Commons Sitting of 26 July 1875

MINUTES.
RESOLUTION IN COMMITTEE—East India, Auditor of Accounts, &c. [Superannuations; Sheriffs Substitute (Scotland) [Salaries].
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Ecclesiastical Commission Act Amendment* [266]; Restriction on Penal Actions and Redemption of Penalties* [267]; Sanitary-Law (Dublin) Amendment* [268].
First Reading—Copyright of Designs* [270].
Select Committee—Registration of Trade Marks* [242], Mr. Hermon disch.
Committee—Agricultural Holdings (England) (re-comm.) [222]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Militia Laws Consolidation and Amendment (re-comm) [202]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London)* [251]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Abingdon, &c)* [253]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Aberdare, &c.)* [254]; Traffic Regulation (Dublin)* [244]; Justices of the Peace Qualification* [151]; Legal Practitioners* [46].
Report—Public Works Loans* [243–269].
Third Reading—Lunatic Asylums (Ireland)* [189]; Public Records (Ireland) Act, 1867, Amendment* [233]; Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1869, Amendment* [250], and passed.
Withdrawn—Offences against the Person Act Amendment* [250]; Pollution of Rivers* [252]; Savings Banks, &c. "[198]; Drugging of Animals* [235].

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL AND UNSEA-WORTHY SHIPS.

  MOTION AND NOTICES.
  MR. ROEBUCK: I beg to move that the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment (No. 2) Bill be fixed for second reading on Thursday next.
  Motion agreed to.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: I give Notice that on Wednesday next, I will move for leave to introduce a Bill to make provision for giving further powers to the Board of Trade for stopping Un-seaworthy Ships.
  MR. DILLWYN: To-morrow, at 2 o'clock, I will ask the Prime Minister, if he will give precedence over the other Orders of the Day to the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment (No. 2) Bill, which has been introduced by the hon. Member for Derby, and which will stand for second reading on Thursday next.

COMMERCIAL TREATIES WITH FRANCE, ITALY, AND AUSTRIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BUTLER - JOHNSTONEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can hold out any confident hope to the House and to the country that the treaties of commerce between this country and France, Italy, and Austria, two of which are shortly shortly about to lapse, will be renewed, and on terms equally favourable to this country as the expiring treaties?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, the French treaty expires in June, 1877, if denounced. The Austrian expires in December, 1876, if denounced. The Italian will expire June, 1876, and has been denounced. As to France and Austria, no denunciation has been made. The time, therefore, has not arrived when it is expedient to make any public announcement upon the subject. As to Italy, negotiations are going on with respect to the Treaty, and no efforts shall be wanting on our part to bring them to a satisfactory conclusion. Many influential Members on both sides of the House are aware that Her Majesty's Government are giving the subject serious and anxious consideration, and they are also aware that the views of many commercial bodies in this country have been communicated to my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office. I need not say that Her Majesty's Government will continue to use every effort to base our commercial relations with all foreign countries on sound principles.

CIVIL SERVICE (IRELAND)—SALARIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WILLIAM M'ARTHURasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he can state why it is that while clerks connected with several of the Irish Public Offices and other officials belonging to the Irish branch of the Civil Service have been placed on a footing of equality with those in a corresponding position in England, the district inspectors of national schools in Ireland have not been placed in the same position as to salary and allowances with those in England, in accordance with a Resolution of the House of Commons of the 4th July, 1873, recommending the same?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: Sir, in consequence of the Resolution of the House of Commons in July, 1873, referred to by the hon. Member, a Departmental Committee was appointed by the late Government to inquire into the case of various officials belonging to the Irish branch of the Civil Service. In that inquiry the Treasury was represented, and also the Departments on which the inquiry was held, and the result has been a very considerable improvement in the position of various parties employed in the Irish Civil Service. I am quite aware that there are some eases in which parties holding nominally the same position as officers in England have not been placed on precisely the same footing; and Inspectors of Schools are in that class. Although the name of the office is the same in both countries, there is a difference in the position of the officer and his duties; but the position of these Inspectors has been very considerably improved. There were three classes under the old system. The first class had a salary commencing at £450 and rising by £10 yearly to £500. The salary now commences at £500 and rises by £15 per annum to £600 a-year. The second and third classes have had a similar increase; and the position of these classes has also been very much improved as to their allowances for travelling and personal expenses.

POOR LAW—NEWPORT PAGNEL UNION—DISMISSAL OF MR. HAMMETT HAILEY.—QUESTION.
DR. LUSHasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the statements of Mr. Hammett Hailey, a medical officer of the Newport Pagnel Union for twenty seven years, in a Petition presented to this House July 7th and printed in the Appendix (No. 526) have received his attention; and, whether the dismisal of Mr. Hailey from his office for the alleged offence of writing an intemperate letter to a relieving officer (subsequently apologized for) will be re-considered by the Board?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: Sir, the case of Mr. Hailey has received my most careful attention, I am aware of the Petition presented to the House and the statements contained in it. It is not correct to say that he was dismissed for
46
writing an intemperate letter to a relieving officer. The letter was addressed to the Board of Guardians. But his offence could hardly be said to be confined to the writing of that letter. His conduct had been the subject of numerous and repeated complaints on the part of the Local Government Inspectors during a long series of years; and, upon reviewing the whole circumstances, I could not come to the conclusion that I should be justified in re-opening the case.

ARMY—YEOMANRY AND VOLUNTEERS—PAY OF ADJUTANTS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL NORTHasked the Secretary of State for War, If any decision has been arrived at as to the pay of adjutants of Yeomanry and Volunteers?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that the Commission on the pay of adjutants of the Yeomanry had completed its Report, although all the Members had not yet signed it. The question of their pay would, therefore, soon be ripe for consideration. As to adjutants of Volunteers, some questions as to certain Brigade Depôt arrangements were still pending, and their case must therefore stand over for some time longer.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION—THE REPORT.—QUESTION.
MR. MONKasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is able to inform the House what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government as to the adoption of the recommendations of the Civil Service Inquiry Commission?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the Commissioners have sent in three Reports to the Government and have now completed their labours. I must express our great gratitude to them, and especially to my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair), for the great pains they have taken. The Reports are very interesting and very suggestive; and they raise questions both of principle and detail, the application of which will require careful consideration. The Government has been making inquiries in particular offices

47
with a view of seeing how far the principles of the Reports could be applied to them. We are not at present in a position to give a definite answer, but the matter is engaging serious consideration, and we hope in the course of the Recess to arrive at some conclusion.

POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPHS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES.—QUESTION.
MR. MONKasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any award has been made in respect of the claims of certain Railway Companies for compensation for the transfer of their telegraphs to the Government; and, also whether the payment of such awards has been provided for in the Vote already taken in Committee of Supply?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, an important award has been given in the case of the arbitration between the Post Office and the Great Eastern Railway. The amount which was claimed by the railway company was £504,000; the amount which was awarded was £77,000; that sum has been provided, but it has not been voted in Supply, nor is it necessary or proper that it should. The money will be taken from the capital authorized to be raised by loan under the Telegraphs Act a few years ago. The powers of that Act are not exhausted, and they are more than sufficient to meet this claim. One or two other claims by railway companies are under consideration, but of course I am unable to say what the awards may be.

