COMMITTEE. [Progress 20th July.] (Hansard, 22 July 1875)

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
inquired whether the clauses were to be proceeded with exactly as they stood, or whether it was intended to made any alteration in them?

MR. GOLDSMID
observed, that if a report which prevailed was correct—that the Government had decided on making some very important alterations in the Bill, and had already informed one portion of the House of their intention—it was possible that the alterations might materially affect the course of the discussion, and therefore it was only fair that hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House should know what changes the Cabinet had decided upon; otherwise it would be impossible to discuss the questions which were to be raised. He therefore wished to ask the Government, what were the decisions at which they had arrived with regard to the Bill?

§ MR. HUNT
observed, that it was quite reasonable that the Committee should be desirous of knowing what the Government intended to do in the matter. There had been a good deal of discussion the other evening as to the system on which the classification of different subjects should be arranged, and the Government had in consequence resolved 1830 to adopt the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot). He believed that by doing so a great number of objections to the classification, as it at present existed, would be removed.

§ SIR THOMAS ACLAND
observed, that he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the explanation which he had given; but as he had not stated the general views of the Government, he had no option but to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice for the purpose of removing the difficulty which would arise from the meaning of the word "improvement," as defined in the different classes of qualification. He wanted to know where they were, and what they were about? That House was not a Chamber of Agriculture, or a House of landlords; but was the House of Commons, and a great number of its Members represented great and populous constituencies not engaged in agriculture. He wished to know whether they were to adopt a particular phrase because certain agriculturists had settled that it was the right thing? The proposition he had to make to the Committee was supported by a large number of the landowners in several south-western and north-eastern counties, and its object was to remedy injustice—or at least that which led to a sense of injustice—to a large class in this country. He had already stated that he did not believe that the actual injustice was so great as some people were inclined to think it was, because he was satisfied that a large number of landlords acted with substantial justice towards their tenants. But there certainly was a growing feeling that the present amiable, pleasant, kindly relations between landlords and their tenants must come to an end, and that the latter must have more independence than they at present enjoyed. His firm belief was that if the relations between landlord and tenant were placed on the same footing as the great Ecclesiastical Body and their tenants things would be very different. Why was it that the tenants of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners got on so well? For this simple reason, that those Commissioners had no "game," no religion, and no politics—at least, those subjects were not intruded into their relations with their tenants. The intended effect of this scheme was, in the first place, to get rid altogether of the details of the 1831 first class of improvements mentioned in the Bill, leaving them to he regulated entirely by free contract between the landlord and the tenant. His second object was to leave the arrangements as to manure and game to generally go under the ordinary rules of valuation, but to take them out of the hands of the valuer whenever the landlord and tenant chose to come to an agreement on the subject. With respect to the second class, he proposed that the landlords and tenants should have power to make agreements in respect of any improvements the effects of which were likely to endure beyond two years. In other words, he proposed that, as regarded all improvements mentioned in the first and second classes, the landlords and tenants should have full power to contract, leaving the question as to manures and cake to be settled by the valuers. He also proposed with respect to the second class that they should not lay down a uniform rule for the whole of England, and should not interfere where the custom of the district allowed the great capitalist farmers of the East of England to effect improvements of the second class at their own discretion and to claim compensation for them. Had things remained as they were on Tuesday, he should have hoped for considerable support for his scheme from hon. Members opposite; but he should watch with interest the course they would take with regard to it now that they had settled their differences and were again a united Party. With the view of hearing what the Government had to say on the subject he would formally move the exclusion from the clause of the word "improvement" comprised in either of the three classes following.

