IMPROVEMENTS. (Hansard, 23 July 1883)

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH
said, the Committee would remember that just before the close of the last Sitting he ventured to propose this Amendment; and he did so because, as the Bill now stood, it was open to the landlord and tenant, in any case in which they might desire to do so, to make between themselves an agreement for fair and reasonable compensation; and, on that agreement being made, they would be excluded from the Bill. But what might then happen under the Bill as it stood at present? Why, after having made such an agreement, no landlord or tenant would be able to tell whether, at 165 the determination of the tenancy, the agreement would be held by those who would have to settle the matter to be an agreement which was valid between the parties; and they were thus reduced to this absurd position — that two persons would be permitted by law to make an agreement between themselves; but they would be left absolutely in the dark as to the effect of that agreement, and how far it would bind themselves, or their successors, when it came to be interpreted. He did not think that was a position which could be considered at all satisfactory by the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill; and, therefore, he proposed that the machinery which the right hon. Gentleman sought to bring into operation at the determination of the tenancy should be brought into operation by the two parties, if they so desired it, at the commencement; or, in other words, that the section of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875 which dealt with the appointment of an umpire should, if the landlord and tenant so chose, apply at once, and that some impartial person of recognized standing and experience in the neighbourhood should be selected, to whom the agreement which it was desired to make should be submitted, and that person should pronounce whether, according to the light of his experience and knowledge, the agreement was in accordance with the agricultural re- quirements of the district, and provided fair and reasonable compensation as intended by the Bill. he believed that such a provision as this would relieve persons who desired to enter into these agreements from the apprehensions to which he had alluded as to the future validity of such documents; and he was convinced that it would save a very largo amount of expensive and objectionable litigation between the parties. He had, therefore, proposed this Proviso; and if the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could not accept it precisely as it stood, he trusted that some change might be made in the Bill, which, at all events, would have the same general effect.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would be able to see their way to accept either this Amendment, or something of the same kind, because it was framed as much in the interests of the tenant as of 166 the landlord. No one could accuse him (Sir Alexander Gordon) of moving in any direction against the interests of the tenant, and the present agreement was so reasonable that he could not understand why the Government should oppose it. Its object was only to prevent such an absurdity as this—that an agreement might be made in 1880 which might be deemed a perfectly fair and reasonable agreement; but in 1890 or 1920 that same agreement might be held to be unreasonable. The present Amendment was more in favour of the tenant than of the landlord; because the landlord's wealth, and consequent ability to employ clever lawyers, would give him a great advantage over the tenant in endeavouring, to establish the unreasonableness of a particular agreement; and the landlord, too, might be able to carry his point by the production of documents drawn up in former years, to which the tenant might not have access, and which lie might be altogether unable to meet. Under these circumstances, he earnestly hoped that the Government would accept the principle of the Amendment.

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
ventured to express quite a different hope. What was the object of the Amendment? It was simply to set aside the provisions of the Bill. If the Bill was a just one, and adapted to the circumstances of the country, why should it not apply universally? The Amendment was objectionable, and its purpose was simply to keep the tenant in the grasp of the landlord. he hoped that the whole of the 2nd Schedule would be rejected. The Government had brought all this upon themselves by introducing this permissive, or semi-permissive, clause. The Bill ought to be passed without any such permissive provisions, for which there could be no necessity at all if the measure were framed on just lines.

COLONEL DAWNAY
said, he hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment, which seemed to him to be the natural, and necessary, and logical consequence of the clause as it already stood. They had deliberately abandoned the old principle of the safe simplicity of contract—a good old-fashioned principle, as the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had called it; but though they had rejected that principle in favour of an exceedingly doubt- 167 ful theory, and had deprived the two interested parties, the owner and the occupier, of the opportunity of binding themselves according to their own free will, and of making any valid agreement, they had yet admitted that a valid agreement might be made., if it were subject to the assent of third parties—to the approval of some Court of Arbitration. But as the Bill stood, however generous might be the stipulations which the landlord might make with his tenant as to compensation, that landlord could never be entirely sure, until the determination of the tenancy, that those stipulations would not be protested against as unreasonable by some cantankerous and grasping tenant, and that the agreement might not have to be revised and settled according to the progressive views or Procrustean theories of some future agitator or some future Land League. They had not only abelished freedom of contract—they had emasculated the very meaning of contract. This Amendment, in a great measure, removed that blot, for it enabled the contracting parties to refer the matter to a properly-appointed arbitrator; and, if he approved, the agreement would become a binding legal document beyond the power of appeal. He hoped very much that the Committee would agree to the Amendment, and would thus make the Bill a beneficent measure, and by minimizing the opportunities of litigation, would help to make it a measure acceptable to the tenant farmers.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, he beped his right hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson) would not listen to the counsels which had been given to him, for he looked with great suspicion, indeed, upon any power given under this clause to allow landlords and tenants to contract themselves out of the Bill. The measure proposed to enact certain provisions; but the object of this Amendment was to give an opportunity to landlords and tenants to make agreements outside the Bill, and, in fact, to render the Bill, so far as those agreements were concerned, void. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had urged some arguments in favour of the right of individual contract; and, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman considered that freedom of contract was a matter between landlord and tenant which ought not to be interfered with. 168 No doubt, that was the opinion of many hon. Gentlemen opposite; but it was not the intention of this Bill. There would have been no necessity for any such Bill if there had been any actual freedom of contract between landlord and tenant; and the reason why they were legislating at all in this matter was that it had been practically found that the tenants were not able to make free contracts, but were compelled to accept disadvantageous terms. That was the justification for this Bill—if they were not to get rid of what was wrongly called freedom of contract they might just as well tear the Bill up. They should try to make the Bill a strong Bill, or else they should waste no more time over it. The fact was that the Bill was a very weak one—so weak that it would give no satisfaction, and yet hon. Gentlemen were persistently trying to make it still weaker than it was at present. They had succeeded in watering it down to some extent; but, still, they were anxious to put in this Proviso. Under the arrangement contemplated by the Bill, when landlord and tenant came together they could only agree to terms under which a certain compensation should be paid for improvements; but it was expressly provided that the terms should. be fair and reasonable terms. Now lion. Gentlemen wanted to get out of that. At the last Sitting of the Committee various expedients were suggested with that object, and this was another of them. It was proposed that the landlord, or the landlord's agent, and tenant should come to au agreement, under which the tenant was to do certain things for a certain compensation, and then they were to go before an umpire to get his seal to that arrangement. Was it to be supposed. that the umpire would trouble himself in the matter? No. He would put his seal to the agreement as a matter of course, because the tenant would be a consenting party, for the tenant could not be other than a consenting party. Hon. Gentlemen might say—"Oh! but in the present state of agriculture the tenant can hold his own." He (Mr. Rylands) had known numbers of instances in his own neighbourhood where the tenant had been obliged to accept terms which, if he had had any independence of action, he would certainly have refused. The Amendment gave an opportunity for 169 arrangements to be made which would entirely defeat the clause.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
said, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had not paid much attention either to the Bill or to the Amendment, or he would not have made one statement, that an agent would probably be appointed as umpire.

