IMPROVEMENTS,

HC Deb 19 July 1883 vol 281 cc1919-2023

As to Improvements executed before the Commencement of Act.

Clause 3 (Consent of landlord as to improvements in first Part of the Schedule).

MR. BORLASE

, in rising to move, in page 2, line 3, to leave out the words "improvement mentioned in the first Part of the Schedule hereto, and," and insert "erection or enlargement of buildings, and to making or improving roads or bridges," said, the object of the Amendment was to remove from the 1st Part of the Schedule all the improvements with the exception of the two named in the Amendment, with a view of placing them in the 2nd Part of the Schedule—that part in which notice alone to the landlord was required. The Committee would see that the 1st Part of the Schedule was entirely in favour of the landlord. It required the landlord's consent to have been given to all the improvements effected under it; and the list contained no less than 12 kinds of improvements, including the erection or enlargement of buildings, laying down permanent pasture, making or improving roads or bridges, making fences or gardens, planting hops or orchards, and reclaiming waste land. The 2nd Part of the Schedule required notice to be given by the tenant to the landlord, and it contained only one kind of improvement, although that was a very important one—namely, drainage. An hon. Member had given Notice of his intention to move that drainage should be taken from the 2nd Part of the Schedule and inserted in the 3rd; but his (Mr. Borlase's) contention was, that the improvements which made up the 1st Part of the Schedule ought to be taken from that Part and inserted in the 2nd. The principle on which he advocated this change was, that the fullest scope ought to be given to the tenant for the exercise of his judgment in dealing with the raw material which was under his hands. Should that judgment prove faulty, who could be so great a loser as himself? He thought, if the Amendment were carried, there should be inserted in the Bill a very strong clause to guard the landlord against the deterioration of his property. On the contrary, should the judgment of the tenant not prove faulty, and the end justified the course he had pursued in making the improvements, who ultimately would be so great a gainer as the landlord himself? He knew very well what the answer would be. The Committee would be told how very long a time it took to bring permanent pasture into being, and how long it took to render orchards, hop gardens, and similar improvements productive. His answer in that case would be, who was the greatest loser in consequence? It was not the landlord, because, during the whole of the time, he was receiving his rent; but it was the tenant, who, during that time, would have been obliged to deprive himself of the remuneration resulting from the improved cultivation of these particular parts of the soil which he was farming. He would say no more in regard to that part of the question; but he would go on to some of the other items included in the 1st Part of the Schedule—namely, the making of water meadows, or works of irrigation, and the improving and making of watercourses, ponds, wells, or reservoirs, or works for the supply of water for agricultural or domestic purposes. He could only repeat what he had said on the second reading of the Bill that he could not see on what principle, if drainage was placed among these improvements to which only notice was required, works of irrigation which were correlative and the converse of drainage, should not be placed under the same head. He knew the answer would be that it was owing to the fact that great expense might be incurred in structural works. But then, again, in proportion to the outlay the tenant was willing to incur would be the enterprize he would have to undertake; and, therefore, in his (Mr. Borlase's) opinion, the more satisfactory the results would be that would be gained in end. There was one other part of the Schedule to which he also wished to call attention—namely, the reclaiming of waste land. There were very few tenants who would be found ready or willing to reclaim waste land; but, at the same time, he thought they ought to have the fullest scope for the exercise of their judgment in so doing. There might be a part of the farm maintained for the purposes of sport. He thought that if the landlord wished to retain land for the purposes of sport, he ought to keep it in his own occupation, and not to make it part of the farm out of which another man had to derive his profit. The issue raised by the Amendment was distinctly an issue between the landlord and tenant; and, more than that, it was distinctly an issue between the question whether they should offer every inducement in their power to tenant farmers to improve their land, or whether they should allow things to remain exactly in the condition in which they were. He would conclude by quoting the opinion of one whose name would always be listened to with respect in that House—namely, Mr. John Stuart Mill. [Mr. WARTON: No, no!] Except, perhaps, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport. He would ask the landed proprietors in that House to remember— That they are the only class who have a claim to a share in the distribution of produce through the ownership of something which neither they nor anyone else have produced; and, remembering that, he would ask them whether they ought not to give the fullest margin which it was in their power to give for the exercise of the free and unrestricted judgment of the producer? He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name upon the Paper.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, lines 3 and 4, leave out "improvement mentioned in the first part of the Schedule hereto," and insert "erection or enlargement of buildings, and to making or improving roads or bridges."—(Mr. Borlase.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, the Amendment of the hon. Member proposed to transfer at once all the items from the first part of the Schedule and insert them in the second, except two which related to the erection or improvement of buildings, and to making or improving roads or bridges. In making this proposition he thought the hon. Member was somewhat anticipating the discussion which would occur later on when the Committee reached the Schedule. The effect of the proposition appeared to be to transfer from the domain of the landlord certain improvements which were in the nature of permanent improvements, and to hand them over to the tenant. If the Amendment were passed it would be no longer possible for the landlord to make an agreement to impose any restriction whatever with respect to the improvement of his estate, and the farm would pass completely and solely under the control of the tenant. This was one of a series of Amendments the hon. Member had placed on the Paper, which would convert the Bill from a Compensation Bill into a Land Tenure Bill. He thought it was hardly necessary that he should enter at length into the subject; but he should like to illustrate it by the particular case mentioned by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard) the other night. The hon. Member spoke of a matter which he said he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) knew nothing about, although he resided in the county of Kent—namely, the cultivation of hops. He believed the hon. Member was right in saying that there was a condition in every lease or tenancy that the tenant should only cultivate a certain proportion of hops. The reason of this was that it had been found by experience that after a good hop season the tenant felt inclined to enter more largely into the cultivation of hops, and to devote a much larger portion of the land to that species of cultivation than was considered expedient in the interest of good farming. Therefore, it had been found desirable to restrict the amount of cultivation which the tenant should undertake; but if the present Amendment were passed it would at once upset the control of the landlord over the matter, and the tenant would be able to devote as much of the farm as he thought proper to the cultivation of hops, without its being possible for the landlord to make any restriction as to the quantity. The same argument might be applied to other matters. But, as he had already said, the Amendment anticipated certain questions, which would be more properly discussed when they came to the Schedule. When they reached the Schedule it would be for the Committee to consider what improvements would be properly included in the first and second parts of it; but it was inconsistent with the general object of the Bill to discuss these matters now.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, he hoped that his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment, especially as the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had given him an opportunity of bringing it forward upon the Schedule; and if it were insisted upon it would certainly give the tenant an unfair advantage, especially in regard to the reclamation of land. For instance, the tenant might reclaim land which was being preserved for antiquarian purposes.

MR. BORLASE

said, that, after the remarks of the Chief Commissioner of Works, he would withdraw the Amendment until they came to the Schedule.

MR. JAMES HOWARD

said, he wished to correct a remark which had fallen from the Chief Commissioner of Works. He had not said yesterday that the Chief Commissioner of Works knew nothing of hop cultivation or of the county of Kent. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the tenant farmers of the Kingdom were not in the habit of making permanent improvements; and he had reminded the right hon. Gentleman that he lived in the midst of a hop district where most of the permanent improvements were made by the tenants. In regard to the Amendment, he thought the hon. Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Borlase) would act wisely in postponing it until the Schedule came on for consideration.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

, in moving to amend the clause by leaving out the words "in writing," in line 5, said, in a very few words he could explain the object of the Amendment. He thought that there might be a consent between the landlord and tenant which a Court or arbitrator would hold to be good, without its necessarily being required to be in writing. He was quite sure that the Committee would not wish the landlord and tenant to be treated, in regard to contracts or agreements, upon any worse terms than those which existed between strangers. As between strangers, every contract was good without being in writing unless it came within the Statute of Frauds. Now, the Statute of Frauds was an old Statute, which had existed for the last 100 years with regard to all contracts; and he ventured to think that they should not, as between landlord and tenant, extend the requirements of that Statute. What should be required, even without the agreement being in writing as between landlord and tenant, was that fair compensation should be given for improvements of this nature. He was quite sure he would have the Solicitor General with him when he said that, under the Statute of Frauds, a claim could be made for money paid when the act done was within the knowledge of the person who shared in the advantage, although he might not have given his consent in writing. For instance, where goods to the amount of £10 were supplied by a vendor to a purchaser, the purchaser would not be liable unless part of the goods were received by him; but if money had been paid by the purchaser, or any part of the goods had been received by him, then, without any contract in writing, there was liability upon the part of the purchaser, or rather of the contractor, to pay the person with whom he had contracted. He ventured to think that it was exactly the same case between the landlord and tenant in regard to improvements made upon the landlord's property. There would have been work done by the tenant with the knowledge of the landlord. That work would have been done if the whole of his Amendment was carried out with the consent and knowledge of the landlord; and he failed to see why that which would be a binding contract between two strangers should cease to be a contract because it was between a landlord and tenant. While he said that there should be no requirement for a contract to be in writing, he proposed to add at the end of the clause words which he thought would prevent any possibility of a claim being made upon the landlord which the landlord would not in effect have ratified. He had inserted a Proviso at the end of the clause which was really part of the Amendment, to require that in order to entitle the tenant to compensation he must show, to the satisfaction of the Court or arbitrator, "that such improvement was in fact made with the assent thereto, or approval of, the landlord." What was the position the tenant was in? He might have spoken to his landlord, and there were very many estates on which the work would not be done in that absolute close business way in which it would be done on large estates. For instance, an application was made by the tenant to the landlord that certain works should be allowed to be done. The landlord gave no written consent; but he stood by and saw the work being done. He thereby consented to it and approved of it. And now let him show the hardship there would be in pinning the tenant to the requirement that the consent of the landlord should be in writing. The tenant and the landlord agreed that certain works should be done. No writing passed; but the tenant knew perfectly well that the landlord would compensate him for that work. Unfortunately, before the tenant had been compensated for the work so done the landlord died. Everybody about knew that the landlord had recognized the claim, and would have compensated the tenant. He (Mr. Staveley Hill) was speaking now of an instance that was absolutely within his own knowledge. The landlord died, and the tenant made his claim upon the executors. The executors were quite willing to pay it; but they found that they could not do so because there was no contract in writing. That would be the case here. Under ordinary circumstances between two contracting parties no such difficulty would have occurred; but the man who had performed the work would go to the executors and say—"This contract was entered into, and you know very well that I can prove that it was." The executors would at once recognize the claim, and it would be paid. Then, why should they put the tenant and the contractor upon a different footing? He contended that they ought not to put a tenant on a worse footing than any other contracting party; but if they passed the clause as it stood they would compel the executor of the landlord, or any other person representing him in his absence, to say—"We cannot recognize that claim, although we know the work was done and the claim fully admitted; and we know, further, that it is a claim that you have a right to make in justice. Nevertheless we cannot recognize it because the Statute says it should be in writing." It was quite certain that it was a claim which any tenant in England would have a right to make; and to require, before the tenant should be able to obtain compensation, that the consent of the landlord should be given in writing would permit many acts of injustice to be done. He begged to move the omission of the words "in writing."

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 5, leave out "in writing."—(Mr. Staveley Hill.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. GREGORY

said, he must oppose the Amendment. He had had some experience in regard to questions which might arise between a landlord and tenant; and it had been his invariable rule never to enter into a bargain without exchanging some writing or other—either a letter or some memorandum of agreement. He thought that nothing would be more detrimental to the interests of both parties than to leave them at liberty to make an open bargain of the kind contemplated. It was a course which could only end in litigation. The contract might extend over a period of 10 or 20 years; and at the end of the tenancy the representative of the landlord would be called upon to recognize it, on the simple assertion of the tenant that the landlord had seen what was going on, and, having consented to it, he was liable to pay compensation. The tenant would say—"Whatever the improvement might have been worth, it was done by me; you raised no objection to it, and I claim compensation." The mere fact of the landlord having seen it would be held to be equivalent to his having given consent to it. He opposed the proposition, because he believed it would tend to make matters much worse than they were now, and he hoped it would not be pressed.

MR. RAMSAY

said, he had listened attentively to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for West Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill). He thought no stronger evidence could be given to the Committee to show the necessity of retaining these words than the very case the hon. and learned Member had put. The hon. and learned Member had adduced an instance of the possibility of the death of the landlord, in which case it would be necessary to go to the executors. But the hon. and learned Gentleman forgot that the tenant was also liable to die, as well as the landlord; and, in that case, a consent in writing would be essential before the tenant's representative could maintain his claim. Therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman, in making the proposal, was not acting as the friend of the tenant, but of the landlord. The adoption of the Amendment would enable an unjust man to get rid of a claim of which there was no evidence in writing.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he gathered that the hon. and learned Member did not intend his proposal to apply to past improvements. In regard to future improvements, he (Mr. J. W. Barclay) thought it would be very unfortunate for the tenant, who might be drawn into litigation in order to establish his claim. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether the word "landlord" included the landlord's agent, and whether an agent consenting to an improvement would bind the landlord? Looking at the definition of the word "landlord" at the end of the Bill, he did not think that the matter was perfectly clear; and he desired that all the clauses of the measure should be perfectly clear, in order that the tenant might know how he was going to be affected.

MR. DODSON

hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would act in conformity with the wish of the Committee and withdraw the Amendment. In regard to the point which had just been raised by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), he did not think that any words were necessary in order to give greater security to the tenant; but, if the Committee thought that additional words were necessary, he had no objection, in line 5, after the word "landlord," to insert the words "or his agent."

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, that, if necessary, he would raise the objection on the Definition Clause.

MR. DODSON

said, he was afraid that that might not be so convenient a course. It would be better to deal with the matter in the present clause.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not been able to give him any reason why the landlord and tenant should be placed in any different position from an ordinary contracting party; but as it was evident that the feeling of the Committee was against him he would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 5, after the word "landlord," insert "or his agent duly authorized in that behalf."—(Mr. Dodson.)

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

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he was afraid that so wide an Amendment might be open to a dangerous interpretation. Would it include what was ordinarily called in Scotland the factor, or land agent, or some person who had no special authority to act for the landlord, except as regarded the collection of rents? He did not think that a collector of rents would be a fit person to have authority to bind the landlord in the case of improvements.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, the words "by himself or by his agent duly authorized in that behalf" were the ordinary legal words that were adopted in England, at all events.

MR. HICKS

said, he objected to the words being sprung upon the Committee. They ought to know clearly what they were going to consent to. Was every collector of rents to be an agent duly authorized to give this permission, or was he not? If a collector was not, then what document or appointment was to be required in order to make him an agent "duly authorized in that behalf?" It appeared to him that they were laying traps for landlords in every direction, and for the tenants also. He strongly objected to put in the Bill the words "duly authorized in that behalf," unless they explained what they meant by duly authorized. He was satisfied that before the Bill had been long in operation lawsuits would rise at the expiration of every lease. Surely, as the landlord was the person really interested in the land, he should be the person to give his permission, and he only. Nothing could be easier than to go to the landlord. If the agent recommended an improvement, he would surely go at once to the landlord and get his signature to it.

SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEY

said, he hoped that the Committee would assent to the words proposed by the Government. It was desirable to make everything as clear as they could; and the landlord, or the landlord's agent, was a perfectly-understood term.

MR. PEMBERTON

also supported the Amendment, and said, that, in addition to the proposed words being the most appropriate that could be used, the Amendment was entirely in favour of the tenant. He would be able to deal either with his landlord's permanent agent, or with any person the landlord might authorize for this particular purpose.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he thought that the tenant might find that if the landlord employed an agent or a representative connected with some other part of the business of the estate, unless he gave such agent authority under his hand to bind him to an agreement to give compensation to the tenant for improvements, the tenant, after obtaining the agent's authority, and believing it to be the authority of the landlord, might find, after all, when he came to claim compensation, that he had not got the landlord's authority.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, he did not think that would be possible.

MR. JAMES HOWARD

wished to put a question to the Solicitor General. In the case of a dispute, would it be possible for a landlord to maintain that he had not authorized his agent to agree to the erection of a building, or to any other improvement which came under the words of the Schedule?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, the clause would not mean that a man must be authorized as agent to give consent to every particular transaction. There would be many cases in which the agent would be obviously a general agent. Obviously the agent would be the person to do the work that would ordinarily be done. On the other hand, the landlord might have an agent who was an agent for certain purposes only, and nobody would dream of confounding such an agent with an agent empowered to give a consent of this sort. An agent might simply be a rent collector, and in that case all the details in regard to the management of the property would have to be settled by the landlord. No Court would decide that an agent of that character could have given a consent that would bind the landlord.

MR. JAMES HOWARD

asked if it would be competent for the landlord, if a case of difficulty arose, to plead that he did not authorize the agent? He gathered from the Solicitor General that the agent might be either a fully-authorized agent, or an agent authorized to collect rents and do certain things. Everyone practically acquainted with the management of estates knew that the agent possessed an almost plenary power, and that no tenant could call in question the act or power of an ordinary agent. It appeared to him (Mr. James Howard) that if they were to insert the words "in that behalf," the landlord, in the case of a dispute arising, might plead that he never authorized the agent to agree to such terms. If there was any doubt on the subject, it would be better to omit the words "in that behalf," and stop short at the words "duly authorized agent."

MR. W. H. JAMES

suggested that, instead of inserting the words "in that behalf," the Committee should insert the words "legally authorized agent." In that case every improvement must receive the approval of the landlord, or of an agent who would have power to sanction the improvement. He thought an Amendment to that effect would clear up all doubt. As the matter now stood, it was argued that the words "in that behalf" would impose an obligation to obtain the consent in writing of the landlord or the agent to show that the improvement was duly authorized.

THE CHAIRMAN

I may point out to the hon. Member that, before putting the words he suggests, it would be necessary to strike out or to insert other words. As the Amendment now stands, it is to insert, after the words "unless the landlord," the words "or his agent duly authorized in that behalf." The hon. Member proposes to strike out the words "in that behalf," and to insert the words "legally authorized agent," which would not read.

MR. DODSON

said, he thought it was hardly worth while to have a protracted discussion upon the Amendment. He believed that the words "his legally authorized agent," and the words "his agent duly authorized in that behalf," amounted to the same thing; but, personally, he preferred the Amendment as he had proposed it.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

remarked, that the words "in that behalf" seemed to apply to a single and individual case. He thought the other language would be safer.

MR. BULWER

said, he was astonished to hear a conversation of that character in a place of business like the House of Commons. They all professed to be anxious to get rid of the Bill, and yet they were wasting their time with such discussions as this. Any lawyer in the House, or anyone else, who had any knowledge of business whatever, must know that the introduction of these words was altogether unnecessary. The landlord, as the law stood, was, just as any other person would be, bound by the acts of his agent; but the right hon. Gentleman had good-naturedly consented to the insertion of words which were really unnecessary, and which it was now argued tended to make the matter more obscure. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard), as a man of business, knew very well that if he were unable to write, being ill in bed, and got a friend to sign the hon. Member's name to a promissory note for him, the signature to that note would be held to be his, and that he would be bound by it. It was true that the hon. Member, when he got well, might, as it was insinuated that a landlord might, repudiate the authority of his friend to sign. But as he (Mr. Bulwer) would be sorry to suggest that the hon. Member would do any such thing, so the hon. Member might also give landlords the credit of being not less honest than himself. They were wasting time in discussing questions that were not at all likely to arise.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, the Solicitor General had told the Committee that an agent of a landlord might have the authority to collect rents, and do the general business of the estates, without being authorized to grant tenants compensation for improvements.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he hoped that after what bad fallen from several Members of the Committee the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy would reconsider his good nature in agreeing to the insertion of these words in the clause, and would, at all events, wait until the Report to consider whether it was necessary for the purposes of the Bill that they should be inserted. He ventured to think that the Bill, as it stood, carried out all that was actually desired, and the introduction of these words had not only wasted a good deal of the time of the Committee, but had complicated the discussion.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he had risen to make the same remark as the hon. Baronet opposite. The proposal now before the Committee was either a very important one, or it was of no importance at all; and, therefore, the consideration of it had better be deferred until the Report stage of the Bill.