NAVY—THE MARINE LIGHT INFANTRY—PAY OF OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
MR. GORSTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, When it is intended to remove the anomaly in the pay of the the Colonels Second Commandant of Marine Light Infantry, whereby those officers receive 5s. per diem less than the sum which would be in proportion to the pay of the corresponding rank of Marine Artillery, and of the other ranks of their own corps, the pay of the Colonel Commandant of Artillery being 40 s. per diem, and of the Light Infantry 38 s. 6d. per diem, making a difference of 1s. 6d. per diem; of the Colonel Second Commandant of Artillery 26 s. 3d. per diem, and of Light Infantry 20 s. per diem,
48
making a difference of 6s. 3d. per diem; and the difference in the ranks of Colonel, Captain, and Lieutenant being 11 d., 6d., and 4d. respectively; whether this anomaly did not in fact originate from some clerical mistake, and, if not, what reason can be alleged for its existence; and, whether it is anticipated that the Report of the Commission now sitting on Army Promotion will throw any fresh light upon the subject?
MR. HUNTin reply, said, he could not inform the hon. and learned Member whether the Report referred to would throw any fresh light on the subject of what the hon. and learned Member called an anomaly in the pay of the colonels second commandant of Marine Light Infantry. The only way of removing the alleged anomaly would be by the process of "levelling down;" but he did not think that that would meet the view of the hon. and learned Member.

PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE SAVINGS BANKS BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. LYON PLAYFAIRasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Savings Banks Bill during the present Session?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the Savings Banks Bill was introduced with the limited object of stopping a deficiency which had been increasing many years, and which still goes on increasing, in these accounts. There had been some misunderstanding with regard to the nature of the Bill; but I think it was fully removed by the discussion it has gone through, and I feel confident if we were to persevere with the discussion, there would be no doubt as to our being able to satisfy the House and the country with regard to character of that proposal. My right hon. Friend has given Notice that he will endeavour to graft on this Bill an important proposal—namely, that we should take into consideration the question of Savings Banks reform. That is so large a question that it would be impossible to deal with it at the end of a Session; it is, therefore, our intention not to proceed with the Bill during the present Session, but to take up the question next Session, and to deal, as is absolutely necessary, with the question

49
of the deficiency, and also, I hope, with the larger question raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

PUBLIC BUSINESS—PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL—LOCAL AUTHORITIES LOANS BILL.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I promised to take this opportunity of making a statement as to two other Bills which are under my charge. One is the Public Works Loans Consolidation Bill, which has been referred to a Select Committee. That Committee has concluded its labour; it is important that the Bill should be passed, if possible; and I have great hopes that when it is again brought forward the House will have no difficulty in accepting and passing it this Session. With regard to the Local Authorities Loans Bill, I am in this position—it has been very carefully considered, a great many objections that were taken to it have been, as I hope, obviated, and from what reaches me I am inclined to think that the Bill may be accepted without much discussion. If that should prove to be the case, I shall be glad to proceed with it. If, however, it is likely to lead to much discussion, it would have to be laid aside for want of time; but I shall keep it on the Paper until I see the feeling of the House with regard to it.

PUBLIC BUSINESS—POLLUTION OF RIVERS BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. RIPLEYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of Government to proceed with the Pollution of Rivers Bill this Session?
MR. DISRAELI: I regret to say. Sir, that I think it would not be possible for us to proceed with this Bill during this Session. The President of the Local Government Board, therefore, will take an early opportunity of moving that the Order be discharged.

MERCANTILE MARINE—DETAINING UNSEAWORTHY SHIPS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EUSTACE SMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any officer who considers a vessel overladen has power to detain such vessel pending the receipt of instructions from the Board of Trade?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the Board of Trade officers have not power to detain any ship. They report to the Board of Trade, and the Customs' officers detain by directions from the Board of Trade. It is proposed to institute a higher class of Board of Trade surveyors at the principal ports; and I hope the Bill which I have given Notice of for Wednesday will give the requisite powers.

PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS.—QUESTION.
LORD FRANCIS HERVEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will next Session, together with a Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts, introduce a Bill to consolidate the same?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, I hope the Government Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts will be among the earliest measures of next Session. I have no intention of attempting a Consolidation Bill at present; but the House is aware that I have prepared and published a Digest of all existing Merchant Shipping Acts, with a very full and complete Index, which may to a great extent serve the purpose of a Consolidation Act.

ARMY—ARTILLERY—HEAVY GUNS.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, On what system the 81-ton guns are to be rifled, and what nature of projectiles are to be used; whether he will state to the House the greatest and next greatest number of battering charges which have been fired from any 35-ton or 38-ton gun rifled on the Woolwich system, without requiring repairs (including re-venting); whether it is a fact that the process of re-venting cannot be performed on board ships at sea in the presence of an enemy; whether he is aware that although the stock of projectiles on board ship may be replenished at a distant seat of war, guns of 35 tons or 81 tons weight cannot be replaced without sending the ship home; and, whether he can state to the House, that it has been shown by actual experiment or otherwise, that our heaviest guns can stand such a practical test as they might be put to in war time; and,

  51
  if they have not been so tested, if he would explain why?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL, in reply, said, that complete answers would involve too much detail, and would also lead him into scientific controversy which had better be carried on outside the House. It was from no want of courtesy, but with a view to save the time of the House that he gave brief Answers to somewhat unusual Questions, which were more fit to be put to men of science and constructors and manufacturers of heavy guns than in that House. The system on which the 81-ton gun was to be rifled was the present, or Woolwich system. Heavy guns were not fired continuously with battering charges, and he could not say what was the greatest number of charges ever fired from any 35 or 81-ton gun without requiring repairs. The process of re-venting could be performed at sea if required. A reserve of heavy guns was maintained at their stations abroad to meet casualties in the fleets, and therefore the ships need not be sent home. The tests to which their heavy guns were subjected and the experiments made showed that they would stand the practical tests of war.
  CAPTAIN PRICEgave Notice, that in consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the noble Lord's reply as to the battering charges, he would move in Committee of Supply on the Naval Estimates, that it was undesirable to proceed with the Inflexible or any ship carrying 81-ton or other heavy guns, until those guns had been subjected to a trial such as they might reasonably be expected to undergo in war.

EUROPEAN ASSURANCE SOCIETY ARBITRATION ACT—APPOINTMENT OF MR. REILLY.—QUESTION.
MR. STACPOOLEasked Mr. Attorney General, If Mr. Reilly, the Parliamentary draftsman, has been appointed Arbitrator under the European Arbitration Act, 1875; and, if application was made to any Ex-Chancellor, Judge or other person having the qualification required by the Arbitration Act, 1872, to accept the office, before appointing Mr. Reilly; and, if so, to whom?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, in answer to the Question of the hon. Member, I have to state that Mr. Reilly has been appointed Arbitrator under the European Assurance Society Arbitration
52
Act, 1875. I am unable to state whether application was made to any Ex-Chancellor, Judge, or other person having the qualification required by the Act of 1872 to accept the office before Mr. Reilly was appointed. The power to appoint an arbitrator was placed by the Act of the present Session in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, who is alone responsible for the appointment he has made.

CHINA—MURDER OF MR. MARGARY AT MANWINE.—QUESTION.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether at the very time when the Indian Government has been pressing on one side for access to the scene of the murder of the late Mr. Margary, under circumstances which have occasioned great complications, on the other side where we have already direct relations with the Chinese Government, an inquiry by British officers into the circumstances of the murder, to which that Government has consented, is now delayed for no other reason than the heat of the weather; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the necessity of insisting on greater expedition; and, whether it is true, as stated in some of the public prints, that a pecuniary indemnity for Mr. Margary's death has been sought at the hands of the Chinese Government; if so, who has suffered pecuniary loss by that sad occurrence, and for whose benefit an indemnity was sought?
MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, that no doubt the heat of the weather in China had been one reason for deferring the inquiry referred to, and it was the first duty of Mr. Wade to consider the health of the persons under him. The mission would probably start before long; but there were other causes besides the hot weather which prevented it from starting—causes which related to the state of the country both on the side of Burmah and of China, as well as other considerations concerning political complications. With regard to the indemnity, until all the negotiations were completed, the Government did not think it would be desirable to make any public announcement upon the subject.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, (1873)—THE BARQUE "STANLEY."

