HC Deb 21 August 1883 vol 283 cc1561-80

Order for Consideration of Lords' Amendments read.

Lords' Amendment considered.

NOTE.—The page and line refer to the Bill No. (171) as first printed by the Lords.

MR. DODSON

said, the House would observe that there were a considerable number of Amendments on the Bill, many of them verbal, but not a few of them were of substance, and affected the operation of the Bill to some extent. As regarded most of the latter class of Amendments, it would be his somewhat unpleasant duty to ask the House to disagree with the Lords; but it was his more pleasant duty to ask the House to agree to this first Amendment. When the extension of this Proviso to permanent improvements was proposed in the House of Commons by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), the Government stated that they considered the Amendment unnecessary, but that they would accept it, in order to remove the apprehensions of those who feared what the action of some valuers might be. The Government, therefore, did not put their objection very high. They had now to consider whether or not they would accept this extension of the Proviso to all improvements. For himself, he did not attach much importance to the Proviso, either as regarded permanent or temporary improvements. He did not think the extension of the Proviso material either one way or the other; and, under those circumstances, he was ready to agree to the Amendment of the Lords.

Page 1, line 15, leave out "Parts I. and II. of," the first Amendment, read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Dodson.)

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he regretted very much that the Government proposed to accept the Amendment, and to apply this Proviso to the only compulsory part of the Bill. He believed its effect would be to introduce confusion into the minds of the valuers. His objection to the Proviso was that it would confuse valuators. They would not understand what was meant. Some valuators might contend that the whole of the improvement was due to the inherent capabilities of the soil, and, therefore, that the tenant was not entitled to compensation. He thought the House ought to protest against this change in the Bill, as it still further nibbled away the Bill, which at best was no great concession to the tenant farmers.

MR. JAMES HOWARD

said, he also regretted the acceptance of the Amendment; but he regretted much more the original acceptance of the Proviso of the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), which, on the part of Government, he considered was a most unwise step. It had landed the Government in a great difficulty, and he did not see on what ground they could now reject the Lords' Amendment. The Lords had simply pushed to its logical conclusion the acceptance by the Government of that principle. He believed the Proviso would not only puzzle valuers, but would prove a fruitful source of wrangling amongst persons following that profession. He should have been very glad if the Government could have seen their way to reject the whole Proviso; but as they had not, if his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire went to a Division, he should vote with him.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he thought it would be very unfair to charge the Government with having made a concession by the acceptance of the Amendment which he had felt it his duty to move in Committee on the Bill. So far as he understood, it had always been the intention of the Government that anything due to the inherent capabilities of the soil should not be included by the valuer in the amount to be awarded to the tenant. The Lords, as the hon. Member for Bedfordshire had pointed out, had simply pushed the Amendment to its logical conclusion, and made it applicable to all improvements; and he was very glad the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) had seen his way to accept it.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he thought the proper and shortest way in which to come to a conclusion was to divide the House, and then they would see in the Lobby how the matter stood. Such a course would guide the House in dealing with the Scotch Bill.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. Barclay) would divide the House. It would be better to drop the Bill than to accept this Amendment. ["Oh!"]

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, he thought that the Government having accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) as wise and just, he felt bound to support them in extending it to its logical conclusion.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. Barclay) would go to a Division. In that case he should vote with pleasure for him, and would vote against every Amendment introduced into the Bill by the House of Lords, without consideration whether they were good or bad. They perfectly well knew that the landed interest had a very great number of supporters in that House; but in the House of Lords they were all landlords, and mostly Conservative landlords; and he objected to the Bill, upon which many concessions had been made in that House, being referred to a House which was practically a House of landlords. What would be said if, when a Conservative Government were in, the Bill were submitted to an hereditary House of Radical labourers? He thought it was most desirable to teach the House of Lords a lesson. It was full time they should have it out with the House of Lords. When a Conservative Government was in, everything went on very smoothly—everything always went on smoothly when going down stream—and when a Conservative measure was brought into the House of Commons, it was carried, without any difficulty or objection, in the House of Lords; but when a Liberal Government came in, that Liberal Government was put in by the nation, and the nation expected that that Government should be allowed to carry out its own policy. How could it do so when its Bills were emasculated in this manner by the House of Lords?

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 121; Noes 64: Majority 57.—(Div. List, No. 310.)

