I wish to ask the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture in Ireland whether he can give us any further information as to the alleged export of diseased heads from the Port of Water- ford, and generally as to the position in Ireland in regard to foot-and-mouth disease? In putting that question I may perhaps be permitted to say that we on the Irish Benches have no desire whatever to interfere with the most elaborate precautions necessary to prevent the spread of the disease. On the contrary, we appreciate fully that it is in the interest of Irish trade—

Is the hon. Member asking a question?

Yes, Sir.

It seems to be rather a long one.

:I have received two telegrams to-day-one from Dublin and one from Waterford. The first is as follows:—

"Your wire re head from Waterford. Following the facts, we have so far ascertained. Ten cattle were purchased at Carrick-on-Suir by Richard Maher Cashel, on 27th June. They were brought to Waterford on 28th June. Inspected by Departments' Portal veterinary inspector and passed for shipment. In consequence of Order prohibiting landing in Great Britain, they were not shipped, but taken to Hurley's field, Abbeyslands, Waterford, where they remained until 2nd July, when they were brought to public abattoir, at Waterford, and slaughtered. They were examined on that date by Mr. Dobbyn, veterinary inspector to local authority, two being alive and eight slaughtered at time of inspection. Mr. Dobbyn found no symptons of foot-and-mouth disease. He specially examined tongues, mouths and feet. Tongues were removed before shipment and packed in rice paper separately from the heads. This is the regular custom of the trade in most places in Ireland, and there appears to be no ground whatsoever for the suggestion that the removal of tongue was mutilation with intention to conceal disease. The heads examined at Liverpool are said to have arrived in bags. These heads and tongues from Waterford were packed in two strong hampers. All persons at Waterford Abattoir as well as Mr. Dobbyn have been closely questioned. Butcher has made sworn statement that there was no mutilation as suggested, and that no parts of any heads except the tongue were cut away before shipment. Departments' inspectors have visited Hurley's field and examined cattle at present there. None of these show any symptoms of foot-and-mouth disease, but, as precautionary measure, these cattle have been restricted. Departments' inspector at Liverpool has not yet completed his investigation."

An hour ago I received the following telegram from the manager of Woodman, Wilson, and Co., who exported the heads:

"No lips were taken off the heads sent from here. They were hanging in the public abattoir all night from hooks by the lips, and were taken down from the hooks by our men and handed over to Mr. Dobbyn for examination."

I would like to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is satisfied still that these beads came from Waterford, and, if not, will he remove the embargo on the port of Waterford?

The information which I gave the House yesterday I received from our veterinary officer at Liverpool, and that has been supplemented by a long "written report which I received to-day. I am afraid the evidence is not yet sufficiently clear to justify me in saying that the heads did not come from Waterford. The only discrepancy between what I said yesterday and this report is the statement that the whole consignment did arrive from Waterford in hampers. Until fuller details are received I do not feel that I can take any steps for reopening the port of Waterford.

Are we entitled to draw from the right hon. Gentleman's reply the conclusion that his Department are no longer satisfied that the heads came from Ireland?

I would rather like to put it the other way about. I do not think that my Department can say that they are satisfied that the heads did not come from Waterford, and until we are satisfied I do not think we would be justified in removing the restrictions.

We have had no further cases.

I should like to ask the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture in Ireland how it is if these heads were the same heads from which the tongues and lips had been removed in the manner he indicated, one could have the hard palate which showed on the surface of it the blebs of foot-and-mouth disease.

The hon. Gentleman is assuming what I am not going to assume. I would not like to commit myself beyond what is contained in the telegrams I have received.

Is it the case that Newry and Dundalk are not allowed to export and Belfast is, and can stock from the hinterland of Newry and Dundalk be sent up to Belfast and exported from there, and, if so, what is the effect of closing one port if you do not close all?

Dundalk is within a few miles of Drogheda, and Newry is a little further on, and as there is such constant traffic along that whole line I do not think it right to shut the port of Dublin and leave these ports open.

If the cattle from these places are simply switched off and sent up to Belfast we are getting the same cattle?

That is quite true. The port of Belfast, the port of Derry and other ports have been opened. We cannot stop the entire traffic.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday 125 head of cattle were ready for shipment at the ports of Newry and Dundalk, and owing to the Order of the Board were taken by special train to Belfast and shipped from there, and, if so, what is the good of stopping the ports of Newry and Dundalk and merely putting the extra charge on people of sending their cattle to Belfast?

It is quite true that you might have cattle, instead of being held over, sent to Belfast, but no one saddled with the responsibility which I have, looking at the direct communication between Swords and these places, could open these ports.

If the intention of the Board is to stop the movement of cattle in the district, what good purpose is served by merely diverting the traffic from one port to another?

Would it not be more rational to interrupt communications between Dundalk and Swords, and allow cattle to be shipped from Dundalk and Newry?

My right hon. Friend issued the Order, and I only made the Order for the port of Dublin, for which I am personally responsible. I have no doubt that if the House will exercise a little patience this thing will be cleared up. It seems quite clear to my mind that there is no foot-and-mouth disease in the South of Ireland, and when I am able to establish that I am perfectly sure that my right hon. Friend will be willing to confer with me about these ports. But I have no right to make any application to my right hon. Friend until I am quite certain of that, and I will not consent to do so.

With the accumulated evidence of the last ten days before him, has my right hon. Friend been able to form an opinion as to the probability or improbability of this disease spreading to Scotland?

I could not say what is probable with regard to foot-and-mouth disease. Up to the present there has been no case shown to exist in Scotland, and there is no suspected case at present under examination. For the information of the House I may say that there is no new reported case to-day. This is the first day since the outbreak that I have been able to say that. Also supplementing what has been said by my right hon. Friend with regard to shipments over here, no cattle, I believe, are being moved out of the scheduled counties at all. They are absolutely closed for all traffic. The only cattle now admitted into this country are fat cattle for slaughter from these various districts, and I cannot open the ports for store cattle until I am absolutely satisfied that the thing has been run to earth.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of fat sheep at West Port, county Mayo, are ready for shipment for the last two days, and will they be allowed to proceed to Birkenhead for slaughter, as there is no serious cattle disease whatever in the whole province of Connaught?

I am afraid that I cannot accede to this request.

There is not the slightest suspicion of disease within 150 miles.

During the prevalence of this disease, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of having a stronger disinfectant than spent lime used both in cattle trucks and boats, bearing in mind the opinion of scientific authorities that it is useless for the purpose of killing the germs of this disease?

I will inquire into that point. As far as we can we are taking the fullest possible precautions in the way of disinfecting. I do not think that the disinfecting has ever been better done than at the present time.

I think that this would be the place for the hon. Member in charge of the Bill to give some explanation of this Clause, which seems to be the main operative Clause, as otherwise numerous questions may arise.

The object of the Bill, as was explained on the Second Beading, is to enable the Commissioners of Works to acquire certain land, now vested in the Commissioners of Woods, for the purpose of erecting thereon at a later date additional accommodation required for the Patent and other public offices. I think that Clause 1 is the operative Clause, as it gives power to the Commissioners of Works.