§ MR. CLARE READ
said, the hon. Baronet had begun his speech by saying "Where were we?" Well, he (Mr. Read) wanted to know where was his Amendment, as he did not know what it was or where it was. In 1847 a Bill was introduced by Mr. Pusey, on the back of which were the names of Mr. Evelyn Denison and Mr. T. D. Acland, who then sat on the Conservative side of the House. Now, in that Bill he found this remarkable fact, that compensation for tenants' improvements was to be divided into three classes—first, temporary improvements, including artificial manures and feeding stuff for stock; secondly, durable improvements, in- 1832 cluding draining, marling, &c.; and, thirdly, permanent improvements, including new fences, roads, and necessary buildings. But now the hon. Baronet came down to the House and said he did not want the word "improvement" inserted, or any classification of improvement. [Sir THOMAS ACLAND: No, no!] Well, at all events, the hon. Baronet said that he did not want in this Bill something which was contained in the Bill which had his name upon its back. The hon. Baronet had apparently been asleep since 1847. Indeed, he was known in the agricultural world as the Rip Van Winkle of Tenant Eight, and it was not until the Government had awakened him from that sleep that he had renewed his knowledge of that Bill. He (Mr. Read), for his part, thought it was essential to have classification. It was embraced in a Bill which he had introduced and, he believed, in every Bill brought under the notice of Parliament. The expenditure on artificial manure and on cake and other feeding stuff for cattle was an improvement, however temporary the benefit might be; but the Government had never deviated from the principle of Mr. Pusey's. Bill, which declared that the ordinary course of good husbandry should not be a subject of compensation. This was a different thing, however, from extraneous manures brought on the farm, for all of which tenants ought to be compensated.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
, in answer to the hon. Member (Mr. Clare Read), said, it was true that the first of Mr. Pusey's Bills contained three classes of improvements; but after the Committee of 1848, for which he moved, and over which Mr. Pusey presided, the next Bill and the subsequent Bills introduced by Mr. Pusey contained only two classes, omitting permanent improvements, such as buildings. In the opinion of the Select Committee of the House, which then considered this subject, what were commonly called landlords' improvements ought to be exempted from a Bill of this nature, and from the category of ordinary tenant improvements. The relations of landlord and tenant were totally different in England from what they were in Ireland or Scotland. In Ireland landlords generally left tenants to do everything. In Scotland the partnership which existed between landlord and tenant in England was interrupted by 1833 long leases. He hoped it would be the object of the Committee to continue the relation between landlord and tenant which had so long existed in England, which was still a relation of partnership. This Bill proposed to effect an object he had long desired—namely, to change the existing presumption of the law that the tenant was not entitled to compensation for agricultural improvements to the opposite presumption that the tenant was entitled to compensation, unless by contract he excluded himself from the right. Although in England it was unusual that the tenant should erect the farm house and buildings, it had become usual that the landlord should agree with the tenant that the tenant should make the common agricultural improvement—such as field drainage, chalking, marling, and the like; he acted as a partner with the tenant, and it was just that the period assigned for compensation should be such as would recoup the tenant for his outlay; or, failing this through death or other termination of the tenancy, that the tenant or his representatives should be paid such portion of his outlay, as had not been recouped by increased produce. It was just that afterwards some portion of the improvement to the land should remain to the landlord to compensate the landlord for the risk he had incurred by becoming security for the outlay of the tenant before it was recouped. As soon as the tenant was recompensed, it was right that the landlord should come in for the advantage in return for the risk he had run. But with regard to building, road-making, and other improvements, which might be called landlord's improvements, a period of 20 or 25 years might be allowed to repay the tenant if he should have undertaken them. But this ought to be left to private contract between landlord and tenant, and should be kept separate from improvements of the state and condition of the soil of the farm which are strictly within the province of the tenant. In 20 or 25 years the remainderman would probably come in, and it was only just that, as he was no party to the transaction between his predecessor and the tenant, that the instalments for repayment of any compensation still due should be re-distributed, so that the burden should be made as light to him as possible.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
said, it had been stated several times in the course of the discussion that the Government were willing to introduce several modifications in the Bill, and that statement had not received any contradiction from the bench opposite. He would therefore appeal to the Government whether it was not fair that they should be told what important Amendments in the Bill the Government had assented to before they asked the Committee to proceed further with the discussion of this most important clause. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had stated that it was the intention of the Government to accede to certain Amendments in the 7th clause.

§ MR. HUNT
explained that what he had stated was that the Government purposed to accept the Amendments of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot), with a view to give elasticity to the period over which compensation for improvements would extend, instead of drawing a hard-and-fast line at 20 or 25 years. These Amendments applied to the 6th and 7th clauses, and there was a new consequential clause allowing the arbitrators to restrict the number of years.

THE MARQESS OF HARTINGTON
said, if that were so, there could be no objection in point of form to the Government stating to the Committee what Amendments in other clauses they had agreed to. It was evident that some communications had been made to hon. Gentlemen on the other side, and he appealed to the Committee whether, when communications had been made to hon. Members opposite which they (on the Opposition side) knew nothing of, they should proceed with the discussion? The question was mixed up with every clause of the Bill—whether this clause was to extend to four-fifths of the holdings of England, or whether those holdings were to be excluded. What, also, were the intentions of the Government as to the clauses dealing with breaches of contract; were they to be modified or not? Lest there should be any difficulty or irregularity in what he suggested, he would assist the Government by moving that the Chairman do now report Progress, in order to afford them an opportunity of giving information to the Committee.

§ MR. DISRAELI
I shall certainly oppose that proposal, which is, I think, most unusual and most unreasonable. Whatever Amendments may be proposed we shall be prepared to express our opinion with regard to them when they come before the Committee. The alterations to which the noble Marquess has referred, and which have been mentioned by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt), are on the 6th and 7th clauses, but then they affect the clause before the Committee. The Amendments of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex have been on the Paper some days. It is nothing unusual to adopt Amendments as a Bill proceeds; that has been done before without the Government's being called upon to make a formal statement in consequence; and if Amendments should be proposed in this case, which we approve, we shall adopt them, whether they come from our opponents or not. I think the noble Lord weakens the character and reputation of his followers by supposing that Amendments are only to be agreed to which proceed from the Ministerial side of the House. The Government will agree to Amendments, from whatever side proposed, which may appear to them advantageous. On every occasion when the Chairman puts the Question, we will take care to express our intentions. There is not a single reason for the Motion made by the noble Lord. We fairly stated before we came to the 6th and 7th clauses that we intended to adopt the Amendments of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex, which affect those clauses, and we are acting in a legitimate way with regard to the other clauses. As to the allegation that some secret meeting has been called, which might be described by an American name, I can only say that the practice of a Ministry consulting with their friends has been sanctioned at all times, and I have seen very great mischief caused to both sides of the House by Ministers not consulting their friends. Nothing of our purpose has been concealed. I believe it was announced in the organs which disseminated information, and having taken a course perfectly 1836 legitimate we shall proceed in a legitimate manner in the consideration of the Bill. If hon. Gentlemen opposite had come to the meeting we should have been glad to see them, but their presence would have been unusual.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, they did not complain of a concealed purpose, but because the result of the consultation was concealed. The real question was, whether they were to discuss this Bill in the House of Commons, or whether it was to be settled outside. The question was, whether the majority of hon. Gentlemen on the other side had settled the terms of this Bill elsewhere, and whether arrangements had been made not known to the House generally. The First Lord of the Admiralty had told the Committee that certain concessions were to be made to hon. Gentlemen opposite in Clauses 6 and 7. The right hon. Gentleman said that was because Clauses 6 and 7 affected Clause 5. That was true; but it was equally true of Clause 46, which affected every clause in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had made an announcement with reference to Clauses 6 and 7, because the Amendments had been long on the Paper; but so had the Amendments of the hon. Member for North Wilts (Sir George Jenkinson). The course which the Government were taking would involve the most egregious waste of time it was possible to conceive. The House was not placed in a fair position. They were like persons negotiating a treaty, while a plenipotentiary sitting opposite had a secret article in his pocket. They did not complain that the Leaders had consulted their Party; but it was only fair that the House as well as the Party opposite should have an announcement from the Government as to the general nature of the alterations they intended to make in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Admiralty said the object of the Amendments to the 6th and 7th clauses was to make the terms more elastic; but they would only do so one way. They were not elastic as against the landlord, but were elastic against the tenant. Were the other Amendments to be in the same direction? If the Government had arranged terms further discussion must be practically useless.

