I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

The subject of this Bill from the first line to the last is land. Its object is to facilitate and secure the settlement of suitable persons upon the land, preferably persons who have served in the forces of the Crown in this or in any previous war. Surely, there never was a time in our long Island story when the settlement of a contented and a robust peasantry upon our soil was more desirable or more urgent than it is to-day, and I hope I may add that never was that urgency more gene-rally recognised. The men from the land in Scotland have proved to be a tower of strength in the hour of national peril, and their ranks, which have been thinned by the scythe of death, must be replenished by men who, if need be, will vindicate the claim to heroism which they have so fully established. It behoves us, therefore, in our legislation, to have regard not only to the cities but to the solitudes as well, and it is desirable that in these days men should escape from the drive and the artificiality and the fever of city life to the freshness, the freedom, and the peace which a country life offers. The tillers of her soil are the very backbone of France to-day, and there is no reason why that should not be so in Scotland as well. The purpose of this Bill is to help to bring about that desirable consummation. It falls naturally into five parts—first, acquisition of land, secondly Amendment of the Landholders Act of 1911, thirdly allotments, fourthly finance, and fifthly general. With regard to the first, acquisition of land, the scheme of this part of the Bill differs materially from that of the English Bill, the Land Facilities Bill, because of the difference in the existing methods of providing small holdings in the two countries. In England land is acquired by way of purchase or hire by county councils, by whom in turn it is sold or let to smallholders. In Scotland, on the other hand, the normal method of providing smallholdings has been by way of extension of the crofting system of tenure. Under the provisions of the Small Landholders Act of 1911 the land is acquired neither by the county councils nor by the State. The method adopted has been to select land and to equip it, preferably by agreement with the landlord, but, failing agreement, there are compulsory powers to require the land to be let by the landlord direct to the smallholder under a system which confers fixity of tenure upon him at a fair rent determined by the Land Court. The cost of the equipment and of the compensation fall upon the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund. In accordance with the decision of the Government, it is now thought desirable to supplement the provisions of the 1911 Act by the acquisition of land by purchase as affording an alternative procedure which may be used alongside of existing powers to meet the special necessities of the present and of the immediate future. But whereas in England a code of compulsory purchase is to be found under the Small Holdings Act, 1908, in Scotland no such code exists, and accordingly it becomes necessary to provide such a code in this part of the Bill, and it will be found in the First Schedule.

Having thus seen that the conditions of the problem in Scotland are entirely different from those of England, let me proceed to examine the provisions of the first part of the Bill. In a sentence, it widely extends the powers conferred by the Small Holding Colonies Acts, 1916 and 1918. It extends these powers in six different particulars. First, it extends the time for acquiring land. The powers under these two Acts, to which I have referred, extend during the continuance of the War and a period of six months thereafter. The powers under this Bill extend to a period of two years from the date when it becomes an Act of Parliament. Secondly, it extends the method of acquiring land. Under the Small Holding Colonies Acts land could only be acquired by means of agreement. Under this Bill, with the consent of the Treasury and the Secretary for Scotland, land may be acquired compulsorily for all the purposes with which the Bill deals. Thirdly, it extends the terms upon which land can be acquired. Under the Small Holding Colonies Acts there were limitations in virtue of which land had to be taken either on lease or in consideration of an annual payment or on feu. These limitations entirely disappear under the present measure, and land can be acquired in exchange for capital value in the ordinary way. Fourthly, this Bill extends the purposes for which land may be acquired. Under the Small Holding Colonies Acts land could only be acquired for the purpose of colonies. Under this Bill land may be acquired for that purpose, but may also be acquired for the purposes of reclamation and drainage as well— very important purposes, as the House will agree. Again, it extends the amount of land which may be acquired. Under the Colonies Acts the amount of land which might be acquired is 20,000 acres. Under the present Bill there is no limitation whatsoever. Lastly, it extends the powers of the Board with regard to land after it has been acquired. It enables the Board

"to erect, repair, or improve dwelling-houses and other buildings on any land acquired by the Board, or to execute any other improvement— "

upon such land, or to arrange with the tenant for doing so. It enables the Board

"to sell, excamb, or let any such land or any right or interest therein; and generally to manage any such land."

So that it will be seen that, in the matter of time for acquiring the land, the method of acquiring it, the terms on which it may be acquired, the purpose for which it may be acquired, the amount which may be acquired, and the uses to which it may be put when acquired, this Bill widely extends the existing law. Further, power is conferred to enable the Board to inspect land which it may conceive may be suitable for the purpose it has in view, and the Board is also empowered to enter upon land acquired within fourteen days after giving due notice, and without previous compliance with the provisions of the Land Clauses Act. A similar provision was inserted in our Housing Bill. Finally, in this connection, power is conferred on the Board under Section 6 to let or to sell the land which they have acquired at such price, or at such rent, as in the opinion of the Board is reasonable. It will thus be seen how sweeping are the changes introduced by Part I. of this Bill—changes, however, which, I venture to think, are essential for its prompt and effective operation.

I now pass to Part II. of the Bill, which is entitled "Amendment of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911" Here I feel that I am treading upon the embers of many controversies of bygone days, and it will be my endeavour to avoid kindling them into flame again. So far I have been dealing with the question of purchase alone under Part I. of the Bill. It is not thought, however, that the Bill should be limited to purchase. A strong feeling, I apprehend, exists, both in Parliament and outside Parliament, that the Landholders Act of 1911 should be developed in such a manner as will cheapen and accelerate its procedure, and free it from certain traditions which have hampered its operation in the past, and which have really made it so costly in its working as to render its wide application practically prohibitive. When the Amending Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) received a Second Heading some time ago, I gave certain pledges upon this subject, and Part II. of this Bill is a bond fide attempt to fulfil those pledges. I think my hon. Friend will find that in Part II. of the Bill many of the provisions of his Bill are included. The more important matters in which it is proposed to amend the Act of 1911 are three in number. There are many, but there are three very important matters in which it is proposed to amend that Act. I may put it in this way: There are three questions which naturally arise. First, who is to decide upon the application of compulsion, and who is to fix the rent of the new holding? That is the first question which naturally arises. Secondly, who is to assess compensation in the event of a dispute—compensation in respect of the constitution of the new holding? Thirdly, what shall be the measure of that compensation?

Let me deal quite shortly with each of these three questions in the light of the Bill. As regards the first—who is to fix the rent of the holding and the application of compulsion?—under the Code of 1911, as it exists to-day, the interference of the Scottish Land Court was required as a stage in the procedure in the formation of new holdings. Their consent was necessary to the application of compulsion. The result in practice was great delay. And not only so, but where the Land Court happened to differ from the Board in respect of the rent that ought to be charged, not only delay, but dislocation followed. It seems to me unreasonable that the body which, on behalf of, and at the expense of, the State, forms a new holding—that is, the Board—should not be entitled to fix the original rent to be charged, of which I think they ought to be the best judges, in agreement with the person whom they select as suitable to be placed on the new holding. The Bill accordingly short-circuits the existing procedure. It eliminates altogether the intervention of the Land Court at this stage, and confers full powers upon the Board of Agriculture, except in the matter of compensation. The steps of procedure indicated in the Bill are, shortly, these The Board has, first of all, to be satisfied that there is a demand for small holdings, and that suitable land exists to fulfil that demand. A scheme for the constitution of small holdings is then prepared, and notice of the intended scheme must be given to the landlord. The prepared scheme is then intimated, not only to the landlord, but also to the tenant and the occupier, and they will have an opportunity of considering the prepared scheme, and making representations concerning it if they so desire. The Board may then, with the consent of the Secretary for Scotland, make an Order confirming the scheme, and notice of that Order is at once given to those interested in the land, namely, the landlord, the tenant, and the occupier of the land comprised in the scheme. Lastly, compensation is paid according to an agreement which may be reached, and so, in normal cases, the matter would end. If, however, no agreement is reached on the subject of compensation, then the second question arises for consideration.

If no agreement is reached on the question of compensation, in the old days, they were enabled to go to the Court when the figure was below £300.

I think that my ban. Friend is anticipating. There is nothing about £300 at this stage at all. We deal with the question irrespective of any sum. If agreement has been reached, the scheme is settled and the holders put on the land. If agreement is not reached, then the question arises, Who is to settle the question of disputed compensation, whatever its amount?

What I am asking is, what is the amount at which the compensation can be disputed.

I am not quite sure that apprehend the question fully. I will look into the point. Meantime, for the purpose of this discussion, let us assume that agreement has not been reached in the matter of compensation, whatever be its amount. Somebody has to settle, on behalf of the landlord and other persons interested and the Board, what the proper sum payable ought to be. It is thought that the most appropriate authority to settle this is the Land Court. As it exists to-day, the Land Court enjoys the confidence of all classes of the community as an impartial, fair and judicially-minded tribunal. Accordingly it is proposed to place this power in their hands, subject to what is set out in the Bill, namely, that after giving all persons interested an opportunity of being heard, and, if they so desire, hearing evidence in the matter, they should reach their conclusion upon the matter. Accordingly, the answer to the second question is the Land Court. There is no provision for carrying the matter further. On a question of law, I imagine it might be taken to the Court of Session, as before, but on a question of amount, a question of pure fact, the decision of the Land Court is to be final.

Does this take away entirely the right, in cases of the sum being under £300, to go to arbitration. That is the point which my hon. Friend wished to have cleared up.

Yes; the idea underlying this Bill is that, whatever the amount, whether under £300 or over £300, it should be settled by the Land Court. So far, it has been perfectly plain sailing. Then there is the third question, What is to be the measure o£ compensation? That is an extremely difficult topic. There can be no doubt that the existing Code requires readjustment and modification, and the provisions which are contained in Clause 9, Sub-section (11), are an attempt to secure a more reasonable arrangement. I will not go into these details at this stage. They will give rise to cartful consideration in the Committee stage. It suffices to say that Clause 11 confers on any person whose property is injured the right to compensation for any damage or injury done in consequence of and directly attributable to the constitution of new holdings under the scheme, including any damage or injury done to a landlord in respect of an obligation to take over sheep stock at a valuation. Then follow two or three matters which the arbitrator is directed not to take into consideration. Moreover, there are provisions relating to the enlargements of existing holdings and common grazings. The law regarding these matters is amended in certain particular, with which I need not delay the House at this stage. Finally, in this connection, in Clause 12, the House will find a very important power conferred upon the Board. The Board may, with the approval of the Secretary for Scotland and the Treasury, apply the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund in making or guaranteeing advances to land banks or co-operative credit societies having for their object the assistance of landholders or statutory small tenants in the stocking, equipment, and profitable working of their holdings I have no doubt that this power will prove to be a very valuable one. In recent years land on many occasions has been available, and men have been available for the occupation of that land, but as these men have had no capital- they were men, in many cases, who had been serving in France and elsewhere at Is. 2d. or thereabouts per day, and they could not have any capital—these applications had to be turned down, and no action was possible, though the land was there and the men were there. Under this provision, that state of things will, I hope, become a relic of the past.

With regard to Part III. of this Bill, I would like to say a few words. It deals with allotments, which is a very important topic. Prior to the War the allotment movement, for one reason or another, did not develop to any great extent in Scotland. During the War it received an enormous stimulus. In burghal areas alone there are more than 50,000 allotments, covering 2,000 acres of ground. in industrial districts also there are several thousand allotments now. I believe that the movement has come to stay. I believe that it ought to stay, and that it deserves all encouragement. Apart altogether from the food supply produced, the physical and social advantages are numerous and obvious. This part of the Bill is designed to facilitate the continuance and even the extension of allotment-holdings. With that object in view, it is proposed to amend the existing Statute in the light of the experience we have gained during the War, in order, first, to facilitate the provision of new allotments, secondly, to secure allotment-holders in the tenure of their plots, so far as that is reasonable and practicable, and thirdly, to assist them in the growing and production of their crops in the future. Clause 14 amends the existing law by way of simplification and concentration of the powers of local authorities, which will in future be in the hands of town councils in burghs and parish councils elsewhere. Experiences show that outside (burghs it is the parish councils which most readily and naturally concern themselves with these allotment movements, and during the War these councils have been most active in the matter in many districts. This Clause transfers the existing power of county councils to parish councils, and by Amendment of the Acts of 1892 and 1894 com bines the powers and duties of both those Acts in so far as they have proved useful in their hands.

