Papurau Newydd Cymru

Chwiliwch 15 miliwn o erthyglau papurau newydd Cymru

Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

21 erthygl ar y dudalen hon

Welsh Members and the Ag-I…

Newyddion
Dyfynnu
Rhannu

Welsh Members and the Ag- I ricnltural Eoldiigs Bill On the second reading of the Agricul- tural Holdings Bill in the House of Com- mons on Monday night, Mr Lambert said that the Government had so whittled down its provisions that there was now very little in them to recommend the bill. The bill was also criticised by Mr Jeffreys, Mr Channing, Major Rasch, and others from the point of view of English agriculturists, and Dr Farquharson, Sir W. Wedderburn, Mr T. Shaw, and Mr Buchanan dealt with its provisions as affecting agriculture in Scotland. Mr Brynmor Jones rose for the purpose of pointing out to the President of the Board of Agriculture that the people in the Welsh counties were profoundly disap- pointed at the production of this message. Rightly or wrongly, both landlords and tenants had understood the repeated refer- ences in the Queen's Speech to a measure for amending the relations between land- lord and tenant, and the statements made by the right hon. gentleman himself and the speeches made by his supporters in the country as a kind of pledge that, in regard to Wales and Monmouthshire, at any rate, they should have some special legislation which should solve the problems that arose between the conflicting interests of land- lord and tenant. A commission was ap- pointed in 1893, of which he was a member, to consider the conditions and circum- stances under which the land was culti- vated in Wales and Monmouthshire. The commission sat in every county in the Prin- cipality and in Monmouthshire, and as a result two different sets of recommenda- tions were made. The first, which might be called the majority report, recom- mended the creation of a modified Land Oourt system. It was not the Irish sys- tem of 1881, which involved dual owner- ship, hor was it quite like the crofter sys- tem in the crofting districts of Scotland. They thought that a measure might be in- troduced which should secure the equal ad- justment of the rights of landlord and ten- ant without having the least tendency to break up the big estates, or damage the landlord interest, if they approached the matter from a fair and proper standpoint. He frankly admitted that, after what the right hon. gentleman said in the debate in 1897, they could not expect him to intro- duce a measure which would express the.r proposals. But what they did think was ,that the Government might introduce a bill in respect of Wales and Monmouth- shire which would carry out the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commis- sion. That was the recommenda- tion of what was called the minority report, but it was in fact a unanimous re- port, and it stated that the circumstances in Wales were such as to demand separate treatment by a separate bill. What the commission had in view was that there were certain topics of legislation which it was desirable to compress, if they were dealing with the matter by statute, into on, statute for the whole of the United King- dom. But that was not the case with re- gard to land tenure. Land tenure was especially a topic which ought to be con- sidered bv reference to the historical and economical circumstances of the particular area with which a bill dealt. The Govern- ment, by this bill, were endeavouring to oompress in one set of provisions regula- tions as between laudlord and tenant for the whole of Great Britain. He thought that was an objectionable principle. This bill was no redemption of the pledges the Government had made to the country. They, or their supporters, had deliberately induced the farmers in Wales to believe. that they would bring in a measure which would do them something like justice. That was not done by this bill, and though he would not oppose the bill, he entered his emphatic protest against the course the Government had adopted (hear, hear). Mr Herbert Roberts believed there were many good suggestions in the bill, which, so far as they went, would no doubt be valued. He desired, however, briefly to emphasise the objctions taken by his hon. friend Mr Jones. He had already indi- cated to the House what the unanimous re- eommendations of the Welsh Land Com- mission were in regard to two or three vital points. To those points he attached the greatest importance, especially as to the finding of the Commission that it was just that the tenant upon the soil should be protected for a period of three years under the old rent, and also the recom- mendation as to doing away with notice in writing. He had read to the House the specific terms of the Commission's unani- mous opinion as to the necessity for separ- ate land legislation for Wales, and had ex- pressed his opinion that the people of Wales based on that recommendation the belief that the present Government would bring in a special measure for Wales to carry out that proposition (hear, hear). Up to last year he held the same opinion him- self, but after the explicit statement of the Home Secretary at that time, he thought it was plain Wales could not look for spe- cial land reform from this Government. It iras therefore useless for him to explain the reasons on which they made this urgent claim for separate legislation for Wales. I They were many—poetical, historical, r-nd racial. All he had to say was that in sup porting the bill as far as it went, and in granting that from the point of view ol machinery it would be an improvement on the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883, he wottid emphasise the fact that they in Wales could not look upon the bill as in any sense a satisfactory solution of the Welsh land problem. They must leave it to the fu- ture and other conditions — Parliament- ary conditions perhaps — to produce some satisfactory legislation upon this important subject. His constituency bad for many years taken the keenest interest in this matter and a leading part in many of the recent land movements in Wales, and he was glad to have had the opportunity of expressing his views on the bill (hear, hear). In reply, Mr Long said he could not ad- mit that there was a distinction between the English and the Welsh agriculturist, and as to Scotland he maintained that, so far a<: this measure was concerned, there were no material differences between its taws and customs and those of England, except such as were provided for. He hoped at some future time to introduce a consolidation. Mr Ure moved an amendment protesting against legislation for England and Scot- tand being embodied in the same measure. The amendment was defeated by 115 votes to 30. The second reading was then agreed to, and the bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Trade. The House adjourned shortly before i-1 to- night for the Easter recess.

Advertising

The Lancashire and Western…

Sale of an Estate at Criccleth

Advertising

The Bankrupt and the Moaeylender's…

Mr Samuel Smltl, - M P. as…

[No title]

Marriage of Mr T. Rohinson,

Carnarvonshire War Fund.

Bangor Guardians and Paupers'…

Gwyrfai District Conncil.

IPatent Record

[No title]

'Portmadoc Urban Goancll

Interfering with Recruiting…

Advertising

Carnarvon County Court.

Holyhead Urban District Counci]

Mr HampIiiejS'Owen, M.P.,…

Advertising