IMPROVEMENTS. (Hansard, 18 July 1883)

HC Deb 18 July 1883 vol 281 cc1798-864 1798

§ Compensation for Improvements.

§ Clause 1 (General right of tenant to compensation).

§ Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 14, at end of Clause, to add "Provided always, That in estimating the value of any improvements in Parts I. and II. of the Schedule hereto, due regard shall he had to the amount of the interest of the owner of the soil in or on which such improvement shall have been made."—(Mr. R. H. Paget.)

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

§ MR. DODSON
said, he should like to point out to the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) that his Amendment ought to be confined to the improvements in Part I.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH
said, the Question before the Committee was not his Amendment. He had thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) had risen in order to inform the Committee of the course which Her Majesty's Government proposed to take after the Vote of last night on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), providing that, in respect of those improvements for which the consent of the landlord was not required, the amount of the compensation should, in no case, exceed the amount of the outlay incurred by the tenant. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) confessed that his own Amendment was placed on the Paper, without having fully considered the effect of that vote; and he quite agreed that, to some extent, it did deal with the same point which had been settled by the Committee last night, the Amendment being as follows:— Provided, That, in estimating the value of any improvements in Parts I. and II. of the Schedule hereto, there shall not be taken into 1799 account anything that may he due to the inherent capabilities of the soil, or to any cause other than the skill and expenditure of the tenant in making the improvement. It would be convenient, he thought, if the right hon. Gentleman would state, on the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. R. H. Paget), what course he proposed to adopt.

§ SIR JOSEPH PEASE
said, he should like to ask what really was the effect of the Amendment adopted last night? The words were— Provided always, That in respect of those improvements for which the consent of the landlord is not required, the amount of such compensation shall in no case exceed the amount of the outlay incurred by the tenant. It seemed to him (Sir Joseph Pease) that the words of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) were simply a copy of the words of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), only that it mentioned Parts I. and II. of the Schedule. He thought the effect of the sentence being in the negative, embracing, as it did, the heading of the 3rd Part of the Schedule, would involve a great deal of confusion.

§ MR. BORLASE
said, it seemed to him that the words of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) applied to the 2nd Part of the Schedule, as well as to the other.

§ MR. DODSON
I quite concur in the opinion just expressed by my hon. Friend (Mr. Borlase), and I believe that the Amendment passed last night refers to all the improvements, except those in Part I. of the Bill. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) has asked me to state the views of the Government, after the Division that took place last night. Sir, I must say I deeply regret the Amendment, which, I think, the Committee adopted somewhat in haste. There is no doubt about this—that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, it is a most serious inroad into the object we had in proposing the Bill; and we must, therefore, reserve to ourselves full liberty of considering what course we will take in regard to it. As to the Amendment immediately before us, which, I understand, is that of the hon. Member for Mid Somersetshire (Mr. R. H. Paget), we are not prepared to assent to it. 1800 But the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) has put words on the Paper, the substance of which, as I intimated last night, the Government are prepared favourably to consider. No doubt that intimation was conveyed before that most unfortunate Amendment, as I think, was adopted by the Committee; but, still, after what I stated in regard to the substance of this proposal, and what I have just stated as to the liberty which we reserve to ourselves to consider the course which we will adopt hereafter as to the words inserted by the Committee late last night, I shall be prepared, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to assent to the words proposed by the right hon. Baronet, with this modification, that they should be confined to improvements in Part I., because the Amendment adopted last night covers the improvements in Part II. Then, I would suggest that the right hon. Baronet should leave out all the words after the word "soil," so that the Amendment would run— Provided, That in estimating the value of any improvements in Part I. of the Schedule hereto, there shall not be taken into account anything that may be due to the inherent capabilities of the soil. I think that, even from his own point of view, it would be better to leave out the words— Or to any cause other than the skill and expenditure of the tenant in making the improvement, as they might seem to exclude a lower rent, or other considerations in regard to which the tenant has executed the improvement. I think it would be safer, from the right hon. Baronet's own point of view, if we stopped at the word "soil." There is one other suggestion I would like the right hon. Baronet and the Committee to consider, and that is rather as to drafting, than as to the substance of the proposal. It is not an unimportant suggestion, and it is one which I think the right hon. Baronet would do well to accept—it is to bring these words in in Clause 6. I think they would come in there more appropriately than in Clause 1. Clause 1 lays down broad principles; and Clause 6 lays down Regulations as to estimates of improvements. It says— In the ascertainment of the amount of the compensation under this Act payable to the 1801 tenant in respect of any improvement there shall he taken into account in reduction thereof, &c. This is a matter, no doubt, of secondary consideration; but I think the suggestion I make, if adopted, would have a good effect in regard to the shape of the Bill.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
said, in moving his Amendment, he had begun by omitting that portion of it which referred to Part II. of the Schedule; and the right hon. Gentleman thought he heard, as the House was rather in a disturbed state at the moment, that he restricted the proposal to Part I. of the Schedule. He was entirely in accord, as he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was, with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson). He had expressed his willingness last night to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet, and he had also made one or two suggestions. The first was that the right hon. Baronet should omit reference to the 2nd Part of the Schedule from his Amendment, to which the right hon. Baronet himself now assented. As to leaving out certain words of the Amendment, according to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he (Mr. R. H. Paget) did not himself see that the proposal would be injured thereby. What they desired to get, and what they did get, was a clear statement that there should not be taken into account anything that might be duo to the inherent capabilities of the soil. He thought there was a great deal to be said in favour of having the right hon. Baronet's Amendment in this part of the Bill. If he might venture to say so, there was a certain amount of risk and danger incurred in setting forth, in the first instance, without any kind of limitation whatever, principles so broad that they might seem to mean more than was intended. To his mind it was a very dangerous thing to put in a principle that might contain a great deal, and then, clause by clause, whittle it away until the principle was infringed, not deliberately in a clause set up for that purpose, but incidentally by Schedules and clauses which afterwards might be held to contain mere incidents of detail, having nothing to do with the principle of the Bill. He thought it was of great importance that the principle of the Bill should be fairly set forth in Clause 1, 1802 and that it should be subjected to the limitation which the right hon. Gentleman was ready to accept. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) would not insist upon his suggestion that this Amendment should be postponed to Clause 6, instead of being introduced where he (Mr. R. H. Paget) thought it ought to be introduced. He would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment he had put on the Paper, in order that that of the right hon. Baronet might become the substantive one.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he now begged to move the Amendment standing in his name, but modified in accordance with the suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson). He would move it in this shape— Provided, That, in estimating the value of any improvements in Part I. of the Schedule hereto, there shall not be taken into account anything that may be due to the inherent capabilities of the soil. He should like to say, however, that, in making the alteration proposed, he should hold himself free, as the right hon. Gentleman stated that the Government held themselves free, with regard to any action that might be necessary at a future stage of the Bill. He was unable, last night, to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), because it seemed to him that a limitation, such as he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had proposed in this Proviso, would be fairer to all parties than that proposed by the hon. Member for Hertford. But, if Her Majesty's Government should feel it their duty to ask the House to reconsider, at a later stage, the view which the Committee expressed last night, he was bound to say he thought there would be something required in the Bill in the nature of a limit to the discretion of the valuer beyond the words "inherent capabilities of the soil." Seeing that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford stood in the Bill, he was content to move the words he had read. As to Clause 6, he would say that if it were a mere matter of drafting he should at once agree to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson); but he could not look upon it as a matter of drafting. He thought 1803 that whatever limitation the Committee agreed to should be placed in this most important 1st clause. Therefore, without further preface, he would move his Amendment.

§ Amendment proposed, In page 1, at end of Clause, add—"Provided, That, in estimating the value of any improvements in Part I. of the Schedule hereto, there shall not he taken into account anything that may be duo to the inherent capabilities of the soil."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)

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

§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD
said, he had given Notice of an intention to move the omission of the words after the word "soil;" but he was glad the action of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) rendered that unnecessary. He thought it a right and just improvement to the clause. He was of opinion that a provision of this sort ought to be inserted, and he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) regarding the Amendment which the Committee adopted last night; but, at the same time, he thought that this proposal might very properly find a place in the 1st clause of the Bill.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, he wished to point out, before they passed the Amendment, that if it were passed, it would preclude the tenant from getting any compensation whatever, except for something he added to the soil. Let them take drainage, for instance. In a case of that kind, the tenant did not add anything to the soil. The whole improvement, whatever increase of crops might be brought about, in a case of that kind would be due to the inherent capabilities of the soil. It was the same with reclamation of land. The value of the land was there; but, in its original state, before the reclamation, the value could not be availed of—the land was not available for the growing of crops. What the tenant did, in reclaiming land, was to render available the inherent qualities of the soil. If they adopted this Proviso, it would preclude the tenant from getting compensation for anything whatever, except what he added to the soil in the form of buildings and the like. The Committee ought to consider what would be the real effect of the proposal; because the whole of the improvements which the tenant might 1804 make in improved cultivation and reclamation of the soil and drainage, was simply to make available the inherent capabilities of the soil; and, if they put in this limitation, the tenant, for works of this kind, would not be entitled to any compensation—all he would be entitled to would be compensation for what he had added to the soil in the shape of buildings, manures, and such like.

§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
said, he had listened attentively to what the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. J. W. Barclay) had said, and it was evident that he was going far beyond what the Bill intended. What the hon. Member wished to put before the Committee was that the tenant should be compensated for all the inherent qualities of the land which he might bring out. That was what the hon. Member placed before the Committee—that the landlord should not have any of those inherent qualities which absolutely and entirely belonged to him. The tenant recouped himself, year by year, by the improvements he had made, by extracting from the soil those properties which were in it. The tenant got all that was due to him, and when he left his farm he would be entitled to all beneficial interest he had in it, in regard to buildings and those fertilizers which might still remain in the soil, and which would be a benefit to an incoming tenant. They could not be too particular in laying this down; because they must remember—and he wished to point this out especially to the Committee—that the hon. Member who had just sat down had not disguised, for one moment, that he was anxious in this matter to place England in exactly the same position as Ireland had been placed in. They could not too clearly declare on every occasion—and he thought the Committee had yesterday declared in the most emphatic manner—that this country ought not to be placed in the same position as Ireland in regard to these matters. By the first two Divisions taken yesterday, the Committee showed that it was determined that, in this country, freedom of contract should still be maintained—though they were going to limit it to a certain extent, which he was very sorry for. In England, the landlord's interest and the tenant's interest were identical; and the Committee had been able, under the most pressing circumstances, to maintain that 1805 interest which some hon. Gentlemen opposite were so anxious to destroy.

§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE
said, he was not one of those who wished to introduce Irish principles into this country; he only wished to see justice done between man and man. It seemed to him that this Amendment would give the tenant nothing. Whatever improvement he made must be owing to the inherent qualities of the soil. If he limed or drained the land, and made improvements that he wished to reap the benefit from, or receive compensation for, they would arise out of the inherent qualities of the soil. If this Amendment were accepted by the Government as it stood, and there was nothing to qualify it, the result would be that many valuators would say—"What you have done is owing to the inherent qualities of the soil, and you are entitled to nothing." The Amendment was attended with these dangers, and he very much regretted that the Government had so hastily accepted it. He apprehended that the object of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) was, to entitle a tenant to compensation beyond what fairly recouped him for his outlay. That was a fair matter for consideration; but if they applied the minimum, they ought also to apply the maximum; and if the tenant was to be invited during his tenancy to lay out money for improvements, such as liming and manuring, he ought not to have his chance of obtaining compensation for those improvements thrown away as it would be by the seasons, supposing the lime did not take the effect it might do, or the manure was washed away; unless something were put into the measure to protect him. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said he would consider the Amendment agreed to last night; and he (Sir Edward Colebrooke) would ask him whether he could not consider also the advisability of amending the clause by the insertion of a maximum, as well as a minimum? If he (Sir Edward Colebrooke) were to make an agreement with his tenant, he should decide upon a provision that would show clearly that the tenant would be entitled to compensation, if he spent money fairly and reasonably on improvements, for what was destroyed by the effect of bad seasons. On the other hand, he thought there 1806 were occasions when the valuator might run up a claim for compensation in these matters unreasonably; and if the Government would consider a maximum as well as a minimum, fair justice might be done.