§ MR. HENLEY
preferred the words in the Bill as to improvements to those 1837 proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Thomas Acland), because in legislation they must have regard not only to what 99 out of 100 people would do, but to what some wrongheaded man might do. But really this Bill was what it had been described as being in "another place." It was a "model Bill," indicating the things which, in the opinion of the Legislature, ought to be dealt with, and leaving it perfectly free for all parties to deal with them by contract if they thought fit so to do. But they could no more make one Bill applicable to the hundred different circumstances of soil and other matters in various parts of this country, than the House of Commons could take wings to fly. He thought the intention of the Government was that the Bill should be so regarded, and it was impossible to treat it in any other way. It was simply impossible to make a Bill which would meet all the circumstances of every case; therefore, he could not see that it was worth while discussing the vast number of improvements suggested in the Bill by the various Amendments of which Notice had been given, with the intention of making it generally applicable. Treating it as a model Bill, there was some chance of getting through it in reasonable time; whereas if they attempted to make it suit every soil and every variation of circumstances, it would be impossible duly to settle its clauses if they sat till this time next year.

MR. GLADSTONE
The question immediately before the Committee is that you report Progress, and upon that I wish to say a few words. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister quite misunderstood the proposition of my noble Friend and his speech. He treated both my noble Friend's Motion and his speech as hostile; but if I understood my noble Friend, neither deserved that character. There is no reproach, as has been stated distinctly by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), intended to the Government for having pursued the course, not unusual, of summoning, on occasions like the present, their supporters—if it be the fact that such a meeting has been held for the discussion of this measure, and for considering what should be the future course of the Government with regard to a number of particular points in the 1838 Bill. We may be wrong in supposing that to have occurred; but, supposing it has occurred and that the Government laid before their friends their views on a variety of most important points affecting the provisions of the Bill, and that the result of the consideration of those provisions has been, as might reasonably be expected, to affect materially the views of hon. Members in regard to the measure, the real question is whether there has been such a consideration of the Amendments, and whether the proceedings of to-day elsewhere have been communicated to their supporters; and the point I venture to press is this—that not merely those who sit behind the Government, but the entire House, are warranted in expecting that if there has been announced, on the part of the Government, the intention of deviating materially from this Bill in several clauses, we, as well as the friends of the Government, are entitled to a conspectus of the Bill. I wish to remind the Committee of the position in which we are now placed. If the Government think they can facilitate the progress of this measure by announcing their intentions with respect to particular parts of this Bill to their immediate supporters, what I as an individual desire, and what I believe the House requires, is, that we also should know what are the intentions of the Government; and so far from my noble Friend's proposal being a hostile one, it was the only proposal he could make most calculated to facilitate the progress of this measure; for many Gentlemen feeling disposed to press their isolated Amendments, possibly leading to lengthened discussion, might, if they knew of the arrangement which had been made, be disposed to consult the general convenience and sacrifice their own immediate views. But the right hon. Gentleman treats the Motion to report Progress as a hostile Motion; whereas it was exclusively meant to meet the point of order, and, knowing that you, Mr. Raikes, are a vigilant and able guardian of the Privileges and Orders of the House, to remove any possible difficulty that might be interposed to such a statement. I would remind the Committee that a very important change has occurred of late years with respect to the proceedings of the House while an important Bill is in Committee. Within a limited number 1839 of years it was in the power of any Member before going into Committee every day to raise a discussion on the general subject of the Bill. This enabled Members to express their views generally on the measure while it was going through Committee, so that the House, at any given stage, had a clear prospect of the work they had to do. That power has been taken away, but it has placed us in this difficulty—when important changes have been reviewed by the Government affecting the general character of a Bill, I believe there is no other mode of enabling the changes intended to be announced except by making the Motion of my noble Friend. Therefore, I say that Motion is a friendly Motion. It implies no blame or censure on the Government for having consulted their friends and made known to them their intentions. If we are wrong in supposing that a variety of important modifications have been accepted by the Government to-day, cadit quœstio; in that case, no doubt, my noble Friend will withdraw his Motion. But if we are right in that, we are bound to ask, and entitled to expect, that we may know the general intention of the Government, not from clause to clause, but on the Bill as a whole. I say, as far as this side of the House is concerned, that is not an unfair proposition; it is necessary to enable hon. Members to consider what course they shall take.