MR. DODSON

said, he was ready to meet the Committee in any way that was possible. He wished to know, therefore, whether it was the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendment should be postponed until the Report? [Cries of "Yes!" and "No!"]

MR. JAMES HOWARD

said, he rose for the purpose of making a suggestion. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Bulwer) seemed to imagine that he (Mr. J. Howard) had raised this point; but it had been raised long before he touched this question. The words he would suggest were—"Or his reputed agent."

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 (Notice to landlord as to improvement in 2nd Part of Schedule).

MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, he wished to suggest a drafting Amendment. The words of the clause were— Compensation under this Act shall not be payable in respect of any improvement mentioned in the second part of the Schedule hereto. His only object was to simplify the Bill, instead of repeating unnecessary words over and over again. He thought the word "drainage" would meet all that was required.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 13, leave out after "any" to "and," in line 14, and insert "drainage."—(Mr. Staveley Hill.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. DODSON

said, he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press the Amendment. He thought the words of the clause as they stood were better than they would be if the Amendment were adopted. As it would be necessary to consider the Schedule by-and-bye, if any Amendment were required it could be proposed then.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, he did not attach much importance to the Amendment; and he would, therefore, withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CARTWRIGHT

said, he now rose to move an Amendment which he had placed on the Notice Paper yesterday in deference to the view which had been expressed by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He begged to move that the words "mentioned in the second part of the Schedule hereto, and executed after the commencement of this Act," be omitted. His right hon. Friend proposed yesterday that the same question which was then raised should Be postponed until they reached this portion of Clause 4. Since yesterday the Committee had made considerable progress, and they had just passed a clause which required the consent of the landlord in regard to improvements contained in the 1st Part of the Schedule. In regard to the 1st Part of the Schedule, it was held that there was a certain class of improvements which fell rightly and legitimately within the province of the landlord; and the object of the Amendment was to include within that part of the Schedule all works in connection with drainage. In his opinion, the 2nd Part of the Schedule was an anomalous one. It seemed to him that there was no work which more properly fell within the province of the landlord to carry out than drainage; and he thought he would be able to show in a few words that the Amendment ought to recommend itself, not only to landlords, but to tenants. Anyone who had had anything to do with drainage would be aware that works of that kind could not only be misapplied, but that they were a matter which required the exercise of a very delicate judgment. Drainage was a matter which distinctly came under the words used by his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, when his right hon. Friend said that there was a certain class of work which might deteriorate the character of the holding. Not only might the drainage affect the character of the holding, but it might affect very materially something else in which the landlord had certainly a deep interest—namely, the character of the estate altogether. That being so, he could perceive no work in respect to which it was more essential that the judgment and desire of the landlord should have the chief voice. The hon. Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Borlase), in speaking a short time ago on the 3rd clause, drew attention to the fact that works of irrigation were included in that clause; and the argument of the hon. Member was that irrigation works should be brought under the clause dealing with the 2nd Part of the Schedule. His (Mr. Cartwright's) argument was that, as the Committee had passed the 1st Part of the Schedule, it stood to reason that the 2nd Part, relating not to works of irrigation, but to drainage, should be brought within the same category of improvements. What were the terms of this anomalous part of the Schedule? They were these—that in default of an agreement with the landlord, or from an unwillingness on the part of the landlord to execute the improvement himself, and charging the tenant interest upon the outlay incurred, the work could be done by the tenant after giving notice to the landlord of his intention to do so. If the landlord, who ought, as he contended, to have a primary voice in the matter, differed from the tenant as to the propriety of executing the work, all that the tenant had to do was to give the landlord notice that he intended to execute the works; and, after having done so, he would be at full liberty to carry them out. He thought that was a very hard provision as far as the landlord was concerned. There was another point to which he desired to call attention. Since he had first put the Amendment down upon the Paper, an Amendment had been carried by his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), which affected all the operations which could be carried out against the will, and without the consent, of the landlord. They had heard from the Solicitor General that it would also affect drainage works; and if the tenant carried out drainage works, the compensation, as it now stood under the Amendment of his hon. Friend, could only be paid to the tenant in regard to his outlay, and not in regard to the results of that outlay. It was, therefore, of importance, not only to the landlord, but also to the tenant, that a complete understanding should be come to in regard to the present clause. It certainly stood at present in a most anomalous position. It was admitted that drainage was a work in which the landlord had a great interest, because the tenant could not carry it out without giving notice to the landlord; and yet, on the other hand, after having given notice to the landlord, and the landlord having refused his consent, the tenant was empowered to carry it out in accordance with his own judgment, without any control on the part of the landlord. He begged to submit his Amendment, and he trusted that the Committee would agree to it.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 13, to leave out "mentioned in the second part of the Schedule hereto, and executed after the commencement of this Act."—(Mr. Cartwright.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

SIR THOMAS ACLAND

said, that he felt bound to take upon himself some responsibility for this clause, because hon. Members would remember that in the Bill which he had introduced, and in which the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham) and the hon. and gallant Member for West Gloucestershire (Colonel Kingscote), and several other hon. Members had been associated, there was a clause which enabled the tenant to get the drainage done on his farm, if the landlord would not undertake to do it himself, and which provided that the tenant should be compensated for the improvements thus executed. That Bill had been before the House for some time, and he believed there was no provision contained in it which had given so much satisfaction to the tenant and the country generally as that clause. The object of the clause was to enable the tenant to secure that his farm should be properly drained, and that was of the utmost importance wherever it was intended to place sheep upon it. For such a purpose, unless the land was properly drained, it would be worthless. He admitted that the matter was one of great importance to the landlord; and if the landlord desired to look after the drainage himself and pay for it, it was only fair that he should be allowed to do so. He presumed that most landlords would always prefer to do drainage themselves; but if there were landlords who were disinclined to do so, then it was desirable that the tenant should have power to have the land drained on his own responsibility. In regard to the clause itself, he was not prepared to say that the precise form it assumed was the best, or whether the tenant should have the power of executing the work altogether on his own responsibility. The Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright) was, however, to strike out drainage works from this part of the Bill. He (Sir Thomas Acland) strongly objected to that proposal, and he hoped that his hon. Friend would not press it.

MR. WARTON

said, he wished to point out to the Committee the effect of the Amendment. It seemed to introduce a kind of general provision with regard to all improvements contained in the three Parts of the Schedule. The object of the hon. Member was to treat differently one or more improvements which were contained in the first part of the Schedule. He (Mr. Warton) would submit that the Amendment would not do that. The hon. Member struck out certain words in the first part of the clause; but he left in the words "any improvement," which would have the effect of preventing the hon. Member from carrying out the object he had in view.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that what he understood the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright) to mean by his Amendment was really and practically to leave this Clause 4 out of the Bill altogether; and, therefore, the question raised by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. War-ton) would not arise, because, if this Amendment were carried, the subsequent Amendment of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire would be to leave the clause out as an unnecessary clause, the drainage being transferred from this Part of the Schedule to the 1st Part of the Schedule, in regard to which the consent of the landlord was required. He desired to say one or two words in support of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire. He had not taken much part in the debate hitherto, but he possessed some knowledge of farming, and had a little land on his hands in his part of the country; but he did not know anything which required more care and attention than this particular question of drainage. It was desirable, before they attempted to drain, that they should be thoroughly acquainted with every field and its staple of produce. Nothing would cause more alarm than to allow a tenant, on taking a farm, to compel the landlord, in order that the tenant might carry out some fad of his own, to execute extensive drainage works, which might probably involve an entire change in the characteristic features of that part of the estate. There was another point he would ask the House to consider. Even supposing the drainage to be properly carried out by the tenant, nothing would be easier than to prevent it from having a salutary effect. Suppose, for instance, that the tenant fell out with his landlord and gave a year's notice to quit. Now, the whole of the drainage of the farm would really depend on the maintenance of the out-falls; and if the out-falls were allowed to get out of order, or to become choked up, the drains would burst and become practically useless. But that might not take place all at once; there might be a dry season, and in that case it might not take place during the time that the notice to quit was running, although for the greater portion of the time the whole of the out-falls might be neglected and the drains stopped up. If a heavy fall of rain came, the drains would burst; but if the valuator were brought upon the land to assess the value of the improvement in a dry month, he would defy that valuator to be able to detect where the drainage was defective, and to tell what damage had really been done. The tenant would go out taking with him the full value of the improvement, which in itself would be practically useless either to the landlord or the incoming tenant. He made this statement, because he knew that circumstances of that kind had occurred in his own neighbourhood. He had known tenant farmers to neglect these works. The landlord, however, could not go upon the land and make provision for the proper maintenance of the out-falls so as to preserve the integrity of the drainage, and he had known farmers to receive compensation at the end of their tenancy, and the real condition of the drains not to be found out until some months afterwards. He mentioned this fact as one thing which ought to enter into the consideration of the Committee. He was quite certain that very few farmers at the present day would have sufficient knowledge of the staple of the land, when they took a farm, to be immediately able to decide whether they ought to drain deep or shallow. The landlord, however, or his agent, would, know the history of the land and its capabilities. A farmer might come in imagining that drainage would cure all evils, and he would be able to insist, under this part of the Schedule, upon the land being drained according to his ideas. If the landlord was not able to execute the work, then the tenant under the Bill would have the power to do it himself, and the results which he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had predicted would very often ensue. He did not think that that was the intention of the Government, and he was quite certain that in these days of agriculture no one who knew anything about farming would be likely to resist the tenant in his anxiety to drain, provided that he did it in a proper manner.

SIR HARRY VERNEY

said, he entirely agreed with the remarks which had been made that the mode in which the drainage was carried on might materially affect the character of the estate. It was therefore desirable that they should not confer too much power on the tenant in regard to the execution of drainage works against the will and consent of the landlord, who was, in almost all cases, the person most interested, and whose interest was identical with that of the country—namely, that the drainage might be well and permanently done.

MR. PELL

said, if it was intended that the clause should apply to farms held under leases, he was strongly in favour of drainage being made one of those improvements which could not be effected without the landlord's consent.

MR. DODSON

said, he had risen thus early in the discussion of the Amendment, because it would be convenient that there should be a clear view taken of the contents of the clause. The clause, no doubt, would apply to leases equally with year to year agreements, which were, in law, the same as leases; but it would apply not to current, but to future leases. A suggestion had been made as to the importance of the owner having a voice in the execution of drainage, and with that Her Majesty's Government entirely agreed; but as he had explained on the second reading, the reason why drainage was put under the clause was, that it constituted an improvement of very general interest, the execution of which it was desirable to facilitate and promote as much as possible. For that reason they had given the tenant the power to give notice to the landlord that he proposed to drain; but the owner thereupon had the option either of draining the land himself and charging interest upon the outlay to the tenant, or of agreeing with the tenant as to the terms on which the drainage should be carried out. That arrangement left to the owner the fullest liberty of providing in what way the estate should be drained; and it was only in cases in which the landlord refused to act reasonably and consistently in the matter that it was left to the tenant to carry out the work. If the tenant were so foolish as to set about the draining of land, whether it required to be drained or not, and executed in consequence work of little or no utility, he would receive little or no compensation; he carried out the work, therefore, at his own risk. It was in this way that the clause carried out the object of the Bill in reference to this particular improvement of drainage.

SIR JOSEPH BAILEY

said, the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to be aware of the fact that there might be cases where the landlord would be injured by the tenant doing the drainage, or by his doing it himself. He knew some property in a Welsh county, the value of which principally arose from its being used for sporting purposes. There were upon it two duck bogs, which enabled the owner to get a high rent for the residence. Now, it would be hard that the owner should be obliged to drain this land when he did not want to drain it, or, as an alternative, keep it in hand when an agricultural tenant was willing to take it in its present condition.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, the hon. Member had certainly put an extreme case, and he would like to know whether there might not be very hard cases on the other side? Was it not one of the objects of this legislation generally that a man should be allowed to improve as much as he could the land; and had they not heard a great deal with regard to the necessity of drainage, and that it should be encouraged in every possible way. Now, it appeared to him that there were many estates on which drainage had not been carried out, on account of the special position of the landowner; either the estates were encumbered or the landlord was crotchetty; and so against the general interest—against the interest of the tenant, and against the ultimate interest of the landlord—the land was not drained at all. He understood that it was to meet the last case that drainage was put into the 2nd Part of the Schedule, not for the sole purpose of allowing the tenants to do the drainage themselves, but in order that they might, in the exceptional case referred to, be enabled to do it. Where compensation was not to be paid until the tenant quitted the holding, he would have to make the first outlay himself, and to bear that pecuniary burden during the remainder of his tenancy. That appeared to him to be a check on the tenant's going in for drainage, that was not likely to be successful, because if the tenant drained foolishly and unwisely, there would be no compensation, and he would have to bear the penalty himself. No doubt hard cases might arise under the clause; but it appeared to him that more injurious cases would arise if it were withdrawn. Under the circumstances, and admitting there was some correctness on the side of hon. Members who objected to the clause, he trusted Her Majesty's Government would stand by the Bill, and allow the clause to remain unaltered.

MR. BIDDELL

said, it was alleged that the tenants did not understand drainage; but he would like to know what class of persons understood the subject better than those who had been brought up on clay soils? As a general rule, he was sure that the tenants knew much more about drainage than the landlords. What had happened in his own county? Hundreds of acres in Suffolk had been drained by the landlords on a bad system, which would have to be drained again. He contended that with regard to drainage, no restriction whatever ought to be placed on the tenant, because drainage was most essential on all clay land throughout the Kingdom. He challenged anyone to tell him that the absence of drainage was compatible with good husbandry, and he asserted that the tenant who did not drain his land did not fulfil his covenants. Drainage was as absolutely necessary for fertility as manuring, and yet the clause proposed that the tenant should be obliged to go to the landlord for permission to drain the land. For his own part, he was opposed to the clause, and at the proper time he should be ready to move its omission, with the view of transferring drainage from the 2nd to the 3rd Part of the Schedule. All that was necessary was that the drainage should be done in a workmanlike manner, and then he thought the rest might be safely left to the tenant, who was undoubtedly entitled to compensation. In his own county, and in the county of Essex, it was the custom to pay the tenant for the drainage done by him, and he had never heard that the custom of allowing the tenant to drain had ever been abused in those counties.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON

said, there was no clause in the Bill to which the tenant farmers of England attached more importance than that now under consideration. It had been suggested by several hon. Gentlemen that tenants would want to begin draining without having had experience of the soil of their farms; but he would point out that when the landlord was in treaty with the tenant to take the farm he could make an agreement with him as to that matter; while the tenant would have an opportunity, at the same time, of insisting upon drainage being effected if he thought the farm required it; and if he afterwards gave notice in the manner prescribed by the Bill, the landlord could either carry out the drainage himself or make arrangement with the tenant to do it; or if he found that the tenant insisted on drainage of an undesirable character he could give him notice to quit. So that the only cases where the tenant could drain against the wish of the landlord would be where the landlord had made, and would make, no agreement on the subject, and yet where he did not object so much to what the tenant proposed as to prefer to give him notice; and if this power of giving notice would not operate as a protection when tenants were hard to get, he pointed out, on the other hand, that in bad seasons tenants were not very likely to have money to throw away in unprofitable operations; and although he admitted there was always some danger of speculative drainage being undertaken in the case of gentlemen tenants, who had, so to speak, more money than brains, yet he did not think that was a class likely to find undue favour in the eyes of valuers.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he could assure the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Biddell) that he would be the last man in the world to suggest that the tenant farmers in England were not the best authorities on the subject of the drainage of land. But his contention was that some tenants entering upon their tenancy in wet seasons were apt to think that drainage was absolutely necessary for the land. A tenant under that impression, and having no knowledge of the particular class of soil he had to deal with, would go to the landlord, who happened, perhaps, not to be in a position to find the money, and insist upon a system of drainage being carried out that was utterly unsuitable to the surrounding conditions.

COLONEL KINGSCOTE

said, the arguments of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Biddell) had reference to clay soils alone. He himself happened to live on a light soil; and with regard to many acres of his own land, in wet seasons friends had often expressed their surprise that the land was not drained; but he always told them to come and see it in a dry season, when they would find that drainage was quite unnecessary. The clause would be hard upon the tenant, because it would assist him in fooling away his money on unnecessary work; and it would be hard upon the landlord that the tenant should be allowed to upset a whole system of drainage that was perfectly suited to the estate, by adding a course here and another there, as his inexperience might suggest. It was all very well to say that the land-land could give notice to the tenant to quit; but landlords did not want that alternative, because, when they got a good man, they liked to keep him. He was quite sure that the clause would lead to cases of great hardship both to the landlord and the tenant, if it were passed in such a form as would allow the tenant to do what he thought proper in the matter of drainage.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, there had been, no doubt, a good deal of folly in the minds of some farmers in the country on the subject of drainage which had caused their landlords anxiety and even alarm. With those landlords he entirely sympathized, and he hoped his career in that House would be a sufficient guarantee that he was not wanting in respect to that class when he said that he also recognized the great difficulty of this question. It was evident to him that the Government had bestowed the greatest pains on the consideration of the clause. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had given an intimation to the Committee that he would be prepared to accept an Amendment in the nature of that moved by the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), by which general control would be given to the landlord for those improvements of a more durable character, including drainage. He had himself placed a Notice on the Paper of a proposed addition to the clause, which provided that— Except as to feeding stuffs and manures, the tenant shall not he entitled to compensation for an improvement mentioned in the second or third part of the Schedule hereto, where, in the case of a tenancy from year to year, it is executed after the tenant has given or received notice to quit, unless it is executed with the previous consent in writing of the landlord. To that he proposed to add the words— Or in the case of a lease for a term of years where three-fourths of the term has expired, unless it is executed with the previous consent in writing of the landlord. It was his intention to support the clause in its present form, reserving to himself the right to take care that, so far as it related to existing leases, it should be amended. The effect of the clause had already been described, and it was scarcely necessary that he should go minutely into that again; but it was briefly this—that, in the first place, notice should be given to the landlord; after that notice was given the two parties might agree as to the terms on which the drainage should be done—that was to say, the landlord might do it himself and charge 5 per cent on the outlay to the tenant, and unless an agreement were arrived at the tenant might do the drainage. It was, therefore, perfectly clear that the tenant, under certain circumstances, might drain the land without the consent of the landlord. Nevertheless, it was his intention to support the clause on the conditions which he had stated to the Committee. No doubt a good many reasons had been given against retaining the clause in its present form. It was true that drainage was an improvement on which large sums of money might be expended; that it was an operation which extended often over a considerable period of time; and that it might be done badly, in the manner described by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down, "by the tenant fooling away his money." With regard, however, to this last indictment against the clause, he would remind the Committee that the 1st clause of the Bill provided that the tenant should not receive more than the value of the improvement to the incoming tenant; if the work were done badly the value to the incoming tenant would be small, and the tenant would receive a proportionately small compensation. But there were strong reasons in favour of the clause as it stood. Drainage, as a rule, was one of the most necessary operations which a tenant could perform, and it was absolutely necessary that that fundamental condition of successful farming except on dry soils should be fulfilled. If a tenant knew that the land was wet, and that it required draining, he would also know that it was desirable to drain it without loss of time, and to compel him to go to the landlord to get his consent before he put down a few drain pipes in the corner of a field was, in his opinion, an interference with farming to which he, for one, was not prepared to consent. He had always advocated as little interference as possible with tenants in the making of even still more considerable improvements, because he contended that in 99 cases out of 100 they would be done well in the interest of the tenant himself. There might, of course, be extreme cases where the work would be done badly or even foolishly, and then he thought some control should be given more than was contained in the Bill. That control, he believed, would be given in the most fitting manner by the adoption of the Amendment which he had described, and which he understood the Government were willing to accept; because, in extreme cases, it would be impossible for the landlord to protect himself by giving notice to quit. Moreover, when landlords had good tenants on their farms their desire was to keep them, and not get rid of them. For these reasons, and on the conditions stated to the Committee, he was prepared to support the clause as it stood.