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
said, he desired to point out other objections to this Proviso. He believed it to be utterly unnecessary, seeing that it applied to improvements only where the consent of the landlord was necessary. Surely one door had been sufficiently barred against the tenant, without closing the other; and he thought that the adoption of freedom of contract might be allowed to come into play. He entirely agreed with the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) with regard to freedom of contract in this matter. Surely it was a sufficient guarantee to the landowner that these improvements could only be effected with his consent; and, seeing that the tenant was compelled to come to the landlord before he could effect these improvements, freedom of contract should be allowed to come into play. He hoped the Government would reconsider the acceptance of this Proviso, seeing that it was utterly unnecessary.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
said, that, if the Amendment were accepted by the Government, with a view of in any way re-opening the question decided last night by the Committee, he confessed that he, for one, should be compelled to oppose it. He would ask the permission of the Committee, when the Question was put that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill, to make one or two observations in reply to the opening statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in which he would be able to show that the right hon. Gentleman took an entirely erroneous view of the serious effects of the Amendment adopted last night. As to the clause, and quite independent of the re-opening of the question settled last night—though he had no intention of opposing it—he did not see any great object to be gained by it. It related really to improvements specified in the 1st Schedule of the Bill; and, as far as they were concerned, he should say he thought the landlord had ample protection at present, from the fact that the improvements could only be made with his consent.

1807

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, this Amendment only carried out the intention and object of the clause. He thought hon. Members behind him did not remember that they had already given the tenant the value of his improvements. In doing that they did not intend to give to the tenant anything resulting from the inherent qualities of the soil. They had separated these two things distinctly by this Amendment.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, it was rather difficult to follow the arguments used in connection with this Amendment. At one time they were told that they had nothing to do with Ireland, and then, at another time, that statement was contradicted. To his mind the acceptation of this Amendment would really vitiate all they had done yesterday.

§ MR. BORLASE
said, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster not to stop at the word "soil" in this Amendment. It appeared to him that these other words— Or to any cause other than the skill and expenditure of the tenant in making the improvement, gave them back what they had lost by the unfortunate Amendment which, owing to some accident, had been passed last night. He would venture to appeal to the Committee to allow the words to remain.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, he wished to point out that there was an essential difference between the inherent capabilities of the soil and the inherent qualities of the soil. Take the case of waste land, for instance. It might be worth only 1s. or 2s. 6d. an acre, as it was; but a tenant, to improve it, might give more than that for it, because, after he had reclaimed it, there might be a certain margin of profit beyond interest on outlay to be derived from the outlay. He did not think the tenant would be entitled to the inherent value of the soil; but that was a very different thing from the inherent capabilities of the soil. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had entirely misrepresented the decision of the Irish Judges. He (Mr. J. W. Barclay) could quite understand why they had said that the tenant was not entitled to the inherent qualities of the soil; but that, as 1808 he had said, was very different from the inherent capabilities of the soil; and, if this Amendment were adopted, the tenant would not be entitled to compensation for improvements in Part I. They were going to declare, in the first part of the clause, that the tenant was to be entitled to compensation for the value of his improvements; but that was to be superseded by this Proviso—that he should not be compensated for his improvements so far as they were due to the inherent capabilities of the soil. The two provisions would be at variance with each other.

§ SIR THOMAS ACLAND
said, he was sorry to take up the time of the Committee even for five minutes; but he thought they were going too hastily into this matter. He hoped, last night, that they would not be able to settle this matter between 12 and 1 o'clock in the morning, and he had certainly left the House then, believing that a little more time would be given to it. He respected the ability of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), and gave him credit for having paid great attention to this matter; but he could not listen to his speeches without feeling that they were getting into an ambiguity between value and cost, and this matter was one which he thought required clearing up. The difficulty was to be seen in the matter they were now dealing with. They were giving the farmer nothing; but it was quite true that if their words were not carefully framed, they would run a great risk of robbing the landlords to a very great extent. An hon. Member had given an instance of the possibility of £1,000 spent on drainage, increasing the value of the land to £3,000; and he (Sir Thomas Acland) had had some experience in that matter. It was quite possible that, under peculiar circumstances—and he did not wish to go into details as to the case—the unclogging of a few hundreds of acres of land, at a cost of £1,000, might have, prospectively, the effect of raising the value of the land £1 or £2 an acre, which, being capitalized, might come to £1,000 or £2,000. All he would venture to urge was, that the Government should take time to obtain advice on this matter as to the wording of the clause, and not too hastily accept the words of the right hon. Baronet opposite 1809 (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). They should discard the capabilities of the soil entirely from their consideration, and it was open to argument that there would be nothing left for the farmer. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard) would excuse him (Sir Thomas Acland) for what he was about to say; but he had watched the hon. Member and his Friends very closely for the last seven years, and he had come to the conclusion that the tendency of their action was to put an end for ever to that which had been the great foundation of the prosperity of English agriculture—namely, the system under which fair-minded landlords with intelligent agents had pursued, for a century at least, the policy of engaging good tenants, treating them liberally, and letting them make a fair and remunerative profit on their farms, with the expectation that, 20 years afterwards, the land would be worth more money. The tendency of the policy adopted by the hon. Member and his Friends was to put an end to the idea that, when a farmer had thoroughly recouped himself for his outlay, he and his landlord might cry quits. It had been said over and over again by the mouthpiece of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire and his Friends, that no honest man could deny that, when a farmer had spent money on the landlord's property, he had made a speculation to which he was entitled to the full benefit; and that, although he was entitled to that full value, he had been repaid over and over again. That was the principle that he (Sir Thomas Acland) did not want to drift into, from any hasty arrangement that might be made between the two Front Benches, without duo consideration. He was equally anxious that these words, "cutting off the whole of the capabilities of the soil," should not deprive the tenant farmers of a reasonable repayment and profitable remuneration for their skill and industry. He trusted he would not be considered presumptuous in having made these few observations.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, there was one point referred to by the hon. Baronet who had just sat down (Sir Thomas Acland) which he might be permitted to take exception to. The hon. Baronet had dealt with the question as though it were one between landlord and tenant; and he (Mr. J. Lowther) ventured to say 1810 that, in 19 cases out of 20, that was not so at all. It was a question between the outgoing and incoming tenants; and what he would ask the hon. Baronet and the Committee to consider was this—what conceivable justice could there be in making an incoming tenant pay the outgoing for an addition to the value of the holding that was inherent in the capacity and capabilities of the soil? The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), in the mistake he fell into in regard to the inclusion of drainage in his remarks, was led into a kind of argument which he (Mr. J. Lowther) thought fairly placed before the Committee the objects at which he aimed. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think it quite reasonable that the tenant, who reclaimed a large amount of land by a comparatively small outlay, should, on quitting his holding, be entitled to be recouped not only the amount actually expended, but something in the way of profit. His argument was, that such a tenant should be entitled to claim from the incoming tenant a profit to which properly he had no claim whatever. He (Mr. J. Lowther) did not say that the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Thomas Acland) said that; but that was the line of argument of the hon. Member for Forfarshire. The hon. Member, and, to some extent, the hon. Baronet also, had contended that, if the words of this Amendment were introduced, the tenant, on quitting his holding, would not be entitled to any compensation whatever; but the hon. Member had omitted to read the wording of the clause. The hon. Member could not suppose that any valuer appointed under this Bill would so far neglect his duty and the dictates of plain common sense, as to ignore the very definite terms of the clause. What he (Mr. J. Lowther) did protest against was this—the matter being simply considered as one between landlord and tenant; whereas it was really a proposal that the incoming tenant, who, no doubt, in the valuation of his farm, had regard to the condition in which he found it, should be fined a sum of money on entering his holding, at the time when every farthing of capital he could command was urgently needed for the development of the farm and the cultivation of the soil, by way of bonus to the outgoing tenant, who had no claim whatever to it, or to anything 1811 except so far as he had spent money upon the land.

§ SIR JOSEPH PEASE
said, he should like to get the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General as to the real meaning of the Amendment inserted in the clause last night. He did not wish to be pertinacious about it; but he did not think he had received a satisfactory answer yet. He had believed that the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had simply intended to confine his remarks to Part III. of the Schedule. The words of the Amendment were— Provided always, That in respect of those improvements for which the consent of the landlord is not required, the amount of the compensation shall in no case exceed the amount of outlay incurred by the tenant.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
said, he wished to ask whether the hon. Baronet (Sir Joseph Pease) was in Order in discussing an Amendment adopted and settled last night?

THE CHAIRMAN
I have not been able yet to see anything out of Order in the hon. Baronet's remarks. He seems to be seeking an explanation by putting his question.

§ SIR JOSEPH PEASE
said, the observations he was making were bearing upon the Question before the Committee. It seemed to him, when that Amendment was on the Paper, that the consent of the landlord was not required. He had compared the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) with the 3rd Part of the Schedule, and it was plain that drainage was not a matter that required the landlord's consent, but came under a separate heading in the Schedule, as an improvement in respect of which notice to the landlord was required. All depended upon whether drainage was contained in the Amendment or not. He hoped it was; but it seemed to him that the point would be a very nice one, indeed, as a point of law. He thought that, if the words of the Amendment which were taken from the heading of the 3rd Part were not in quotation marks, there might be something said about it.

§ COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISE
said, that if it was the intention of the Committee to re-open the matter settled last night, he thought this Amendment ought to be insisted upon; but if, on the other hand, the Government accepted that 1812 Amendment as a compromise—and it seemed to him to be a very fair compromise, and one they ought to accept without any further difficulty—the matter might be allowed to drop. He wished to point out that, if the Amendment confined the compensation to the actual outlay, it would be a reversal of the decision arrived at last night. He, therefore, thought it was a most important Amendment. If, however, the Amendment had not been carried last night, he did not think this would have been of importance.

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
said, that the hon. Baronet (Sir Thomas Acland) had made a very unfair comment upon the line of conduct he (Mr. James Howard) had pursued during the last few years; but he did not think the hon. Baronet had any right to dictate to him the course he should pursue upon a great public question. The hon. Baronet had intimated that his (Mr. James Howard's) line of action tended to interfere with that good feeling which had existed between landlord and tenant in this country for so long. Well, he (Mr. James Howard) must protest that the only object he had had in view had been to prevent injustice being rendered possible any further in this country between landlords and tenants; and he trusted, by legislation, that they would be able to develop a better feeling than had existed hitherto between landlord and tenant. The hon. Baronet said he had watched his (Mr. James Howard's) course for a number of years. He had no objection to his Course being watched for any number of years. He might retaliate by saying that he also had watched the course of the hon. Baronet for 40 years past, and his opinion was that the hon. Baronet had been reactionary. In 1847 the hon. Baronet was a party to the Bill of Mr. Pusey—his name was on that Bill. [Cries of "Question!"] Hon. Members cried "Question!" but he thought he had a perfect right to reply to a man who had made an attack upon him. What he said was, that, since 1847, the action of the hon. Baronet had been reactionary. In the Bill of Mr. Pusey, the hon. Baronet was content to leave the compensation of tenants to impartial referees; but what was the case on the hon. Baronet's own estate? He would tell the Committee. He had never before made public this 1813 fact, and never should have done so, had it not been for the attack which had been made upon him by the hon. Baronet. Some 10 years ago, one of the hon. Baronet's tenants sent him (Mr. James Howard) a copy of a lease which the hon. Baronet wanted him to sign. [Cries of "Question!"] He must repeat that the hon. Baronet had made an attack upon him, and that he had a perfect right to reply. This lease which was sent to him contained a clause for compensation for unexhausted improvements to the tenant; but the hon. Baronet had inserted a proviso, to the effect that he himself should appoint the sole referee to determine the amount of compensation to be given. The tenant sent this lease to him (Mr. James Howard) to ask his opinion whether he should sign it, and he sent it back to the man, telling him never to sign such an arbitrary document as that.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he very much regretted that matters of personal difference had been introduced into the debate. He would not go into them himself, and would only say, in reference to them, that he thought the reputation of the hon. Baronet (Sir Thomas Acland) was very well able to take care of itself. But an observation had been made in which both the hon. Member for Bedfordshire and the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had concurred, and that conjunction was rare, and, being rare, was rather formidable. What they said was, that this Amendment was unnecessary, because the consent of the landlord would practically govern all these improvements. What he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was anxious to do was to enable this Bill to work if it could; and what he was convinced of was this—that it would be difficult enough for the 1st Bart of the Schedule to work under any circumstances, for he did not believe the tenantry of England were likely, so long as the English land system endured, to desire to make these permanent improvements. But if the Committee wished to deter landlords from giving their consent to the making of these permanent improvements by tenants, they could not do better than leave it open to the valuer to give to the tenant compensation for that which really belonged to the landlord. There- 1814 fore, he was anxious to limit the action of the valuers in this matter, as the Government themselves desired, and to show, in the four corners of the Bill, that the valuers were not to take this course. The landlord, if he gave his consent to permanent improvements being made, would not then be under any fear that he would be deprived of any property which belonged to him; and with that view he had proposed this Amendment. As to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Forfarshire, if he thought that by moving this Amendment he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was depriving the Bill of any value to the tenant, he would not persist in it for a moment. He was convinced that the words, as they stood in the clause, were quite sufficient to give the tenant the full value of everything he had done, so far as he was entitled to it; but he believed the Amendment was necessary in order to prevent the tenant from getting, from a mistaken valuer, that which did not belong to him.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
said, that, looking at the language of the Amendment to which the Committee assented last night, I he thought it did cover both the 2nd and 3rd Parts of the Schedule; and, under the 2nd Part of the Schedule, the consent of the landlord was not required. The landlord would have the option of doing the work himself, and if he did not do it the tenant would be able to do it.