Clause added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Incorporation of Lands Clauses Acts.)

(1) For the purpose of the purchase and acquisition of land under this Act the Lands Clauses Acts shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be incorporated with this Act, with the following exceptions and modifications:—

( a ) The provisions relating to the sale of superfluous land and access to the special Act and Section one hundred and thirty-three of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (relating to Land Tax and Poor Rate), shall not be incorporated with this Act:

( b ) In the construction of the Acts incorporated with this Act, the Commissioners shall be deemed to be the promoters of the undertaking, and this Act shall be deemed to be the special Act:

( c ) The bond required by Section eighty-five of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, shall be under the common seal of the Commissioners and shall be sufficient without the

( d ) All claims for compensation made upon the Commissioners under this Act or any Act incorporated with this Act shall, if the person claiming has no greater interest in the land in respect of which compensation is claimed than as tenant from year to year or as a leaseholder for any term of which not more than eighteen months remain unexpired at the time at which the claim is made, be determined in manner provided by Section one hundred and twenty-one of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845:

( e ) There may be contained in the verdict of a jury or the award of arbitrators or of an Umpire a finding that the claimant, after having been requested in writing by the Commissioners so to do, has failed to deliver to the Commissioners a statement in writing of the amount claimed giving sufficient particulars and in sufficient time to enable the Commissioners to make a proper offer, and where such a finding is contained in a verdict or award the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts as to costs of inquiries and arbitrations shall apply as if the Commissioners had offered the same sum or a greater sum than that found due by the verdict or award:

Provided that this provision shall not apply unless the written request for particulars contains a notice of the effect of this provision.

(2) The powers of the Commissioners for the compulsory purchase of land under this Act shall cease after the expiration of five years from the passing of this Act.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph ( a ).

Paragraph ( a ) says, "The provisions relating to the sale of superfluous land and access to the special Act and Section 133 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (relating to Land Tax and Poor Rate), shall not be incorporated with this Act."

With the most earnest desire to understand what that means, I could not find the Act of 1845. When there is legislation by reference to an Act of 1845 it is due to the House that some sort of explanation should be given. Within the last few months there has been considerable discussion in various places as to the advisability of legislation by reference, and the hon. Member for Pontefract, and others, expressed very strong views on the matter. I do not remember ever having read a more complicated Clause or a worse instance of legislation by reference than this Clause. "The provisions relating to the sale of superfluous land and access to the special Act"—what does that mean? Access to what Act? Can the hon. Gentleman explain this? "The provisions relating to the sale of superfluous land"—I suppose those are the provisions under the Act of 1845, which are not incorporated in this Act. And how are we to get "access to the special Act" if it is not incorporated in this Act? I presume there is a Clause somewhere in that Act, and if access to that special Act is not given by its incorporation in this Act, I want to know what is the use of having the special Act at all if it is to be rendered null and void. I may be quite wrong, but in my small brain it seems that is how the words of this paragraph may be interpreted. The hon. Member should recollect that all Members of the House of Commons are not so well equipped as himself, and though this may be an extremely easy matter to him it is not easy to all of us. Therefore I move the omission of the Subsection. Clause 133 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act relating to the Land Tax has not been incorporated in this Bill. Why not? All this sort of thing makes me extremely suspicious. When I see that a Clause passed in 1845 by a Parliament which I think every one will admit was probably a sensible Parliament is not to be incorporated by this Parliament, which every one will admit is not a sensible Parliament, I must confess that I am filled with apprehension. Before this goes further I think I must have a clear explanation of these two matters, and if the explanation is not clear I shall be compelled to divide the Committee.

The explanation for which the hon. Baronet asks is really quite simple. The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845 gives to the person from whom land is compulsorily acquired certain rights. In the case of land which is not all required for the purposes set out in the special Act, I think he would have right of pre-emption. In this case there are two reasons why we do not give the Section. In the first place, we do not contemplate that we will have any superfluous land, except such as might be used for light and other purposes. With regard to the second point, "access to the special Act," it is explained as follows: In the case of a private Act the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act provides that the public shall have the right of access to the special Act, but in this case it is a public Statute, and the Act is this Bill, and access to the Act can be obtained at any institution or library by simply taking the Statutes. As to the third point, the Poor Rate is a matter of adjustment between the Treasury and the local authority, and the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act with reference to adjustment of the Poor Rate before and after the purchase are not necessary. The same thing applies to the Land Tax referred to in Clause 6.

Are we to understand that the burden will be cast upon the ratepayers?

The rates in respect of Government property are matters of adjustment between the Treasury and the local authority.

I must express my admiration of the hon. Baronet's industry, and especially of his political talent after his speech of this afternoon, in which he referred to the Parliament of 1845, which repealed the corn laws and did so much for the development of this country, as a very sensible Parliament.

I am sorry to interrupt. I did not say it was a very sensible Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I said it was more sensible than this Parliament, but it does not follow that it was sensible.

With all deference to the hon. Baronet the words I caught were—"no doubt that was a very sensible Parliament." With regard to this Parliament not being a sensible Parliament, we shall wait and see. Occasionally on a Friday afternoon I am inclined to agree with the hon. Baronet.

I think the explanation of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wedgwood Benn) is more or less satisfactory, with the exception of the one point as to access to the special Act. I should be very glad to have the views of the Government as to that point, but failing that, I would propose to withdraw my Amendment to leave out paragraph ( a ) and to substitute another Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in paragraph (a) to leave out the words "and access to the special Act."

The paragraph would then read: "The provisions relating to the sale of superfluous land and Section one hundred and thirty-three of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845," etc. I believe that everybody in this country ought to have access to an Act of Parliament which we have passed. I see no reason why they should be left out, and the only argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman is that it is not necessary, and that the public can get access to it by going to a public library. Ordinary people, reading this Act will see, as I did myself, that under the provisions of the Clause they have no right of access to the special Act. It must be remembered that the hon. Gentleman says that these words have practically no effect.

I do say so.

I have always heard in an experience of many years as one of the first principles of Parliamentary legislation that words which have no effect should not be put into a Bill. Consequently, I assume the hon. Gentleman will accept my Amendment. I hope my hon. and learned Friend behind, who is a great professor in all legal matters, and the hon. Gentleman, who has made a great reputation in connection with the Insurance Act as to phraseology, will support my view.

I hope the hon. Baronet will not press this Amendment. He was mistaken in supposing that I said these words had no meaning. What I meant was that to give the public access to the special Act would have no purpose whatever in this case, as they can obtain a copy of the Act for twopence. In the other case they would not know without access to the Act. In this case, therefore, it is quite unnecessary to give special access.

What I am afraid of is that anyone who requires information will be at once confronted with these words and will suppose that the Act will not be available for him.

He cannot see the words unless he has in his hands a copy of the Act?