MR. M'LAGAN

said, he agreed that there should be a proper control exercised by the landlord in the matter of drainage. The hon. Member who had just spoken had referred to the Amendment standing in his name as giving that control; but he (Mr. M'Lagan) pointed out that it did not provide for control in the sense in which he understood the term. There were several matters which might be undertaken by the tenant that would have the effect of reducing the value of an estate. He would mention the case of a tenant who insisted that the landlord should drain the farm, and who, after six years, went to the landlord and said the drainage was worth nothing to him; at the end of wet seasons it was found to be worse than useless. He did not wish to see the clause struck out of the Bill altogether; but he wished to have a provision that before the operation of drainage was commenced there should be some controlling authority to see whether it would be of advantage to the estate that the drainage should be done. He agreed with the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) in his suggestion that some other improvements should be put into the 2nd Part of the Schedule; and he thought that those improvements should be effected in spite of the landlord—provided there was some controlling authority to see that it would be beneficial to the holding. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had looked at this question as not affecting the landlords, because, as he said, some of them were so cantankerous that they would not allow anything to be done in the way of drainage; but he would point out that the question must be looked at from a different point of view—namely, from that of its being beneficial to the country at large. He thought, as he had before stated, that they should bring in some independent authority in the matter of drainage, such as the Sheriff in Scotland, or an Inspector of the Enclosure Commissioners in England. Without some such controlling authority he believed the clause would be most prejudicial, and he intended to move an Amendment to it, that no compensation should be given to the tenant if it could be proved that the drainage had depreciated the value of the estate in general. He trusted that the Government would encourage the drainage of the land throughout the country, by giving effect to the suggestions of the hon. Members for Forfarshire and Staffordshire.

MR. JAMES HOWARD

said, he should have been glad if the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had given his experience of the custom which prevailed in that county, because then he would have allayed the fears of the landowners in that House as to the abuse of the power of draining on the part of the tenant. For two generations it had been the custom in Lincolnshire for the tenant to drain without the consent of the landlord, and to claim compensation through experienced valuers in that county, and he was sure that the system had been in no case abused. There were other Members for the county of Lincolnshire in that House, and he was sure they would be able to corroborate his statement. The cases described by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) and the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) he regarded as purely hypothetical. As far as his own experience went, he had never known any such case of money being thrown away by tenants as they had pointed to; on the other hand, he could corroborate what had fallen from the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Biddell), that tenants, as a rule, knew a great deal more about drainage than the landlords, and that, having occupied farms upon clay land for years, they were better judges of what was necessary for their improvement in this respect than professional land agents. He had himself known a great deal of money to have been fooled away by these gentlemen coming down from London, and having the land drained to the depth of four feet, at intervals of 13 yards, in which case it was evident, for all the good it did to the land, that the money might as well have been thrown into the sea; but he never knew farmers make such mistakes; and, therefore, it need not be apprehended that the tenants would rush headlong into drainage works. With regard to out-falls, it was quite open to the landlords to keep the control of this matter in their own hands, and charge the tenant an annual sum for looking after them. He trusted the Government would not accept this Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he thought everyone on both sides of the House would see that whatever arrangement was arrived at in this matter some difficulty must arise. It was urged, on one side, that there must be compulsory power given to the tenant to effect drainage, because there were landlords so idiotic that, although their land would be improved, they declined to promote drainage. Those, of course, were rare cases; but he thought it a rarer case still that the tenant coming on to a farm should desire to apply to that farm a system of drainage that was not applicable to it. The landowners wanted security that the drainage, if carried out at all, should be done properly. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan) had suggested the appointment of some extraneous authority, either the Sheriff of the county or the Enclosure Commissioners, to look after and have control in this matter; but he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) thought the Committee would not agree to that proposal. His own view of a proper arrangement was that the landlord should be able freely to do the work himself if he objected to the mode of drainage which the tenant proposed; but he was not free to do that, because, under the Bill, he could only charge the tenant with 5 per cent for interest on the outlay, which was insufficient to repay him; and, therefore, if he were a poor man he might be obliged to leave the work to the tenant. He thought if they were to enable the landlord to charge such a percentage as that at which he could borrow money from the Enclosure Commissioners there would be no objection to the clause, because there would be no undue pressure placed by it on the landlord, in order to make him drain the land. The effect of the clause, in its present form, would be that a tenant, having entered upon a farm, might go to his landlord and say he wanted the farm drained in a particular manner; the landlord might reply that the mode of drainage proposed by the tenant was a wrong one; but the tenant might insist upon its being done, and the landlord would have to do it, and charge him 5 per cent interest upon the cost. As he had already pointed out, a poor landlord might be prevented from carrying out the drainage, and be obliged to hand it over to the tenant, who carried it out improperly. He thought there would be no difficulty in accepting the clause if the Government adopted the suggestion just made, by which means they would avoid the intervention of the extraneous authority advocated by the hon. Member for Linlithgow.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright) had addressed a pointed question to him, asking how it was, in view of a principle which he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had ventured on a former occasion to lay down, he could now support the clause before the Committee? The answer was that he supported the clause because he considered that drainage was not an improvement which altered the character of the holding; it seemed to him that drainage was so essential to good cultivation that it was not an alteration of the character of the holding in the sense in which he understood it.

MR. CARTWRIGHT

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the difference between drainage and irrigation?

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, drainage was practically necessary in almost every case; but irrigation was not. His reasons, therefore, for approving the clause were, in the first place, that drainage was not an improvement which altered the character of the holding; and, secondly, that it was an essential condition of good cultivation over the greater part of the country, although, no doubt, a large extent of land in the country was not under drainage. The hon. Member who had just spoken said that none but idiotic landlords had been neglectful of the drainage necessary on their land. He should be sorry to characterize the large number of landlords who objected to the drainage of their land as idiotic.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I spoke of a landlord as so idiotic as to prevent a tenant draining the land for him.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he had understood the hon. Gentleman otherwise. At all events, there was a large extent of land under cultivation which was not properly drained, the drainage of which it was believed would be of great advantage to the country; and it seemed hard, if the landlord were unable or unwilling to carry it out, that the tenant should not be allowed to do so. The object of the clause, then, was to give tenants the opportunity of doing the work themselves where the landlord refused or neglected to do it. It would only be in exceptional cases that the tenants would avail themselves of this liberty. He did not believe that the tenants would be likely to go in for drainage on a very large scale; he thought rather that the effect of the clause would be to compel landlords to enter closely into the consideration of this question, and to undertake the drainage themselves, and that the cases where the tenants themselves did the work would be where parts of the farms had been neglected, or where the system of drainage in existence had proved to be ineffectual. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard) had informed the Committee that in one part of Lincolnshire it was the custom for the tenants to drain without the consent of the landlord, and afterwards to claim compensation. As they had never heard that that custom had produced a bad effect, he regarded it as a strong argument in favour of the clause. Again, Mr. Clare Sewell Read had expressed a strong opinion that this power should be given to the tenant in the interest of agriculture. In conclusion, he expressed his belief that the clause would act in the main as a stimulant to the landlords undertaking the drainage, and that the tenants would do no more than supplement the work.

SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON

said, he should support the clause as it stood. He did not believe that the tenant was so anxious to lay out money on drainage unless he was driven to do it by the impossibility of getting the landlord to undertake it. He believed the clause would prove an inducement to the landlord to carry out drainage.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he wished to say one word as to the Lincolnshire custom referred to by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard), which without some explanation might lead to misunderstanding. It was true that there was a custom under which compensation was given to the tenant for drainage effected without the consent of the landlord; but he would point out to the Committee that that custom was liable to be overridden by agreement, and that it only had the force of law in the absence of an agreement. Certainly in Lincolnshire a large amount of drainage was done under the custom, and he was not aware that anything unsatisfactory had resulted from it.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

said, this was one of the most important clauses in the Bill, although it was not at all exempt from difficulties. His own experience was that, in many cases, the landlord was too poor to drain, and his experience in that direction was not a small one. He knew a case of an estate in his district, which was likely to be taken over for farming purposes, and which was almost completely under water at that moment, where the farmer was only waiting for this Bill to pass in order to commence draining. The farmer had applied to the landlord to do the work, and he had told him to wait till this Bill passed, and then he would he able to do it himself. The hon. Member for Herefordshire (Sir Joseph Bailey) had suggested that the case might be met by making the tenant specify what he was going to do by way of drainage, so that a record might be kept of it. Now, he had himself placed upon the Paper an Amendment which he believed would carry out the suggestion of the hon. Member for Herefordshire, and which, if it were adopted, he believed would enable the clause to be passed with safety. He desired to see the clause passed in such a form that, while it would facilitate drainage, it would give some security to the landlord that damage should not be done to the estate by the drainage which the tenant was allowed to carry out.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he thought it would very much facilitate the passing of the clause if his right hon. Friend opposite would give an intimation of those Amendments and securities which he understood him to be prepared to embody in it. There was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), and the Amendment of the hon. Baronet who had just spoken, both of which deserved the serious consideration of the Government. He believed it would be apparent to anyone who was acquainted with farming operations that to let the tenant of his own will drain the land piecemeal when he did not know how the water was to be got rid of, and where other portions of the estate were drained under a good system, would be mischievous in the extreme. His hon. Friend proposed that there should be some proper specification of the work, and some means of showing to the landlord that the work would be properly done. The great fear in the case of tenants dealing with matters of this kind was that the work would be done badly and imperfectly; and he was sure that, unless some security were given to the landlord in that respect, the effect of the clause would be, in many instances, mischievous. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had spoken a good deal about the system of drainage in his county; but he would remind the Committee that there the tenant farmers were men of large capital, whereas they had to deal generally with the tenants throughout England, who, as a rule, had little or no capital at all. The remarks of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had a very material bearing upon this clause. The right hon. Gentleman opposite knew very well that the landlord, if he were obliged to borrow money to carry out drainage works, could not possibly obtain it at a rate which would allow him to charge the tenant the 5 per cent set down in the Bill. He would have to go to a Company and get the money wherewith to drain the land; and it was, therefore, in his own interest, as well as of that of the tenant, that he should be able to charge an adequate percentage. For that reason, he asked his right hon. Friend to deal with this question of percentage, and not to abide by the hard-and-fast line laid down in the clause. When landlords drained their own land they did not charge more than 5 or 6 per cent to the tenant; but, in the case of a landlord who had to borrow money for drainage purposes, it was very hard that he should not be allowed to charge the tenant the interest which he himself had to pay. He knew that, under certain circumstances, the tenants could drain, and had drained, remarkably well. On the other hand, he had known cases in which the money spent had been absolutely thrown away, and where the drainage was worth nothing, and when it would require something more than a good valuer to do justice between the landlord and tenant. He believed it was not difficult to find a solution of this small question, because they were anxious to do all that lay in their power in the interest of the tenant and in the interest of agriculture; and, therefore, he hoped his right hon. Friend would be able to give an assurance that security would be taken for the work of drainage being properly carried out.

MR. DODSON

said, it was placing him in rather a difficult position, at the commencement of a discussion upon a clause with respect to which there were a number of Amendments on the Paper, to call upon him to announce specifically what he was prepared to do with regard to the latter part of the clause. He believed that if he were to follow that course he should only be landing himself and the Committee in a series of discussions of considerable length. The Government were not prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright), which, in fact, raised the principle of the Bill. He had stated last night that he should, on Report, endeavour to bring up a clause which would meet the views of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). He could now only repeat that statement, the object of which was to show that it was the desire of the Government to do justice in this matter. With regard to the suggestion that there should be a specification of the manner in which the drainage was to be done, he would like very much to hear that question discussed at the proper time, his impression being that there would be no objection on the part of the Government to such an arrangement. With regard to the rate of interest, when they reached the Amendment dealing with that question he should be glad to hear the reasons in favour of the rate of interest being raised. The Government had inserted 5 per cent in the clause, because they believed it to be the usual rate charged by landlords to their tenants for work of this kind. However, he did not wish to anticipate the discussion on that question, which would come forward in due course. He would simply express the hope that the Committee might be allowed to divide on the Amendment now before them.

MR. DONALDSON-HUDSON

said, he should not have interposed in this discussion had it not been that his attention had been directed by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. A. J. Balfour) and the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) to a particular subject connected with the clause, with reference to which he himself had an Amendment on the Paper. He would not, however, import into the present discussion any remarks upon that Amendment. It seemed to him to be most essential that there should be some control on the part of the landlord over the drainage operations of the tenant; and as his Amendment would practically give that control to the landlord, he would say no more than that he should be prepared to support the clause provided that Amendment were accepted.

MR. PUGH

said, he wished to point out a conclusive objection against the Amendment—namely, that if the Committee passed it no tenant would be able to carry a ton of lime upon the farm, or to place upon it any artificial manures, or, indeed, to do anything which would improve the husbandry without giving notice to his landlord that he intended to do so. The Amendment was intended to exclude from the second portion of the clause improvements mentioned in the 2nd Part of the Schedule executed before the commencement of the Act. The result would be this—that compensation under the Act would not be allowed for any improvements of which the tenant had not given notice to his landlord. He was quite sure that that was the clear effect of the Amendment, and he was satisfied that the Committee would not listen to such a proposition for a moment.

COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISE

said, it seemed to him that the question now raised affected the whole clause; and, therefore, although he was sorry to interpose, he considered it desirable that he should say a few words upon the matter. He must confess that he did not like the clause as it stood. He thought that the tenant farmers of this country understood how to farm their land very much better than their landlords did. They were far better acquainted with the character of the soil, and the peculiarity of the cultivation of it. Every field might require a different treatment, and he had known many thousands of pounds thrown away, because the landlords did not understand how the farming ought to be carried on. He himself thought that Parliament ought to be very careful indeed before it held out an inducement to landlords to interfere with the proper enterprize of tenants in the cultivation of their farms. At the same time there was another evil. He had known tenants who were charged as much as 7 per cent per acre on the drainage of land for operations which had been entirely thrown away. He, therefore, thought that 5 per cent was a very fair interest to be paid, if the landlord were compelled to advance money to the tenant for drainage, or the erection of extra buildings, or for other purposes. He did not want the tenants to appeal to the landlord, unless it was absolutely necessary, and if they could do the work without the landlord's help. But, at the same time, he did not think that the landlord should be compelled to pay for works that were not only unnecessary, but entirely unproductive, as far as the estate was concerned.

MR. R. H. PAGET

said, that after the important speech which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, he was inclined to take a very different view of the Amendment now before the Committee. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had seen that among the numerous speeches made upon this interesting subject no single Member of the House had supported the clause as it stood. He did not believe that on either side of the House a single speech had been delivered in support of the clause as it stood. There had been several speeches delivered that were distinctly against the principle the clause contained; and there were other hon. Members who were of opinion that, to a certain extent, it attempted alterations. If he understood the hon. Gentleman aright, he had come forward in good faith to explain that he was prepared to propose an Amendment which would go far to meet the objections that were entertained against the clause. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was prepared to introduce an Amendment to this effect—that after receiving a notice to quit, the tenant who went on with any matter of drainage should forfeit his right to compensation. In other words, that there should be no claim for compensation for drainage, if such work was commenced or undertaken after notice to quit had been received. He wished to know if he rightly apprehended the right hon. Gentleman, because his impression of the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman was that he had accepted in general terms the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). He further understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he did not adhere implicitly to the 5 per cent introduced in the Bill.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he hoped that after the discussion which had occurred his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright) would withdraw the Amendment. He thought that his hon. Friend had done great service in raising the discussion; but it was quite evident that the feeling of the House was in favour of the clause remaining as it stood. There was, however, one word which had fallen in regard to the Lincolnshire custom as to drainage, to which he desired to make a reply. He fully concurred in the view which had been expressed that the tenants who drained in accordance with the Lincolnshire custom were far better able to perform their work, and to understand their business, than the London agents of their landlords. He was quite satisfied that very little money would be wasted in unnecessary drainage works; and if at the end of a tenancy it became necessary to make a new agreement, he was perfectly certain that if it required to be drained, one of the conditions of taking it would be that it should be drained under an arrangement with the landlord.

MR. CARTWRIGHT

said, he believed that the position of the matter was very different now from what it was when he first proposed his Amendment. All he had urged was that compensation should not be brought about by the invidious process of giving notice to quit. He now understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy to intimate that he intended to bring in a provision by-and-bye which would extend the scope of the clause; and, under these circumstances, he was quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. THOMAS COLLINS

said, he wished, before the Amendment was withdrawn, to call attention to a point which he regarded as very material—namely, the rate of interest. He regarded advances upon drainage as a kind of terminable annuity; but nobody in his senses would advance 5 per cent on a terminable annuity which was to expire in the course of 14 or 15 years. He understood that the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright) was about to withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that an alteration was to be made in the clause, and that, if necessary, he would bring it up when the clause appeared in a new shape. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had not placed upon the Paper the Amendment he intended to propose as a modification of the clause. Unfortunately, the Committee were in the difficult position of discussing the clause, not as it stood, but with a promised modification of it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he proposed to move in page 2, line 14, after the word "hereto," to leave out to the end of the clause and insert— Unless such improvement shall have been agreed to by the landlord, or sanctioned by the judge of the county court on the report of an arbiter to be named by him, in the manner hereinafter specified (that is to say): A tenant may notify in writing, by a registered letter to his landlord, or to his landlord's agent, that he desired to have executed any of the improvements mentioned in the second part of the Schedule; and, if within three months from the date of such notice the landlord and tenant do not agree on the terms as to compensation or otherwise, on which the improvement is to he executed, or if the landlord fails to comply with an undertaking to execute the improvement himself within a reasonable time, the tenant may apply to the county court for authority to execute the improvement himself. Upon the receipt of such an application the judge of the county court shall name an arbiter to inquire into the merits of the application. The arbiter may call for the production of such documentary or other evidence as he may deem to be necessary, and shall report the result of his inquiry to the judge. If satisfied, after such inquiry, that the proposed improvement is suitable and necessary for conducting the work for which the holding has been let, the judge shall make an award that the tenant is authorized to execute the improvement himself. Such award shall be final, and shall specify—1. The nature and extent of the improvement to be made; 2. The amount to be expended upon it by the tenant; 3. The time within which the work is to be completed.

THE CHAIRMAN

I feel bound to rule that the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) is not in Order, because it, in reality, means the substitution of an entirely new clause.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, that his Amendment had now been upon the Paper for some time.

THE CHAIRMAN

No doubt; but I was unable to take notice of it until it was proposed.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, the next Amendment upon the Paper stood in his name; but, seeing that it and other consequential Amendments of which he had given Notice went to the extent of altering the whole clause, he did not propose to move it; but, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would allow him to make one or two observations, in order to explain the point to which the Amendments were directed. The clause, as it stood, allowed drainage to be done in three ways,—first, by an agreement between the landlord and tenant; secondly, by the landlord undertaking to execute the works, and charging the tenant 5 per cent; and, thirdly, by the tenant executing them himself.