§ MR. DODSON
said, he would appeal to the Committee whether there was really any advantage now to be gained in continuing this discussion? It appeared to him that hon. Members were agreed upon this point on all sides. No one wanted to deprive the tenant of that which was justly his improvement; and, on the other hand, no one wanted to give him that which fairly belonged to the landlord. Contradictory objections had been taken to the words proposed; some hon. Members apprehending that the effect of them would be to deprive the tenant of the value of his improvement; but, on the other hand, other hon. Members feared that they would give him that which was really and truly the property of the landlord. Well, he (Mr. Dodson) himself was inclined to think that the words were not exposed 1815 to either of these dangers; but, as the Committee was agreed on the principle of the thing, he thought that, instead of continuing the discussion now, they should agree to accept the words of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), on the understanding that the Government would carefully consider the words; and, if they thought that anything was necessary to make the intention on both sides in regard to them clearer, they would, at a later stage, endeavour to find words for that purpose.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."—(Mr. Dodson.)

§ MR. CHAPLIN
said, he was not going to delay the Committee more than a minute or two; but he desired to make an observation with regard to the opening statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson). He (Mr. Chaplin) could not think there was any great difference of opinion between them, and when the right hon. Gentleman had said just now that the Amendment which was adopted last night was a most unfortunate one, and was adopted in great haste, and without due deliberation, he must have forgotten that, with the exception that the Amendment did not apply to the improvements in the 1st Part of the Schedule, it was, practically, to all intents and purposes, the same that was moved by the hon. and gallant Member for West Gloucestershire (Colonel Kingscote) as early as half-past 8 o'clock in the evening. It was erroneous to say that the decision was arrived at hastily and without duo consideration. Neither could he agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment adopted by the Committee last evening made a serious inroad into the Bill. The fact was, that the Bill, as it stood last night, and the sympathies of Members of the Government, were not altogether consistent. As he had endeavoured to point out, the Amendment merely carried into effect that which was distinctly stated over and over again by right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench. What they had stated to the Committee was this—that, in their opinion, the 1816 compensation to tenants, as a general rule, was not in any instance to exceed the outlay. It was true they had stated that, in exceptional cases, such things might occur; but they limited their exception to particular items; one being the laying down of land in permanent pasture; and the other relating to orchards. If that were so, surely the Committee had adopted a proper course in making the presumption of law this—that the compensation was not to exceed the outlay. If it were necessary to provide for the few particular cases referred to, it was open to the Government, at any later period of the Bill, to make an exception in their favour. Then the effect of the speeches of the Government would have been, literally, carried out; and, so far as he could see, no serious inroad would have been made into the Bill. He might mention, as to this particular subject, some information which was brought very distinctly under his notice. When hon. Members sitting below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House said that an Amendment of this nature was opposed to the wishes of the farmers of England, and that its effect would be considered monstrous and unjust, he should like to state to the Committee a fact that had come under his personal observation. Shortly after the Bill was introduced, it was his good fortune to attend a meeting of tenant farmers—one of the largest meetings of tenant farmers ever held in the city of Lincoln—for the purpose of hearing the views of the farmers on the point whether the compensation was to exceed the outlay. The whole Bill was discussed from beginning to end; but he had gone to the meeting for the purpose of hearing their views upon this particular point. The proposal that the compensation should exceed the value appeared to be received with surprise; and the meeting was unanimous that, under no circumstances, should that be the case, and that an Amendment to that effect should be moved.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, he would call attention to the standard of value set forth in the clause. At the first appearance, the standard of value seemed to be satisfactory enough; but, on considering it for a moment, it would be seen that the value of an improvement to an incoming tenant depended entirely on the nature 1817 of his tenure. Let them take the case of a permanent improvement. That came under this clause, as well as a temporary one. Well, what was the value of a permanent improvement to a tenant who was holding from year to year. It was, of course, one value to him, and another value to a tenant who had a 19 years' lease; and, on this point, there was certainly some omission in the clause. There should be some qualifying words after the words "value to an incoming tenant." Take the case of a building. Was the outgoing tenant to be only compensated for the building to the extent of its value to an incoming tenant, who would only hold for one year? If that were so, that would be a most unsatisfactory arrangement; and he had only to call attention to it, to show that it would work with great unfairness to the outgoing tenant. He was convinced that this clause might be used for the purpose of depriving tenants of their improvements. Under the Bill, the landlord would only have to let his farm to an incoming tenant for one year, and he could stand on the Bill, and say that the improvements were only of the value that they would be to such incoming tenant. The value of a drainage improvement, for instance, to an incoming tenant who was only holding for one year would not be so great as it would be to a tenant who was holding for a long period. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) would be able to explain this point, which seemed to him to be, at present, in a very unsatisfactory state.

§ MR. DUCKHAM
said, that before the clause was put, he should like to make a remark or two, in reply to the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). The hon. Member had told the Committee that the Amendment that was passed last night was before the Committee from half-past 8 in the evening till late at night. It was true that it was before the Committee from half-past 8, and that a vote was taken adverse to the Amendment; but, at between 12 and 1 o'clock, another Amendment, to the same effect, was introduced, and a snatched vote was taken after many hon. Members who had voted against the principle had left the House. He did think it was a matter for the consideration of the Committee that the interests 1818 of both landlord and tenant should be guarded in whatever way was best; but he thought also that it would not do for this House to pass a Bill which would play at "heads I win, tails you lose." If no alteration were made in the Amendment by the Government, it was pretty clear that the tenant farmer would not be recouped for any outlay he might, unfortunately, have made. The improvement might not be considered of great advantage to the property; but, on the other hand, the tenant would not be paid anything more than actual costs out of pocket. Surely, if they gave the value of the outlay for an unfortunate expenditure, they ought to take into consideration the benefit that the land would derive from a fortunate expenditure. He hoped the Committee would pause before accepting the clause.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said, that, as to the Amendment he had proposed last night, the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Duckham) had declared it had been sprung upon the Committee, and that a snatched Division had been taken upon it. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, he apprehended that hon. Gentlemen who cheered that could not have been present during the discussion. The substance of the Amendment adopted was first proposed at a very early stage in the discussion by his hon. Friend opposite the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey). He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had afterwards risen, in the discussion on the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for West Gloucestershire (Colonel Kingscote), and suggested the Amendment, which he afterwards moved, as a compromise which the Committee would do well to adopt. He stated at the time that he would move that Amendment if the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman were not carried. Well, at the earliest stage he could, he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had moved his Amendment; and, so far from the Division taken upon it being a snatched Division, if he recollected rightly, the Amendment was discussed in a House of very little under 300 Members. [An hon. MEMBER: 275.] Yes; 275 Members; and it was therefore perfectly absurd to call it a snatched Division. If they were to go into the question as to whether the Division was the legitimate expression of the opinion 1819 of the Committee or not, he would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that if it had not been for the accident of the Agricultural Society's meeting at York taking place this week, and to other circumstances with which he did not wish to trouble the Committee, he believed that not only would his Amendment have been carried, but also the Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Gloucestershire (Colonel Kingscote). He would strongly recommend hon. Gentlemen opposite not to state that the House of Commons had been tricked, or had fallen accidentally into the decision at which they had arrived upon his Amendment. He was the more surprised at that accusation coming from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Duckham), because, if he remembered rightly, the hon. Member had risen to say that his (Mr. A. J. Balfour's) object would be carried out by an Amendment which the hon. Member himself had on the Paper to the 6th clause. Therefore, from whoever the statement came, it appeared to him that it came with less grace from the hon. Member than from anybody else.

§ MR. DUCKHAM
said, in reply to the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), that he wished to state that it was true he said the hon. Member's view would be carried out on Clause 6, and would be represented by the Amendment which he (Mr. Duckham) had on the Paper. He was quite aware of what he had said; but that Amendment of his did not apply to Part II. of the Schedule of the Bill—it merely applied to feeding stuffs.

§ MR. HENEAGE
said, that his hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey) had referred only to the 3rd Part of the Schedule, and a great many hon. Members had left the House when the Division was taken on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), under the impression that the Government might, perhaps, be willing to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Northumberland; and, to a certain extent, therefore, the Division was a snatch one. The hon. Member for Hertford himself, in introducing his Amendment, had stated—whether accidentally or not he (Mr. Heneage) could not say—that the words would 1820 apply to the 3rd Part of the Schedule, and had never said one word about its applying to the others.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said, the hon. Member (Mr. Heneage) was quite mistaken as to what he (Mr. Balfour) had said.

§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
said, he objected to these recriminations, and denied that the Division was a snatch one. It had come on at "a reasonable hour," in the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself, as it came on between half-past 12 and 1 o'clock. It was inaccurate, therefore, to talk about it having been a snatch Division.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) could not have had any intention of conveying an invidious meaning, because he (Mr. Gladstone) was sure that nothing could have been more straightforward than the whole proceeding last night. The idea the hon. Member was justified in conveying was that the Division was one of inferior authority, as expressing the sense of the Committee, because it was undoubtedly true that many hon. Members had left the House under the belief that there was no further question of the character of that they had been discussing previously to be considered. The Government reserved to themselves the right to further consider this subject.

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
said, the value of the improvement to an incoming tenant would depend, to a great extent, on the length of the tenancy to be granted to him. If a tenant took a lease of a farm, say, for seven or 14 years, the value of many of the improvements would be far greater to him than it would be if he had only entered upon a yearly tenancy; and that was a view the Government would do well to take into their consideration. An Amendment had been given Notice of by the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham), to the effect that it should be the increased value of the holding, or something like that. As to the Amendment carried last night, it was spoken of as somewhat trivial; but, to his (Mr. James Howard's) mind, it struck at the very principle of the Bill. The principle upon which the Bill was framed was payment by results, and the effect of the Proviso 1821 carried last night would be to restore the old system of payment by the unexhausted value of the occupaucy. He hoped the Government would seriously consider the question whether, if this Proviso were inserted, it was worth while to go on with the Bill. For his own part, if he had anything to do with it, he would throw up the measure, and leave the responsibility of its failure with the Tory Party. The Government had brought forward a very moderate measure—a measure much too moderate in the opinion of a great many hon. Members—and yet, forsooth, the Tory Party, who pretended to be entirely satisfied, sought on the very first clause to strike at the very root and principle of the Bill. ["No, no!"] The hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) said "No, no!" but they on that side of the House said "Yes, yes!" The Proviso was reactionary. He could corroborate what had fallen from the Prime Minister that many hon. Members left the House last night from that (the Ministerial) side of the House under the impression that this question was settled as to principle. More than one hon. Member had appealed to him (Mr. James Howard) whether they might not then leave.

§ COLONEL KINGSCOTE
said, he did not wish to detain the Committee for more than a moment, as he felt the quicker they got on with the Bill the better; but he really could not listen to what had fallen from the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. James Howard) without saying a word. The hon. Member seemed to him to be like a spoilt child, and to be anxious to spill the whole of the cup of tea, because he could not have his own way with it. He (Colonel Kingscote) had moved his Amendment yesterday at half-past 8 o'clock. Shortly afterwards the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey) had asked him if he could not accept what was very much of the character of the Amendment afterwards moved and carried by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour). He (Colonel Kingscote) had risen several times to catch the Chairman's eye, to say that he would accept the Amendment. If he had had an opportunity, he would have incorporated the words in his Amendment 1822 before the Question was put to the vote, because he thought the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had quite understood his argument as regarded the proposal.

