HC Deb 26 July 1875 vol 226 cc57-77

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 7 (Amount of tenant's compensation for first and second class).

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

moved, 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 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. DISRAELI

said, 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 - HUGESSEN

said, 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.

Amendmentnegatived.

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 JENKINSON

moved, 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 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. HUNT

objected 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 HARTINGTON

asked 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. HUNT

said, he had so expressed himself.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, 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 JENKINSON

said, he would not object to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN

said, 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. KNIGHT

thought the whole difficulty might be met if the Government would agree to leave out the word "letting." Then all that would have to be determined was, whether the value of the property had been increased by the improvements.

MR. HUNT

said, 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 JAMES

contended that if the words were retained the interests of the tenant would be sacrificed to the law of entail and settlement.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, 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. DISREAELI

said, 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. NEWDEGATE

said, 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 JOHNSTONE

said, 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 HARTINGTON

thought it would be by far the most convenient course to leave out these 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. GREGORY

said, 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. RODWELL

said, 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 HARCOURT

maintained that the Amendment which the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire intended to move on the 34th clause would effect this object.

MR. PELL

said, 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. GOLDSMID

thought the suggestion of the noble Marquess would meet the difficulty.

COLONEL MURE

said, 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. RODWELL

moved, 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 EGERTON

thought 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 JAMES

asked how the Amendment would operate in cases where a mortgage in fee existed on the property?

MR. RODWELL

said, he could not see that any difficulty would arise in that case.

SIR HENRY JAMES

feared 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 GENERAL

said, 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 HARCOURT

observed, 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 MORGAN

said, 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. GOLDSMID

said, 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. KNIGHT

thought that the tenant ought to be satisfied with the personal security of the landlord.

Amendment to said proposed Amendment negatived.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. RODWELL

then 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 CAMPBELL

moved to amend the said proposed Amendment 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. HUNT

said, 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 - HUGESSEN

remarked 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 HARCOURT

remarked 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. MONK

said, 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 READ

said, 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. RODWELL

thought 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. DISRAELI

said, 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-HUGESSEN

believed 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. KNIGHT

expressed 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 GALWAY

said, he would like to do away with values altogether, if possible.

MR. R. E. PLUNKETT

felt 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. WHITWELL

believed that these valuations would really be settlements as between neighbours.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, 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 HARTINGTON

agreed 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. GOLDNEY

believed 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 BRISE

thanked the Government for the Amendment.

MR. WELBY

pointed out that the word "manurial" was in common use in agricultural discussions as well as in existing agreements.

MR. DISRAELI

said, 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 DYOTT

said, that manurial value was the very essence of the clause, and therefore the word "manurial" ought not to be struck out.

MR. HUNT

said, 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 HARTINGTON

observed, 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 DYOTT

moved, 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. HUNT

hoped 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. NEWDEGATE

said, 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 HARCOURT

said, the object of the notice was to give the landlord the right to see that the work was rightly done, and that the tenant should not put on cinders and charge for hones.

MR. ASSHETON

considered 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. HUNT

pointed out that the landlord could, if he desired, contract that second-class improvements should have his written consent.

MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN

said, 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. CHAPLIN

moved, 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. HUNT

said, that the Amendment would come in better at the end of the 10th clause.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he would postpone it accordingly.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MELDON

moved, 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. NEWDEGATE

opposed the Amendment.

MR. HUNT

said, 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 EGERTON

moved, 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. HUNT

did not see any objection to the adoption of the Amendment.

MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN

pointed 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'LAGAN

also 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. CHAPLIN

approved of the proposed Amendment.

SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE

saw no harm in the introduction of these words.

MR. JACKSON

thought 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 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 BARTTELOT

said, 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. HUNT

said, 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. CUST

moved, 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 STEWART

thought that the adoption of the words would be productive of very little good, as it would be difficult to prove the claims.

MR. D. DAVIES

was 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. CAWLEY

thought that the introduction of the words proposed would lead to uncertainty.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

thought 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. MONCKTON

proposed 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. GOLDSMID

considered 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 READ

hoped 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 - HUGESSEN

moved 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. GOLDSMID

supported 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. HUNT

said, 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— 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 DYOTT

proposed, 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 STEWART

hoped 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. FLOYER

said, the principle proposed by the Government was only that which was carried out on every well-managed farm. He believed it would commend itself to incoming tenants.

MR. GOLDSMID

did 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. TORR

objected 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 BAILEY

felt 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 READ

was 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 GENERAL

did 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. MELDON

thought 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 BRISE

did not think the Amendment of the Government necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill? "

MR. WHITWELL

moved 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 JAMES

moved 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. JACKSON

supported 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 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 GENERAL

said, 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 HARCOURT

maintained that if the tenant had committed a breach of covenant, the landlord might 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. STORER

objected 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. DISRAELI

said, 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 HARTINGTON

said, 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 clause went much further than was consistent with the object of the Bill.

MR. HUNT

thought 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 JAMES

said, 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. MUNTZ

regretted 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 GALWAY

approved 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 JAMES

said, the hon. Member must be under a complete misapprehension in suggesting this alteration.

MR. HUNT

said, 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. GOLDSMID

moved to report Progress, calling attention to the fact that there were 40 other Orders, the first of which was the Militia Bill.

MR. DISRAELI

opposed 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. DISRAELI

said, 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.