Lower Shader, island of Lewis, which continued from January to June last, and is attributable by the medical officer to the insanitary condition of the townships, whether arrangements have yet been arrived at under which sites may be secured in suitable positions, especially bearing in mind that Dr. Dittmar, the Medical Inspector for the Local Government Board for Scotland, in his Report published in April, 1905, strongly condemned the condition of the Lewis townships?

In this case the outbreak is attributed as to a probable cause to contamination from surface wells. Steady progress is being made by the district sanitary authority with such resources as they have at their disposal in improving the water supply.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question which refers to whether arrangements have been made under which sites have been secured?

That is a matter which is in the hands of the district sanitary authority.

asked whether, having regard to the fact that the crops of the crofters of Ardcharich, on the estate of Inverlael, Lochbroom, Ross-shire, suffer from the inroads of deer from the adjoining deer forest, the property of Mr. W. Ewing Gilmour, of Woodbank, Alexandria, Dumbarton, and that letters addressed to him on the subject are ignored, the Congested Districts Board will provide funds to enable crofters who are thus aggrieved, and without means, to prosecute the claim for compensation to which they are entitled under Section 2 of The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906, especially bearing in mind that the Congested Districts Board are empowered to provide money in aid of agriculture under Section 4, Subsection (a), of The Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897?

The statement of facts in my hon. Friend's question must rest upon his own authority; in any case it is clear that the Congested Districts Board's funds cannot be utilised for the purposes suggested.

Will the people whose crops have been destroyed be within their rights in poisoning the deer who eat their crops; and, if so, will the Congested Districts Board provide a supply of poison for the purpose?

asked whether English trawlers are forbidden to fish in the Moray Firth; and whether any restrictions are placed upon foreigners fishing in that place?

also asked if the Lord Advocate is aware that trawling by foreigners is going on in the Moray Firth to an even larger extent since the last legislation was passed than before as is evidenced by the wreck of a Belgian trawler which was rescued by a German trawler fishing in waters prohibited to English trawling vessels?

The reply to the first part of the gallant and hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The reply to the second part is to be found in the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Act of the present Session, which renders unlawful the landing in the United Kingdom of fish caught by trawling in the Moray Firth, by whomsoever caught. In answer to my hon. Friend's question I have no information to the effect which he has suggested. If he will put down a question I will answer it.

Is it not a fact that foreigners are absolutely prohibited from fishing in the Moray Firth within the three mile limit?

That is the fact.

asked the Secretary for War if he can state the number of officers required to complete the establishment of the Regular Army, the Territorial Army, and the Special Reserve respectively?

In the Regular Army there are at present 204 vacancies, but the majority of these will be filled by the beginning of 1910. The figures for the Special Reserve and Territorial Force were given in replies to questions put by the hon. Member for the Blackpool Division of Lancashire on Monday, 18th October, to which I would ask the hon. Member to refer.

asked the Secretary for War if he can state how many Territorials have been fined for non-attendance at camp, and the amount of fines; and, in the case of a man being fined and unable to pay, how is the fine recovered?

No statistics as regards fines for non-attendance at camp are available at the War Office. The recovery of fines is dealt with under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts.

asked the Secretary of State for War if officers are allowed a free ration of meat and bread; and, if so, what is the quantity?

Officers serving at home do not receive a free ration of bread and meat; abroad they are entitled to the same ration of bread and meat as the soldier, which consists, at most stations, of 1 lb. bread and 1 lb. meat; at a few tropical stations where the cattle are poor an extra ¼ lb. of meat is given.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he can state the reason the education test for admittance into the commissioned ranks of the Special Reserve has been abolished?

The hon. Member has been misinformed. No education test has been required for admission to commissions in the Special Reserve of officers since the reserve was instituted, and none will be imposed until after 31st March, 1912.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the circumstances under which the firm of P. and J. Gordon, contractors for the painting of Maryhill barracks, violated the Fair Wage Clause, he can take similar action to that taken in connection with the contract of Messrs. Clarkson, cartage contractors for the Royal parks, by the Office of Works?

The two cases are not analogous. Among other points of difference bribery occurred over the cartage contract It was therefore possible under the terms of the contract to declare a certain sum forfeited by the contractor, which was then applied in part to the payment of certain of his employés. I may assure my hon. Friend that all the measures possible in this case have been taken.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether anything has been decided as to the renewal of the subsidy for the Jamaica banana and mail contract; whether the whole of the elected representatives of the Legislative Council of Jamaica recently voted against its renewal; and whether it was only carried by the casting vote of the Governor?

Two resolutions have been before the Legislative Council in connection with the renewal of the contract for a steamship service between the United Kingdom and the Colony. In May last the Council passed a resolution calling on the Government to obtain tenders and agreeing to provide a subsidy of £20,000. In Septem- ber a resolution was moved against providing for a renewed subsidy for a service under the present conditions. This later resolution was negatived on a division by the Governor's casting vote, the eight elected members present voting in favour of it. No decision has as yet been taken by the Secretary of State in the matter.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can say what number of cesspools now exist in the Croydon rural district area; whether, as a result of the additional powers which have been conferred upon the Croydon Rural District Council, according to his statement in the House on 27th July, the number of cesspools has been reduced; and, if not, whether, in view of the seriousness of the existence of cesspools within water-supply areas, as is evidenced by the case of Gravesend in the report of Dr. Reece to the Board, he will say what action the Board will take in the matter?

also asked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the seriousness of the menace to the public health of Croydon by the existence of cesspools in the Croydon rural district area, as stated in the reports of the medical officer of health for the borough and the borough engineer, he will request the Croydon Rural District Council to cause reports to be made to them by the medical officer of health, surveyor, or inspector of nuisances of the rural district on the question and the extent of the danger, so that the rural district council may take action under Section 46 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907; or whether he will see fit to direct a local inquiry into the matter under Section 293 of the Public Health Act, 1875?

