COMMITTEE. [Progress 28th July.] (Hansard, 29 July 1875)

§ MR. DILLWYN
moved that the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again. His reason for taking what he admitted to be an exceptional course was, that he might be able to induce the House to postpone the other Orders of the Day until they came to the 23rd Order, which was that for the second reading of the Bill of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. If the course which he was taking was exceptional it should be borne in mind that they were placed in an exceptional state of circumstances; and therefore they were bound, however unwilling they might be to do so, to speak out and state the circumstances which necessitated such a course as that which he and his Friends now proposed to pursue. Early in the present Session, the Government brought in the Merchant Shipping Bill—a measure which, although not a perfect one, was nevertheless a useful measure, and calculated to diminish the loss of life at sea. That Bill had been withdrawn last week at the instance of the Government themselves, and they had had on the previous evening a Bill introduced by the President of the Board of Trade to replace it. He would not now discuss the merits of that measure beyond saying that it would not accomplish what was necessary, and that the powers which it conferred upon the Board of Trade were such as ought not to be placed in the hands of underlings. He did not often trouble the House. [" Oh, oh! "] Well, if he did often trouble it, he did not often trouble it long, and therefore he would not discuss the matter further than to say that, in his opinion, the Bill of the President of the Board of Trade was a highly objectionable measure. It was true that the Bill was only for a year, and that the Prime Minister had given a distinct pledge that next year a Bill would be introduced similar to that which had been just now abandoned. But what reason had the Government to suppose that next year they would do better than they had this year? He could not conceive that they 182 could meet Parliament under circumstances more favourable for carrying new measures. They met Parliament this year with a large and obedient majority. Hon. Gentlemen who acted as "whips" for the Government found a most subservient body to deal with—much more so than was found by the "whips" on the other side of the House. Having such a power at their backs, what did they do? They discarded sensational legislation, and said they intended to bring before the House useful measures for social and other purposes. They had dealt with some of them, abandoned others, and had made of what might have been useful Acts mere Social Science recommendations. He did not think the country at large approved of this course of procedure. He wanted to know what course they were now going to take. They certainly could not complain of any opposition they had received. They certainly had not received any factious opposition.

VISCOUNT GALWAY
said, a Motion of this kind gave a great deal of liberty; but he wished to know whether the hon. Member was in Order to discuss other measures on the Motion before the House?

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member, in moving to report Progress, will not be in Order if he discusses a Bill which has been before Parliament this Session. He can, however, adduce any reasons he thinks necessary for making such a Motion.

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, that was precisely what he was attempting to show, that the Government had not met with such an opposition as would justify them in abandoning the Merchant Shipping Bill, and that generally such an opposition as they had received was not a factious one. It could not be said that the Irish Members had given a factious opposition to the Bill which they had disapproved, inasmuch as their opposition had been a bonâ fide one. The whole of it was this—the Government had fearfully mismanaged the Business of the country. Their Estimates were behindhand, some of their Bills had been abandoned, and others had been cut down to nothing. Still, they were thankful for some few good measures, and were in hopes the Merchant Shipping Bill would be added to the list. That, however, although an urgent measure, 183 had been abandoned to make way for the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill, a measure of which no one approved, and which might very well have been allowed, with the consent of the whole agricultural body, to stand over for another year. Government had, however, made their choice; and instead of giving the country a full and satisfactory measure, proposed to give them one which could be considered in no other light than in that of a stop-gap. They did not seem competent to carry even that measure. If they were, he would not have asked to report Progress; but there was another Bill upon the Orders which might, he thought, be moulded into a useful measure, and which would, at all events, carry them safe until next year. He believed it would have the effect of preventing the loss of many ships, which was the same thing as preventing many women from becoming widows and many children from becoming fatherless. The hon. Member concluded by moving that Progress be reported.

§ MR. DISRAELI
Our neighbours have a proverb "Those who excuse themselves accuse themselves." I have never this Session accused hon. or right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House of factious opposition; but the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) has devoted a considerable portion of his remarks to vindicating himself and his Friends from the charge of faction. I believe that was the rhetoric of an uneasy conscience. I put it to hon. Members, whatever may be their opinions on matters generally, do they think that the course of action proposed by the hon. Member for Swansea would facilitate any satisfactory or practical solution of our difficulties with regard to Merchant Shipping? The hon. Gentleman has denounced the Bill which we have brought in. I have too great a respect for the Orders and wise forms of this House to enter now into any discussion on the merits of that Bill, seeing that to the general satisfaction of the House, and certainly with the full and cheerful assent of all the Members who sit about us, to-morrow morning was fixed for the discussion of the second reading. For the same reason I will not on this occasion seek to vindicate the course which the Government have pursued in withdrawing the Bill which they originally 184 submitted to the consideration of the House on the subject of Merchant Shipping. To my mind the case which the Government has is a complete case, and at the proper time I shall put it before the House. But this is not the opportunity, this is not the occasion, and the Committee ought not to give encouragement to Motions like the present, particularly in the existing state of affairs, when we have much to do and our time is so valuable. Therefore, I wish only to say that I give an unqualified opposition to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, and I call not merely upon my general supporters, but upon all who take an interest in the salutary conduct of affairs and who desire to see our Business transacted within a period of time which may be in harmony with our habits, to join me in the course I am taking with regard to the immediate question now before us.

