HC Deb 28 July 1875 vol 226 cc128-45

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Notice to Quit.

Clause 43 (Time of notice to quit).

MR. MELDON

moved, in page 12, line 12, to leave out at the end of the clause the following words:—"But nothing in this section shall extend to a case where the tenant is adjudged bankrupt." It would be unfair to the creditors generally if these words were retained.

SIR GEORGE JENKINSON

said, the effect of the Amendment would be nothing more or less than to abrogate virtually, if not actually, the law of distraint. ["No, no!"]

MR. MELDON

denied that it would have that effect, as landlords would be entitled to be paid in priority in cases of bankruptcy. Such an interpretation was to him quite a new reading of the law of distress

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that as the Bill was, as a general rule, making provision for extending the time during which notice to quit was to be given, it was desirable to retain the exception in question. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kildare was quite correct in stating that the landlord had a preferential claim in cases of bankruptcy to that of the trade creditor; but the clause, which was not in the Bill as originally introduced, had been adopted by the House of Lords after full and careful consideration.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that the question of the length of notice to quit, which he thought had been very hastily treated on the previous night, or rather early that morning, involved the interests of the English tenants of the middle-sized and far smaller farms in a direction and to an extent that the Committee had scarcely appreciated. The whole tenour of the Bill was to create a new right in the tenant—a right to recover compensation for outlay in the improvement of the farm, which had not been recouped by increased produce. That tended to increase the liability of the landlord; the presumption upon which the right was to be founded was, that the capital of the landlord was to be used hereafter as the security for the improvements made by the tenant. To invalidate or to impair the power of recovery of rent in arrear by the landlord would be manifestly inconsistent with the expectation that he would consent to furnish, by becoming security for the tenant, capital that he had not hitherto provided for the cultivation of the farm. If the period of notice to quit were extended from six months to a year, which in many cases would be practically to nearly two years, it was manifest that unless additional provisions of law were adopted, the extension of the period of notice must invalidate, to a great extent, the power of the landlord promptly to recover rent in arrear; in fact, whether as to rent or as to compensation for improvements, it must disincline the landlord to give credit to his tenant. Now, it was in the ease of the middle-sized and smaller holdings that the capital of the landlord was most largely employed in the cultivation of the farm, when held from year to year; it was in these cases that the partnership of the landlord with the tenant was the most direct. Long leases, such as prevailed in Scotland, interrupted this partnership. Tenure by lease required a tenant of larger capital, and the tendency of leases was to enlarge the farms, and thus to absorb the smaller tenantry. He (Mr. Newdegate) held that that process of absorption was, in a national sense, highly deleterious. Scotland was the land of leases, and he would show from the Census Report of 1871, that the system of leases and large farms tended to the diminution of the agricultural population— The agricultural class alone exhibited the most marked decline. In 1861 that class numbered 372,247 workers, and thus constituted 25.45 per cent of the total persons engaged in occupations. In 1871 only 270,008 persons were engaged in agricultural pursuits, constituting only 18.39 per cent of the total persons engaged in occupations. The agricultural class had thus within 10 years experienced a decrease to the enormous extent of 102,239 persons, being 37.8 per cent of decrease. A decrease has been exhibited at all the decennial Censuses since 1821, but in none so markedly as between 1861 and 1871. They found that the same process was now going on in England, and the disturbance which had been fomented between the farmers and the labourers would tend to accelerate what he believed to be a great national evil. The Census for England and Wales showed that in the year 1851 the holdings ranging from 50 to 250 acres numbered 60,864; in 1871 they had fallen to 51,460. In 1851 the holdings from 300 acres to 700 acres numbered 6,908; in 1871 they had increased to 7,370. He might be asked why he alluded to that matter on the question of the notice to quit. In the case of the smaller holdings landlords were essentially partners with their tenants in carrying out improvements, and if the landlord were impeded in giving effect to notice to quit, which was his remedy against rent falling into arrear and against waste, the process of leasing land for considerable periods, of enlarging farms and of suppressing the smaller holdings would be still further accelerated. The fact was, that unless further provisions were inserted, the tendency of simply extending the period of notice to quit must tend to deprive the smaller tenantry of the credit the landlords habitually extended to them. It was most inexpedient to disturb the yearly tenure of land in England; it represented a partnership between the landlord and tenant which had been most beneficial to the community in England; he had always adhered to the opinion that there ought to be on every estate a certain number of small holdings, of such a size that the most industrious of the labourers might aspire to become tenants of them. He had illustrated this in practice on his own estates. One of his best farms was held by an excellent farmer, two of whose sons were holding larger farms than their father, who had himself begun life as a parish apprentice.