It is estimated that there are 11,900 inhabited houses in the Croydon rural district, and that approximately 400 properties drain into cesspools. Of these, 270 are outside the areas in respect of which there is an agreement between the councils of the borough and of the rural district for the reception of the sewage into the sewers of the corporation, and these houses are stated to be for the most part in rural portions of the district, and at a considerable distance from an outfall sewer. In one parish, Woodmansterne, it is stated that there is urgent need for main drainage for about 90 houses near the boundary of Coulsdon which could be connected with the borough sewers, but this parish is outside the areas from which the corporation receive the sewage, and I am informed that they refuse to extend these areas except upon terms which the district council are unable to accept. The rural district council, who have spent some £220,000 on works of sewerage and sewage disposal, have schemes already sanctioned or in course of preparation in respect of 70 of the properties in the parishes of Beddington, Coulsdon, and Sanderstead, parts of which are included in the drainage areas, and it is stated that the remainder of these properties are, with a few exceptions, in isolated places where at present the cost of sewer extension would be unreasonable. It is added that in every case where a public sewer is within 100 feet of the property draining into a cesspool, the owner has been urged by notice or otherwise to connect with the sewer. The rural district council have offered to instruct their medical officer of health to prepare a report upon the matter referred to in the second question of my hon. Friend, and I have requested that this may be done.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state, the cubic space allowed to each officer, officer's wife, and each child on board a British transport; and what is the cubic space allowed to the men, women, and children of the rank and file on board a British transport?

The average cubic space in the transports is as follows:—First class, 209 cubic ft. per adult or two children under 10 years of age; third class, men, 74 cubic ft. per man; women and children, 172 cubic ft. per adult or two children under 10 years of age.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has now considered the proposals in the School Attendance Bill; if he is aware that they have met with the approval of most persons in Ireland connected with education; and whether he can therefore see his way to afford facilities for the passage of the Bill as an agreed measure through Parliament this Session?

The School Attendance Bill would make very sweeping changes in the existing law, and some of its provisions would no doubt prove to be contentious. It is therefore out of the question that it should be passed into law as an agreed measure at this stage of the Session?

asked whether the statutory redistribution of the free force of constabulary, which was due in May last, has taken place; if so, what is the total number of men of the free force as redistributed; whether the extra force of 750 men previously chargeable to counties proclaimed as disturbed areas has been reduced by reason of the Order in Council effecting the redistribution; to what extent, and in what counties, has such redistribution been carried out; and whether there has been any resulting diminution in the gross strength of the general police establishment comprising free and extra forces?

The free force of constabulary was redistributed as required by law in May last. The total number of sergeants and constables then allotted to the various counties was 9,303. The 750 men previously chargeable to proclaimed counties was reduced to 389. The redistribution affected every county in Ireland, and the gross strength of the free and extra forces was not diminished as a result of the redistribution.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-Minded in favour of taking out of the Poor Law all classes of mentally defective persons and of removing the feebleminded from the workhouses, steps are now being taken for the preparation of legislation on the subject; and whether, in the meantime, care will be taken not to give the sanction of His Majesty's Government to any schemes of local authorities which would involve in any Department expenditure in a direction contrary to the recommendations of the said Royal Commission?

The Government are alive to the importance of this matter, and I would refer my hon. Friend to a statement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, made on 31st August last, in reply to a deputation. The Home Secretary on that occasion said that, though there might be considerable difficulties in the way of legislation, he was in agreement with the deputation as to the importance of the subject, and that he had ascertained that the Lord Chancellor was of the same opinion. And he added that he hoped to be able to make a practical effort next Session in the direction of legislation. In answer to the latter part of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to an answer given on 27th August by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Evesham Division, in the course of which my right hon. Friend gave an assurance that he would bear in mind the recommendations of the Royal Commission, but that, pending legislation, he was not prepared to undertake that his sanction should be withheld in all cases in which proposals for new buildings for inmates of the class described might be brought before him.

asked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that not only boards of guardians but also the local public health, education, and sometimes even the police authorities provide maintenance and other assistance in various forms to the non-able-bodied poor, and that there is the greatest variety and confusion in the powers of these several authorities as regards the charge and recovery of the cost so incurred, whether he will appoint an inter-Departmental Committee to consider the whole question of what forms of public assistance can properly be made the subject of assessments and upon what persons these assessments should be made, in order that the law may be amended upon some definite principle and be consolidated by Parliament into a single Statute?

The subject referred to in the question will receive the attention of the Government in connection with their consideration of the Reports of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law; but I am not prepared, at the moment, to appoint a Departmental Committee, such as my hon. Friend suggests.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will grant facilities for the concluding stages of the Temperance (Scotland) Bill when the House resumes on 23rd November?

had given notice of the following question: To ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the expressed opinion of Scottish Members in favour of the Temperance (Scotland) Bill, he will arrange to give facilities for the passing of this Bill when the House resumes on the 23rd instant?

