COMPULSORY POWERS 327 



Three witnesses alone were against any such 

 clause. Their opinions were as follows : 



Mr. Pell, a landowner and tenant farmer in 

 Northampton and the Isle of Ely, said that com- 

 pulsion was unnecessary, because he knew no cases 

 where the demand for small holdings was not 

 satisfied. Later on he admitted that this was not 

 the case with holdings up to 10 acres. He con- 

 cluded his remarks by admitting that he was not 

 opposed to the principle 'when Parliament is 

 satisfied it is the right thing,' as, for instance, in 

 the case of sites for places of worship and co- 

 operative stores. 



Mr. Smith, the Honorary Secretary of the East 

 Suffolk Chamber of Agriculture, and the Managing 

 Director of the Eastern Counties Institute, objected 

 to a compulsory clause, while admitting its value 

 in the case of allotments. ' In the case of allot- 

 ments that compulsory provision is very valuable 

 .... but in the case of small holdings I do not 

 think that there is the same justification for it.' 

 He was of opinion that enough land could be got 

 by voluntary arrangement. 



Mr. Wimpenny, a small holder in Cheshire, got 

 as far as saying, ' I cannot see my way clear to 

 compulsion .... because sometimes it leaves 

 us enemies in our neighbourhood.' 



A fourth witness, Mr. Humphreys Owen, 

 without giving any reasons or evidence, said, in 

 answer to a question, that in his district he thought 

 sufficient land could be got by voluntary agreement. 