THE CHAIRMAN

reminded the hon. Member that the Amendment before the Committee had reference to the bankruptcy of tenants.

MR. NEWDEGATE

would merely add that the amalgamation of small estates with large holdings was a great evil, for not only did the medium-sized and small holdings prevent the undue depopulation of the agricultural districts—the undue and unsafe diminution of the agricultural population; but he had observed when the feud between the farmers and the labourers arose that it had been far more aggravated in the counties where the large tenancies prevailed than in the counties where there were a greater number of small holdings. He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would consider the question of notice to quit as it affected the disposition of landlords to give credit to their tenants; credit upon which the continuance of small holdings in great measure depended.

MR. DODDS

failed to find in the Amendment anything to justify the apprehension of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire; but even if there was it would only form an additional reason for his supporting it, because, in his view, the time must come when the law of distress would be abolished. As the words were not in the Bill when it was introduced into the other House, he trusted the Government would consent to their omission.

MR. MELDON

could not avoid feeling that the words to which he took exception were introduced into the clause in a misconception of the law of bankruptcy, and hoped that the hon. and learned Attorney General would re-consider the matter before he supported the rejection of the Amendment.

MR. DODSON

approved of the clause, as it could be of no advantage to any person in the country that land should be out of cultivation for two years.

Amendment negatived.

SIR GEORGE JENKINSON

said, he had an Amendment to propose to which he trusted the Government would assent. The Committee had last night practically decided on giving a tenant a year's notice, and under the Lady Day tenancy that notice would practically be a year. The clause provided that "nothing in the section shall extend to a case where the tenant is adjudged bankrupt;" and he proposed the addition of the words "or where he fails to pay the rent when due and demanded."

MR. HUNT

said, the subject had been well considered, but it was not thought right to adopt this Amendment. It appeared a rather difficult question. It might be true that a tenant was not able to pay his rent when due or demanded; but the custom was to allow him some considerable time, and if this Amendment were adopted the landlord might take advantage by demanding the rent on the very day, and then and there give notice.

MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON

said, he had placed an Amendment on the Paper which he thought was preferable. He thought that in cases where a tenant had not sufficient capital to carry on his farm, it was desirable, both for him and the landlord, that the tenancy should determine, and he proposed to add, after the word "bankrupt," the following words:— Or is in arrear of his rent, or where on the death of the tenant the holding is in possession of his executors or administrators.

MR. STORER

hoped the Committee would entertain the Amendment.

MR. HUNT

said, that it differed from that of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wilts, and suggested that his Amendment should be withdrawn.

SIR GEORGE JENKINSON

objected to "six months." He would, however, adopt "five months," or "four months," or any period within "six months," otherwise, practically, they would give a two years' notice. He would withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that the Government would entertain the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Cheshire.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. RODWELL

thought it desirable that some provision should be made to meet the case of the holders of glebe lands, and proposed to add, in page 12, line 14, after the word "bankrupt"— That in all cases of agricultural holdings under incumbents of ecclesiastical benefices, the occupier shall he entitled, on the death or removal of the incumbent, to hold his lands for twelve months from the expiration of the current year of his tenancy, and that any agreement re- lating thereto shall continue in force for that period subject to the provisions of this Act.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he fully admitted that the subject was one, which, at a convenient time, should be taken into consideration; but he thought it could not be dealt with in the present Bill.