There is really no point in these words. I understand the hon. Gentleman to say they have no effect, and I must press the matter to a Division.

The hon. Baronet appealed to me, and I am going to make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman. I think the meaning of the hon. Gentleman's statement was that in ordinary cases where you are taking land under compulsory powers there is the reasonable provision that the special Act is to be provided to the person whose land is taken. In this case he says there is no reason for such a provision as this is a public Bill, and those interested can obtain copies by paying twopence. It is not a question of the twopence, but whether sufficient facilities are given. It does seem to me quite reasonable that facilities should be given to those persons interested in the powers of the Act. I do not think the answer of the hon. Gentleman is a sufficient answer to the point, and I think the Amendment might fairly be conceded.

It seems to me that this whole thing is confused. I have tried to grasp what it means, but I am not at all clear, and I have a great deal of sympathy with the man who goes to the public library. I think the Clause would be better with the words out, and I cannot support their inclusion.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 33.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out paragraph ( c ).

This is another instance of legislation by reference, which is a continual source of trouble. We are entitled to know what this bond is and who the sureties are. I move the omission of the paragraph in order to give the Minister in charge an opportunity of explaining it.

The Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts provide that the promoters of undertaking, before compulsorily acquiring land, shall give certain money bonds and sureties. In the case of a great public department it is not necessary that any such money bonds should be given, and therefore these provisions of Section 85 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, are specifically excluded from this Bill.

I do not think that that is at all a satisfactory explanation. In the case of an ordinary agreement the parties are not to be trusted: therefore a bond has to be given, so that in the event of any sharp practice compensation can be secured. The hon. Gentleman's explanation is this: "Oh, it is a case for the Commissioners"—that is to say, it is a case for the Government. Therefore what is necessary in a case of the private individual is not necessary in the case of the Government. I should be the last person in the world to make any accusation of sharp practice against the Government, or any accusation that they were in any way wishful to avoid their liability, or to do anything personally advantageous to themselves or their party at the expense of the nation. No one could imagine that such a thing possibly could be done. But it must be remembered that this will be taken as a precedent. Supposing we were to have in the future another Government not so righteous as the present Government, this will be taken as a precedent. This Clause will have been left out, and therefore Governments in the future are never to do what the ordinary private individual is to do, and that is to give a bond to be of good behaviour. I see many reasons why paragraph ( c ) should be left out. Take the statement, which I do not contradict for a moment, of the hon. Gentleman that there is no necessity to put it in because it is quite certain that the Government will keep its bond. Why, then, not put it in? I thought that all men were equal. We have heard a good deal to that effect the last day or two—

Except the people at the docks.

At any rate, I do not see why the Government should be in a better position than the private individual. The hon. Gentleman does not contemplate breaking his bond. We are all agreed upon that. Why on earth then should he not put the bond in? The private individual may not always find it so very easy to get a bond. He has to go to his bankers and ask them to become sureties. But there are many rich Gentlemen sitting behind the Front Benches on the opposite side who would be only too happy to become sureties for the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench, and, indeed, would consider it a very great favour to be asked to oblige the Government in this way. They would be running no risk. Nobody would be running any risk, and we should be keeping up the old conditions, which, after all, are very necessary when bargains have to be made. Those of us who have been accustomed during the hard-fought battle of life to make bargains of this sort, realise that. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Members laugh. This is no laughing matter. Those of us who have survived the battle know how necessary it is in all commercial transactions that something of the sort should be enforced. The Government should set us an example, and not come down and pose as superior, suggest that they are so very much better than everybody else, and say that they do not intend to accept the obligation which is put upon the ordinary business man. I sincerely trust that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Benn) will close his mind for a moment to any question of the Report stage of this Bill, or anything of the sort. He is now budding forth upon the political world, and he should rise superior to questions of Report stage and other similar matters, for I do not doubt that his sole desire is to do the best he can for his country. Under these circumstances I really think it would be necessary for me to support the hon. Member if he goes to a Division.

I beg to move to leave out paragraph ( e ).

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 33.

It seems to me a somewhat extraordinary thing that an Act of Parliament supposed to be good enough for the protection of the ordinary citizen is not considered good enough for the Government. Under the provisions of the Land Clauses Act, 1845, there are certain regulations with regard to arbitration, and the Government seeks here to get an advantage for itself to which it does not appear to have any right at all. It says here that there may be a finding—

"The claimant, after having been requested in writing by the Commissioners so to do has failed to deliver to the Commissioners a statement in writing of the amount claimed giving sufficient particulars and in sufficient time to enable the Commissioners to make the proper offer,"

and so forth. Now they are asking here that a man whose land they are proposing to take should state at the outset the amount of his claim, and that is a thing which is not asked for under the Land Clauses Act from anyone else, and is not demanded by that Act, and I think we should not ask him to do that under this Act simply because the Government are concerned in it. An hon. Friend asks me whether there is any precedent for it. I am not aware whether there is or not—I do not think there is—but whether there is or not I do not agree with such a provision. I do not think it ought to be part of this Bill, and I find that even the Government draughtsmen had some qualms of conscience about it, because they have put in a proviso:—

"That the provision shall not apply unless the written request for particulars contains a notice of the effect of this provision."

As far as I remember arbitrations—and I have had to do with one or two of them—I think they generally proceeded in this way, that the matter is submitted to the arbitrator before the seller or the claimant is asked to state the amount of his claim, and a good deal turns upon it, because if the claimant asks for a sum which turns out to be considerably greater, or, indeed, greater at all, than the amount of the award which is granted he has to pay his own expenses, and of course in that case the purchaser pays his own expenses. In the other case the purchaser has to pay the whole expenses of the arbitration, and that is a serious matter. In this provision the Government attempt to put the unfortunate man upon the horns of a dilemma. It is not easy to say right off what is the value of any property which the Government may want to take, and no man ought to be asked, or ought to be bound, to make his statement of claim sooner than he is now under the ordinary Clauses of the Land Clauses Act, 1845. I strongly object to the Government coming to this House and asking to be put into a better position than anyone else.

The hon. Baronet was wrong in assuming that there was no precedent.

I did not say that. I said I was informed so.

In that case he is not informed fully.

I quite agree.

As a matter of fact there are a large number of precedents for this particular Clause, particularly in the case of Bills in respect to the London County Council, and it is also found in the Public Offices Sites Act, 1898. The same point has been before Committees, both of the House of Commons and of the other House, and this Clause, having been examined, has been agreed to and has been allowed to stand, and the reason is this. Unfortunately I am not skilled in the law, but I think I understand the point at issue. If a person whose property it is proposed to take puts in a claim which the arbitrator finds is excessive, the costs of the arbitration are shared; but, on the other hand, if he puts in a claim which is reasonable, the costs of the arbitration are borne by the promoters of the compulsory acquisition. But supposing he does not put forward his particulars in time to enable the promoters to make an offer, well, then, under the ordinary law the promoters would have to pay the costs of the arbitration, although he may have withheld the particulars with that particular view in his mind. Now, under this Clause, it is within the power of the jury to find as against the seller that he might have given the particulars when he was asked for them, and that the offer which was made was a reasonable one, whereas he had withheld the information, and therefore it was impossible to make an offer or to say that the offer was a reasonable one. In such a case the costs of arbitration must be shared between the parties.