Clause 15 shortens and simplifies the compulsory acquisition of land for allotments, whether by way of purchase or lease. Direct application by the Board of Agriculture for an order supersedes the cumbrous procedure, by way of provisional Order, of the Act of 1892. Clause 16 authorises a local authority to devote to allotments, so far as and so long as may be practicable, land required for other purposes. All sorts of land have been set apart temporarily for allotments during the War—land in parks which are dedicated to public recreation and public resort, building land which may be required for housing, and so forth. It is not practicable to keep such land in perpetuity for allotment-holders, but it is well to keep it until it is otherwise required. Clause 17, which follows a similar provision in the English Bill, contains various provisions for the benefit of allotment-holders. Sub-section I facilitates the provision of seed, plants, and implements. Sub-section (2) penalises any damage done to crops. Sub-section (3) obviates the payment of Stamp Duty upon agreements relating to allotments, where, after all, the sums involved are comparatively small. Apart from the industry of the cultivator the development of the allotment system must largely depend on the discretion and zeal of the local authorities, and if this part of the Bill becomes law it is hoped that these authorities will find themselves well armed and equipped for the performance of their duties in this matter.

Part IV. of the Bill is financial. Clause 21 provides for the issue by the Treasury, during the next two years, of a sum not exceeding £2,750,000 to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, who in turn are authorised to lend the money to the Board of Agriculture. I am asked how that sum was arrived at? I do not want to go into details. The total sum is £20,000,000. That was announced in another place. Roughly speaking, Scotland's share will be between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000. The Clause requires the Board to submit an annual statement of losses. Proceedings, of course, cannot be carried out on an economic basis during the first few years, and it is therefore provided that this loss, which will be shown in the annual statement shall, to the extent approved by the Treasury, be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament. In this way it will be possible to make some sort of rough comparison between the scale of expenditure and the losses incurred in Scotland, with corresponding expenditure and losses incurred in England Tinder a very different system.

Lastly, there is Part V. of the Bill, which is general. I will refer to two of the Clauses—22 and 23 only. The contents of Clause 22 I have anticipated. It provides that preference shall be given in all these matters to suitable persons who have served in the forces of the Crown in the present or any previous war. That is a proposal which, I am sure, does not require from me a single word of justification. Clause 23 provides that the Board may make or guarantee an advance by way of loan, out of money available under Clause 21 during the next two years, to any holder, of whatever sum the Board think necessary for the purchase of live stock, fertilisers, or implements required. That is a power which the Board regard as essential to the successful operation of the Bill in the special circumstances of the time, and I am disposed to think that the House will agree with that view.

Does that apply to fighting men?

No, it is perfectly general, and enables the Board to make those advances to all who require them, in the opinion of the Board, whether they have fought or not.

New holders?

Yes. This Bill is not presented as a faultless piece of workmanship, nor are its provisions in any way sacrosanct. They represent, however, an honest attempt, after repeated and anxious consideration, to grapple with subjects which are not only vital and difficult, but which in the past have been acutely controversial. I earnestly hope that there may be no recrudescence of those controversies in the discussions on the Bill. I am very anxious that the Second Reading should be obtained, if at all possible, before the Recess—that is to say to-day. That will permit of the focussing, developing, and crystallising of public opinion outside in the course of the Recess, and when we come back we shall see precisely how we stand, and shall be able, I hope without unduly prolonged discussion, to pass the Bill through all its stages in this House.

I thought at one time it my duty to ask you to accept the Motion for the Adjournment of this Debate, but I think that the public interests of Scotland will be best served, on the whole, by acceding to the request of my right hon. and learned Friend, that the Second Reading of this Bill be given to-day. The points upon which I think we have some just cause of complaint with regard to the Bill being taken to-day and the Second Reading asked for are shortly these: First, that it is a very complicated matter, and has within it, in almost the most highly developed form, the objectional art of legislation by reference. We have here the Small Holding Colonies Act of 1916 and 1918, and we have that great subject of controversy, and indeed of litigation, the celebrated Smallholders Act of 1911. We have references in the Bill to the Congested Districts Board Act of 1897 and to the Scottish Local Government Act of 1894, and the Small Allotments Act of 1892. Everyone of those Acts in greater or lesser degree have a very important effect on Clauses in the Bill. This Bill was circulated this morning, and after a very strenuous Parliamentary week I confess I have not had the time to study it, and I am not able to contribute now any very helpful suggestions for that reason. I listened with very great pleasure to the descriptions which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland gave us of the various Clauses. I welcome anything, as I think we all must do, which saves the machinery and gives greater facilities to local authorities and sweeps away, let us hope once for all, those decisions which gathered round the name of Lindean and which to a large extent choked the operations of the Act of 1911 and gave rise to a furious controversy in Scotland. There are probably some Members who have been able to devote more time to the subject and who will be able to contribute something useful to the Debate. I hope in the Recess we shall be able to study the Bill and that there will be some public discussion of its provisions, in Scotland at any rate. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that after some time has elapsed it would be a very useful thing if in Edinburgh or some other suitable centre in Scotland he would call a conference or attend a conference where those deeply interested might lay before him any objections or proposals for betterment so that on our return we should have those suggestions which in the opinion of those interested would achieve the highest degree of efficiency. Are the powers for the compulsory purchase of land in this Bill based upon the Acquisition of Land Rill which passed through this House yesterday?

There is a Schedule which provides certain rules. What the right hon. Gentleman has, I think, in mind is those provisions of the Acquisition of Land Bill which affect the value of the land, and my answer to the question is "Yes."

Then that Act, as it will be, I suppose, in a day or two, is applicable to this as to all other measures for dealing with the compulsory acquisition of land for public purposes, except where they operate under special Acts?

assented.

I must express great disappointment with the Acquisition of Land Bill, because it will not help us very much in Scotland as it is now altered. Two or three Amendments were passed yesterday which to my mind vitally affect its usefulness. I do not know that it would be in order to make any further reference to this subject, but I express my great disappointment and regret that that measure, limited as it was, is now so cut down as to be almost wholly ineffective for public purposes, through public records. I wish to press again my suggestion as to a conference. I am quite certain such a step as that would make up for the lack to-day of that instructive and at all times helpful criticism which some Members of this House may not be in a position to offer to-day.

I am sure that every Member who listened to the speech of the Secretary for Scotland was extremely gratified at the fact that my right hon. Friend was able, despite his illness, to come down here to-day to propose the Second Reading of this Bill. We sympathise with him, and hope that the fact that he has come here to-day will not retard his complete recovery. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a most interesting and I think quite full explanation of this measure, and of the great changes proposed, and especially in the Scottish Small Landholders Act. Some of these he noticed, but glossed over without very much remark. There was one of great importance to which he hardly alluded, except in one sentence. I am glad, for one reason, that this Debate is to continue to-day. It would hardly have been possible to have allowed this Bill to be introduced and to remain completely silent, as that might give rise to misapprehension in the minds of those who read the Debate in the newspapers, as they might think that we accepted every proposal because we expressed no opinion. I earnestly hope, like my right hon. Friend, that there will be no revival of the old controversy. Personally, I have had quite enough of it, and I do not want to repeat the experience. I was called the "villain of the piece," but I only did my part, and there were equally the Prime Minister of the day, and the Patronage Secretary, and a good many other "villains." Why one was singled out for that special description I do not know. That particular controversy centred, of course, round the old Clause of the Landholders Act, which detailed the principle on which compensation would be granted for the compulsory taking of land for small holdings, and that Clause was, after a great deal of discussion, settled in its present terms in order completely to fulfil the pledge of the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, when at the Albert Hall he made his speech before the election of 1906, and stated the conditions and terms on which he proposed to acquire land for the development of small holdings. It was not then, and I do not think it is now, thought that it goes one inch beyond what he promised to do, and although there have been circumstances which raised considerable difficulties in regard to the carrying out of that Clause, the Clause in itself is only a measure embodying the precise terms on which ho said land ought to be acquired. The present Prime Minister, in a speech made at the beginning of the last election, said:

"You must not take any man's property away. You cannot build a great State on dishonesty. You are bound to come to grief if you attempt it. That is one of the fundamental errors of Bolshevism. These things come back to you in the end. They poison the blood of the communities and corrupt the soul. Whatever the man has got, pay him his full value for it."

Even the hen-roost.

The difficulty that has arisen in this question is the difficulty of meeting the very large sums which have been awarded in Scotland in certain cases for loss to the capital value of the estate caused by the establishment of small holdings. It is no good arguing the fact as to whether or not there is that diminution of value, because it is an obvious and established fact. It may be an unfortunate fact, but it is a fact, that the moment you establish small holdings on any property in Scotland the capital value of the estate is immediately reduced, even if the letting value of the small holdings be greater. You have an excellent example in the case of Ballencreiff. The owner of Ballencreiff, which is a very fine agricultural property, was offered £25,000 for that farm before these smallholdings were established on it. He asked for £30,000, being twenty-five years' purchase of the net rental, but that transaction was not carried out. Holdings were established at Ballencreiff, I think, in 1916 and in 1917; and in the commencement of 1918. The adjoining farms were offered for sale, and so was Ballencreiff. One of the holdings was sold at twenty-one and a half years' purchase and the other at twenty years' purchase, but Ballencreiff, which I understand was the best of the three, found no purchaser at all and was ultimately sold at fourteen years' purchase. That was an extreme case, I think, but the fact remains that it is a case very much in point. When I tell the House that the compensation fixed in that case for the landlord was only £8,000, and that £6,000 of that was for buildings and only £2,000 for loss in capital value, they will see the tremendous loss there was in consequence of the establishment of small holdings.

Now the whole of this compensation is being swept away by my right hon. Friend in this proposal. In so far as the compensation Clause affects the letting value, either of the small holdings or of the estate itself, it is all carefully provided for. The Clause is quite a wide Clause and quite a suitable Clause, and no one can object to it, but, having got the Clause, you have then to look at the limitations made upon it, which are three in number. The first is the somewhat usual one, that no compensation is to be paid on account of the constitution of new holdings being compulsory. The second is the one to which I would refer particularly, and which provides that no compensation shall be payable

"for injury done to or depreciation in the selling value of the land comprised in the scheme, or of any estate whereof such land forms part, except in so far as the same arises from injury done to or depreciation in the letting value of the land or estate."

That immediately cuts out everything, and no depreciation of capital value is to be allowed for at all. That, therefore, knocks the bottom out of the Clause in the present Act, and at once raises, although I hope not in any acute controversial way, the most difficult point we have got to deal with. No doubt there are alternatives now, which did not exist when the Landholders Bill was passed, in the way of acquiring land. My right hon. Friend has several ways in which he can acquire land for small holdings without carrying out the transaction on the principle of the Landholders Act. He can feu laud or buy land, which Scottish Members at that time were foolish enough, as I think, to refuse power to do, and he can get it under the Acquisition of Land Act, but as I understand it—and I would like to have this point made clear by my right hon. Friend—probably the colonies of small holdings will be founded by acquiring the land by purchase or feu, but the provisions of the 1911 Act will be used, and will be useful also, where single holdings or groups of one or two are being created in certain places. 1 should think that that would probably be the end of it. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend agrees, but I think, where he establishes a large colony, he will most likely acquire the land by feu or by purchase, and use the Scottish Small Landholders Act in the other cases, and it is all to the good that he should have the power of doing so. I do not myself want to do anything more at the present moment than to point out to the House the enormous change which is being made in this particular Clause, and it is for the House to consider whether it is quite fair find right that it should make that alteration in the very drastic way in which it is proposed. I am not sure that there might not be some concession made which would meet certain cases of obvious hardship and great loss, but it is an extremely difficult thing to suggest how it can be done. I will frankly admit that some of the compensation which has been paid has certainly retarded the operations of the Act, although I may say that in the case of Lindean, which belongs to a personal friend of my own, he has often said to me, "If you will give me back my farm in the condition on which you took it, I will be glad to hand back the £12,000." There is a chance for my right hon. Friend. He can have the money back if he will restore the farm to Mr. Scott Plummer.

He is a constituent of mine.

I had forgotten that, but my right hon. Friend will be able possibly to do a deal with Mr. Scott Plummer in the matter. That is all I want to say at the present moment, but I think it would be quite impassable to allow this Bill to get a Second Reading before pointing out those facts to the House. The next point on which the right hon. Gentleman laid stress was the question as to which authority was to fix the first rent of the holding. That he proposed, now should be the Board of Agriculture instead of the Land Court, and in that I quite agree with him. Then, who is to fix and assess the compensation in the event, I assume, of there being no agreement? The right hon. Gentleman cuts away the very important option which exists at present of going to arbitration where the claim exceeds £300. It is a very important option, and one which is exercised very largely. Let me admit that the exercise of that option generally arose largely from the fact that the Land Court was not considered satisfactory or fair as originally constituted. It was a most unfair Court. I have always offered criticism on this point in general, and not in particular terms, and I do so again. I say that Court was most unfair, and obviously partisan, and the whole of the difficulties which surround it have been caused by that. I admit there is a great change, and I daresay it is possible that the change of the assessing authority might be accepted Whether there should be an entire removal of the option is another matter. But I can conceive, as matters stand in this Bill, that the person making the claim would not in any way be damnified in any decision by the Land Court in the way of expenses. In the case of going to arbitration, I should think he would run the risk, if he were allowed very much less than he asked, of being saddled with the expense. If that were so, no doubt it would be a very great incentive to leaving arbitration alone, and going to the Land Court. There may be cases in which it is only fair and right that there should be arbitration, and there is no particular reason why the arbitration should be taken away.