Page 1, line 22, leave out, "this exception that," and insert "the exceptions following that (1)," and after "has," insert "within ten years;" line 27, leave out "when," and insert "(2.) Where;" page 2, line 5, leave out "has;" lines 5 and 6, leave out "the Act consented in writing," and insert "this Act declares in writing his consent;" line 6, after "then," insert "such tenant;" and line 8, leave out "he," the next six Amendments, agreed to.

Page 2, line 11, after "improvement," insert— Provided that no compensation shall be claimed under this section in contravention of any specific agreement existing at the time of the passing of this Act between the parties in reference thereto,

—the next Amendment, read a second time.

MR. DODSON

said, he regretted that he had to ask the House to disagree to this Amendment, on the ground that it was either unnecessary, or, in his view, it might do mischief. If the tenant had made improvements, for which he had, in any way, received valuable consideration, the case was already provided for in Section 6. If there were a case—and he could hardly conceive that there was—of an agreement under which a tenant had executed an improvement, without receiving any valuable consideration, and had barred himself from claiming fair and reasonable compensation for it, that was not an agreement which they ought to recognize, or in favour of which they should insert that Proviso. That was a sufficient objection, from, his point of view, to the Amendment; but he was not sure that the Proviso might not have the effect that a tenant, who had agreed not to come under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875, might not be held to be disqualified from claiming compensation under this Act.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Dodson.)

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he thought the Amendment was a very proper one, as it only applied to agreements made before the passing of the Act. He did not know that it would apply to many cases, because he did not believe that there were many cases in which tenants had made agreements with their landlords distinctly barring them from compensation for improvements; but he was surprised at the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson). An agreement between landlord and tenant distinctly barring the latter from compensation in some shape or other for his improvements would be an agreement which he should disapprove of; but, nevertheless, it might be that some such agreements might, in certain instances, have been made up to this time under the sanction of the law as it stood. And to argue that such an agreement as might be made by law, because it happened to be one of which they did not approve, ought to be rendered invalid under a subsequent Act of Parliament, was a doctrine which he could not consent to, and which called, at least, for the protest of a Division.

Question put, and agreed to.

Page 2, lines 16 and 17, after "previously," insert "to the execution of the improvement and after the passing of this Act; "line 28, leave out" one month," and insert "two months;" line 29, after "landlord," insert "or his agent duly authorized in that behalf; "line 30, leave out" a specification of, "and insert" manner in which he proposes to do; "line 35, after "may," insert "unless the notice of the tenant is previously withdrawn;" line 36, after "himself," insert "and may execute the same in any reasonable and proper manner which he thinks fit;" and line 40, after "outlay," insert "in the said period," the next seven Amendments, agreed to.

Page 2, line 40, leave out the word "three" and insert "four," the next Amendment, read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Dodson.)

MR. MAGNIAC

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) had shown a remarkably bad reason for disagreeing with the Amendment. To talk about a sinking fund for 25 years for the repayment of money spent on drainage works was a delusion; because everybody knew that, in many parts of the country, those works did not last for anything like 25 years, so that the result would be that the tenants who came in after the present occupiers would have to pay for improvements the value of which had utterly disappeared. Besides, 3 per cent would not be a commercial interest, as part of it ought to be reckoned as repayment of capital.