Perhaps I may reply to both of these questions at the same time. The matter is under my consideration, and, in the event, of which I am hopeful, of our being able to give facilities for the Temperance (Scotland) Bill, ample notice will be given. I hope on Wednesday or Thursday to make a statement as to the business which we propose to take when we reassemble (on the 23rd) after the adjournment.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in considering the propriety of giving facilities for the Temperance (Scotland) Bill he will bear in mind the changed conditions in respect of new licences, the effect of the minimum duty, and the result which the Chancellor of the Exchequer claims for temperance in Scotland owing to the new Spirit Duty?

Doubtless these will be entitled to be regarded as relevant considerations.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in appointing a county court judge to fill the vacancy caused by the death of the late Judge Owen, he will consider the advisability of establishing one or two new courts in the Western Division of Monmouthshire; and, in view of the increase of population in the county of Monmouth, will he confine the duties of the new appointment to the county area?

The appointment mentioned by the hon. Member does not rest with me, but I will communicate his question to the Lord Chancellor.

I desire to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether the Government intend to take any steps to extend the Housing and Town Planning Bill to Crown lands, and, if not, why not?

It would not be practicable at this stage of the Bill to insert a provision on the subject to which the Noble Lord refers, even if it were thought desirable to do so.

May I ask whether it would be in order for me to move an Amendment, supposing it is otherwise relevant to the Lords' Amendment, extending the Bill to Crown lands?

It would be relevant if the Noble Lord could produce the assent of the Crown.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to get the assent of the Crown?

No, Sir, I am not.

I move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Will the President of the Local Government Board state why he proposes to disagree with this Amendment, the object of which, as I understand, is to substitute for the Local Government Board some extra Governmental tribunal to decide on the questions arising under this Clause. I do not quite follow why the Government object to the proposal of the Lords introducing a form of procedure sanctioned by the Government and by the President of the Board of Trade in the Port of London Act last year. All that the Lords Amendment does is to provide that, where there is objection taken to land being acquired for the purpose of this Clause, there shall be an impartial inquiry. It does not even propose that that impartial inquiry shall be conclusive. If objection is made to land being taken, surely it does not seem an unreasonable proposal that there should be an impartial inquiry by some tribunal which is not administratively concerned as to whether the land should be acquired. The Government considered a similar matter in connection with the Development Bill, and, in the discussion upstairs, they themselves recognised that the proposal submitted was not reasonable, and they agreed to an impartial inquiry. If there is some objection to the actual form of the impartial inquiry, that is a different matter; but, if it is the principle of the thing on which the Government are moving to disagree with the Amendment, I think the House is entitled to some explanation of what it is the Government regard as so very objectionable in this principle of an impartial inquiry.

The President of the Local Government Board told us over and over again in previous Debates that he preferred to adopt the Small Holdings procedure, and I remember very clearly that in one of the discussions he challenged Members of this House to produce any one occasion in which a complaint had been made about the operation of that procedure. Since that challenge, I understand from what I have seen in the newspapers and from the Debates in the House of Lords that various cases of complaint have been received. I am not, and I do not know that the House is, in a position at the present moment to say whether there is any real ground for those complaints. I believe complaints are being made, and I think it is for the Government to see whether they are in any way reasonable. The Government themselves have receded from the position they took up in regard to the acquisition of land under the Small Holdings Act, in connection with the Port of London Bill, and, what is much more important, in the Development Bill. Under pressure in the Grand Committee upstairs the Government, in the Development Bill, remodelled the whole of the procedure for acquiring land under that measure, and proposed a system which met with very general acceptance on both sides of the House. But under this important Bill, where very large interests are at stake, they stand up for the older and less reasonable form of procedure, which does not meet with general approval, and is actively opposed on this side of the House. This Bill is very different from the Small Holdings Act. The latter measure, after all, deals with rural land, which is less valuable, and it deals with land probably not in very large quantities. This Bill deals with land of the very utmost value—urban land, which is extremely valuable, worth so much per foot—and it deals with schemes which may be of the greatest importance and the greatest cost. A large housing scheme or a large building scheme on urban land cannot be described as an acquisition of small holdings in a sparsely inhabited district. We have opposed and we still oppose the procedure under the Bill, because under the Government scheme the Local Government Board is left absolute master of all the land of the country. They are able to say whether land shall be taken and what price shall be given for it, and they are not only parties, but they are the absolute judges. We think it is desirable that there should be some check and some limit on the power of the Local Government Board, and that the land of the country should not be in their absolute control, but that some powers should be reserved to Parliament, and that this House should not be deposed from its position. Parliament should be able to say whether a scheme is or is not unreasonable. I am sure no one on this side of the House desires to make the acquisition of land unduly cumbersome or unduly expensive, but we make this protest against the unlimited depotism set up in this matter for the Local Government Board.