THE CHAIRMAN

I feel bound to point out to the hon. Member that if he does not propose to move an Amendment there is no Question before the Committee.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, that under the circumstances he would move the first Amendment of which he had given Notice—namely, to leave out after the word "tenant," to "do," in line 17, and insert "shall give notice to the landlord of his requiring such drainage to be done." He had pointed out that there were three ways of executing these improvements—first, by an agreement between the landlord and tenant; secondly, by the landlord undertaking to execute them, and charging the tenant 5 per cent; and, thirdly, by the tenant executing them himself. He understood that the object of the clause was to require that the drainage, as a general rule, should be done as a matter of agreement between the landlord and tenant, without the interference of any Act of Parliament at all; but his own opinion was that the clause would not, as a rule, apply. The ordinary practice in regard to drainage was that it should be done on an understanding that the landlord should find the pipes and the tenant the labour. That being so, supposing the work had only been done a year previously, at the commencement of the Act, what claim would the tenant have for compensation? In what position would he be if he asked for compensation for the labour he had laid out? He (Mr. Staveley Hill) certainly failed to see under what part of the Act any claim for compensation could be sustained. Then, again, if the landlord was to find the money and to charge the tenant 5 per cent interest upon it, what was to be the position of matters? He thought he was entitled, perhaps more than a good many Members, to speak upon that point, because he was closely connected with the Lands Improvement Company, who had done the greatest part of this particular kind of work throughout the country; and he knew that it was perfectly impossible to do the work without charging a high rate of interest in order to lay the foundation for a sinking fund to pay for the sum laid out. He knew that the whole question had been thoroughly-gone into; and, so far as drainage works were concerned, it was impossible to undertake them without charging 6¾ per cent at the very lowest limit. Therefore, if public bodies, acting under Acts of Parliament, were unable to execute these works at a less interest than 6¾ per cent. how could the Committee suppose that they were giving an inducement to landlords to undertake the execution of the work themselves by allowing them a less sum by 1¾ per cent than the lowest rate of interest which was by Act of Parliament imposed? There was a third mode of drainage—namely, by the tenant himself; and the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had stated that the clause would apply to a very small extent indeed in regard to that class of tenants. He fully concurred with the right hon. Gentleman, and would not carry the Amendment further. He submitted that neither of the three schemes he had called attention to would induce the landlord to lay out his money, or the tenant to do the work himself.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 15, leave out after "tenant," to "do," in line 17, and insert "shall give notice to the landlord of his requiring such drainage to he done."—(Mr. Staveley Hill.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, that after the explanation he had given of his motives for placing the Amendment upon the Paper, he would not delay the Committee by proceeding with it further; but, by leave of the Committee, he would withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BIDDELL moved, in line 17, after the word "do," to insert the words "and a specification of such work." The object of the Amendment was to provide that, before the tenant undertook any work in regard to drainage, he should give notice to the landlord, and also provide a specification of the way in which he was going to carry through the work. He thought that such an Amendment would render the clause more complete than it now was; and if the landlord objected to the scheme of the tenant he could refuse his assent. He quite admitted that drainage was an expensive operation, and if the landlord had to pay for it he ought to have every facility for seeing that the work was properly overlooked, and well done. He, therefore, proposed this Amendment, and he could not think that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would object to it.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 17, after "do," insert "and a specification of such work."—(Mr. Biddell.)

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

MR. DODSON

said, he was quite prepared to agree to the Amendment.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

said, that he also had an Amendment on the Paper which went a little further than that of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Biddell), and which provided for a plan and inspection during the progress of the work by calling in some man of practical experience in the matter. He thought there was one thing far more necessary than a plan or specification, and that was that there should be a proper inspection of the works, in order to see that they were properly carried out. Drainage was a thing that was conducted below the soil, and was not, therefore, after its completion, open to inspection, which was not the case with regard to the use of manures and other improvements under the 3rd Part of the Schedule. It was, therefore, desirable, when the tenant was undertaking drainage, that the landlord should have the power of inspecting the works as they went on. He thought this Amendment of the clause was required; and if the hon. Member would withdraw his proposition he (Sir Joseph Pease) would move his in its place, which would render it unnecessary to move it as an addition to the proposal of the hon. Member.

MR. STORER

said, he most strongly supported the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, because he thought it was most necessary that there should be some inspection on behalf of the landlord. He had known a great deal of work done by the tenant, and, for that matter, by the landlord, in a most inefficient manner; and if the tenant did not intend to occupy the farm for many years, he might do all the work he undertook to do in a most slovenly manner. In fact, he had known one or two pieces of bad work stop up the whole drainage of a farm; and he was acquainted with more than one instance in which considerable sums of money had been utterly thrown away in draining, solely in consequence of a want of inspection of this kind.

COLONEL KINGSCOTE

said, he objected to going into all this minutiæ. It was not at all necessary, he thought, that the Bill should enter into minute particulars in regard to drainage. He thought it would be fatal to many drainage works that were now undertaken by the tenant. Supposing, for instance, a tenant went to his landlord and asked for sanction for certain drainage works. The landlord would naturally say—"How is it going to be done?" Probably the object of the tenant was to obtain leave to lay down some loose bushes, and to drain in that way; and, as they all knew, that was only a temporary sort of drainage. It might be said that when the tenant came to claim compensation for drainage he would be entitled to all the less; but, nevertheless, the sum he would claim would be very little less, because there would have been the same labour utilized in laying down bushes as would have been necessary in the case of drainage with tiles. Under these circumstances, he strongly objected to going into these minute details.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

thought there could be no objection to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Biddell), which simply provided that the tenant should be called upon to give a specification as to what he intended to do and as to how it was to be done. In regard to inspection, he thought they might safely entrust the tenant himself. The tenant was going to spend his own money upon the work, and he was going to take the risk of receiving compensation. Of course, the compensation would be according to the result of the work; and it was quite a mistake to suppose that drainage would not speak for itself as well as any other class of improvement. It was very immaterial whether it was carried out by bushes or pipes, because it was quite evident that the valuator, when the tenant claimed compensation, would assess the value according to the improvement made on the land when the valuation came to be made. Let the landlords appoint good and competent valuators on their behalf, and they would then be able to fix the full value of the drainage, and to understand how it was working by a simple inspection of the farm. There was, therefore, no advantage whatever to be gained by adding the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease). He (Mr. J. W. Barclay) admitted that the landlord ought to have a clear and distinct idea of the drainage which was going to be carried out, and it should then rest with the landlord, whether he would do it himself or allow it to be done by the tenant. If the tenant did it at his own cost, he did not see why there should be a plan and inspection, because he would carry the work out properly for his own sake, especially as the compensation would depend upon the state of the land when the valuation came to be made.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he was afraid he was in a minority in the view he entertained of this question; but he was certainly sorry that the Government had accepted the Amendment, when he saw the practical effect which would attend the working of it. He would take the case of a small tenant who wanted a small drain. He was a working man thoroughly competent to make the drain himself, and to do the work in an admirable manner. At the same time, he would be altogether unable to produce a specification. The labour of producing a specification would be a much more difficult task to him than the construction of the drain itself; and the result would be that, rather than send in a specification, he would lose sight of the drain altogether.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he thought that the Amendment came in in the wrong place. The only case in which they would require a specification would be where the tenant was going to do the work himself. There was no reason whatever why they should put a small tenant to the trouble of making a specification before he had got the consent of the landlord, who might be willing to do the work himself, or to do it jointly with the tenant, which, in his (Mr. Heneage's) opinion, was the best way to do it. He thought that any such Amendment as that of the hon. Baronet, if adopted at all, would be better inserted as a Proviso at the end of the clause to make provision for the tenant being able to do the work where the landlord refused to do it, either jointly with the tenant or alone.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, that, as far as the landlord was concerned, the Amendment was perfectly worthless, because the landlord would have no power of doing the work until he was set in motion by the tenant.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

remarked, that his Amendment was not yet before the Committee.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, his remarks would apply to the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Biddell) as well as to that of the hon. Baronet. It seemed to him that the Amendment would have the effect of overloading the Bill with details, without producing any advantage whatever. He, therefore, agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for West Gloucestershire (Colonel Kingscote) that the Amendment ought not to be accepted.

MR. PUGH

said, he also objected to the Amendment. He thought the objection which had been raised by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) was quite sufficient to prevent the Committee from inserting it in this part of the clause; but he objected to it, and also most strongly to the other Amendment suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease), for this reason—that as regarded the tenants of Wales it would absolutely prohibit them from undertaking drainage works. There were many tenant farmers there who were able to cut a thoroughly good drain, but who would not be able to draw up a specification; and if they called upon the tenant to employ an engineer to make a specification for them they would open the door to a large amount of unnecessary expense. By that means the tenant's expenditure would be very rapidly run up; and he was quite sure, if a clause of this kind were introduced, it would have the effect of prohibiting the tenant from embarking in improvements of this nature. At present they were able to make their drainage works with freedom, and to exercise a sound discretion in regard to the manner in which they conducted their drainage. He believed they would find their hands tied in future if anything in the nature of the present Amendment were adopted. Therefore, he should oppose it.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, he was glad that the Government had accepted the Amendment, and for this reason—that with regard to a specification it was not necessary that it should be of a very minute character, nor was the tenant very likely to make such a specification. His hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) asked, what was the use of the specification? Now that the landlord was bound to allow the drainage to be undertaken, there would be great advantage in having a specification at the outset, because then it would be known what the precise nature of the works was to be, and thus disputes would be avoided. The landlord would be able to see what was going to be done; and, in many cases, agreements would be made between the landlord and tenant, so that the whole matter would be arranged satisfactorily. There would be much more chance of an agreement being made if some specification were required than if there was not; and he, therefore, cordially supported the Amendment.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, the specification would be simply a statement on the part of the tenant that he intended to construct a certain number of drains a certain number of feet apart, and that he intended to lay them down with tiles or other materials. He thought the landlord was clearly entitled to have a specification, and he ought to have it at the very first stage of the transaction.

SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON

said, he thought that possibly, while accepting the Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman would not object to add something from the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, because the word "specification" was a technicality, and might become dangerous unless dealt with by technical persons. Some such words as "statement in writing "of the manner in which the work was to be done would be an improvement; but, at all events, if there was to be a specification, there must be a longer time than one month allowed. If there were a proposal to spend £10,000 the specification would be a considerable matter. A landlord could hardly say "Yes" or "No" in a month, for he could not get the work surveyed in that time.

COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISE

said, he thought it would be hard on the tenant farmer to require a specification; but his opinion upon this matter would depend very much on the answer to the question, whether the right hon. Gentleman thought this clause would upset the custom of the country or not? If it would upset the custom then there would be several objections to the Bill. At the present moment, in his own county, full compensation was given under the custom of the country, and the tenant was not required to give notice. There was considerable difference of opinion upon this point, and he should like to have an answer to the question.

MR. KNIGHT

said, he knew an extensive tract of clay land in Devon and Cornwall, upon which the proprietors had spent large sums of money for draining; but he did not think they had got 1 per cent upon their outlay. Landlords ought to be able to get some idea as to whether draining would pay or not before they were called upon to execute draining.

MR. THOMAS COLLINS

said, he thought it would be very desirable that a landlord should have some idea as to the width and depth of the pipes which a tenant proposed to lay down, before he decided whether he would allow the tenant to do the work or not.

MR. PELL

said, he thought the Amendment had raised a very important question, which had not so far attracted the attention it deserved. Everybody seemed to take it for granted that the drainage was to be done in tiles. The importance of knowing the width and the depth of the drains had been urged; but it had not occurred to anyone how the work was to be done. The question of the time of the year when the work should be done was also important. He had a friend in Leicestershire who was very fond of fox-hunting. He was not an early riser, and when the men went to ask him in the morning what they were to do, he told them to go draining. It was not very pleasant for a landlord to have to pay for draining done under such circumstances as those. Another consideration was this. If a difference arose between a landlord and his tenant as to the mode in which the draining was to be done, was this clause to apply solely to pipe draining? There was nothing in this clause to decide that point.

MR. M'LAGAN

said, he thought that the more the discussion proceeded the more clear it became that there must be some controlling authority. Draining would never be properly done until there was some authority to say first whether it should be done, and then whether it was sufficiently well done to add to the value of the estate.

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

proposed to insert the words "with or without plans," after the last Amendment. The watching of outfalls was, he said, a most important matter; and if that was not secured the drainage would be worse than useless. As soon as notice was given by a tenant, the land agent would inquire who was going to inspect the work, and then some qualified person would be named to inspect it.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 17, to add to the end of the last Amendment "with or without plans of the improvements so proposed, and stating the manner in which such work is to be inspected during its progress."—(Sir Joseph Pease.)

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

MR. BIDDELL

said, he understood that the principle was that the landlord should send whom he chose to inspect the work; but if that was not so, then he would give the landlord that power by an additional clause.

MR. DODSON

said, that of course a landlord would have the right, by himself or by his agent, to inspect the work. He did not think this Amendment was necessary or material, any more than the last Amendment was. When an owner received notice of draining he would naturally ask how it was to be done; but he had no objection to accept the Amendment, if that would re-assure the hon. Member as to what was intended.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he thought that if the Committee were to go into such minute details, it would be infinitely more in the interest of the tenant that the improvement of drainage should be included in the first class. The result of these minute provisions was that tenants were certain not to comply with them; and, consequently, they would lose their claim to compensation. If this word had been placed in the first class that would have settled the matter. The Amendment seemed to him to be superfluous.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he approved of the principle of the Amendment; but yet he thought it altogether unnecessary. Hon. Members seemed to think that landlords and tenants would not be able to come to terms; but there was no reason why a landlord should not ask from the tenant some information as to how the work was to be done.

MR. PUGH

said, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman was agreeing to these vexatious restrictions. He thought it would be much better that this clause should be left out altogether.

MR. A. F. EGERTON

said, he thought the Amendment altogether unnecessary, for a landlord had power to inspect work, and to send anybody he pleased on to his own land, and such a provision as this would only complicate matters.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DONALDSON-HUDSON

said, that all this discussion and all these refinements convinced him that drainage ought to be included in the 1st Part of the Schedule. The simplest plan would be to abolish Clause 4 altogether; but if the Committee were determined to retain that clause, he would move an Amendment with the object of altering the advantages to be given to a landlord in respect of drainage. He proposed to omit all the words from "a" to "or" in line 24, and then to insert "such a sum as shall repay in twenty-five years the outlay incurred, with interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum." The clause would then read— The landlord may charge the tenant with such a sum as shall in twenty-five years repay the outlay incurred in executing the improvement, with interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum. As the clause stood, it was very difficult to realize what it meant. Was the tenant to pay 5 per cent in a lump sum, or was he to pay 5 per cent per annum? [Mr. DODSON: 5 per cent per annum.] Then, was that 5 per cent per annum to be paid only during the life of the drain, or was it to be paid in perpetuity? This was a very important matter. If the tenant was only to pay 5 per cent per annum during the life of the drain—say 25 years—the landlord out of that must retain a sufficient sinking fund, equal to nearly 3 per cent, to recoup himself for the original outlay, in order that when the drain was worked out he might have some money for new drainage. What would be the result? The landlord was told that he must be satisfied with this miserable 2 per cent. He considered such a proposition was perfectly monstrous. Would any landlord in his senses invest money on an improvement if he knew beforehand he had only to receive 2 per cent interest? Would any commercial man invest money at such a rate of interest? And yet, when they compelled a landlord to invest his money against his will, they told him he should only receive the miserable pittance of 2 per cent. Suppose they were to say that 5 per cent was to be paid in perpetuity by the tenant, that was so long as the tenant stayed on the farm, what happened? If the drainage became worn out at the end of 20 or 25 years the tenant would come to the landlord and say—"This drainage upon which I am now paying 5 per cent is worn out; the drains are bursting up all over the place; it is silted up in many places; tree roots have got into it; in fact, it is so inefficient that, for my part, I would just as well it had not been drained at all. I can't go on paying you this 5 per cent." "Well," the landlord would say, "what am I to do? The Act says you must pay me 5 per cent." The tenant would say—"It is really so bad that I can't stay on the farm and pay this 5 per cent unless you re-do the drainage." The result would be that the landlord would have to put his hand in his pocket for another £6 or £7 per acre, and do the drainage over again, in order that the 5 per cent might be paid. Where the owner wished to charge his inheritance with the improvement, and the work was done by a Land Improvement Company, the Company invariably charged a sufficient interest on the sum borrowed as would enable the capital sum to be repaid in a certain term of years. He was sorry to say he had had some experience in the matter. The period had been fixed at 30 years, and the interest upon the sum charged was considerably over 6 per cent. The charge was transferred by the Drainage Improvement Company to an Insurance Office, who advanced the money they received for 30 years 6½ or 6¾ per cent. which enabled them to get an annual interest of about 4 or 4¼ per cent. and put by the remainder as a sinking fund when the annuity, for it was nothing else, terminated. By Act of Parliament they allowed Companies to lend money, and do the drainage of land, and charge very high rates; but they came to the landlords with this Bill in their hand, and they told them that they should be put at a disadvantage as compared with a Company, although the landlord, in the great majority of cases, was able to drain his land at a much cheaper acreage rate than any Land Improvement Company could possibly do, because he saved the expense of supervision; and he, also, did not have to pay for what might be called crass ignorance which some of the men who were sent down displayed, not exactly of drainage work, but of the locality. They could not possibly apply the same rules of drainage to one part of the country that they could to another, for they all knew that the qualities of soil were very diverse. There was another factor in the question of drainage. In some districts of England there were 30 or 40 or 50 inches of rain, while in other districts there was very much less rain, hence a very different system of drainage was required. There was another reason why he thought the Committee ought to grant this enhancement of interest payable by the tenant—it would enable a landlord to effect drainage himself without loss. A landlord might disapprove of the system of drainage which the tenant adopted; but if he could drain the land himself he would be able to say—"I will do it myself in my own way; and I will charge you such an interest which will repay me." He (Mr. Donaldson-Hudson) objected to any permission being given to the tenants to drain their land without the previous consent of their landlords. As a general rule, tenants did not understand the drainage of land so well as landlords or the agents, for the very good reason that they had not had the same experience. Upon most estates there was someone who thoroughly understood drainage, because he was always at work. Because he was constantly employed, he was able to do drainage more effectually, and cheaper, on account of its being more effectual, than the tenant could do it. He did not mean to say there were not many tenants who could be trusted implicitly to do drainage. He, however, knew some tenants who could not do the work; indeed, he believed it would be quite as effectual to bury the drains as to trust some tenants with unlimited power to drain. There was another point to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee. In the case of drainage, it was most important that every drain should be mapped out. A map of an estate which was properly and efficiently drained presented the appearance of a gridiron. What might happen if a tenant did the drainage? The man might thoroughly understand drainage, or he might be an ignoramus. Suppose the drains, from being too wide apart, would not drain the land properly, what ought to be done? A man who understood the business would put an intermediate drain between the two, and drain shallower. He (Mr. Donaldson-Hudson) had drained in such a way hundreds of acres which had been drained too deep. A tenant might drain across an old drain, and it was possible that in a short time both drainage systems would be destroyed. He appealed to the Committee to deal in this matter with fairness and justice to the landlord. If they compelled landlords to advance money for this drainage, they ought not, at the same time, to inflict upon them any pecuniary loss.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 24, leave out "a sum not exceeding five per cent on," and insert" such a sum as shall repay in twenty-five years the outlay incurred with interest at the rate of five per centum per annum."—(Mr. Donaldson-Hudson.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. GREGORY

said, that what the hon. Gentleman proposed was that a tenant should be charged such a sum as would recoup the principal and interest within 25 years. The charge must be contingent on the life of the tenant during the 25 years; and he did not think that was a principle that would work very well in practice. The question was then as to the interest being at the rate of 5 per cent. So far as he was concerned, he should be willing to do any amount of draining at 5 per cent per annum interest upon his capital invested; and his experience was that this became a permanent addition to the rent. Indeed, he was content to take the Bill as it stood in that respect. There might be cases where the tenant for life would have to pay a somewhat enhanced rate of interest. The charge, he thought, was something like 6¼ or 6½ per cent for principal and interest in the case of money borrowed from the Land Companies; and he did not think it would be unfair to give from 5 per cent to 6 per cent as the maximum. They were now providing a maximum, and it was matter of agreement between landlord and tenant as to whether it should be paid. They could give a tenant the alternative of saying—"I won't pay that, and I will do the drainage myself, as I can do it at less cost." If it were not for that he should be content to adhere to the rate provided by the Bill. In his own case he was satisfied with it.