§ MR. T. E. SMITH
, in rising to second the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea, said, the House would not think he was actuated by any strong desire to pass the Bill (Mr. Plimsoll's) as it stood; but he could not fail to see that a considerable change had come over public opinion, and that it would not be right to sit silent on a question which the country had greatly at heart, and which affected the Mercantile Marine of this country. Shipowners had great reason to complain of no opportunity having been afforded this Session for fully and fairly discussing the matter. It had been said there was not time for such a discussion. He had no doubt that, if necessary, hon. Members would be prepared to sacrifice a portion of their holiday, and there would be nothing very exceptional in a prolongation of the Session. On one occasion Lord Palmerston and the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) kept the House of Commons sitting until September, discussing a Bill how husbands and wives who were unfaithful to their marriage vows should be dealt with. That was a small question; but this, affecting as it did the lives of sailors, was not a small one.

§ MR. SPENCER WALPOLE
rose to Order. He did not consider the hon. Member privileged on a Motion to report Progress to discuss the merits of a measure which was not before the House. If the hon. Gentleman wished to have 185 the other Orders postponed until they came to that for the second reading of the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby, the time for doing so was before the Speaker left the Chair.

THE CHAIRMAN
understood that the Committee was governed by a general rule to confine its attention to the Bill which was under consideration, and that almost invariably a Motion to report Progress had reference to something germane to the subject of the Bill. At the same time, he believed the House had always regarded such a Motion as one cognate in character to a Motion for the adjournment of the House. Therefore, he had not felt it to be his duty to stop either the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), or the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. T. E. Smith), when they were adducing general arguments for the course they recommended. At the same time, he must repeat that it would be out of Order on this Motion to discuss the provisions of any other measure than that before the Committee. He had no doubt the hon. Member would desire to conform to the practice usually observed in Committee of confining his observations to matters germane to the subject which had come up for consideration.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
Was it competent for the hon. Member to put his Motion before the Speaker left the Chair? We have consulted the highest authorities on the question, and they were of opinion that such a course was never taken except by the Leader of the House.

THE CHAIRMAN
The question should not be addressed to me, but to the Speaker.

§ MR. T. E. SMITH
added that Her Majesty's Government could not better occupy the remaining days of the Session than in considering what measures it was desirable to pass for the benefit of the Mercantile Marine of this country. Opinions were gaining ground in the country that hon. Gentlemen were not disposed to sacrifice other engagements for the duties they had undertaken in the House of Commons, and he had no hesitation in saying that inattention to this question would injuriously affect the reputation of the House of Commons in this country and abroad.

§ MR. SAMPSON LLOYD
As the representative of a large shipping constituency, I do not wish this discussion 186 to close without making a few observations in respect to it. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) has taken the trouble to protest that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not display any factious opposition in connection with the Merchant Shipping Bill. Well, in answer to that declaration, I beg to say that in the middle of last month I took the trouble to add up the number of Amendments which stood on the Notice Paper against the Bill. I found that on the 12th of June they amounted to 194, and of these no less than 138 were put upon the Paper by hon. Gentlemen sitting on the opposite benches—I repeat by hon. Gentlemen who now affect so deeply to regret the withdrawal of the Government Bill. I made a further calculation, and I found that if five Amendments occupied one night, and allowing five working days to the week, it would have taken the Government eight weeks doing nothing else but fighting the Amendments thus put upon the Paper. Sir, that being so, I say that, whatever may be the fate of our seamen next winter, the blame for any loss of life that may occur lies at the doors of hon. Gentlemen opposite, rather than with us.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
As I myself was responsible for putting a certain number of those Amendments down upon the Paper, I must ask the leave of the House to answer the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite. Sir, the object of my Amendments was to diminish the cruel penalties inflicted upon seamen by the Merchant Shipping Code—a Code which at the time I ventured to describe as—[Inter-ruption.] Sir, I appeal to you. I am answering a charge made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I maintain, Sir, that, in justice, I have a right to be heard in answer to that accusation. I said, on a former occasion, that the Merchant Shipping Code was one of the most oppressive and detestable in the world. I am happy to say, Sir, that, in substance, the Government accepted every one of the Amendments which I ventured to put upon the Paper. The Bill was re-committed, and I thanked the President of the Board of Trade for the course he took. True, there were one or two minor points discussed afterwards; but, in substance, he was good enough to accept those Amendments. To say, therefore, because you put down 187 certain Amendments upon the Paper which the Government considered were substantially worthy of being accepted, that you opposed the Bill, and to make that the foundation of a charge of obstructing the Bill, is a piece of the greatest injustice in the world.

§ MR. CHARLES LEWIS
I wish to communicate to the House something that has a very material bearing upon the purposes of this Motion. If the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) were in the House he would himself affirm what I am about to say. I have authority for saying that it is the desire of the hon. Member for Derby to give place to the Government Bill. It is not his intention to press forward his own Bill this evening. That being so, I trust the matter will not be pressed by the hon. Member for Swansea, so as to place the House in a false position. However much we may complain of, or however much we may regret, the course which the Government felt themselves compelled to take with respect to their own Bill, I think it would clearly be only a waste of time to agree to the Motion now before the House, even if the House were prepared to take that course. We shall serve no good purpose in doing that which the hon. Member for Derby does not desire us to do—namely, by preventing the prior discussion of the Government Bill to-morrow at 2 o'clock. The hon. Member for Derby declares that he wishes the Government Bill to take precedence.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
said, that perhaps he might be permitted to make one observation. To-morrow the Bill of the Government would be before the House, and he considered with his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) that it would be taking a false issue if they divided upon this Motion.

§ MR. E. J. REED
I certainly thought I was fulfilling the wishes of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) when I gave Notice this evening that in Committee on the Government Bill I should move certain clauses which will go the length of securing for seamen certain of the points embraced in the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby. The only remark I wish to make is this, that the Government would do wisely in changing their-arrangements and adopting the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). If the Government were to 188 accept that Motion, and proceed with the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby, they would, practically, altogether wipe out of the popular mind the supposition that they wish to shelve the discussion. By that means the debate might be taken to-night. ["Divide!"] I have not the slightest desire to press that suggestion. I have merely mentioned it because the outside world will, as I have said, think the Government desire to get rid of the discussion.