§ MR. RYLANDS
explained that he had said nothing of the sort. What he had said was that the agent and the tenant would come to terms, and then they would submit those terms for confirmation to the umpire.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
To an agent?

§ MR. RYLANDS
No; to au umpire.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
said, he was quite ready to accept that explanation; but he had understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the umpire would probably be an agent.

§ MR. RYLANDS
No; I did not say so.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
observed, that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard) had told them that the Amendment would set the Bill aside. He (Mr. Chaplin) entirely disputed that assertion. That was not the object of the Amendment. How could it set the Bill aside? It was merely an Amendment under which, at the beginning of the tenancy, when an agreement was entered upon, that agreement might be submitted to arbitration, so that, at the end of the tenancy, there should be no possible dispute about it. If agreements were to be permitted at all, it was desirable that they should be bonâ fide and valid agreements. What was the use of entering into an agreement if, at the end of 10 years, it was to be upset altogether as an unreasonable bargain? And how was the matter to be remedied except by some such provision as this? It was all very well for the hon. Member for Bedfordshire to talk about the Amendment upsetting the Bill; but he did not produce one word or shred of argument in support of that view. The Amendment proposed that any agreement that might be entered into should be submitted to an umpire under the procedure of the Act of 1875. Did the hon. Member recollect what that was; because if he would take the trouble to study the clauses relating to procedure in that Act he would not entertain the opinion he had now expressed. As to the agree- 170 ments which were proposed under the present Bill, he (Mr. Chaplin) was bound to say that he hailed that part of the Bill with great satisfaction; and when they had gone so far as to bring landlord and tenant together, and had got them to sit down at a table in order to discuss the terms of an agreement, the tenant would only have himself to blame if he were unable to make terms which were satisfactory to himself, when it was remembered that the great difficulty of the present day was for a landlord to get a tenant, and not for a tenant to get a farm. It was ridiculous, under such circumstances, to say that tenants were forced into bargains which were unfair. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had said that this was an attempt to weaken the Bill. It was nothing of the kind, nor was any such attempt made at the last Sitting of the Committee. What occurred then was this—that an Amendment was moved by his hon. Friend and Colleague the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope), with the view of positively strengthening the Bill in the interests of the tenant; and so much was that the case that the words which his hon. Friend moved to insert were positively words taken out of the draft of the Bill prepared by the Farmers' Alliance. What, then, became of the statements that they were attempting to weaken and set aside the Bill? There was not a shadow of justification for such language. All that was desired by this Amendment was that when agreements were entered into and were sanctioned under the Bill they should be valid agreements; that both parties should know exactly how they stood; and that the agreements should, under all circumstances, be binding.

§ MR. DODSON
said, that if they were to accept the views of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down there was no necessity for the Bill at all, for the tenants were entirely able to protect themselves in all contracts with their landlords. If that were so, there was no need for legislation at all. But he (Mr. Dodson) wished to call the hon. Gentleman's attention to one circumstance; and, no doubt, if he were wrong, the hon. Gentleman would correct him. He believed the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) himself brought in a Bill on this subject last year—a Bill in which there was a pro- 171 vision similar to the one now before them—namely, that when landlord and tenant entered into an agreement they should be able to obtain an anticipatory decision as to its validity. But, unless he (Mr. Dodson) were much mistaken, the hon. Member omitted that Proviso from the Bill he had introduced this year, and he presumed that he had good reason for doing so; and, that being the case, he trusted that the lion. Gentleman would now support him in resisting the present Amendment. This was a Bill to provide that, for certain improvements, the tenant should be entitled to compensation; and there had been further introduced into it a provision which gave power to landlord and tenant to make an agreement, on fair and reasonable terms, for compensation; but the condition for admitting that substituted compensation was that the compensation was bonâ fide and adequate. It was to be reasonable, and its reasonableness was to be decided by an independent authority at the close of the tenancy. But if they put in this anticipatory decision before the contract of tenancy was entered into, what would be the effect of it? Why, it would simply be a transparent way of contracting out of the Act altogether. If the matter was to be settled by a third party, who would not necessarily have all the facts before him—for, of course, all the questions of fact would not be raised—and this third party's sanction was to be held to make it a good bargain, there would be no security whatever against a merely nominal or nugatory compensation being substituted for that contained in the Bill. He would say nothing of the fact that he believed there was no precedent whatever for taking an anticipatory decision of this kind upon a document; he would only observe that, however that might be, he could not accept this Amendment, which would merely have the effect of loosening that which it was the object of the Bill to bind.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said, the right hon. Gentleman had just observed that there was no precedent for this Amendment. The fact was that the Bill itself was without precedent—the whole measure introduced entirely novel principles into their English legislation; and it was not surprising, therefore, that some attempt should be made to add machinery to meet the new state of 172 the case. But he wished to say a word or two in answer to an observation which had been made by his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Rylands). His hon. Friend had said—"You must have one fixed contract of law in these transactions, or else you will defeat the object of the Bill." If his hon. Friend had been arguing against the 6th clause altogether, he (Mr. Balfour) would have understood the relevancy of the observation, because the 6th clause, whether passed in the form in which it was introduced by the Government, or in the form into which it was sought to be amended, was a clause which admitted agreements other than those contemplated by the rest of the Bill, so that the right hon. Gentleman should have restrained himself, and refrained from giving vent to those remarks which he had just made. The right hon. Gentleman who bad charge of the Bill had said—"You cannot trust to the umpire for seeing that the contract would be made a fair contract." But the whole Bill depended for its operation upon umpires. The right hon. Gentleman said—"You cannot trust to an umpire giving a fair decision; you must leave it to the Courts of Law." But everything in the Bill was to be decided by an umpire—all the compensation which the tenant was to get from the landlord, and, in fact, everything in the Bill, rested with umpires; and he (Mr. Balfour) was quite unable to understand why an umpire should be competent to say exactly what was the value of an improvement, but should not be competent to say whether an agreement was fair or unfair. If that was the view of the Government, why did not the right hon. Gentleman cut out umpires altogether, and leave the independent Courts of Law to be the sole tribunal before which questions arising under the Bill were. to be decided? If he did not do that, there was no force whatever in his contention. He (Mr. Balfour) hoped his right ben. Friend would press this Amendment to a Division, and he could not help thinking that it would obtain the support of many hon. Members.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
said, that the observations of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken rested on a misapprehension. There was no discredit to an umpire in saying that it was unsafe to 173 leave this matter to him, because other important matters were left to him; but it was one thing for a man to decide a question when two parties were before him having a difference to settle, and each was interested in putting before him all the facts, so that his view of the matter might be properly presented in all its strength; but it was quite a different thing for two parties who had no difference to put in an agreement made between them, and to give only imperfect information, or no information at all, in regard to it. In the latter case, it was quite beside the mark to say that the umpire would be a competent judge. That was one strong objection to the Amendment, which, if passed, would afford the simplest possible means to enable people to contract themselves out of the Bill.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
said, he was entirely unable to agree with the reasons which had been given against the Amendment. There was no reason for supposing for an instant that the Amendment was moved with the view of enabling people to contract themselves out of the Bill by entering into individual agreements. He did not believe there was any such intention. The real intention of the Amendment was to prevent landlord and tenant from living in a fool's paradise for 20 years or more, believing that an agreement between them was valid, when at the end of the time it might possibly be held by a Court of Law not to be a fair and reasonable one. But, despite that expression of his feeling, and the fact that he supported an Amendment of this nature in previous Sessions, he had come to the conclusion that he was unable to support the present Amendment, though for reasons of a very different and distinct nature from those which had been put forward on the Ministerial side of the House. His reason for being unable to concur in the Amendment was that, after due deliberation, he had come to the conclusion that it contained what was no slight element of danger which had not been entirely foreseen. What was it that it proposed? Why, that the terms of the agreement were to be referred for the decision of an umpire. As that umpire was to have clearly before him the whole of the agreement, it would be impossible to withdraw from him any one item which formed any part of it. Every 174 clause must be before him; and, as one of the essential facts of the agreement, the question of rent must be before him. The question of rent could not he absolutely withdrawn. It was an integral portion of the agreement. The umpire might not be called on to say whether it was a fair rent or not; but it was not inconceivable that he might take the matter of rent into consideration; and though there might be no intention whatever on the part of either landlord or tenant to introduce that question, it might be brought in by a side wind. The umpire had it before him, and—if not in the first instance—it might gradually lead to decisions in matters of rent, as well as in other matters that were not now contemplated. It was for that reason that—while he was quite alive to the difficulty in which the Bill would land them, especially as leaving in doubt every written agreement entered into by mutual consent—he was unable to give his support to the Amendment.