MR. FRANCIS FOLJAMBE

said, he could not see how the restrictions of interest in regard to drainage loans could be otherwise than an interference with the rent. He knew of cases at the present time, and could name them to any individual Member, in which the drainage was done by the landlord without charging interest to the tenant; but that drainage, in the course of a year or two, would increase the value of the land from a small sum, something like 30s. or 40s. an acre. When a landlord had shown skill and enterprize, and had raised his money for the purpose of carrying out these works, why was he to be restricted from having the full value of the investment given to him? Probably he might be told that there was no restriction of that kind; but if there was no explanation of the matter it seemed to him that it would be unfair to adopt these restrictions.

MR. THOMAS COLLINS

said, he belonged to one of these Land Companies, and they lent money at 6¼ per cent. There was no reason whatever, because a great many landlords, perhaps the majority, were inclined to drain at 5 per cent. that other landlords should not be allowed to pay a higher rate of interest for the money they had borrowed for the purpose. Some landlords did it ex gratiâ, doing things for which they looked for no return. The men on their farms half teased and half coaxed them out of improvements; and they got paid, of course, by the reputation they acquired for being liberal landlords and not screws. It was no reason, however, because certain landlords had been good and generous to their tenants, that they should have forced upon them a lower rate of interest for money invested on drainage works. The generosity of the thing would at once be put an end to if the work was to be done according to the terms of an Act of Parliament. Twenty years would be rather over than under the time that an ordinary drain would last; and it was not fair, therefore, to compel a landlord to buy a terminable annuity, and only to allow him to receive 5 per cent for his money. That was a pure matter of business. If they were to lay down laws in Parliament, let them not lay down laws generous to the tenant at the expense of the landlord; and, on the other hand, let them not lay down laws generous to the landlord at the expense of the tenant. What they ought to do should be to endeavour to do justice between the two. It was not fair to take from A to give to B without giving A proper remuneration. He certainly hoped that if this thing was to be done at all the right hon. Gentlemen who had charge of the Bill would lay down the same principle that the Drainage Companies had laid down. A landlord should not be expected to carry out drainage works on terms that would not pay him when the life of the drain was worn out; he ought to have a sinking fund to pay him the interest on the capital which he had laid out, and to refund his capital when the drain was worn out.

COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISE

said, he understood the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) to say that if the rate was altered to 6 per cent. in case the tenants thought that too high a rate they would have the option of doing the drainage themselves; but he (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) did not so read the clause. He understood that if the tenant refused the rate of interest laid down in the clause, then he would no longer be able to execute the drainage himself and to claim compensation for it; therefore, if they placed in the Bill a very high rate of interest it followed that they were barring very much the tenant's right to carry out the drainage operations without the consent of the landlord.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

said, he did not read the clause in the same way as the hon. and gallant Member who had just addressed the Committee. It appeared to him that if the tenant and the landlord could not agree upon the mode upon which the landlord was to be paid interest on the money he laid out, the tenant could undertake the drainage himself. But what he (Viscount Folkestone) rose to ask was, whether it was necessary to have anything in the clause limiting the percentage to be charged upon money laid out for drainage—whether it was necessary to put in this clause at all? It appeared to him that if the landlord was free to charge what percentage he liked, and he and the tenant did not agree, the tenant thinking that the landlord was proposing to charge him too much upon his outlay, it would be left to the tenant to make the improvement himself, and if he quitted his holding before the improvement was worn out he would be able to claim from the incoming tenant, or the landlord if there was no incoming tenant, the value of his improvement. There appeared to be no limit as to how long the 5 per cent was to be charged upon the outlay of the landlord on the improvement. Were they to allow that 5 per cent to be charged on the present tenant—because it must be remembered that this was a Bill restricting freedom of contract and rights in all directions—or was a percentage to be charged on an incoming tenant after the tenant had left the farm? In the case of a drain lasting only 20 years, if the 5 per cent was to be charged for all time, the landlord could get at the tenant then on the farm; but he might be treated hardly, as might also the incoming tenant. Supposing, on the other hand, they said that was a matter for consideration between the landlord and the incoming tenant, the answer was, why should there be any limit or definition as to the amount of percentage to be charged in this clause at all? They had been told—and he believed there was no doubt about the case—that the landlords, if they wanted to borrow money at all for drainage, were obliged to pay as much as 6½, 6¾, or 7 per cent for it; therefore, it appeared to him, if the interest was only to be charged for 20 years, the landlord, if he only got 5 per cent. would be out of pocket, and would not be recouped, and would, therefore, be deterred from laying out any money on these improvements, even if the tenant and he himself wished to do so. They had to bear in mind that this was no new idea, and the landlords had often be fore borrowed money for the purpose of making these improvements; and he, for one, had never heard of any difficulty being found as to the compensation or amount of extra rent the tenant was to pay for the improvement. If the right hon. Gentleman would bear what he had said in mind, he would find, perhaps, it was not necessary to define in this clause any maximum of percentage which was to be paid to the landlord for making his improvement.

MR. DUCKHAM

said, he felt, when they commenced this Bill, that it was one which was to be of benefit to the nation, and of equal benefit to landlord and tenant; but they had, during the last two days, made such alterations in the two first clauses that he had felt that the original objects of the Bill were pretty nearly extinct. [Cries of "Question!"] He was speaking to the Question—he felt that he must now give expression to his opinion respecting the observations he had heard made upon the Draining Clause. The rates of the Land Companies had been held up as the proper rates of interest to be paid for the money expended on drainage; but, in his opinion, these rates had been a great barrier to a great many improvements. The rates charged by these Companies were excessive, and the tenant farmers saw that they were paying for those permanent improvements which really belonged to the landlords. The tenant who remained 30 years in occupation of the land, by paying 6½ per cent on the money expended on the permanent improvements, really bore the cost of those improvements, and not the landlord; and yet, if the landlord went into the market with his land, he would be willing to sell these improvements at 3 per cent. The landlord would be prepared to part with his property and with the improvements at the ordinary rate; and yet, so long as the land was in the tenant's occupation, according to the views of the different Gentlemen who had addressed the Committee, the landord should have to receive 6½ per cent for the improvements. He certainly thought it monstrous to place such a rate of interest on the tenant, and he hoped the Government would not accede to the proposals made, but, on the contrary, would reduce the rate of interest.

MR. GRANTHAM

said, he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), or the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment. They had to bear in mind that under this clause the tenant had power to tell the landlord to do that which he would not do himself. There were three ways in which this drainage could be done, either by an agreement between the landlord and tenant, according to the first part of the clause, or by the landlord doing it himself and charging 5 per cent for it, or by the tenant doing it. What was the position of the landlord if he did not choose to make these improvements for 5 per cent. because they knew they could rarely be effected for less than 6½ or 7 per cent? The landlord might say—" I cannot afford to carry out this improvement;" and, therefore, he would throw it in the power of the tenant to carry it out, and the landlord would then be compelled to pay compensation. And if the tenant was required to make the improvement, he might not do it so well as the landlord. By the Bill they were giving the tenant power to do the work, and to do it not so well as the landlord. The sum they fixed was not a fair sum between landlord and tenant. The statement was uncontradicted that drainage was not everlasting, and that the drains were certain to wear out in 21 years—they might say that 21 years was the maximum life of drainage. There were very few exceptions to that rule; many drains were out sooner; so that if they took the term at 25 years the landlord would, in many cases, find that he was a great loser, although that would be fairer than the proposal of the clause. He did hope the Government would consent to some modification of the clause.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he entirely dissented from the Amendment before the Committee. He did not see why they should be tied down to 25 years, or to 5 per cent. or to anything else. The proper way to deal with this question would be to strike out the words " a sum not exceeding five per cent." and insert the word "interest." If it were thought desirable, they might put in, as an alternative, the amount at which the money could be borrowed from an Improvements Loan Society. That did appear to him to be the practical way of dealing with the matter. Under any circumstances they should not lay down a hard-and-fast rule. He hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment, which he did not think had been approved by anyone up to the present time, and would allow him (Mr. Heneage) to propose the Amendment he now indicated. If the spirit of his Amendment were accepted, he should be willing to assent to any qualification that was fair and just.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he should be disposed to agree with the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) in thinking that the insertion of any figure would be a great mistake on the part of the Committee. He quite admitted the exceedingly fair spirit in which the Government had dealt with this matter; and he thought they had realized, on the other hand, that there was no disposition to treat this matter in any shape or form as a Party question. What he would, with submission, venture to suggest was that the Committee should pause before it took an initial step in the direction which he knew the Government had no desire to travel—namely, in the direction of fixing judicial rents. Even the hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon, (Sir Thomas Acland), if he might for a moment engage his attention and disturb him in the conversation he was engaged in, would hardly agree to that. He would point out to the hon. Baronet that the Committee was now invited, for the first time, to introduce the authority of the law between landlord and tenant with regard to the money that should pass from one to the other in the way of rent, or what was equivalent to rent—namely, the charge on outlay. They had heard before of the germs of future legislation being laid without the knowledge of Parliament in an apparently inoffensive section of a previous Act of Parliament—germs passed and considered without any person having any idea at the time of what they were doing. He would ask the hon. Member, whom he knew wanted to deal with fairness on this subject, whether he would not find it difficult in the future to resist the conclusion being drawn that Parliament intended that under no circumstances should the tenant be charged more than an interest of 5 per cent on the outlay, whatever might be the improvement brought about, though a great part of it might be due, as the hon. Member for East Retford (Mr. E. Foljambe) had remarked, to the inherent qualities of the soil. The hon. Member for East Retford had mentioned cases within his own knowledge where fields—he was not now speaking of farms as a whole—might have been, perhaps, trebled in value by a comparatively small expenditure in the way of drainage. Well, would it be reasonable or fair that for all time, practically, the owner of the property should be debarred from reaping that advantage which was due, in a great measure, to the inherent qualities of the soil, by this clause? He knew that was not the intention of the Government, and he mentioned it merely with the view that the right hon. Gentleman should, if possible, exercise his ingenuity in devising some means for obviating so great an evil. With regard to the actual proposal that one figure be substituted for another, if they were driven to consider that he would ask the Committee to look at it from the point of view of those who desired to have no advantage either for the landlord or the tenant. Those who desired to promote drainage should be careful that upon neither side, neither as against the tenant nor as against the landlord, did they impose conditions which would deter either one party or the other from executing these much-needed improvements. If they said that the landlord—which term, unfortunately, was now almost convertible with that of "needy person"—was bound, at the risk of allowing the interest on his estate to pass to another, to execute these necessary improvements, they would be acting unfairly. The Bill said the landlord might not charge more than 5 per cent. They knew the Land Improvement Companies, to which the majority of landlords were unfortunately bound now-a-days to have recourse, made it necessary that they should give beyond 6 per cent. probably 6½ or 6¾. If they said that the needy landlord, who, perhaps, owing to the charges upon his estate, and other circumstances, was unable to appropriate any portion of his available income to these purposes, he was to be at a definite loss, on account of that expenditure, they would go a very long way towards discouraging that very improvement which, of all others, they heard from every quarter of the House was the most needed of all. Therefore, the Government would see that they must remove every impediment from the way of the employment of borrowed capital for this purpose. If it was not too late, might he again ask the Government if it was necessary to put these words in at all? The right hon. Gentleman must know perfectly well that it would be rarely, if ever, brought into play. He must know, what he had himself already admitted, that it would be monstrous to concede a permission to the tenant, who either might give or receive notice to quit, power to execute this improvement. Above all, they might be told, as had been already suggested to-night, that the landlord would be almost driven, in order to protect himself, to take that step which every landlord in the House knew was the most painful for a landlord to have to take—namely, that of giving notice to his tenant. He would be almost driven to take that step by the wording of this clause. The provision could be evaded in many other ways. He would point out that if this clause, unamended, ever became incorporated in an Act of Parliament, they would be very likely in the future to hear no more about the joint interest of the landlord and tenant in the improvement of a holding; what the landlord would do would be to execute what improvement was necessary and charge nothing whatever; but within what the Prime Minister would call a measurable distance of time have a re-valuation of the holding, and charge new rent which might have no direct connection with what had taken place in the way of draining. On the whole, this provision was one which would rarely be called into operation, which could be most easily evaded, and which would do very little, if any, practical good. This portion of the Bill raised the germ of a principle which might be capable of dangerous application at a future time. He perfectly agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), and another hon. Gentleman opposite, with regard to this question of interest. He hoped the Committee had no desire to be drawn into dangerous channels, and that the right hon. Gentleman, who had set his face against injustice, either to the landlord or the tenant, would see that there was no real necessity for this provision. He trusted he would cut the Gordian Knot, as between 5, 6, or 7 per cent, by leaving out the words altogether.

MR. ALBERT GREY

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would intimate to the Committee, as soon as possible, what modification he was prepared to make in the clause. He trusted the Government would consent to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage)—namely, that the words should be cut out altogether which limited the percentage to be charged, and that they would substitute the words— Not exceeding the interest at which the landlord can borrow under the sanction of the Enclosure Commissioners for the purpose of carrying out such improvements. That appeared to him to be a very fair arrangement, and if the Government would intimate that they were willing to adopt it, he believed they might bring to a conclusion this discussion on a financial matter in as many minutes as it would otherwise take hours to terminate.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he agreed with the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey), who had just sat down, that it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would state what modification he was prepared to make in the clause, which, as the hon. Gentleman had just said, could then be settled in a very few minutes. His hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), who had spoken just now, had placed the case as fairly as it was possible to do before the Committee; and, therefore, he should not travel over the same ground, but content himself by repeating his belief that if the words proposed by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) were adopted the discussion on the clause would be brought to an end in a very short time.

SIR THOMAS ACLAND

said, it was not an uncommon thing that Parliament, when it granted special privileges to Companies and other persons, should say that no more than a certain percentage of profit should be raised upon the public; but in this case they had before them the reverse of that principle. They proposed to take away from the landlord the right which he possessed, they imposed on him certain duties, and they said that he should not get one penny for what he did. He thought the principle of limiting the rate of interest to be charged was economically and financially unsound, and that the limit in the clause ought, therefore, to be expunged.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he trusted the Government would accept the proposal of their own supporters in reference to this clause.

MR. ACLAND

said, in the Division of Cornwall which he had the honour to represent, as appeared by the evidence given before the Royal Commission, there were a very large number of small owners. This question, however, had hitherto been regarded from the point of view of the large proprietors alone. Speaking in the interest of these small proprietors, he thought it rather hard to tie them down to a rate of interest at which they could not borrow the money necessary for the purpose of the clause.

MR. BIDDELL

said, it seemed to him to be a question whether the tenant or the landlord should have their wishes carried out. They each had different ideas with regard to drainage; and he thought, looking at the clause, that the case, on the whole, was fairly met. The landlord was not compelled to take a low rate of interest for his money.

MR. DODSON

said, they had had a very long discussion on this question, which he admitted was one of no inconsiderable difficulty, and with regard to it they had had almost as many different proposals as there had been speakers on the Amendment. He ventured to call attention to one or two points. The object of the clause was to secure that drainage should be executed either by one party or the other; while, if they left out all percentage of interest, they placed it in the power of the landlord to charge a prohibitory rate. He might say to the tenant—"I will undertake to do this drainage; but I will charge you 10 or 20 per cent." On those terms it was clear that the tenant could not pay. It was necessary, therefore, that the clause should impose some limit on the interest which the landlord could charge; and, accordingly, they had placed it at 5 per cent. which was a rate at which owners in general were content to execute drainage for their tenants. [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON dissented.] The hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) shook his head at this; but he thought he would be fortunate if he could get more than 5 per cent for drainage works, because, so far as his (Mr. Dodson's) information went, the tenants would not pay more. He wished to point out, further, that there were three alternatives in this clause; in one case, the tenant might do the drainage himself at his own expense; in the second, he and the landlord might agree as to the terms on which the drainage should be done, and, in that case, there was no limit imposed as to the rate of interest. That limitation only occurred in respect of the third alternative, where the owner said he would not permit the tenant to do the drainage, and would make no terms with him about it, and would do it himself, absolutely and entirely on his own terms. He wished hon. Members to appreciate the fact that there was no limit as to the time for which the interest could continue. They knew that in ordinary cases the owner very generally charged 5 per cent for the interest upon the outlay to the existing tenant; but if the tenant quitted his holding before the drainage was exhausted, that interest merged into rent, and was so charged to the new tenant. Then it had been said that the impecunious landlord who had not the money to do the work himself, when he insisted on doing it himself, would have to borrow, and that the landlord ought to be enabled by this clause to charge such a rate of interest as would provide a sinking fund, and cover the charges of Companies from whom he borrowed. Therefore, it was said that the rate of interest should be raised to 6 or 6¾ per cent. But in cases where such a rate was charged, it was not without any limit as to time, as in the case of the 5 per cent in the clause; it was for a fixed number of years, within which capital and interest had to be repaid. He would like the wording of the clause to remain as it was; but to meet the point of the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite, which had received the support of a number of Members of the Committee, he proposed that there should be added, as an alternative, after the word "improvement," in line 25— Or any such annual sum as will repay principal and interest at the rate of per cent in the term of twenty-five years. He would not then specify what rate of interest should be permitted, as he must take time to consider that point. The effect would be that a landlord who took the matter of drainage into his own hands, and made no terms with the tenant, would be entitled to charge the 5 per cent proposed in the clause, for which there was no limit of time. Or, if he had to borrow the money of the Government or the Land Companies, he would have the alternative of charging an annual sum for principal and interest for a limited number of years. He would not move the words then, but would undertake to bring up on Report words which would give effect to the alternative he suggested.

MR. PICKERING PHIPPS

said, he thought the terms of this clause were fair; and he regretted that the Government should have made this alteration in it, because if they went on in this way they would be rightly accused of taking out of the Bill everything of value which it contained. As it was necessary to cultivation that some land should be drained, he considered that where the landlord elected to do the work himself, he was only entitled to the same rate of interest as on the land itself—say, 3 per cent; the remaining 2 per cent would, in a great measure, recoup the landlord for his outlay. He might point out that if the landlord did not like to execute the work there was nothing to compel him to do it. For the last eight years, a great deal of draining had been going on, without the consent of either landlord or occupier—he meant the drainage of the tenants' pockets. During that time the agricultural interest had been greatly depressed, and he considered it to be the duty of the landlords to endeavour to assist the tenant farmer in this matter. He regarded the clause, in its present form, as perfectly fair and just in its provisions, and for that reason he should give it his support.