  QUESTION.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the conduct of an officer of the Board of Trade was in accordance with the twelfth section of "The Merchant Shipping Act, 1873," when he demanded of and took from the master of the barque "Stanley" of Sunderland, his sailing register in July, 1874, when the said master was in the act of preparing his vessel for the survey and repair under the superintendence of Lloyd's surveyors?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the Stanley sailed from Sunderland in July last, and, having struck on a rock off Filey, ran back into the Tyne. The Board of Trade surveyor inspected her, and reported that she was unfit to go to sea without repair. Having reason to believe that she was about to be patched up and sent for repairs to Sunderland, he reported this, and the Board of Trade detained her. Instead of putting a Customs officer on board, the Collector of Customs, for the convenience of the owner and to save expense, obtained her certificate of registry, and held it while she was being repaired under Lloyd's surveyors. The Board of Trade surveyor did not interfere, but reported when repairs were sufficiently well done, upon which the certificate of registry was returned. All fees and expenses were remitted, and she went to sea again. The House will therefore see that the real facts of the case are the reverse of what is implied by the statement which the hon. Member has received, and which has remained about a fortnight on our Notice Paper.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, in consequence of the hon. Baronet's Answer, he should take an early opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the question, simply to put the House right in respect to the facts of the case, and to show that since the Question had been on the Paper there had been four counts out.

MERCANTILE MARINE—ROCKET APPARATUS.—QUESTION.
LORD CLAUD J. HAMILTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any convention or arrangement exists with Foreign Governments pro-
54
viding for foreign merchant vessels being provided with translated instructions for the use of the rocket apparatus employed for saving life from wreck on our own coasts?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the Board of Trade have communicated with foreign Governments on the subject of the rules for using the rocket apparatus now generally adopted, and have sent them copies of the English rules, with the view of their being translated and put up on board foreign ships. The Board of Trade have always had printed rules for using the apparatus inserted in logs and other ship papers, and they require every master and mate to be examined in the use of the apparatus before he gets his certificate. Believing that the present apparatus is the best yet submitted, the Board of Trade have caused metal tablets with regulations to be furnished to British shipowners free of charge, to be put on board under directions of their surveyors. Her Majesty has commanded that two of these tablets shall be put on board Her Royal yacht. The tablets are also prepared in German and French, and can be procured in this country, and copies will be sent to foreign Governments.

PUBLIC BUSINESS—OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he wished to know whether this Bill, which was the third Order on the Paper, would be taken that night? Perhaps the Home Secretary would state whether it was his intention to move that the Order be discharged?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that the House would allow him to state that before the Government brought in this Bill they took pains to obtain accurate information both in England and Scotland from stipendiary magistrates, chief constables, and others. A mass of evidence thus obtained was laid upon the Table, and a Bill was brought in by the Government. He did not think this was a question which should be dealt with by what might be called panic legislation. He was neither surprised nor sorry to find that there was a disinclination to go back to personal flogging, unless it was proved to be absolutely necessary; but, at the same time,

55
by watching carefully the sentences passed throughout the country, he was fully convinced that the bringing forward of this subject had had the effect of making magistrates impose heavier sentences for brutal assaults than before. The Government, therefore, decided before going on with the Bill to renew the inquiry as to the necessity for it. That inquiry would be made in the Recess, and the matter, if necessary, would be brought forward in another year.

COUNTY COURTS—IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT—CASE OF WILLIAM SMALLBONE.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, I must ask the indulgence of the House for two or three minutes while I make a few observations by way of personal explanation. It will be in the recollection of the House that on Thursday last I answered certain Questions, put to me by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis), relative to the imprisonment in Winchester Gaol, under an order of the County Court Judge, of a man named William Smallbone, and of his subsequent release from prison by an order of Baron Huddleston. I have this morning received a letter from that learned Judge, who appears to consider that not only did my answers unfairly reflect upon him, but that my statement of facts, so far as it had reference to the proceedings before him, was essentially inaccurate. I need hardly state that my high esteem and respect for Baron Huddleston would at all times prevent my intentionally expressing, either in this House or elsewhere, except under a pressure of duty which certainly does not exist in the present case, any opinion reflecting upon the performance of his judicial duties; and I do not think that the words which I used, and which are accurately reported in The Times of last Friday, can be considered as haying that effect. The learned Judge appears to be under the impression that I charged him with forgetfulness of the Debtors Act of 1869. The inaccurate reports in some other newspapers may have led him to that conclusion, but I am sure that upon reference to what I said it will be clear that my expression, "Judge, Registrar, counsel, and solicitors were apparently
  56
  forgetful of the provisions of the Debtors Act of 1869," had reference to the County Court Judge who committed the man to prison, and not to the learned Judge who released him from it. My further observation that the mistake was not discovered when the parties were before Baron Huddleston had reference to the legal advisers of Smallbone, who, according to the information afforded to me, were asking for his release, not upon the ground that the order for his committal was illegal, but that he was an old man, ill, and unable to pay. That such was the impression which it was my intention to convey, is, I think clear from the context. But, however that may be, I should not be acting consistently with my own views of what is right were I not at once, and unreservedly, to say that, if any observations of mine were so made as to cause pain or annoyance to Baron Huddleston, I extremely regret it. That learned Judge, however, further complains that my statement was inaccurate in so far as I said that Smallbone had been released by him from prison on the ground of old age, ill-health, and inability to pay. He informs me in his letter that the Act of Parliament of 1869 was referred to in the proceedings before him, and all its provisions carefully discussed, and that very little was said as to the man's age, health, or inability to pay, and he adds that he discharged the man on the ground of the illegality of his imprisonment and the irregularity of his committal, and upon no other grounds, and that the other circumstances did not in any way affect his judgment. Sir, I of course accept the statement of the learned Judge, though it entirely contradicts the information which had been given to me, and I again express my regret that I should have been misinformed and thus led into mistake. I must. Sir, however, remind the House that the subject-matter of the Questions of the hon. Member for Londonderry was one in no way under the cognizance of the Attorney General; that the County Court Judges are in no way responsible to him for their conduct; and that he possesses no means of investigating any cases, or alleged cases, of mistake or error of judgment on their part. A gentleman connected with the legal department of the Treasury, and of great experience, procured for me,

  57
  at the request of the Lord Chancellor, the information upon which I answered the Questions of the hon. Member, and into the accuracy of such information I had no means of inquiring, even if I had had any reason to doubt it. Inquiry will, of course, now be made into the cause of the inaccuracy of the information so procured as to the proceedings before the Judge in Chambers.

ARMY—THE SUMMER MANŒUVRES—COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE TO CLOTHES AND ACCOUTREMENTS.
COLONEL KINGSCOTEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, owing to the unusual inclemency of the weather and the consequent extreme wear and tear of the clothes and accoutrements of both officers and men during the late Summer Drills, it is the intention of the Government to grant any compensation?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that in consequence of the unusually severe weather to which the troops had been exposed, his attention had been directed to the subject referred to in anticipation of the Question. He had already taken steps in respect of it in the sense his hon. and gallant Friend suggested.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND)
(re-committed) BILL—(Lords)—[BILL 222.]
(Mr. Disraeli.)