§ MR. DODSON
said, he hoped the Committee would now be allowed to close the discussion upon this clause, and proceed with the consideration of the remaining provisions of the Bill. They had had some interesting confessions from his hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard), who appeared to have been following some bad advice. He would not, however, notice them further; but he had one word to say in reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), in regard to the meaning of the words "value of improvements" to an incoming tenant. The Government believed that the words they had provided amply secured to the outgoing tenant the full value of his improvements, and that no consideration could enter into the question as to whether an incoming tenant was a tenant from year to year or a tenant upon a lease. The outgoing tenant was, for all purposes, secured the full value of his improvements, and the full measure of the improvements as they stood. As to the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) in regard to the Amendment adopted last night, he (Mr. Dodson) distinctly stated, on introducing the Bill, and he thought again in moving the second reading, that the Government attached great importance to value as the measure of compensation, and they still retained the opinion that value was the most just and equitable mode of assessing compensation under the Bill. Their desire was not necessarily to limit the compensation to the maximum of outlay incurred by the tenant. He would not discuss the matter further, but would only remind the Committee of the importance which the Government attached to that proposition. In reference to what was said to have fallen from his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works last night, what he (Mr. Dodson) believed to have been stated by his right hon. Friend was not that compensation ought not to exceed the outlay, but that there 1823 were not many cases in which compensation would exceed the outlay. That was a totally different matter.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
said, he wished to explain. He did not know that he had attributed to the right hon. Gentleman the statement that compensation ought to exceed the outlay. If he had done so, he would acknowledge that he had made a mistake. What he intended to convey was that, judging from the speeches which had been made on the Front Bench, the Committee were justified in forming a conclusion that that was the view of the Government.

§ MR. JESSE COLLINGS
said, he wanted to say one word, in reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), as to the consensus of opinion on the part of the tenant farmers in limiting the compensation to the actual outlay. That opinion might be universal, when made in public, with the landlords present; but he possessed a certain number of friends who were tenant farmers, and he had received numerous letters from them, from which he found that not one of them attached much, if any, value to this clause, even as it originally stood. What value it now possessed, as amended, he would leave to hon. Members to consider. For his own part, he would join with the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard) in asking the Government if they did not think it worth while to withdraw the Bill altogether, because, as far as the tenant farmers of England were generally concerned, it had become a mockery and delusion to them. He believed there was not one in a dozen of tenant farmers who would benefit by the Bill. It might, however, be wise to pass it, from this point of view, that the passing of the Bill, with this clause in it, would be the signal for the commencement of an agitation on the part of the tenant farmers of England to secure their rights. [Cries of"Oh!"] Well, time would show whether that was the case or not. [Cries of"Divide!"] Hon. Members were impatient; but he had no desire to speak long. He could fully understand that they failed to appreciate the point of his remarks. The Bill, as it now stood, with this clause in it, would be of no use to the tenant, unless he happened to be a tenant who was relinquishing business and giving up farming 1824 altogether. So far as the 1st and most important part of the Schedule was concerned, nothing was altered at all. The tenant and the landlord would be precisely in the same position they were in before, perfectly free to make contracts between themselves; but with regard to the 2nd and 3rd part of the Schedule, what would be the effect of the clause? He would put a case. Suppose a tenant farmer were to lay out £1,000, although it was not very likely that many tenant farmers would lay out £1,000 just now; but supposing a tenant farmer did so, and by that means made the letting value of the farm worth £100 a-year more. In that case, the landlord could come down upon the tenant, and demand £100 a-year more rent; and, on the tenant refusing to pay it, he would have to leave the farm and receive his £1,000. Well, he left the farm, and the landlord then got £100 a-year more rent upon an outlay of £1,000. Consequently, instead of there being an inducement to the tenant to improve his farm, the clause rather gave a premium to a certain class of landlords to get rid of their tenants, in order that they might replace them by persons who would pay more rent. How would that principle work if it were applied to the ordinary commercial concerns of life? If a man invested £1,000, he not only wished to secure the money he had laid out, but to secure that which was the object of laying it out—namely, the profit upon the £1,000. But if, after he had made it a profitable investment, another person came in, and was able to oust him, by paying the £1,000 he had laid out, how much capital would be in the future invested on such conditions? If the investor lost all, very well; he would bear the loss himself; but if he made a profit, then someone else was to get the benefit of his investment. Therefore, as far as this clause afforded an inducement to the tenant to invest extra capital upon the land, it would act in a directly opposite way. He thought, notwithstanding all the solemn platitudes which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had favoured them with, in respect of the tenant farmers' interests in the Bill, there were no grounds whatever for the conclusions of the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Jesse Callings) took it that, the object 1825 of the Bill was to benefit the tenant farmers of England generally; and he would ask the Prime Minister and the Government, after their condemnation of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875, what was the meaning of the great promises they had made to the tenant farmers? Did they intend to persevere with the measure, which not even the occupants of the Front Bench could make appear in the eyes of the tenant farmers to be anything more than a mere sham and a make-believe? He would conclude, as he had begun, by saying that the only tenant who would be benefited by the Bill would be the tenant who was relinquishing farming; and, in that case, he would get something which he would not get as the law now stood.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, he intended to oppose the insertion of the clause, and he would state, very briefly, the reasons which induced him to do so. Looking at the Bill, as it would be read by valuers, he did not think the explanations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster were satisfactory. In the next place, the clause altogether was of a very unsatisfactory nature. He was quite willing to admit that the Bill had been received with a certain amount of favour by the tenant farmers, not so much for what it was, as for what it might be made; but as far as the discussion of the Bill had gone, instead of the character of the measure improving, it had been made worse. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were called the "farmers friends," instead of doing anything for the benefit of the farmers, had studiously set themselves to work to minimize the small concessions which had been made by the Government. He had no doubt, from the discussion which had already taken place, that hon. Gentlemen opposite grudged the little the Government proposed to give, and what they did propose to give was exceedingly little indeed. He did not think that the clause would do anything whatever to settle the question. It would not work at all satisfactorily, either for the landlord or for the tenant. The great object of the Bill was to stimulate and improve the cultivation of the soil, and this clause would entirely fail to produce that effect. Speaking for himself, he should desire to accept the clause 1826 as a settlement of the question; but, as he had said, it would do nothing whatever to settle it. It simply showed the tenant farmers that they had as little to expect from a Liberal Government as from their Tory Predecessors. He was sorry that it was so; but he considered it his duty, representing to some extent tenant farmers, to point this out to the House, so that it might not be said hereafter that they had passed a Bill, the provisions of which were accepted without remonstrance from any section of the House. He should certainly divide against the clause, on the ground that it was altogether unsatisfactory to the tenant farmers of England, and that it would fail to attain the objects which the Government professed to have in view. In point of fact, it would only tend further to unsettle the relations between landlord and tenant, without doing anything whatever towards effecting a permanent settlement.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he wished to ask for some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. Dodson). He did not intend to be a farmer's friend in the sense of hon. Gentlemen opposite, because there was nothing Communistic in his principles. He had, himself, moved for a Committee on this subject in 1848, and he had not only carried the Committee, but he had moved the Chairman of it into the Chair. He did not think that the present measure deserved the reflections which had been cast upon it by the Friends of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; but he wanted to know what they were to understand in regard to the duties of the arbitrators? Were the arbitrators to take into consideration the state of the farm, when the outgoing tenant entered upon the tenancy; or were they to take into consideration any abatement of rent, made in order that the landlord might participate in the improvements, because, in his own case, he (Mr. Newdegate) was at present taking no rent. He was giving up the rent, in order that he might have his share in the value of the improvements.

§ MR. BORLASE
said, he would venture to make an appeal to the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) not to persevere with his idea of dividing the House in favour of the rejection of the clause. In making this 1827 appeal, he (Mr. Borlase) would point out that the Government, from the very beginning, had been actuated by good intentions. He could only repeat what he had said at the outset, that he did not think the Bill would satisfy the tenant farmers of England fully, because it would not give them full and absolute security; but it would give them some security, and it would make their position better. Although this clause had been mutilated, no doubt the farmers would readily recognize the quarter of the House from which that mutilation had come. It was the same quarter from which it had so often come before; and Her Majesty's Government, while doubtless regretting the decision arrived at last night, were, in his opinion, in no way responsible for it. He could not support the hon. Member for Forfarshire, and he trusted that the hon. Member would not persist in his opposition to the clause.

§ Question put.

§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 241; Noes 19: Majority 222.—(Div. List, No. 211.)

§ As to Improvements executed before the Commencement of Act.

§ Clause 2 (Restriction as to improvements before Act).

§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD
said, he had an Amendment upon the Paper to move, which was of considerable importance, and on which a number of other Amendments depended. It was one which, he thought, ought to receive the careful consideration of the Committee. The Prime Minister, in speaking of this measure, always spoke of it as a Tenants' Compensation Bill; and nobody present during the Sitting that day would be of opinion that undue consideration was being displayed for the interest of the tenants. The impression out-of-doors would be that the Committee, as far as they had hitherto gone, had been somewhat severe upon the tenant. The main object of the Bill was to enable the tenant to obtain compensation for his improvements; and the object of this Amendment was to include the case of the occupying tenant. Some hon. Members called him a "sitting tenant;" but he (Mr. Arthur Arnold) preferred to speak of him as the "occupying tenant," and the Amendment would 1828 include improvements executed under Part I. and Part II. of the Schedule during the period of occupation, and would make such improvements come within the purview of the Bill. As the clause at present stood, it was applicable only to improvements executed under Part III. of the Schedule, and any improvements which the occupying tenant performed under Part I. and Part II. of the Schedule would not come under the operation of the Bill. This would inflict upon the tenant a very considerable hardship; and he thought that it would inflict upon the landlord also a very considerable inconvenience. In the case of the tenant the hardship would be this—that when the Bill became law it would be the habit of the landlord or his agent to inform the tenant that he must have strict reference to the law of the land, and to nothing else. In other cases there would be this inconvenience—that when the quitting tenant came up for compensation there would be some improvements that would have been executed before the passing of the Act, and that would involve in the case of every claim arising under the Act considerable inconvenience. The Committee would observe that, in subsequent Amendments which he had placed upon the Paper, he had limited the proposal very strictly. He proposed, in such of the cases as came under Part I. and Part II. of the Schedule, the latter part referring only to drainage, that the improvements executed before the passing of the Act should only come under the operation of the Act where the tenant was in possession of the written consent of the landlord. That, he thought, was important, and would give a limitation, which he hoped would recommend itself to the Committee. He might also observe that the limitation which had been introduced that day by the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) in Clause 1 had an important bearing on the Amendment now before the Committee, because it limited distinctly the claim the tenant would have in case of a written agreement with the landlord. Supposing a tenant was now in possession of a letter from his landlord informing him that he might execute improvements under Part I. or Part II. of the Schedule. But for the Amendment of the hon. Baronet there might be a question raised whether 1829 he should also have the value of any improvement arising from the inherent qualities of the soil; but the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman precluded that possibility, and was an argument in favour of the Amendment which he (Mr. Arnold) now proposed. There were other consequential Amendments; but he would propose, in the first instance, in the first line of the clause, to leave out the word "not."

§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, to leave out the word "not."—(Mr. Arthur Arnold.)

§ Question proposed, "That the word 'not' stand part of the Clause."

§ MR. PUGH
said, he wished to make a practical suggestion to Her Majesty's Government before they proceeded with this clause, and it was that they should withdraw it altogether. There were already 20 Amendments down upon the Paper in regard to it. He failed to see what could be the object of the clause. There was a provision in the 3rd clause of the Bill, in regard to the improvements mentioned in the 1st Part of the Schedule, that no compensation could be made for them, unless the landlord had given his consent to the improvements being made in writing. Then, also, with regard to the 2nd Part of the Schedule, which referred to drainage only, it was also provided that compensation should not be given to the tenant, unless he had, within three months of beginning to execute the improvement, given to the landlord notice in writing of his intention to do so. The Government were willing that the tenant, under the Bill, should receive compensation for all improvements which came within the 3rd Part of the Schedule, supposing that he was not already entitled, under any contract of custom, or under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875, to compensation in respect to such improvements. Then, in the 26th clause, it was provided that the compensation under the Act should be exclusive compensation, and that the tenant should not be entitled to claim compensation, by custom or otherwise, than in the manner authorized by the Act. He, therefore, put it to Her Majesty's Government, whether it would not be much better to withdraw the clause, so as to get rid in one sweep of 20 Amendments, and be able to go on with the remaining provisions of the 1830 Bill? He was perfectly satisfied that the Bill could not be satisfactory, unless it could be materially altered in regard to the 1st clause, especially after the Amendment carried last night.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, that, in his opinion, there was great force in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Pugh). The clause, as it stood, would only apply to improvements comprised in the 3rd Part of the Schedule, made before the commencement of the Act, and not already covered by contract, or custom, or by the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875. Therefore, it would apply to comparatively few cases; and yet, for the sake of these few cases, which, after all, would be out of date within a very few years from the present time, they were to adopt the very dangerous principle of retrospective legislation. He would put it to the Government if it was really worth while to insist upon the clause; and whether the benefit to the tenant would at all compensate for the objections to the principle he had named?