MR. DONALDSON-HUDSON

said, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DUCKHAM

said, it was to be regretted that nearly every step taken by the Government in relation to this Bill was in the wrong direction. He thought if the rate of interest named in the clause was to be increased, the sooner the Bill was dropped the better. He was determined, even if he stood alone, to go to a Division in support of the clause. In the meantime, at the suggestion of several hon. Members, he would move the reduction of the rate of interest from 5 to 4 per cent.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 24, to leave out "five per cent," and insert "four per cent per annum."—(Mr. Duckham.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, the proposal of the Government would render the first and second Schedules of the Bill nugatory; in fact everything, as the hon. Member had just stated, that was of any value was being steadily eliminated from the Bill. It was clear that the tenant was to be called upon to pay the whole cost of the drainage; that was the proposal which the Government had indicated they were prepared to accept. They proposed that the tenant should pay the whole cost of the drainage in 25 years, and that at the end of that term the landlord should have the whole benefit of the drainage. With regard to the Amendment before the Committee, which, he believed, his hon. Friend had moved for the purpose of hearing the opinions of hon. Members still further upon the question, he was bound to say that he considered 5 per cent a very fair rate of interest; but he was afraid that in the case of a yearly tenant he would, in a short time, find the interest abandoned, and an increased rent charged upon him to make up for the moderate rate chargeable under the Bill. So far, however, as the Amendment of his hon. Friend was concerned, he thought it better that the clause should remain as it was; but, rather than that the Amendment of the Government should be adopted, he would prefer to see the Bill dropped altogether.

MR. PICKERING PHIPPS

hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 27, to leave out "a reasonable time," and insert "three."—(Mr. Duckham.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON

said, he thought it was very desirable that there should be no uncertainty; but "reasonable time" might lead to such uncertainty. At the same time, the conditions of each case varied so much that it might be difficult to fix a limit that would apply to all cases. If the Government would not adopt "three" months, he hoped they would name some definite period of their own.

MR. DODSON

said, he hoped there would be no long discussion on these words. He thought the clause was better as it stood; but if there was to be a fixed limit, it should be a year.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he thought the period should be longer than three months.

MR. DUCKHAM

said, he did not care whether it was three or 12 months, though he thought three were sufficient. All he wanted was a definite time.

Amendment, by leave, wilhdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 27, to leave out "reasonable time," in order to insert "six months."

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. DODSON

said, "six" months were not so hard as three; but still he submitted that if the period was fixed, it should be one year, and he should be ready to agree to that.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he did not see how drains could be expected to be completed in one year, and he hoped the Government would keep to their clause.

MR. THOMAS COLLINS

said, he thought six months too short.

SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEY

considered "a reasonable time" the best provision.

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he rose to move an Amendment providing that if a landlord failed to comply with an undertaking to execute improvements himself within a reasonable time, the tenant might apply to the County Court for authority to execute the improvements, and that the Court should thereupon appoint an arbitrator to consider the application. This Amendment had been framed to meet all the objections that had been raised during the last three hours. If a tenant went to a landlord who had drained the land within five years, and said he wished the land drained again, because it was badly done, and the landlord would not give way, the tenant under this Amendment would be able to apply to the County Court; and so an arbitrator would be brought in at the commencement instead of at the end of the proceedings, in order that there might be no question afterwards between the landlord and the tenant as to the work. The Committee having decided that the tenant should only receive what he had laid out, it was most important that the outlay should be settled at the commencement and not left over until the work was finished. The Amendment was in the interest of the landlord as well as the tenant, because it would do away with uncertainties that might arise in a great many cases. He had suggested the County Court instead of the Commissioners, because the County Court was the authority under the English Agricultural Holdings Act in this matter. The Amendment would chiefly apply to leases.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 28, after the words "he may," insert "apply to the county court for authority to execute the improvement himself. Upon the receipt of such an application the judge of the county court shall name an arbiter to inquire into the merits of the application. The arbiter may call for the production of such documentary or other evidence as he may deem to he necessary, and shall report the result of his inquiry to the judge. If satisfied, after such inquiry, that the proposed improvement is suitable and necessary for conducting the work for which the holding has been let, the judge shall make an award that the tenant is authorised to execute the improvement himself. Such award shall be final and shall specify—

1. 1. The nature and extent of the improvement to be made;
2. 2. The amount to be expended upon it by the tenant;
1986
3. 3. The time within which the work is to be completed."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)

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

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, the Amendment proceeded on a principle distinct from and opposite to that of the clause, and introduced a principle which was very novel, and was one which the Government had endeavoured to avoid in the construction of the clause—namely, the principle of arbitration upon what should be done. That was a principle which, if adopted on this occasion, might be carried a good deal further. He thought there had been heard in the discussion the germs of future legislation; and this Amendment might be one of such germs. The hon. and learned Member had suggested that not only with regard to draining, but to other improvements, arbitration might be called in to determine what should be done. It was for that reason that the Government had avoided in this clause any reference to an independent authority, for they thought the main thing was to leave matters to be settled between the landlord and tenant on the basis of the clause itself. He hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he was rather surprised at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, for the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln had stated to-day that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had agreed to accept this proposal. He regretted the decision of the Government, for he believed the landlords were very anxious for this provision.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

said, he moved to omit, in page 2, line 29, the words "on the execution thereof;" first, because they were not necessary; and, secondly, because he thought they might lead to the mistake that a tenant who had several years to run would be entitled to claim compensation immediately on the execution of the improvements. Possibly the Government had it in mind to show that a tenant should not be entitled to compensation unless the improvements were carried to a conclusion; but that would be as well carried out by the substitution of the words "on quitting his holding on the determination of his tenancy." What he wished to prevent was a tenant claiming compensation immediately on the execution of the improvements.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 29, leave out "on the execution thereof."—(Viscount Folkestone.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he had no objection to omit these words; but he would propose to insert "in respect thereof."

Question put, and negatived.

On the Motion of Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Amendment made, in page 2, line 29, after the word "due," by inserting "in respect thereof."

MR. CHAPLIN

, in rising to move the insertion of the following paragraph:— Except as to feeding stuffs and manures the tenant shall not be entitled to compensation for an improvement mentioned in the second or third part of the Schedule hereto, where, in the case of a tenancy from year to year, it it executed after the tenant has given or received notice to quit, unless it is executed with the previous consent in writing of the landlord, said, this was an Amendment to which he had referred at an earlier part of the evening, and its object was to give a certain control over the execution of that class of durable improvements which could not be met with any excuse on the part of the landlord. He understood the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) to intimate to the Committee that he would himself be prepared to bring up an Amendment of this character. He (Mr. Chaplin) did not know whether it would be the wish of the Government to accept the proposal which he submitted at the present time, or not; but, if they were, he thought it would be well that the question should be settled at once. Therefore, with that view, and without repeating anything he said earlier in the evening, he would move this addition to the clause.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 34, insert as a new paragraph,—"Except as to feeding stuffs and manures the tenant shall not be entitled to compensation for an improvement mentioned in the second or third part of the Schedule hereto, where, in the case of a tenancy from year to year, it is executed after the tenant has given or received notice to quit, unless it is executed with the previous consent in writing of the landlord."—(Mr. Chaplin.)

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

MR. M'LAGAN

said, he had an Amendment to propose which came before this Amendment.

MR. J. LOWTHER

submitted that this Amendment had already been moved.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

rose to Order. His hon. Friend (Mr. M'Lagan) rose to propose his Amendment at the same time as the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin).

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman (Mr. M'Lagan) would have precedence if his Amendment were on the Paper. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) has precedence, because his Amendment is already on the Paper.

MR. DODSON

hoped the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) would not press his Amendment now. He (Mr. Dodson) stated last night that the Government would be prepared to bring up a clause with a view of effecting substantially what was aimed at by this Amendment.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, on that understanding he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, that if the Government accepted the Amendment, or the spirit of the Amendment, which was proposed by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, it would render nugatory the second part of the Bill, and, to a considerable extent, the third part.

MR. DODSON

said, as there still appeared to be some misapprehension on this point, he was afraid he should have to detain the Committee for a few moments. He thought he had stated that the Government would bring up a clause, and endeavour to give effect to that which was intended by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire. He stated, at the same time, that the matter required consideration, and he stated also that he could not commit himself as to any particular improvements, or as to the notice to quit in the case of a tenancy from year to year. Unless the clause respecting this was very carefully framed, it would enable the owner to keep the tenant under notice continuously, and thus prevent his obtaining compensation for any improvement. That was the difficulty which had been pointed out, and they had to find means of meeting it. With regard to leases, also, he did not think the words suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire could be accepted, and he stated that in the earlier part of the evening.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, perhaps he might explain that, with regard to leases, he should be quite prepared to accept a modification in the sense suggested. He wished, however, to make this point quite clear, that earlier in the evening he distinctly advocated the Amendment on the ground that it would give, in an extreme case, control to the landlord over the execution of a certain class of improvements, if they were made improperly or unnecessarily. He hold, therefore, inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) had said he would substantially accept the spirit of the Amendment, that the terms of the Amendment with regard to notice to quit should remain practically as they were.

MR. THOMAS COLLINS

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) would be able to lay the new clause on the Table of the House, at all events, by Monday.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he thought the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire had nothing whatever to do with the clause before the Committee. The clause was confined solely to the 2nd Part of the Schedule, and the Amendment referred to the 3rd Part.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

said, it might be that when the notice was given the work might have been commenced.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

, rising to Order, asked if there was any Motion before the Committee?

THE CHAIRMAN

Yes; the Motion is that the Amendment be, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

said, he hoped the acceptance of the spirit of the Amendment by the Government did not by any means imply that the form of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire would be accepted. Unfortunately, when they were told from the Treasury Bench that, substantially, the Amendment was accepted, there was a liability, when they came to Report, of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire and those acting with him holding the Government to the terms of the Amendment. He (Mr. Illingworth) only wished to point out now that if the work was in progress when the notice to quit was given, the tenant would be uncompensated for the work so far as he had done it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. M'LAGAN

proposed to add to the clause the following Proviso:—"Provided that such improvement does not tend to diminish the general value of the estate." It was very possible that an improvement might benefit a particular holding and yet diminish the value of an estate generally. One of his reasons for moving this Amendment was that, as leases are included in the Bill, certain improvements might be added to the Schedule, which might be good in themselves, but might tend to diminish the value of the estate, and the landlord would, under the Bill, have no power to prevent their being executed. He had taken these words from the Irish Land Act, and surely if the Government consented to insert them in that Act they would not object to put them in this Act.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 30, after "Act," add "Provided that such improvement does not tend to diminish the general value of the estate."—(Mr. M'Lagan.)

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

MR. HENEAGE

said, he hoped that the Government would not accept this absurd proposal. If the tenant was going to do something which would diminish the value of an estate, of course the landlord would step in and give him notice to quit. If the landlord did not know of any probable injury, how could the tenant be expected to know?

MR. COCHRAN-PATRICK

said, he thought there was a great deal in the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan). It was perfectly possible to conceive that some improvements might have a detrimental effect on the value of an estate. It was a different matter where a tenant was holding under a long lease, and holding under a yearly tenancy; and he should like to ask the Government whether they were prepared to say that the conclusions which the Committee came to in reference to this Bill would apply also to the Scotch Bill? On several points in this Bill Scotch Members held strong opinions, but had refrained from troubling the House with them, having put down Amendments to the Scotch Bill; but he was informed that there was a possibility of several points, not only of principle, but of detail, in the Scotch Bill being supposed to be under consideration on this Bill. The Amendment of his hon. Friend had a very important bearing on the Scotch Bill; and he would be glad if the Government would define the exact position, as it would very probably tend to shorten the debate hereafter.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, looking at this question from the point of view of an estate on which the lettings were from year to year, he very much concurred in what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage). At the same time, he was bound to admit that he, fortunately, knew exceedingly little of the system of leases, which, he was glad to say, did not prevail in any part of the county with which he was connected, and he was not inclined to advocate the adoption of the system generally. It was plain that the question as to year-to-year tenancies and to leaseholds must be considered from a separate point of view. It was obviously most unfair that in the case of leaseholds a tenant should have power to carry out improvements which might be beneficial to the particular holding he occupied, but which, at the same time, were calculated to injure the estate of which his holding was only a part.

SIR. EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, he sympathized with the object his hon. Friend (Mr. M'Lagan) had in view; but he doubted whether the words he proposed would tend to carry out his object. There was great reason for allowing power to a landlord to object to a tenant carrying out a particular scheme of drainage, because it might be no drainage at all. He thought the real way of meeting the proposal of the hon. Member would be to give power to the valuer to decide whether the improvement was an improvement at all.

MR. BULWER

said, he considered that the proposal of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan) was a very sensible and a very reasonable one. He (Mr. M'Lagan) had pointed out, in the course of the discussion this evening, a case in which the occupier of a house was deprived of his supply of water on account of the ill-managed drainage of an adjoining property. It was quite clear to the mind of anybody that an improvement to a particular holding might be extremely detrimental to the other tenants of the estate. One of the great difficulties which they would have to deal with in the Floods Prevention Bill was the effect of the drainage of the uplands on the lowlands. It was contended, on the one hand, that the drainage of the uplands was an advantage; but the lowlanders maintained that it might be extremely detrimental to them; in other words, though it would do good to the uplands, it would do the lowlands a deal of harm. So one could readily imagine what might be an improvement to one particular holding might damage the rest of an estate. He thought the Committee ought to accept the spirit of the Amendment, though he was not prepared to say whether the words were exactly sufficient to carry out the object in view. The draftsman would be quite competent to find words which would attain the object, if desired.

MR. DODSON

said, the Government were not prepared to accept the Amendment. It did not appear to him to be one which was at all necessary. Under the clause the owner really had the matter very much in his own hands, and this Amendment would even give him greater power. He (Mr. Dodson) did not think it was necessary to give the owner this additional protection, if protection it be. With regard to the appeal made to him by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick), he could only say that it was well known the Scotch and the English Bills were constructed on the same lines to a very great extent. There was, of course, a difference of circumstances and of law in the two countries, and on going through the Scotch Bill they would be obliged to take into consideration that difference.

MR. M'LAGAN

said, that, at the commencement of the discussion this evening, it was distinctly stated that this clause referred to leases as well as to yearly tenancies; and, consequently, the objection taken to the Amendment by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) was of no avail. This Amendment distinctly referred to leases and to yearly tenancies. He would not, however, trouble the Committee by taking a Division; but when the Scotch Bill was under consideraion, he would move his Amendment, and take the sense of the Committee.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he desired the Committee to take note of the declaration of the Government, that in the Scotch Bill they desired to carry out, in so far as the difference of cultivation would allow, the same principles they had adopted in the English Bill. He thought this was a very important declaration, because it simplified the discussion on the Scotch Bill. Of course, they would have to take all these points up again in the Scotch Bill, unless they understood that the two Bills were at least pari passû.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he hoped the Government would not attempt to prevent any discussion on this clause in the Scotch Bill.

MR. DODSON

said, he had only to repeat that the English and Scotch Bills had been constructed on the same lines, but that they would consider, on going through the Bill for each country respectively, the points of difference which the circumstances of the two countries required. He did not know what was the particular object with which the hon. Member (Mr. A. J. Balfour) rose; but if there was any idea in his mind that the Government would accept for the Scotch Bill an Amendment which they had objected to in the case of the English Bill, simply because the Amendment had been forced upon them, he begged him not to indulge in any such idea.

MR. A. J. BALROUR

asked the Government to give a pledge that the principle of the Scotch Bill would be the same as that of the English Bill.

MR. DODSON

said, he declined to pin himself to any statement with regard to the Scotch Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON moved to add, at the end of the clause, these words— Compensation under this Act shall not be payable in respect of any improvement in the third part of the Schedule hereto, unless the tenant has within twelve months after the execution of such improvement given notice in writing to the landlord of the amount of money expended thereon and, if required, produced vouchers. His Amendment was intended to insure the keeping of the accounts between landlords and tenants in a business-like fashion. He desired that the tenant year by year should keep an account of the agricultural operations that he had made for which he desired to receive compensation, and that it should be necessary for him to give notice to the landlord of the works he had done in the way of improvements, and how much he had spent on them, so that when the parties desired to dissolve partnership there would be as little trouble as possible in their doing so.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

rose to Order. The Amendment of the hon. Member dealt with the 3rd Part of the Schedule, whereas the clause only dealt with the 2nd Part.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

pointed out that the Amendment which they had just disposed of affected matters in the 3rd Schedule.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that the Amendment was in Order.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, his Amendment was conceived in the interests of the tenant, because it would often happen that the tenant would omit to keep a proper account of the works he was doing, and which he had done, and the consequence would be that in 10 or 15 years, possibly, he might not have the proper evidence which was so necessary, especially as the Committee had decided that his compensation should not go beyond his original cost. It was reasonable that the two partners in the business, the landlord and the tenant, should know what was going on between them—that was to say, a bill should not be run up by the one against the other behind his back. The Amendment would not affect the discretion of the tenant in carrying out improvements. It only required that after he had made an improvement he should give notice to the landlord, in order that an account might be kept of it. The Amendment would induce a tenant to keep accounts, and enable him at the proper time to put forward his claim in an intelligible manner. The Amendment would also have another advantage. They all knew there were a few cases in which tenants were robbed in respect of the manure and feeding stuff sold to them by dealers. The Amendment would induce the landlord to assist a tenant in getting the proper analysis of the manures and feeding stuff used on the farm. The Amendment would prevent disputes between landlords and tenants; and in case a tenant died suddenly, all the circumstances of his agricultural operations would be in the possession of the landlord and the tenant's successors. He begged leave to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 34, at end of Clause, add—"Compensation under this Act shall not he payable in respect of any improvement in the third part of the Schedule hereto, unless the tenant has within twelve months after the execution of such improvement given notice in writing to the landlord of the amount of money expended thereon and, if required, produced vouchers."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)