SIR THOMAS ACLAND

said, that if there was one thing that farmers wanted, it was this—that they should not be subjected to arrangements to which they were not parties. They might suddenly receive notice to quit, or find something more demanded than they expected, and if they did not pay it, they might be worried out of their lives.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. RYDER, Amendment made, in page 12, line 14, after "bankrupt," by inserting "or has filed a petition for a composition or arrangement with his creditors."

MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON

proposed to insert the words "or is for six months in arrear of his rent."

Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "or is for six months in arrear of his rent."—(Mr. Wilbraham Egerton.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

SIR GEORGE JENKINSON

made a suggestion to amend the Amendment by substituting the word "five" for "six."

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN

hoped the Government would not accept those words. As to the second part of the Amendment, it had been urged that it might be a great hardship upon a widow to be unable to leave a farm for a long period after her husband's death. He thought such cases were little likely to occur, and that it would be a much greater hardship upon a widow to have to leave a farm at a time when it might be greatly to her advantage and interest to stay longer. As to the first part, the landlord had his ordinary security for his rent, which would be equally safe under a six or a 12 months' notice. The giving of the latter in the Bill was a boon to the tenant; but now the moment hon. Gentlemen opposite had given this boon, they began to fence it round and clog it with restrictions and limitations. The law should remain the same in the case of a year's notice as it had been when six months' notice was sufficient; and he put it to the Government that it was inexpedient when they were giving this boon to the tenant, that they should clog it with conditions which would so much diminish its value.

MR. BEACH

believed, if some such words were not accepted, a landlord would only have power to get rid of a tenant in arrear by pressing him so far as to make him a bankrupt.

MR. MUNTZ

supported the Amendment. If a tenant farmer could not pay his rent in six months he was not in a position to become a successful agriculturist.

MR. HENLEY

said, that he had been a landowner for 58 years, and had always let his land on 12 months' notice. He had never found any inconvenience of the kind suggested. He was a hearty supporter of the 12 months' notice, and did not think these Amendments and exceptions were at all needed.

MR. GREGORY

said, that all leases contained a provision for re-entry in case of non-payment of rent, and he did not think that the clause altered the relation between landlord and tenant in case of non-payment of rent. An Amendment like that proposed might throw some doubt on the powers of the landlord.

MR. GOLDSMID

would support the Amendment in the interest of the tenant, as it would enable him, if he desired, to leave on an earlier day.

MR. MELDON

was also of opinion that the Amendment would benefit the tenant and by no means injure the landlord; but it was calculated to create an unpleasant feeling, and he should oppose it.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, the simple effect of the clause was to provide that wherever, according to the present law, half-a-year's notice was given, for the future a year's notice was to be given, all other circumstances remaining the same, except only in certain cases. By the Amendment now under consideration, it was proposed to except from the operation of the clause tenants who were six months in arrear with their rents. But he thought a case of that sort would be fully met by the existing law.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

hoped the Government would adhere to the clause. He did not understand hon. Members voting for a year's notice and then trying to nibble it down.

MR. ASSHETON

said, there was usually a clause in an agreement giving a landlord a right of entry in case of arrears, and this Amendment would be only equivalent to that arrangement.

SIR GEORGE JENKINSON

said, the Amendment would give a power, but would not compel the landlord to exercise it.

MR. DODSON

contended that the Amendment was totally different from the case of a bankrupt. It was not in any way in favour of the tenant, and was not at all necessary for the protection of the landlord.

MR. HUNT

said, if the landlord could not get rid of a tenant in arrears except by giving a year's notice, he might be compelled to drive the tenant into bankruptcy; but, if he could give six months' notice, he might not have to resort to so harsh a proceeding. He did not think the Amendment was entirely in favour of the landlord; under some circumstances, in might be in favour of the tenant. The Government were anxious to hear what could be said on both sides; and, having done so, they were prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid-Cheshire.