§ MR. DUCKHAM
said, he had certainly hoped that the second paragraph of this clause would have been eliminated from the Bill, and he yet trusted that it might be possible to get rid of it on Report. As to the Amendment which was before the Committee, he thought it would be wrong indeed if the Government yielded in their opposition to it, because the Bill provided for a fair and equitable arbitration, and that, he thought, was quite sufficient. It was well known by the farmers in England, and by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that the Bill was necessary to improve the relations between landlord and tenant, and to promote good husbandry; and now they were told practically that there was no necessity for the Bill, and that the farmers were able to make their own bargains. He said possibly they might in these times of severe depression; but let a change of seasons come, and then he maintained that there would be quite as much need for the measure as there had been before. The provision of the Act of 1875 which enabled landlords and tenants to contract themselves out of the Act had been the means of setting aside the object of that measure pretty generally throughout the Kingdom. Hon. Members were well aware of that fact; and he trusted that the experience gained from the manner in which the 175 Act of 1875 had operated would have the effect of producing a measure that would be universally adopted.

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out that the hon. Member was addressing himself to the principle of the Bill.

§ MR. DUCKHAM
said, he was making these observations for the purpose of showing that the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet was subversive of the principle of the Bill, and it was upon that ground that he strongly opposed it.

§ MR. BIDDELL
repudiated altogether the assumption of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) that the tenants could never make a fair agreement between the landlords and themselves. As he believed the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet would meet with the approval of the tenant farmers and their Representative Association, he should give it his support.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
pointed out that all the subjects of the agreement might not be of a non-contentious character; and it would be impossible, under those circumstances, that they could all be pronounced upon by the umpire. It appeared to him that an Amendment of this kind would render the position of the Bill on which they were engaged nugatory, inasmuch as it would restore freedom of contract, where the intention was that it should be compulsory. For these reasons, he felt it his duty to oppose the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet.

§ MR. BULWER
said, it appeared to him that Gentlemen on the Front Bench first put arguments into the mouths of their opponents which they had never used, and then proceeded to knock them down. The desire of those who supported the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet was to save both landlord and tenant from litigation. The clause, as it stood, allowed them to make agreements; but it required that those agreements should afford the tenant fair and reasonable compensation; but whether any agreement fulfilled that condition or not could only be determined at the end of the tenancy. But what was the object of the right hon. Baronet? It was that, in view of the expensive and objectionable litigation which might then arise, the landlord and tenant should be enabled to keep out of such matters by making an agreement beforehand that provided for fair and reasonable com- 176 pensation within the meaning of the clause. The argument of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard), in which he spoke of the tenants being in the grip of the landlords, had it been uttered by any other person, and in any other place than that House, he should have characterized as rubbish. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Bidden) laughed at the idea; and he was quite sure his hon. Friend had never been in the grip of a landlord, and never would be. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire said that neither the landlord nor the tenant would have any interest in having these matters settled by independent authority; but to that he replied that they would have a very great interest in it, if they wanted to keep out of the Law Courts and avoid the litigation which the clause, in its unamended form, would be likely to give rise to. The hon. Gentleman then said the landlord would be able to go to the umpire with a cut-and-dried agreement, and ask him to give it his imprimatur, and so bind the tenant. But he would not be able to do anything of the kind; for the person most interested in placing all the facts before the umpire would be the tenant, who had to look not to the landlord's interest, but to his own; and it was not to be supposed that he would be desirous of limiting his claims for compensation at the expiration of his tenancy. The tenant, as well as the landlord, therefore, in order to be safe, would place before the umpire all the facts of the case, so as to enable him to say whether the agreement provided for fair and reasonable compensation at the expiration of the tenancy. It would be in the interest of both parties, à fortiori in the interest of the tenant, to do so. He was not altogether able to appreciate the objection of the hon. Member for Mid Somerset (Mr. R. H. Paget), because this clause already provided for agreements being made so long as they gave fair and reasonable compensation to the tenant; and agreements made in the way now proposed, with a reference to an umpire, would stand in the same position, only their fairness would be determined before the tenancy bad commenced, instead of after it had come to an end. For his own part, he did not see how the amount of the rent would come in question more in the one case than in the other. For 177 these reasons, he should give his support to the Proviso of the right hon. Baronet.

§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE
held that the Proviso was a necessary complement to the Bill, which could not work unless liberty was given to the landlord and tenant to come to an agreement that was fair and reasonable. He considered the Amendment to be much more in the interest of the tenant than the landlord, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adopt it.

§ VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE
wished to say a few words, not upon the merits of the question, but upon the view which the Solicitor General had taken of the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman had first described the Amendment as a complete sham; secondly, he assumed that the umpire would not be impartial; and, thirdly, that the tenant must be a fool. The object of the Amendment was to prevent a sham, not to create it; it was to prevent a tenant making an agreement with the landlord, which, at the end of his tenancy, he would declare to be unfair and unreasonable, and for that reason he should give it his support.