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

MR. DODSON

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not detain the Committee by pressing this Amendment. It was very much out of place here; it was confined exclusively to the 3rd Part of the Schedule, whereas the clause dealt exclusively with the 2nd Part. He would point out that the Amendment would be a trap to the tenants who were not generally acquainted with the provisions of Acts of Parliament. They would not know they would be called on to give this notice, and would omit to do it. He, therefore, appealed to the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. FLOYER

said, he would draw the attention of the Committee for one or two minutes to the Amendment he had placed on the Paper. In some respects it was analogous to that moved by his hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton), and as that Amendment had been ruled to be in Order, he (Mr. Floyer) supposed his Amendment would be equally in Order. The distinction between the two Amendments was this. What his hon. Friend had asked the Committee to agree to was that notice should be given by the tenant to the landlord of any improvement that was made in the 3rd Schedule, accompanied with vouchers if required; and his Amendment was one which was in the Agricultural Holdings Bill of 1875, requiring the tenant, before beginning to execute certain improvements, to give notice to the landlord. He did not ask for any permission or agreement from the landlord, but merely that the tenant should give notice to the landlord that he intended to execute these improvements. Furthermore, he did not ask that the tenant should be bound to give notice to the landlord when he executed improvements such as the use of certain feeding stuffs and manures. In regard to these matters, if notice had to be given the tenant would require to do it every year, and the duty would, therefore, become somewhat irksome; but the improvements of which he required notice to be given were the more permanent class in the 3rd Part of the Schedule, such as boning, chalking, claying, liming, and marling the land. These were improvements which, unless they were carried out judiciously and with discretion as to the character and requirements of the different parts of the farm, might be very injurious indeed. For instance, a tenant might put chalk on land which was altogether unfit for it, and inflict an injury upon that part of the farm that could not be recovered for many years to come. If the landlord received notice that the tenant intended to carry out these improvements, he would be able to remonstrate with him at once, and give him the benefit of his judgment, which, as he might have been there for many years, whilst the tenant might be new to the farm, might be very useful. Besides that, if this notice had to be given there would be this advantage—that the landlord would be able to take note of the way in which the improvements were done. The landlord would know the quantities of lime and chalk used, the manner of their application, and their results, and by noting these facts he might be able to give information to the valuer, when that person came to value the improvements, in the event of the tenant quitting. He had been informed by a very able Member of the House—one who was as conversant with valuations as anyone could be—that it was important, when a valuer came to value improvements, on a tenant quitting a farm, that both parties should be able to give useful information, to enable a just and fair valuation to be arrived at. It was quite impossible that a valuer, by merely walking over the land, could fix the amount of the value of the improvements for which compensation was claimed. What the valuer would do would be to get all the information he could from the different parties. The tenant would say to him—"I have chalked that field and marled this, and I have done so and so, and I make a claim for these improvements, which, as you see, have done a great deal of good to the farm." The object of his (Mr. Floyer's) Amendment was to enable the valuer to go to the landlord as well, or to enable the landlord to go to him and say—"I remember such and such an improvement being effected very well—I remember it was so many loads of chalk, so many loads of lime, which were put down on this or that field I remember that part was not touched." In this way the landlord would be able to give information from his point of view; and it was in this way, by receiving the evidence of the landlord on one side, and of the tenant on the other, that the valuation would be made. There could be no doubt whatever that the difficulty which would be experienced under the Bill would be to arrive at a just valuation. They wanted all the information for the valuer they could give. The agent might not be living on the spot, he might not be there when the improvements were effected, and there might be nothing from the landlord's point of view to guide the valuer if this notice were not given. The only way in which the landlord's evidence, so far as he could see, could be made useful, would be by requiring that the landlord should receive notice of improvements. It would surely not be difficult or troublesome for the tenant to have to give this notice. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) had objected to his hon. Friend's Amendment on the ground that the tenants would not know the Act of Parliament; but he (Mr. Floyer) expected that all the tenants of England would very soon be familiar with all the leading provisions of the measure. His proposal would involve no unreasonable request to the tenant. He did not ask that all those works which were the ordinary operations of good husbandry should be notified to the landlord—for instance, where the tenant provided manures, or oilcake for feeding his stock; but he wished to have all those more durable improvements, such as chalking the land, made known to the landlord. The adoption of this proposal would take no benefit from the tenant. He (Mr. Floyer) would not move his Amendment now; but he had thought it well to refer to it, in order to enable the Committee, if they thought it a better one than that of his hon. Friend, to adopt it. If the Amendment of his hon. Friend were not accepted, he should move his.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, the observations of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down appeared to him to be directed almost exclusively to the Amendment which stood in his own name, whereas he (Mr. Chaplin) understood that the hon. Member for Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) had not yet withdrawn his Amendment. With regard to the latter Amendment, though he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that it would be better raised at another time, he did not think it devoid of importance. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Shropshire provided that there should be a distinct record kept of the expenditure on the making of an improvement; but the Committee must remember that only two days ago they carried an Amendment by which it was provided that compensation for improvements made without the consent of the landlord should not exceed the outlay. He thought, therefore, that it was of some importance that there should be some record of the outlay such as that which would be provided for by the suggestion of his hon. Friend. There was some force in the observation of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who said that it would provide a trap into which the tenant would fall through ignorance; but that difficulty might be easily provided for by an Amendment to the effect that, on the demand of the landlord, the record should be placed in his hands. He (Mr. Chaplin), however, would ask his hon. Friend not to press the Amendment at the present time.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. FLOYER

said, he now begged to move his Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

I understood the hon. Member to say he did not intend to move his Amendment.

MR. FLOYER

I did not say that. I said if the Committee accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) I would not move mine, as it would not come in as it stands on the Paper. The hon. Member's Amendment, however, has not been accepted; therefore I now move mine.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, at end of Clause, add—"Compensation under this Act shall not be payable in respect of any improvement mentioned in the third part of the Schedule hereto, and numbered from 14 to 19 respectively, unless the tenant has, not more than three months and not less than one month before beginning to execute such improvement, given to the landlord notice of his intention so to do, and of the nature and extent and probable cost of such improvement."—(Mr. Floyer.)

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

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, the Amendment of the hon. Member differed from that of the hon. Member for Shropshire, inasmuch as it required notice of improvements to be given before they were executed instead of after, and in that respect it would restore the improvements to the position they held under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875, which required that notice should be given of the improvements executed. He believed there was no provision in that Act which gave more general dissatisfaction; therefore, he would venture to hope that the Committee would not agree to the Amendment. If the last Amendment was rightly described as a trap to tenants, the same, he thought, might be said of these notices. Why should the tenant give notice before putting a little lime on his field? If he gave notice the landlord could not prevent the improvement taking place, and the effect of neglecting to give notice would be that, it might be three or four years afterwards, he would lose the value of all the improvement.

SIR THOMAS ACLAND

said, that chalking and liming the land were very serious matters. A "little liming," to use the right hon. Gentleman's expression, would not be of much use. It was reasonable, he thought, that the landlord, who might have very good reason for wishing to know what was going on on his property, should be entitled, when an operation of this kind was going on at the discretion of the tenant, to ask him what amount of cost he had incurred. He hoped some clause to that effect would be brought up later on.

MR. R. H. PAGET

said, he supported the observations which had fallen from the hon. Baronet who had just addressed the Committee, because those who had had practical experience of the matter would know that there were cases where they might apply bones or lime to the land without its being of the slightest value. At the same time, it was a most expensive class of manuring. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) spoke of a man "putting a little lime on his field," but he (Mr. R. H. Paget) knew from experience that the operation might easily cost from £4 to £5 an acre. They were going to allow a tenant to enter upon what might be an expenditure of £4 to £5 an acre. It was not a question of a "little lime" not worth a moment's consideration, but it was whether or not a tenant was to be allowed to enter upon an expensive experiment of this nature not merely for his own amusement, but with the power of saddling the expense on the landlord, and without giving any notice whatever to the landlord. It might be that the Amendment would not act harmoniously with the clause they were discussing; but he hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Floyer), if he withdrew it, would take good care to embody it in a seperate clause or to bring it up on a subsequent part of the Bill.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, he must protest against the view of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioners of Works, that the Amendments moved by his hon. Friend and by himself were traps to the tenants. They, perhaps, knew more about tenants than did the right hon. Gentleman. The Amendment had been supported, not only on the Opposition side of the House, but by the hon. Baronet (Sir Thomas Acland) who sat behind the right hon. Gentleman, and who was one of the largest and best landlords in the country. The right hon. Gentleman asked why the tenant should give notice to the landlord of what he had spent? And, in reply, he (Mr. Stanley Leighton) would say—"For the reason that the landlord was guaranteeing the repayment of the outlay." If a man was to be responsible for an expenditure of money, surely he should know something about that expenditure. If they were to go on amicably with this Bill, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to talk in this way about "traps to tenants."

MR. ALAN EGERTON

asked the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether, on Report, they would be able to bring up an Amendment to deal with this matter? There were such things as vouchers for artificial manures which were not worth carriage. They had had reports which showed that manures supplied by various manufacturers were not worth the trouble of putting on the land; and if they were to go back five years, even if they had bonâ fide vouchers presented by the tenant, how did they know that they would represent any real benefit to the landlord or incoming tenant? He hoped the Government would, on Report, see their way to bringing up something to embody this Amendment.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, it might be more convenient for this matter to be postponed than to he decided now; but, whether or not, he hoped the Government would not overlook the desirability of coping with the difficulty which had been pointed out. At the risk of repetition he would, in one word, call the attention of the Committee once more to the fact that this was not really a question between landlord and tenant. In the great majority of cases the person who would have to find the money would be the incoming tenant. He was the person who was perfectly helpless in the matter, because he had not had the opportunity of the previous experience of the outgoing tenant. What he (Mr. J. Lowther) thought was most important was that they should have in the Bill before it passed out of their hands some provision—some power which would enable the landlord and his agent—who were the persons on the spot, which the incoming tenant was not—to check the claim subsequently to be made. The Government might choose their own time for bringing that forward; but he hoped they would not overlook this practical danger—the danger of fraud on the part of dishonest outgoing tenants, who might endeavour to get money from incoming tenants for improvements they had not effected.

MR. JAMES HOWARD

said, the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken represented a division of a county in which a well-known custom had long been enforced. The people of that county were not put into leading strings, as was proposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. To his mind it would be intolerable to call on the Cheshire tenants, for instance, to give notice to the landlord every time they wished to buy a ton of coal-dust for their land; it would be intolerable to call on the Essex or Suffolk farmers, who were in the habit of using chalk, to give notice to their landlords every time they wished to put a quantity of chalk on the land; or to call on the Worcestershire farmers, who were in the habit of clay-burning, to give notice to their landlords every time they wished to use clay; and, in like manner, many farmers throughout the country would find it an intolerable nuisance to have to give notice to their landlords when they wished to put lime on their holdings. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) was bound to show that any such provision as this was wanted by the farmers. At any rate, he had never heard from any Lincolnshire farmer that any such safeguard was necessary.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, the outgoing tenant would have to prove what he had done. He sympathized with hon. Members as to the quality of manures; but it was by no means such a simple matter as hon. Members seemed to think if the tenant was to be bound to give notice to the landlord every time he put manure on his land. He would have to give notice to the landlord that he required a certain quantity of manure; an elaborate process would then have to be gone through, including the obtaining of samples and the sending of them to an analyst—for if this were not done there would be serious disputes arising. He did not think any of these things were necessary. The valuators should look at the farm to see the condition in which it was, and to ascertain whether artificial manures had been applied. In this way a practical test should be applied. No doubt the suggestion made had something to recommend it; but it raised serious points for the Committee to consider. The tenant, for instance, would have to prove that he had given notice to his landlord that he wished to carry out improvements.

MR. FLOYER

said, he was ready to withdraw the Amendment. As to the Amendment being a trap, he would inform the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) that he had taken it from some rules drawn up by the best farmers in the county of Dorset—who were quite as good farmers as those the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard) spoke of—in conjunction with Lord Alington's father, one of the best landlords who ever lived.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

VISCOUNT GALWAY

wished to ask a practical question. Supposing a tenant said to his landlord—"Will you drain such and such a field?" and the landlord said—"I am willing to do it, but shall charge you 5 per cent on the outlay; "and supposing the tenant refused to pay that percentage—there would be no agreement—could the tenant then benefit himself in the matter? Would the landlord's offer in such an event be a sufficient guarantee that he was ready to perform his part of the transaction?

MR. DODSON

said, he was afraid he must answer that question by another question. Did the noble Lord mean that there should be an undertaking in writing or not?

VISCOUNT GALWAY

said, that if the landlord offered to his tenant in writing to drain the land on the understanding that the tenant should pay 5 per cent on the money expended, would the refusal of the tenant to pay that amount vitiate the offer of the landlord?

MR. DODSON

said, he was sorry to say he did not even yet understand the noble Lord's question. No doubt it was his (Mr. Dodson's) own fault.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, there could be little doubt about the question, and he should think there could be less about the answer. The noble Lord asked, if the landlord undertook to execute drainage works, but the tenant refused the condition to pay 5 per cent. would that refusal to conform to the landlord's terms vitiate the offer of the landlord, and enable the tenant to effect the improvement himself?

MR. THOMAS COLLINS

said, the tenant would have no choice in the matter. He would have to pay the percentage if the landlord did the work. He might leave the farm; but he would have to pay the money so long as he continued in occupation.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, that, as the Bill stood, the words were— In default of any such agreement or undertaking, and also in the event of the landlord failing to comply with his undertaking within a reasonable time, the tenant may execute the improvement himself, and shall on the execution thereof be entitled to compensation under this Act. If the tenant declined to pay 5 per cent. there would be no agreement.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, a landlord, on receiving notice, might undertake to do the work himself, or come to an agreement with the tenant to do it; or he might say that, whether the tenant agreed or not, he would do it himself.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

asked whether the landlord was to do the work himself, and then charge the tenant 5 per cent; or whether the tenant could withdraw from the matter after having once met the landlord?

MR. BULWER

said, he thought the clause was very simple. The landlord might undertake to execute the improvements himself, and charge the tenant 5 per cent. Of course the landlord would not execute the work unless the tenant undertook to pay 5 per cent. That was one part of the agreement; but then, in in default of the tenant undertaking to pay 5 per cent. or of the landlord executing the work, the tenant might do the work himself. He presumed that the landlord might, after executing the work himself, and if the tenant did not pay, put the tenant into the County Court to recover his 5 per cent; but that was no answer to the noble Lord, who wanted to know whether, if a tenant did not enter into an agreement with the landlord, he might do the work himself, and then charge the landlord 5 per cent as "compensation under this Act?" To this, at present, the Committee had received no answer.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he thought the Committee had now passed the stage at which they could profitably discuss the matter, for the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill had been put. The Government, however, might consider the point between now and the Report.

COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISE

said, that before the clause was agreed to, he wanted an explanation on one or two matters connected with it. He had asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether this clause would override the custom of the country; but, as yet, he had received no answer. If that was the case, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give hereafter some definition of what land drainage was. In his own county it was not necessary now that a tenant should give notice when he wished the land improved; but under the clause he would not be able to make the slightest improvement without giving three months' notice.

MR. DODSON

said, that if a tenant gave notice under this clause he would then get the benefit of compensation under this Act. If he did not give notice, he would not be so entitled.

COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISE

said, that was no answer to his question. As he understood it, the clause would override the custom of the country, and so would put the tenant in a worse position than he was now in.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 5 (Reservation as to existing and future contracts of tenancy).

MR. ALBERT GREY

said, that, as he attached a great importance to the Amendment which he now had the honour to move, he trusted that hon. Members would bear with him while he stated as shortly as possible some of the reasons why he thought that his proposal should commend itself to the favourable opinion of the House. The clause, if his Amendment were accepted, would read thus— Where, in the case of a tenancy under a contract of tenancy beginning after the commencement of this Act, any particular agreement in writing is made between landlord and tenant with respect to compensation for any improvement, and executed after the commencement of this Act, then, in such case, the compensation in respect of such improvement shall be payable in pursuance of the particular agreement, and shall be deemed to be substituted for compensation under this Act. In other words, wherever a written contract between a landlord and tenant might contain a particular agreement in writing as to the manner in which compensation should be paid, then both landlord and tenant should be obliged to maintain and fulfil the terms of the contract into which they had deliberately entered, and should be prohibited from falling from the terms of their contract, back upon the Act. This was, he was aware, a most important Amendment. It raised the whole question of freedom of contract, and whether it was, or was not, desirable that the State should interfere to regulate contracts entered into by men who were quite capable of managing their own affairs, on the ground that the State understood their interests and the way to promote them better than they did themselves. For that this would be the effect of the clause, if passed as it then stood, could not be denied. By the clause, as unamended, it was proposed to invest the referees to be appointed by the Act with power to examine into any and every agreement, no matter how made, and to decide, some in one way, and some in another—for there was no rule laid down to guide their action—whether the agreement should be allowed to stand as fair and reasonable; or whether it should be set aside as not coming up to what, in their varying opinion, might be required by the words of the Act. Now, he ventured to contend that this clause proposed to invest these referees with more power than was necessary. It could not be maintained that it was desirable that the State should interfere to regulate contracts, on the ground that the tenants were unable to obtain for themselves fair bargains. The argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that the landlord was the dominus of the contract, use in 1880, could not be used in 1883. Nor could his hon. and eloquent Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) argue now, as he argued in the first Session of this Parliament, that inasmuch as there would always be a greater demand for farms than for tenants, that therefore land was a monopoly, and should be brought under the regulation of State control. Without pausing to show that the views of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton involved the establishment of judicial rents, it was sufficient to state that never since the beginning of this century, had land, which was wanted for agricultural purposes, been so little of a monopoly as at the present time. The difficulty of landowners to let their farms was well known to everyone. So far from land being a monopoly, for which there was a crowd of eager competitors ready to outbid one another, the number of farms in the market greatly exceeded the number of tenants looking out for them, and landlords were only too ready to accept or keep a tenant on any terms which the tenant might propose, so long as they did not transgress the bounds of moderation and of reason. If, then, good tenants were able to impose their own conditions, was it wise to encourage helplessness by doing for men what they had the power of doing for themselves? What was wanted, in order to obtain a productive agriculture, was that farms should be held by energetic and self-reliant men; and, he asked, could anything tend more in an opposite direction than to pass a provision which would teach men to look to the State to give them that protection which they had complete power of securing for themselves? His objection to the clause in its unamended state was that it went beyond the necessities of the case. All that was wanted was that the Compensation Clauses of the Bill should come into operation wherever no particular agreement in writing specified the manner in which compensation should be paid; and this was what would be effected if his Amendment was accepted. If his Amendment was accepted, the tenant of every single agricultural holding would have compensation secured to him—either the compensation given to him by the Bill, or that measure of compensation which he had himself agreed in writing to accept. In the North of England, where the agreements were mostly in writing, he did not believe there was any danger of practical injustice being done to the farmers, who were well able to take care of themselves. In the South, he was aware, it was very different. There, he knew, a loose and slovenly system prevailed, and the sooner it was put an end to the better he believed it would be for all parties concerned. He could conceive no better way of putting an end to it, nor any way which was less open to objection, than that suggested by his Amendment. He was strongly in favour of giving the tenant the clearest Statutory right to the fullest possible compensation in every case where no written agreement, signed by both landlord and tenant, specified the manner in which compensation should be paid. For this change in the law he was earnestly anxious; but what he disapproved of, what he saw great danger in, what he believed to be beyond the necessities of the case, was that the State should undertake to judge for men what contracts they ought to make. The business of the State was not to make contracts, but to enforce contracts; and if a contrary principle were acted on, if the State were to undertake to regulate and readjust the industrial relations between man and man—not for any purpose involving the protection of human life, not for any purpose involving the protection of those who were unable to help themselves, but for the purpose of securing a purely economical result—namely, the production of a larger output of wealth; then, if that principle were extended and applied, all the transactions of life would be thrown into confusion. But then it might be said—"If you do not give the State the power of overhauling agricultural covenants, of what advantage is the Bill? Wherein consists the difference between this Bill and the Act of 1875? Well, he believed that this Bill would, if amended, be of the very greatest advantage. The great fault in the Act of 1875 was the manner in which freedom of contract was preserved. It was remarked, in 1875, by one who was now one of Her Majesty's Ministers, that the provision that either of the contracting parties might, by giving notice to the other, exclude himself from the operation of the Bill, was absolutely unique in our Statute Book. The Bill, if amended as he had suggested, would remedy that grave defect. Instead of allowing one of the contracting parties to issue a notice excluding himself from the operation of the Bill, every tenancy would be brought under the Act, unless both landlord and tenant agreed in writing as to the manner in which compensation should be paid to the tenant for improvements made by him; and this was as far as, he ventured to maintain, the State ought to go. The loose and slovenly system which existed over large parts of England, to which he had referred, would, on the passing of this clause, if amended as he had suggested, instantly disappear; and this would be an immense advantage, and one to secure which would be well worth the efforts of the Government and of the House. In 1875, Lord Malmesbury gave it as his opinion that not one among 30 or 40 tenants had a signed agreement; and he said that, when he succeeded to his property, he did not find a single properly-written agreement in existence between the tenants and his father. Now, he was not conversant with the circumstances of Lord Malmesbury's estate; but what he would venture to say was that Lord Malmesbury had described a state of things which prevailed over large parts of England, and that, to remedy this state of things, the Act of 1875 had done very little; but if, instead of an Act which, like that of 1875, enabled the landlords to notice themselves out of the Act, without any reference to the tenants, we had an Act which would apply to every single case in which there was not a lease or particular agreement in writing signed by both landlord and tenant, then the system referred to by Lord Malmesbury would instantly disappear. No one, he thought, could deny this, least of all the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), who, in his evidence before the Duke of Richmond's Commission, stated it to be his conviction that if we had had such an Act as this one would be, if his (Mr. Grey's) Amendment was accepted, there would be no necessity now for any further legislation. With these few remarks he would conclude. He hoped he had said enough to convince hon. Members of the fairness and justice of his Amendment; but, while thanking the House for the patient indulgence which had been extended to him at that late hour of the night, he wished it to be clearly understood that it was only a reluctance on his part to trespass unduly on their kindness which prompted him to confine his remarks, for he had not brought forward one tithe of the powerful and convincing arguments which showed that his Amendment was one which ought to be accepted by the House.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 5, to leave out the words "secures to the tenant," and insert the words "is made between the landlord and tenant with regard to compensation."—(Mr. Albert Grey.)