Those are the main points about which I think it necessary to make any remark at this stage of the proceedings. We only got the Bill yesterday, and it is much too important a measure to say anything very definite about to-day. One wants not only to consider it oneself, but to hear the opinion of those interested, particularly after past experience. It ought to make one very careful about committing one self; but I do earnestly hope that, difficult as these questions are, and controversial as they may become, they have got to be settled somehow, and I trust we shall be able to settle them in the Scottish Committee in a perfectly amicable way, and without the revival of some of the heat which used to permeate the Committee Room. With regard to many of the other points of the Bill, I must say I think these are great improvements, such as that part relating to allotments; while the financial position is very greatly improved. Then an attempt is made to deal with the question of tenant's compensation, which is a very serious question with which to deal. I do not know whether it may be considered by some tenant-farmers as too drastic a proposal, but, at all events, it seeks to limit the matter within fairly reasonable terms, and to give the tenant plenty of time for turning round in the event of dispossession.

One thing I should like to say to the right hon. Gentleman is this, that if he can possibly manage—I do not think he can do it in this Bill—to do something more than has been done for rural housing, we shall put more people on the land in that way than we are likely to put in many districts of Scotland by this method. I look with great concern upon the future of this subject. It is all very well to say local authorities are responsible. It is one thing to put responsibility in a Bill; it is another thing to provide them with the means of carrying it out. I do not think they are in a position to do so, and certainly not if the restrictive provisions made in the rules and regulations are adhered to. The right hon. Gentleman can consider this matter in regard to the regulations in connection with the Housing Bill, and if he will consider the question of rural housing, give some impetus to that, and some encouragement to those who have the responsibility, then that, coupled with many of the improvements in this Bill, will, I think, greatly improve the situation in Scotland.

May I put a question with regard to the compensation to be paid? Take the operation of this Bill for acquiring land, say, for soldiers—that will be done under the Land Acquisition Act. Take the case of acquiring land for small holding—that could be done under the Land Acquisition also, with the addition of the conditions laid down in this Act specifically applied to the purchase and acqusition of land for small holdings.

The Acquisition of Land Act will govern the assessment of compensation in all cases, but so far as a code for working out these principles is concerned, it will be found in the First Schedule of the Bill.

I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment to the Commons Amendment to the Lords Amendment."

I think the Minister might tell us why he now agrees.

The purport of the Amendment is simply this. The point of difference between us was as to the nomination of the Committee. The Lords have accepted that, but words have been inserted that, in addition to the other interests concerned, the Board of Trade shall specifically consult with the Associated Chambers of Commerce and the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and the Minister of Labour shall consult, in addition to the others, the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress. This Amendment simply puts in those three bodies.

I feel sure the House will join in congratulating the Secretary for Scotland in being able to be in his place to-day. He is a very valuable asset in our Scottish national life, and we all hope that he will be thoroughly restored to health during the coming Vacation. I made a suggestion that, after his speech to-day, the Second Reading might have been adjourned. I still think that that would have been the much more satisfactory process. As the right hon. Member for Peebles has said, it has been impossible for us adequately to study this Bill in the short time at our disposal. It might have been postponed until after the Recess, and until we had been in contact with our constituents and we could then have given the right hon. Gentleman: on Second Reading some indication of the Amendments that were necessary and desirable. As it has been decided to take the Second Reading to-day, I offer no further opposition to it. The right hon. Gentleman rightly alluded to the urgency of the problem with which this Bill is destined to deal, and he said particularly that one of the most important provisions of the Bill was that under which the procedure of the Small Landholders Act, 1911, would be hastened. With that I heartily concur. One of the chief defects of the Small Landholders Act is that its operation has been very dilatory and, in many cases, most expensive. In so far as this Bill remedies those defects, it will be welcomed by the rural population of Scotland.

The hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) referred to what, in his opinion, was the main change made by this Bill in the Scottish Small Landholders Act of 1911, and very rightly referred to himself as one of the villains of the piece in the controversy of 1909–10. If there are in this measure any points which might in some sense revive those controversies, I think we should all feel it is our duty to smooth over difficulties and try to come to some arrangement which will be for the benefit of agriculture and smallholders in Scotland. The hon. Baronet will agree that some alteration is necessary. He indicated that in his speech, and we all feel that to be the case. The hon. Baronet would perhaps not go so far as some of us in that respect but feeling as we do that some alteration is necessary I hope we shall be able to agree, more or less, with the provisions put into the Bill by the Secretary for Scotland. I join heartily with what was said by the hon. Baronet with respect to rural housing. That is one of the roots of the whole problem. It is an evil which has existed one might almost say from time immemorial. It is an evil which is certainly not entirely remedied under the Scottish Housing Bill, and I do hope it will be possible for the right hon. Gentleman after due consideration, either in this Bill or some other measure, to introduce some method of hastening the development of rural housing in Scotland. I was more than glad to read Clause 12, which deals with advances to land banks. The right hon. Gentleman said that that would be of particular interest to me. He knows that that is so, and I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman not only for the great interest he has shown in the Scottish Central Land Bank in the past and the great assistance he has given to it, but for having included in this Bill such provisions as will enable that bank to continue to prosper and at the same time materially to assist financially small landholders in Scotland.

A question has been raised by the right hon. Member for Peebles regarding the application of the Land Acquisition Act to the measure now under discussion. I agree that that Act, which was a bad Bill before it went to the other place, is now much worse, for it has been practically disembowelled, and it will totally fail to realise its objects. That is unquestionably the opinion of many people throughout Scotland, and that opinion will be more prevalent when the people see the Act in operation.

In what respect was it disembowelled?

Words were taken out which had only been put in after a long Debate in this House, when the Government accepted the Amendment moved by the right lion. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), which said that in assessing the compensation regard should be had to the basis of rating and taxation. We on this side of the House who were pressing that Amendment made a very valuable and surprising recruit in the right hon. Gentle-man the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson), and, following upon the intervention of that right hon. Gentleman, many other hon. Members associated with him took the same line. In another place the words "Regard shall be had to" were taken out of the Bill, and instead the words "The undertaker shall be entitled to consider" were inserted. Besides that, the words "Capital value" were inserted instead of "assessment," and those two facts, in my judgment, disembowelled the Bill as it left this House. I have been drawn away from my argument by the interruption of the hon. Baronet opposite, but I am more than glad to have had the opportunity of saying those few words, and I am sure when the Act comes into operation the hon. Baronet opposite will be among the first to receive from his constituents complaints regarding the basis under which compensation is to be assessed.

I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles to say that it might be advisable to have a conference in Glasgow or Edinburgh to discuss the various aspects of this Bill. I am not quite sure that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There will, of course, be many different opinions held about this Bill, and if such a conference is to take place it must necessarily be a very large one, in order that all interests should be represented. It might well be that those interests could give to the Secretary for Scotland certain of their views, but as to any really live discussion in a conference of that kind, I am somewhat doubtful that it could take place. After the Second Reading of this Bill has been obtained we shall all be in contact with our constituencies during the recess, and then we shall be able to give the right hon. Gentleman not only our own views after studying and considering this Bill, but the views of the majority of our constituents, and we can then indicate to the Secretary for Scotland in what manner we would desire to see the Bill altered or to see other Amendments incorporated in it.

The only regret one can have in connection with the Second Reading of this Bill is that it is quite obvious from these empty benches that most of the representatives of Scotland of the Liberal and Labour persuasion are at present away on their grouse moors, and only a few hard-working Unionists like the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) are left to still adorn the field of legislative Labour.

That is quite wrong.

We give a warm welcome to the principle of this Bill, and on the whole we quite agree that the proper course is to take the Second Reading now, and leave it to the Recess in order that we may meanwhile get into touch with our constituencies and gather the general Amendments that no doubt will be required to this measure. As representing a burgh constituency, the part of this Bill in which I am particularly interested is that which deals with allotments. We all know how very much interested the citizens of great cities like Edinburgh and Glasgow are in the new allotment movement which sprang up as a result of the late war. The extraordinary fascination of the soil and the tilling of it has proved of great interest to townsmen, and they are now much interested in rearing such interesting things as onions and carrots and various vegetables, and this I think it will be generally agreed is extremely healthy and beneficial to the country.

The Secretary for Scotland was placed by the allotment-holders as leader of their movement, and made their president, and in this respect the people of Scotland have shown their confidence in the right hon. Gentleman. We have not been disappointed, because the Secretary for Scotland has taken the very greatest pains to find out what their wishes and needs are, and he has done all he could to meet their requirements. Accordingly my main and pleasant duty to-day is to express the gratitude of the allotment-holders of Scotland for everything he has given them by the present Bill.

The allotment-holder in Scotland ex hypothesi is not so much interested in that part of the Bill that deals with acquiring allotments as in keeping his old allotment, and, accordingly, I put it very strongly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland whether he cannot sec his way to insert in this Bill some sort of provision for security of tenure. I never was a great and strong advocate of the general adoption of the principle of security of tenure in regard for the very large farmers of Scotland, but they have a certain amount of security of tenure, whereas the allotment-holder, who needs it, has not any. It will be readily seen that to make an allotment a success means a tremendous amount of intensive cultivation, and therefore demands security of tenure more than any other form of holding. The allotment, first of all, has to be cleaned of weeds and stones, and then it has to be treated with manure and tilled very intensively until, at the end of the process, it is a very different thing and a very much more valuable asset than it was when the allotment-holder took it over and before he had worked on it. Accordingly, the allotment-holder who is deprived of his allotment is a very great loser, and suffers a good lot of injustice. I am sure that the Secretary for Scotland only needs to have such considerations laid before him to do his very best to meet this necessity of the allotment-holder, and, with that qualification, I wish, on behalf of the general allotment-holders of Scotland, to express the gratitude which they feel to the Secretary for Scotland for the pains which he has taken to meet them in this matter.

I cannot possibly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Jameson) when he suggests that the Scottish Labour Members are absent because of their work on the grouse moors in Scotland at the present time. The majority of them are busily engaged on large and important industrial questions, and they have left behind them, I am afraid, a rather unsatisfactory representative to state their case. While, in common with other Scottish Members, we suffer from not having had an opportunity adequately to consider the measure, we welcome it, and the urgency for it will not be disputed. It may be true that in certain agricultural areas north of the Tweed there are men, and perhaps comparatively large numbers of women, who would not be there but for war conditions, and to that extent we have started the solution of our own rural problem. On the other hand, congestion in the large centres, and particularly the city centres, is more pronounced than ever. From these points of view, I most cordially welcome the Bill. We on these benches, however, do not for a single moment believe that it will solve the land problem of Scotland. I express my own view, and I think the view of the great majority of my colleagues, when I say that we do not anticipate any final or lasting solution of the laud problem as long as land remains private property. Probably it will be irrelevant this afternoon, to develop the case for the public ownership of land, but most hon. Members will agree, however much they may be opposed to us in principle, that land is fundamentally different from all other commodities and all the other needs of human life. With that very important reservation, our aim will be to try and improve this measure. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for West Edinburgh that Scottish allotment-holders urgently require the largest possible measure of security of tenure, and the same is true elsewhere. We have had numerous repre- sentations from the Scottish National Association of Allotment Holders, that the existing allotments are not developed and used to the extent to which they might be developed and used, and that many people are hindered from taking up allotments because they feel that the necessary hard work for the cultivation of the soil will be largely wasted by their being turned out after the lapse of one or two years, or perhaps even a shorter period. They have no desire, particularly in the urban centres in Scotland, to stand in the way of housing schemes, and they have made it perfectly plain in their Memorandum that all housing schemes are to have preference, but as regards other soil, much of which will not be used in the immediate future for housing purposes, they strongly suggest that an increased measure of security of tenure should be given. I do not think that point is adequately provided for in the present Bill, although I agree that our reading of it has been cursory at the best.

The second improvement which is desired by Scottish allotment-holders will make for uniformity of conditions as regards not only tenure but rent and other considerations. Under the terms of the Act of 1892 the expenditure of any local authority on allotments must be taken into account over a certain term of years, and the rents of the allotments fixed accordingly. In some cases, even within one community, we have secured exceptionally favourable terms from proprietors or holders of land, and these allotments started with natural and other advantages, but, on the other hand, there are many cases in the large centres of Scotland and elsewhere where a considerable chemical expenditure was necessary before the allotments could be used. That has resulted in a comparative high rent for such allotments, and in a lack of uniformity of conditions even within quite small areas, and this has led to widespread unrest and dissatisfaction among allotment-holders. Probably there is no remedy for that lack of uniformity under the Act of 1892. I should, therefore, like to see the present Bill amended so as to make it possible to take into account the capital expenditure in the area generally, and thus obtain uniformity as regards rent and other conditions so as to enable allotment-holders to start their work on substantially the same terms.