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 23rd July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 7 (Amount of tenant's compensation for first and second class).
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved, as an Amendment, the omission in page 3, lines 19 and 20, of the words "with a deduction of one-twentieth," and the insertion of the words "so far as it adds to the letting value of the holding at the determination of the tenancy." The Bill, as it stood, was not on a satisfactory footing with respect to compensation for unexhausted improvements, for, as had been admitted by hon. Member after hon. Member, even on the Ministerial side of the House, the measure did not secure to the tenant such compensation, but only the value, less an arbitrary deduction which in 20 years would absorb the whole. No division had taken
  58
  place upon the subject, and he therefore wished to give the Committee an opportunity of asserting the principle that the landlord should be made to pay for the value which the tenant left in the holding. He denied that there was any probability of conspiracies between a limited owner and a tenant to defraud the remainderman by pretended improvements, and he held that the provision regarding "letting value" was amply sufficient to protect the latter.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, that the question raised by the Amendment had been discussed the other day. So far as he could see, the hon. Baronet was opposed to any limitation of compensation. The Committee, however, were of opinion that there ought to be some limitation. He hoped they would not sanction an Amendment which was opposed to the principle of the Bill.
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, he preferred the proposal of the Bill to that of his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy, and hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, inasmuch as it introduced the principle of "letting value" which would involve points difficult for the referees to decide.
  Amendment negatived.
  On Motion of Colonel WILSON, Amendments made, in page 3, line 20, by leaving out "one twentieth or of one seventh," and inserting "a proportionate" and leaving out "according to the class."
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONmoved, in page 3, line 22, after "made," to leave out to the end of the clause and insert—
  "Provided that compensation shall he pay-able only where the outlay is of such a nature, and has been executed and maintained in such a manner, that the benefit of it, if any, will he reaped either wholly or in part by the succeeding tenant whether owner or occupier."
  On a former occasion an Amendment of his had been met by the opposition of the Government, on the ground that they had taken the opinion of the Farmers' Club, and that that opinion was against it. He, however, had since ascertained that the opinion of the Farmers' Club was expressed in approval of his Amendment, and he therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, who

  59
  had charge of the Bill, would now accept it.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, to leave out from the word "unexhausted," in line 22, to the end of the Clause, in order to add the words "Provided, That compensation shall he payable only where the outlay is of such a nature, and has been executed and maintained in such a manner that the benefit of it, if any, will be reaped either wholly or in part by the succeeding tenant, whether owner or occupier,"—(Sir George Jenkinson,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. HUNTobjected both to the merits and to the time of the Amendment, and pointed out that the paragraph now under consideration was eon-fined to "first-class" improvements, in consequence of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell) to strike out the second class. The Proviso, therefore, of the hon. Baronet was not required.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONasked if the Government had consented to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire, restricting the operation of the clause to limited owners?
  MR. HUNTsaid, he had so expressed himself.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was in favour of some such Proviso, as he did not think it right that the real owner should suffer from the follies and crotchets of his predecessor.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, he would not object to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, he could not help remembering with satisfaction his prophecy on the second reading, that the Government, in bringing forward this Bill, would find that it entailed dealing with other questions regarding land, and notably with the laws of entail and settlement. He remarked that if the Amendment was to be withdrawn he should move that the latter part of the clause be omitted to afford the Government an opportunity of explaining its effect. It introduced the letting value principle, against which he had already protested, and would create consequent difficulty and confusion.
  MR. KNIGHTthought the whole difficulty might be met if the Government would agree to leave out the word "letting." Then all that would have
  60
  to be determined was, whether the value of the property had been increased by the improvements.
  MR. HUNTsaid, the phrase "letting value" had been introduced simply for the protection of the remainderman. Even although the word was left out, the value of the land would still have to be determined by the number of years' purchase it was worth, which was tantamount to its letting value.
  SIR HENRY JAMEScontended that if the words were retained the interests of the tenant would be sacrificed to the law of entail and settlement.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that it had now been admitted that the law of entail and settlement stood in the way of the landlord and tenant making agreements for an improved cultivation of the soil—a point which he had always asserted. Formerly this question of value was a claim to the outgoing tenant; now it was a limitation upon him; but in either case the same difficulties would arise. There would be new valuations, the arbitrators would be puzzled, and endless complications would arise. Moreover, he could not see how the letting value could work under limitation.
  MR. DISREAELIsaid, the words objected to applied to all limited estates. He believed that they would form a prudent check, and that the only practical result would be that they would prevent improvident investments and rash speculations.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the Bill would create a new right on behalf of the tenant, and, as he understood, the objection of the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford was that this right did not go far enough, inasmuch as it did not alike attach to the tenant who held under an absolute owner and to the tenant who held under a limited owner.
  SIR HARCOUET JOHNSTONEsaid, that he had consulted with the farmers in his own neighbourhood, and found that they did not believe in the letting value a bit. They were satisfied as long as they could work out their own outlay by a term of years, and the idea of importing letting value into the Bill had been from the beginning a perfect absurdity.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONthought it would be by far the most convenient course to leave out these

  61
  words altogether. It was not unlikely that the question of the remainderman would crop up again in certain clauses of the Bill, and therefore he considered it would be better for the Government to introduce a clause for the protection of the remainderman instead of inserting it incidentally.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he was about to have made some such proposition as that suggested by the noble Marquess. It appeared to him they were mixing up this question of the remainderman in a manner which was not necessary.
  MR. RODWELLsaid, he had not heard a better mode of dealing with the question than by the adoption of his Amendment, to the effect that where the landlord was not, at the time of the consent given to the execution of the improvement, absolute owner of the holding for his own benefit.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTmaintained that the Amendment which the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire intended to move on the 34th clause would effect this object.
  MR. PELLsaid, he was unable to see how, when the life-owner occupied a large portion of the estate himself, the remainderman could be protected, except by such a provision as this clause contained.
  MR. GOLDSMIDthought the suggestion of the noble Marquess would meet the difficulty.
  COLONEL MUREsaid, the remainderman only came in incidentally. A landlord occupying his own land would not come under the clause at all.
  Question put, "That the words 'but so' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 193; Noes 131: Majority 62.
  MR. RODWELLmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 22, after "that" to insert—
  "where the landlord was not, at the time of the consent given to the execution of the improvement, absolute owner of the holding for his own benefit."
  MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONthought it would be an improvement to add the following words at the end of the Amendment:—"Or where the consent of the remainderman has not been obtained." He would move that the said Amendment be so amended.
  SIR HENRY JAMESasked how the Amendment would operate in cases where a mortgage in fee existed on the property?
  MR. RODWELLsaid, he could not see that any difficulty would arise in that case.
  SIR HENRY JAMESfeared that they were legislating too hastily, without considering the effect of their Amendments. Many landlords would not like their tenants to know the real facts of the case.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would give the observations of his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir Henry James) his best consideration, and he had no doubt that the Interpretation Clause could be so amended as to meet the difficulty which had been suggested.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTobserved, that the objection made was not directed to the Interpretation Clause; it had reference to that under consideration, and was one of principle. It related to the absolute ownership. Where-ever there was a mortgage, the provisions of the Bill would be rendered imperative by this Amendment.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he did not see how it was possible to frame an Interpretation Clause to meet the necessities of case. No amendment could make the landlord the absolute owner of the estate.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, there were often as many as 10 or 12 remaindermen, and it would be very difficult to get the consent of all of them.
  MR. KNIGHTthought that the tenant ought to be satisfied with the personal security of the landlord.
  Amendment to said proposed Amendment negatived.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. RODWELLthen moved in page 3, line 26, after the word "holding," the insertion of the words—
  "The amount of tenant's compensation, in respect of an improvement of the second class, shall he the sum properly laid out by the tenant on the improvement, with the deduction of a proportionate part thereof for each year while the tenancy endures after the year of tenancy in which the outlay is made and while the improvement continues unexhausted."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved to amend the said proposed Amendment