§ MR. MUNTZ
After the statement of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) I think we are only wasting the time of the House in discussing this question any further. It is quite evident, if we are to proceed with the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill and carry it through this evening, we shall have time to proceed with the Merchant Shipping Bill of the Government; and if the House thinks proper to accept the Amendments of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed), it will have virtually got the clauses of the hon. Member for Derby's Bill.

MR. SULLIVAN
I quite agree it is possible the Committee might have been saved this discussion. It is quite true I crossed the floor of the House this evening at the desire of the hon. Member for Derby to ask the hon. Member for Londonderry what course he intended to pursue. I am also aware that it was the intention of the hon. Member for Derby to place his Bill behind the Government measure. He is extremely anxious to avoid any conflict between his Bill and the Bill of the Government, he being under the full belief that Her Majesty's Government would afford all reasonable facilities to the hon. Member for Pembroke to engraft Amendments upon the Government measure.

§ MR. LOWE
I do not find any fault with the hon. Member for Swansea for introducing his Motion. At the same time, it must be evident, after what has been said, that it would be unwise to persevere with that Motion. It seems to me he will have the best opportunity he could possibly have hoped for of introducing any Amendments he may think proper when the Government Bill is in Committee. If we are to enter into a hopeless contest to endeavour to force the Government to set aside all the Orders of the Day in order to take up the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby 189 we will simply waste the evening without forwarding the object which the hon. Member for Swansea has at heart. I, therefore, hope he will not press his Motion.

§ MR. HORSMAN
I may state, from my personal knowledge, that the Amendments given Notice of by the hon. Member for Pembroke have the full sanction of the hon. Member for Derby, who is desirous of seeing them engrafted on the Government Bill.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
I rise to speak to a matter of fact. The hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Sampson Lloyd) says the Merchant Shipping Bill of the Government was not passed in consequence of the vast number of Amendments placed upon the Paper by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. Now, I hold in my hand the Notice Paper for the 14th of June. It contains 32 pages of Amendments, and I find that considerably more than one-half of those pages are occupied with the Amendments of Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. But what is more—this day week, when we entered into the Committee upon the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill, there were no less than 20 pages of Amendments to the measure standing in the names of hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House. Now, what I want to point out is, that we had nearly got through the Shipping Bill when it was abandoned; but that we commenced our labours on the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill with these 20 pages of Amendments. I ask the hon. Member for Plymouth what he has got to say to that?

§ MR. SAMPSON LLOYD
What I have to say is that I adhere to what I stated.

§ MR. DILLWYN
When I came down to the House, I was not aware that the hon. Member for Derby and the hon. Member for Sheffield did not wish to press the Bill which they had brought in. Moreover, in consequence of the buzz of conversation which prevailed in the House, I did not hear the Notice of Amendment given by the hon. Member for Pembroke. But after having heard all that has been said, it is not my intention to proceed to a division. Had I known what I know now indeed, I should not have raised the discussion.

§ MR. YEAMAN
moved, in page 12, line 41, after "thereof," to insert the following Proviso:— Provided that where by any contract of tenancy or other agreement relating to the letting of land, the operation of this Act shall be expressly excluded, the landlord shall not be entitled to exercise any right of distress, whether arising from common right or expressly reserved or otherwise, but shall only he entitled to sue for or recover at law the rents or services due to him.

§ MR. HUNT
opposed the Amendment, as it would introduce into England the Scotch law of hypothec.

MR. PHIPPS
moved, in page 12, line 41, at end, to add—" Providing such agreement is in accordance with the provision of this Act." He believed the Bill would be a thoroughly good one, and he did not wish to see contracts made which would be an evasion of the provisions of it.

THE CHAIRMAN
considered that the Amendment was, in effect, like one which was disposed of yesterday by the Committee.

MR. PHIPPS
pointed out that the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Sandwich referred to the right of compensation to tenants for unexhausted improvements, and that it did not cover the proposition contained in his Amendment.

§ MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN
also thought there was a difference between the two Amendments, inasmuch as that which he had himself moved upon the previous day left the parties at liberty to contract themselves out of the Bill, provided that in some other way, more agreeable to themselves, they secured to the tenant his compensation; whereas the present Amendment limited them to the provisions of this Bill, and was less broad in that respect, though he should support it as an improvement to the clause.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
was of opinion that, though the Amendments 191 might differ in terms, the principle involved in both was the same, and the arguments used by hon. Members showed that both Amendments were intended to deal with the question of compulsion. That question was disposed of yesterday by a large majority, and he hoped that the Committee would not proceed with this Amendment further.

§ MR. DODSON
could not agree that the Amendments were either the same, or anything approaching to it. He voted for the Amendment of yesterday, but should vote against the Amendment of to-day.

§ MR. BEACH
moved, in page 12, at the end of clause to add— Provided, That in every such agreement there be expressed some bonâ fide consideration for improvements in Classes 2 and 3 of this Act. In moving that Amendment he assured the Committee that he was decidedly opposed to compulsion of the tenants under their agreements. It had been said that the landlords would be desirable to contract themselves out of the Bill; but if that were so, what did they require the Bill for? He thought there ought to be provisions in the Bill to give the tenants compensation for all bonâ fide improvements. He hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment. It had the approval of the Central Chamber of Agriculture.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
regretted to say he could not accept the Amendment.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, they were not precluded from moving Amendments in this Bill. He considered the Amendment now before the Committee a most important one; and according to the statement of the hon. Member who moved it, the Chamber of Commerce had expressed their opinion in approval of it. He considered it a 192 clause that would be examined out-of-doors with a good deal of attention. If they passed the clause in its present form, and without some such Amendment as that proposed, the Government would not have redeemed the pledge given by the Prime Minister, that the tenants were "not to rely upon honour, but upon justice," which was a very remarkable phrase.