These are the two leading difficulties of the allotment-holders in Scotland at the present time. Beyond that it is our duty to welcome this measure in so far as it makes for the permanent establishment of this form of public enterprise. From the point of view of labour, we welcome the allotments movement, not so much for what it may produce in the way of commodities required for the people of the country, as for the opportunity which it affords of a different occupation or employment from that in which the great majority of the workers spend the bulk of their time. One of the best features of Continental industrial development in pre-war times—I regret to say that we lagged shamefully behind—was the variety of occupation afforded to great sections of the people. They spent so many hours per day in the factory or workshop, but, largely owing to easier conditions of land occupation and tenure, they were able to devote the remainder of their time, often a quite substantial portion of each day, to outdoor occupations, and they are not therefore tied to the narrow grind of one calling, with more or less demoralising results. I therefore most cordially welcome any Bill which will build up this allotment movement and provide a subsidiary, and it may be even a profitable occupation for people, because I regard that as a not unimportant factor in the solution of much of the industrial and social unrest in large centres in Scotland. Labour agrees with advanced Liberalism and Radicalism in Scotland, that the success of previous Small Holdings Acts has been seriously undermined by the excessive terms of compensation. I want, however, to be perfectly just to these Acts, and, while in my view compensation plays a large and important part in undermining their success, I hope I am the last to suggest that it is the one and only cause of their failure. I gather from the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) that compensation is likely to be as difficult a problem under this Bill as it is under previous Acts.

I did not say that.

I welcome the correction. I had understood the hon. Baronet, to indicate that the problem would be at least as difficult. Apart from that, I think we are very far indeed from having solved the difficulty of compensation, but I am willing to leave that very intricate and abstruse problem for the Committee stage of this Bill. I think I express the view of the Labour movement when I say that in the establishment of these small holdings we should strip compensation of all elements which can reasonably be regarded as due to the effort or enterprise of the community, and only give such compensation as is reasonable and fair, having regard to what the owner or his predecessors have put into the soil by way of capital expenditure, or what has been done by his agency to improve it. The other considerations which very largely undermined the success of the small land holdings' movement in Scotland were really economic rather than social or political; and the chief of these economic causes were the practical absence of agricultural organisation, as it is commonly described, in Scotland, and also the absence of the development of any scheme of rural credit north of the Tweed.

Dealing first of all with agricultural organisation, the central weakness of the smallholder was his failure to obtain readily and cheaply, for the purposes of his small holding, the benefits and advantages of large-scale production. I have never been able to agree that there is any abiding antagonism between large-scale production, when we are thinking of a large land holding or a large farm, and the small holdings which we are now discussing. It has often been argued, in this House and outside, that under any circumstances of land tenure, range of prices, and so on, at the present time, small holdings were bound to fail because you could not bring to them the benefits and advantages of large-scale working. I entirely differ from that. I believe that a cursory reading of the history of agricultural organisation, in Ireland, even and in certain parts of the Continent and throughout the world generally, will lead to the conclusion that in agricultural organisation we have the bridge which can cover that gulf between large-scale production and the operations of the small-holder. In other words, it provides for the co-operative use of the best and latest machinery, it provides for the co-operative buying and selling of ingredients which are necessary for the cultivation of the stubborn Scottish soil, and it brings within the reach of the smallholder the advantages of the research of scientific experts in agriculture and in other spheres. I am willing to admit that agricultural organisation in this country is probably in its infancy, and has a very great deal to learn; but that does not rid us of the duty of incorporating in this measure some provisions which would seek to get the benefit of all that is best in what it is learning and what it is teaching at the present time.

The other consideration is, as I have said, the almost entire absence of the provision of rural credit. Many men could have obtained the land, as was stated by the right hon. Gentleman in his introductory speech. They had the experience and the skill in rural conditions. Some of them even had machinery, quite up-to-date machinery, at their disposal. But they had not the necessary capital, and they could not obtain it on terms sufficiently reasonable to enable them to start with any hope of certainty of success. I am perhaps the last to suggest that we should draw lessons unduly from our late enemies, but at all events it will be conceded that they had a much better appreciation in pre-war times of the advantages of rural credit than we had in this country. Hon. Members of this House are familiar with the growth and development of the Raiffeisen scheme of rural banking which had its origin in Southern Germany. Broadly its principle and method was the establishment of a central bank, with a large number of banks distributed throughout the country, reaching right down to the unit in the village—a little village organisation or committee which was responsible for reporting on the character and experience of the applicant for rural credit, which so far supervised him in the use of the money which he obtained for rural progress and development and which built up broadly and generally throughout the country a system which made it possible for the smallest man to get on reasonable and easy terms a supply of money for the cultivation of the little plot of soil he had in charge. Substantially the same system was adopted or extended in other parts of the world—India, Egypt, even Ireland, and many other instances could be quoted. It had two advantages—first, of giving him that ready and immediate supply of money; and, secondly, of putting him beyond the power and the reach of the moneylender, who, in a large number of cases, fastened upon the very vitals of rural progress. Is it impossible in this time of bedrock reconstruction to provide in this measure for some scheme of rural credit of that kind? I welcome the Clause in the Bill which seems to hold the promise or hope for land banks, and which makes it possible for money to be advanced to smallholders, I sincerely trust it may be possible in Committee to add to the provisions of the Bill in order to get the advantage of what is best in that Continental experience I have just outlined.

The last point I desire to make turns on the establishment of discharged, disabled, and demobilised men generally upon the soil of Scotland. Let me say at once, that our experience in disablement-scheme work has been, on the whole, not too encouraging in that respect. I am willing to admit that a number of landowners have placed land more or less readily at our disposal, but there has been a singular disinclination on the part of quite considerable numbers of demobilised and discharged men, who desire and prefer an open-air life, to take advantage of the holdings which might be established. That has been due partly to the difficulty of finding the necessary capital, which I hope will be surmounted under this Bill, but it has also been due to at least two other causes as well. First, there is the absence in the rural districts of Scotland of anything resembling a social life. It meant placing these men very often in lonely parishes where they were divorced from all the intercourse and association of other days. That disposition and point of view are extremely hard to break down. Accordingly, I hope that in any system of land settlement in Scotland we are going to adopt, so far as we possibly can, one of the best recommendations of the Royal Commission on Housing in our country, that as far as possible we should build these houses in the rural areas in village communities. I do not say that is always possible where upland shepherds and others are concerned, but, so far as we can do it, let us build these houses in small communities in order that the advantages of associated life may be forthcoming, and that we shall do what we can to meet this admitted difficulty on the part of the discharged and demobilised men. The other point is the difficulty of training discharged and demobilised men in rural callings. I should like to see a widespread development of what we might call the lighter and easier forms of agriculture. Many of the men are suffering from physical disease as apart altogether from amputation or disablement of that kind; they are really not fit for the arduous toil on even a comparatively small allotment of land. When I use that phrase I mean more particularly ploughing and the heavier operations on the land. These men, however, are fit for other occupations on the soil, such as light fruit farming or progress on the land of that kind, which do not to the same extreme extent make a demand upon their impaired physique. Our difficulty in disablement-scheme work has been to find adequate facilities for such training on the soil. I believe that is one of the most hopeful features of progress in the light of the Bill we are now discussing. These and other proposals we shall probably try to embody in useful Amendments as the Bill passes through Committee. "I cannot sit down without expressing, while we are conscious of all its shortcomings, our general approval of the measure and saying that we shall do all that is within our limited power to assist its progress in the solution of one of our gravest national problems north of the Tweed.

I would not have intervened in the Debate except that one point in regard to allotments has not been touched upon. There has been a good deal of discussion on the question of fixity of tenure, and the difficulty of allotment-holders in cultivating their allotments with a reasonable hope that in future years they will reap the reward of what they have put on the soil. Power to acquire land for allotments was first given to the county councils and now it is extended to the parish councils. The parish councils are far more in touch with the people, who especially have developed allotments, than are the county councils. The town councils have not previously had power to acquire land for allotments. In 1916, in two towns in my Constituency, there was a great outcry for land for allotments. The town councils of both towns exercised all the powers they had of acquiring any land that was not on the valuation roll and giving it to the allotment-holders, but the allotment-holders were always under the fear of either the land being required for building purposes or for some other purpose, and that they would lose their allotment. I consider that with the provision in this Bill giving power to parish councils and town councils to ac-quire land either by purchase or by lease for allotment-holders, the town councils and parish councils can give security of tenure of the allotment-holders. If that is not done by the town council or the parish council, the allotment-holders will have the remedy in their own hands. They are in touch with the town council or the parish council, and can bring pressure to bear upon it to acquire that land. From my experience in Scotland I should say that no pressure will be required, that the town councils and parish councils will welcome this provision in the Act, and that they will either secure the land which is provided for them, under cultivation if possible, or if not possible acquire land in some other portion of their territory to give to the allotment-holders. The hon. Member (Mr. Graham) said there were different prices given for the land and the result very often was that the allotment-holders in one district of the same town had to pay a very much larger sum than in other portions of the town. I am happy to say that in the towns with which I am connected the allotment-holders' association acquired all the land for allotments, for some of which they paid a fairly high sum, but the others they got for nothing by taking land which was not in use, and they balanced up and charged a flat rent for all the allotments, so that everyone participated in the value of the small price and had not to pay a large price. That is a solution that allotment-holders have in their own hands, that by joining together and in co-operation they are able to make a flat rate for the allotments.

I also welcome the power given to local authorities to acquire fertilisers and fruit trees and seed. Without this power at all in 1916, 1917 and 1918 the town council over which I presided bought a large stock of fertilising material and gave it out to the allotment-holders. They also procured the best specimens of potatoes and gave out the potato seed to the allotment-holders at a very small price. With these powers which have now been given to the town councils and parish councils the allotment-holders' position will be very much better than in the past.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland may be congratulated upon the reception which has so far been extended to this Bill. The Bill deals with subjects of a critical nature, especially in view of our past experience, but the manner in which it has been approached by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) will tend to alleviate what otherwise might have been the acerbity with which it would have been discussed. There is one particular Sub-section in the Bill dealing with the question of compensation which I think will go a long way to ease the situation. One of the main difficulties in connection with compensation under the Landholders Act, 1911, was the fact that when a landowner came to an agreement with the Board of Agriculture for an agreed system of small holdings on his land, he could get no compensation under Section 17 of that Act if the scheme eventually failed and damage was done. That is met in the present Bill, and I suggest that the landowners will probably find that the Clause will go a long way to meet their views, because the difficulty to which I have referred was felt by them, and was what I know really led to a good many of the cases being fought. And if they come to an agreement with the Board for an agreed system of small holdings, they will now know that they will be entitled to the same compensation as if it had been carried through in the terms of the original Act. Of course, one realises that this Bill will cut down the measure of compensation, which was in certain cases unduly high under the old Act, but the concession to which I have referred I believe will be really of more value than the compensation, which admittedly was unduly high, that was given in many cases previously.

The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), who always makes useful contributions in debate, was under some misapprehension as to the methods of training in agriculture. The Bill scarcely deals with that matter directly, but it will assist if areas can be obtained upon which training schools and other means of training can be provided for the disabled soldier or even for the man in full possession of his physical powers. Of course, the Board has already started, under its present exiguous powers, two or three farms where training is given. The curious thing is that the very Department of training in which, the hon. Member opposite seems to suggest, disabled men might be able to find a certain amount of occupation does not appear to have been very successful. In reference to the market-garden colony which has already been established, the Board in their Report this year state that no suitable men offered themselves for training in market gardens, and towards the end of the year the question of making arrangements whereby training in agriculture would be given was under consideration. So in that respect nothing seems to have accrued, not because the Board did not provide for the training, but because the men were not forthcoming. The Craikstone farm in Aberdeen seems to be in operation now, but the scheme was intended to train men for after the War on the land as landholders, gardeners, market gardeners, and foresters, and a course of training with this object is provided on the farm at a fee of £l per man per week. It is well that these existing opportunities should be known, and no doubt this Bill will assist in that direction.

We are all interested in allotments. The difficulty is that they must be near a man's residence, and they are mostly in centres of population which are expanding. Unless the land is quite close to a man's residence it is not much use to him, and then it is usually just the sort of land that is going to be used to grow not vegetables, but houses. There are two sides to that question. Some people who have allotments may wish to have security of tenure but there are a good many people who have to move about, and they would be glad to have allotments for the time being only, and would not wish to be tied to them.

Would my hon. and gallant Friend explain how we can grow houses?