MR. BIDDELL

said, he was disposed to think that the Lords' Amendment would, if carried, be found to be beneficial to tenants; for if the low 3 percentage was adhered to, the object of the clause—which he understood to be to encourage drainage by landlords—would be defeated, as they would not drain subject to having such a bad return for their money.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, the effect of the Lords' Amendment would be that the tenant would have to pay 6½ per cent. That was too much for the improvements to be charged against the tenant. They had to recollect that the landlord had it entirely in his power to do the improvements if he liked.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, the object of the provision in the Bill, by which the landlord was permitted, if he chose, to drain, was to give him some real alternative for the tenants doing the drainage. If that was to be a bonâ fide benefit, they must not say that the landlord, if he did not do the drainage himself, should practically have to lend money to the tenant to do it at 3 per cent interest. They would be unfairly handicapping him, if he desired to lend, by compelling him to lend at 3 per cent. All the Amendment would do would be to say that if the tenant compelled the landlord to drain his land he should not make him do it at a cheaper rate—that was to say, at less interest than that at which he could borrow money from public bodies. Anything that more carried justice on the face of it—anything that was more obviously consistent with justice, he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) could not imagine. As the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Biddell) had pointed out, this Amendment of the Commons would not merely be an injustice to the landlord, but would prevent improvements being done which would be primarily a benefit to the tenant.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that if the landlord agreed to do the drainage, and a higher interest had to be paid, the parties could agree to that; therefore, the observations of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Biddell) fell through. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) said that there might be a hardship on the landlord. Well, supposing the tenant said—" I can do the drainage at 5 per cent. if I like; "and then the landlord should say—" No; you shall not do it at 5 per cent; I will do it myself, at a charge that amounts to 6 or 6½ per cent"—the amount did not much matter; but, at all events, at a higher interest than the tenant would do it at himself. Surely, that would be a hardship. What did the arrangement proposed by the Amendment amount to? Why, it amounted to this—that if the tenant remained five years on the farm, after the drainage was done, he would pay more than 5 per cent during that time—1½ more than 5 per cent—and would be really paying a contribution to the value of the landlord's estate. The tenant would be adding to the landlord's capital very materially during the latter years of the existence of the improvements. If this arrangement were to be made, the tenant would be contributing to the sinking fund as well as paying the landlord's capital, and that would be a great injustice.

MR. JAMES HOWARD

opposed the Lords' Amendment. There seemed to be mistaken notions as to how long drainage would last; some hon. Members being under the impression that it would not last more than 15 or 20 years. Well, it so happened that he had, not very long ago, taken up a portion of drainage which had been carried out 25 years ago; and the remark of his bailiff had been that, from the appearance of the pipes and the drains, it looked as if the drainage had only been done last week. His contention was, that if drainage was properly done it would last 50 or 100 years.

MR. DUCKHAM

said, there were drains upon his farm which had been laid down more than 40 years, and had never cost a penny since. There could be no doubt that if drainage was properly done it would last for a very long time. It might happen that a drain would now and then blow up; but that would only be a very occasional occurrence. He trusted that the House would not agree to the Amendment of the Lords.

Question put, and agreed to.

Page 2, line 41, leave out "in the said period," and insert "such annual sum to be recoverable as rent," the next Amendment, agreed to.

Page 3, line 5, after "agreement," insert "in a lease or otherwise," the next Amendment, read a second time.

MR. DODSON

said, he would move to disagree with this Amendment, which appeared to him to be hardly necessary. The insertion of these words would be calculated to raise doubts; and, therefore, would do more harm than good.

Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment,"—(Mr. Dodson,)—put, and agreed to.

Page 3, lines 21 and 22, after "compensation," insert "having regard to the circumstances existing at the time of making such agreement," the next Amendment, agreed to.

Page 3, line 25, after "Act," insert— The last preceding provision of this section relating to a particular agreement shall apply in the case of a tenancy, under a contract of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act in respect of an improvement mentioned in the third part of the First Schedule hereto, specific compensation for which is not provided by any agreement in writing, or custom, or the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875, —the next Amendment, read a second time.

MR. DODSON

said, the object of this Amendment was to supply an omission which had been discovered in the clause. The first paragraph of the clause provided— Where, in the case of a tenancy under a contract of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act, any agreement in writing, or custom, or the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875, provides specific compensation for any improvement comprised in the First Schedule hereto, compensation in respect of such improvement, although executed after the commencement of this Act, shall he payable in pursuance of such agreement, custom, or Act of Parliament, and shall be deemed to he substituted for compensation under this Act. The last paragraph provided for fair and reasonable compensation by a particular agreement in regard to an improvement under a future contract or tenancy; but the casus omissus was that of improvements made after the passing of the Act by a particular agreement, but under a contract of tenancy current at the time. The Proviso, comprised in the Amendment of the Lords, would provide for a fair and reasonable agreement in that case as in the case of a future contract.

Amendment agreed to.

Page 3, line 26, leave out "estimates of "and insert" compensation for; "and line 40, after "therefrom," insert "and," the next two Amendments, agreed to.

Page 4, line 16, leave out "four," and insert "seven," the next Amendment, read a second time.

MR. DODSON

said, he had to ask the House to disagree with this Amendment. The Proviso as it stood was that of the Agricultural Act of England, 1875, and which gave the landlord power to set off claims for compensation for waste or breach by the tenant committed, or permitted, in relation to a matter of husbandry, more than four years before the termination of the tenancy. It must be remembered that the landlord had the same right of action, without limit of time, at law as he had before. This was a special power to set off given to the Act of 1875. They had adopted it in the Bill, and he did not see any reason for extending it.

Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment,"—(Mr. Dodson,)—put, and agreed to.

Page 4, line 17, after "tenancy," insert— In the ascertainment of the amount of compensation payable to the tenant in respect of manures there shall not be taken into account any larger outlay during the last year of the tenancy than the average amount of the tenant's outlay for like purposes during the three next preceding years of the tenancy or other less number of years for which the tenancy has endured. —the next Amendment, read a second time.

MR. DODSON

said, he had to ask the House to disagree to this Amendment, as it conflicted with the general principle of the Bill, which was that compensation should be according to the value of the improvement, and not according to the outlay. The Amendment was not only introducing the outlay as a measure of compensation, but it adopted what the House had discarded all through—namely, the limit of time. As there had been no reference to outlay before, the Amendment, as now inserted, was slightly unintelligible.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Dodson.)

MR. CARPENTER-GARNIER

said, he was rather sorry that Her Majesty's Government could not accept the Amendment, for the reason that he believed its effect would be to encourage good farming throughout the whole rotation of crops, and not only during the last year. Without this Amendment there would be encouragement given to high farming in the last year of the tenancy, so as to run up the bill for value on going out.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he agreed with what had fallen from his hon. Friend (Mr. Carpenter-Gamier), and he did not quite see the force of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) that the adoption of this Amendment would really conflict with the principle of the Bill, which he understood was the principle of value. He failed to see how it was possible for a valuer to value the manures put on a field in the last year of a tenancy on any other basis than that of cost price. No one could tell what the future value of that manure might be. There was another reason in favour of this proposal—the Amendment was moved originally in Committee by the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham), who was himself a practised valuer, and understood these matters thoroughly, with the desire to obviate the danger of fraud in these matters, which, without some check of this nature, everyone would be liable to. Looked at from that point of view, it was a Proviso quite as much in the interest of the tenant as of anyone else. He did not think it desirable that the Bill should leave open a door for fraud—no one would wish to see such a thing.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

was understood to say that the principle they should keep in view was that the tenant should be compensated for what he left on his farm to his successor. That would be regulated by the outlay as a rule. The difference between this Bill and the Act of 1875 was that the tenant would be compensated for his outlay, whether it was a profitable one or not to his successor. The Bill would not give compensation only for what would be profitable to the successor. It would be a hardship to the tenant if, during his last year, he was to make a large expenditure on feeding cakes; because, if he did so, he would not get compensation, as his successor would not get value for it.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he was sorry the Government could not agree to the Amendment, because it was directed against fraud. He could not remain silent, because he had suffered that very year from fraud, such as that in question. He had the idea that tenant farmers would not be parties to fraud as to feeding stuffs, and when he put the Lincolnshire custom into his agreements, he left out those words. This was not a landlord's question, as it was entirely a matter of inventory between the outgoing and the incoming tenant whether the latter was to be charged for an excessive amount of cake or manure which he did not require. In such a way, a man had nothing to do but to run up a large amount for feed- ing stuffs, and the incoming tenant had nothing to do but to pay it. The incoming tenant was the only one who would get any benefit from the feeding stuffs really used; he had to pay for them; and it was for his protection against fraud—against which he could not protect himself in any other way—that the land valuers throughout Lincolnshire were all desirous of seeing this Amendment put in the Bill. He had been speaking of this subject that day to a large tenant farmer, who had said to him that, within his own knowledge, the agent of an artificial manure firm had asked an outgoing tenant to double the quantity of manure he had ordered, saying—"You will not have to pay for it.'" "But," said the farmer, "I do not want it. "Never mind," said the manure man, "what does it matter to you, as the incoming tenant will have to pay for it." The gentleman to whom he referred farmed 2,000 acres, and was well known to the Members of the House and to agriculturists.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, the view the Government took of the matter was that a provision of this kind would be very reasonable when applied to the Lincolnshire custom, or when applied to a principle based on outlay such as was contained in the Act of 1875; but when they had adopted the principle of value, and not that of outlay, a principle of this kind seemed to be inapplicable. If manure in excess of requirements had been used, the valuer would take that into consideration.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, that if the Amendment were to be omitted, the omission would be in favour of the fraudulent manure merchant, and against the interests of the landlord and tenant, as far as the Scotch landlord went. The insertion of this provision would preserve them from that which they had not guarded against, especially in the case of poor tenants—namely, the purchase of manures of a bad quality.