§ MR. DISRAELI
I cannot say I am convinced that I put an erroneous interpretation upon the Motion of the noble Marquess, and I can say now I have not the slightest desire to encourage friendly Motions of that kind. The speech of the right hon. Member for Greenwich appears to me to be of a very remarkable character. It has one great hypothesis—" If there has been a meeting to-day, of which I know nothing—if there have been great alterations made in the Bill, of which I know nothing—you are bound to come forward and make a statement to us—in a friendly spirit—before you proceed with the Bill." I do not want to have any hypotheses upon the subject. There has been a meeting—I think a most legitimate meeting; I have to meet my friends frequently; I think it greatly facilitates the course of Public Business; and certainly I thought there were circumstances to justify me in giving them the 1840 trouble of meeting that we might consult upon several points. Of course, meeting in that way, Amendments upon the Paper were touched upon. So far as I can form an opinion, the meeting, though it was advantageous, was one which certainly does not justify me in any way in making a formal statement to the House. The most important communication that could be made has already been made by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. And what is that? That we are going to adopt an Amendment of an hon. and gallant Friend of ours (Sir Walter Barttelot), that has been at least two days on the Paper. With regard to the particular point which seems so completely to interest the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), I am afraid I cannot hold out to him the prospect of any opportunity for those combinations of infinite mischief which I saw he anticipated. I must inform him that at this meeting we did not accept in any way the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Sir George Jenkinson).

§ MR. RAMSAY
said, the question before the Committee was whether the clause was to be adopted in its present form? What would be better than altering the relations of landlord and tenant would be to enable the limited owner to obtain the necessary capital and secure the payment of interest from the tenant.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
The main object of the Motion to report Progress was to obtain, if possible, some explanation from the Government, and such explanation has been given in the speech of the Prime Minister. He has informed us that the Amendment which the First Lord of the Admiralty stated it was the intention of the Government to accept is the most important change which the Government have announced their intention to agree to. Upon that assurance we must assume that there are no changes of very great importance affecting very much the character and scope of the Bill which it is the intention of the Government to agree to. The right hon. Gentleman has stated he had no intention to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. I accept that assurance. I have no doubt he also intended to say that 1841 he had no intention of making any considerable modification of the 46th clause. Under these circumstances, I do not think we shall be justified in troubling the House to divide; I would rather express my thanks for the intimation that has been given us.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
said, he supposed the question intended to be raised was, whether the Committee should retain the classification proposed by the Bill or adopt the alternative classification of the hon. Member for North Devonshire (Sir Thomas Acland). He could not help thinking there were serious objections to the classification proposed by the Government. No one was bound in any way by the classification suggested by Mr. Pusey 25 years ago; the question rather was, what, in the present state of agriculture and agricultural enterprize, was the best arrangement that could be made? There had been no answer to the criticisms of the hon. Members for Forfarshire and Durham (Mr. Barclay and Mr. Pease) upon the first and second classes of improvements. It was utterly impossible that we could, with any approach to accuracy, bring the improvements enumerated within the two classes that were to be distinguished by endurance for 20 or for seven years. Drainage, for instance, might last for a very long time or a very short time, and buildings might last for much longer than 20 years. He could not see how, after getting rid of classification as against the landlord, the Government could, in justice, maintain it as against the tenant. The third class of improvements had been more properly designated as outlay upon the operations of agriculture, and the attempt to lay down a scale of compensation for these appeared to be preposterous. Everybody knew that the quality of different kinds of manures was as various as the different manures themselves, and while one kind would soon become exhausted, say in one year, other kinds would last a much longer time. A specimen of the agricultural knowledge with which the Bill was drawn was furnished by the provision which would allow a tenant to recoup himself for the purchase of artificial food for feeding his flock or cattle and yet obtain the cost of it from the landlord or the incoming tenant. What 1842 he maintained was this, that unless the Bill went in elaborate detail into the subject of different kinds of manure and soil, and that in respect of every county in England, no scale of improvement could be laid down which would be satisfactory to either landlord or tenant. The effect of the Bill as it stood would be that in the great majority of cases landlords would contract themselves out of the Bill, or else make separate arrangements in reference to the third class of improvements. Instead of being elastic, the clauses of the Bill would lay down hard-and-fast lines without any elasticity whatever. The Committee, he had no doubt, desired that landlord and tenant should make reasonable contracts with each other; and that being so, he trusted that they would accept the reasonable proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for North Devonshire.

§ MR. HUNT
observed, that the noble Lord, following the example of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) was of opinion that the Government were prepared to allow elasticity as against the tenant, but were not prepared to allow elasticity in his favour. The noble Lord could scarcely ask for the tenant farmer more than he asked for himself. He could assure the Committee that they had not acted in the matter without sufficient reason and due deliberation. Her Majesty's Government had had the advantage of seeing the Bill which the Central Chamber of Agriculture had submitted to the public, and which Bill, the Central Chamber of Agriculture being mainly composed of tenant farmers, might reasonably be taken to be promoted in their interest. Well, the maximum terms of years proposed for the two classes of improvements, which the Government had adopted, were the same as those proposed in that Bill—namely, 20 years for what they called permanent improvements, and seven years for what they called durable improvements. The tenant farmers, therefore, being satisfied with the maximum stated in each case, the noble Lord had no occasion to advocate for them more than they asked for themselves. The hon. Baronet the Member for North Devonshire asked the Government to strike out these clauses and adopt his proposals. On the whole, the Government preferred their own plan to the hon. Member's. The object of the 1843 hon. Member was to take a sponge and wipe out all the provisions of the Bill of the Government, and to insert his in place of theirs. Instead of the classification in the Bill, the hon. Member proposed no classification at all, but simply laid down certain principles which would leave the matter vague as regarded terms of years. His hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) had pointed out that the principle of the Bills of 1847 and 1850 and of the measure proposed by Mr. Howard on the subject of classification had been adopted in the present Bill, as it had been in that of the Central Chamber of Agriculture. He trusted that the Committee would, by a decisive majority, decide that the plan of the Government was that on which they had decided to work.