I used a metaphor which may be a little extreme. Land obviously has two or three uses. You may grow food, and there is also a very expensive use, and that is the growing of houses. The difficulty about this matter is this, that when the land is wanted for housing, naturally the allotment-holder has to go. Vegetables, after all, are of less value than houses. What does the Bill do? It attempts to meet that in a very fair way. It gives the local authority, where it has been unable by agreement to acquire land, the power to acquire compulsorily by purchase. That is a very considerable step in advance, and in that way security of tenure can in a sense be got. The question of land banks is dealt with in the Bill in a way that is a considerable advance on past methods. I recall that twenty years ago, at the instance of a peer who was very much interested in this matter, a Bill was drafted for the introduction of the German system into this country. It did not at that time meet with much approval, but since then we have come to realise that for the smallholder it is absolutely necessary to have access to sources of credit on which he can rely to start him in his operations and to tide him over a bad time. Clause 12 of the Bill is a serious attempt to deal with that matter. It may be that in detail amendment may be necessary, but, as it stands, it seems to me a very useful Clause. It provides that the Board may, with the approval of the Secretary for Scotland and the Treasury, apply the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund in making or guaranteeing advances, directly or indirectly, to land banks or co-operative or credit societies, so that there is a very wide area in which assistance can be provided.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give credit to private enterprise in Scotland, which has made experiments in this matter?

Certainly. We all realise what has been done. We are glad, however, to know that we are now to get statutory acknowledgment, and I am sure we all desire that the operation should be very widely extended. I am glad that this Bill has been introduced, and I think we owe a great debt to the Secretary for Scotland for having brought it in.

We have received an assurance from the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) contradicting the assumption of the Member for East Edinburgh, as to the Members of the Labour party being engaged in pastime, and now we are assured that they are engaged in something far less innocent.

Where are your own colleagues? Count them.

This Bill is a step, but only a partial step, and I hope it is the forerunner of greater steps for dealing with land. What is at fault is not the method of landowning but the fact that there are not nearly enough landowners in this country. If there was a very much wider distribution of land it would be very much better for the country as a whole, both agriculturally and commercially. Now is the time to achieve that end. Every man who owns a bit of land, no matter how small, becomes a defender of liberty and of property. Those are very valuable assets, and we should do our best to multiply them. I hold that now is the time to get as many small holders on the land as possible, because we are in for a very good time in agriculture. The farmer and the producer of agricultural produce has lately thriven, and rightly thriven, and we are all indebted to him. He had a bad time for the whole of a generation, and but for the fact that the landowner was very often a man of considerable means, with investments other than those in agricultural land, and was ready to come to the assistance of the farmer of the generation that began about the seventies—1879 was the worst time—there would not have been any agriculture in this country at all. There was, one might say, a large economic conspiracy. It was not a conscious conspiracy, but it was there none the less, against agriculture in the respect that there were gigantic exports of coal. When coal was exported to Continental countries, to America, and elsewhere, food was brought back cheaply to the disadvantage of the farmer from the point of view of making a living. There is not likely to be the same quantity of coal going out. Mr. Smillie, the leader of the Miners—

The hon. Member is getting rather wide in his remarks.

My object was to show that with less coal going out and less food coming in there was likely to be a prosperous time for agriculturists. The land of this country can only support about 25,000,000 inhabitants, and if we do not export sufficient coal and get food in return we will require to go in for extensive cultivation in order to increase our food supply. I was distressed to hear one remark of the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger), that there was no doubt that smallholders depreciated the capital value of an estate. That is a striking confession, and it ought not to be so. Governments are equally responsible for it, as I notice that when the Woods and Forests Department advertise estates in Scotland they are careful to put in, "There are no crofters on the estate," as if that were an additional advantage. That is a. very unfortunate state of affairs. I suggest when this Bill is being put into operation that instead of taking up farms here and there and sub-dividing them, the correct procedure would be as far as possible to purchase the whole property, and then there would be no necessity to pay compensation in the way it is done now. Make the settlement of smallholders sufficiently large, and in that way avoid the necessity of paying compensation. I think the present state of affairs is due to some extent to the commercialisation of landowning. In former days the landowner was more inclined to boast of men on his land than the size of his rent roll, and that was the only certain and proper foundation for the holding of the land. I think this dislike to the smallholder on estates is not so much due to the landowner as to his administrator or factor, or the person who managed the estate, and who desired by a natural human tendency to deal with men who were to some extent his equals, and who had sufficient turnover of business to be practical, whereas the smallholder, who was very often merely a producer without much experience, was rather a more troublesome problem for the agent. I am sure that the War has not only had an educative effect on all of us, but especially on landowner's, and I feel certain great or considerable numbers of them will welcome this Bill, and do all that possibly lies within their power to facilitate its operations, and, above all, will be willing to receive as tenants on the land discharged soldiers, for whom this Bill is especially designed. I do wish that one aspect of this matter would be considered, and that is as to the question of buildings on the land, and I would ask the Secretary for Scotland with the Board of Agriculture to give it attention, and endeavour to relax the present building Regulations. When a man in this country starts a smallholding he has to put up a steading which is so costly that it is practically a millstone of debt round his neck for the larger period of the time he occupies the holding. If a man goes to one of the Colonies he is not interfered with as to the style of dwelling. He puts up a shelter for himself, and proceeds to cultivate the land, and makes money, and not until he has acquired sufficient money to enable him to build a satisfactory dwelling-house does he do so. He fends along in a more or less primitive dwelling which is perfectly healthy, and suitable for all his purposes. Our own men in the course of the War have found that a great deal of what we call civilised dwelling-houses are not particularly necessary, and perhaps not so healthy as the somewhat primitive way in which they lived. I think this question goes to the very heart of this problem. Building is enormously expensive and likely to be for many years, and I suggest the smallholder ought to get a chance to lift his head and make some money, and he will require some adaptation of the building regulations to make it practicable for him to start and try and prosper. There is, and always has been, a very strong demand for small holdings in Scotland, and there have been many obstacles in the way. I know of one man with a farm of from seventy to eighty acres and he had 120 applications for it some years before the War. The same thing applies to allotments. There has always been a desire on the part of the people to have allotments, but what has hindered them in getting and using allotments has not been so much the difficulty of getting the ground, though in many places that was insuperable, as the fact that there was no protection for them. Allotments during the War had the inestimable protection of that very powerful legal lady known as "D.O.R.A." If anybody touched the produce of any allotment-holder he was very severely dealt with.

I doubt very much if the powers we have taken in Section 17 (2) are sufficiently drastic, because the Secretary for Scotland will know that all these allotments are very much exposed and in the open. During the War there was a spirit engendered in the people of respect for the allotments, owing to the fact that it was remembered that the allotment-holders were helping to beat the Germans, and even mischievous boys were restrained, but is it possible that that same spirit will be sustained after the pressure of war is taken away? I therefore suggest to the Secretary for Scotland that he should take some more drastic or elaborate power to protect the allotment-holders in the future, and that he should give him some of the protection which he had in the Defence of the Realm Act. After all, to destroy food of any kind is always to be regarded as a matter of sacrilege, and it should be treated as sacrilege, and the allotment-holder should have the greatest possible protection. It is not enough to give him the land and access to the ground if you do not make absolutely sure that the public conscience is aroused, that the children are taught in the schools, and that people regard these little plots, which are often very beautifully cultivated, and which it is such a pleasure to see people working on from the railway train, as something sacred. I welcome this Bill. It is a step in advance, although it does not go far enough. I should like to have seen a very big scheme of purchase, but we cannot have that in these hard-up days, I hope some day Scotland will have the privilege that Ireland has got, and that we shall have a large scheme of purchase, which will settle many thousands of Scotsmen on the land as owners, because I am sure in some such provision as that we shall make the greatest possible step in advance for social stability and national health and strength.

As representing an entirely industrial community, I will confine my few remarks to one part of this Bill, which I think is of vital interest to a constituency such as mine, and I would join most heartily with what has fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for West Renfrew (Colonel Greig) as to the importance of allotments. In my Constituency there has been an enormous demand for them, and the difficulty is not the want of ground, but the situation of that ground. It appears to me to be entirely useless—I know it has been tried with us—to offer a man. land as an allotment even half a mile away from his dwelling. We want to encourage these allotments, but they must be almost, so to speak, cheek by jowl with the man's dwelling, because, after all, though during the War food has been produced from these small bits of land, yet, to my mind it is almost of more importance that we should give a man healthy recreation. In my district, at the present moment, the parks are full of these people every evening after their work, but that, as we know, has to come to an end, and I welcome the Clause in this Bill which gives the local authority power to use any surplus land they may have for this purpose. I hope the local authority in my own Constituency at least will not be niggardly in the land they acquire, so as at least to have land in the future for this purpose. As the hon. Member for Kincardine (Lieut.-Colonel Murray) says, they cannot grow houses. We have heard houses talked about so much in the last few years that personally I believe houses are beginning to grow in my brain, but when we are growing houses on this land acquired by the local authorities, I hope we shall also have these allotments growing up and growing vegetables side by side with the houses. The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Macquisten) referred just now to the need of protection. Protection is certainly needed for these allotments, but if my experience is worth very much, I think they have been amply protected, or to a great extent, by public feeling, and I am sure that when these allotments, which with us are a new thing, come to be a thing of permanency, the custom will be such that people will never venture, except in very rare cases, to interfere with them in. any way. As one having interests in land, I would venture to give this Bill a blessing and to hope that it will result, not only in allotments, but in settling smallholders on the land, in all the benefits which I am sure we all hope from it.

I am not going to make the complaint which has been made by other speakers, that we ought not to proceed with a discussion of this Bill this afternoon, for, after all, no Scottish Member is worth his salt who is not prepared to discuss a Land Bill on any opportunity which is offered him, and although this has been late in the Session in being introduced, I think some useful contribution can be made on the Second Reading Debate which will help us in Grand Committee after the Recess to come to some agreement on this extraordinarily important Bill. I regret that certain criticisms have been offered by certain Members, both of them now absent, about the attendance at this Debate. I believe that the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Jameson) wanted to know what interest the Liberal and Labour Members of Scotland had in the subject of land, but the hon. Member apparently has only one interest himself and that is to make his own speech, and then disappear from he House. At the moment when he was talking there were fewer Unionist colleagues of his in the House than any other section of the Scottish Members, just as, at this present moment, the largest attendance of Scottish Members are of the Liberal persuasion. I notice also that the hon. and learned Member for Springburn (Mr. Macquisten), having made his own inconsequent and irrelevant speech, has now disappeared.

Is it in order, Sir, to refer to the speech of an hon. Member as inconsequent and irrelevant?

As the hon. Member for Springburn is not in the House, and is not himself complaining, the Debate had better proceed.

I am sure if my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock had been paying better attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Springburn, he would have agreed with me that that speech was both irrelevant and inconsequent, but as a consequence of delivering that speech the hon. and learned Member for Springburn has now retired from the Debate, having got rid of a cynical criticism of the explanation afforded by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. William Graham) as to the absence of the Scottish Labour Members from this House. There are, I think, five Scottish Labour Members in this House who are not here. As a matter of fact, when the hon. and learned Member for Springburn was speaking, he was surrounded by two of his colleagues of his own persuasion, and I hope that those organs of publicity in Scotland which usually make a great deal of that kind of thing will make it quite plain that the hon. and learned Member for Springburn had an admiring audience of two of his own colleagues while he was speaking.

Having got rid of those criticisms, I want to say about this Bill that I think it is a great advance on anything that we have yet had in connection with land settlement in Scotland. So far as I can gather from the form of the Bill, it may be divided into two parts, although there are three parts in it. I take it—and I think I am right in assuming—that Parts II and III are permanent contributions to the settlement of land in Scotland, whereas Part I. is a temporary settlement to extend for a period of two years. Therefore, I am going to say straight away that, so far as I am personally concerned, I am not much worried about Part L, and would rather make what contribution I propose to make to the Debate on Part II., which, after all, is a permanent contribution to land settlement in Scotland, and a contribution which will obtain after Part I. of the Act has entered into the limbo of the past. Of course, I take a special interest in Part II., because from time to time in this House, first of all by the luck of the ballot pure and simple, and, secondly, by the cooperation of my own colleagues from Scotland, I have been in charge from time to time of amending Bills to the Scottish Smallholders Act, and even this Session I have had the good fortune to get the Second Reading of an amending Bill on a Friday afternoon. My right hon. Friend remembers that we refrained—and I think wisely refrained—from sending that Bill upstairs to the Scottish Grand Committee until we had seen this Bill. 1 think he will also agree that we have had to wait for a long time for the appearance of this Bill, and it is rather unfortunate, although I do not complain in the press of public business, that this Bill has only made its appearance in the last three days of the Session. It would have been very much more convenient if we had had the opportunity of considering this Bill a little earlier, so that between the printing of the Bill and the Second Reading Debate we could have had time to compare the provisions, for instance, in my own amending Bill and the Bill as it is produced this afternoon. However, do not think, after all, that that need worry us unduly. On Part II., which is, as I say, the part about which I want particularly to talk, I still see in Clause 9, Sub-section (11), these objectionable words "directly attributable." I had hoped that we would have got rid of words which would require to be interpreted. It is quite true the provision made by my right hon. Friend dealing with the question of assessing compensation to the landowner, when land is taken for the purpose of small holdings, is improved by this Subsection of the Bill, and my right hon. Friend sets out in paragraph (b) of Subsection (11) the detailed circumstances for which compensation shall not be paid.