MR. DUCKHAM

said, that when he introduced this Amendment originally, he did so because it was equitable; he considered it to be equitable between the landlord and the outgoing tenant and the incoming tenant. He thought the Amendment should be inserted.

MR. JAMES HOWARD

said, he was glad the Government were going to stick to the principle of the Bill as to payment by results, and not by outlay. As to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), in regard to the fraudulent tenant, he (Mr. James Howard) failed to understand, if that tenant intended to commit a fraud during the last year of his tenancy, what there would be to prevent him, even if this Proviso were accepted, from committing the fraud during three previous years of his tenancy. He failed to see any use in the Proviso, and he thought great injury might arise under certain circumstances to particular tenants. It might happen that during the last year of a tenancy a tenant had a larger stock of straw than usual, and which he was anxious to turn into manure, and he might, in order to do that, consume a larger quantity of cake during the last year than he had done in previous years; and, under those circumstances, if he did consume an extraordinary quantity of cake, he would leave behind him value for his expenditure. He trusted the House would reject the Amendment of the Lords.

MR. BIDDELL

said, he regretted the decision of the Government, and would suggest that they should accept the Amendment, and modify it by providing that the valuer should take into consideration the average amount spent on manure during the last two years, instead of the last three years.

MR. BULWER

said, that everybody would agree that a farmer who manured his land three years running was farming very much better than the tenant who left the land without manure for two years, and then put an excessive quantity on during the last year, for which an incoming tenant would have to pay. This Amendment, as had been pointed out, was directed against the commission of fraud, and they might assume that it was within the bounds of possibility that frauds would be committed. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard) said it was useless to attempt to legislate against fraud, because, if a man was a fraudulent tenant, he would commit a fraud during the three previous years just as much as he would commit one during the last year of his tenancy. He (Mr. Bulwer) must point out that a man was not likely to commit a fraud upon himself during his own occupation.

MR. DODSON

said, that if there was to be a valuer at all, he would be able to form his own opinion, from the number of animals on the farm, and from the condition of the holding, what amount had been laid out. He would be hardly likely to give £1,000 about the value. Either the parties must agree in the fraud, or the valuer would not know his business, as the matter was one of mere calculation.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 126; Noes 51: Majority 75.—(Div. List, No. 311.)

Page 4, line 28, after "particulars," insert "and amount," the next Amendment, agreed to.

Page 5, line 32, after "Commissioners," insert— But if either party shall in writing object to such appointment, then the umpire, or any successor to him, shall be appointed by the President and Council of the Institute of Surveyors, —the next Amendment, read a second time.

MR. DODSON

said, he must again ask the House in this case to disagree with the Lords' Amendment, which was unnecessary. It would be inconvenient to introduce a third authority for the appointment of an umpire.

Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment,"—(Mr. Dodson,)—put, and agreed to.

Page 6, after Clause 16, insert Clause 16a—

(Award in respect of compensation under ss. 3, 4, and 5.)

(16a.) "In any case provided for by sections three, four, or five, if compensation is claimed under this Act, such compensation as under any of those sections is to be deemed to be substituted for compensation under this Act, if and so far as the same can, under the terms of the agreement, if any, be ascertained by the referees or the umpire, shall be awarded in respect of any improvements thereby provided for, and the award shall, when necessary, distinguish such improvements and the amount awarded in respect thereof; and an award given under this section shall be subject to the appeal provided by this Act, "

—the next Amendment, read a second time.

MR. DODSON

said, the object of this clause was to make clear what was expressed in the original clause. The ob- ject of that clause was to make clear that substituted compensation might be ascertained by the process of reference under the Bill in all cases where there was no special agreement to the contrary. The substituted compensation might be for a particular improvement, or particular improvements, and not for all or for a great number. It would be very inconvenient for the landlord and tenant to have, in such a case, a process divided where it ought to be made one.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he had been puzzled to understand what the clause meant. He did not think it read properly as it stood now— In any case provided for by sections three, four, or five, if compensation is claimed under this Act, such compensation, as under any of those sections is to be deemed to be substituted for compensation under this Act, if and so far as the same can, under the terms of the agreement, if any, he ascertained by the referees or the umpire, shall be awarded in respect of any improvements thereby provided for and the award shall, when necessary, distinguish such improvements and the amount awarded in respect thereof; and an award given under this section shall be subject to the appeal provided by this Act. He could not understand it.