§ MR. DUCKHAM
said, he shared, to some extent, the opinion which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), and the object of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be clearly seen in some further Amendments of which he (Mr. Duckham) had given Notice. He felt that there were a large number of tenant farmers in the Kingdom, who would look with a great amount of disfavour upon any provisions which forbade them from obtaining retrospective compensation, both for ordinary, as well as for permanent improvements. He certainly thought that men who had gone on from year to year improving their holdings should be encouraged in their efforts rather than disheartened. He was personally acquainted with many cruel cases, where men had laid out their capital in permanent improvements, and done a great deal to increase the value of the property of which they had been the tenants, yet, as soon as they were removed by death, their wives and families had been turned adrift, because they had no political standing in the country. It was highly important to make the operation of the clause retrospective, and therefore he should support the Amendment.

1831

§ MR. DODSON
said, he could not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Pugh) in regarding this clause as an unimportant one. It would affect a large number of tenants who were not secured either by the Agricultural Holdings Act, or in any other way. It must also be considered in respect of tenants who were not secured as to improvements, who might have to leave their holdings during the next two or three years, before they had time to renew existing contracts. They had effected improvements during their occupancy, and it was right that they should be compensated for them. There was also the case of leases, the holders of which would not be entitled to compensation, unless this clause were inserted. Therefore, it was an extremely important clause in that point of view. In regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), he observed that it strictly limited the clause to cases where the landlord had given his consent in writing; but there might be cases in which the landlord's consent in writing had not been given to past improvements, although there was an understanding as to payment. He was, therefore, unable to see the meaning of the Amendment. Without some reservation, it would be very unjust; because they were going to require the landlord's consent in the future, and, therefore, à fortiori, in the past. But if there had been a written consent on the part of the landlord, there must have been some agreement as to payment.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
said, he hoped the Government would not withdraw the clause. He could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) had, to some extent, misinterpreted it. The effect of the clause appeared to him to be to place some restriction on the compensation to be given for improvements made before the passing of the Bill; because, were it not for the clause, all improvements made before the passing of the Bill would be compensated for. There was some considerable interference by the Bill as it stood already with existing contracts; but that interference was limited solely to improvements under the 3rd Part of the Schedule. He was ready to accept the interference with contracts, as far as it went; but he should be sorry to see it go further. He 1832 thought, if the Bill gave no compensation for improvements under the 3rd head of the Schedule, in all existing arrangements, it would be, to a great extent, unsatisfactory to the farmers, and would fail to settle the question. He was, therefore, prepared to accept the interference as far as it went, but no further.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, he quite agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) that, if this clause was not amended, it would be received with considerable disfavour by the tenant farmers. A large number of the tenants had expected that the Government measure would give them compensation for their improvements. Many farmers had expended large sums of money upon improvements, and they were in hopes that any measure introduced by the Government would give them the fair value of such improvements in the shape of compensation. The right to obtain compensation for improvements was one of the main principles of the Bill; and, on that ground, the measure itself had been accepted with favour by the farmers, not because it was what it was, but on account of what it might be made. If these Amendments were not accepted, it would shut out a very large number of farmers from compensation. He should like to hear an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. Dodson) as to what difference there was in the principle of compensation for improvements under the 3rd Part of the Schedule, and for improvements under the 1st and 2nd Parts? His own opinion was that the principle was the same in both cases, and he failed to see why it should not be applied by the Government to both cases alike. Part III. of the Schedule, according to the representation of the right hon. Gentleman, required the incoming tenant to pay the outgoing tenant for improvements effected in the holding without the consent of the landlord; but improvements under the 1st and 2nd Parts of the Schedule required the consent of the landlord, because the right hon. Gentleman said they imposed a burden upon the landlord. He (Mr. J. W. Barclay) did not see that they imposed any burden whatever upon the landlord. The question before the Committee was not whether the landlord should be entitled to confiscate, without 1833 compensation, the increased value of the land due to the tenant's improvements in the past. He defied any hon. Member to say that that would not be the effect of the clause as it stood. The Bill provided, in the 1st clause, that the tenant should receive compensation only for the increased value of the land due to his improvements. The question arose, whether the tenant, having made improvements in the past, without any compulsion upon him to do so, and without any agreement with his landlord, would get the fair value of such improvements, or whether the improvements themselves were to be confiscated by the landlord without awarding to the tenant any compensation whatever? That was the real question raised by his hon. Friend—namely, whether the tenant, having erected, for instance, a building on his holding, which was likely to be of considerable value to his successor, the landlord was to be at liberty to confiscate that building, and compel the tenant to leave the holding without receiving any compensation whatever for it; or whether the tenant was to be entitled to the fair value of the improvement he had effected? He thought that was a very important question, and he hoped the Government would give some explanation why they did not deal with Parts I. and II. of the Schedule, in the same way as they proposed to deal with Part III. Certainly, if no satisfactory explanation were given, he hoped his hon. Friend would take a Division, and he should be happy to support him as a protest against the confiscation by the landlord of the permanent improvements effected by the tenant.

§ MR. DODSON
said, he would at once give an answer to the question of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), as to the reason why a distinction was made in regard to the improvements in the 1st and 2nd Parts of the Schedule and those which came under the 3rd Part. But although he could give the hon. Member an answer, whether that answer would be one which was satisfactory to the hon. Member was more than he could undertake to say. He could only hope that it would be; but before explaining the distinction, he would point out to the hon. Member that the particular items included in the Schedule were still open to discussion, when they reached the 1834 Schedule. The object aimed at in making a distinction between the 3rd and the other Parts of the Schedule was that the improvements contained in the 1st and 2nd Parts of the Schedule were of a nature which would affect substantially the character of the holding; and the Government thought that a person who was the occupier of the holding for a short time should not be at liberty to execute works which might entirely alter the character of the holding, without having, in the first instance, received the consent of the owner for doing so. That was the reason why, as to works executed in the future, the consent of the owner to their execution was required. If they were executed by the tenant, without the consent of the owner, they would be executed at the tenant's own risk. He now came to this particular clause, which provided that in the case of improvements before the Act compensation should not be payable, except where the tenant had, before the commencement of the Act, made an improvement mentioned in the 3rd Part of the Schedule, and was not entitled under any contract or custom, or under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875, to compensation. The 3rd Part of the Schedule applied to acts of what might be called high husbandry—improvements which might have been executed without the landlord's consent, and without coming under any existing contract or custom of the country. Improvements under the 1st and 2nd Parts of the Schedule were excepted from the clause, for the reason that, in regard to those improvements, they were of a character to require that the consent of the owner should have been previously given.

§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD
said, that the Amendment before the Committee was proposed, in order that the clause should refer to improvements under all the three heads.

§ MR. DODSON
said, the improvements included under the 1st Part of the Schedule were improvements of a permanent character; and, in that case, the consent of the landlord in writing was required. They were improvements altogether of a better class. The 2nd Part of the Schedule had reference only to drainage; and, in that case, the Bill required that notice should be given to the owner, in order that he might have the 1835 option, before any great and important work of drainage was carried out, of taking the duty upon himself, instead of leaving it to the tenant. Therefore, if there was any notice or arrangement as to drainage or improvements which came under the 1st Part of the Schedule, or any existing contract between the owner and tenant, it must be presumed that it would include also an agreement as to payment; and therefore improvements under both of these Parts had been exempted from the operation of the clause, which was intended only for improvements in husbandry.

§ COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISE
said, he agreed with the hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Pugh), and also with the right hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), that this clause might be very well omitted. It only asserted the principle that the tenant should not be entitled to compensation for improvements executed before the commencement of the Act, unless he was entitled under any contract, or custom, or under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875. He maintained that every tenancy in England at the present moment was either under contract, or custom, or under the Agricultural Holdings Act. What, then, remained to which the clause could be applied? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) said there were numerous tenancies to which the clause would apply in his own part of the country. Assuredly, if there were verbal arrangements, those verbal arrangements would not upset the Agricultural Holdings Act, and therefore he imagined it would be found that all these tenancies were really under the Agricultural Holdings Act. If the clause meant special arrangements made under the Agricultural Holdings Act, then he could understand it. He knew that many landlords had contracted themselves out of the Agricultural Holdings Act; but he was one of those who had never done so. He considered it unwise to do so. But if he had contracted himself out of the Act he should consider it very hard that this clause should come in now, and say that all he had done for the last five or six years should be set aside. He was of opinion, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would inform him whether he was right or wrong, that the clause would only apply to those holdings in 1836 regard to which the landlord had made arrangements to contract himself out of the Agricultural Holdings Act. If that was so, he could understand the question; because, in that case, there would be a principle involved in it. Otherwise, he thought the clause was altogether unnecessary.

§ SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEY
said, what he gathered from the clause was that it proposed to apply to improvements in regard to which there was no arrangement or custom in the country applicable, or which did not come under the Agricultural Holdings Act, where improvements had been effected which were not provided for in any other way, the tenant might ask for compensation under the present Bill.

§ MR. PUGH
said, he did not wish that there should be any doubt as to his views. Hs was far from desiring to deprive the tenant of the power of getting any compensation he might be entitled to under the clause. All he said was, that the tenant would get exactly the same compensation without the clause at all. If he was entitled to anything by custom, or by agreement, or under the Agricultural Holdings Act, provision was made for compensating him under other clauses of the Bill. The Government said that if a tenant did not get compensation in any of those ways for improvements which came under the 3rd Part of the Schedule, he would be entitled to have it under this clause; but he thought that case was provided for by the 1st clause, which ran as follows:— Subject as in this Act mentioned, where a tenant has made on his holding an improvement comprised in the Schedule hereto, he shall, on and after the commencement of this Act, be entitled on quitting his holding at the termination of a tenancy to obtain from the landlord as compensation under this Act for such improvement such sum as fairly represents the value of the improvement to an incoming tenant. He thought that clause made full provision for every case in which the tenant did not get compensation otherwise, and he could not see the use of going into the 20 Amendments which stood upon the Paper. The Bill began with a clause limiting the rights of the tenant, and it ended with a clause giving him rights under certain circumstances, and he maintained that nobody could show a case to which the Bill would not apply.

1837

§ MR. DODSON,
in answer to the assertion which had just been made by the hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Pugh), begged to say that the Government did attach importance to this 2nd clause, for the reasons he had already stated. No doubt, it was perfectly true, as the hon. Member said, that the 1st clause enacted that where a tenant had made any improvement upon his holding he should have a general right to compensation. The words of the clause were— Subject as in this Act mentioned, where a tenant has made on his holding any improvement comprised in the Schedule hereto, he shall, on and after the commencement of this Act, be entitled," &c. But an Act of Parliament was generally held to date from the time of its commencement; and, unless the Committee accepted this clause, the 1st clause would be ambiguous, and would give rise to disputes as to the intentions of Parliament. It might bear the construction the hon. Member had placed upon it; but that construction would be left in doubt.

§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD
would like to say a word before the Committee went to a Division upon the Amendment, in reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). The right hon. Gentleman had put the matter as he (Mr. Arthur Arnold) proposed it, quite accurately. But he did not propose a mere improvement in the words of the clause so far as the acts of the landlord were concerned. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that in such cases as those which he (Mr. Arnold) contemplated there was generally, if not always, an agreement. Now, they did not sit in that House to make laws for good men, but to make laws for bad men. They were legislating for cases which he hoped would be quite exceptional in regard to the English, Irish, or Scotch landlords; but it was their duty to prevent the possibility of a repudiation by the landlord of any understanding which might be regarded as a common understanding between landlord and tenant. A tenant might ask his landlord if he might do this, that, or the other—whether he might lay down a pasture, or cut down a hedge, or fill up a ditch, and the landlord might give him a written consent; 1838 but there might be no provision in that consent for compensation, and there were hundreds and thousands of improvements made by tenants that were not included in any agricultural custom of the country. Therefore, the agricultural custom of the country did not apply to all cases. He thought the objections of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster might be met by a subsequent Amendment to provide that the improvements should relate to the same kind of husbandry as that which had hitherto been practised upon the holding.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
said, that, in his opinion, the remarks of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) contradicted themselves. The hon. Member talked of inflicting injustice on tenants, and in the following sentence said he was happy to think that there were very few landlords who would inflict any injustice at all.