I am going to support the hon. Baronet, but I wish to raise a different point. I understand that land legislation is to be brought forward by hon. Members opposite, and is to be proposed before the next General Election; and I understand that the idea of that land legislation is to be compulsory valuation of land.

Is the Noble Lord in order in referring to land legislation, which has not been proposed?

I was developing an argument on the subject.

We must allow the Noble Lord to finish his sentence before we can say whether he is in order or not.

:In order to please the Member for Kincardineshire I will put it in another way. The question is this: under the present Radical legislation the landlord never quite knows where he is. If he puts a high value upon his land, and in consequence it is not bought by a public authority, the chances are that he may be assessed for taxation upon the site value accordingly. Or he may have put a high value on it because he did not wish to part with it, but that the Government is ready to step in and assess it compulsorily, and take it from him. If he puts a low value upon it, then, of course, it is taken. This provision ought to be taken and read in relation to the land legislation which the Government are proposing. When we have a Clause of this kind I think we are entitled to ask hon. Members to say what is the underlying principle of the new land legislation, otherwise it is extremely difficult to judge the effect of it. An hon. Member objects to this; I do not know why. Surely he will want to know about it as much as we do. I do not know whether he is a Member of the Committee, or not, which has been chosen. If he has not been chosen, perhaps he is piqued, but if he is he may be able to get a forward copy of the Bill which I understand his Friends are going to bring in. We ought to have some idea of the principle of this future legislation in reference to this Clause.

I think the Noble Lord is now going outside the Amendment.

All I wish to say is that I think it would be better before putting in a Clause of hon. Members opposite should make clear what are their future ideas about land legislation, and that it would be better to leave out this paragraph now until we see what that legislation is. If it is found not to work it can be be inserted later on. Probably the new Bill will supply what is omitted if this paragraph is left out now.

I can quite understand the Noble Lord's argument with reference to this paragraph so far as the landlords are concerned. I do not think we should confine our notice to claims made by landlords. Surely there are many claims on behalf of tenants as well. I will not go into the land holding system of this country because the Noble Lord was beyond the bounds of order in that, but whatever our views may be surely we do not want to do any injustice to business men. There may be business men as tenants.

May I ask if it is only business men who are not to be done an injustice?

No, my point was that we must not confine our solicitude merely to the landlords. The Noble Lord having done ample justice to that point of view, I do not want so much to contravene his position as to put my own, which is that a tenant or a business man equally may suffer if injustice is done, and it seems to me one of those questions where the Government Department are trying to get an advantage over a private individual. These Bills, of course, are framed in a public department and we know that all the wisdom and fair play is enshrined in the permanent officials. I do not wish to challenge that; they may believe it or they may not, but they cannot always get other people to believe it. I have no doubt they want to do what is perfectly fair and right, but it is just possible, according to my reading for a tenant or a business man to suffer injustice. It is a long-winded sentence. One of my hon. Friends here, for whose legal knowledge and political views I have the greatest respect says, "No." It is quite easy for him to understand a sentence running over thirteen or fourteen lines without a full stop, but I do say this is a matter which it is difficult for some of us in this House. I am not convinced that a tenant may not be put at a disadvantage.

Would be.

That is my view. I confess that the Government have not satisfied me that he would not be. It is all very well for the hon. Member to say that they are angels, and that the permanent officials are beyond reproach. We have not always these Gentlemen with us. This Act refers to an Act of 1845, and that is a considerable length of time. Even this budding youth in the springtime of life may have gone before this Act becomes obsolete. It is a long-winded paragraph, and I do not see any necessity for it. If it is what the hon. Member means, I do not think it is necessary. I shall submit an Amendment to test this point. It has been held again and again in former Acts that the words "if they think fit" are necessary, otherwise it may be held that the word "may" might be interpreted as "shall." The jury may have a direction from the judge that "may" means "shall," and the jury may be directed to take this into account. This is an institution which might survive when other things are falling like skittles around us. I should not have the same objection if the hon. Member in charge of this Bill will accept a small Amendment in the direction I have indicated. If the word "may" means what he thinks it does, then he could not have any objection to the suggestion I have made.

I wish to call attention to the unfortunate position of the unfortunate person who has to give sufficient particulars in an insufficient time. A good deal of difficulty may arise from those words, because every man is not his own valuer, and it is exceedingly difficult to these people to find the proper particulars or furnish them in the time which is considered necessary under this Bill. Since the Land Act of 1909 was passed, the method of valuing land has altered, and a class of valuers has arisen who are able to value land without having gone near it because of its resemblance to some other kind of property. You cannot expect an unfortunate private individual to have the same power which is exercised by the salaried officials acting under the Government. Therefore, *I think it is rather hard to give a jury or an arbitrator power to penalise people under these circumstances. I think you ought to have more definite words. The hon. Member, when he was replying upon this point, gave us a specific instance of the case of a man who did not give the particulars, although he was able to give them on purpose that he might get the costs of the arbitration. If there was any danger of that it might constitute a case to be dealt with, but it does not appear from the words that they apply only to these cases, and a large discretion is given to the jury. I submit that it should apply only in cases of malice where it is deliberately done. I think you ought to have a good deal of consideration for people who are having their property taken away compulsoriy, even though they are paid for it. They may feel that the time given is not quite long enough. I may take an example under the Insurance Act. A good many people do not want to place stamps on the paper under the Insurance Act, and they dislike being forced to do that. After some months of disturbance they may do it and carry out the law. People losing their property in this way ought not to be tied down too harshly to a specific principle to which is attached a very severe penalty. For these reasons I wish to ask the hon. Member to limit this Clause to specific cases where particulars have been withheld to the satisfaction of the jury. If the hon. Member gives way on this point I might support him, but if he does not I am afraid I shall have to support the omission of this Sub-section.

In Sections 63 and 23 there is a provision that the claimant, in order to get the benefit of arbitration, has to deposit a claim stating the nature of his interest and the amount of compensation. Under these circumstances, why do the Government require all these elaborate, circuitous and artificial provisions?

I hope the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill will stick to his guns. This seems to me to be another illustration of how tender people are for the interests of landlords and business people.

This embraces all kinds of property. In the instance I cited I gave the case of a tenant.

This is only a proof of how hon. Gentlemen opposite are very tender for private interests, and have very little regard to public interests. I think this Sub-section is necessary to prevent that imposition which has gone on in times past, not only by landlords, but by tenants who happen to own property or business interests. I will give a case in point. I have long taken an interest in matters of this sort. I remember when the clearance was effected in the Strand, and Holywell Street was cleared out. On that occasion it will be remembered the scandalous abuses which were then perpetrated upon the community. People who had businesses there, some of them closing up, made preposterous claims, and because of the absence of some provision of this sort, scandalous prices were given altogether out of proportion to what ought to have been paid.