§ MR. DODSON
observed, that if he was not very much mistaken the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had on a former occasion stated that the Central Chamber of Agriculture did not, in his opinion, represent the tenant-farmers of the country.

§ MR. HUNT
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. I never said so, nor did I ever say anything like it.

§ MR. DODSON
said, his impression had been so; but, no doubt, his memory had deceived him. The Bill divided improvements into three classes, which it specified in three elaborate lists. Instead of the clause allowing persons to adapt their arrangements to local circumstances, it aimed at establishing a universal custom. It was not sufficiently elastic to adapt itself to the wants of the country, and he therefore trusted that the Committee would adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Devonshire.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, that if the Amendment were agreed to, and if a farmer before sowing turnips put in expensive manure and the crop failed, he would get nothing for his outlay.

§ SIR THOMAS ACLAND
wished to know whether the Government adhered to their intention, as expressed in the clause, of having a list of the first, second, and third class?

§ MR. HUNT
said, he thought it had been well understood that the Government adhered to the classification in the clause.

MR. PHIPPS
said, he thought that 10 was a better term than 7 years for the 1844 second class improvements, and 20 years for improvements in the first class. The Bill hitherto had not received great praise from either side of the House; but as far as he could see it was a step in the right direction. If it contained nothing but the power to limited owners to charge their estates for improvements, the Bill would be valuable.

§ SIR THOMAS ACLAND
moved, in page 2, line 23, after the word "holding "to insert" by agreement with his landlord." He explained that the object of the Amendment was not to interfere with the Government classification, but to enable the landlord and tenant voluntarily to agree as to the compensation to be given in reference to any of the subjects enumerated in the first two

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he could not accept the Amendment, as it was contrary to the scope of the Bill.

§ SIR THOMAS ACLAND
wished to know whether, if the Bill became law, a landlord and tenant might make agreements with each other without being obliged to adopt the precise method of procedure therein prescribed?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, there was nothing in the Bill to prevent them from doing so.

MR. CHAPLIN
said, the improvements for which compensation was to be given to an outgoing tenant were divided into three classes, the last comprising artificial manures and feeding stuffs, both of which would be compensated for according to a scale that would be more properly discussed when a subsequent part of the Bill came under consideration. If he read the Bill correctly the amount of that compensation would be the sum properly laid out during the last year of the tenancy and half the amount laid out in the last year but one. The result would be that the sum would amount to half as much more than was laid out in artificial manures, and three times that in feeding stuffs as was allowed under the Lincolnshire system. He was strongly of opinion that these two kinds of improvements ought not to be paid for on the same scale, as he felt 1845 that half the amount of compensation given for manure would amply compensate a tenant for feeding stuff. He looked upon this point as the pith and marrow of the Bill. These so-called improvements were, in fact, not improvements at all. It was a misnomer to call them so, but it was a convenient misnomer, for their judicious use made the distinction between high farming and low farming. He could not think it satisfactory that they should both be paid for on the same scale, and therefore he made those few remarks in explanation of his Amendment, which, however, he would not press if the Government would give an assurance that they would accept the principle it embodied. In conclusion he moved, in page 2, line 23, to leave out "three" and insert "four," thereby making four instead of three classes.

§ MR. DISRAELI
said, he quite agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) in his view of the third class, which had been described by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition as an absurdity. The fact was that it was not an absurdity, but an inadvertence. The clause was perfectly well-framed according to the original principle—if he might call it principle—on which the Bill was framed—namely, the letting value. If that had been retained in the Bill, it would have been in perfect accordance with justice and reason. In correcting the Bill in "another place" this, by inadvertence, was omitted to be altered. He had given Notice of an Amendment to the 8th clause which he believed would entirely carry into effect the intentions of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lincolnshire. He hoped his hon. Friend would not object to the three classes, as so modified, being retained.

§ MR. WALTER
said, that, as his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lincolnshire had referred to the distinction between artificial manures and feeding stuffs, this seemed an appropriate time for him to inquire whether it had occurred to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty or to the Prime Minister that there were some farms—and he believed a great number—on which no stock was kept at all, and on which, therefore, no manure, or hardly any, was made. One of the most distinguished agriculturists in the country 1846 informed him two or three years ago that he was farming 1,000 acres in Lincolnshire on which there was no stock whatever. This gentleman sold the whole of his produce and bought all his manure. Now, if this clause were passed in its present form, he would be entitled to compensation for all the manures he had purchased, which would be an absurdity. His hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Sir George Jenkinson) had, to a certain extent, remedied this flaw by his Amendment, which did not, however, entirely meet the case. He was told that the kind of farming he had alluded to was rapidly growing into fashion in the neighbourhood of large towns, and therefore he wished to call the attention of those who had charge of the Bill to the necessity of putting in words to meet such cases.

MR. GOLDSMID
pointed out that the third class would not meet the case where the tenant farmer purchased in autumn a large quantity of cake to fatten cattle in his stalls and sheds and sold them at the commencement of the winter season, thus obtaining, in consequence of their increased value, a fair return for the cake. The manure would be paid for by the incoming tenant, and then the outgoing tenant might make a claim on the landlord in respect of the feeding stuff he had used. He also objected to the provision by which under an agreement the tenant might execute certain work which properly belonged to the landlord. A landlord ought not to be placed in such a position as practically to have to borrow money from his tenant.