  63
  by inserting after the words "the amount of the tenant's compensation in respect of an improvement of the second class" the words—
  "shall be such proportion of the sum properly laid out by the tenant on the improvement as fairly represents the unexhausted value thereof to a succeeding occupier."
  In reply to Sir THOMAS ACLAND,
  MR. HUNTsaid, the Government could not give the exact words, but it was their intention by the clause to allow great latitude to the landlord and tenant to make agreements, provided the interest of the remainderman was properly guarded.
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENremarked that the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) was precisely the same as that propounded by the Prime Minister on a subsequent clause. The benefit from an improvement did not always result in the first or even in the second year, and instead of drawing a hard-and-fast line, it should be left to the valuers to determine the value of the improvement to the incoming tenant.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTremarked that but little benefit was derived from boning or chalking land for the first two or three years, and that therefore it would be unfair in assessing the amount of compensation to charge the outgoing tenant for a larger proportion of benefit from such improvements than he had received.
  MR. MONKsaid, that to reckon the proportion at the same amount for each year would not be fair, because some manures were of little use till the second year.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, that the effect of such improvements so far from increasing as time went on was only too transient. He thought the interest of the tenant would be sufficiently protected by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge.
  MR. RODWELLthought his proposal had the merit of being the simpler of the two, and that the good results of the measure would be in proportion to the simplicity of its provisions.
  Amendment to said proposed Amendment negatived.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to
  Clause 8 (Tenant's compensation for third class).
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he proposed to move a re-construction of the clause in a manner upon which he thought there was general agreement upon both sides of the House. The clause provided tenant's compensation of the third class. It seemed to be the general opinion that the manurial value remaining to the incoming tenant was the most satisfactory test which could be applied; and he would accordingly move an Amendment, making the clause stand thus—
  "The amount of the tenant's compensation, in respect of an improvement of the third class, shall (subject to the provisions of this Act) be such proportion of the sum properly laid out by the tenant on the improvement as fairly represents the manurial value thereof to an incoming tenant."
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENbelieved the Amendment would very much simplify the matter and save a great deal of discussion. He would only make a verbal criticism. It seemed to him the word "manurial" was hardly admissible, inasmuch as although intelligible it was not English.
  MR. KNIGHTexpressed his regret that part of the Bill was handed over to the valuers, and contended that there was nothing more difficult to ascertain than the manurial value. In his opinion there ought to be some competent authority, such as the Inclosure Commissioners, who should make an analysis of different manurial values and fix some authorized manurial value.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, he would like to do away with values altogether, if possible.
  MR. R. E. PLUNKETTfelt some difficulty as to "manurial" value—what did the adjective mean? It would be possible to put upon it great varieties of meaning. Adam Smith said that nations were directed, governed, and "manured," by three sorts of persons. Of course, if the First Lord of the Treasury, who was so great a literary authority, vouched for the word "manurial," and would undertake the parentage of this unusual adjective, he had no more to say; but, if not, he hoped the phrase "value of manures" would be accepted by the House.
  MR. WHITWELLbelieved that these valuations would really be settlements as between neighbours.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had heard of so many errors made by valuers that he thought it desirable not to trust too much to them. He would ask the Prime Minister in all good faith whether he meant to attach to the word "manurial" anything beyond "productiveness" in an agricultural sense. He concluded, however, that there must be some extra meaning to the word.
  THE MARQTJESS OF HARTINGTONagreed that the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Wilts (Sir George Jenkinson) relegated the Bill to a considerable extent to valuers. Practically it would be found most convenient for the landlord and tenant to make their own agreements and lay down a scale with regard to manurial value; but what the Committee wanted to know, and did not yet know, was how far landlords and tenants under those agreements would continue under the provisions of the Bill? He admitted, however, that this Amendment was an improvement.
  MR. GOLDNEYbelieved that the 16th section, under which the landlord and tenant might agree as to the amount, mode, and time of compensation, without contracting themselves out of the Bill, sufficiently answered the remarks of the noble Lord.
  COLONEL BRISEthanked the Government for the Amendment.
  MR. WELBYpointed out that the word "manurial" was in common use in agricultural discussions as well as in existing agreements.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, that if the word "manurial" had not yet become English, it was likely soon to become so, after all the remarks that had been made about it. To prevent any difficulty, as it was unnecessary, he would propose to leave it out of the clause, and to retain simply "the value thereof."
  COLONEL DYOTTsaid, that manurial value was the very essence of the clause, and therefore the word "manurial" ought not to be struck out.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that as the Amendment dealt with the subject-matter of the third class of improvement, the words could have no other meaning than that which his right hon. Friend had in view.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be agreed to?"
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONobserved, it was only fair that honour should be given to whom honour was due. The Committee had, by a large majority, rejected the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for North Devonshire, and a great deal of time had been spent over this matter of compensation for improvements; but he would leave it to the Committee to say what was the difference in effect between his hon. Friend's proposal and what had been agreed to.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Consent of landlord for first class).
  COLONEL DYOTTmoved, in page 4, line 7, after "first," to insert "or of the second." His object was that the consent of the landlord should be given to improvements of the second class, as well as of the first.
  MR. HUNThoped his hon. and gallant Friend would not press the Amendment. As the improvements of the second class stood upon a different footing from those of the first, it would create obstruction and very unnecessarily hamper the action of the tenant. If it were carried, a tenant could not lay dawn half-a-dozen loads of clay without writing to his landlord.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he did not see the value of giving notice to the landlord of improvements, if he were not to have any notice of their application. Some of those were very large, amounting to £10, £12, or £20 per acre, and the tenant, after he had received notice to quit, might enter upon them. He knew lands upon which bones had no effect, and others upon which marling was carried to such an extent as to positively destroy the production. He also knew lands upon which the application of chalk was deleterious. As the Bill stood, the only check that the landlord had was a notice to quit, and if a difference arose directly after Lady Day, that would practically amount to two years. It would be far simpler to say that the landlord's consent should be requisite, than to place him in the invidious position of enforcing his notice to quit. He should support the Amendment.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the object of the notice was to give the landlord the right to see that the work