I do not understand my hon. Friend's point of view. He takes exception to the use of the words "directly attributable." Those are words limiting the compensation to be paid.

I have no objection to telling my right hon. Friend quite frankly my point of view. It does not seem to me to matter how direct or how limited the words you put into an Act of Parliament, members of the learned profession will always argue for or against direct attributability or not, and I would rather have, if it could be obtained, some much more definite line of demarcation beyond which you could not go. If my right hon. Friend will look at paragraph (iii), it says that compensation shall not include "any compensation for injury done to the value of such land or estate as a sporting subject" Who is going to be the judge of direct attributability in that case? I do not trust the lawyer, if I may say so without offence, impersonally, on grounds of this kind, and I would very much rather see some closer and tighter definition of what could be attributed to the loss in value—letting or capital value—if the land be taken for the purpose. I had in my mind that the landlord might get over the difficulties of the restrictions placed upon him in Part II. by having the land acquired under Part I., and he might thereby put into operation all these delaying actions we have had in the Court of Session in Scotland by having his Land purchased under that. The Lord Advocate shakes his head. If that is not so, then I am gratefully relieved.

The only other thing I want to say is with regard to what is omitted from the Bill. I presume I am right in assuming that my right hon. Friend did do me the justice to look at my Small Landholders (Scotland) Act Amendment Bill in constructing this Bill, and I very cordially at once admit that my right hon. Friend has copied a great many of the points which I, on behalf of my colleagues in this House, made in the amending Bill which I introduced. My right hon. Friend says he goes further. That only indicates that if we had gone upstairs in Committee, he would have accepted a great many Amendments we proposed. But I am willing to say my right hon. Friend has met the Bill I introduced this Session in a very lavish fashion, though there are one or two points which he has not yet transferred in the Bill, to which, I think, attention should be drawn. If my right hon. Friend has a copy of my Bill in his possession and will look at Clause 2, he will find in that we ask for powers as to water supply for small holdings. I do not think in this Bill power is taken to guarantee a sufficient water supply in the case of these small holdings. I am not going to argue that point this afternoon, because to Members attending this Debate it is not necessary; but I think everyone will agree, whatever his political views, that the success of small holdings largely depends upon equipment, and one of the most necessary things in the equipping of small holdings is obviously water supply. My right hon. Friend, in his Bill, in Part II., Clause 9, Sub-section (8), paragraph (d), does take power to see that in any other scheme there shall be shown a water supply, and the source from which it is to be taken. That is quite true. I have not examined the Bill in such detail as we all hope to examine it, but I am not sure that in the new Bill absolute power is taken to guarantee that in these schemes of small holdings power shall be taken. In one of the Clauses of my Bill I make provision by which the water supply is secured. I do not want to press that matter further now than this, that perhaps my right hon. Friend will between now and the Report stage—

(resuming): I do not take offence at my speech being interrupted, but the greatest disservice that any member of the Labour party could do to that party or to Scotland is to try to count the House out when we are considering the question of placing Scottish workmen on the land. It would have been very much more profitable for him as a Labour Member to see that the other sixty-three Members of the Labour party were here, instead of enjoying themselves or occupying their time in other ways.

I have plenty of my own sins to answer for.

Then this one of trying to count the House out can be further added to the charge of the hon. Member, I should also like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Clause 9 of my Bill, which deals with the question of the enlargement of holdings. So far as I have been able to discover, in this new Bill my right hon. Friend does not take power to deal with that matter. This is a Committee point, and I only want now to indicate some of the lines of criticism which some of us intend to take on this question later.

Take also Clause (10) of my Bill, dealing with land within burghs in crofting counties. This is an important question, My right hon. Friend will notice that in my Clause I confine the power to the counties of Argyll, Inverness, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Caithness, and Orkney and Shetland. He will agree—for he represented one of these divisions at one time—that here is a case in which you cannot give either small holdings or allotments. Those concerned, therefore, are entitled to special treatment. On this question, I hope something will be done. Since the Bill was drafted Lord Leverhulme has gone to Lewis, and considerable new developments have occurred in that large area. As a matter of fact, I believe every Scotsman will agree that Lewis and the Islands do deserve and require separate treatment from the other parts of Scotland. That also, I hope, we shall be able to deal effectively with when we come to Committee.

To return to the Bill proper, I think I have only one other remark to make—because I feel quite with other Members that we do not want a prolonged discussion, but rather to know where we are. With regard to the financial part of this Bill, Part IV., I asked in the course of my right hon. Friend's speech how the sum of £2,250,000 was arrived at, and he referred to his statement about the total grant of £20,000,000. I suppose £2,750,000 represents eleven-eightieths. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether this is the final allocation, and the only allocation, which will be made with regard to this money?

We have just passed a Forestry Bill, or are in course of passing it. The House made Amendments which will possibly concentrate the Central Committee in Edinburgh, and probably take over the bulk of the land in Scotland. If large estates are taken, and only part of them used for forestry, the only useful purpose to which the rest can be put is small holdings. Anybody who has gone into the question from the point of view of the country will know that one of the reasons for bringing in this Bill is that opportunities for repopulating this country are more in Scotland than any other part of the United Kingdom, and if any part requires attention it is the island of Lewis and the Islands. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that during the War Scotland's Grant was allocated at £10,000 per year. We suspended that Grant until it was £200,000, to which we were entitled. It was stopped on account of the War, and because the machine had stopped working. You could not put a man on the land and the money went back to the Treasury. There is the better part of £250,000, and I am wondering whether, in view of the fact that the Scottish scheme was starved of that amount of money during the War, and that the money is now needed for reconstructive work, which is more urgent in Scotland than in other parts of the United Kingdom, whether this eleven-eightieths is a proper kind of division?

It was stated that £20,000,000 was available, but was it earmarked in any particular way? Let me refer for a moment to the Forestry Bill which we passed the other day. It was unanimously agreed that the centre of afforestation would be in Edinburgh, and we multiplied the number of Scottish Assistant Commissioners. Now this scheme must run concurrently with that scheme if you are not going to waste money. I think it is worth while asking, in view of the reconstruction in Scotland, whether it is necessary in relation to that £20,000,000 to say Ireland, shall have so much, Wales so much, England so much, and Scotland only eleven-eightieths? These are some of the criticisms which occur to me on the Second Reading.

I am very grateful that the Bill has been introduced and I do not see, in view of Part II., that I should seek to ask Mr. Speaker to send my Bill up to Grand Committee, which after all I am sure is some relief to my right hon. Friend. I shall be prepared in Grand Committee to amend Part II. of this Bill in order to bring it into line with what we were attempting to do ourselves. I think I am stating the case for every Scottish Member when I say that there is no question upon which the average Scottish Member is more keenly interested than the repopulation of his own country. We may quarrel about the methods and the amount of compensation paid in this case and that, but I believe every man born in Scotland who loves this country desires to see the countryside repopulated, and wants to see the plains and valleys and counties of Scotland, which are now so sparsely populated, reviving their old glories. They have made enormous contributions not only in this War but to the Empire, and when people ask me why Scotsmen come to London and always migrate and never come back to Scotland the real answer to that question is the economic reason. Scotsmen in every part of Scotland, generally speaking, have been given an enormously better education than the average man in the Empire, and with that education Scotsmen have found it necessary to migrate to find an. outlet for their energy. The economic lever has driven them out of their own country, and if we keep same of these Scotsmen at home to develop our own country so much the better. It is for that broad, general reason that I welcome this Bill.

I am sure the House generally agrees that this is a good Bill, and that most of the points we wish to raise are really points for Committee. There is one matter of very great importance to Highland Members, and I do not think it has been mentioned. It is one which to a constituency like my own is very vital. It is, as I read it, that Part I. is subject to the limitations of the Small Holdings Colonies Act, by which three-fourths of the land acquired shall be land suitable to be cultivated as arable land. As far as I can gather, I rather think the land taken is subject to that limitation. If that is so, it is a point of very great importance to the Highlanders in a constituency such as mine, where a very great part of the land which must inevitably go for the successful creation of small holdings must be rough, hill pasture land, suitable for the grazing of sheep and cattle. It is the whole essence of small holdings in certain Highland districts that the profit should depend upon the grazing over the hills. In the Highlands there are very many men who have returned from the Army and Navy, and are anxious to get small holdings. We get letters from them continually, and we have been asking them to keep quiet and not follow the example set by some of seizing the land.

I am afraid that unless we get this provision altered it will make things very much more difficult, because the establishment of holdings under Part I. would be very much affected in many districts unless we obtain that alteration. I have no doubt the Lord Advocate will take that matter into consideration and do his best to meet us. I do not wish to raise Committee points, on which I have no doubt we shall be met. I think we may congratulate the Secretary for Scotland upon the introduction of a Bill which, generally speaking, is satisfac- tory. I only wish to mention one other small point, and that is the limitation to twenty-five acres of the land acquired by parish councils. This is a point relating to the natural conditions of holdings in districts of Scotland, where the whole success depends upon utilising the outrun and hill lands as pastures. Certainly twenty-five acres is a very small amount, and would certainly not be anything like the assistance that a larger area would be. I do not see why it is to be limited to so small an area, and I hope that point will also be considered and met.

There is an idea prevalent that it might have been better if we had to-day merely a statement from the Secretary for Scotland and a very short discussion, and that without taking a Second Reading we should have gone into Recess, and meanwhile consulted our constituencies and taken their views about the details of this Bill. I leaned towards that course myself for a time, but now that we have had the Bill before us, and have had the very clear explanation of the Secretary for Scotland, I am of the opinion that the proper course has been taken, and I hope the measure will receive its Second Reading this afternoon, because, without committing oneself entirely to all that it contains, it will form a very good peg on which to hang a discussion when we go to visit our friends in the North. If there should be large meetings, as has been suggested, in Edinburgh or elsewhere, I am sure that we shall all be very glad to put in an appearance and to discuss the provisions of the Bill from the point of view of what is best for our country. I do not think, however, that will be the proper way to arrive at what we desire. This is the holiday month, and it may be found impossible to get people together for such a purpose. I have no doubt, however, that during our holiday we shall all have ample opportunity of discussing the Bill. There will also be discussions in the Press and in other ways, and we shall be able to arrive at the opinion of Scotland in the matter before we return to consider the Bill in Committee.

We must all rejoice to see, according to the provisions of the Bill, that opportunity will be given to those returned soldiers who are desirous of doing so to settle upon the land of Scotland, and I associate myself most fully with the words which fell from the Secretary for Scotland upon the subject. How are these returned soldiers who are to be settled upon the land to be selected? We have all given pledges upon this subject, and we are all desirous of carrying out our pledges so far as it is possible to do so. This Bill is the outcome of those pledges, and I think the fullest publicity ought to be given to the steps that ought to be taken by returned soldiers who wish to get a small holding and adopt the farming profession. It is no use having applications receivable in an office in Edinburgh. These returned soldiers may be all over the country. They may be in Argyllshire or up in the North, and they may not have either the opportunity or the money necessary to present themselves at such an office. The thing ought not to be carried out by a private association. The Government, therefore, should make as public as possible the steps which ought to be taken by those who are desirous of availing themselves of this opportunity, and I hope the Secretary for Scotland will be able to tell us something upon this point when ho makes his speech in reply. The present occasion is very different from all previous occasions. If we take the old Army, there was a very small proportion of those serving who were at all suitable for settlement on the land. It is perfectly different to-day. There is not a family in any class all over the country which has not had some representative who has fought in this War. Many men came from the agricultural class and they will be found to be suitable for taking up such small holdings as we wish to have. I am afraid, however, that the selection will prove to be a matter of the very greatest difficulty, and all the Departments ought to co-operate with the Secretary for Scotland and lend him their assistance in evolving some plan which will enable him to get the proper persons to settle upon the land.