§ MR. HUNT
said, he quite agreed that the outgoing tenant ought not to be paid twice for the same thing, nor did he think he would be able to do so under the clause. The case mentioned by the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) was deserving of consideration. It was an exceptional case, and the point would not be lost sight of by the Government.

§ COLONEL MURE
considered the power given to limited owners to enter into agreements with the tenants to make permanent agreements one of the most valuable clauses of the Bill. The Government were, however, entering on a dangerous course in stereotying the second and third clauses. He believed it would cause a difficulty in the working 1847 of the Bill and cause disputes between landlords and tenants. In Belgium, where the value of unexhausted manures on the expiry of a tenancy were most clearly and distinctly recognized, the local agricultural authorities prescribed the rule, and proportions of such valuation, and under their regulations all disputes were decided. The Imperial Parliament—and he (Colonel Mure) thought wisely—declined to interfere in such transactions, though the local customs had legal force.

§ MR. PEASE
said, Class I would be detrimental to this measure, and that by Clause 34, a limited owner might pay compensation to a tenant, and by agreement with the tenant the limited owner could in respect of that payment get an order from a County Court Judge imposing a charge on the property. By that process, therefore, an estate might be encumbered and deeds of settlement upset. If our laws of entail were to be maintained, he thought this clause came most improperly into the Bill. The interests of remaindermen should be guarded by the Inclosure Commissioners, who should have a voice on those matters.

§ MR. PEASE
moved, in page 2, line 23, to leave out "three," and insert "two." The first class would have the effect of enabling the limited owner by agreement with his tenant to upset the whole law of settlement.

§ MR. HUNT
said, the protection of the interests of the remainderman was the qualification as regarded the letting value. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Pease) had said that if landlord and tenant agreed, a County Court Judge could give a charge to the prejudice of the remainderman; but according to the provisions of this Bill the arbitrator would have to find, first or all, that an improvement had added to the letting value, and it was for the purpose of protecting the interests of the remainderman that the letting value qualification was retained in the Bill.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, if the matter could be effected by an arrangement between landlord and tenant, there would be nothing left for the arbitrator to do. He did not in the least complain of the Bill because it was likely to affect the law of entail and 1848 of settlement; indeed, he had already declared that his great admiration for the measure was founded upon the fact that it would destroy that law. The clause as it stood would enable a landlord having a limited interest in the land and his tenant to enter into an agreement for large sums to be expended on the estate, and on their going before a County Court Judge the latter would be compelled to make the sum to be expended a charge upon the property.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, that under the Inclosure Act there was no difficulty as to borrowing if due notice was given.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
pointed out that the interests of the remainderman in the estate would be fully protected by the provisions contained in the subsequent clauses.

§ MR. RODWELL
was also of opinion that if the County Court Judge became aware that such a nefarious transaction as that suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman were in progress he would have power to interfere and put a stop to it.

§ SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE
also thought that the provisions in the subsequent clauses were sufficient to protect the interests of the remainderman.

§ MR. HUNT
said, the Government believed the remainderman was sufficiently protected in the Bill; but if, on consideration, it appeared that further protection was necessary, the necessary words would be inserted in the Bill at a later stage.

MR. GOLDSMID
said, he thought the remainderman was more than sufficiently protected already.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he hoped the remainderman would receive notice of improvements in order that he might protect himself against excessive charges.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
protested against the exaggerated position assigned by the last speaker to the remainderman. He considered that a main merit of the measure consisted in its making the continuance of settlements possible by providing equal advantages for tenants on a settled estate. As to the three classes, he protested against any disturbance of them in regard to the hop culture. All who knew the condition of the hop districts were aware that over-planting was the mischief to be avoided.

MR. STARKIE
hailed the Bill with great satisfaction, and was glad to see 1849 that it contained provisions for compensation; but he objected to their being divided into three classes. The improvements in the third class were plausible, but were likely to lead to abuse, and he should therefore like to see them struck out of the clause.

§ MR. PEASE
said, that seeing the array of Members behind the Treasury bench, he could not expect to carry his Amendment, and would therefore withdraw it.

§ SIR GEORGE JENKINSON
moved, in page 2, line 29, to remove the words "laying down of permanent pasture," from "first class" to "second class."

§ MR. HUNT
explained that the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot), which the Government intended to accept, would meet the case.

§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN
moved an Amendment for the purpose of exempting the making and planting of osier beds from the clause. He pointed out that two of the "improvements" specified in Class I. differed from the rest, inasmuch as they referred to cropping the land—that was, by osiers or by hops. He thought it a mistake to interfere at all by legislation with the cropping of land by the tenant. On his own estates, osier beds had been grubbed and planted by tenants without any interference on his part. If this clause passed as it stood, no tenant would be able to obtain compensation for any expenditure on this account, unless he had gone cap in hand to his landlord and obtained his written consent to crop his land in this particular manner. All these things were matters of detail, and the granting of compensation or not might well be settled by the referees without specific legislation as to each.

§ MR. CLARE READ
thought that, as an osier-bed cost something to make, and it was some time before a return was received, the improvement was one which was very properly put into the first class.

MR. GOLDSMID
said, that compensation was to be had for the "making or improving of roads and bridges," but 1850 improving a road was the ordinary duty of a tenant. He moved the omission of the words "or improving of."

§ MR. CLARE READ
observed, that it was the duty of the tenant to keep roads in repair, but not to improve them. The improvement, such as metalling a road, would be a permanent work for which tenants should certainly be compensated.

MR. GOLDSMID
moved that the making or improving of watercourses should be omitted from the list of things for which compensation was to be awarded.