§ MR. DISRAELI
As my words may be quoted again, I wish to state exactly what I said. I said that "laws should be founded, not upon honour, but on justice."

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
replied that this Bill when it became law would be founded, so far as compensation was concerned, not upon justice, but upon honour. This clause practically repealed all the previous clauses of the Bill.

§ MR. STORER
said, he was prepared to support the Amendment as the solution of a great difficulty. He considered it a most important one, and one not at all of a nature to sanction compulsion. Landlords were not desirous of having tenant farmers of over large capital, whose claims for compensation for higher tenant-rights by large pecuniary outlay for improvements would be heavy; and they were, therefore, in favour of letting their land at lower rents to tenants whose improvements would amount in value to a lesser tenant-right.

§ MR. D. DAVIES
said, having been a tenant farmer, and being now a landlord, he was enabled to speak from experience on this question. He was prepared to support the Amendment of the hon. Member. The tenants required protection. He was sorry to say there were landlords in this country, and also in Wales, who, when the tenant had laid out capital in manuring his land, turned him out and took possession of the land. The country would be roused if this Bill did not contain due protection for the tenants. He might state to the Committee that one of his tenants had put £600 into the ground, and there being no agreement at all between them, he could, if he were disposed, turn him out without allowing him compensation for his improvement of the soil. He considered the Amendment of the hon. Member a just one, and that the Committee ought to accept it.

MR. BEAUMONT
moved the substitution of the word "adequate" for the words "bonâ fide."

§ MR. PELL
thought that, even if the proposed Amendment were adopted, it would he impossible to give effect to it as long as rent was an open question.

§ MR. DODSON
feared that the Amendment might tend to complicate the question. He had been inclined to suggest a variation of the words; but, upon the whole, he thought the words proposed were sufficient to raise the question submitted for decision.

§ MR. KNIGHT
observed, that the great landlords in "another place" had accepted the principle of compensation. It was not correct to say that this was taking a leaf out of the Irish Land Bill. It was really taking a leaf out of the Lincolnshire tenant-right custom, which was 70 or 80 years older than the Irish Land Bill, and which had arisen out of the practical necessities of the case, which occurred first in Lincolnshire.

MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT
was certain that the farmers of England were not in favour of the principle of compulsion involved in the Amendment.

§ MR. EARP
moved, in page 12, line 41, at end, to add— Provided, That such agreement is not prejudicial to the tenant's right to compensation in respect of any improvements of the second or third class under this Bill, in any district or county where a custom of tenant right prevails, corresponding with the spirit and intention of this Bill, with regard to compensation allowed by landlord or incoming tenant for such improvements.

§ MR. HUNT
objected to the Amendment, which had, in fact, been already decided to the contrary.

§ MR. MELDON
moved, in page 12, line 41, to add the following Proviso:— Provided always, That any contract made between a landlord and a tenant where by the tenant is prohibited from making such improvements as may be required for the suitable occupation of his holding, and its due cultivation, shall be void both at law and in equity, but no improvement shall be deemed to be required for 194 the suitable occupation of the holding and its due cultivation which tends to diminish the general value of the estate of the landlord.

§ MR. HUNT
pointed out the Amendment assumed that the tenants always wished to improve their lands and the landlords always desired to prevent their doing so. He was not disposed to legislate in that spirit, and he could not therefore accept the Amendment.
Proviso negatived.

§ MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN
protested against the course adopted by the Government in refusing to assent to any Amendment moved in favour of giving compensation to the tenant farmers. He complimented the Government upon their consistency in endeavouring to maintain freedom of contract, and he would only allude to that point in order to reply to one argument which had been adduced in "another place." It had been said that Parliament had never interfered with freedom of contract except, as in the case of mines, factories, and the Truck Act, to secure some moral result and not some economic result alone, such as the improvement of the cultivation of the soil of the country. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) would reply that, in his opinion, no more moral result could be attained than that when a tenant farmer had, by his skill and industry, created a property in the land for his landlord, his successor in the farm and for the country, some share of that property should be secured to him or to his widow in the event of his death. That was a moral result and one which ought not to be neglected, because it happened to be accompanied by an economic result which would render it valuable to the country as well as advantageous to the individual. As they had practically divided upon the principle of the clause already, he ventured to recommend hon. Gentlemen who shared his views not to trouble the Committee to again divide upon the clause. He must, however, express his opinion that by refusing to secure compensation for improvements to the tenant farmer the Government had made their Bill a nullity, a sham, and a delusion. He believed it would not be long before they would find that the consequence would be to awaken in the hearts of the tenant farmers a feeling that did not now exist, and that 195 the agricultural classes would not be deceived by this weak and useless legislation.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
observed, that the farmers did not care about the Bill, and said that, in his opinion, it would be a total failure. Many of the Members of the Government and their supporters had been returned in the expectation that their interests would be properly cared for; but, as had been already observed, they would find the measure to be a delusion and a sham.

§ MR. D. DAVIES
thought the Bill could not be looked upon except as a landlord's measure. As a landlord, he should adopt it with pleasure, for the reason that it would save him £1,000 a-year; and as most of his tenants were Conservative, they could not object to his accepting and acting upon a Bill passed by the present Government.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
thought the fact that the hon. Member intended voluntarily to accept the principle of the Bill was a strong argument in its favour.