§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
said, he was certain that the expression thousands of improvements made by tenants had escaped the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) accidentally. The hon. Member had mentioned certain cases, such as that of a tenant grubbing a hedge, or filling a ditch; but the hon. Member seemed to forget that the land which the tenant obtained from such operations was not charged for by the landlord as a rule, but went into the farm. In regard to other improvements, he would appeal to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard) to corroborate what he was about to say. The tenant went to the landlord and said, for instance—"I am anxious to lay down a portion of land in permanent pasture; but it is not worth my while unless I get some assistance from you." What was the assistance generally given? It was that the landlord found the seed, and the tenant found the labour; and he thought it would be found in most of these cases that equivalent value was given by the landlord to that which was given by the tenant. He should like to know whether some words could not be introduced into the Bill limiting the length of time in regard to which the retrospective action of the measure was to hold good? In the Bill at present there was nothing of the kind, except in the case of the landlord, who, by Clause 6, would be unable 1839 to obtain compensation for waste by the tenant, or a breach by the tenant committed or permitted in relation to a matter of husbandry for more than four years before the termination of the tenancy, After the passing of Clause 2 the tenant might say that he had done certain things in regard to the land, and he might make a claim upon the landlord for compensation, although the whole value of his improvements might be already exhausted. Therefore, when they were bringing up a clause which proposed something altogether new in the legislation of the country, because retrospective clauses or allowances had not been generally proposed or accepted by the House, he certainly thought that some time ought to be fixed as a limit to the period during which the improvements had been made.

§ COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISE
said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had not condescended to answer the question he (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) had put to him. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had, however, answered it in part when he said that hundreds and thousands of cases occurred of improvements made by the tenant in which there was no custom whatever. Now, he (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) was not aware that there were many instances in the country where there was not a custom of some kind or other in force. As far as his own knowledge went, he knew of no district in which there was not some kind of agricultural custom or other; and, that being so, would the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster tell him that the clause was to apply only to districts where there was no custom, or where the landlord had contracted himself out of the Agricultural Holdings Act?

§ MR. DODSON
said, he was afraid he could add nothing by way of explanation to the hon. and gallant Member opposite, beyond referring him to the words of the section itself—namely, where— He is not entitled under any contract, or custom, or under the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875, to compensation in respect of such improvements, then, on quitting his holding at the termination of the tenancy, &c.

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
said, the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member 1840 for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had appealed to him upon a practical point; but the hon. and gallant Baronet had really raised two points, in regard to which he had certainly not displayed a very considerable knowledge of the subject. ["Oh, oh!"] He did not say that offensively, because universal knowledge did not fall to the lot of any man. The hon. and gallant Baronet said that if a tenant grubbed up a hedge, and thus recovered land, there was no extra charge of rent made for that land. The hon. and gallant Baronet did not seem to be aware of the fact that the fences were invariably measured in a farmer's land; and, therefore, the rent the tenant was paying would cover all the fences before they were grubbed up. The hon. and gallant Baronet did not know, but he (Mr. James Howard) did, that the grubbing up of fences was generally a most expensive and a most unremunerative operation as far as the tenant was concerned. When a question of compensation was raised the valuer would take all the circumstances of the case into consideration. The clause now under consideration recognized the right of the tenant to be paid for improvements after the Bill came into operation; but they excluded him from getting compensation for improvements of a permanent character. Permanent improvements were of a very durable nature, and would enhance the value of the estate to the owner of it long after they were effected. Therefore, he did not see any reason why the clause should exclude improvements under the 1st and 2nd Parts of the Schedule.

§ MR. ALBERT GREY
said, it seemed to him that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) was a fair and reasonable one. Wherever a tenant had obtained the written consent of the landlord to execute certain improvements, but there was no agreement to secure compensation, he ought to be able to obtain compensation under the present Bill; and he was, therefore, in favour of giving the tenant, where there was no agreement, a fair amount of compensation under the Act. At the same time, he was in favour of providing that, where the tenant had made a strict agreement with his landlord as to the manner in which compensation should be awarded, that then the compensa- 1841 tion should be paid in accordance with the agreement. He understood the object of the hon. Member for Salford was to apply the Amendment only to the case of tenants who had made improvements for which they had received the express written consent of the landlord, but who had neglected to make any agreement to secure the manner in which the compensation was to be paid.

§ MR. DUCKHAM
said, the hon. and gallant Member for East Essex (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) had told the Committee that in most parts of the country some kind of custom or other prevailed, and that, where compensation was not otherwise secured, it would be secured to the tenant by the custom of the country. Now, he (Mr. Duckham) himself believed that there were many instances in which improvements had been effected by the tenant, under a tacit understanding with his landlord, without being assured that he would be entitled to claim compensation. That was certainly not the rule, however; but it often happened, when the landlord and tenant were looking round a farm, waiting, perhaps, for the agent, that the tenant would suggest certain measures for the improvement of the estate, and would then proceed, in consequence of what occurred in the conversation, to carry out such improvements entirely under a verbal agreement. That was often the case as far as his experience went. It was quite the exception, and not the rule, for the tenant to ask the landlord to retire into the house, so that he might obtain a written authority for carrying out improvements which both the landlord and the tenant agreed would be of considerable advantage to the estate. He hoped the Government would consider the equity of extending the provisions of the Bill to all improvements which might have been effected by the tenant since the passing of the Agricultural Holdings Act. It was well known that many families were turned out of their holdings for very trifling causes. It was only yesterday that he saw, in an agricultural paper, a reference to the case of a large number of tenants in an important agricultural county who had got at variance with their landlords in consequence of the Hares and Rabbits Bill. These were no imaginary cases whatever, and he hoped the equity of 1842 the matter would be considered by Her Majesty's Government.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to say that the Government excluded improvements under Parts I. and II. of the Schedule from the operation of the clause, because they might alter the character of the holding; but he (Sir Alexander Gordon) wished to point out that there might be many cases in which they would not alter the character of the holding; and he did not see why, in such instances, the tenant should not get compensation for them. So far as altering the character of the holding went, drainage works would not have that effect. If such works were done they must improve the estate. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that the arbitrators would only decide whether or not the outlay of the tenant had tended to improve the holding. He should certainly vote for the Amendment if it went to a Division.

§ MR. HENEAGE
said, he wished to know if it was not intended by the Act of 1875 to entitle the tenant to compensation for improvements, unless the landlord, by an honest agreement with the tenant, had contracted himself out of the Act? No doubt the Agricultural Holdings Act did not say so in so many words; but that evidently was the spirit and intention of the Act, and he did not think that any landlord who had not made a fair and honest agreement with the tenant would be much to be pitied. The clause, as it stood, simply referred to improvements which came under the 3rd Part of the Schedule; and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) was intended to include the improvements which came under the other two Parts of the Schedule. He (Mr. Heneage) ventured to think that the Amendment adopted by the Chamber of Agriculture was much better than the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford, and he would like to read it to the House. It was somewhat similar to the Amendment proposed to be moved later on by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell)—namely, after the words entitling the tenant to compensation, who was not entitled by contract or custom, or under the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875, in 1843 respect of improvements, to insert the words— Or when a tenant has executed an improvement mentioned in the 1st Part of this Schedule within ten years previous to the commencement of the Act, and he is not entitled under any contract or custom, or under 'the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875,'to compensation in respect of such improvements; and the landlord has within one year after the commencement of the Act consented in writing to the making of such improvement. He regarded that as a very fair Amendment towards the landlord, who must within one year have consented in writing to the improvement being made for which compensation was claimed. He intended to vote, however, for the Amendment now before the Committee as a protest against the clause, although he did not think that it was the best Amendment that could be suggested.

§ MR. DODSON
said, the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) appeared to be, as far as he had been able to catch it, a similar Amendment to that which had been placed on the Paper by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), except that the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire limited the improvement to the laying down of permanent pasture in the 1st Part of the Schedule. He thought the Amendment was well worthy of consideration, and it would receive careful consideration at the hands of the Government.

§ Question put.

§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 206; Noes 72: Majority 134.—(Div. List, No. 212.)

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR,
in moving, as an Amendment, to insert after the word "tenant," in line 18, the words "not holding under a lease," said, the Amendment was not on the Paper; but it was of so simple a character, and raised a question of such vital importance, that the Committee would pardon its not so appearing. If his Amendment were adopted, the clause would then read— Compensation under this Act shall not be payable in respect of improvements executed before the commencement of this Act, with this exception, that where a tenant, not holding under a lease, has before the commencement of this Act made an improvement," &c. &c. The result of the Amendment would be that no tenant holding under a lease 1844 would be able to claim compensation for improvements made before the passing of this Act. He admitted that the effect of the Amendment would not be very great, and he put it before the Committee not so much as a question between landlord and tenant, but more as a question of principle. He did not think the Committee sufficiently realized that they were at this moment engaged upon a Bill which deliberately broke through agreements made between persons who were perfectly competent to make agreements between each other. Let them take the case of a North-country farmer, who made an agreement with his landlord for 19 years. In that agreement all the conditions under which his farm was to be cultivated were carefully gone over between him and his landlord; and, therefore, it seemed a great violation of ordinary principles of legislation that the House should say—"Though you have made that agreement with your landlord for 19 years with every legal formality, nevertheless, in addition to that agreement, your landlord shall be obliged to give you something which you would not have been entitled to under the lease." Now, he put this Amendment before the Committee, as he had already said, as a question of principle, and he hoped the Government would consent to introduce the words he proposed.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, to insert, after the word "tenant," the words "not holding under a lease."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ MR. DODSON
said, he thought it better to rise at once, without a minute's delay, and state that the Government could not accept this Amendment. He entirely failed to see the difference in principle between a lease and a shorter tenancy; indeed, in law, there was no difference between them. A year-to-year tenancy was really a lease. Now, as to the injustice which the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) spoke of, if the lease or agreement, be it for a long or a short time, provided compensation for any of the scheduled improvements, that compensation would prevail. It was only in cases where there was no compensation provided that a tenant would be able to claim 1845 compensation for the first class of improvements under this Act. The Act only dealt with cases where no compensation was provided; and the case of compensation, by way of reduced rents, was dealt with in Section 6.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he must appeal to his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) not to press this Amendment. He did not think that it would even carry out the intentions of his hon. Friend. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) took it, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) had said, that a lease would mean a year-to-year tenancy, as well as an agreement for 19 years, or any other term of years. If his hon. Friend wished to raise a question as to the difference between a man holding from year to year, and a man who had a long lease, it would be well he should do so in another part of the Bill.

§ MR. THOMAS COLLINS
said, he objected altogether to the principle of the Amendment; a tenant from year to year had, perhaps, in reality, the longest form of lease he could possibly have.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said, that perhaps he might be able to explain to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) what was the distinction between a lease for a term of years which he contemplated, and a tenancy from year to year. Everybody who knew the system of English tenancies from year to year knew that such tenancies were liable to go on from father to son, that there was no reconsideration of the whole circumstances of the holding at stated times, as there generally was in the cases of leases. In the case of a lease, a landlord arranged with his tenant as to what was to be done, and what consideration had to be paid for it. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had said that a tenancy from year to year was a lease just as much as a 19 years' lease. Whatever it might be in law, he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was certain that no one in the House would believe that, in equity, the thing stood on the same footing. When a man entered into a 19 years' lease, he knew perfectly well that he was making a specific contract of a most binding character; and he did not see what contracts were to be con- 1846 sidered binding, if these were to be broken through. He was recommended by his right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) to withdraw his Amendment. As, however, he had put it before the Committee as a matter of principle, while he felt bound not to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, he must allow it to be negatived.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), who had moved the Amendment, had referred to the 19 year leases, and to the practice in Scotland. He (Mr. J. W. Barclay) understood that one of the great objects of the Bill was to remove one of the grievances under 19 year leases. It was hoped that this proposal of the Government would induce a tenant to farm well up to the end of his lease, so that this would be an advantage to the landlord. The proposal of the hon. Member opposite, however, would do away with that slight inducement to better farming. His only object in rising was to state that this was the real meaning of the proposal just submitted to them. It would be a very unfortunate thing if the Amendment were accepted.

§ Question put, and negatived.

§ MR. CARTWRIGHT,
in moving, as an Amendment, to leave out, in page 1, line 19, the word "third," and insert "second," said, the Amendment had reference to the Schedules; and the reason which induced him to propose it was that the clause, as now drafted, was not in unison or harmony with the spirit of the Bill. One of the great advantages of the Bill was that it had been drawn on simple lines. The measure, however, recognized the fact that in our agricultural system there were two interests which were distinct, though not conflicting—the interest of the landlord, as permanent owner of the soil, and the interest of the tenant, who was the cultivator in the development of the soil. All the improvements in the 1st Part of the Schedule were improvements which had always been considered at least to be within the province of the landlord as the permanent owner of the soil. The 3rd Part of the Schedule, however, related to operations necessary for the proper cultivation of the soil—operations which fell within the 1847 province of the cultivator. Now, the 2nd Part of the Schedule related to drainage, which was considered very necessary work, but in respect of which notice to the landlord was required to he given; in fact, it could not be carried out in defiance of the will of the landlord. It seemed to him (Mr. Cartwright), when he listened to the speech of his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), on the second reading of the Bill, that he attempted to justify that part of the Schedule by words the nature of which he really was not able to understand, because the right hon. Gentleman said that in anything calculated to alter the character of the holding the landlord ought to have a voice. He (Mr. Cartwright) did not hesitate to say that anyone who had a practical knowledge of farming must see that drainage was one of those operations which were calculated to affect the character of the holding to a very large extent. But when one talked of what work was necessary for the proper development of the holding, and said there was no difference between drainage and any other works comprised in the 1st Part of the Schedule, he was unable to see any distinction. He had placed his Amendment on the Paper with the view of bringing drainage within the province of the landlord; and he trusted that the Amendment would be favourably received by the Government.