§ MR. STORY-MASKELYNE
said, the object of the Bill was that when the tenant went out of his farm he should have just compensation secured to him. The question they had to consider was, whether, by any agreement which the landlord and the tenant could make today, that just compensation would be insured hereafter to the tenant? He thought the right hon. Baronet, on reconsideration, would see that his Amendment would do nothing of the sort. The Amendment spoke simply of a friendly reference to an umpire. But there was nothing to prevent a landlord saying he would let a farm on such-and-such conditions; further, that the agreement should go before an umpire, because, unless that was done, it could not be made a permanent contract, and compensation might afterwards be claimed; and, finally, that if the tenant could get the umpire to agree to the landlord's conditions, the tenant should have the farm; but that if he could not, the landlord would have to look after someone else. He believed that this sort of thing would be the rule, and that the proposal of the right ben. Baronet, if adopted, would end in being a sort of 178 form to be gone through, with a view to give validity to contracts entered into to-day, that 20 years hence might be inadequate, in the then state of the farm and of agriculture, to secure to the tenant the benefit of this Bill, even where such was the object of the contracting parties. For these reasons, he did not think it would be wise, on the part of the Committee, to accept the Proviso.

§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
said, he would ask the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke), and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, whether the rent would be taken into account in a matter of this kind? They were all agreed that the tenant should have fair and reasonable compensation; but the great question was, how the tenant was to get it? He had lately been reading a treatise of Sir John Lawes, and if the hon. Gentleman opposite would refer to it, he would see that there would be the utmost difficulty in any valuer coming to an agreement with regard to this clause. It was ono of the most difficult things for any person to arrive at a fair and just appraisement of the unexhausted value of improvements. The object was to have an agreement that would not have to go into a Court of Law. There should be something definite to guide the valuer in giving to the tenant that fair and reasonable compensation which they were all anxious he should have.

§ COLONEL KINGSCOTE
said, there was one thing which, in his opinion, made this Proviso necessary to the tenant, and that was its bearing upon the question of leases. He should be sorry to take any farm witbeut a lease, because he regarded a lease as a very valuable instrument for the tenant; but if the Proviso were not put into the Bill, he failed to see how any landlord could henceforward grant a lease, because at the end of the term some claim upon him might crop up on the part of the tenant. His hon. Friend below him (Mr. Rylands) said that the tenant, if the Proviso were adopted, would be at the mercy of the landlord, because the landlord would have an umpire of his own, so to speak; but he did not think that the tenants were so foolish as to make an agreement that was unfair to themselves. Again, he had known cases of tenants going to their landlords and saying 179 that owing to the bad times they could not pay, where the landlord had given them not a reduction of rent, but so much feeding stuff, and other matters to help them along. But who would be likely to do that if the Bill passed in its present form, seeing that a man could afterwards come forward and claim compensation in the absence of a binding agreement? For these reasons, lie should support the Amendment of the right lion. Baronet.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
asked whether the umpire would have power to amend the terms of the agreement? because, if not, it would be a mere waste of time to submit it to him.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH
said, the intention was that the landlord and tenant should take the agreement to the umpire, who, if he saw nothing unfair in it, would give it his sanction. All he proposed was that the landlord and tenant should be able to do precisely what they might do at the present moment, in arranging any other matter between them by voluntary agreement. A compulsory reference to arbitration would be altogether a different mater; but there was nothing compulsory in his proposal. He could not understand the position taken up by the Government in this matter. The clause provided that a voluntary agreement between the landlord and tenant might be entered into, and yet they objected to anything which would enable that voluntary agreement to be carried out. If two people went to au umpire, who, after having considered the facts of the case, came to the conclusion that the proposed agreement between them was fair, he ventured to say that that agreement ought to stand. If not, did the Government really mean that when two men had agreed to an agreement which gave compensation, one of the men or his representative, some 25 or 30 years hence, might dishonestly seek to set aside the agreement, and get some better terms?

§ MR. C. SEELY (Nottingham)
said, he did not understand the arguments of the Treasury Bench. There were no conflicting facts in the case as he understood it, and he could not conceive what valid objection there could be to this proposal. The question was simply whether the scale of compensation was a fair and reasonable one or not; and the occupier, being a man acquainted 180 with the agriculture of the district, knew perfectly whether the scale was reasonable or not. It was most desirable that they should endeavour, in every possible way, to avoid litigation; and in the belief that the Amendment would tend to decrease the possibilities of litigation he should support it.

§ MR. BORLASE
, who had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out Subsection (a), said, he had no intention whatever of proposing this Amendment. It was originally his intention to propose to introduce a clause elsewhere; but he would not now do so. He considered the sub-section was fair as it stood; and he availed himself of the opportunity of saying that, as far as he was concerned, he meant to withdraw any opposition to the further progress of the Bill. He did so because the evident sense of the large majority of the Committee was against the views which he held, and he did not wish to take up the time of the Committee further by advocating his views.

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
begged to move to insert, after "has," in line 16, the words "by any particular agreement in writing." The 2nd section of Clause 5 provided that the Act should be set aside if a particular agreement be entered into. The object of the clause under discussion was that an umpire should be bound to take into consideration, in ascertaining the amount of compensation— Any benefit which the landlord has given or allowed to the tenant in consideration of the tenant executing the improvement. To remedy the difficulties which the referees might have to encounter, he proposed to insert those words.
Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 16, after the word "has," to insert the words "by any particular agreement in writing."—(Mr. James Howard.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ MR. DODSON
said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment. If the benefit which the landlord had given or allowed consisted. of something done, the benefit would admit of being proved, and it would not be necessary that there should be an agreement in writing. This sub-section, moreover, was in the Agricultural Holdings Act, and he was not aware that any difficulty had arisen in consequence.

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
said, that the benefit must be either conferred by word of mouth, or by agreement. If it was by word of mouth, the referees would have to hear both sides of the question. The insertion of his words would clear up all ambiguity which might exist. He could not consent to withdraw his Amendment, because he foresaw difficulties which would have to be encountered. If it were necessary to introduce similar words in a former clause, surely it was just as necessary they should be inserted here.
Question put, and negatived.