§ MR. COWPER-TEMPLE
protested against the clause on the ground that it carried the principle of freedom too far by permitting parties to agreements to contract themselves out of the principle of the Bill. He was convinced that the measure would not meet the desires of the country, or satisfy the large body of tenant farmers.

§ MR. M'LAGAN
thought landlords and tenants should be left perfectly free to contract with each other as they thought proper, provided that the agreements entered into did not deprive the tenants of the compensation for improvements which they were entitled to receive.

§ MR. MELDON
wished, before this clause passed, to enter his protest against the permissive character of the Bill, which would result in new contracts all over the country, short leases, and all kinds of restrictions upon the tenant farmers.

§ MR. DISRAELI
moved the omission of the clause.

§ SIR WALTER BARTTELOT
said, that as he understood the Government intended to withdraw this clause and put another in its place, he would reserve 196 an Amendment he had on the Paper till the new clause was before the Committee.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
objected to the course which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take, contending that the amended clause which he was about to submit to the consideration of the Committee was totally different in principle from that contained in the Bill as sanctioned by the House of Lords, and that under its operation notices would be showered upon tenants by their landlords to the effect that they would do none of those things which it had been over and over again declared should be done in the interest of the nation. The adoption of such a course could have only one result—to produce a feeling of rankling discontent in the minds of the tenants, and to breed anything but friendly relations between them and their landlords. The principle embodied in the Amendment of the Prime Minister was, in short, in his opinion, one which was most injurious and insulting to the tenant farmers of England.

MR. CHAPLIN
said, that if he thought anything like compulsion was necessary or desirable for the purpose of giving real security to tenants, he should not oppose its adoption. He could not assume, however, that tenants were so totally blind to their own interests, or landlords so unfair as the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to suppose. Compensation to the tenant, he might add, would in future be based on the provisions of the present Bill, or upon agreements which must be offered to him by the landlord, if he chose to throw the Bill aside, suited to the respective localities throughout the country. The fears of the hon. and learned Gentleman were totally without foundation, for he believed that this Bill, so far from being received with dissatisfaction, would prove beneficial to tenant farmers throughout the length and breadth of England.

§ SIR ARTHUR MONCK
moved, in page 13, line 12, to leave out "or that is of less extent than five acres,"

§ MR. WHITWELL
hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.

§ MR. RODWELL
hoped the Amendment would not be adopted, as it would lead to inextricable confusion in the case of allotments and garden grounds.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
did not think many allotments would be five acres in extent; in his opinion, the Amendment ought to be adopted by the Committee.

§ MR. HUNT
said, the limitation put in this clause was intended to apply to allotments, as it was thought great disputes would arise between the outgoing and incoming tenants. If the Committee liked to reduce it below five acres he had no objection.

§ MR. A. MILLS
said, he was ready to move the reduction of the limitation from five acres to two.

§ MR. HUNT
said, that if it was the general wish that two acres should be substituted for five, he should not object to the change.

§ SIR ARTHUR MONCK
said, he would accept the proposition to substitute two acres.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
promised to place upon the Paper his definition of the words "absolute owner," so that they might be discussed on the Report.

§ MR. DISRAELI
moved to insert, after Clause 45, the following Clause:— (Adoption of parts of Act by agreement.) A landlord and tenant, whether the landlord is absolute owner of the holding for his own benefit or not, may, in any agreement in writing relating to the holding, adopt by reference any of the provisions of this Act respecting procedure or any other matter, without adopting all the provisions of this Act; and any provision 30 adopted shall have effect in connection with the agreement accordingly; but where, at the time of the making of the agreement, the landlord was not absolute owner of the holding 198 for his own benefit, no charge shall be made on the holding, under this Act, by virtue of the agreement, greater than or different from the charge which might have been made thereon, under this Act, in the absence of the agreement.

§ MR. KNIGHT
considered that some words should be introduced in reference to the agreement as to money, and said by Mr. Pusey's clause it was agreed that if anything was to be done, the money consideration should be agreed upon. He moved the insertion of words taken from Mr. Pusey's clause to follow after the word "procedure," which would so amend the clause as to carry out his object.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, the words were unnecessary, as the clause would in its then form effect all the hon. Member required.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
proposed to add after the word "different" the words "on principle."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
considered the introduction of the words unnecessary.

§ MR. DISRAELI
moved, instead of Clause 46, to insert the following Clause:— (Application of Act to future tenancies.) "A. This Act shall apply to every contract of tenancy beginning after the commencement of this Act, unless, in any case, the landlord and tenant agree in writing, in the contract of tenancy, or otherwise, that this Act, or any part or provision of this Act, shall not apply to the contract; and, in that case, this Act, or the part or provision thereof to which that agreement refers (as the case may be), shall not apply to the contract. Clause read a second time and ordered to be added to the Bill.

§ MR. DISRAELI
then moved, instead of Clause 46, to insert the following Clause:— (Application of Act to existing tenancies.) B. In any case of a contract of tenancy from year to year or at will, current at the commencement of this Act, this Act shall not apply to the contract, if within two months after the commencement of this Act the landlord or the tenant gives notice in writing to the other to the effect that he (the person giving the notice) desires that the existing contract of tenancy between them shall remain unaffected by this Act, or by any part or provision thereof referred to in the notice, but such a notice shall be revocable 199 by writing; and in the absence of any such notice, or on revocation of every such notice, this Act shall apply to the contract. In every other case of a contract of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act, this Act shall not apply to the contract.