§ MR. CLARE READ
said, that what the hon. Member seemed to think was a "watercourse" was, in fact, a mere water-furrow. A watercourse was an important improvement, for which there should certainly be compensation.

MR. GOLDSMID
mentioned that what the hon. Member called a water-furrow would in Kent be called a water-course. These differences showed the difficulty of making provisions which should bind all parts of the country.

MR. GOLDSMID
moved the omission of "making of fences" from the first class, with the view of inserting it in the second class of improvements.

§ SIR THOMAS ACLAND
said, the whole thing was utterly absurd; it was idle to discuss this classification of improvements. As the Government were determined to pass it, they must do so; though, for his part, he would rather have the Bill a true and practicable one, for he did not want, like the supporters of the Government, to contract himself out of it.

§ MR. DISRAELI
said, that what was "utterly absurd" might be difficult to decide; and possibly those on his side of the House might have some such an idea as to opinions expressed opposite. With regard to the opinions of the hon. Baronet, the Committee had decided against them, and the country was disposed to do so too. Therefore, though he thought their opinions were "utterly absurd," they were not placed within that category by the majority of the House or of the country. Of course it was known that the items in these clauses did not apply with equal relevancy to 1851 all parts of the country; what was aimed at was to give a general guide to the country on the subject. It could not be pretended that it was possible to draw precise clauses which would apply to all parts of the country. This was certainly not a Bill which could be described in the magniloquent terms in which the hon. Baronet the Member for North Devonshire had announced that he alone would respect legislation. It was a permissive Bill, which for the first time treated with a subject of infinite magnitude and infinite difficulty, and one which the Government thought of infinite necessity, and upon which the country wanted and wished to be guided. Under these circumstances it was brought forward; in that temper it was supported; and he did not think the sort of opposition which was carried on by the hon. Baronet would be successful.

§ SIR THOMAS ACLAND
said, he had no wish to use a hasty expression towards anybody, and therefore he begged to say he was sorry for having used the word "absurd" in the way he did.

§ SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE
said, the First Lord of the Admiralty had objected to a proposed Amendment because it was not suggested by the Chambers of Agriculture, but the Government did not adopt all the Amendments of the Chambers, as they were bound to do, for if the Chambers of Agriculture were to be the sources of inspiration of the Government, they should take the rough with the smooth, and not cull and pick only where it suited their purpose.

§ MR. JACKSON
said, no doubt the principle laid down as to the character of the Bill was a right one, and it was because he wished to be brought as little as possible to consider the necessity of contracting himself out of it that he thought they were justified in criticizing the details of this clause and in endeavouring to make them as useful as possible. There was a great variety of fences which this description would apparently include. He was prepared to support the Amendment.

§ MR. CLARE READ
said, the Bill was at one time described as too precise, and then as too loose. The reason for putting this improvement in the first class was that the landlord's consent was necessary, and that a good quickset fence required two sets of rails to protect it until it was fully grown.

§ LORD ELCHO
denied that the Government was acting with reference to the measure as the mouthpiece of the Chambers of Agriculture.

§ MR. PEASE
hoped that his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment.

MR. GOLDSMID
said, that the House could deal with the Amendment as it pleased. He would not press it to a division.

VISCOUNT GALWAY
expressed a hope that this matter would be under the control of landlords, as the making of wire fences ought not to be encouraged.

§ MR. J. G. TALBOT
moved, in page 2, line 32, to leave out "planting of hops." His object was to make hop-planting a second instead of a first class improvement.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
trusted the Amendment would not be agreed to. It was generally three years before hop-gardens began to pay. If hop-planting were placed in the second class, it would be simply telling the farmers that they might speculate in hops without consulting their landlords.

§ MR. HUNT
opposed the Amendment on the ground that hops had been transferred from the second to the first class in the House of Lords, because it was considered that the landlord ought to have some control over the cultivation of that plant.

MR. GOLDSMID
agreed with Her Majesty's Government in placing the planting of hops in the first class. In many agreements the acreage to be under hops was specially limited, as their cultivation required a very large amount of capital, and as too large a proportion often encouraged the tenant to pay almost exclusive attention to their growth to the prejudice of the other land.

§ MR. FRANCIS ARKWRIGHT
moved, in page 2, line 38, to leave out "pasture."

§ SIR THOMAS ACLAND
observed, that they had now arrived at the second class of improvements, when he thought the question might be put to the Government whether it was their intention to adopt the various Amendments of which their supporters had given Notice 1853 under this head. The intention of the Government on that point must necessarily affect the views of the Committee.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
hoped the Government would not depart from the principle they had laid down with reference to the second class of improvements—that they did not require as a condition precedent any agreement on the part of the landlord. This was a most important matter, and he hoped the Government would adhere to their original intention.

§ MR. DISRAELI
said, the Government had no intention of departing from the language of the clause.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
thought that where the consent of the landlord was to be asked there were some items which might involve the landlord in considerable difficulty.

MR. CARPENTER-GARNIER
thought that as to some of these provisions it was desirable that the landlord should have the power of objecting.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
moved an Amendment with the object of excluding clay burning from the operation of the clause, and inquired whether the consent of the landlord was necessary to render him liable for any improvements of this class? It was quite possible that a tenant might spend as much as £30 an acre on clay burning, and that would be a serious matter to the landlord unless his consent were obtained.

§ MR. HUNT
replied that it was not intended that the consent of the landlord should be necessary for any improvement mentioned in the second class. The instance referred to by his hon. Friend seemed an extraordinary one.