§ Amendment proposed, in page l, line 19, leave out "third," and insert "second."—(Mr. Cartwright.)

§ Question proposed, "That the word 'third' stand part of the Clause."

§ MR. DODSON
said, that until his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright) had made his speech, he (Mr. Dodson) confessed he had not understood the object or intention of the Amendment on the Paper. He now learned that the hon. Gentleman's object in leaving out "third," in order to insert "second," was to get rid of the second class of improvements, and put drainage into the first class, leaving the third class of improvements to be called the second class. Now, drainage, and the provisions made with regard to drainage, were very legitimate subjects for discussion; and he did not doubt that when they came to the 4th clause, 1848 which referred to drainage, they would have full discussion upon it. It seemed to him, however, that it was exceedingly inconvenient to raise a discussion upon drainage upon such an Amendment as the present. The merits of the question which his hon. Friend wished to submit to the Committee would not be in any way prejudiced by allowing this clause to pass with the word "third" in it, because, of course, any alteration of the kind could be made on Report if thought necessary. He, therefore, appealed to his hon. Friend, in the interest of the convenience of the Committee, and in the interest of the important discussion which he (Mr. Cartwright) himself wished to raise, to consent to withdraw this Amendment, and defer the discussion until they reached the clause dealing with the point.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he thought the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright) could not do better than accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson). He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) quite understood the object of the hon. Member was to raise the question of requiring the previous consent of the landlord to drainage. The great majority of the Select Committee of last year entirely agreed in the view the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire had expressed. But, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had told them the question would not be prejudiced if the word "third" were left in the clause, he would advise his hon. Friend to consent to take the discussion subsequently.

§ MR. CARTWRIGHT
said, he should be glad to withdraw his Amendment, and to raise the point hereafter. He only raised it now because he thought it would simplify the discussion.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE CHAIRMAN
then called upon Mr. STAVELEY HILL, in whose name the next Amendment stood on the Paper; but the hon. and learned Gentleman was absent.

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
said, that when the Chairman called upon him a short time ago to move an Amendment which stood in his name, he waived his right to do so, hoping to be able to 1849 support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill). As, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman was not now in his place, he (Mr. James Howard) begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name—namely, in page 1, line 19, to leave out "third part of the." This 2nd clause recognized the justice of the claim of the tenant to compensation for improvements in the 1st Part of the Schedule, previous to the passing of this Act. He believed that was a just recognition; and it would be equally just if a tenant had a claim to compensation for durable and permanent improvements—improvements which he (Mr. Howard) explained a short time ago. He had heard no argument adduced why a tenant who had effected durable and permanent improvements should not have an equal claim to compensation as he had for those of a more temporary character. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Staveley Hill).

§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, to leave out the words "third part of the."—(Mr. James Howard.)

§ Question proposed, "That the words 'third part of the' stand part of the Clause."

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, that, if this Amendment were accepted, the effect would be that compensation would be given in respect of improvements of the first and second class, even though the consent of the landlord had not been previously given. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had moved that compensation should be given for such improvements where, before the passing of this Act, they had been done with the consent of the landlord. The Committee negatived that Amendment, and he presumed that they would scarcely assent to a very much wider proposition such as was now proposed. The question really had been already decided.

§ MR. PUGH
said, the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) must have forgotten the last words of the clause—namely, "as if this Act had been in force at the time of the execution of such improvements." It appeared to him (Mr. Pugh) 1850 that, if this Amendment were accepted, every protection would be afforded by Clauses 3 and 4. The consent of the landlord was required in regard to the improvements in the 1st Part of the Schedule, and notice was to be given to the landlord with regard to improvements in the 2nd Part of the Schedule. As a matter of fact, this Amendment would affect very few cases indeed. It seemed to him that the clause would really only prevent a man getting compensation under the 1st Part of the Schedule in very exceptional cases, and in cases where he (Mr. Pugh) was quite sure no Member of the Committee on this or that side of the House would wish to bar his right. Suppose a tenant wrote to him for leave, and he had replied—"Do it, by all means; and when I come down we will consider what is to be done." A tenant would thus have his consent; but he would not be able to enforce it against him. It was only cases of that kind which it was desired to meet.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
doubted whether the words proposed would have the effect intended.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, that, if the clause remained as it now stood, an improving tenant would be in a worse position after the Act was passed than he was in before; because the Committee was putting into the mouth of the landlord an argument against considering an equitable claim for compensation. If a tenant had improved his holding, and made an appeal to his landlord to give him compensation, his landlord would point to this clause in the Act, and say—"Under such circumstances, Parliament has said you must not be compensated." He (Mr. J. W. Barclay) did not think the Government wished to leave the tenant in a worse position than he was in at the present time; but, certainly, if the clause were passed in its present shape, such would be the effect. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had failed to give any explanation why the tenant should be compensated for improvements under the 3rd Part of the Schedule and not under the 1st and 2nd Part. The only explanation which occurred to him (Mr. J. W. Barclay) was that the compensation payable under the 1st and 2nd Parts of the 1851 Schedule would have to come out of the landlord's pocket. A landlord would get ample compensation under the terms of the Bill in the increased value of the holding, and the increased rent he would get for it from a new tenant. It was manifest that some hon. Members were very willing to give compensation to the tenant; but it was not to be at the expense of the landlord. And it was clear that, under the Bill, the determination of hon. Members was that tenant farmers who improved should get no compensation out of the property of the landlord. If this clause stood in its present shape, a landlord would be able to confiscate a tenant's improvements without giving him the slightest compensation.

§ MR. DODSON
said, he differed from the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) as to the interpretation he had put upon this Bill. The hon. Gentleman had said that the Committee were willing to give compensation so long as it did not come out of the landlords' pockets. He (Mr. Dodson) did not think it was necessary to answer such an argument. He would, however, say that the hon. Gentleman altogether failed in his argument. It was merely a question of arrangement whether the incoming tenant paid instead of the landlord—the landlord it was who would always be liable.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, that the improvements in the 3rd Part of the Schedule were most difficult to prove; indeed, so difficult of proof were they, that many agriculturists were of opinion that this clause would be quite unworkable.

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
contended that by his Amendment the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) sought to change the negative position of the clause into the positive. He (Mr. Howard) did not care to argue the legal aspects of the question, because he knew he would be greatly outdistanced; but he contended that the Government had not answered his contention. They had acknowledged that the claim of a tenant for compensation in respect of the third class of improvements was just; but they had not given the Committee any reason why a claim for compensation was not even more just as to the first and second class of improvements. He pressed the Government to 1852 give some explanation upon the point. If they failed to do so, the Committee were right in concluding that they had none to offer.

§ Question put.

§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 231; Noes 61: Majority 170.—(Div. List, No. 213.)

§ MR. PELL
said, he did not desire to move his Amendment precisely in the terms in which it was printed. It was a very simple, though a very important alteration he desired to make. He wished to move his Amendment with the omission of the words "by laying down of permanent pasture;" and to alter the word "from," after "one year," to "after." His Amendment would then read thus— Or when a tenant has executed an improvement mentioned in the first part of this Schedule within ten years previous to the commencement of the Act, and he is not entitled under any contract or custom, or under 'The Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875,'to compensation in respect of such improvement, and the landlord has within one year after the commencement of the Act consented in writing to the making of such improvement. The effect of his Amendment would be this—that wherever a tenant had executed an improvement to be found in the 1st Part of the Schedule, and the landlord himself was of opinion that it was an improvement to his property, the landlord should be able to place the tenant, who had executed such improvement before the commencement of the Act, precisely in the same position as if the improvement had been made immediately after the passing of the Act. There was nothing in the Amendment which interfered with the will of the landlord to refuse his consent, and thereby to cheat an improving tenant out of the operation of the Act. There might be a good many things done which the landlord might not regard as an improvement to his property. On the other hand, there might be a variety of acts done which many landlords would be glad to accept as improvements, and secure to the tenants compensation for them. But beyond that, there were many acts done by tenants which were improving acts, but the full benefit of which was not reached until some years had passed from the time when the improvement was commenced. 1853 Now, the improvement which he had specially in his mind was that of laying down permanent pasture. It was well known that if land had been laid down in permanent pasture a fair return was got for one or two years, but in three, or four, or five years, the land ran back again, and it was really only in the sixth, or seventh, or eighth years that the improvement began to manifest itself. What was true with respect to permanent pastures was also true in regard to fruit trees, and the making of gardens. In the county in which he had a little property, an arrangement had been made with the people holding gardens, to the effect that they should pay a reduced rent in respect to particular improvements; for instance, that for the first few years they should pay, say, £3, and that, in course of time, when the improvement had reached its height, the rent should be raised to £8. What happened in the case of permanent pasture also happened in the case of fences. The landlord really did not get the full benefit of such an improvement until the fence had grown, and was sufficiently strong to take care of itself. The first few years after the planting of a fence were expensive years to a tenant or to a landlord, because the fences required so much tending. In the case of the reclamation of waste land, an improvement was really not felt until some years after it had been commenced. Let them consider for a moment the position of a tenant who had made one of these improvements—who had laid down permanent pastures, or planted a garden—in 1883, and who did the same thing next year with the consent of his landlord, and after this Act was passed. Let them consider the extraordinary position in which such a man would be placed unless his (Mr. Pell's) Amendment were accepted. The landlord admitted, under both circumstances, that the act of a tenant was an improvement to his property; and he was willing, by giving his consent to the tenant, to execute the improvement to enable the tenant to secure to himself the reward of his improvements; but, unless this Amendment or something similar to it were accepted, the landlord would only be able to bring the Act into operation with respect to improvements made immediately after the passing of the Act, although his 1854 consent might have been given to the improvements made before the passing of the Act. Before he (Mr. Pell) sat down, he wanted to remove from the minds of his hon. Friends sitting around him the idea that there was anything in this Amendment which interfered with existing agreements. That would be the last thing in the world which he would desire. If a landlord thought that a tenant ought to have made such improvements without any compensation, or if he thought that an improvement was no improvement, or if he did not, for some reason or other, wish to charge an improvement upon an estate, what he (Mr. Pell) was anxious to do was to enable a landlord to deal equitably with his tenant. He thought he might appeal to his fox-hunting friends with regard to permanent pasturage. A great deal of land had been laid down to grass of late, owing to the character of the seasons. Men, in the Midland counties especially, felt they could not go on any longer growing wheat and corn, and they had made up their minds that it would be wiser, whether they were paid for it or not, to lay the land down to grass; and they had always felt that, before they left their farms, they would be at perfect liberty to break the land up again. That gave a tenant an inducement to do what was unwise. It was very much better to enable the landlord and tenant to come together and make an arrangement, which most people would admit was of permanent advantage to the land—to enable them to come to an agreement by which this permanent advantage would not be destroyed. He thought he had said all he could in reference to his Amendment, and now he submitted it to the better judgment of the Committee, again insisting that there was nothing in it whatever that interfered with existing contracts, or compelled a landlord to do that which he might not be disposed to do.

§ Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 22, after the word "improvement," to insert the words "or when a tenant has executed an improvement mentioned in the first part of this Schedule within ten years previous to the commencement of the Act, and he is not entitled under any contract or custom, or under 'The Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875,' to compensation in respect of such improvement, and the landlord has within one year after the commencement of the Act con- 1855 sented in writing to the making of such improvement."—(Mr. Pell.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ MR. HENEAGE
said, he was glad his hon. Friend (Mr. Pell) had altered his Amendment in regard to the 1st Part of the Schedule as to the laying down of permanent pasture. He was sorry, however, he had not made his Amendment apply to the 2nd Part of the Schedule, for he could not see why he had omitted drainage.

§ MR. PELL
said, he had done so because he was going to move to do away with the 2nd Part of the Schedule.

§ MR. HENEAGE
said, that that was a prospective Amendment which might not be proposed. He could not understand why the 2nd Part of the Schedule was to be omitted. If there was one improvement more than another that tenants were likely to do, if they thought they might possibly remain, it was to do a little drainage on their own account. Let them imagine the case of a man who died suddenly, and whose farm was obliged to be given up by his family. It was very hard if the man's widow or children would not get compensation for the drainage which he had done with the consent of his landlord. He (Mr. Heneage) could not see why drainage should be put in a different category to the improvements mentioned in the 1st Part of the Schedule; and he would move to amend the Amendment by inserting after the word "first," the words "or second." The Amendment would then read— Or when a tenant has executed an improvement mentioned in the first or second part of this Schedule.