The Noble Lord wants to know why it is the Government do not accept the procedure which is in the Port of London Act. The reason is this: We have had experience now for over a year of the Small Holdings Act procedure. It is a method of compulsorily acquiring land for small holdings and allotments. In that connection, it will be understood that the amount of land for small holdings and allotments in reference to the number of users thereof is enormously disproportionate to the amount of land that will be secured under this or any other measure. Under Part 1 or Part 2, it would be insignificant, while under Part 3 it would not be very large. Having had that experience of the Small Holdings Act, if there had been the gross injustice that has been suggested we should have heard of it in the way of facts and figures this afternoon. In the absence of evidence, which I think cannot be produced, hon. Members have conjured up what really does not exist. We prefer the Small Holdings terms, because an Order when made by the local authority is confirmed by the Local Government Board. If objection is taken, there is a local inquiry by the Local Government Board inspector, at which all interests will be heard, and then the matter will be confirmed by the Department. Under the Small Holdings method, our object can be effected without going through a costly and dilatory procedure such as the procedure under the Port of London Act would possibly mean. On account of its simplicity and its economy, we think the time has arrived when the process of acquiring land for building new cottages in rural districts should be adopted and nothing has arisen from the point of view of small holdings experience to warrant us in saying that it will not do otherwise than work better with regard to the provisions of land for cottages than even it has done with regard to the provision of land for small holdings. We cannot accept the procedure of the Port of London Act, because it was passed for an entirely different matter. It has little bearing on this Bill. The Port Authority is not analogous to a local authority. It is a trading corporation. If it wants land, which possibly may be land owned by its rival commercial competitors, it does seem to me that it ought to be treated rather differently than the local authorities acquiring properties for the people within its jurisdiction, and that there is no comparison between the two cases. We prefer to follow the small holdings method as against the Port of London terms, and it is because of that we ask the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment.

I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit not to accept what I must say is, in my opinion, a most reasonable Amendment. The only defence that the right hon. Gentleman has given us is that the small holdings' experience, which has not been quite a year, has satisfied him that no injustice will be done. I do not think that the Small Holdings Act is analagous to the present Bill. The Small Holdings Act only deals with small parcels of agricultural land, while, if this Bill has anything like the scope and range which the right hon. Gentleman has foreshadowed in the course of the many speeches which he has made on it, there may be occasions on which very large amounts of very important and very expensive land may become the subject of compulsory purchase. Under those conditions I would ask the House to put aside altogether consideration of the Small Holdings Act. I should like to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, if it has not already been brought to his notice, comments that have been made from the judicial bench with regard to an appeal brought by a Norfolk farmer on the subject of small holdings. That was a case in which the man's land was severed, and the light land which was necessary to work the stiff land separated from that stiff land by an order which the man considered harsh. The learned judge, before whom the appeal came, said in dismissing the appeal:—

"Here there was a public Department put in a position of absolute supremacy, and whatever the opinion of the farmer of Norfolk, who came to the Court asking for relief, might be about the matter they could only say that Parliament had enacted only last year that the Board of Agriculture in acting as they had should be no more impeachable than Parliament itself."

I venture to say that this is fundamentally a vicious principle. The question of the compulsory taking of land, which may be worth very large sums of money round towns, with the questions whether the land should be taken compulsorily, and whether the object is sufficiently good to justify such compulsory purchase, is not an administrative question, but is a judicial question. It is contrary to all precedent, except that of the Small Holdings Act, that in important cases such matters should be treated by the Local Government Board administratively instead of by courts of justice. Surely if the House will not agree with that they may fairly be asked to regard the terms made in another place as reasonable terms. I agree that in small cases it would be disastrous to go to the expense of a Provisional Order. The objection of the right hon. Gentleman is, it seems to me, a most astonishing objection, and is to leave the matter to any impartial person. If the matter is small, and is not worth expense, why is he afraid of submitting the issue to an impartial person instead of to his own Department? I should be content to leave the matter to the right hon. Gentleman if we could always secure his services, as he is a just-minded man, but in the future we might get people not so much to be trusted. This is a question, high or low, on which Parliament ought to be consulted. Why should it not be left to an impartial person? No reason has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman except that of costs. I think myself that an impartial person, who would be appointed for the purpose by the Board, would not incur the cost of a Provisional Order unless there was good reason that he should do so. That cost, as I shall show on a subsequent Amendment, is somewhat exaggerated. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether this is one of the vital Amendments which he has pledged himself at all costs to resist. I should certainly be surprised if he should regard a matter of this kind in that light. It can only, as I submit, show that upon this question he is afraid of an impartial person.

With regard to what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyttelton), I do not believe that the President of the Local Government Board is afraid of an impartial person, but that he is afraid of the delay and expense necessitated by the Amendment which we are now considering, and which I hope the House will reject. During the last 20 years I have watched with care and attention the various attempts to house the people in various parts of the country. Every Act of Parliament which has hitherto been passed has failed, and failed entirely, on account of its cumbrous nature, and the difficulty of acquiring land. In this Bill, as it left the House of Commons, there were principles of a simpler and more expeditious character. It provided that when there was a local want of houses a Local Government Board inspector should hold an inquiry, that the Local Government Board might issue an Order and take the land—procedure similar to that which has been adopted by this House and followed in connection with the Small Holdings Act. I believe that that procedure is simple, is quick, and is also comparatively inexpensive. I believe that the procedure as suggested in this Amendment will take a considerable amount of time. Take a case where land is wanted especially in the rural districts, where the need is as great as it is in town districts. Five or ten acres of land might be wanted on which to put decent houses in which people might live as Christian people, which they cannot do now in many places in the country. Under the suggested Amendment the procedure would be that there would first have to be an application to the Local Government Board, and if the Local Government Board thought fit or gave any decision they would have to call in this impartial person, who would then go down and hold a public inquiry. The inspector of the Local Government Board would, I believe, be an equally impartial person, and would hold an equally good inquiry. After that comes in the subtle method by which delay is caused. This Amendment suggests that before the Order can be issued, enabling the proposed houses to be erected, that a period of thirty days is to elapse, during which anybody interested in the land may oppose, and possibly may obtain a vote in opposition to the Order in either House of Parliament. If the impartial person does not approve of the Order, then you have to go to the expense and incur the trouble and delay of a Provisional Order in order to obtain the land. The effect would be to go back to the old and disastrous method which has produced delay for so many years. Because I believe that the acceptance of this Amendment would interfere with what is urgently necessary for the health and moral welfare of the people I hope that it will be rejected.