  67
  was rightly done, and that the tenant should not put on cinders and charge for hones.
  MR. ASSHETONconsidered the landlord should have some control over the improvements included in the second class, as he had in the case of the improvements of the first class. In many instances he was a better judge than the tenant of the necessity of such improvements. Besides that, he was the person who would have ultimately to pay for them.
  MR. HUNTpointed out that the landlord could, if he desired, contract that second-class improvements should have his written consent.
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, the proposed restriction could subject the tenant to restrictions which would make farming impracticable, would be intolerable to the tenant farmers, and render the Act unpopular. Anyone possessed of agricultural experience would know that, in practice, it would be most vexatious and annoying to require that no tenant could put a load of chalk on his land without "the written consent of his landlord."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHAPLINmoved, in page 4, line 7, after "class," to insert "or of the second class when it is made after he has given or received notice to quit." A considerable sum of money would, in some cases, be spent for which the landlord was responsible, and there was nothing unreasonable in giving him the power of saying whether that expenditure should be incurred. In cases where notice to quit had been given, some provision should be made enabling the landlord to put a stop to improvements from which the tenant could not possibly benefit.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that the Amendment would come in better at the end of the 10th clause.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he would postpone it accordingly.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MELDONmoved, in page 4, lines 7 and 8, to leave out from "unless "to" landlord "inclusive, and insert—
  "prohibited in writing by the landlord, or made in contravention of a contract in writing not to make such improvement."
  MR. NEWDEGATEopposed the Amendment.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that the Amendment would render it necessary for the landlord to keep watch over every farm to see what the tenant was doing. While he was attending to his Parliamentary duties in London, one of his tenants in Northamptonshire might be executing improvements of which he knew nothing. Every landlord would require the eyes of Argus, if this Amendment were agreed to.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONmoved, in page 4, line 8, to add at the end of the clause the words—
  "and unless at the expiration of the tenancy the improvement is either in substantial repair, good working order, or condition of growth."
  MR. HUNTdid not see any objection to the adoption of the Amendment.
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENpointed out that these were precisely the points which the valuers would have to consider, and hoped the Government would re-consider their decision.
  MR. M'LAGANalso trusted that the Government would not accept the Amendment, as it would amount, in his opinion, to simple confiscation of the tenant's property.
  MR. CHAPLINapproved of the proposed Amendment.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaw no harm in the introduction of these words.
  MR. JACKSONthought they were not inconsistent with the spirit of the Bill.
  SIR HENRY JAMES, after an allusion to the thin appearance of the benches, remarked, that although they might not be able to defeat the power of the Government, and also the influence of the landlords, on whichever side of the House they sat, yet they could make apparent the effect of this Amendment, which was nothing more than confiscation. The Amendment had reference to permanent improvements under Class I, upon which the tenant with the consent of his landlord might have spent hundreds of pounds, and yet if the valuer at the expiration of the tenancy should determine that the buildings were not in substantial repair, the tenant's property in them was confiscated. ["No, no!"] The effect of the Amendment

  69
  would be that if the tiles were off a building it would become the property of the landlord without any compensation being paid to the tenant.
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOTsaid, that if the valuers knew anything about their business they would not because a few pounds' worth of tiles were off confiscate the tenant's property in the improvement. He thought, however, that the words of the Amendment were a little too strong, and suggested the substitution of "tenantable" for "substantial," and the omission of "condition of growth." He would propose an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to that effect.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he was under the impression that the words proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Cheshire were unnecessary, and therefore objectionable, because in the case of improvements for which the written consent of the landlord was necessary, the latter would guard himself by making all the proposed stipulations for himself. The term "substantial repair" was rather too strong, and he would suggest to his hon. Friend that he should withdraw his Amendment, and leave it to the Government, with the assistance of their legal Advisers, to see whether other words might not be introduced later on which would effect the object he had in view.
  Amendment to said proposed Amendment and proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CUSTmoved, in page 4, line 8, at the end of the clause, to add—
  "And unless he has within one year of the completion of the improvement deposited with the landlord or his agent vouchers of the various items of the outlay which he has incurred."
  MR. MARK STEWARTthought that the adoption of the words would be productive of very little good, as it would be difficult to prove the claims.
  MR. D. DAVIESwas against raising difficulties in the way of effecting permanent improvements to be executed with the consent of the landlord. He considered that it would be for the interest of the landlord to leave as much liberty as possible to the tenant.
  MR. CAWLEYthought that the introduction of the words proposed would lead to uncertainty.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALthought it would be most unfair to take those vouchers out of the hands of the tenant, and expressed a hope that the Amendment would be withdrawn.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. F. MONCKTONproposed to add the following words at the end of the clause:—
  "Nor unless, within six months after a completion thereof, he has given to the landlord a written statement of the amount expended in the execution of the said improvement."
  MR. GOLDSMIDconsidered that the words were unfair and unnecessary. The landlord would have no difficulty in ascertaining how much money had been spent, and would make his agreement accordingly.
  MR. GLARE READhoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment, because the landlord could stipulate what kind of agreement he would have.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Notice to landlord for second class).
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENmoved to substitute "three months" for "21 days," as one of the limits within which a tenant might give notice that he intended to execute improvements of the second class.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsupported the Amendment, as he was in favour of reasonable time being given for such a purpose, and 21 days would often be totally inadequate.
  MR. GREENE, in opposing the Amendment, said, he could not see any necessity for the existence of the clause itself.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that the object was that the landlord might have notice of what was going to be done, and might not be kept long in suspense. He thought six weeks on the one hand, and a fortnight on the other might be substituted for 21 and seven days respectively, as proposed in the clause, and would propose an Amendment accordingly.
  Amendment (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment (Mr. Hunt) agreed to.
  On Motion of Mr. HUNT, clause further amended by the addition of the words—