MR. PELL

held that the period should be less than six months, inasmuch as if the rent were not paid at 12 o'clock on the day upon which it was due, a notice to quit at the end of the six months following could not be served upon the tenant, who would in that case remain in possession for 12 months.

LORD HENRY SCOTT

thought there was great force in the consideration, and for that reason he would move to substitute the word "five" for "six."

Amendment amended, by leaving out the word "six," and inserting the word "five."—(Lord Henry Scott.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'or is for five months in arrear of his rent' be added at the end of the Clause."

SIR GEORGE JENKINSON

pointed out that there ought to be a demand of the rent before the notice could be given.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

proposed to add to the Amendment "the same having been duly demanded."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, as amended, to add at the end thereof the words "the same having been duly demanded."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, as amended, withdrawn.

Amendment, as amended, amended, by adding at the end thereof the words "the same having been lawfully demanded."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

MR. HERSCHELL

said, there must also be a period allowed after the demand in which to pay the rent before the notice could be given.

MR. DODDS

suggested the addition after the words "or is for five months in arrear of his rent," of the words, "the same having been lawfully demanded in writing, and not paid within 14 days after such demand."

MR. DISRAELI

accepted the Amendment.

Amendment, as amended, further amended, by adding at the end thereof the words "in writing and not paid within fourteen days after such demand."—(Mr. Dodds.)

Question put, That the words 'or is for five months in arrear of his rent, the same having been lawfully demanded in writing and not paid within fourteen days of such demand,' he added at the end of the Clause.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 138; Noes 79: Majority 59.

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

MR. G. MONCKTON

said, that having been always most strongly opposed to the clause, he wished, before it passed, to enter his protest against it, and hoped, as he should not delay the Committee any further, that the Government would kindly answer his inquiries on two points. The first was, whether if a landlord and tenant agreed to adopt the provisions of this Bill, they could do so in all its clauses, with the exception of Clause 43, inasmuch as the words "necessary and sufficient" had led some persons to imagine that this clause was compulsory. He also trusted that the hon. and learned Attorney General would before the Report study the words of the clause as it now read with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid-Cheshire (Mr. W. Egerton), which the Committee had just carried; and take care that by that Amendment the landlord had not in any way forfeited any rights he had under the law of distress and ejectment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, it was quite competent for any landlord and tenant to adopt generally the provisions of the Bill, and, at the same time, contract themselves out of the clause under consideration; that, in fact, it was not more compulsory than any of the other clauses of the Bill. With regard to the other inquiry he would look into the matter, and take care that the landlord's position with regard to the law of distress and ejectment was not damaged by the clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resumption for Improvements.

Clause 44 (Resumption of possession for cottages, &c.)

MR. TENNANT

moved an Amendment, in page 12, lines 19 and 20, to alter the words "farm labourers' cottages" to "cottages or other houses," so that land might be taken for cottages required by foresters, gardeners, &c.

MR. GOLDSMID

objected to the Amendment, on the ground that landlords might, at any time, take the land required by the labourers for building speculations.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. HUNT

moved an Amendment, in page 12, line 21, by substituting for the words "of gardens for labourers," the words "for labourers of land for gardens."

MR. DODDS

said, if land was to be allotted in this way, it was difficult to say what purpose it might be applied to. He suggested that the word "gardens" be struck out.

MR. HUNT

suggested the words "or for other purposes," in reference to the requirements of labourers.

MR. DODDS

wished for a definition of the word "labourers." He hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would give it.

MR. GOLDSMID

objected to the words "or for other purposes," and moved to leave those words out.

MR. MELDON

also objected to the words "or for other purposes," and wished to know what they meant and where they would end.

MR. GOLDSMID

said, this was very irregular, and it was entirely done in the interests of the landlords. ["No, no!"] He said yes, and he thought it most unfair.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, they were giving landlords a power under the Bill in reference to the taking possession of the land when they might require it; but, in his opinion, they should take care that the rights of the tenants were protected.