I join with other hon. Members in congratulating the Secretary for Scotland upon the splendid advance which this Bill makes upon existing legislation with regard to small holdings in Scotland. I could have wished, however, that we had had more time to examine the Bill before we gave it a Second Reading. The pleasant and amiable way in which the- Secretary for Scotland accepts the somewhat humble role of sitting at the table of the Whips and picking up the crumbs is probably a very nice picture, but it is not very good for Scotland that he should be quite so humble. I could not help wondering the other night why we could not have had an important Bill of this character instead of that sordid, squalid Bill providing £1,000,000 to dope the Nonconformist conscience in Wales. A remnant of the Nonconformist conscience has found a refuge on these benches, the last refuge of political integrity in this House. An important Bill of this sort ought to have precedence over a squalid Bill of that kind. From the bird's-eye view that we have had of this Bill, I must say that as far as I can judge it is a very good measure so far as it goes. The Land Courts have been eliminated from certain stages in the schemes of small holdings— I am not at all criticising the Land Courts, they will have plenty of work to do, even after being eliminated from certain stages in the schemes— and I am glad to see that the Board of Agriculture are to have more direct action in the framing of schemes, because up till now the schemes have had to be submitted to the Land Courts, and it has meant a delay of months and sometimes years. I very much regret the attack of the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs on the Land Court and its action in the past. So far as the people whom I represent are concerned— sections of the people in the Highlands and members of the Crofting community—I may say they had absolute confidence in the late Lord Kennedy, and looked upon him as a very fair judge in these matters. I can quite understand that the other parties may hold that the new judge is an improvement, but I do say that the attacks made upon Lord Kennedy were unjustified. He undertook his duty at a very difficult juncture and performed it in a way which earned the gratitude of the people in the Highlands. The Secretary for Scotland has a great advantage in the fact that the small holdings can now be secured much more ex-peditiously than under the old Bill. "We all know that it was on the rock of compensation that the Small Holdings Act was practically shipwrecked. The Board of Agriculture were, however, able to overcome certain of the difficulties and were successful in creating a great number of small holdings throughout Scotland, especially in some parts of the Highlands. There is no doubt whatever that the compensating Clauses in the old Act as interpreted by the Court of Session were very successful, and I am sorry they are not to have that finality which one could desire. I hope, however, the present proposal will grease the wheels of progress. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) referred to the question of water supply. That is a very important matter. There ought to be facilities for creating a water supply for these small holdings. There is one other matter which is of particular interest to my own Constituency. It has unfortunately been left out of the Bill, but perhaps the Secretary for Scotland, having plenty of information on the point, will be able to deal with it. It has regard to the system of crofters. They take houses and till the land, but they pay neither rent nor taxes. There are thousands of them, and I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will take steps to regularise their position and make them smallholders. At present they are neither fish, flesh, nor good red herring. I think they should be dealt with in this Bill. The question of housing of the statutory small tenant is not touched in this Bill, and I think powers should be given for an increase in their holdings. Under the Housing Bill the condition of crofters is not very satisfactory, and I was hoping that in this Bill it might have been made much more clear. I am quite aware that the Board of Agriculture have power to give loans to crofters for the erection of houses and for improvements, but they are placed at a disadvantage with the people in the towns, who can get grants of money from the Exchequer for building houses, say, in Central Edinburgh and elsewhere. Why should not the crofters be given money in the same way for building houses in the Highlands and in the rural parts of Scotland? At present they are left in a very unsatisfactory position. I hope this Bill will improve matters in a very short time. The people are getting very impatient. I have petitions daily from various parts of my Constituenc5' asking when they are going to get small holdings, and, as I say, they are getting very impatient. The cry of "Back to the land" is all very well, but in the Highlands there is no need to urge people to get back to the land; they want to get on the land. Hundreds of thousands of them are anxious to do so, and I hope this Bill will place them in a more satisfactory position in that regard.

Whatever may be said with regard to the unfortunately short notice which the House has had of this Bill, it will, I think, be agreed that the Debate to-day has revealed a very remarkable amount of agreement, and a very remarkable degree of resolution, to combine for the purpose of making this new legislative instrument as good as it can possibly be made for the purpose for which it is proposed. I know with regard to the question of time that some hon. Members— the hon. Member for Kincardine(Lieut.-Colonel A. Murray) is one of them—feel strongly that they should have been asked to be present for the Debate this afternoon. It was not because we did not know that or had no sympathy with that feeling that we nevertheless felt compelled to ask the House to give the Second Heading to-day. It was because of the circumstances. The pressure of public business forced us, much against our will, time after time to postpone the introduction of this Bill. I know that that is no excuse, when the time comes, for asking that the Second Reading Debate should be taken. It was not that we were anxious to force the Debate on the House in these circumstances; it was the congestion of business which made it, so far as we were concerned, inevitable. The really remarkable and gratifying thing is to find in connection with a subject which has certainly scorched us with the fires of the controversy it has raised in the course of the last, let us say twenty years, that there is to-day, even among some of those who come to criticise the Bill— even in the Bill itself there are some signs of it— a very strong disposition on all sides to try to bury the ashes of that controversy which, after all, in the main has burned itself out. It is quite true that the solution which this Bill attempts does not go into those darker and deeper strata of political thought which the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) reminded us in the view of some hon. Members must be entered before a solution of the land question can be attained. It is true that we leave the ownership of land as it is, except in so far as the Board of Agriculture buys the land. That is true, but the hon. Member will permit me to say that I doubt, even if the property in land were made public, we should not find ourselves still under the necessity of having some Bill like this or something very like it to see so far as we could that facilities and opportunities were given equally to all sorts of people who were fitted for it to have a share in the cultivation of the land. Therefore do let us be content to try to tackle, if we can, with some hope" of moderate success the very practical questions which are within our reach.

Another remarkable feature of the Debate is that in one-third of the time during which the discussion has lasted the topic ventilated has not been small holdings but allotments. I suppose that is not wonderful because of the development of allotments in our big towns and small towns because of the War. But it prompts one to say that if one of the legacies of the War is to be the development of something in the form of a rus in urbe in the way of ordinary occupations and avocations of the people in that way, we may be thankful. Whether the provisions this Bill contains with regard to allotments are found to be altogether satisfactory or not, there is no doubt that to some extent they are and must be tentative. Whether they are found successful or not, it is of enormous importance to use the present opportunity to provide encouragement and assistance for the development of allotments in towns. The hon. Member (Mr. Graham) pointed out several difficulties with regard to the administration of allotments at present. To some extent I have made myself familiar, in connection with the preparation of this Bill, with some of the points which he raised improvement could be made with regard to machinery, and, in view of the experience of the Scottish Committee with regard, at any rate, to two Bills within very recent months, there is every reason for Scottish Members to rely on the discretion and willingness of my right hon. Friend to consider any well-considered Amendment which is brought before us, and certainly if there are any of that character dealing with that particular topic I am sure they will be so considered. Of course, the essential trouble is to get land in big towns sufficiently near for the population to use it really to be of any proper service. That is a tremendous difficulty.

What I really want to say a few words about I can do that by referring to the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge), which was in the happiest spirit with the exception of one unfortunate passage in which he so far forgot himself ns to say he would never have any confidence in a lawyer. I remind him that he is surrounded by those gentlemen in this House. The first question he asked was in regard to money. He asked, is it not possible that some different arrangement might be made some day with regard to the division of what I may describe as Imperial money. I could not hold out the smallest prospect, at any rate, at present, of any different arrangement from that which was based on the well-known proportion of the eleven-eightieths. He put a more pointed question, and I wish I could answer it as pointedly. He said, "I see your provision for £2,750,000 is a 'not execeeding' limit. Cannot you tell us exactly what it is"? I cannot tell him exactly what it is. It will not be precisely £2,750,000, but I can give him an assurance, which he must not take as a guarantee, but which I do not think he will find wrong, that the amount will be very little below £2,500,000. Accordingly, to that extent we are certain of our money. Another point which both he and others have raised, turning directly on that, is this. Is there any intention at all of allowing Part I. to be used as it were for the defeat of Part II.? In both cases the consent of the Secretary for Scotland has to be given to a proposal to purchase land under the Board of Agriculture's scheme. The intention—and I think it will be found the operation—of the Bill will be anything but in the direction which hon. Member's very rightly deprecate What is the real discrimination between Part I. and Part II.? You will have, under the circumstances which at present we have to face a very considerable number, especially in the more Northern and Western parts of the country, of cases where very large schemes are required. The difficulties in in the way of applying the Act of 1911to large schemes are enormous, and I am afraid, do what you will with your compensation Clauses, they will prove, on a large scale, covering a whole estate, enormously expensive, and at the end of it, when you have spent all your money you have not got the land. Therefore, with regard to large schemes, where land settlement proposals on a large scale are in question, the administrative probability will all be in favour of purchase. When the proposal, on the contrary, is the establishment of a single holding or a group of two, three, four, or five, here or there or somewhere else, all the administrative expediency and possibility will be against purchase and in favour of leasing. I do not think I can put it very much further than that.

Most of the other questions asked I think raised what are really substantially Committee points. There is the question, Have you enough for rural credit? There is a Clause which is intended to provide means for it. If that can be strengthened, let it be strengthened by all manner of means. There is the question whether the term "directly attributable" is sufficiently clear. There again is a matter which can be properly discussed in Committee. A very important question has been raised about water supply. There is something in the Bill about that. These and other questions have been considered very frequently and deeply by my right hon. Friend and myself. They are all full of prickles and difficulties, but that will not prevent either him or me from having a most open mind. I know that my right hon. Friend's mind will be as open as possible to any proposal which would enable him to overcome the difficulties with which I know he is already fully familiar. There is a further point as to the limitation in the case of the purchase of land. That is a limitation to a proportion of three-quarters—three-quarters not of arable land but three-quarters of land capable of being made into arable land. I hope there is no misconception here. It is not as bad as it seems. What we want to guard against is being saddled with barren mountains and barren mountain tops. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Fife-shire (Sir A. Sprot), he raised a very important question and a very difficult question as to the selection of soldiers suitable to be supplied with land. There is a great difference between the north and west and the rest of the country. In the north and west demobilised soldiers or soldiers who have served, are most of them by their training fit to undertake the management of a holding; but that is not true to anything like the same extent when we come down to the south and east. There is a bureau which has already been opened by the Department of Agriculture. That bureau ought to be accessible to all sorts of applications in the Constituency of the hon. Member (Sir A. Sprot). Where they cannot apply personally they will have to write. This is a matter in regard to which we are very willing to listen to suggestions. If it is not self-satisfactory, the Bill will have failed in one important respect. I think that a foundation has been well laid to-day for what I hope will be as successful and as satisfactory a Committee stage that we have had in connection with the Housing Bill.

I should like to know whether the original £200,000 a year which was earmarked by the Board of Agriculture comes into the finance of this Bill, or whether that has lapsed?

The £200,000 referred to is the money, is it not, that we used to get under the Act of 1911, and which, during the War, was put down to £10,000?

Yes.

That money has gone. It is a great pity; but the same thing is true in the case of England. Their Grant was also reduced.

I understand that a message has come down from the Lords dealing with the Welsh Church Bill, and I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."

I do not at all quarrel with the Government, because no doubt they have very good reason for bringing on this Bill at this rather unexpected hour. I am not suggesting that anything like an assurance was given, or that a breach of faith has been committed, but I did understand that the Amendments to the Welsh Church Bill would be taken on Monday. Suddenly the Amendments are taken now. It may happen to be a convenient course, but very few of those who are interested in the Bill are present now. But the reason why I rather object to it being taken now is not on the merits of the Bill, but because it will prevent us taking the Order which immediately succeeds—that is, the Sex Disqualification Bill. I have been credibly informed—I cannot say whether it is true or not—that certain junior members of the Government have been going around to the Scottish Members and urging them not to curtail their eloquence. It is not generally necessary to do that on a Scottish Bill, but I am told that certain Scottish Members who had not proposed to trouble the House on the Second Reading of the Bill have been induced to make considerable orations, no doubt greatly to the advantage of the House and the clearer understanding of the Bill. But it is rather odd that they should have done so. I am told that the object was to prevent the Sex Disqualification Bill being taken.

I assure my hon. Friend that he is wrong. So far as the Scottish Members are concerned they did not want to discuss the Bill at all. They preferred to do that on another occasion. Very few of them made speeches of longer duration than ten minutes.

I did not suggest that the Government Whips have been with the hon. Member. They are intelligent men, and I imagine would not trouble the hon. Member with any such request. What I want to point out is this Here is a Bill with a rather curious history. Many months ago a Bill with this object was introduced into this House. It was a much more extensive Bill than the Government measure. Upstairs in Committee a very odd thing happened—it was passed without Amendment. It came down here, and was allowed to go through Report without amendment or discussion. Then the Government tried to throw it out on the Third Heading, and I am glad to say they failed, and the Bill was passed and sent up to the House of Lords. I agreed entirely with that Bill which originated, I think, with the Labour party. Nothing was done with it in the House of Lords for a considerable time, and then, at the request of the Government, it was rejected, and the Government introduced another Bill. That Bill is, from my point of view, certainly a very inadequate Bill, but it was coming down to be discussed this afternoon, and we hope to debate it and to be able to amend it, and to send it back to the other House, if necessary. In that state of things the Government have quite suddenly decided to take the Welsh Church Amendments. Why do they do it? The Amendments could easily have been put off till Monday. Even supposing there is some difference of opinion between the Houses, the Amendments could easily be disposed of on Monday or Tuesday. I confess that I think it is a very unfortunate proceeding. It certainly bears the appearance that once again the Government of the day, whether Liberal or Conservative or Coalition, is engaged, not in defeating the demand by women, but in postponing it, and getting rid of it. That, I maintain, is what the Motion before the House means. It is an attempt to shelve another Bill, and that is the reason why I venture to draw attention to it, and to express the hope that the Government will not insist, but will allow the Order of the day to come forward, so that we can see whether they have any objection to the Amendments put down.