The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Walter Foster) has informed us that he is quite certain that the President of the Local Government Board does not object to an impartial person, but that what he really does object to is a lengthened and expensive inquiry. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to show what would occur provided this Amendment of the Lords was carried. I think the right hon. Gentleman can hardly have read the Amendment, because there must be an inquiry under any circumstances. Why should an inquiry by an impartial person be longer than an inquiry by an official of the Local Government Board? I see no reason why an impartial person—that is, a person who has no interest in the subject before him—should not be able to hold an inquiry just as quickly as an inspector who has an interest in the question. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that if he has a grievance and he desires to go to arbitration, the arbitrator should be a person who has an interest in his opponent's case? That is what this Amendment seeks to avoid. All the Amendment does is to say that the person holding the inquiry is not to have an interest in the case of one of the parties to it. I do not believe the inquiry would take any longer; and even if it did, I think in the interests of justice it would be worth while, rather than to run the risk of an unjust decision. What foundation has the right hon. Gentleman for saying that the Local Government Board would be so quick? My impression is that the Local Government Board is very dilatory, and I have heard many complaints in this House about delay on the part of that Department. The right hon. Gentleman also complained that after the inquiry had been made the Order would have to lay on the Table for 30 days. That is not a very long time when you are dealing with a man's property. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that it is a very good thing to dispossess one man in order to put another man into his place; but before you do that you ought to be perfectly certain if you are doing the right thing. Why has the right hon. Gentleman such a want of confidence in this House or in another place? I do not share that want of confidence in another place, but I may agree with the right hon. Gentleman in not having much confidence in this House. But even in this House, why should there be a vote given without due inquiry or due care being taken? It is extremely difficult to get an Address to the Crown carried after 11 o'clock at night. The matter is practically in the hands of the Government; if they can make anything of a case against it, the Motion is not carried.

The President of the Local Government Board has made an extremely bad defence of his Motion to disagree with this Amendment. He says it is much simpler to trust the Local Government Board. I daresay it is. It would be much simpler to do away with this House and with another place, to enthrone the Local Government Board in those palatial buildings which have just been completed across the road, and to leave everything to the right hon. Gentleman. We could then go away and enjoy ourselves; we should not sit here all through the summer and the autumn; and, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman would do exceedingly well. But he is not going to live for ever; and when some other person takes that exalted office, what guarantee have we that the new President of the Local Government Board will be equipped with all the mental powers, impartiality, and accomplishments of the right hon. Gentleman? I do not believe you could find another person who would do so well; and for that reason I would prefer a procedure a little more complicated, which would stand the test of time, instead of the 20 or 30 years during which we may have the pleasure of the right hon. Gentleman's society. The President of the Local Government Board says that no injustices have arisen under the Small Holdings Act. I was going to cite the case referred to by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyttelton), which seemed to me to be a case of great injustice. In that case a farmer bought with his own capital a certain quality of land in order to work it with land which he already had, and I think it is very unjust that he should be dispossessed of the light land in order that some other person might be put in possession of it. Reference has also been made to the case where the Berkshire County Council purchased certain land, dispossessing a considerable number of labourers, in order that somebody else might come in. I am told that there are many other cases; but there, at any rate, are two within 18 months. I do not know how many cases of injustice the right hon. Gentleman thinks that Radical legislation should bring about, but I think that two in 18 months are sufficient. What it would be in 10 years I do not know. The next argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that not much land would be required. That reminds one of the woman's plea that the baby was only a little one. Does the fact that only a small quantity of land is required make the case any better? Are you to do something in which injustices may occur because there will be only a small number of them? The argument is not worthy of the mental qualifications of the right hon. Gentleman. I think he knows that he has a bad case, and that is why his arguments have been so weak.

The Amendment merely proposes that you should have an inquiry by an impartial person. Who objects to that? Surely not hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Provisional Order only comes in in large cases. In small cases the Order has to lie on the Table for 30 days. That is a very moderate request when you are dealing with the property of other people. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the Small Holdings Act, but there have not been many cases of compulsory purchase under that Act, and the value of small holdings' purchases is not very great. I am informed that the London County Council have spent over £2,500,000 in housing schemes. When dealing with such large sums of money, it is only right that there should be some proper inquiry in which people can have confidence. As I cannot induce the right hon. Gentleman to abandon the attitude which he has taken up I can only express the hope that another place will disagree with the action he is now taking.

The President of the Local Government Board seems to forget that all this kind of legislation depends on the way in which public opinion deals with it. If there is any suspicion of partiality or injustice in these inquiries you will lose much more than you would gain by saving a little extra cost or delay. The right hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division (Sir W. Foster) suggested that Local Government Board officials could not in any way be suspected of partiality. I do not think it is a reproach to a Government official that he should take a great interest in his own work and prefer it to any other interest. When an official goes down day after day to look at houses he is likely to be obsessed with the importance of the matter, and to take rather less account of private interests than an impartial person in the habit of looking on all sides of the case would be. A Local Government Board inspector has no training in these other matters. I think it is essential that you should have men who are in the habit of arbitrating on these complicated questions of fact. The President of the Local Government Board stated that having an inquiry of this kind was really not necessary because the amount of land involved would be so small. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has pointed out that that is really no argument at all, and I might also say that it is hardly accurate as a matter of fact. There have been no cases under the Small Holdings Act which can compare in importance and magnitude with certain estates which have been bought for Part III.—Housing. The London County Council bought one estate of 225 acres at a cost of over £90,000. Is that such a small transaction that it is not necessary to have a proper judicial procedure in regard to it?