§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "first," to insert the words "or second."—(Mr. Heneage.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he always listened to what fell from his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) with great deference, because he knew his authority on all agricultural subjects; but he confessed he could not gather from the arguments of the hon. Gentleman any reason for this Amendment 1856 excepting the one—namely, to enable a landlord to guard his property. He thought it would be admitted that the effect of the Amendment, in other respects, would be simply nil. His hon. Friend had pointed out that he had carefully guarded the rights of the landlord by requiring that the landlord should give his consent. What would happen? A tenant would come to a landlord, after the passing of this Act, and he would say—"I have made this improvement; I have put up this building; I have laid down this land in permanent pasture; I have done this drainage; will you allow me, on quitting my farm, to be compensated for these improvements?" It was purely at the option of the landlord to agree to do this, and he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) asked what was the use of legislation to enable him to do that? A landlord could agree or decline, without any law at all, and the Amendment would have no force whatever, as against those landlords for whom alone legislation was required—namely, the bad landlords. Therefore, what he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) hoped was this—that his hon. Friend would not now press those words, which, it seemed to him, were really illusory, because they did nothing except express a pious opinion that compensation should be given. They were objectionable, as suggesting a retrospective action. It would be better to raise the point in the 8th clause, which related to the power of the landlord to charge improvements. If a landlord chose to give his tenant compensation for any improvement of this kind, so he might do now without the Act coming into operation at all. There should be some provision which would enable him to charge the compensation.

§ MR. DODSON
said, he thought that in regard to his Amendment the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had been somewhat hardly dealt with by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). It did not appear to him that the words proposed were as illusory as the right hon. Baronet imagined. The Amendment would give power to a landlord to charge the estate for the compensation—[Mr. PELL: Compensation under the Act.]—and that was not altogether illusory with regard to the tenant who was seeking compensation, and would enable or facili- 1857 tate the consent of the owner. He (Mr. Dodson) would like to hear the matter further discussed, if the hon. Gentleman was inclined to adhere to the Amendment. The right hon. Baronet had suggested that the Amendment would come in more properly in Clause 8; but Clause 8 was only a clause which directed the Court to give power to charge for the compensation the previous clauses of the Bill had sanctioned. This was the time to say whether the compensation in view was one which was to be recognized by the Bill.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) must have omitted to observe, what his right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) expressly pointed out, that there was one advantage arising from the Amendment—namely, that it would give power to the landlord to charge the estate for the compensation. With the exception of this result it seemed to him (Mr. Chaplin) that his right hon. Friend was strictly right in saying that the words were illusory. The hon. Gentleman himself (Mr. Pell) said that the effect of his Amendment would be to enable a tenant to be put in the same position, if he made an improvement before the passing of the Act, as if he had made it after the passing of the Act. The landlord was able to put a tenant in that position now, so that the sole advantage that would be derived from the Amendment was that which was pointed out by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). He (Mr. Chaplin), however, saw no objection whatever to the passing of the Amendment, because he did not think it would do the slightest harm.

§ MR. PELL
said, his right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had hardly realized the full bearing of the Amendment. The effect of the Amendment would be, that a tenant having obtained the consent of his landlord to certain improvements made before the Act, might claim compensation under this Act in respect of those improvements. Now, if the right hon. Baronet and his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Chaplin) would look at Clause 7, they would at once see the effect of his Amendment. The effect they would see was that it would bring in all the rules of procedure. The Amendment would get rid 1858 of an enormous amount of difficulty with reference to a landlord giving his consent; and it would simplify the whole relations between landlord and tenant in respect of particular improvements. A tenant had power to claim compensation; but, having that power, he might come to an arrangement with his land-land if he thought fit, and then all the rules of procedure provided by Clause 7 would be brought into play. He, therefore, could not admit that the words he proposed were illusory.

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
said, that if the object of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) was solely to enable a landlord to charge the estate for compensation for these improvements, he would suggest the alteration of the latter part of the Amendment. It would be absurd to require a landlord, 10 years after the execution of an improvement, to consent to its being made, and he (Mr. James Howard) would suggest to the hon. Member (Mr. Pell) and to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson), that the latter part of the Amendment should read—" And the landlord, within one year after the commencement of the Act, consents in writing to compensate his tenant for such improvement."

§ MR. THOMAS COLLINS
said, that as the clause stood it could do no harm, but it might do good. They must take care that they did not make a clause compulsory which was now permissive.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
said, he thought the Amendment deserved more consideration than it had received. According to the Bill, as it at present stood, the procedure under Clause 7 was not to come in until there was a difference between the landlord and tenant; and one objection to the Amendment was, that it was entirely permissive. One landlord might give consent; but a neighbouring landlord might not give consent. It would be interpreted in different ways by different men, and the result would be fresh agitation; and, therefore, it would be better to make this power compulsory. The Amendment, as at first given Notice of, was open to objection, for it referred simply to the laying down of permanent pasture. The right hon. Gentleman had said that, at present, permanent pasture was laid down, and it would be an evil to break up the land; 1859 and the present occupier had no inducement to keep it down. But the present occupier had an inducement, for he could go to the landlord and say that, unless the landlord came to reasonable terms with him, he could break up the land at once. All who knew anything about laying down grass knew that, over a certain number of years, such land gradually increased in permanent value; and tenants had of their own free will turned arable land into pasture land. He was satisfied that the Amendment would lead to considerable difficulty, and he hoped it would be withdrawn.

§ MR. CARTWRIGHT
said, he believed that if the Amendment was carried the clause would be a bogus clause, containing no benefit to anybody. The utmost that could be said in favour of the Amendment was that, in some one case or other, it might do a little good. The justification for the Bill was that it was compulsory; but the Amendment was optional, and would render the clause simply sham and humbug.

§ MR. DONALDSON-HUDSON
said, he could see no objection to the Amendment, except that it appeared to be unnecessary. Suppose a tenant, having made improvements some years ago, went to the landlord and asked him to agree in writing to his coming under the Bill. The landlord would naturally say he did not wish to have anything to do with arbitrators or lawyers, and would suggest that they should settle between themselves how much he owed the tenant, and then they could agree in writing that the improvements should extend over a given number of years, and the tenant be compensated.

§ MR. M'LAGAN
said, he thought that, by the clause, many a proprietor would be willing to give advantages to a tenant. He did not approve of retrospective legislation, but he was inclined to support the Amendment. As to Clause 7, that would apply as much in this case as in the case of a proprietor, when the Act was passed. All that was wanted was that the consent of the proprietor should be given. The hon. Member for Mid Somerset (Mr. R. H. Paget) had said that the provision would only come into operation until the landlord and tenant differed; but if the landlord died, and any question arose, all that the tenant would need to do would be to produce the written consent, and show 1860 that he was entitled to compensation for improvements made before the passing of the Act.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, a good deal had been said as to a great number of cases in which tenants would have laid down improvements; but if landlords were disposed to make such arrangements in future, the clause, as it stood, would be harmless and yet do a little good.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, the whole object of the clause could be effected by a contract between a landlord and tenant; but it was evidently intended that the contract should extend over a certain number of years. The effect of the Amendment would be to fine an estate, and that being beyond the purview of the Bill, he should oppose the Amendment.

§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

§ Question put, That the words 'or when a tenant has executed an improvement mentioned in the first or second part of this Schedule within ten years previous to the commencement of the Act, and he is not entitled under any contract or custom, or under "The Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875," to compensation in respect of such improvement, and the landlord has within one year after the commencement of the Act consented in writing to the making of such improvement,' be inserted after the word 'improvement.'

§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 244; Noes 74: Majority 170.—(Div. List, No. 214.)

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON moved an Amendment, with the object of preventing a tenant from claiming compensation for boning, liming, or manuring, which he was bound to do under his contract. That was not the intention of the Act, and farmers did not wish to get paid for doing what they had contracted to do.

§ Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 25, after "improvement," insert "if it be in excess of that which he was bound to execute in fulfilment of any contract or in accordance with any custom."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ MR. DODSON
said, he did not think the Amendment would improve the clause. The matter was provided for by Clause 6.

1861

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, he was sure it was not intended that a farmer should have compensation for every ton of manure; but if the matter was provided for, he was quite satisfied.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he thought the point was one of some importance, and that it was not quite covered by Clause 6. All he found in that clause was, that any benefit which the tenant might obtain should be taken into account. That did not seem to cover this point; but the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Alexander Gordon) might raise the matter more effectually by proposing to introduce words in Clause 6 which would carry out his view.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, he would adopt that course.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON moved, as an Amendment, to insert words which should exclude compensation for any improvements executed after notice had been given to determine the tenancy. Hitherto, he said, the period of notice was six months, but now that was increased to 12 months; and he thought it more important to have these words in the Act, because it would not be fair, after a tenant had received notice to quit, he should go and purchase manures, and then be able to demand compensation.

§ Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 27, after "improvement," add "Provided, That no compensation shall be claimed by a tenant under this Act for any improvement executed after he has received notice from his landlord, or given to his landlord notice of an intention to bring the tenancy to an end, except as regards the consumption of feeding stuffs and holding."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)

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

§ MR. BIDDELL
said, he thought the Amendment would be very useful if limited to Parts I. and II. of the Schedule.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, he would suggest that the hon. and gallant Member should except Sub-sections 20 and 21.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, he would do that.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, he thought that, with the addition, the Amendment 1862 would improve the Bill, and might reasonably be introduced.

§ MR. DODSON
said, he thought it would be better to deal with the matter by a general provision later on.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, that if the Government would agree to do that, the whole case would be met. He thought that manure, as well as feeding stuffs, ought to be excluded; but there was another point. The Act of 1875 contained a useful provision, that in the last year of a tenancy, after notice had been given, the expenditure for manures and feeding stuff should not exceed the average of previous years.

§ MR. DODSON
said, the last point would require considerable consideration, and he could not commit himself to it now; but he would endeavour to bring up some general provision.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

§ MR. PUGH
said, he thought the clause answered no good purpose from any point of view, and he should, therefore, support its omission.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he should support the rejection of the clause if the hon. Member (Mr. Pugh) went to a Division, for the clause seemed to him to contain an objectionable retrospective principle, and, at the same time, was of no value to anyone who wanted to see that principle carried out.

§ MR. DODSON
said, the object of the clause was to give a tenant who was occupying a farm under an existing agreement compensation in cases in which he might not otherwise be entitled to it, either by contract, or custom of the Act of 1875. He hoped the Committee would agree to the clause.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
said, he was sorry to hear that his right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) intended to vote against the clause. It seemed to him that the presumption of law laid down by this clause was that old improvements were not to be paid for, with certain exceptions, which were afterwards specified in the Bill. There was a distinct limitation upon the compensation which might be claimed for improve 1863 ments in the future, and therefore he should support the clause.

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
said, he should oppose the clause, because he believed it would be both useless and mischievous. The Government had refused to recognize the necessity of giving security to the sitting tenant, notwithstanding the expression of opinions of hon. Members, and of eminent men outside the House. What had been their conduct in reference to the clause? Several hon. Members had endeavoured to secure to tenants who had made improvements before the passing of the Act compensation; but the Government had not consented to give any reason why that should not be given. It seemed to him that the Government were disposed to yield everything to the landlord party in that House; and he was inclined to throw the whole responsibility upon the Government and leave them to fight the matter out as best they could with the opposite Party. To show how little sympathy they had with tenant farmers, the First Commissioner of Works had said that they rarely made any permanent improvements. Had they not, in Kent, laid out hop gardens and orchards, and in other parts executed drainage works? He had seen a great deal of grass-run laid down by tenant farmers; and he was so dissatisfied with the Government, that he should oppose the clause.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, that the clause was being opposed from opposite points of view. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) objected to retrospective legislation, and the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard) objected to the clause as useless and mischievous. Both these views could not be maintained. Which was the right one? His own impression was, that it was very difficult to see what effect this Amendment would have on the 1st clause. Clause 1 was of immense importance, as limiting the principle of compensation. He must repudiate a want of sympathy with tenant farmers. The Government were now, for the first time, recognizing that there must be compensation for improvements of the third class, and this clause was valuable as defining the compensation for that class of improvements.

§ Mr. J. W. BARCLAY
objected to the clause, because it would sanction the 1864 confiscation by a landlord of a tenant's improvements. Thus the tenant would be put in a worse position than he was in now; and he should, therefore, vote against the clause.

§ Question put.

§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 268; Noes 32: Majority 236.—(Div. List, No. 215.)

§ It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress; Committee to sit again To-morrow.