MR. GOLDSMID

thought they were going too far in the manner of dealing with the rights of the tenants.

MR. HUNT

said, the difference was made as to the time of giving the notice. At present, if the landlord wished to obtain a small part of the farm in order to give a labourer, or any other person, a piece of ground for a garden, he must give the tenant notice to quit the whole of the holding. This clause would enable him to give notice only for the portion he wished to resume.

Amendment (Mr. Goldsmid) negatived.

Amendment (Mr. Hunt), as amended, agreed to.

MR. TENNANT

moved an Amendment, in page 12, line 23, proposing to give power to the landlord to obtain possession of part of the land from the tenant, on notice, for the purpose of sinking for coal, ironstone, limestone, or other minerals.

MR. GOLDSMID

objected to the Amendment, the effect of which would empower the landlord to take from the tenant what might be the best part of his holding.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, the tenant ought, in common justice, to have power to throw up his holding when he was deprived of land for these purposes.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

apprehended that the tenant could give a counter-notice.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOUET

said, he would propose words in line 33 to give effect to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield.

Amendment agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. TENNANT, Clause further amended, by adding after "quarry," the words "clay, sand, or gravel pit, or the construction of any works or buildings to be used in connection therewith."

MR. TENNANT

then proposed, at line 26, after "the making of roads" to add "tramroad, siding, canal or basin, or any wharf, pier, or other works connected therewith."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

remarked that the effect of these Amendments was to extend the clause to speculations which had nothing to do with agricultural operations.

MR. TENNANT

replied that his proposals were intended as much for the protection of the tenant as the landlord, as they would prevent the former from being turned off his farm when only a portion of it was required by the landlord.

MR. DODDS

said, the Amendments gave landlords privileges which they did not possess at present.

MR. ALGERNON EGERTON

said, they would not alter the position of landlords in manufacturing districts; and unless these Amendments had been proposed, he should have been obliged to give notice to all the tenants on an estate in Lancashire of which he was trustee.

SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE

stated that in many, if not most, existing agreements there were powers of reentry for purposes analogous to these.

Amendment agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. TENNANT, consequential Amendments made.

MR. DODDS

proposed to amend the clause by giving the tenant the power, within 28 days after receipt of a notice from the landlord of a resumption of a part of the holding, to serve him with notice to give up the holding of it.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, it was not intended to deprive the tenant of the right to give notice to the landlord. He would promise to look to the matter, and hoped that on that assurance the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment. It was almost impossible at a moment's notice to ascertain how an Amendment of this kind might affect other parts of the measure, and therefore it was that he wished to have an opportunity of considering the point raised by the hon. Member.

MR. DODSON

quite agreed with the hon. and learned Attorney General in respect to the difficulty of ascertaining how an Amendment, of which no Notice had been given, might affect other por- tions of the Bill; but he thought Government should bear this in mind, and give Notice in respect to its own Amendments, so as to explain to the Committee the changes which they might effect.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

General Application of Act.

Clause 45 (No restriction on contract).