§ SIR JOSEPH PEASE
proposed, in page 3, line 18, at end of Sub-section (a), to insert— Any improvement agreed upon between the landlord and tenant to be carried out during the tenancy by the tenant and. His Amendment was not provided for in the Bill. It was to meet the case where a landlord had covenanted with his tenant that, in consideration of certain rent, he should lay on the ground a certain quantity of manure, or do a certain amount of werk. Ono or twe agreements had been sent to him which appeared to him very fair; and he had put this Amendment down on the Paper, because he did not think it was provided for by the words— In respect of any improvement there shall be taken into account in reduction thereof. Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 18, at end of Sub-section (a), insert "any improvement agreed upon between the landlord and tenant to be carried out during the tenancy by the tenant and."—(Sir Joseph. Pease.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
said, he thought his hon. Friend would see that his words would hardly meet the object he 182 had in view. A landlord had only to agree with the tenant to carry out the improvement without any consideration. If there was no consideration for it, the tenant was to be deprived of his compensation for improvements. If, by an arrangement between the landlord and tenant, the landlord had given or allowed the tenant any consideration in respect of his executing an improvement, then that was to be taken into account by the provision as it stood. What his hon. Friend proposed was that, though there was no benefit at all, the tenant was to get compensation.

§ SIR JOSEPH PEASE
said, his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General had entirely misapprehended the Amendment. If a landlord said to a man—"You shall have the farm for £250, instead of £300, if you lay on a certain amount of manure," this was not provided for in the previous clauses.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
said, he should say that this was distinctly met by Subsection (a) of the clause.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he hoped that after the clear statement of the Solicitor General his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEY
said, his Amendment was a little different, but proceeded precisely upon the same principle. It was adapted, however, to the circumstances of particular localities. In the neighbourhood where he happened to reside, and in a great many other parts of the country, farming operations nowadays were materially different to what they were a few years back; and in many dairy farms the milk, instead of being converted into cheese, was sent to London and elsewhere. Unless a certain amount of artificial manure was brought on a farm, unless a certain quantity of feeding stuff was expended on the land, it was found land, where this sale of milk on, returned very quickly to its normal state. The consequence had been that in nearly every case an arrangement had been entered into between the landlord and the tenant, that in consideration of a certain quantity either of manure or feeding stuff, and generally of beth, being brought on the farm in order to keep the land in a fit state to produce 183 goods for the general benefit of the community, the tenant should receive the benefit of such permission, and be at liberty to sell off certain classes of produce usually consumed or converted on the farm. If a man entered into an agreement or contract to bring on the farm a certain amount of feeding stuff, and he did not carry it out, the landlord would have a right of action against him, and would be able to recover damages. He (Sir Gabriel Goldney) wanted it to be laid down that a valuer, in assessing the amount of compensation that a tenant was entitled to receive, should take into account any such agreement or covenant entered into between landlord and tenant. In justice and fairness that ought to be done, and he begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 18, at end, to add—"Any agreement or covenant by the tenant for application of artificial manure, or for consumption on the holding of cake or other artificial feeding stuff, in consideration of the sale or removal by the tenant of the milk produced on the holding, and."—(Sir Gabriel Goldney.) Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
considered that the Amendment would weaken the force of the sub-section. It was unwise to specially mention an agreement or covenant of the nature described in the Amendment, to the exclusion of other agreements or covenants.

§ SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEY
asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, he had an Amendment on the Paper, to leave out, in page 3, line 21, "hay, straw, roots, or green." He thought there was a great risk of injustice being done to the tenant if the clause stood as it did at present. He would not move his Amendment now; but he intended to suggest a similar Amendment to the Scotch Bill.

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
moved to leave out, in page 3, line 21, "sold off," and insert "removed from."
Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 21, to leave out the words "sold off," and insert the words "removed from."—(Mr. James Howard.)
184 Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

§ MR. DODSON
said, he saw no objection to the proposal; but he thought it would be better to leave in the words "sold off," and add the words "removed from."

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
said, he did not think it was necessary to leave the words in the clause; but, still, he had no objection to their retention.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, it appeared to him that the clause called upon the tenant to prove this against himself. How could evidence that any hay, straw, roots, or green crops were sold off the holding within the last two years of the tenancy, or other less time, for which the tenancy had endured, be obtained unless the farmer supplied the information himself? Such information would be used as a set-off against the farmer; therefore, he did not see how the clause would work in practice.

§ MR. DODSON
said, it worked every day on many farms in England.

§ MR. STORER
said, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard) had stolen his Amendment. He was, however, very glad to support the hon. Member in the proposition he had now made.
Question put, and agreed to.

§ MR. DODSON
moved to add,after the word "off," the words "or removed from."
Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
proposed to insert the same words in line 25. The clause would then read— Except as far as a proper return of manure to the holding has been made in respect of such produce sold or removed from. Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 25, after the words "sold off," to insert the words "or removed from."—(Mr. James Howard.)
Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. WARTON
said, in the absence of the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Loder), who had an Amendment on the Paper, be would move it. He wished to insert, after the word "off," in page 3, line 25—
Provided always, That no claim for compensation in respect of artificial manure; as between the outgoing and incoming tenant, or 185 as between the outgoing tenant and the landlord, shall be sustainable unless the outgoing tenant shall produce and show to the valuators vouchers relating thereto, and also a certificate of analysis of such artificial manure made by a competent analyst, indicating its composition and value. He regretted the absence of the hon. Member for Shoreham, as he was very experienced in farming. The hon. Member had been a very successful farmer, and he would, no doubt, have been able to give them some very valuable information on the subject of manuring land if he had been present. No doubt, importance was attached to this Amendment, otherwise it would not have been put on the Paper. Its object was to protect the incoming tenant and the landlord from fraud; it would also protect sitting tenants, inasmuch as the necessity of submitting manure to the test of analysis would deter fraudulent vendors of manures from offering spurious articles for sale. He was sorry to say there were many manures sold at a high price which were hardly werth the cost of carriage. The Amendment would prevent an incoming tenant from being the victim of a fraud perpetrated on an outgoing tenant, and would protect him from neglect on the part of the outgoing tenant to have the manures properly analyzed. Some kinds of manures were much more permanent than others. Some of them might be very good at the time; but no trace of them might remain in the soil after the lapse of a year or two years. Take benes, for instance. They would last but a season or twe, and the effect they would have upon the land would depend upon the kind of benes from which the dust had been made. Many manures of this kind produced different results, a greater result being produced by benes in a crude state than by old and dry benes. The effect of the Amendment would be that the incoming tenant would not pay for manures until, in addition to the vouchers, he had an analysis from a competent analyst, showing the strength and value of that for which he was to pay. He hoped the Government would not scrutinize this Amendment in the same captious spirit as they had scrutinized so many others which had come from that side of the House.
Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 25, after the word "off," to insert—"Provided always, That no claim for com- 186 pensation in respect of artificial manure, as between the outgoing and incoming tenant, or as between the outgoing tenant and the landlord, shall be sustainable unless the outgoing tenant shall produce and show to the valuators vouchers relating thereto, and also a certificate of analysis of such artificial manure made by a competent analyst, indicating its composition and value."—(Mr. Werton.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ MR. DODSON
said, he could not accept the Amendment, because its effect was that the outgoing tenant was not to receive compensation for manures until he had proved their composition and value. It seemed devised for the special benefit of chemical analysts. Disputes would arise on this point, in which the landlord might, owing to his superior wealth, be in a better position than the tenant. The Amendment would work very hardly in the case of a tenant who had mislaid his vouchers, and it might have the effect of depriving him of the value of his improvements.