Was that bought compulsorily or by agreement?

I do not think that affects the argument. There is nothing whatever in the Bill limiting it to small cases. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that you would never want to buy large estates. But if a local authority buy a large estate by agreement, what on earth is there to prevent them buying it compulsorily? They are more likely to buy a large estate compulsorily, because they would think it better worth while to incur the expense which might be entailed. There have been considerable injustices under the Small Holdings Act procedure. The right hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Lyttelton) mentioned the case of a farmer in Norfolk, but I am not sure that he made it clear that there was in dispute, not only a matter of fact, but also a matter of law, the farmer stating that the Board of Agriculture official disregarded some of the provisions of the Act. It might be right not to have an appeal on questions of fact; but there is certainly no justification for setting up a Government Department above the courts of the land on matters of law. There was another hard case in Wales, where a lady had to sell some land for small holdings. She was most anxious to employ a barrister, but was unable to do so; and she was very much prejudiced by the fact that the clerk to the county council was a lawyer, had all the procedure at his finger-ends, and was able to get far harder terms than probably would have been the case if she had had her own representative. Surely you cannot argue that because it is right to have this procedure for small holdings, that, therefore, it is right for housing. It appears that the two cases are absolutely different. There is always any amount of land available for housing around a town, where owners are most anxious to sell if they can get a reasonable price. As everybody knows, there may have been cases where it has been difficult to get agricultural land in a position suitable for small holdings. That land has to be close to a market, and may in some cases be in few hands. You do not get a monopoly of that kind in the case of housing land. For that reason it seems to me that the procedure of the Port of London Bill is far more applicable to the case than the procedure of the Small Holdings Act. Then the right hon. Gentleman made out that it was going to cause less delay if you left the matter with the Local Government Board. My experience of that Department is that nothing could be slower. If you write a letter to them once a week, you will be lucky if you get an answer at the end of the year. I have no doubt that it is a good thing that they should not hurry their work, but I do think in these matters that it is absurd to argue that you are going to gain time by leaving the thing in the hands of the Local Government Board, who already cannot get through their work in a reasonable time. When they have the enormous amount of work to be placed upon them by this Bill, the planning out of every town in the country, and the work of the law courts, then they surely will be more incapable of a speedy decision than at present? The cost has surely been very much exaggerated. The only way in which you can reduce the cost in these matters is by cutting down proper and legitimate inquiries. But if you are to avoid injustice you must have an inquiry. It must be fairly costly where you get a complicated case. I think the Government are in such a position as to suggest that they either want to avoid cases being sifted or alternatively they will have to admit that reasonable expenses must be allowed. I believe that if this Amendment of another place is refused and the Bill becomes law as it is a very great grievance will he created. It will do much to prejudice the cause of housing and destroy its popularity amongst those classes upon whom much depends to carry it through.

I am exceedingly sorry that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has lent the great weight of his authority to this particular Amendment. Local authorities have been waiting for the important procedure proposed by the present Bill for a considerable length of time. The Select Committee which sat to consider this question informed us that one of the chief obstacles in the way of local authorities who desire to put Housing Acts into operation was the complicated nature of the machinery by which land can be compulsorily acquired. Not only did they say that this tended to make the local authorities reluctant to take any action at all—and one cannot be surprised at the reluctance of local authorities under the circumstances—but in cases where action has been decided upon it almost necessarily increases the expense of their schemes, since a local authority will often be prepared to pay more than the market value of the land acquired than undergo the uncertainty and delay which the action of putting into force compulsory powers now involves. The Report proceeds to say there can be no doubt whatever that the price of land acquired under such circumstances has often been far beyond its real value. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken in support of this Amendment fail to consider the power that the Local Government Board already has. Have they forgotten the Local Government Act of 1894, which authorises parish councils to compulsorily acquire land, and allows the Board to confirm the Order without variation, that Order having the force and validity of an Act of Parliament?

Not without a public inquiry.

A public inquiry certainly, but without any Provisional Order. We are told that the Board has received some new, exceptional, extraordinary and despotic powers which they have not exercised before. As a matter of fact, this power was granted to them by the Local Government Act of 1894. It has been exercised in a large number of cases and nobody, so far as I am aware, has made any complaint whatever as to the impartiality of the Local Government Board in regard to the numerous cases which have arisen under the Act. Reference has been made to the Small Holdings Act. We have been told that certain cases of injustice have arisen under the Small Holdings Act. In the Burkshire case, to which reference was made, the land was not compulsorily acquired at all. That was land which was acquired by voluntary agreement. With reference to the other case, I would only ask hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House to read the report of the Debate that took place upon this particular case in the House of Lords, and I believe every impartial person will come to the conclusion that in that case Mr. Ringer suffered no injustice whatever. If this Amendment be adopted let us consider what a local authority will have to face. It will, in the first place, supposing it wants to acquire some piece of land compulsorily, have to face the negotiations between the local authority and the owner, which will take some time. Then, if the parties fail to agree, they will attempt to agree upon an arbitration. If an obstructive owner refuses to agree, then the impartial person to whom allusion has been made will have to be appointed. However impartial that person may be he will be a man, I have no doubt, of experience and authority, but he will have no partiality for low fees. I am perfectly certain that that will add very considerably indeed to the expense, not to say the delay, of a transaction. There is one point which has not been alluded to in the course of the Debate. This impartial person is alluded to—"and such other persons as the person holding the inquiry in his discretion thinks fit to allow, shall be permitted to appear and be heard at the inquiry." That means that counsel, witnesses, and experts will have to be heard at the inquiry. Take the case of the acquisition of a small piece of land. Imagine for a moment what the expense will be. The local authority, knowing beforehand what that expense will be, will naturally be tempted to give for the land a very much higher price than it otherwise ought to come to. Then, after the inquiry, the Order may become of a provisional character. The question thereafter may be fought before the Committee of the House of Commons; it may be fought before the Committee of the House of Lords. A local authority, face to face with a prospect of that kind, will be so appalled that it will feel that it could not possibly proceed with its scheme. I venture to go so far as to say that if this Amendment were accepted that it will make this portion of the Bill practically a dead letter. That is the reason why the right hon. Gentleman has stated that this Amendment is absolutely fatal to the Bill. I cannot forget that in the course of 12 years in the matter of acquiring land compulsorily for the erection of working-class dwellings that only seven Provisional Orders were applied for. To accept this Amendment would be to destroy the beneficent purpose of this portion of the Bill; to defeat and disappoint the hopes that local authorities entertain that by means of paying a fair price for property they will be able to acquire equitably land for the great purpose which the Bill is designed to fulfil.