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN

said, he had now to propose what he thought would be one of the most important Amendments which had been moved, and which would tend to make the Bill a reality and not a sham, as it had been irreverently called out-of-doors. The clause, as it stood, said that— Nothing shall prevent a landlord and tenant, or intending landlord and tenant, from entering into and carrying into effect any such agreement as they think fit, or shall interfere with the operation thereof; and what he now asked the Committee to do was to insert after the word "agreement" the words "securing to the tenant bonâ fide compensation for his unexhausted improvements." If adopted, the Amendment would make the Bill a real and substantial measure, as it would give to the tenant farmer as a matter of right—secured to him by law—compensation in respect of the capital he had expended upon the land. It raised, in short, the question whether the giving of proper compensation should not be a subject of compulsory, rather than of permissive legislation. They were all agreed that compensation for unexhausted improvements ought to be; what, then, was the objection to saying that it must be awarded? He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had done his best throughout the discussions to make the Bill more acceptable to the tenant farmers of England. Nearly all his Amendments in this direction had been opposed by the Government, although some of them had found support in the votes—and still more in the speeches of Members on the Government side. He would forgive them all their opposition, if they would only give favourable consideration to this Amendment. Now, what had the House done? They had declared that the tenant farmers ought to have by right something which the law did not give them—namely, compensation for unexhausted improvements. They had, moreover, care- fully defined what that compensation ought to be, and how it should be given. They had pointed out what they considered the best way of giving it, and all that his Amendment did was to say that, if landlords preferred to give it in some other way they might do so, but that they should not contract themselves out of the Bill altogether without giving it in any way at all. It might be said that the Amendment would lead to litigation; but it would soon be discovered what the Courts would hold bonâ fide compensation to be, and he believed there would be little difficulty in the matter. The question of compulsion had not yet been really decided by the Committee. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had stated his views upon the subject at length upon the second reading of the Bill. But he had not then pressed his Amendment, because he owned that its permissive character was not the main or only principle of the Bill, which did admit that compensation should be given to farmers, against which a vote against the Bill upon second reading or Committee would have seemed to be given. For the same reason he had voted with Government upon the question of going into Committee upon the Bill, when the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) again raised the question of compulsion and against advice insisted upon a division when the real issue could not be before the House. That issue was now fairly before them. According to his promise upon the second reading, he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had brought it forward in a legitimate manner, and he earnestly pressed the Government to accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 12, line 40, after the word "agreement," to insert the words "securing to the tenant bonâ fide compensation for his unexhausted improvements."—(Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen.)

MR. HUNT

said, the question whether the Bill should be compulsory or permissive in character had been fully discussed on the second reading, and he hoped he should be excused from going into the matter again at that late period of the Session. The Government considered that the Amendment was in restriction of the freedom of contract, and therefore against the principle of the Bill, and on that ground they were unable to accept it.

SIR THOMAS ACLAND

said, the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sandwich was an important one. The Prime Minister had told them that the principle of the Bill was freedom of contract. That was a principle which the House had not formally adopted. What was wanted was, to secure compensation and security to farmers in the carrying on of their practical business as farmers. There was another interest to be kept in view, and that was the interest of the whole community having capital invested in land, so as to secure the largest possible production of food of all kinds. What he desired was that a Bill dealing with this subject should be a reality. It was partly declaratory, and partly enabling. He wanted to make the declaratory part a reality, and to relieve the limited owners. With respect to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, he must say that he felt himself in a difficulty. He had an Amendment on the Paper, one of a series of Amendments which had been carefully prepared, to reserve freedom of contract, and if he voted with his right hon. Friend it would be with the reservation that he would at later stages in Committee have the right of urging that some real security should be given to tenants. The adoption of the principle involved in those Amendments would give substantial value to the Bill, and he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would give it their serious consideration. He begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty and the hon. and learned Attorney General for the courtesy with which they had uniformly treated their opponents during the consideration of the Bill; and it was but just to add that the discussions which had arisen on the provisions of the Bill were highly honourable to the country Gentlemen who were Members of the House, and evidenced the kindly feeling which existed between them and those who were connected with them in the position of tenants.

SIR EARDLEY WILMOT

, as the Representative of an agricultural constituency, regretted that the Government had not seen their way to the adoption of the principle to secure bonâ fide compensation to tenant farmers for unexhausted improvements.