  71
  "Or where it is executed after the tenant has given or received notice to quit, unless it is executed with the previous consent in writing of the landlord."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Restrictions as to third class).
  On Motion of Mr. GOLDSMID, Amendment made in page 4, line 14, by inserting the word "ascertaining," in lieu of the word "ascertained."
  COLONEL DYOTTproposed, in page 4, line 15, after "class," to leave out to the end of the clause, and insert—
  "The tenant shall not be entitled to compensation in respect of outlay for the purposes enumerated, unless he has given not more than twenty-one and not less than seven days' previous notice in writing to the landlord or his agent of his intention to make such outlay, specifying the probable quantity and description of artificial manure proposed to be applied, and the quantity and description of artificial food proposed to be consumed during the last year of the tenancy, and has obtained the concurrence of the landlord."
  MR. MARK STEWARThoped the hon. and gallant Member would not press this Amendment. It would be destructive, if carried, of all incentive to high farming.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. HUNT, in pursuance of an understanding with the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), brought up in manuscript an Amendment, which he moved as an addition to the clause. It was as follows:—
  "And there shall be deducted the value of the manure that would have been produced by the consumption on the holding of any hay, straw, roots, or green crop sold off the holding within the last two years or other less time that the tenancy has endured."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, who took exception to the Amendment being produced in manuscript, and in the absence of the hon. Member for Berkshire, contended that it would open up a very difficult question for valuers—["No!"]—namely, the quantity of manure which might have been produced by a particular quantity of hay, &c. Whatever hon. Gentlemen might say, that certainly appeared to him to be a peculiarly difficult question to solve. He suggested that the consideration of the Amendment should be postponed until the bringing up of the Report.
  MR. FLOYERsaid, the principle proposed by the Government was only that
  72
  which was carried out on every well-managed farm. He believed it would commend itself to incoming tenants.
  MR. GOLDSMIDdid not believe any such difficulty as that imagined by the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford would arise. Permission to sell hay was nearly always given on the condition that an equivalent amount of manure should be brought to the farm. The hon. Member pointed out that Clause 6, which was already passed, would require some alteration in order to accord with the Amendment now proposed.
  MR. TORRobjected to the introduction of these infinitely small matters into the Bill. He believed them to be impracticable, and was convinced that they would defeat the object of the Bill.
  SIR JOSEPH BAILEYfelt that if the Amendment had not been proposed by the Government, he, in common with every other landlord throughout the country, would have been obliged to contract imself out of the Act.
  MR. CLARE READwas decidedly of opinion that a man who sold off all his hay ought not to receive compensation for manure which he might bring back. His duty was to consume his hay on his farm. As for the fears of the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford, he would say that if a valuer could not tell the manurial value of a ton of hay, he would not be able to tell the manurial value of a ton of cake. The matter was one from which no difficulty was experienced in practice.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALdid not think that a tenant who sold hay, the produce of his holding, and brought home manure, purchased with the proceeds, should be entitled to receive compensation for it.
  MR. MELDONthought the proposed Amendment would be a direct breach of contract. It was endeavoured by the Government to make the country believe that they were going to do something for them.
  COLONEL BRISEdid not think the Amendment of the Government necessary.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill? "
  MR. WHITWELLmoved its omission. Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 177; Noes 76: Majority 101.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 12 (Deductions from compensation for taxes, rent, &c.), and Clause 13 (Set off of benefit to tenant) agreed to.
  Landlord's compensation.
  Clause 14 (Landlord's title to compensation.)
  SIR HENRY JAMESmoved the omission of the clause. He said, that this was the first of the procedure clauses in the Bill, and if his Amendment were agreed to no fewer than 16 clauses would be got rid of, besides shortening the discussion in Committee by many hours. The clause would entitle a landlord to proceed under the Bill where a tenant committed waste, or broke a covenant or other agreement connected with the contract of tenancy. Now, that would give a wide scope of claim by the landlord under the Bill, and he would be enabled to raise many nice questions which there was no proper tribunal to try. Why should this exceptional privilege be given to the landlord, instead of leaving him to resort to the ordinary tribunals? The landlord could claim under the Bill, even when the tenant made no claim against him, and no statute of limitation would bar the claim. Further, the tribunal constituted under the Bill had no power to determine many of the questions that might be raised; because it was provided that it could only determine the amount of compensation and the time when it was to be paid. If appeal was to be allowed to the County Court Judge on the subject of amount, why should they not send before a legal tribunal, in the first instance, questions as to breach of covenant and committal of waste? Under the clause as it stood power of appeal was only given to the landlord and not to the tenant, while, should it remain unaltered, a most expensive and objectionable mode of procedure would be established.
  MR. JACKSONsupported the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend. Without going into the more technical questions which had been raised, and regarding this question from a landowning point of view, he considered that the Government's clauses were dangerous, as they would take these matters
  74
  from under the cognizance of the ordinary Courts of the land and create a special tribunal less competent to deal with them. No doubt arbitration was the best way of settling disputes of the character which would arise under this Bill, but he preferred arbitration chosen by the parties to arbitration forced upon them in derogation of legal rights. The best way to prevent litigation was to give facilities for enforcing legal rights, and as the result of the Bill would after all be the creation of legal rights expressed in money value, the best way of arriving at what the law was, would be to let the questions of law be tried by the Courts. The common sense of the parties would find the way to assess the amount. But under this Bill there would be no means by which doubtful points of law could be taken as a matter of right before the Superior Courts of Law. He doubted whether under the Bill a landlord and tenant could agree to take any case to the ordinary tribunals, and he certainly thought that was a matter which deserved the attention of the House and the Government.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he fully admitted the importance of the matters referred to by his hon. and learned Friends; but he hoped that the Committee would give its attention to the particular subject under consideration, which was whether the 14th clause should be retained or not. It appeared to him that the clause was one to which no reasonable objection could be taken. It was not a clause of procedure, but of definition. It defined that which was to be the subject of procedure. It would enable a landlord who had a claim against his tenant at the end of the tenancy, arising from breach of contract or otherwise, to set off such claim, as far as it went, against any claim for compensation which the tenant might have against him. He thought it was only right that the landlord should have such a power, and the referees after investigating the case would make the award either in favour of the landlord or tenant. The question how far the tribunal constituted by the Bill was a satisfactory one would arise under a subsequent clause.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTmaintained that if the tenant had committed a breach of covenant, the landlord might

  75
  proceed against him quite independently, and use the machinery of this Act for that breach of covenant; but there was no similar provision on behalf of the tenant. This clause had, he thought, found its way into the Bill by mistake. There was scarcely anything a tenant could do that might not be regarded as waste at common law, and if the landlord was to have the means of proceeding against the tenant with respect to waste, it was necessary that the term should be defined in the Bill. It was evident that the draftsman of the Bill did not understand the meaning of the word "waste" in law, which included an improvement which altered the condition of the property.
  MR. STORERobjected to the means afforded for inflicting injury upon the tenant farmer, especially through the means of petti-fogging attorneys. There were many improvements which tenant farmers might make, and which they would make, which were not included in the Bill.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford had complained that the draftsman had not afforded a proper definition of waste; but he thought sufficient definition had been given during the progress of the Bill in "another place" in such matters as diminishing the letting value of the holding, causing or permitting land to be neglected, damaging the timber, injuring pasture, neglecting outfalls and water courses, neglecting the repair of roads, and other matters of a similar kind. He thought these heads comprised what might be called a definition, and therefore the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman did not appear to be well founded. Without any further definition of what was waste, there was not any adequate Court that could not at once settle the question.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the highest legal authorities might be able to define what waste was; but what would be the position of the unfortunate tenant against whom the landlord brought a charge of waste? Probably a great deal of time would be saved if the Government would agree to omit the clause, and consider what better words might be introduced. He thought the object of the right hon. Gentleman had not been carried into effect by the clause. He considered that the
  76
  clause went much further than was consistent with the object of the Bill.
  MR. HUNTthought that if the clause stood alone, it might bear the interpretation put upon it by the noble Marquess; but it was to be read in conjunction with the other provisions of the Bill, and especially Clause 15, which dealt with the notice of intended claims. How-over, if the present words were not satisfactory, the Government would be prepared to make the necessary amendment in the Bill at its next stage. In the meantime, he hoped the clause would be retained.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, the words agreed upon in the House of Lords did not form a definition of the general term "waste," but were only a limitation of it. He quite agreed with the Prime Minister that any properly constituted Court should construe what waste was; but under the clause, that was not left to a properly constituted Court, but to three country surveyors to determine.
  MR. MUNTZregretted more than ever that he had not been brought up a professional man, for he could see in this Bill such ample prospects of litigation as would make this land of ours, hitherto prosperous and happy, a hell upon earth. Why were we to deviate in this matter from the common law which had hitherto answered perfectly well? Why put landlord and tenant in such a position by the Bill that they would contract themselves out of it as the only way of avoiding litigation? The best friends of the landlords were the tenant farmers, yet the Bill was doing much to destroy the amicable relations which had hitherto existed between them.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYapproved of the clause, and would much prefer valuers who understood agricultural matters to Judges at Westminster, who possibly did not know wheat from barley. The anxiety of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) to get the matter into the hands of the lawyers reminded him of the farmer's song—
  "If you' re fond of pure vexation
  And long procrastination,
  You' re just in the situation
  To enjoy your suit at law."
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 194; Noes 106: Majority 88.
  Clause agreed to.
  Procedure.
  Clause 15 (Notice of intended claim.)
  MR. MARK STEWART (for Sir JOHN KENNAWAY)moved, in page 4, line 39, to insert the words "one month at least," before the termination of his tenancy, in reference to the notice to be given by a tenant claiming compensation.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, the hon. Member must be under a complete misapprehension in suggesting this alteration.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that communication would have previously been made on the amount of claims, and therefore it was not unreasonable that the tenant should give a month's notice.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. GOLDSMIDmoved to report Progress, calling attention to the fact that there were 40 other Orders, the first of which was the Militia Bill.
  MR. DISRAELIopposed the Motion, which he hoped would be withdrawn until this clause had been disposed of.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he would, with the permission of the House, take the Bill at a Morning Sitting to-morrow at 2 o'clock; and, as the evening Paper was virtually empty, he trusted that the Committee would pursue their labours upon the Bill at the Sitting at 9 o'clock.