I join in the protest, but not for the reasons put forward by the Noble Lord. I feel that when Ministers come down on a Friday after 4.30, having neglected to put in an appearance from twelve to 4.30, although a first-class Government measure is being taken, one is entitled to ask the Home Secretary for what reason he asks the House to agree to these Lords Amendments. The Prime Minister is present, and I would remind, him that this is the third time that the business has been interrupted by other business of which we have had no notice. Quite early in the afternoon Mr. Speaker interrupted the proceedings to deal with some Amendments to the Transport Bill with which the Lords had disagreed. Then the proceedings were again interrupted by Black Rod, and now, when a Bill which ought to have its turn is due for consideration, and when those Members who are interested in seeing that Bill put through are here, down comes the whole Government. I see the Government Bench filled at 4.30 on a Friday afternoon, although, we have been assured that the Prime Minister has not time to attend the House of Commons, and that his time ought to be occupied in thinking. Well, he is thinking. What does he think now? What does he think about coming down on a Friday afternoon in order to keep off an inconvenient Bill, so that some Amendments from the Lords might be considered? After all, who are the Lords? I have heard the Prime Minister on the subject of the Lords, and I would like to repeat his phraseology. I generally keep it for the platform, where I can pass it off as original. Why should this matter be so particularly urgent this afternoon? After all the House of Lords are not Welshmen, as far as I know. [An HON. MEMBER: "Some of them!"] I do not believe the Lords are entitled at this late hour to ask us to upset our business. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is committed to the policy of sex disqualification removal. He has got to see it through. He has the authority and can wipe on one side the Home Secretary and the Lord Privy Seal. He can get up and say that he is going to do it now. That is the policy on which he came into office, and now he is proposing to do something else. I appeal to him to put off the Welsh Bill now. He can cut half an hour out of his speech on Monday, and that will enable us to deal with the Welsh question. We will give him all the time he likes on Monday. Let us get on now with the other Bill and give the widest possible distribution of the franchise to every man and woman above a certain age. That is real democracy. The Prime Minister is a democrat, and I hope he will not now pursue this Welsh discussion.

I do think it would create a most unfortunate impression if this Sex Disqualification (Removal) Bill is not discussed. On last Monday the Leader of the House informed me that the Government hoped to find time for this Bill. The time has come now, and something else is put up to keep it off. The House knows very well that the Government can easily discuss this Bill now. The Government are pledged up to the hilt on this question, and I am willing to refer to the pre-election pledges of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House. Their conduct on the Bill, which this House passed and which was rejected in another place, will make a most unfortunate impression in the country. I do not believe the Prime Minister wants that. I believe that he wants to fulfil his pledges to women who are expecting those pledges to be fulfilled, and I appeal to him now. It will not take very long to discuss the Sex Disqualification Bill, and surely the Amendments to the Welsh Church Bill can be taken on Monday. We were told that this Bill would be taken yesterday, and yesterday we were told that the Committee stage could be taken to-day, and Members came down prepared to discuss the Committee stage. If this sort of plan is to be adopted, why were we not told before? Surely it is hardly worthy of a strong Government like the present Government to treat the country in that way. I do assure the Government that it will create the very worst impression amongst their followers in the country, and especially among the women, who have waited a good time for this Bill. I hope the Prime Minister will listen to what has been said. It will not take long to pass this Bill, and I am sure the House will assist him to expedite the business in the fastest possible way.

I hope that the Lords Amendments to the Welsh Bill will not be taken till Monday because they were only inserted this morning and we have not seen them on any Paper. Hon. Members do not in the least know what they are, and there is no means of seeing them except in a manuscript copy which is very difficult to follow at the Table. There is a considerable number of very important Amendments. I hope that the Government will be able to leave them to the unfettered discretion of the House. We should have the opportunity of seeing them. I could give instances where there are most reasonable Amendments which ought to be considered impartially by those who are anxious for a settlement of this question. I do urge the Government to put them down for Monday when we can have a fuller time to examine and discuss them and to discuss then amongst ourselves rather than come to a definite decision this afternoon. I think it is only fair to the Welsh Church that every opportunity should be given to those Members who are interested in her future and her

I wish to join in the request to the Government to proceed with the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Bill. I know nothing about the controversy between Englishmen and Welshmen in regard to their respective, churches, but I voted with the Government originally on the first Bill on the grounds that they would themselves introduce a Bill for the removal of the sex disqualification. Having voted with the Government in that instance, I think it is up to the Government to fulfil their promise and to take this Bill now. This is a Bill which, I venture to say, every woman in the country is watching with eagerness and anxiety, and there will be great disappointment throughout the country if the Government do not take this Bill to-day.

It seems a pity to waste time which might be devoted to either of these Bills in a discussion as to which of the two should be taken, but I think the women are entitled to the preference. They were badly sold on a previous Friday afternoon, and I appeal to the Prime Minister to give them a chance to-day.

On a point of Order. I desire to ask you, Sir, why Standing Order No. 43 has not been complied with? That Order reads

"Lords Amendments to public Bills shall be appointed to be considered on a future day, unless the House shall Order them to be considered forthwith."

If I am not mistaken no Order has been made by the House to consider the Lords Amendments forthwith. No Question has been put at all on that. It is stated in Erskine May's Volume, and I believe it is the practice of the House—

"If objection be taken, consideration of Amendments may be deferred."

May!

No doubt, but the whole practice is that Amendments are only forthwith considered when they are of substance—and not merely verbal—when it can be done by general consent. I would ask whether these proceedings are regular?

The House has a right to decide, and it has decided.

Was the Question put that the Amendments be forthwith considered?

That is what the House has just divided upon.

On a point of Order. Was not the Question put, "That the Lords Amendment be now considered "? Is that the same?

I desire to move to re- post Progress, and ask leave to sit again, and for this reason—

That is out of order.

Will you accept a Motion to report Progress until Ministers know what they are talking about? If not, I would beg to move that the Debate be now-adjourned.

There is no question of the Debate not being proceeded with. The Clerk will read the Amendments.

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

This Amendment was put in in order that the Bill might deal, not only with the finances of the Church, but also with the question of Disestablishment.

What Clause are we on?

The title. There is an Amendment following on Disestablishment, with which the House will be asked to deal. This Amendment make a subsequent Amendment possible, and therefore I move as I do.

I very much regret the attitude taken up by the Government. The Home Secretary did not make it clear what the Amendment is which the Lords have inserted, and which has necessitated this consequential Amendment in the title. The Lords have inserted an Amendment dealing with the position of the Welsh Church in regard to Convocation, and the Home Secretary has suggested that it deals with the principle of Disestablishment. It does nothing of the kind. The Welsh Church has accepted the Bill, and accepts Disestablishment completely and unreservedly. The Lords Amendment relating to Convocation is only in order to enable the constitutional ecclesiastical procedure in Convocation to take place. That is to say, to enable the new Welsh Province to be set up by Convocation itself, with the assent of the Archbishop of Canterbury, instead of being imposed by the State, as was done in the original Act. It is merely a question of form as to whether, in carrying out Disestablishment, which we accept, you will allow the ecclesiastical constitution of this country, namely, Convocation, to proceed in the normal ecclesiastical manner, and set up the new province under writ of business from the Crown, issued direct to Convocation. That is the whole Amendment which the Lords have put in. It is only fair to the historical continuity of the Church in Wales, and the proper manner of carrying out Disestablishment, that you should put in this consequential Amendment in order that the Lords Amendment, which is merely one of wording and machinery, may be inserted later.

It is very inconvenient to discuss what is considered on the one hand to be an Amendment of substance, while on the other hand it is held to be one of a consequential character. We have not had an opportunity of seeing this Amendment, and the Home Secretary has not explained the point at issue. Nevertheless ho has asked us to disagree with it. His explanation does not enable us to judge whether the Amendment is reasonable or unreasonable, but the House must form its own judgment. I suggest that the regular course is to postpone the consideration of this Amendment until the conclusion of the others, and that has often been done. I therefore move, "That the consideration of this Amendment be postponed until the other Amendments have been considered."

The House has decided to proceed with this Amendment.

It has not decided to proceed with this Amendment in this way. The course I suggest is one which has often been taken.

That Amendment should have been moved before I put the Motion that the House doth disagree.

I should like to understand what we are discussing. I have a, copy of the Bill here, and had I known that so many distinguished members of the Government were coming here I should have got a copy of the Bill earlier, and I should have taken the opportunity of consulting with my hon. Friends as to what these Amendments mean. So far I have not made a speech at all on this question, because, after all, it is a matter which does not concern me. If I am asked, at seven minutes to five on a Friday afternoon, to agree to certain Lords Amendments, I want to understand what I am doing.

You are asked to disagree.

Yes, I know, but I have disagreed so frequently that I should like to make an exception, if possible, this afternoon. As fax as 1 read it for the first time, this is a Bill to "continue in office the Welsh Commissioners, appointed under the Welsh Church Act, 1914, to postpone the date of Disestablishment, and to make further provision with respect to the temporalities of and marriages in the Church in Wales." I understand that the Amendment is to add the words "constitution and." I should like to know if 1 am quite right on this point. If that is so, it means that the Bill should read, "to make further provision with respect to the constitution and temporalities of and marriages in the Church in Wales." I would like to know if marriages in Wales have any special constitution. What really is the issue? I know nothing at all about it, and that is why I am making a speech. If I knew anything about it, I should not ask for information. One of the things most necessary, if you are going to make up your mind, is that you ought to be informed. I observe two right hon. Gentlemen present who do know, and one is the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), and I hope he will enlighten us as to what the addition of the words "constitution and" means. With regard to marriages in Wales, the Prime Minister is also a Welshman, and he is also married, and he might give us the other side, so that those of us who do not understand this question might appreciate the value of this Amendment. I shall be glad to give my verdict, if either of those two right hon. Gentlemen care to have it, after they have enlightened me from both sides as to the value of the Amendment. I could not understand my hon. and gallant Friend's (Captain Ormsby-Gore) enthusiasm for what he called a consequential Amendment. I thought that it was the first Amendment.

This is a consequential Amendment to the title of the Bill, and the result of an Amendment put in a Clause later on by the House of Lords dealing with commutation.

Then it seems to me that this is the cart before the horse, and that the Amendment which you refused to take from the Noble Lord (Lord H. Cecil) was an Amendment in which there was extraordinary common sense. The hon. and gallant Member, who knows all about the Bill, assures me that this is a consequential Amendment to an. Amendment to a Clause which comes later. Then surely we ought to have the Amendments taken in order. I have left very little time for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hitchin (Lord E. Cecil) to explain the Amendment, and for the Prime Minister to reply to him, but if they can do it in the time I shall be grateful.

I am not sure that the Government would wish to discuss the matter now, because we have had no explanation why they are against this Amendment. Honestly, I do not think that this is the right way to do business; I do not wish to be critical. This is an important matter, but it has been treated very lightly by the Home Secretary; possibly he does not appreciate its importance. The question of commutation is not a question about which I myself feel very strongly, but it is a question about which certain members of my Church and of the Welsh Church, and, I believe, a very large body of Nonconformist opinion, feel very strongly. The broad issue, apart from details, is this: Is it right for the State to interfere in the internal government of a Church, whether it be the Church of England, or a Nonconformist Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, or any other Church? Is it right that they should interfere in the internal government of the Church before the views and wishes of the Church had been expressed? That is the whole issue, and really I cannot think that the Home Secretary has had any time or opportunity of considering the matter or of taking counsel with those who, I understand, represent the Welsh Nonconformists. One of the reasons why I consider that it is a pity that the Government have hurried on this Bill is that there has not been any opportunity of consultation. There was, Heaven knows, enough consultation in the earlier stages, and this is just a case of consultation. We could not raise this matter here. You cannot amend the Title of a Bill, or, at any rate, it is extremely difficult, but the procedure in the House of Lords is more lax, and it enabled them to raise the question. It has always been a bitter question, and we Churchmen in our ignorance have always attributed it to the fact that Mr. McKenna, who was in charge of the Welsh Church Act, did not understand the point at all. I, therefore, insisted on this Clause being inserted.