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

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he did not mean to add anything at length to the arguments so very ably put forward by the hon. Member opposite. He had put his case with great force and moderation, and was old-fashioned enough to still believe in freedom of contract, which every Party in the State, 10 years ago, were ready to pin their faith to. He was as old-fashioned as the hon. Member, and he should go with the hon. Member if he went to a Division. The Bill proposed to make contracts for the whole of the tenantry of England and Scotland; but he would like to ask the Committee whether there was any class in the community more capable of taking care of their own interests than the tenant farmers? They were men of education and capital, and in agricultural matters they were stronger than the landlords. It was the landlords who competed with the tenants, and not the tenants who competed with the landlords. If the Committee thought it necessary to interfere with contracts, he would ask for what classes the Committee thonght that should be done? He would draw attention to the condition at this moment of the poor tenants in Westminster—not 100 yards from the House. Whole families were living in one room, and were rack-rented to the uttermost. If the House thought it necessary to make contracts for farmers, who were quite able to make contracts for themselves, ought they not to do the same for these poor people? And how about the agricultural labourers? He did not think they were the poor oppressed people some Gentlemen thought them; but certainly they were less able to take care of their interests, and required the interference of the House, more than the tenant farmers. He should vote for the Amendment.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he thought the hon. Member's speech was very good for a second reading, but not as to this Amendment. It was argued that contracts of a general character might be interfered with; but that when a specific contract was made, however unfair and one-sided, it ought not to be interfered with. He could not see much difference between the two cases; but if the Amendment was accepted, there would be nothing to prevent a landlord from imposing upon tenants contracts which should exclude compensation altogether. All that tenant farmers demanded of Parliament was that landlords should not have the power to impose upon them contracts as to the amount that they should pay, the conditions of which were upon the face of them manifestly unfair; the tenant farmers demanded that landlords should not be allowed to confiscate the improvements which properly and justly belonged to them. He strongly objected to the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Arthur Grey), and he was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that those constituents of his who were farmers did not demand legislation for their protection. He (Mr. J. W. Barclay) had heard a very different voice from Northumberland. The tenant farmers of Scotland, at any rate, required legislation for their protection; and he hoped, therefore, that the Committee would reject this Amendment.

VISCOUNT LYMINGTON

said, it was impossible for him to support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Northumberland, because it really aimed at the principle of the legislation in which they were now engaged. The principle of that legislation was an endeavour to effect a compromise between landlord and tenant. He entirely agreed with some of the remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour). For instance, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that they could not discuss this question as a pure question of theory. This was a question which many persons would not allow to slumber. The case of the poor people, whose misery and degradation the hon. Gentleman had referred to, would be taken up in due course, and when those people obtained the franchise they would be able to make their voices heard.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 185; Noes 71: Majority 114.—(Div. List, No. 216.)

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he now desired to move an Amendment which stood in the name of his hon. Colleague (Mr. E. Stanhope). It was, after the word "secures," to insert the word "compensation." Perhaps he would best express the purport of the Amendment if he read the clause as it would run if amended as he proposed. The clause would run thus— Where, in the case of a tenancy under a contract of a tenancy beginning after the commencement of this Act, any particular agreement in writing secures to the tenant compensation for any improvement mentioned in the third part of the Schedule hereto, and executed after the commencement of this Act, then, in such case, the compensation in respect of such improvement shall be payable in pursuance of the particular agreement, and shall be deemed to be substituted for compensation under this Act. His hon. Friend (Mr. E. Stanhope) also intended to move subsequently to leave out "fair and reasonable," and to add, at the end of the clause, "unless such agreement is contrary to, or an evasion of, the objects and intentions of this Act." The object of this Amendment was to get rid of the difficulty which was attached to defining what was "fair and reasonable compensation." He (Mr. Chaplin) confessed that it appeared to him the object and evident intention of the clause would be better gained by adopting the words which stood in the name of his hon. Friend, than by allowing the clause to stand as at present.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 5, after "tenant," insert "compensation."—(Mr. Chaplin.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'compensation' be there inserted."

MR. DODSON

said, he hoped they would not have a protracted discussion on this Amendment. The Government were unable to accept it because they preferrred the words of the clause as it stood. The words of the clause appeared to be more intelligible to the lay mind than the words proposed to be inserted. They had, also, the further advantage that they were not only intelligible to the lay mind, but they were words known to the law. "Fair and reasonable provisions" was an expression which occurred in Acts of Parliament, and which Courts of Law had been in the habit of construing. He trusted that the Amendment would not be pressed.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, no doubt the words "fair and reasonable" might be very intelligible to the lay mind; but he was afraid they were not very intelligible to his mind. What he had hoped to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) was some interpretation of what the Government really meant by "fair and reasonable compensation." Now they knew what the proposals of the Bill were. They were really to leave everything to the valuers. What did the Government mean by pointing to an alternative agreement, which, after all, was to be subject to a reference to the County Court? What did the Government think should be the provisions of an agreement, which, in exclusion of the operation of this Act, should be deemed to give "fair and reasonable compensation?" Was "fair and reasonable compensation" such compensation as would be provided by the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875? Take the case of improvements of the third class. Would it be "fair and reasonable compensation" if the agreement provided that compensation for those improvements should be dependent upon whether they were executed in the last year of the tenancy, or in the year before, and that a certain proportion should be paid according to the year in which they were executed? What did Her Majesty's Government really mean by those words? He did think that, unless they had some sort of explanation, it would not be right for the Committee to come to a conclusion this evening upon the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin). The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) had expressed a wish that there should be no discusssion on this subject. As a matter of fact, the more the subject was discussed the more difficult it appeared to arrive at a conclusion as to what was the meaning of the Bill; and the more certain it seemed that, in passing a measure in such vague terms as this, they were passing a measure which would do no good at all to the country, except to one class of men—namely, the lawyers. Members of the Committee might have a good idea what was meant by the words "fair and reasonable compensation; "but they must remember that a very short time ago Parliament passed an Act with relation to anothar part of the United Kingdom, leaving the terms of that Act extremely vague, and the result was that the Act was construed in a most unexpected manner. What reliance could they have upon a similar proposal now made to them by Her Majesty's Government? He could not help thinking that, if this Bill passed in its present shape, it would, so far from settling the question at issue, sow the seed which would lead to the most fruitful harvest of litigation ever known.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

desired to say a word or two in reference to what the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had just stated. They were dealing with a proposed Amendment to the Bill. He did not quite understand whether the right hon. Gentleman supported this Amendment or not.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

I want an explanation.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, he would deal, first of all, with the Amendment proposed, which was that an agreement providing for compensation should be deemed to be substituted for compensation under this Act, unless such agreement was contrary to, or in evasion of, the objects and intentions of the Act. It seemed that every word the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had said in respect of the words of the clause as it now stood were even more applicable to the Amendment proposed. What were the objects and intentions of the Act? They were to give "fair and reasonable compensation "for improvements, and the question whether an agreement was contrary to the objects and intentions of the Act was whether it did or did not give to the tenant "fair and reasonable compensation "for his improvements? They, therefore, left the same question to be determined by the Amendment, only in a more vague and more objectionable form. He did not think any exception the right hon. Gentleman took would be removed by the Amendment which was proposed by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). He (the Solicitor General) did not for a moment deny that there was some difficulty in dealing with this question; but did the right hon. Gentleman mean that, because this difficulty was so considerable, they should leave out that alternative altogether, and let anybody make any compensation in substitution of what the Bill provided? The right hon. Gentleman agreed that the provisions of this Bill would give the tenant compensation. The right hon. Gentleman did not mean that they should contract out of the Act by giving "fair and reasonable compensation." But they must do something of this kind, or they could not allow contracting out of the Act at all. They ought to distinctly understand what the right hon. Gentleman meant and desired, for they were asked to comply with his wish that they should define in every case what would be "fair and reasonable compensation."

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, the question he asked was whether an agreement adopting the provisions of the Act of 1875 would be held to give "fair and reasonable compensation?"

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, he did not profess to bear in mind the provisions of the Act of 1875, and, therefore, he should be sorry to give an off-hand opinion upon the point raised. Whatever opinion he might give would not prevent the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) from determining the question himself. It would be a matter for consideration and judgment whether it was a fair and reasonable alternative as regarded the provisions of this Bill. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer this—which, he thought, was a thing they had a right to understand—whether he meant that because the words "fair and reasonable "were words which, to a certain extent, left a good deal to the judgment of the tribunal which was to determine the matter, therefore it would be better to leave them out altogether?

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

No.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

Then, what did the right hon. Baronet suggest? The right hon. Baronet might ask him (the Solicitor General) just as reasonably to say what was "fair and reasonable" as to the carriage of goods by rail, as to say what would be fair and reasonable under the Act of 1875. The right hon. Gentleman would have to consider whether he would rather have the provisions of the Act of 1875 out of the Bill altogether. These provisions would come before them one by one, and the right hon. Gentleman could say as they came up whether or not he approved of them.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he had simply asked that Her Majesty's Government should interpret their own words, and unless he received some more satisfactory reply he would move to report Progress—in fact, he now made the Motion. He had asked a plain question—namely, whether an agreement embodying the provisions of the Act of 1875 would be held to be fair and reasonable compensation? What were the provisions of the Act of 1875? He found in that Act certain rules and limitations which Her Majesty's Government had not thought tit to adopt in the Bill before the Committee. There was, for instance, the provision that the tenant should not be entitled to compensation, in respect of improvements in the the 3rd Part of the Schedule, where an exhausting crop had been taken from the land. These were practical provisions relating to matters of agriculture which every valuer, in valuing these things, would take into consideration as between the outgoing and incoming tenant. It seemed to him of great importance, if they were to permit—as he wished to see permitted—an alternative agreement for compensation in place of the provisions of this Bill, that they should have a clear declaration as to whether the provisions—which were law at the present time—would, if embodied in that alternative, be considered fair and reasonable compensation. As he understood the Solicitor General, he was not prepared to answer the question now. Perhaps he would be able to answer it to-morrow; therefore, he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) moved to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, he thought they were entitled to some further explanation from Her Majesty's Government than that which they had received from the Solicitor General. He had himself been about to put a question similar to that which had been asked by the right hon. Baronet, as to the interpretation to be put upon this clause, for the reason that he believed the state in which the Bill was left by the 1st clause would lead to endless litigation. It left everything to be decided by the valuer as to the amount of improvement; and every reasonable landlord and tenant would endeavour to come to an agreement outside the Bill. It was to the interest of all that this should be the case. They should not lay down a hard-and-fast line, and say—"By this rule, and this rule alone, shall compensation be estimated." Compensation should be on more definite lines than this clause; and if Her Majesty's Government could not say now whether the landlord and tenant could not come to an agreement similar to that under the Act of 1875, they should take time to consider it.

MR. DODSON

said, the right hon. Baronet opposite had thrown out a challenge to Her Majesty's Government which called for an explanation, but had immediately moved to report Progress, whereby they were debarred from discussing the subject. If the right hon. Baronet would withdraw his Motion, he (Mr. Dodson) would endeavour to give an answer.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he would withdraw the Motion, which he had only moved because the Solicitor General said he could not explain the point submitted to him.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DODSON

said, he would endeavour to answer the question of the right hon. Baronet.

MR. JAMES HOWARD (who rose amidst cries of "Order!")

said, he was sure the Committee would act fairly with him. He wished to ask what Amendment was before them?

THE CHAIRMAN

The Question before the Committee is, that the word "compensation" be inserted after the word "tenant."

MR. DODSON

said, he might now, perhaps, be allowed to answer the appeal made to him by the right hon. Baronet, inasmuch as this was the first of a series of Amendments by which it was proposed to substitute certain words which were more vague than the words "fair and reasonable." The right hon. Baronet had thrown out a challenge to the Government, and had asked—"What do you mean by 'fair and reasonable;' and is this thing and the other thing a 'fair and reasonable' substitute for the compensation provided in the Bill? "He thought he might answer by saying that the words" fair and reasonable "would have to be construed by the valuers or the Court according to the case submitted to them. [An hon. MEMBER: That means litigation.] He (Mr. Dodson) was not called on as a Court of Law, or a valuer, to answer hypothetical cases submitted to him by the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet had brandished before them the Act of 1875—which he (Mr. Dodson) had not a copy of at the present moment—and said—"Tell me off-hand, would a Court say that the provisions of this Act would be 'fair and reasonable compensation' within the meaning of the Bill? "He (Mr. Dodson), if he might venture without prejudice—having protested against being called upon to answer the question—to give his view of the matter, would say the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875 were, in the main, borrowed from the Lincolnshire custom. That was a very good custom for that part of the country in which it prevailed, and he should think it might there be held that these provisions were a "fair and reasonable" substitute for the provisions under the Bill; but in other parts of the country, different in character to Lincolnshire, and where the conditions of the Lincolnshire custom did not so well apply, these provisions might not be a "fair and reasonable" substitute. The Agricultural Holdings Act had adopted the custom of one part of the country, and had endeavoured to apply it to the whole of the country; and that was as a matter of fact, one of the chief causes of the failure of that measure. This was the only general answer he could give—under the protest he had mentioned—to the right hon. Baronet.

MR. HENEAGE

said, that the objection to these words did not come from any particular quarter of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman would look on the Paper he would see that "fair and reasonable" were objected to by hon. Members representing every quarter of the House. The answers which the Solicitor General and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had given were the very worst which could be offered, as they distinctly referred them to a Court of Law. This was exactly what had been foretold at a very large meeting of the Chambers of Agriculture. They had said that the Bill left open the question of what was and what was not "fair and reasonable," and that a great deal of litigation would be the result. They objected to the provision on that ground, and adopted as the best words to be found those standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire. Everybody objected to these words "fair and reasonable," believing that they would lead to endless confusion. The Government had not satisfactorily explained them. He did not think that, up to the present, he had voted against the Government once; but he must say that he did object, in the very strongest manner, not only on his own behalf, but on behalf of the tenant farmers of England, to these words "fair and reasonable." If the intellect of Her Majesty's Government could not find a way out of the difficulty, some independent Member should find it for them.

MR. BRODRICK

said, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would consider this matter, and offer some explanation to-morrow. The Government relied upon the words because they were indefinite, and would have to be considered, not by themselves, but by a Court of Law. He was bound to say he considered it impossible to come to a conclusion this evening, and, therefore, moved to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Brodrick.)

MR. BULWER

said, he would ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion, and let them go to a Division on the clause. He could understand the straightforward action of the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey), who stood up for freedom of contract, and had taken the bull by the horns, and asked them to go into the Lobby with him to declare that the landlord and tenant should be allowed to make a "fair and reasonable" agreement between themselves. Hon. Members who had voted with the hon. Member for South Northumberland now came back to the Committee and endeavoured to wriggle out of their vote.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Member must confine himself to the Question before the Committee.

MR. BULWER

said, he thought it was right to give some reasons why the hon. Member (Mr. Brodrick) should withdraw the Motion, so that they might go to a Division on the clause; but he did not wish to pursue the discussion further.

MR. DUCKHAM

supported the Motion to report Progress. He thought it would be far better to leave out the second paragraph altogether, if the Bill was to become the law of the land; and he hoped that the Motion would be accepted, in order to give time to consider the desirability of its being eliminated.

MR. DODSON

said, that if the Committee wished to discuss this matter further, he would not oppose the Motion for reporting Progress. ["Hear, hear."] Let hon. Members have patience for a single moment. He wished to say that in consenting to report Progress the Government did not wish to flinch from words they had proposed in the Bill, because they did not believe that they could propose better ones. They certainly did not think that any better ones had been suggested. If hon. Members who objected to the words thought that by taking a night's reflection they could propose anything better, he was willing to wait and see the result of their reflection.

MR. BRODRICK

said, he should be happy to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Duckham.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 159: Majority 137.—(Div. List, No. 217.)

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he had asked himself, with regard to the Amendment before the Committee—and, indeed, he might say with regard to the clause—what was its object? Was it not the object of the clause to give a certain latitude to tenants and landlords, to be able to make agreements not entirely in accordance with the Act? If that was the object of the clause, did not the Committee risk losing that object altogether, unless words could be found which would suit the majority of the Committee? As to the words "fair and reasonable," there were some who objected to them because they were afraid they might limit the compensation to the tenant, while others objected to them, because they were afraid that the landlords under these words would have to pay more than they would, for instance, under the Agricultural Holdings Act. It was impossible to vote against these words unless they had some idea of the words which the Committee would adopt, and substitute in their place. It seemed to him that it would be very dangerous to cut these words out, and to trust to the future for finding words which would satisfy the whole of the Committee; because, if the majority could not be satisfied upon this subject, the result would be that they must give up the hope of coming to agreements outside the Act altogether, and he commended this suggestion to hen. Members opposite, who wished to retain a certain amount of freedom in this matter. He thought they would risk the making of these agreements altogether, unless they adopted words in the direction proposed by the Government. As to the words "fair and reasonable," it was argued that those words would take them before the Courts; but could hon. Members suggest words which would not take parties before the Courts? Unless something precise were laid down in the Act it was not worth while making these agreements at all. One Amendment before the Committee was that they should substitute these words—"the compensation to be in accordance with the objects and intentions of this Act; "but he could not conceive words which were more vague or more certain to lead to litigation than these, if they were to be substituted for "fair and reasonable." Indeed, whatever words might be suggested, it would hardly be possible so to frame them as, at the same time, to give liberty of action, and not leave the matter in the vague form in which it was left by the Government. However, he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman opposite who had taken part in this debate whether he could not obtain his object and test the opinion of the Committee upon the Agricultural Holdings Act by moving a Proviso which should provide that, if compensation was given under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875, such compensation should be deemed to be fair and reasonable within the limits of this Act? That would test the question fairly, and the Committee could then decide whether they considered that the words "fair and reasonable" would include those provisions. Otherwise they would be entirely in the dark, because, even if the Government were to say that they considered that compensation under those provisions was fair and reasonable, a Court of Law might hold that it was not so, and it would be no guide whatever to the Committee that the answer of the Government should be in the direction that it was fair and reasonable. The way he suggested was, he thought, a fair and reasonable way of testing the question.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he was perfectly ready to assent to the suggestion that had just been made by the right hon. Gentleman; and he thought it could be done by the insertion of words either before or after the words in the clause. It was a little late to attempt to do it to-night; but he thought they might very well decide on the first Amendment now. It was hardly desirable that the clause should stand as it was.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he thought there was a great deal in what had fallen from the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen); but he agreed with his right hon. Friend that if that view of the question was to be taken it was too late to proceed to-night. Perhaps the clause had better remain as it was to-night, and then they could dispose of it to-morrow. He would, therefore, move that the Chairman be directed to report Progress.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, the Government had admitted that it was desirable to discuss this matter at greater length, and they had no objection to reporting Progress. But hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to be almost entirely disagreed; perhaps it would be as well if the Committee had some intimation of what it was they did desire —whether they desired to go on or to report Progress?

MR. CHAPLIN

said, that a totally new suggestion had just been made by the right hon. Member for Ripon. Though the noble Marquess appeared to have forgotten it, and as that suggestion seemed to be so well received by the Committee, it was desirable that Progress be reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Chaplin.)

Motion agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.