§ MR. STORER
said, he thought the object the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Warton) had in view would be better met by an Amendment which he (Mr. Storer) had on the Paper to the Schedule—namely, in page 12, line 31, after "manure," to insert "of fully and generally recognized value." These words would be thoroughly well understood by valuers.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he would not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he had an Amendment to move here which was not on the Paper, and which related to a matter the Committee were very well acquainted with, inasmuch as a provision to this effect was contained in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875. This Proviso of Clause 6, Sub-section (b), dealt with rules for the guidance of the valuers in estimating the amount of compensation which should be given to an outgoing tenant for the manures used by him on his holding. Well, there was a section in the Act of 1875 which ran as follows:— The tenant shall not be entitled to compensation in respect of improvements of the third class, where after the execution thereof them has been taken from the portion of the holding on which the same was executed a crop of corn, potatoes, hay, or seed, or other exhausting crop. 187 That might be too stringent; but it would not be contended that compensation should be given after these crops to the same extent as it would be in the case where no such crops bad been grown. What he proposed to move on the lines of this Proviso in the Act of 1875 was to insert— In the case of compensation for manures or feeding stuffs"— which would be governed by the previous words— there shall be taken into account in reduction thereof any crop of corn, potatoes, hay, seed, or other exhausting crop taken since the execution thereof from that portion of the holding on which the same has been executed. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not object to this as being unfair to either party. It seemed to him (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) perfectly fair to the outgoing tenant and the incoming tenant alike that this matter should be considered by the valuer. No doubt, in the majority of cases, it would be so considered; but he desired to make it clear that it must be considered, by inserting these words in the Bill. They should not leave the valuer to suppose that they thought the tenant ought to be compensated for the whole value of manures he might have used upon his land, when he had done his best to avail himself of the benefit of those manures by growing exhausting crops.
Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 26, insert new sub-section—"In the case of compensation for manures or feeding stuffs, any crop of corn, potatoes, hay, seed, or other exhausting crop taken since the execution thereof from that portion of the holding on which the same has been executed."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.) Question proposed, "That the new sub-section be there inserted."

§ MR. DODSON
said, that, in framing the Bill, they had carefully considered the directions which were given to the valuers under the rules laid down in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875, and they had deliberately decided upon leaving them out, this rule being amongst the number. They had laid down the principle that these improvements were to be paid for according to their value; and, having done that, they preferred to leave it to the common sense and practical experience of a competent valuer 188 to say what the value was. No doubt, as had been pointed out, it was very often the case, at all events with many manures, that their value was fully realized or taken out by the growing of what was called an exhausting crop, such as hay, potatoes, or seed. These crops were generally supposed to exhaust whatever manures might be put on the land, altheugh he should be sorry to say that such was invariably the case. He would rather leave this matter to be decided by the practical experience of a valuer.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH
said, he merely proposed that exhausting crops should be taken into account in this matter.

§ MR. DODSON
said, that it was not necessary to put it into the Bill, for a valuer, if he were a competent man, would not fail to take it into account in arriving at the true value of the improvements. They would only be encumbering the Act of Parliament with unnecessary minutiœ by inserting this Amendment. It would simply be a piece of advice to the valuer as to how he was to carry out what was an obvious part of his duty.

MR. J W.BARCLAY
said, he thought it was a mistake to insert Sub-section (b) in this Bill, as it instructed the valuer how to carry out the principle in the 1st clause. He thought it would have been better to leave the valuer to take his own view of the matter—it would. have been better for both parties. The sub-section had evidently been introduced with the intention of giving the valuer a bias against the outgoing tenant — that was to say, it was introduced as an instruction to the valuer to take care that lie did not give to the way-going tenant any more than he could possibly help. The present proposal was conceived in the same spirit. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) laid particular stress upon these matters, which went in reduction of the way-going tenant's proper compensation. If instructions of this kind were given to the valuer, surely it would only be right to give special instructions to the referees on the other side. If they were to take into account these exhausting crops, they should also be instructed to take into account special manures or things of that kind on the other side.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
said, he thought a great deal was to be said in favour of the words of the Amendment, especially as the highest scientific authorities on farming in the country were agreed that the wisest thing for a tenant to do was only to put into his land as much manure as he could take out in his crop. These authorities were also quite agreed on this—that if there was one thing more difficult to ascertain and appraise the value of than another, it was the unexhausted value of manures. It was all very well to say that the valuers should exercise their judgment; but, to his mind, it was much more reasonable to say that experience and judgment should be used in pointing out that the value of manures was reduced by crops of an exhausting nature.

§ MR. PUGH
said, the reason for the introduction of this Proviso in the Act of 1875 did not apply to the present Bill, because, in the previous Act as to third-class improvements, the outgoing tenant was entitled to be paid for them if they had not been laid down more than two years previously. The present section committed the tenant to one year. The first thing the valuer would do in this matter would be to see what benefit the tenant had had, and what crops he had grown with the manures he had laid down.

§ MR. GREGORY
said, the principle of the Amendment was, no doubt, sound; but what the operation of it would be was, to his mind, at any rate, very doubtful. In most cases the value of the manures, after these crops had been taken from the land, would, to the incoming tenant, be simply nil. He could not help thinking that if these words were introduced it would be a sort of indication to the valuer that there was to be a value attached to the manures after exhausting crops had been taken from the land, and that the valuer would be bound to imply that there was, at any rate, some value attaching to the improvement. As the Bill stood, in many cases they would know nothing at all about these manures as being of value to an incoming tenant; but if the Amendment were introduced, it would be taken by the valuer that value was contemplated as coming from these manures, but from which value some deduction on account of the exhausting crop had to be made.

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
said, the provision proposed would be quite fair in respect of tenants such as those described by the hon. Member for Mid Somersetshire (Mr. R. H. Paget), who farmed from hand to mouth; but it would be most unfair to tenants who maintained their holdings in the highest possible state of cultivation, and the manurial elements upon whose farms were not exhausted by one or twe crops. No one had shown more conclusively than Sir J. Bennet Lawes, who was one of the highest authorities in the world upon agricultural affairs, how the manurial elements were by a liberal application year after year stored up for many years. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] The hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon said "No!"

§ SIR THOMAS ACLAND
I did not say anything of the kind.