MR. DODSON

said, the clause was complicated; but if the right hon. Gentleman would look at it carefully, he would see its meaning. The object was to secure that, where the ascertainment of compensation was not specially provided for in some other way, it should be ascertained by the referee under the Act.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Dodson.)

MR. JAMES HOWARD

said, he had to read this clause half-a-dozen times before he obtained even an inkling of its meaning. He thought it should not be agreed to. The latter part of the clause provided that, when necessary, the referees or umpire should distinguish between the improvements under the Act and improvements under agreement, and state the award in respect thereof. It was quite proper that the award should specify the improvements to which it related; but it was not necessary that this should be inserted in an Act of Parliament.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, with reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard), it was quite true that the umpire or referees would have to state what the improvements were; but that only secured that they should show those which came under the Act, and those which came under the agreement. It was only an additional obligation on the umpire and referees. To make the Amendment clearer, he would suggest that they should leave out the word "under" where it occurred a second time, and insert the words "consistently with," and that Amendment to the Lords' Amendment he begged to move.

Amendment to the said proposed Lords' Amendment agreed to.

Said proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Page 7, line 13, leave out from "d" to "each," in line 15, and insert "The time at which," the next Amendment, read a second time.

MR. DODSON

said, he must ask the House to disagree with this Amendment. The Government had been obliged to introduce the element of time into the clause, and to make an exception to the rule to meet one special case; but the effect of the proposed Amendment would be to make the exception the rule of the Bill, and to introduce the measure of time in every case.

Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment,"—(Mr. Dodson,)—put, and agreed to.

Page 7, line 42, after "invalid," insert— 2. That the award proceeds wholly or in part upon an improper application of or upon the omission properly to apply the special provisions of section five or any other part of this Act, —the next Amendment, read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Dodson.)

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he hoped that the Amendment, which went further than the powers of the Bill, would not be agreed to. He considered the provisions of the Bill with regard to appeal were already sufficient and ample. He was quite unable to understand on what ground this proposal for a new appeal rested.

MR. DODSON

said, that perhaps the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W Barclay) would allow him to explain. There was some difficulty with regard to Clause 5; it was doubted by some whether compensation under agreement came under the appeal provided by the Act, as was the ease with the other compensation. When the Bill was in Committee, the Government had expressed their belief that it did, and had stated that it was their intention that it should do so. This Amendment, which they asked the House to agree to, was to make the matter clear, and place it beyond all doubt. The hon. Member would be aware that the Appeal Clauses were the same as those in the Act of 1875, and that, therefore, they applied to compensation under Clause 5.

MR. PUGH

said, the effect of the Amendment would be to give an appeal on every possible ground, and, on that account, he objected to it in its present form. He begged to move the omission of the concluding words of the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Lords' Amendment, to leave out the words "or any other part of this Act."—(Mr. Pugh.)

MR. JAMES HOWARD

said, he was opposed to giving a power of appeal on any ground, and he was therefore utterly opposed to opening the door for it too wide. He would remind the House that, under the Lincolnshire custom, so often referred to during the passage of this Bill, the arbitrators' award was final. One of the main faults of the Bill was that it presented too many opportunities for litigation, and he believed that would prove to be its ruin. He saw no reason whatever for this litigation, and he trusted the House would reject the Amendment altogether. If, however, the Government were determined to accept it, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay,) would agree with him to divide the House upon it.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, he would suggest that the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Pugh), before the House, should be withdrawn, and that they should add the words "sections three, four, or" before the word "five" to the original Amendment of the Lords, leaving out the words "or any other part."

Amendment (Mr. Pugh), by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, to the said proposed Lords' Amendment, to leave out the word "section," and insert sections three, four, or "before the word" five; "and leave out the words" or any other part."—(Mr. Solicitor General.)

Amendment agreed to.