The hon. Member misunderstands the effect of this Clause. It only relates to the costs, and not to the price to be paid.

I do not think I have mistaken the point at all. This provides that a person who fails to put in reasonable particulars of his property in a given time, if the jury think fit, may be mulcted in certain costs. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] If that is not the object, then I should like some hon. Member opposite to get up and tell me. I think what I have stated is a fair and reasonable object, and this Subsection may prevent a good deal of imposition taking place in the future which I know has taken place in the past. There have been in the past in the case of public improvements claims made and immense sums of money paid because of the absence of some provision of this sort which has enabled those claims to be sustained. Seeing that it is necessary that somebody should stand for the public interest, which in this case is the jury, as against private interests I am going to vote for the retention of this Sub-section.

I regret that the hon. Member has used the word "scandalous" and the word "imposition "with regard to the way in which property was acquired by the public authorities in the case of the Strand improvement.

I said Holywell Street.

That is part of the Strand improvement. That took place before my time on the London County Council, but I am acquainted with the circumstances under which that property was acquired, and with the exception of one or two isolated instances, I can assure the House that there was no imposition and no scandal connected with the scheme. I am aware of the one or two instances which no doubt the hon. Member had at the back of his mind, but personally I have no wish to fish in a muddy pond after so many years have passed, and I think hon. Members will agree with me that it is much better to let the matter rest. I feel that there is a good deal of substance in the objection which has been raised on both sides with regard to the passing of this Clause. Hon. Members will recall the reason why the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act was passed in 1845. At that time there was a number of private and public Bills being brought before the House for the purpose of acquiring land compulsorily for public purposes, and it was felt convenient that the terms and conditions on which the land was acquired should be scheduled in one Act of Parliament, so that you would have a uniform system for the acquisition of land for public purposes in this country. That was the reason for the passing of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845, and the provisions of that Act have governed the acquisition of land since that date up to a comparatively recent time.

Under the present Government and under a recent practice of the House a new and very inconvenient practice has cropped up of inserting special provisions in each individual Act which is brought before this House. It may or may not be a good thing to have a provision of this sort attached to the purchase of land compulsoriy, but surely the occasion to introduce a change of this sort is not in a Bill of this sort, and it could be more properly done by a general requirement under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845, so that we might return to the former practice of having a universal code under which land is acquired for public purposes. When the hon. Member opposite was challenged he quoted two Clauses, one from the public Bills of the London County Council. I do not admit for one moment that the London County Council Bills for the acquisition of land for street widening is in any sense on all fours with the present Bill. The other Clause he quoted is contained in only one Bill, namely, the Public Offices Sites Bill of 1908, passed by the present Government under the auspices of the same Office. I must condone with the hon. Member in the difficult position in which he finds himself, because I am aware that these Clauses are often passed without any discussion at all. As a rule the discussion is confined to the broad objects of the Bill and the general principle, and these important points of detail never receive consideration at the hands of the Committee, and are often passed by the House without hon. Members being aware of the far-reaching effects entailed by their passage. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Peel) referred to the somewhat vague and nebulous wording of the Clause, which talks of giving "sufficient particulars in sufficient time." The practice, as a rule, is for the vendor, the person who is selling his property under compulsion, to put in a claim before the arbitration is set up. When the arbitration is set up, the purchasing authority makes its reasonable offer, but it is very uncommon and unusual for any particulars to be furnished or for any claim to be filed after the arbitration has been set up. The date and the time are chosen by the purchasing authority, and it is easy to see a Government Department of a somewhat autocratic temper might place a vendor in a very unfair and improper position by not giving sufficient time between serving the notices and setting up the arbitration for him to furnish his particulars. Apparently there is no provision in this Clause to meet the case, whether it is the landlords in whom the hon. Member thinks we take too tender an interest, or the business man, who forms by far the larger class of those who have compensation to receive, of individuals who may be abroad, or of those who may have to consult expert advisers. There is nothing to ensure they will have sufficient and proper time in which to furnish their particulars. A Clause of this sort is framed by the officials of a Government Department, a body of gentlemen who are the least in sympathy with the great business community from which as a rule the vendors of this class of property are drawn. I hope therefore the Committee will give the matter very careful attention before allowing this Clause to pass through. I submit if this Clause is thrown out, the Government have ample powers for their purposes, especially considering the sites involved here and the people with whom they have to negotiate in the three parts of London referred to in the Bill. The Government have ample protection under the existing law and the prevailing custom of Arbitration Courts. Under the present system of acquiring property compulsorily in London public authorities generally, and not the Government alone, suffer very great inconvenience, and I wish the Government, instead of tampering with the matter and dealing with it by instalments, had addressed their attention to the general system under which they and the public authorities of the country have to acquire land. It would be perfectly possible by a slight alteration in the procedure to simplify the whole system both in the interests of the vendor and the purchasing authority. I venture to think this is a dangerous precedent, and, considering the Clause is unnecessary for the purposes of the Government, I hope the Committee will agree to my hon. Friend's Amendment.

I should not have intervened if the matter had related to London only, but I notice there is the same provision in a Bill which comes on later relating to Edinburgh. I cannot conceive any reason at all which would justify it. Before you can set up the arbitration the claimant, whether land- lord or tenant, must state what his interest in the property is and what he claims. If he over states his claim, or if the Government are not prepared to meet his claim, they state how much they are willing to pay, and they say, "If you do not take that, we will summon a jury and proceed to arbitration."

Is it necessary in Scotland that the vendor should make a claim? It used not to be so.

Of course, there are verbal differences between the Land Clauses Consolidation Act for England and the Land Clauses Consolidation Act for Scotland, but in substance they are the same. Section 68 deals with arbitration, and there is a similar provision so far as jury trial is concerned:—

"If any party shall be entitled to any compensation in respect of any lands, or of any interest therein, which shall have been taken for or injuriously affected by the execution of the works, and for which the promoters of the undertaking shall not have made satisfaction under the provisions of this or the special Acts, or any Act incorporated therewith, and if the compensation claimed in such case shall exceed the sum of £50, such party may have the same settled either by arbitration or by the verdict of the jury as he shall think fit; and if such party—"

These are the words to which I ask the attention of the Committee—

"desire to have the same settled by arbitration, it shall be lawful for him to give notice in writing to the promoters of the undertaking of such his desire, stating in such notice the nature of the interest in such land in respect of which he claims compensation, and the amount of the compensation so claimed therein; and unless the promoters of the under taking be willing to pay the amount of compensation so claimed and shall enter into a written agreement—"

And so on. The Committee will observe he must state the nature of his interest in the land and the compensation he claims. What is required here is absolutely superfluous. It is a badly drawn Clause. I do not care whether there is a precedent for it or not. Somebody has got hold of an old private Act of Parliament and stuck this Clause in without taking the trouble to see whether it fitted or not. For my part, I do ask the Committee to consider whether there is not enough already complexity about these matters. You are really confusing the business man. He can understand the Land Clauses Act, but here is something new which is absolutely useless and unnecessary, and I hope the Committee will support the view that we have enough complexity in these matters without introducing more.