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
begged the hon. Baronet's pardon; but some ben. Member said "No." It was a fact, however, that Sir J. Bonnet Lewes had shown that manurial elements were stored up by liberal applications through many succeeding years. This proposal would operate against the very class of tenants it was the object of the Bill to benefit.
Amendment negatived.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, the next sub-section was in these words— Any sums due to the landlord in respect of rent or in respect of any waste committed or permitted by the tenant, or in respect of any breach of covenant or other agreement connected with the contract of tenancy committed by the tenant, also any taxes, rates, and tithe rentcharge due or becoming due in respect of the holding to which the tenant is liable as between him and the landlord. He did not think this provision should be allowed to remain in the clause at all. As the Committee would see, the introduction of this section was an instruction to the referees to take those matters into consideration. In the ascertainment of the amount of the compensation under this Act payable to the tenant in respect of any improvement —that was to say, to take the matter contained in the sub-sections into account in reduction of the amount of compensation. Sub-section (c), however, dealt with the question of rent, taxes, rates, and tithe rentcharge, or waste committed by the tenant. He did not 191 find in the Bill any power dealing with waste. The sub-section seemed to be a set-off against a tenant's claim for compensation; but the instruction at the beginning of the section was to the valuators to take into consideration certain matters under Sub-sections (a and b), such as liming and manuring. How were the valuators to take into account, in estimating the value of an improvement to an incoming tenant, the rent due to the landlord? In the Agricultural Holdings Act, according to which this Bill was drawn, Clause 18 gave the tenant a claim against the landlord for compensation, and there was also a section giving the landlord a claim against the tenant; but those sections were left out in the present Bill. Those sections of the Agricultural Holdings Act were intended to be repealed by this measure; and he would therefore suggest that this section (c) should be omitted. If the sub-section were left in it would be entirely confusing to the referees. He would therefore move its omission. If the referees were to act upon the subsection, they would not be able to give an award until they had decided what was the amount duo to the landlord, and what was the amount of waste in respect of breach of covenant or other agreement between the landlord and tenant, together with the other matters mentioned in the provision. The object of the clause was to give the landlords a set-off against tenants' claims; but the referees would have no power to deal with the questions referred to in the sub-section.
Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 26, to leave out Sub-section (c).—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
Question proposed, "That Sub-section (c) stand part of the Clause."

§ MR. DODSON
said, the objection taken by the hon. Member to this subsection was not, as he understood it, to the provision itself, but to placing these words in their present position in the clause. He was not sure that the hon. Member was not right in this respect; and he would undertake to consider the point, and if he found it desirable to divide the clause into two he would do so.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, he wished to point out that Section 15 of the Agricultural Holdings Act provided that certain things were to be taken into 192 account which were enumerated in this Bill in Sub-sections (a and b) of the present clause. Then Section 16 of the Agricultural Holdings Act went on to say that the compensation should be subjected to certain deductions; and then came in this Sub-section (c). Section 18 gave the tenant a right to make a demand against the landlord for any breach of covenant which was not covered by the Act. But the tenant, under this Bill, would have no power, except at Common Law, to claim such compensation. Section (d) of the present Bill said that in augmentation of the tenant's compensation should be considered sums due— In respect of a breach of covenant or other agreement connected with a contract of tenancy and committed by the landlord; but the measure did not give the referees power to say what the compensation should be; and that question, if the Bill stood as at present framed, would have to be decided by a Court of Law before the referees could add anything in respect of it to the compensation. There was no power in this Bill for a tenant to get compensation for a breach of covenant on the part of the landlord. [An hon. MEMBER: Yes; Sub-section (d).) Sub-section (d) only applied after the sum due was ascertained; but there was no power in time Bill to enable the tenant to ascertain the amount duo for breach of covenant on the part of the landlord, or to enable the landlord to ascertain the amount duo for breach of covenant on the part of the tenant. There was no power given for the referees to decide any claim.

§ MR. GREGORY
said, it appeared to him that the objection taken by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) partook of a hyper-criticism. To his mind, the clause was quite intelligible, and would be perfectly werkable. The clause was that— In the ascertainment of the amount of the compensation under this Act payable to the tenant in respect of any improvement there shall be taken into account in reduction thereof," &c. The clause did not say that there should only be taken into consideration matters reducing the compensation. Benefits allowed to the tenant and other reductions were considered, and matters were to be taken into account in augmentation 193 of the tenant's compensation. The clause provided a double set-off, both as against the tenant's compensation and as against the landlord's claim to a set-off in respect of breach of covenant or other agreement connected with a contract of tenancy. Under the Agricultural Holdings Act there was a reference to two valuers, one to be chosen by either party, who might appoint an umpire. If they did not appoint an umpire, one could be appointed by the Land Commission on the application of either party, who would have full power to assess the sum. He (Mr. Gregory) did not see any difficulty in this matter; or, if difficulty there was, it was only in the matter of drafting the award. The referees would have full power to take all these matters into consideration; and he therefore could not see any possible ground for altering the clause, which seemed to him to be properly drawn. he had no doubt it would be found to werk satisfactorily.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, ha did not think the hon. Gentleman thoroughly understood the point in the next clause. It was provided that the award should take certain things into account in dealing with the compensation, and should specify the improvements in respect of which it was awarded, the time at which they were executed, and the sum awarded in respect of each thing. It was clear that there could be no connection between these matters and the matters contained in this sub-section (c). The chalking of land, for instance, had to be taken into account. In ascertaining the compensation to be given in regard to chalking, were they to take into account breaches of contract, rent, taxes, rates, tithe rent-charge, and so on? Surely it was perfectly clear that these things could have nothing to do with the value of an improvement.

§ MR. PELL
considered the clause very well drawn, and that it covered all that was likely to arise.

§ MR. DODSON
said, he thought it would be a pity to go on discussing the matter. He believed he saw what the hon. Member for Forfarshire was aiming at—namely, that in ascertaining the amount to be paid under this Act such and such things should be taken into account in fixing compensation. He had undertaken to consider the clause again.

§ MR. GREGORY
understood that this clause was to be a settlement between landlord and tenant; and, therefore, the award should be made upon the footing of certain things being taken into account.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, he did not see anything in this Bill giving the referees power to ascertain the amount claimed for waste by the landlord on the one hand, or, on the other hand, by the tenant.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, it was intended to retain these powers, and that point would be dealt with hereafter.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, that, so far as he could see, there was no question of compensation to the landlord by the tenant.
Amendment negatived.

§ MR. DUCKHAM
said, he should be sorry to see an Act passed through the House which would enable a landlord to recover the full amount of rent due, without the tenant being enabled to claim as a legal set-off the compensation provided by the Bill. It was no use giving compensation, and no power to recover but by action at law. He therefore proposed to insert words to meet that point.
Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 32, after the word "landlord," to insert the words "any sum due to the tenant as compensation under this Act shall be taken into account in reduction from the rent due."—(Mr. Duckham.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ MR. DODSON
said, that no power was given to the landlord to recover for breach of covenant, or in regard to waste; but he was left entirely to his action at law, although it was provided that, where a tenant claimed compensation, there should be a set-off against it any sum due to the owner for waste within the last four years.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, the hon. Member had brought this question up before the Committee on Distress; and the point of the hon. Member, if he understood him rightly, was that while compensation might be due to a tenant by a landlord, nevertheless a landlord might distrain for the rent. The object of the hon. Member was to avoid the landlord being able by one process to recover rent the moment there was any 195 money due; while the tenant, at the same time, had an item to set off, but which would not prevent the distress. He did not know what objections there were to the proposal; but he thought it was a clear way of putting the issue.