§ COLONEL ALEXANDER
moved, in page 3, line 3, to leave out "artificial or other." He said that in Scotland the farmers were of opinion that improvements of the third class ought to find no place in such a Bill. He especially referred to sulphate of ammonia, nitrate of soda, and other manures of a nitrogenous character, the effect of which was so temporary that they left the soil in a worse condition than they found it. The tenant of the year might profit by these manures, but his successor would lose by them. When nitrate of soda was 1854 used for hay especially it left the land in a worse state than before.

§ MR. CLARE READ
thought the words should be retained, inasmuch as a new manure might be discovered.

§ MR. ORR-EWING
agreed that the manures in question were not a permanent benefit, but rather an injury to the land.

§ MR. JACKSON
thought it desirable to adopt the Amendment on other grounds than those mentioned by the hon. Member for Ayrshire.

§ SIR WALTER BARTTELOT
said, that nitrate of soda was one of the most exhausting things that could be used on the land. Other manures of the same character ought to be omitted from the Bill, such as sulphate of ammonia and soot as a dressing for wheat.

§ MR. HUNT
said, that the term "artificial manures" was well known in agriculture.

§ MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON
believed that instead of a tenant getting compensation for nitrate of soda he should pay compensation to the landlord for using it.

§ MR. HUNT
submitted that the proper time to deal with this question was when they came to consider what restrictions ought to be placed on compensation for the third class of improvements.

§ LORD ELCHO
referred to the discussion as an illustration of the difficulty of dealing with the subject, and said Mr. Lawes had told him that nitrate of soda was the summum bonum of agriculture. Seeing that chemistry was an advancing science, he thought it would be unwise of Parliament to lay down rules for its application to agriculture.

§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE
thought there ought to be a definition of the artificial manures proposed to be included in the Bill.

§ SIR JOSEPH BAILEY
suggested that the words "artificial or other purchased manures" would meet the difficulty; but, having accepted a variation of his Amendment suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wilts,

§ MR. STORER
moved, in page 3, line 3, before "cattle," insert "horses." Many farmers were, he observed, in the habit of giving horses cake and artificial manure. It was the practice in some districts to prepare horses for fairs.

§ MR. CLARE READ
said, cart-horses were part of the machinery of the farm. They must be fed, and it would be hard for any one but the owner to have to pay for what they consumed.

§ SIR GEORGE JENKINSON
moved to amend the clause by inserting in page 3, line 2, after the word "manure," the words," in addition to all manure made on the holding."

§ MR. PELL
moved to amend the clause by inserting, after the word "manure," the words," other than undissolved bones."

§ COLONEL BRISE
moved the omission, after the word "stuff," of the words—"not produced of the holding," contending that if they were retained, considerable inconvenience might be occasioned to the farmer.

MR. GOLDSMID
said, that point had been already discussed, with reference to the increased value of the stock after consuming the oil cake.

§ MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON
said, the object the hon. and gallant Member had in view would be best attained by the proposed Amendment of the Prime Minister on Clause 8.

§ SIR WALTER BARTTELOT
asked what check there was that the corn claimed for had been consumed?

§ LORD ELCHO
said, this was an important Amendment. The value of unexhausted manures varied so very much that he thought the only rate upon which they could safely proceed was to value only those manures which were tangible and visible.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
thought the Committee were wasting their time on the Amendment. He believed that in one or two years not one estate in a hundred would be under the operation of this clause. Undoubtedly, if the clause was to have any application at all, the principle of the Amend- 1856 ment was right. He could conceive no reason why an outgoing tenant should be compensated for manures.

MR. CHAPLIN
thought the Amendment would open the door to fraud, and he hoped the Government would not adopt it.

§ MR. HUNT
said, he thought the Amendment right in principle, but there was some difficulty in adopting it in this clause. It had better stand over till they arrived at the 8th clause, and, in the meantime, they should maintain the words as they stood, or the words proposed might be brought up on the Report.

COLONEL WILSON
moved, in page 3, line 9, after "shall," to insert—"not in any case." His object was to give elasticity to the first two clauses. Every improvement made in Class I. was to extend over a fixed period of 20 years, and in Class II. over a period of seven years. He proposed that 20 and seven years respectively should become the maximum of the two periods, and that it should be left to the arbitrators to determine for how long a period these improvements should extend.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
suggested that the elasticity in the clause should be applicable to both parties, instead of keeping the maximum price against the tenant, whilst it was not to be conclusive against the landlord, though there were many improvements, like building bridges and houses, which ought to continue for more than 20 years.

§ MR. CLARE READ
said, the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman would, if pursued, lead to the conclusion that at no time was a permanent improvement to become the property of the landlord. He had never heard in any Chamber of Agriculture or Farmers' Club more than 20 years asked for on this point, and he was sure no tenant farmer wanted a larger limit, as he could not be expected to spend much money on such improvements.

§ MR. EVANS
thought that, in connection with such improvements as the erection of houses and the making of roads, the limit ought to be 30 years.

§ SIR WALTER BARTTELOT
pointed out that it was necessary to take care lest the incoming tenant should be made to pay for improvements which might be exhausted.

§ MR. DODDS
moved to report Progress, on the ground that hon. Members on his (the Opposition) side of the House had not been informed as to the arrangements made by hon. Gentlemen opposite elsewhere to-day, and that this important clause required great consideration.

§ MR. DISRAELI
understood that some Members of the House wished to make personal explanations to the House, and therefore, although he should have liked to finish this clause, he would assent to the Motion, in order that those Gentlemen on both sides of the House might have the opportunity of making those remarks in which their feelings were so much engaged.

§ MR. DISRAELI
mentioned that the Bill would be first in the Orders for To-morrow, and would be taken at 2 o'clock.