Is there anything in the old Act providing for a penalty in the event of failure?

Exactly the same.

You did not read it.

I was anxious to save the time of the Committee—

"Unless the promoters of the undertaking be willing to pay the amount of compensation so claimed, and enter into a written agreement for that purpose, they shall, within twenty-one days after the receipt of such notice, issue their warrant to the sheriff to summon a jury for settling the same in the manner herein provided, and in default thereof they shall be liable to pay to the party so entitled as aforesaid the amount of compensation so claimed, and the same may be recovered by him with costs in any of the superior Courts."

Then there is the provision about costs. I am not so familiar with the English Act as with the Scotch Act. Section 34 says:—

"All the costs of any such arbitration and incident thereto, to be settled by the arbitrators, shall be borne by the promoters of the undertaking, unless the arbitrators shall award the same or a less sum than shall have been offered by the promoters of the undertaking, in which case each party shall bear his own costs incident to the arbitration, and the costs of the arbitration shall be borne by the parties in equal proportions."

This Sub-section says, "unless you give notice in sufficient time," and under the existing Act of 1845 you must when you give notice that you want an arbitration state what is the amount of your claim.

I am sorry I am not able to support the Amendment, and I hope the Government will press the matter to a Division if necessary. I believe this Sub-section is very useful, and that it has not done any harm. This does not affect the price which may be given for a property. That is entirely outside the question. When the promoters wish to purchase a property, they serve notices and try to get particulars of the claims of the different people who are interested. In nineteen cases out of twenty when the particulars have been furnished the two sides are able to meet and a settlement is arrived at. In the twentieth case where the claim is higher than the amount the promoters think the property is worth, they go either to a jury or to an arbitrator and they may or they may not make a sealed offer beforehand. If they make a sealed offer, then, if the award is the same or less, half the cost is borne by the man who sells the property. It is not very often even in that case a sealed offer is made. The trouble promoters have is where people refuse to give any particulars as to their interest in the property or where they say they do not wish to sell or take no notice at all. And it is perfectly impossible for them to make any offer because they do not know what is the interest they have to buy. They do not have to make an offer if they do not wish to sell. They take no interest in the matter, and there is no power to force them. But the Sub-section does give reasonable power to the promoters to have proper particulars furnished to them within a fair and reasonable time, so that they may have an opportunity of making an offer and settling the matter, if possible, out of Court. I am sure the Committee will understand it is not to the interest of promoters to incur arbitration expenses, which generally fall upon them in the long run. It is better to be able to settle cases out of Court. I have had to deal with many properties under this Clause, and I can assure the Committee 1 have never known it to operate at all unfairly to any vendor. I believe it is useful rather as a weapon to hold over his head to make him furnish particulars within a reasonable time; but I have never known it to be really put into operation.

I beg to move, that "The Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee is in a very great difficulty. We have worked for a long period of years under the Lands Clauses Act, and now it is proposed by the Government to alter certain provisions in what is, practically, a private Bill. An hon. and learned Gentleman on this side has declared that these provisions in this Bill are quite unnecessary in view of the provision in the Lands Clauses Act. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill told us, perfectly fairly, that he is not a lawyer, and, to paraphrase his words, that he does not quite know whether he is standing on his head or his heels.

It is a paraphrase.

I think it is exceedingly unfair, the Committee should he asked to deal in this way with a complete Amendment of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, under which we have been working for upwards of half a century with out the presence of the Law Officers of the Crown. I saw the senior Law Officer come in and vote just now, and I think we are entitled, having regard to the very clear difference of opinion between legal gentlemen on both sides of the House to have the guidance of one of the Law Officers. I propose, therefore, to move that the Committee report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. I submit that that is not at all unreasonable. If the hon. Member in charge of the Bill were in a position to deal with the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Scott Dickson) I would withdraw the Motion at once. But it is clear he cannot. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Edgar Home) takes one view; the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes another. The one is a surveyor, the other is a lawyer. Who then is to guide this Committee 1 Are we not entitled to look to the Law Officers of the Crown for guidance? This is not a Motion that can be scouted or laughed at. We pay for the services of these learned Gentlemen, as I am reminded by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), and certainly one of them ought to be here to guide the deliberations of the Committee when a definite Amendment is proposed to an Act of Parliament which has been in existence and under which we have worked for the past sixty years.

I have power under the Standing Order to put this Motion without Debate.

May I ask—supposing the Motion be defeated—whether we shall still be unable to demand the presence of the Law Officers and obtain their guidance? Shall we have no remedy?

The hon. Member can make a further request on the Amendment.

Am I right in saying that when the Chairman of Committees puts a Motion for Adjournment without discussion he only puts it when, in his opinion, it is vexatiously or frivolously claimed? Are we to understand that the Motion of my hon. Friend is either frivolous or vexatious?

If the hon. Baronet will look at the Standing Order he will see that the Chairman may decline to put a Question or may forthwith put it from the Chair.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

I have here a copy of the Standing Order, and I find it says:—

"If Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House shall be of opinion that a Motion for the adjournment of a Debate or of the House, during any Debate, or that the Chairman do report Progress, or do leave the Chair, is an abuse of the Rules of the House, he may forthwith put the Question thereupon from the Chair or he may decline to propose the Question thereupon to the House."

Am I to understand that in your opinion the action of my hon. Friend is an abuse of the Rules of the House?

In the exercise of my discretion under that Standing Order I have decided to put the Question, as the Standing Order says, "forthwith from the Chair."

I rather resent the suggestion that any Motion of mine is vexatious—

That is not a point of Order.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 74.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

5.0 P.M.

Some reference has been made to a London County Council private Bill as affording a precedent for this proposal; but I do not think, with all due deference to the hon. Member, that it constitutes a good precedent. I do not know whether there is a London County Councillor present, but we have heard from the Noble Lord the Member for Bath (Lord A. Thynne) that the County Council Bill to which the hon. Member alluded was of a very different nature from a Bill of this sort. My recollection is that the only precedent is the Act of 1908. I remember my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) raising this point in connection with that Act, and he stated that there was no precedent before that time for any legislation of this sort. I am not concerned only with precedents. I remember the late Sir Charles Dilke saying that he was not concerned about precedents, and that if there was a bad precedent, it was a reason for not repeating it in another Act. I do not think the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) has fully grasped the provisions of this Clause. It will not affect the sum of money which is to be paid by the Crown or by the Commissioners to anyone under this Act.

I never said it would.