I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are not dealing with the very wide question that he discussed in his speech, namely, the question of the price of land. We are dealing with the preliminary step which the local authority has to take before they can proceed with an Order. The right hon. Gentleman has reminded us of the fact that as the Bill left the House of Commons there was some provision that there should be an inquiry by the local authority on the spot, but that there is no such provision here. He is entirely dealing with the Schedule of the Bill. Under that there is no need for the Local Government Board to send down anybody to make inquiries. The Board can confirm or alter an Order as they like from Whitehall without holding any inquiry at all. Therefore the object of this Amendment is that there should be required to be held a local inquiry on the spot, at which people may appear and state their grievances. I venture to submit there is nobody more likely to know what is good for the welfare of a district than those who live there. The only way to arrive at a proper conclusion is that a local inquiry should be held and that the parties interested should attend. It was also said that no word has ever been urged against the impartiality of the Local Government inspectors. In my younger days I had considerable experience in connection with the acquisition of land for sewage schemes, etc. You must remember that the reports of the gentlemen who are sent down by the Local government Board are never published, and time after time you find out that the representative of the Local Government Board has reported strongly in one way, and that directly after that pressure is brought to bear—I am not referring to the present Government—by the Parliamentary representative of the place concerned, and the Local Government Board has gone dead in the teeth of their report. The Swansea case is a case in point. Here, though the report of the Commissioner was published, it was overruled by the Department. When the hon. Gentleman said that for a large number of years no one had ever heard anything against the impartiality of the Local Government Board inspectors, it must be remembered that their reports are not published, and that they are frequently overruled, and he must have heard frequent dissatisfaction either on the part of the landowner or on the part of the Local Government Board. And again even in cases where this would not occur it frequently occurs that some pressure had been brought to bear. One cannot go about the country without hearing remarks of that kind. Surely it is better to avoid a possibility of any such remark occurring in the future, and, therefore, I support this part of the Amendment that makes for an independent authority to try the case. The ordinary precedure differs fundamentally from that which is set up under this Bill. Under this Bill no inquiry is necessary. The President of the Local Government Board stated that no complaint has come to his ears in connection with the working of the Small Holdings Act which contains this machinery, but surely he must have known that under this and similar Acts case after case has been brought to his notice. I will only mention two cases especially, those which occurred in Wales, and that which occurred in Northamptonshire, where great injustice has been done by the working of the Act. I am not sure whether that injustice arose under the Bill of last year or under Bills of previous years containing the same machinery, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me when I say that deputations put such instances of injustice under these Acts before him, and that similar instances have been multiplied here to-day—I venture to hope he may see his way to reconsider the position which he has taken up upon this Amendment, and having regard to the fact that his Bill as it stood offered no security at all of any local inquiry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, it did."]

If the hon. Member will look at pages 37 and 38 of the Schedule he will see that it is there prescribed that if within the prescribed period no objection to the Order has been presented to the Board by a person interested in the land, or if any such objection has been withdrawn, the Boards shall, without further inquiry, confirm the Order, but if such an objection has been presented and has not been withdrawn the Board shall forthwith cause a public inquiry to be held in the locality.

May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there are two Orders, the first, as I understand it, under Schedule 1, is an Order as to the acquisition of land. The other is as to the price to be paid. As to the Order for the acquisition of land, I do not find any provision for an inquiry. That seems to be governed by the second paragraph, but as to the price, it is perfectly true that there

I guarded myself in the beginning by saying we were not discussing the question of the price, but the preliminary inquiry, and so far as that is concerned my remarks are quite accurate. I think that so far as the probability of injustice occurring, enough has been said to cause the Government to pause before they insert in this measure anything which will cause injustice of the character which has been brought into their notice.