§ SIR GEORGE JENKINSON
rose to move an Amendment which he said had been unanimously approved last week except by the Government, but which, it was understood, should be deferred till a later stage of the Bill—namely, at the clause now under consideration. He held that contracts written or printed between persons of full age should be sacred, that legislation ought to be not retrospective but prospective, and ought not to give to either party either more or less than they had contracted for. The Bill drawn up by the Central Chamber of Agriculture contained words identical with his own—namely, "Nothing in this Act shall interfere with any lease or agreement made before the passing of this Act." The Bill ought, he thought, to do in a straightforward manner that which it was now proposed to do by a side-wind, and the onus ought not to be placed upon either party of serving a written notice that the tenant should not come under the operation of the Bill. He begged, therefore, to move the insertion in the first line of the clause after the word "contract," of the words "written or printed."

§ MR. HUNT
said, this matter was one of considerable difficulty. In the case of a lease there was a certain term during which the tenant had security for his investments; but in the case of a tenancy from year to year he had not this security, and there was no fixed time at which the landlord and tenant could be brought together to decide whether they would come under the provisions of the Act. It therefore seemed necessary to provide that the Act should apply to such cases, unless within two months notice was given that it was not to affect the holding. This would present the disagreeable necessity which would otherwise be felt of serving notice to quit.

§ MR. PELL
hoped the Government would adhere to the clause as it stood, seeing that they had hitherto maintained, without wavering, the right of freedom of contract.

§ SIR WALTER BARTTELOT
thought the proposal of the Government was a considerable improvement upon the Bill as it had stood previously.

§ MR. DODSON
was of opinion that the proposed Amendment in the clause was well worthy of consideration. It seemed to him that where written agreements had been entered into, those agreements should be left untouched, and therefore he was in favour of the Amendment in the clause.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
hoped that the Amendment in the clause would not be pressed. He thought that the new clause as proposed by the Government would give vitality to the Bill, which without it would be a useless performance.

§ MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON
moved the insertion of the following clause, after Clause 10:— (When outlay on an improvement is not to he taken into account.) No outlay or any improvement in the second class, commenced after notice to quit has been served on the tenant, shall be taken into account, unless it is necessary for the profitable occupation of the land.

§ MR. STORER
moved, after Clause 13, page 4, to insert the following Clause:— (Tenants' compensation for damage by game and rabbits.) Where the landlord reserves the right of shooting over any holding, and the tenant thereof sustains injury from damage done by game or rabbits to com, root or other crops, he shall be entitled to obtain on the determination of the tenancy compensation in respect thereof, subject and according to the provisions of this Act.

§ MR. HUNT
said, that his hon. Friend thought that there ought to be a limitation in certain cases, and he should be very happy to consider the objection of his hon. Friend; but he had sat upon a Committee which had considered this subject during two years, and he was afraid that if they went into the subject afresh it might occupy a still longer period.

§ SIR HENRY JAMES
thought that compensation for an excessive quantity of ground game might well be set against waste by the tenant.

§ MR. PELL
moved, after Clause 32, to insert the following Clause:— (Reference of matters in dispute to arbitration.) Where, under any contract of tenancy in writing; entered into after the commencement of this Act, any matters in dispute may, by the terms of such contract, he referred to arbitration, then, unless such contract shall otherwise specially direct, a referee or referees and umpire, with the same powers, shall be appointed in the same manner: and such arbitration shall proceed under the same conditions, and be subject to the same provisions, as to the recovery of money, awarded costs, and rights of appeal, as is enacted in regard to a reference proceeding under this Act.

§ MR. HUNT
had no objection to the clause.

§ SIR HENRY JAMES
thought the clause was a most objectionable one.

§ MR. SEELY
moved to insert, after Clause 43, the following Clause:— (Notice to quit cottage holding.) 43A. Every agricultural labourer or farm servant who occupies either as a tenant or as a servant a house, garden, or other holding from or under his employer, or the landlord of his employer, or from or under any tenant or subtenant of his employer, shall be entitled, notwithstanding any determination of his service, to continue to occupy such house, garden, or holding until the expiration of two months' notice to quit. Such notice may be given at any time, and shall operate as a revocation of any previous notice. This section shall not apply to a person who occupies under a contract of tenancy or service made before the passing of this Act, but, upon the termination of a week, month, or other term for which any such contract is made, any continuation or renewal of the contract shall be deemed to be a new contract for the purposes of this section. This section shall not prejudice or affect any right by agreement, custom, or otherwise to any longer notice than is required by this section. He observed, that when they had given the farmer a 12 months' notice to quit they ought to give the labourer at least a two months' notice.

§ SIR WALTER BARTTELOT
opposed the clause. He had known a case where a friend of his had given employment all through the winter to a number of agricultural labourers who, when the harvest came, went off to another district 202 to reap there, because they were offered a shilling or two more, leaving him in the lurch with respect to the harvest which they ought to have stayed and reaped. The former, instead of turning them out of their cottages, as he was provoked to do, took them on again and gave them work during the next winter; but there was no one could say he had not just reasons for taking the opposite course. It could not surely be held that in such cases as that they were entitled to two months' notice before leaving their cottages. Besides, if the landlord was to give two months' notice to the labourer, the labourer should be required to give two months' notice to the landlord, and he doubted whether that would be generally acceptable to the labourers.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, that this was the first time in the course of this Bill in which it was proposed to recognize the labourers as part of the landed interest. He thought the labourers ought to have some security as well as the occupiers, and he protested against the doctrine that the employers had any vested right to the labour of their servants. The agricultural labourer did not stand in the same position as the labourer in towns; and when the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the labourer was bound to reap the harvest—["No, no!"]—why, the hon. and gallant Gentleman said—" You will surely not give two months' notice to a man who does not consent to reap the harvest at a lower rate of wages than he could get elsewhere." If the agricultural labourer was to be placed in the position which hon. Gentlemen opposite advocated, he was no better off than he was five centuries ago. That doctrine had never been stated in so plain a form before. If hon. Gentlemen respected the sacred principle of freedom of contract in their own cases, they ought to allow the agricultural labourer to get his extra shilling if he was able to do so. The principle laid down in the clause of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) was one which was calculated to attach the labourer to the soil, and whether he occupied more than two acres or not he ought not to be refused the same security that was to be given to the larger occupier. He hoped the hon. Member for Lincoln would divide, in order that the Committee might escape the disgrace of 203 passing a Bill which would be silent with reference to the agricultural labourer, and treat him as a man who had an interest in the development of the soil.