All it says is that the Commissioners may, of their own free will, require someone, whose property they are going to take, to send sufficient particulars in a particular time, and if he does not do so they may say to him that, although they offered him £10,000 and the Court awarded £15,000, he will have to pay his own costs. That might work very hardly. Suppose the person is abroad and does not receive the notice from the Commissioners. Suppose the Commissioners ask for the particulars within a fortnight and the owner of the property does not receive the notice, yet they may mulct him in costs through no faults of his own, but simply because the Commissioners had desired, contrary to all other Acts of Parliament, except the Act of 1908, that he should send in those particulars when he is unable, through circumstances over which he has no control, to give sufficient particulars in the time. Suppose the unfortunate tenant or owner is ill, and cannot be disturbed for a fortnight, and the Commissioners demand the particulars within a fortnight. It is arbitrary conduct of the very worst description, and is not going to do good to anyone. It will only promote ill—feeling, and prevent ordinary justice being exercised as between man and man. An hon. Member opposite asked who was to determine what were sufficient particulars, and what was a sufficient time? I think he said those questions were to be left to the jury. Why should you leave these things to the jury? Why should you pay counsel at great expense to argue the point? Counsel have refreshers, I believe, and what the hon. Member is really doing is to give increased facilities to counsel to argue legal points and increase the charges. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Scott Dickson) is quite accurate. This provision has been pitch-forked into the Bill, just as it was pitch-forked into the Act of 1908, against opposition from this side of the House. In those days the Opposition was not so strong as it is at the present moment, and the Government refuse to accept the Amendment for the reason that they want to avoid a Report stage.

We ought to have the opinion of some legal person upon this subject. The only conclusion I can arrive at is that the Law Officers of the Crown, knowing full well that my right hon. Friend is absolutely accurate, and not wishing to put their colleagues in an awkward position, are having tea in the Tea Room, or otherwise enjoying themselves, and thus allowing the hon. Gentleman to rely upon a majority which is waiting outside. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire (Sir P. Beale) has already admitted that my right hon. Friend is right. I therefore appeal to him to support us in the Lobby when we go to a Division. I can assure him we shall not defeat the Government, and for once he can be independent and follow the bent of his own inclinations. Let him set a good example to the Liberal party, and, having come to the conclusion that we are right, let him take his courage in both hands and walk with us into the Lobby. He will enhance his personal reputation by doing so. Before we go to a Division I would make one last appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment, which has been shown to be unanswerable. The only Member on the other side who has backed up the Clause is the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division.

You distinctly stated you agreed with him.

I endeavoured to point out to the hon. Member that he was wrong. The hon. Member accepted my solution, and said that the only point was the question of costs. I do not agree with the conclusion at which he arrived. These words are unnecessary and superfluous, and I am going to vote against them.

I should like to join in the appeal made by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). It is remarkable that no one on the other side of the Committee, except the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) has attempted to defend this provision. No reason has been shown why the law ought to be altered in this instance. It is remarkable that some Members on the opposite side, including the Home Secretary, who has been trained to the law, have withdrawn from the Committee, apparently with the object of being out of the way of discussion and of being challenged on the subject. This is frankly a hustling provision. It causes particulars to be filled earlier than they need be under the existing law. In a Bill of a compulsory character you are not dealing with willing sellers, but with persons who do not want to part with their property. They are being turned out of it for some public purpose. The argument has been advanced from the other side that the landlord is merely a rent charger, and that it is not so complicated a matter in the case of an occupying owner or tenant who is occupying premises for business purposes. Even in the case of the land owner, who is merely a rent charger, there are very often accruing interests and future liabilities which have to be ascertained if an injustice is not to be done. In the case of an occupying owner who is using his premises—which includes not only land but buildings and appurtenances and machinery on the land—for business purposes, he cannot readily ascertain what compensation he ought to have for disturbance. In the first place, he has to find other premises, the cost of removal, and the cost of replacement. It often occurs that other suitable premises cannot be found, and damage is claimed for removal, and compensation has to be paid under that head. The same thing applies to the tenant. I think some reasonable time should be given. Even if the premises are required for public purposes the owner is entitled to full justice when he is being deprived of premises which he is using for his own purposes, and very often for the benefit of the community. No just cause has been shown for this provision. The precedents advanced are valueless, and the legal opinions which have been expressed are absolutely against it. I hope therefore the Committee will vote for the Amendment.

I only rise to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Scott Dickson) may be right in saying that in the arbitration Sections of the Land Clauses Act there is a statement that the vendor of the land shall put forward a claim at the time he demands an arbitration. I do not know whether the same thing applies when a jury is summoned. My recollection is that unless an arbitration is claimed, the jury before the sheriff is the ordinary way of determining it. Although my memory is a little bit rusty, I think I am right in saying that practically there was no way of getting particulars of any such claim from the vendor, and the promoters were at his mercy if he did not choose to make a claim. All that the Clause does is to supply what does not exist now, and to say "if you do not choose to enable the promoters to make an offer you shall be in the same position as if they had made an offer of as much as the jury or the arbitrator may find." The hon. Baronet spoke under a misapprehension as if a man could prejudice himself by claiming too much, but it is not what he claims, it is whether he has refused an offer which he ought in reason to have accepted. The only criticism I have heard which seems to me to have any substance is that hon. Gentlemen say, "Suppose you do not give time." If he has not had a fair opportunity given him of furnishing particulars he will not have failed to do it, and I never knew a jury who did not lean strongly on the side of a landowner as against the promoters in a case of this sort. An hon. Gentleman said, "Can you leave it to the jury?" You are leaving the whole value of the land and everything that concerns the land to the jury, and to leave this little particular as to whether or not he has behaved reasonably is a very small thing beside the obvious fairness of having such a Clause as this inserted.

I thank the hon. Member for his speech. He has completely removed my objection.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 80; Noes, 45.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "five years" ["after the expiration of five years"] and to insert instead thereof the words "one year."

I desire to call attention to a real hardship in all these acquisitions of private property. Practically, by the passing of this Bill, after a notice has been served, the property is sterilised for a period of five years. The owner cannot improve it in any way and cannot spend money on repairs; he cannot sell it to anyone, and practically he is held up and unable to do anything for it for five years. The officials of the Government may say he has his remedy in the Courts of Law, but a large number of persons who have these notices served upon them are not in a position to commence costly proceedings against a public body like the Office of Works, or a county council, or any of the various public bodies that seek the acquisition of property in this way. As a rule people are unwilling sellers of property, and therefore instead of holding up for five years the period ought to be reduced. Surely in one year the Government could make their plans sufficiently, even before the Bill comes into force, to know exactly what they are doing. What do they want with five years for the purpose of holding the unhappy tenant in this position of not being able to deal with his property in any way? A great deal of hardship is caused to the unfortunate owners of property by reason of the dilatory conduct of public bodies. They do not go on with the work for various reasons, and these unfortunate people are held up for a considerable time. I have an instance in my own Constituency of a man who had a restaurant under a lease, and he was literally unable to do anything with it. It was no use to spend money on doing it up, because he would not get it back in compensation from the time the notice was served, and he could not do any repairs, and the result was that it became more and more shabby and gradually went down, and he lost his customers; and the very fact that the business had gone down was used against him for the purpose of giving him less compensation. It went on for years and years. It was a case of the borough council and the county council between them widening King Street, Hammersmith, and I was struck by the fact that the man had no redress for a grievous wrong.