moved that the House disagree with the Lords in the Amendment to insert, after the word "Act," at the end of Sub-section (1),

moved, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

moved, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This proposal throws some light on the policy adopted by the Government. I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should be so reluctant to submit himself to the judgment of the Houses of Parliament. The Secretary to the Local Government Board said that the whole object of this procedure was to achieve simplicity. Everybody must desire simplicity, but in a complicated state of society it is not easy to be simple, and if the right hon. Gentleman wants to see the sort of procedure he desires to enforce he only needs to go to some of those Oriental countries where the executive power is combined in one person, and where the subject is absolutely unprotected in any way from the inroads of the executive. In this country it has been considered necessary to safeguard the citizen against any possible abuse of power, not only on the part of his neigh- bours, but even on the part of the central government. The objection we have to these provisions is that all safeguards are withdrawn from the private citizen, and he is left at the mercy of the Executive Government, which in this case is the Local Government Board. It would be some protection to the citizen if he had this House to look to, because here he would be able to get some hon. Member to ventilate his grievance and bring it before the House. It is extremely unlikely unless the case was one of a very grave character, and a genuine grievance was felt in regard to it, that any hon. Member would venture to raise it in this House, because he would find the whole force of the Government, as well as the whole feeling of this House, against him. Hon. Members object to having small trumpery matters brought before the attention of the House. For these reasons I regret that the right hon. Gentleman does not see his way to accept this Amendment. I do not think this Amendment would cause the delay which has been put forward as an argument against it by the spokesman for the Government. The real objection is that the Government Department in this matter desires to be supreme.

There is a precedent for the application of a proposal like the one contained in this Clause. May I refer the Noble Lord who has just spoken to Section 299 of the Public Health Act of 1875, under which for the last 24 years hundreds of cases have arisen under that Section, and there has been no serious Debate in Parliament as to the way in which the Local Government Board has exercised its powers under the Public Health Act. The Local Government Board have precisely the powers under the Public Health Act of 1875 with regard to default by the local authority in respect of water supply that it is proposed to give them now, and there is no appeal in cases of that kind. Having regard to these facts there is not the least necessity for the adoption of this Amendment.

The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Public Health Act of 1875 gives the Local Government Board the precise powers which are given under this Clause for the acquisition of a water supply, or the failure of a local authority to initiate a water supply, and he seems to think because of that it is right to give the powers under very much more extended provisions such as those which are contained in this Bill. The question of a water supply is a small matter compared with the powers which the Local Government Board are going to take under this Clause. A water supply is a necessity, and in a small place it is not a very costly matter. What we are now considering, however, is a very different thing. After all, the people who have a knowledge of the locality and who have to find the money ought to know what they require. The county council may say, "We do not think, first of all, that this proposal is necessary, and, secondly, as we have to find the money, we do not think the locality will be able to find it." The Local Government Board can come down and override the decision of the county council. What does the Local Government Board know, for example, about the power of Merionethshire to provide money? The Local Government Board, under this Clause, can override the decision of the people on the spot merely because four large inhabitant householders may decide that they require a large scheme for providing additional cottages costing many thousands of pounds. I was not aware that the Government attached so much importance to precedents. I could give the right hon. Gentleman any quantity of precedents against every measure which the present Government has brought in during the last four years. When it suits their purpose they say, "We do not care about antiquated, musty precedents." The Government, however, cannot have it both ways. The hon. Member has quoted a precedent of 34 years ago.

It has been in operation ever since.

But that does not make it any better. The House of Lords has been in existence hundreds of years, but is the hon. Gentleman on account of that going to declare that he will not say anything against them? The precedent quoted by him is only a small matter, and it is no argument to use it in favour of giving arbitrary powers to the Local Government Board, which will permit them to enforce upon a locality enormous expenditure which the inhabitants may not desire. The question was raised during the Committee stage of the Bill, but we had not an opportunity of discussing the details. I regret the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to accept the business-like Amendment which has been inserted in another place.

I think this is a material and a reasonable Amendment. I agree that there are cases where it is necessary to give power of this kind to a Government Department, but such a power as this ought to be exercised with the greatest possible caution. The success of the Bill will depend mainly upon the harmony with which the local authorities work with the central authority. There may be a very few cases in which an appeal is necessary to the county council, and in which the Local Government Board will have to assume the position of the determining authority. It is agreed that in no case should they act unless there is a very strong reason indeed. Surely it would be much more acceptable to the local authority which is overruled if the Order was laid upon the Table of this House. It is quite clear that this House or another House would never interfere with a case in which the right of the Local Government Board to decide was evident; and, on the other hand, if there was this appeal to Parliament it would make these provisions more acceptable to the local authorities.

I think the right hon. Gentleman has taken up rather an extraordinary attitude considering the party to which he belongs. We are continually being told that the will of the people must prevail, yet here we have a responsible Minister of the Crown refusing to trust the local authorities or the House of Commons. He does not dare to place these orders overriding the local authorities on the Table of Parliament for fear Parliament should behave unreasonably. I think that it is an extraordinary proposition to come from a Member of the Government. Apparently the only body he can trust is the Local Government Board, and apparently he can only trust it because it is entirely out of touch with the electors and represents nobody. This Amendment would not involve any expense to anybody, and it is not a new proposal. It has been embodied in a like ease—in the Small Holdings Act. There is a provision in that Act for laying the facts before Parliament when a local authority is coerced, and, if it was right in that case, I cannot see that it is going to-do any damage here. After all, housing is a local matter, and I do not think any- body can have a greater claim to decide the matter than the locality concerned. Other cases in which the central authority interferes with local administration are those in which either the public health is concerned and where epidemics might be caused by local authorities neglecting their duties or those in which the central authority makes a grant. If the right hon. Gentleman were making a grant out of the Exchequer towards housing, then I should say the Local Government Board ought to have this right to override the wishes of the ratepayers; but, as there is no provision of that kind, it appears to me quite unreasonable to take away all the control from the representatives of the ratepayers and to concentrate all power in the hands