Page 8, line 82, leave out "The county court may appoint," and insert "where the appointment of;" line 33, after "woman," insert "is required," and after "Act," insert "the county court may make such appointment; "line 35, leave out" married woman," and insert— woman married before the commencement of the 'Married Women's Property Act, 1882,' 45 & 46 Vict. c. 75, and after "use," insert— to land her title to which accrued before such commencement as aforesaid; line 38, leave out "married woman," and insert— woman married before the commencement of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, line 39, after "Act," insert— in respect of land her title to which accrued before such commencement as aforesaid; page 9, transpose Clause 26 to follow Clause 30; page 10, line 12, leave out; "section four of;" line 32, after "assigns," insert— The estate or interest of any landlord holding for an estate or interest determinable or liable to forfeiture by reason of his creating or suffering any charge thereon shall not be determined or forfeited by reason of his obtaining a charge under this Act, anything in any deed, will, or other instrument to the contrary thereof notwithstanding.

(45 & 46 Vict., c. 38.)

"Capital money arising under the Settled Land Act, 1882, may be applied in payment of any moneys expended and costs incurred by a landlord under or in pursuance of this Act in or about the execution of any improvement mentioned in the first or second parts of the schedule hereto, as for an improvement authorised by the said Settled Land Act; and such money may also be applied in discharge of any charge created on a holding under or in pursuance of this Act in respect of any such improvement as aforesaid, as in discharge of an incumbrance authorised by the said Settled Land Act to be discharged out of such capital money;"

page 11, line 21, leave out "buildings," and insert "building;" line 25, after "tenant," insert— before or within a reasonable time after the termination of the tenancy; page 14, line 1, after "writing," insert— Of the patron of the benefice, that is, the person, officer, or authority who, in case the benefice were vacant, would be entitled to present thereto, or; leave out lines 13 to 17; line 18, after "landlord," insert "in respect of charging the land; "and line 22, after "Improvements," insert "and Miscellaneous," the next 14 Amendments, agreed to, without discussion.

Page 16, line 2, leave out "one year," and insert "two-years," and after "distress," insert— Except in the case of arrears of rent in respect of a holding to which this Act applies, existing at the time of the passing of this Act, which arrears shall be recoverable by distress up to the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five to the same extent as if this Act had not passed, —the next Amendment, read a second time.

MR. DODSON

said, he had to ask the House to disagree with this Amendment, so far as it substituted two years for one year. This question had been already fully discussed in Committee, and it had been decided to insert one year instead of two years.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Dodson.)

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, he regretted that the Government were not able to accept the Amendment, because he was sure that a very large number of farmers in the country would rather have two years inserted. He had received a letter that morning from an intelligent farmer in his own district, who said that the Amendment would allow the landlord to trust the tenant for two years instead of one.

Question put, and agreed to.

Page 16, leave out lines 12 to 16; line 24, after "feeding," insert "or if any part of such price has been paid exceeding the amount remaining unpaid; "page 17, line 9, leave out from "jurisdiction "to" order," in line 12, and insert "and any such county court or court of summary jurisdiction may make an;" line 16, after "requires," insert— Any such dispute as mentioned in this section shall be deemed to be a matter in which a court of summary jurisdiction has authority by law to make an order on complaint in pursuance of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts; page 18, line 22, leave out from the second "of" to "and," in line 24, and insert "a county court;" and line 28, leave out "in the district in which he has jurisdiction," the next six Amendments, agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, line 35, leave out "first day of January," and insert "thirty-first day of March; "and line 38, after "that," insert" not being a market garden is less than two acres in extent or," the next two Amendments, disagreed to.

Page 19, line 3, leave out "of," and insert "held under;" page 20, leave out lines 25 to 30; line 38, leave out "after the commencement of this Act;" line 40, after" other," insert "immediately after the commencement of this Act; "page 21, line 32, after" 1875," insert "and the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875, Amendment Act, 1876;" line 34, leave out from "any" to "any," in line 35, and insert "thing duly done or suffered or any proceedings pending under or in pursuance of;" line 36, leave out "of a tenant; "page 22, line 3, after "Act," insert— or (d.) Any right in respect of fixtures affixed to a holding before the commencement of this Act; line 4, leave out "such tenant shall be entitled to enforce such right," and insert "right reserved by this section may be enforced;" and line 6, leave out "he would have been entitled," the concluding ten Amendments, agreed to. Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to certain of the Amendments made by The Lords to the Bill: "—Mr. DODSON, Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, The LORD Advocate, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND, Sir ALEXANDER GORDON, Sir THOMAS ACLAND, and Mr. HENEAGE:—Three to be the quorum:—To withdraw immediately.