I have no doubt the case cited by the hon. Gentleman is one of hardship, but of course we are not dealing generally in this Bill. We are dealing with certain specified cases of the leases of certain houses in Whitehall Gardens. The reason we have inserted "five years" instead of three, which is customary under the Lands Clauses Act, is because we do not propose to build over the whole site at once, but in two sections—the northern and the southern section—and consequently we do not know for certain at what particular time we shall require to dislodge each particular tenant. In order to avoid hardship every person concerned has been served with a proper notice and has had an opportunity of appearing before the Committee, and some of the lessees have appeared before the Select Committee, and in one case where a lessee had notice before notice was provided for in the Act, he had a special Clause put in for his protection. The cases of hardship which the hon. Gentleman thinks might occur have been foreseen, and have been dealt with in the Bill. I do not think it is necessary that this Sub-section should be amended in the sense the hon. Gentleman desires.

You say there are only a few tenants in Whitehall Gardens, but what about the other tenants? The hon. Gentleman admits that he is not quite certain of his plans, and some of these men may be held up for five years, and I say that is much too long. The Government ought to be able to make up their minds within a year as to when they will want the land.

I think there is a great deal of substance in the matter raised by my hon. Friend (Sir W. Bull). There is undoubtedly great hardship involved when the period is extended for such a purpose as is indicated in this Clause. I think the hon. Member opposite is paying the penalty of having introduced this very elaborate Bill to deal with three small cases. So far as Whitehall is concerned, there is only the National Liberal Club to deal with. So far as Clifford's Inn is concerned, that is dealt with under the Clauses of this Bill, and I do not think any question is likely to arise in connection with Took's Court. The truth is that this matter might have been settled by private negotiations without troubling the House with a large Bill of this character. All that was required was that the Office of Works should approach the matter in a businesslike way. If they had done so only a small Bill affirming the result of the negotiations would have been necessary; but such is the force of "red tape" in our Government Departments, and such is the want of businesslike spirit on the Front Bench opposite, that instead of adopting the course which any business firm in the Metropolis would have adopted they have chosen to proceed by the cumbrous method of bringing in a large Bill before treating with the interests themselves. We on this side of the House are paying the penalty by having a valuable afternoon occupied with a discussion which the hon. Member might have saved if he had approached the task in a more businesslike spirit.

It appears to me to be an intolerable position to make a man wait for five years in the way proposed, not knowing what he can do with his land. If it is necessary to have compulsion, I do not object to that—that is not the point. I think that if people are to be put under the hammer, so to speak, they should have some knowledge of what is going on, and whether it may appreciate, or possibly depreciate, the value of their property. I suppose the real reason is that the Government would not get enough money in one year, and that they wish to spread it over five years, regardless of the loss to individuals. I understand that this only refers to the few buildings in Whitehall.

No, Sir, it refers to all the lands to which the Bill applies.

:In that case I think the Government ought to say what their intentions are. Otherwise it is perfectly impossible to say what is going to happen anywhere. I think the hon. Gentleman should say straight out to what lands this five years' period is intended to apply. If it applies to lands all over the country, which may be held up until this Government, or the next Government, makes up its mind, that seems to me nonsensical.

The hon. Gentleman opposite has not given a single precedent for the period of five years proposed in this Clause. A very serious point has arisen. You propose to hold up a man's property. In this case he is not the landlord, but the lessee. This Bill if passed would be quoted next year, or the year after, or later on, as a precedent for extending the period to five years in other Bills. The hon. Member would get up and say, "The House approved of the period of five years in 1912." This Bill is only an enabling Bill. It does not compel the Government to purchase. What it does is to enable the Government to hold up a man's property for a period of five years, and after that they may say, "We have changed our minds, and we are going to give you no compensation at all. You can go on as you are." The case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Sir W. Bull) is a very real one. It is a serious matter for the Government at this time of day to start making for themselves another precedent which the hon. Gentleman cannot support by giving a single reason. Unless the hon. Member can give a reason for the proposal, I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division.

I am quite prepared to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. There is a precedent in 1908 for this particular extension of time. This is not a case of dealing with landlords at large, but with certain definite lessees. These lessees have been consulted, and one of them desires that notice should be given in a certain time. That desire has been met, and it is provided for in the Bill. Surely we should not amend the Bill when it is satisfactory as it stands to the interests concerned.

Is it not a fact that there is no probability, or possibility, that the extension of time will be required? Is it not a fact that so far as Took's Court, Clifford's Inn, and Whitehall are concerned, terms have been arranged 1 Is it not a fact also that if the requirement was put at two years instead of five no inconvenience would accrue at all? The hon. Member practically admits it by his silence. This is a very important departure indeed. There is a great deal of feeling among property owners, and the owners of interests, whether lessees or landlords, in London, about the length of time their land is sterilised owing to the granting of compulsory powers for a term of years either to the Government or to local authorities. I have come across that feeling a great deal in the ordinary course of business in the last few years. It is often a regrettable necessity. I view with a great deal of suspicion the attempt of the hon. Member to introduce this precedent. I would ask the Committee to remember that the judgment come to in this matter will be quoted as a precedent not only as to Government Bills, but also as to municipal Bills all over the country. When the precedent is not required for the immediate purpose of this Bill, I suggest that it is a most improper thing to introduce it.

May I ask the reason for putting in five years here? What is the reason for that specific limit of time? May I ask if it is done with reference to future legislation, and to bring it into harmony with certain Bills that are coming on?

As to future legislation, naturally I have no knowledge of anything which bears on the question of the five years' limit. That period has been selected because it is a convenient one in connection with the particular task we have in hand. No lessee or other interest concerned in the proposal in this Bill objects to the Sub-section, and I ask the Committee to allow it to stand in its pre-sent form.

My point is that terms have been arranged, and that an extension of time is unnecessary. You will not be in a less advantageous position if you do not include the five years' limit in the Bill, You are making an important departure from custom, and creating a precedent which some of us consider will be dangerous. It will be widely quoted in future. We say this is not the occasion to do it. When you create a precedent of this sort, you have to show good cause.

The hon. Member opposite asked, "Why make this objection? All the lessees have been consulted, and they do not object to five years." What has that to do with the case? That has nothing to do with it at all. We are told that arrangements have been made with the lessees to do this within a certain time. Therefore, this provision, in so far as it relates to these lessees, is worthless. It must be put in the Bill with another object. You should not go out of your way in this case to create a position which may be construed afterwards as a precedent. I am sure it would be quoted in future cases. It would be a strong case in connection with some future Bill where such a provision was necessary if it could be stated that the provision was inserted in this Bill where it was not necessary. I shall certainly vote against the Sub-section. I hope the hon. Member will withdraw it. He has now admitted that it is wholly unnecessary.

Question put, "That the words 'five years' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 78; Noes, 43.