§ MR. J. S. HARDY
suggested that the Amendment could not be put, as it was inconsistent with some of the clauses which had already been passed.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that was so, and that it must be very considerably altered before it could be put.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
replied that the principle of the clause, which was that the agricultural labourer should not be the only person whose interests in connection with the land should be unrecognized in the Bill, might be affirmed by the Committee, and that the details could be settled at a future stage.

§ MR. RODWELL
thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had gone out of his way to teach hon. Gentlemen connected with land their duty to agricultural labourers. His remarks had shown a want of familiarity with agricultural matters. His hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter Barttelot) had never argued that the agricultural labourers were to be treated as a lot of serfs. The point was, that agricultural operations ought to be carried on by labourers who got their houses because they were labourers, and that they should not, in time of need, desert their employers. The cry on the other side of the House had been "Increase the produce of the soil." But how was that to be done without the assistance of farm labourers? He thought two months' notice too long a period, and that it would be better to limit the time to one month. He trusted the Government would not accept the Amendment, but would modify it so as to secure to the tillers of the soil that security to which they were entitled with respect to the labourers whom they employed.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
observed, that the clause was proposed by an hon. Gentleman who was a large and practical and liberal landowner, and who had brought under his (Mr. Mundella's) notice how cruelly the power of landlords was sometimes exercised in limiting a labourer's notice to five days, and how cruelly the law was worked to screw down the wages of the labourer. They had in all the clauses protected the farmers who might have to provide for themselves new 204 homes; and it was also right that the labourers should have time when required to find themselves new homes. He hoped the Committee would agree to the clause.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
ventured to address to the Committee a few words in order to raise the question out of the pompous heroics of previous speakers. As a landed proprietor he had done his best for the dwellings of his labourers. He could not help agreeing with the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Rodwell), that the occupation of a cottage by a labourer was not an occupation pure and simple, but a return for special services rendered to his employer. Was it consistent with the order of things that there should be one law of tenure for the cottager, when the cottage he lived in was on the land where he worked, and another law of tenure when he happened to lodge elsewhere?

§ MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN
appealed to the Government to adopt the clause in some modified form. In case they refused to do so, he should support the clause on the broad ground that the agricultural labourers ought not to be excluded from the benefits which the measure was supposed to be about to confer. He deprecated any division by which it would be made to appear that one side of the House cared more for the agricultural labourer than the other. He was a considerable owner of cottages himself, and every one of his cottagers were entitled to six months' notice just as much as the farmers. He should be ashamed—and he believed the feeling to be general—to turn a labourer's family out at a week's notice. The labourer loved his home just as much as the farmer or the landlord—he had the feelings of a human being, and they ought to be respected. He (Mr. Knatch bull-Hugessen) thought it had better be left to the Government to modify the clause, and he earnestly pressed them to do so before the Report, and by accepting its principle now, avoid a division.

§ MR. HUNT
fully sympathized with the expression of opinion that the agricultural labourers ought not to be so situated, as regarded their holdings, that they would be obliged to accept lower wages than they would otherwise have to accept; and he thought that was the general feeling of the Committee. But 205 the practical question was, could they do any service to the labourers in rural districts. With regard to farm servants who had charge of stock, unless when they quitted their occupation they also left their houses, it would often be found impossible to find a residence for their successors. Therefore, two months' notice would not be desirable. He quite agreed that all the servants on the farm ought not to hold their cottages merely at the will of the farmer. That would be a most undesirable state of things.

§ MR. MACDONALD
expressed the hope that the Committee would divide on the principle involved, so that agricultural labourers could not be turned out of their cottages at the whim of their landlords at a moment's notice.

MR. CHAPLIN
said, that hon. Members opposite did not seem able to perceive the distinction between the agricultural labourer and the farm servant. The labourers received weekly wages, had weekly hire, and lived in habitations provided by themselves, while the farm servants were engaged for particular services, which they were bound to fulfil, and which were necessary for the production of the food consumed by the people, and their cottages were built for them. There was, however, very little distinction between the farm servant and the domestic servant. This was a Bill to deal with agricultural holdings, and if anything were wanted to improve the position of the agricultural labourer, lot hon. Members opposite bring in a Bill, and it would receive the candid consideration of Members on the Ministerial side of the House.

§ SIR HENRY JAMES
said, if the Committee divided it would be on the principle of the Bill, and not on the question of one or two months' notice.

§ MR. STEPHEN CAVE
said, be had a large number of labourers' cottages, and he had done his best to make them as good as he could, giving gardens to each. But he let these cottages not as an employer of labour, but as a landlord. He thought it better, generally speaking, to keep them in his own hands than to let them get into the hands of the farmers. But under the proposed clause he would have no security for his rent. He would be, in fact, obliged to allow a tenant to remain for two months drawing no money, and therefore certain to leave without paying a shilling. This 206 was from a landlord's point of view. But would any hon. Member opposite keep a coachman in his rooms over a stable, who refused to drive his carriage or take care of his horses? and what difference in principle was there between the man who looked after carriage horses, and the man who looked after farm horses?