MR. FAWCETT

, in supporting the Amendment, said, that those who on the second reading of the Bill pointed out its shortcomings did not wish to oppose its progress, because, though defective in itself, it contained seeds which would in future bring forward a bountiful harvest of land reform. It was a great thing to enunciate the principles on which landlords and tenants should conduct their mutual relations, and, though not compulsory, it might be expected that in course of time custom would grow into accordance with law. As to the objection that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would infringe the principle of freedom of contract, it was only necessary to say that in many other instances they had set aside that principle; and in every particular case that point must be discussed as one of policy and expediency with reference to the special circumstances of each case. Why, even the high priest of that new religion—the noble Lord the Member for Haddington—had supported an infringement of it in the case of miners, as the House had done in the case of the Artizans Dwellings and other Bills passed that Session. Whatever might be his line on this Bill, where the interest of the masses was concerned the noble Lord was ready to treat them as children. These questions, however, were not to be settled by a phrase, but must be determined by considerations of policy, expediency, and necessity. He had heard it said over and over again that what was wanted to be done by the Bill was to constitute a model agreement and, as his hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Greene) had said, a model lease; but was it not treating the tenant farmers of England like children, if it was said that the House was going to occupy itself night after night in telling the tenant farmers what was the best kind of lease and what was the best kind of agreement which ought to subsist between them and their landlords? If it were necessary to draw a model agreement for a farmer, why should not such agreement be drawn for all other classes of people? As he had said, he advocated a Tenant Eight Bill on the ground of the great land reforms that would in future come from it. The speech delivered by the Prime Minister last week would be memorable in the history of the land tenure of this country as being founded on what might be termed "the supply of food" argument. If increased security given to the investment of capital in the soil should increase the supply of food by 25 per cent. amounting, as it was stated it did, to £240,000,000, it would be equal to the creation of new wealth of the most valuable kind to the amount of £60,000,000 a-year. That would at the same time greatly increase the demand for labour in this country, and the agricultural labourer would greatly prefer to remain at home than emigrate to any of our colonies. Those who sanctioned a permissive Bill should remember that the House, whatever it might do with regard to Corporations, never sanctioned the permissive principle between individuals. He (Mr. Fawcett) never did anything to jeopardize the Bill—he was bound to confess that, though very imperfect, it would be productive of much good. The most important of the tenant farmers assembled at Wilts were in favour of the principle of the Amendment they were now discussing; but what would they say when they heard that the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Mr. Knight) had declared that there was only one landlord in the House in favour of the Bill? What danger could there be in making the Bill compulsory? The landlord interest was fenced round in it with every security, and he could see no reason why the principle of compulsion should not be adopted. Nothing in the first class could be done by the tenant without the permission of the landlord; and the landlords could, if they liked, contract themselves out of the Bill. As to the improvements of the second and third class, they were simply comprised in the term "good husbandry;" and no possible disadvantage could come to a landlord from his tenant spending his capital in what formed good husbandry. It was evident that the Prime Minister, in common with the farmers generally, himself did not expect that the measure would be attended with any great and immediate practical results; but it was a measure which laid the foundation for a great land reform; and he (Mr. Fawcett) ventured to predict that in after years the name of the right hon. Gentleman would be associated not only with a great political change in our Constitution, but also with the fact of his having originated a still more important reform in the land tenure of the country.

COLONEL BRISE

said, he was not disposed to admit the authority of the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Fawcett) upon questions of agriculture. He (Colonel Brise) looked upon the Bill as one for extending the Lincolnshire and other existing customs, and for meeting exceptional cases of hardship. He believed that the time had not yet come for compulsory measures. If, however, they were legislating only for some particular part of the country, or for the Eastern Counties only, then compulsory legislation, so far as the third class of improvements was concerned, would be no great injury to the owner, and of very great importance to the occupier. As to other improvements, however, such compulsion would be very unfair to the landlord in some cases. It would be unfair to the landlord, for instance, where he had bought up the custom, or where there had before been no custom in existence. He believed, upon the whole, that the Government had acted in the interests of the occupier in not giving way to many of the Amendments which had been brought forward.

LORD ELCHO

accused the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) of departing from his principles as a political economist, in advocating compulsion versus freedom of contract.

MR. NEWDEGATE

thanked Her Majesty's Government for having introduced the measure, and believed that, considering the improvements it had received in Committee, it would be of great benefit to the country. He would advise the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sandwich, "in good agricultural language," not to "hurry any man's cattle."

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 178: Majority 62.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.