MILITIA LAWS CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Secretary Hardy, The Judge Advocate, Mr. Stanley.)
MILITIA LAWS CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 202.] COMMITTEE.
  [Progress 19th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 50 (Her Majesty may accept voluntary offers of Militia to serve in the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Malta, and Gibraltar).
  MR. HAYTERmoved, in page 14, at end of clause, to add the words—
  "Provided always, That in case of European War, the Militia shall he liable for active or foreign service, within the limits of Europe, and
  78
  such liability shall he entered on their original enlistment paper."
  The hon. Member said, the main object of the clause was to extend the service of the Militia to Malta and Gibraltar. He proposed that the clause should be extended so as to enable the Militia to relieve the Regular troops in garrisoning Antwerp or other towns in the event of a European war. During the last great war the plan adopted was to take driblets of men from the various regiments of Militia. In three cases known to him Militia officers had obtained 100 men from Militia regiments for the Line, and obtained commissions in Line regiments as a reward. This system was very unpopular among the colonels of Militia, because they lost men at the very time when they were required for active service. The proper plan of proceeding was to call upon the entire regiments of Militia. He had received a considerable number of communications, giving the opinions of commanding officers of regiments to show that his Amendment would not militate against enlistments for Militia regiments.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, that was one of the most extraordinary proposals ever made, and, if the Ballot were enforced for the Militia, would place the Militia in a worse position than the Regulars, who would be enlisted voluntarily. He had regarded the Notice of the Amendment as a joke.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the resort to the Ballot in the case of the Militia was a source of difficulty when, in time of war, it was desired to send the Militia abroad. But the proposal was no doubt made by his hon. and gallant Friend to authorize the Militia to volunteer their services, of which there were many precedents in the history of the Militia. At the same time, he regretted that the Bill had not been sent to a Select Committee, as he felt persuaded that in that case a great deal of valuable information would have been obtained with respect to the Militia, and many useful alterations would then have been introduced into the present Bill based on the experience of former years, and found on record in some of the Acts which this Bill proposed to do away with.
  COLONEL EGERTON LEIGHthought the Militia should continue a Home force, ready to volunteer for foreign

  79
  service when necessity required it, without being under a contract to do so.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYgave the utmost credit to his hon. and gallant Friend opposite for the goodness of his motive in proposing his Amendment; but he would point out that it was perfectly incongruous, and would not be in harmony with the general spirit of the clause. Its effect would be that the Militia would be absolutely compelled to serve abroad in the event of a European war, whereas they would not be liable unless they volunteered to garrison the British colonial possessions. Besides, the new system of cadres had put the Army on a different footing, and until the experiment had been tried more fully it would be injurious to adopt this Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 51 to 63, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 64 (Deserters may, when Militia not embodied or assembled for training, be proceeded against summarily before justices, or tried by court-martial).
  MR. GOURLEYmoved an Amendment which would remove the trial of deserters from a military to a civil tribunal.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 65 to 86, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 87 (Power to Her Majesty to regulate the Militia by warrants and regulations, &c.).
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURmoved an Amendment specifying that annual Returns of Warrants, Orders, and Regulations relating to the Militia should be laid before Parliament. That provision was now the more necessary, seeing that the course now followed in respect to the Militia was entirely at variance with the practice of former times. That practice required all the Regulations connected with the Militia to form part of the Act, or Regulations were appended to the Act, so that the entire law affecting that Force was publicly known and could be referred to in one or more Acts, readily procurable by everyone. Now the law vested in the Secretary of State the fullest authority to issue Regulations and War-
  80
  rants dealing with every question connected with the pay, pensions, clothing, arming, drilling, organization, and officering of the Force, and unless those Regulations were annually placed before Parliament and printed, it would be very difficult for any Member or for any one outside the War Office to ascertain what were the Orders affecting this great Force. But he hoped that the Secretary of State would consider those points and cause an annual compilation of all Regulations, including the Laws to Acts of Parliament to be made and made available for purchase by all who desired to know about the Militia. He was confident that consideration would be given, and would therefore withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKmoved a new clause, enabling the Secretary of State for War to enlist from the respective Militias raised in England, Scotland, and Ireland, a number of men which should not exceed at any one time one-third part of the respective quotas of the Militia now for the time being fixed by law to be raised therein respectively. This would raise the Reserve from 30,000 to 40,000.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, admitting the importance of the question of the Militia Reserves, expressed a hope that he would not be called upon to adopt the proposed clause in the present Bill, but leave the matter in his hands to deal with it next Session.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKwithdrew his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT AMENDMENT BILL. [BILL 155.]
(Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. Attorney General, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT AMENDMENT BILL. [BILL 155.]
  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.

    WITHDRAWAL OF BILL.
    Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment of Second Reading[14th June] read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

POLLUTION OF RIVEES BILL. [Lords.]
  [BILL 252.] SECOND READING.

    WITHDRAWAL OF BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

SAVINGS BANKS (&c.) BILL. [BILL 198.]
(Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
SAVINGS BANKS (&c.) BILL. [BILL 198.]
  CONSIDERATION. WITHDRAWAL OF BILL.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
SHERIFFS SUBSTITUTE (SCOTLAND) SALARIES.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. RAMSAYin moving that the House go into Committee that day three months said, that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had said that the object of the Government was to enable an additional Sheriff substitute to be appointed by Glasgow. No person was more sensible than he of the need there was in Glasgow for more judicial power, but he would remind the House that the application by Glasgow for a stipendiary magistrate had been refused by the Home Secretary. In other parts of the country there were Sheriffs substitute who had nothing to do, and he thought one of these should be employed, so that instead of increasing the expenses they should go towards economy. He would move the postponement of the Committee.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. Ramsay,)—instead thereof.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the House would permit the Bill to be brought in. He admitted the judicial system of Scotland required revision, and said that the subject would engage
  82
  the attention of the Lord Advocate and himself during the Recess.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALEOURalso advocated the withdrawal of the opposition for the present, and to contest the proposals of the Government on the separate clauses of the Bill, and to this way he was quite prepared to give his cordial aid to his hon. Friend (Mr. Ramsay) in every stage of the Bill which was partial in its reforms, instead of being general for all Scotland.
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsuggested that the best way to save the time of the Government was to oppose Bills when they were introduced.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 29: Majority 28.
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Debate arising.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Stacpoole,)—put, and negatived.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Matter considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, of the Salaries of certain additional Sheriffs Substitute in Scotland.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  EAST INDIA, AUDITOR OF ACCOUNTS, &C. [SUPERANNUATIONS].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Revenues of India, of a Superannuation or Pension to any person who has held the office of Auditor of Indian Accounts, and to certain Clerks and Officers on the Establishment of the Secretary of State for India."
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Law relating to the appointment of certain persons who entered the employment of the Home Government of India before the thirty-first day of December one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary CROSS, Bill to amend the Act of the twenty-ninth and thirtieth years of Her Majesty, chapter one hundred and eleven, relating to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, ordered to brought in by Mr. Secretary CROSS, Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, and Mr. CUBITT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 266.]

  RESTRICTION ON PENAL ACTIONS AND REDEMPTION OF PENALTIES BILL.
  On Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Bill to amend the Act of the twenty-first year of the reign of King George the Third, chapter forty-nine, intituled, "An Act for preventing certain Abuses and Profanations of the Lord's Day called Sunday," and for further amending the Law concerning the Remission of Penalties, ordered to be brought in by Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 267.]

  SANITARY LAW (DUBLIN) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Bill to amend an Act passed in the Session of Parliament held in the thirty-third and thirty-fourth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter one hundred and six, intituled "An Act to amend the Sanitary Act, 1866, so far as relates to the city of Dublin," ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH and Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 268.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.