§ MR. SEELY
moved, after Clause 43, to insert the following clause:— (Compensation for crops and improvements on cottage holdings.) 43B. Every agricultural labourer or farm servant who occupies either as a tenant or as a servant a garden or other holding (whether attached to a house or not) from or under his employer, or the landlord of his employer, or any tenant or sub-tenant of his employer, shall upon his ceasing to occupy such garden or holding be entitled to compensation from his employer or other landlord in respect of

a. Any unexhausted improvements made by him in or on the soil of the garden or holding by manure, tillage, or otherwise; and

b. The value of any seed or growing and immature crops, roots, or vegetables planted or paid for by him and not re moved by him.
The amount of such compensation shall, in case of dispute, be settled by a referee, but only one referee shall be appointed for this purpose, and, if the parties cannot agree upon a referee, he shall be appointed, on the application of either party, by the judge of the County Court. A claim for such compensation must he made not less than seven days before the person making the claim ceases to occupy the garden or holding to which the claim relates. This section shall not apply to a person who occupies under a contract of tenancy or service made before the passing of this Act, but upon the termination of a week, month, or other term for which any such contract is made, any continuation or renewal of the contract shall he deemed to be a new contract for the purposes of this section.

§ MR. M'LAGAN
moved the following clause:— (Farm buildings in certain eases to become property of tenants.) If any tenant, after the passing of this Act, shall erect any farm building, either detached or otherwise, or put up any other building, engine, machinery, or other matters, either for 207 agricultural purposes, or for the purposes of trade and agriculture, and for which he shall not, under the provisions of this Act, be entitled to compensation, or which shall not have been erected or put up in pursuance of some obligation in that behalf, then all such buildings, machinery, or other matters, shall be the property of such tenants, and shall he removable by him in all respects as if the same were fixtures of trade by law or custom removable by the tenant; and the law now in force as regards fixtures of trade removable by a tenant shall apply to all such matters, notwithstanding the same may consist of separate buildings, or that the same or some part thereof may be built in or permanently fixed in the soil, so as the tenant making any such removal do not in any wise injure the land or buildings belonging to the landlord, or otherwise do put the same in like plight or condition, or as good plight or condition as the same were in before the erection of any such thing so removed: Provided nevertheless, That no tenant shall under the provision last aforesaid be entitled to remove any such matter or thing aforesaid without first giving to the landlord or his agent one month's previous notice in writing of his intention so to do; and thereupon it shall be lawful for the said landlord or his agent on his authority to elect that such matters or things so proposed to be removed shall be considered as if they were improvements of the first class under this Act; and thereupon the rights to remove the same shall cease, and the same belong to the landlord, and the value thereof shall be ascertained and paid for and recovered under the provisions of this Act in all respects as if the same were improvements of the first class as by this Act defined.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
moved the following clause:— (Tenant's compensation for breach of covenant.) When a landlord commits a breach of covenant or other agreement or custom connected with the contract of tenancy, the tenant shall be entitled to obtain, on the determination of the tenancy, compensation in respect thereof, subject and according to the provisions of this Act. The landlord was entitled to compensation from the tenant in case the tenant committed waste or broke covenants, and in this respect landlord and tenant should be placed in the same position.

§ MR. FAWCETT (for Sir HARCOURT JOHKSTONE)
moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following clause:— (Compensation for damage by game.) In every contract of tenancy made or arising 208 after the commencement of this Act, where the landlord reserves a right of shooting over the holding, there shall be implied an agreement by the landlord to compensate the tenant for damage done during each year of the tenancy by the game, hares, or rabbits in respect of which the right is reserved, if notice in writing of the amount claimed for damage have been given to the landlord in the case of damage to corn before the first day of August, and in the case of damage to root crops before the first day of February in each year. The amount of compensation shall he determined by two referees to be appointed, one by the landlord, and the other by the tenant, or by an umpire to be named by those referees.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, he should like to hear the hon. Member for Leicestershire's (Mr. Pell) opinions on the subject. It would enable the hon. Gentleman, at any rate, to give one vote in favour of the tenant farmers of England. He hoped the Government would give some explanation why the tenant should not have compensation for injury done to his crops by rabbits and game.

§ MR. D. DAVIES
thought that it was for the interest of landlords that there should be some such clause as this in the Bill.

§ MR. HUNT
said, he had already spoken on the proposal of the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire (Mr. Storer), and he made it a rule never to say the same tiling twice if he could help it. He could only repeat that, if they were going into the question of game, the rest of the year—not to speak of the rest of the Session—would not suffice. As to rabbits, he would merely recommend landlords to do what he did himself—namely, allow the tenants to kill the rabbits which they found on their own farms.

§ MR. ROUND
said, he could not vote for the new clause, as proposed by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett). It was too important a question to be dealt with in one clause at the end of the Session. He was in favour of compensation for damage done by game, and hoped to see a measure brought in by the Government at the commencement of the next Session. The hon. Member for Hackney made 209 no distinction between winged game and ground game; nor did he provide for the case where damage was done to an occupier's crop by game belonging to some person who was not his landlord. For these reasons he trusted the Motion would not be pressed to a division.

§ MR. RODWELL (for Colonel WILSON)
moved, after Clause 23, to insert the following clause:— (Duration of improvement to be found.) The award shall find and state the time at which each improvement, in respect whereof compensation is awarded, is taken, for the purposes of the award, to be exhausted.