§ MR. DODSON
said, he thought that if that was the issue the question had better be reserved until the clauses on distress were reached.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. DONALDSON-HUDSON
said, the Amendment he had intended to move appeared to be covered by Sub-section (a) of this clause; but, before he withdrew it, he should like to have an explicit statement from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) as to whether that was so or not. The case he wished to draw attention to was that of a farm which had been let before the Act came into operation, on the distinct understanding that the farm should be worked up to an efficient state. Suppose a farm which, if in good condition, would have been worth £100 a-year, being in a wretched condition, was let at £70, on the condition that the tenant put it into good condition, and that he should then have no claim against the landlord, the tenant might yet claim compensation for his improvements, although he had already been paid for them by the reduced rent. Upon that point he should be glad to have some information; and another point was where, subsequently to the passing of the Act, a similar contract had been made in writing. Of course, if after such an agreement had been come to, the tenant should claim compensation for the whole of the improvements, he would be in the enviable position of performing the unparalleled feat of eating his cake and yet having it. If these points were covered by Sub-section (a) he would not move his Amendment.

§ MR. DODSON
said, that those points were covered by Sub-section (a).
Amendment proposed, In page 3, after line 32, to insert — "There shall not be taken into account any larger outlay during the last year of the tenancy than the average amount of the tenant's outlay for the like purposes during the three next preceding years of the tenancy, or other less number of years for which the tenancy has endured."—(Mr. Duckham.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH
said, he hoped the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would be able to favourably consider this proposal. He had known a case in which a tenant, dying, left a flock of valuable sheep. The executors were naturally desirous of making as much money from the sheep as they could, and had spent large sums of money in artificial feeding-stuffs for them; while, on the other hand, they had so neglected the cultivation of the farm as to have left it in a very bad condition. That had been done without any desire to defraud the incoming tenant; but simply to realize the largest possible sum for the stock on the farm. lie thought there should be some safeguard, as was here proposed, for the incoming tenant and the landlord, so that the outgoing tenant should not be able to charge for expenditure far beyond the average, from which the incoming tenant or the landlord would receive no proportionate benefit.

§ MR. GREGORY
thought the Amendment very reasonable.

§ MR. DODSON
said, he was very much surprised that the ben. Member had moved this Amendment. It was essentially a landlord's provision; and it appeared to him to be inconsistent with the objects now in view in laying down value as the measure of compensation. This proposal would strengthen the landlord's contention that compensation for improvements was to be limited by outlay. Another reason why he considered the proposal unfortunate was that they had already decided not to hamper the valuers by laying down rules and restrictions in an Aot of Parliament. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, for the Government could not assent to it.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
regarded this as a very valuable proposal. Undoubtedly it was fair; and he thought the objections of the right hon. Gentleman were greatly modified by the fact that an Amendment had been carried limiting compensation to outlay. He was bound to say, however, that he was very much surprised to see this Amendment in the name of the hon. Member; for he recollected that when that Amendment was carried the hon. Member was so overcome that he preached a sermon, in the most melancholy tones, on the injustice and wrong done to farmers. He was 197 more delighted than he could express to find that the hon. Member had thought better of the matter. There ought to be some restriction of this kind; and he hoped the Government would agree to the proposal.

§ MR. DUCKHAM
said, he would not press the Amendment.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, that by the Agricultural Holdings Act a hardand-fast line was laid down that the compensation should be for a certain amount of manure consumed on the holding during the last year. It was evident that, if a large quantity was consumed, or more than was required, there was nothing to determine the amount except the outlay; and to meet that case a certain limitation was put into the Act. But here the case was quite different. The outgoing tenant was not to be compensated according to what he had consumed; but to the residue left to his successor. If he were under such a lease as was contemplated, he should charge the outgoing tenant with deterioration, because there would be a larger quantity of manure ou the ground than was good for the stock. He thought the position of the Government was thoroughly sound, and that there was no reason for such a restriction in the Bill.

§ MR. BIDDELL
said, he thought this a proper Amendment, which would commend itself to the outgoing tenant.

§ MR. PICKERING PHIPPS
said, the effect of the Amendment would be that, if a tenant had not been in the habit of consuming oil-cake on the farm, it would prevent him using it after he had given or received notice to quit, even though it might be to his advantage and that of the incoming tenant. The outgoing tenant would not necessarily be compensated in proportion to the quantity of cake used; but only for such as left a residue for the benefit of the incoming tenant. The real purport of the Bill was, that a tenant farmer should find it to his advantage to keep the farm in good condition; and he hoped the principle would be maintained that whatever was done for the benefit of the incoming tenant should be paid for by valuation.

§ SIR THOMAS ACLAND
pointed out that the Amendment was opposed to the broad principle of the Bill, that the tenant should receive compensation for 198 the unexhausted value of the manures to the new tenant.

§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON
suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and moved in an altered form, as, in its present form, it would affect all improvements in Schedule 3, which could not possibly be the intention of the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham).

§ MR. STORER
said, the Amendment would have the effect of preventing a man beginning to farm better than he had done in the earlier part of the tenancy.

§ MR. HICKS
drew attention to the fact that the Amendment only applied to the last year of the tenancy, and that under the Act the tenant was to have a year's notice to quit. He put it to the Committee whether it was reasonable or right that a tenant under notice to quit should have the opportunity of building up a heavy charge against the incoming tenant? This was no question as between landlord and tenant; it was a question that had to do with the incoming tenants; and he said it was in the interest of those who took farms hereafter that the Committee should take care that the charges arising under the Bill were not unjust to them.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, it was perfectly impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment as it stood, and he hoped the Committee would allow it to be withdrawn.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
said, while he agreed with the object the hon. Member opposite had in view, he concurred in the suggestion that it should be withdrawn.
Amendment negatived.

§ MR. BIGGAR
proposed to move the omission of Sub-section 3, in order to insert the Amendment standing in his name.

§ MR. WARTON
rose to Order. He pointed out that the subject-matter of the Amendment was compensation for disturbance, and asked whether the hon. Member was in Order in moving it?

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he had considered the Amendment of the Member for Cavan, and arrived at the conclusion that it was not beyond the scope of the Bill.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, the Amendment he was about to move embedied a principle contained in the Act which amended 199 the law relating to Agricultural Holdings in Ireland. He submitted that its merit lay in the fact that it placed the tenant farmer in possession of a holding in a sounder position to deal with the landlord than that which he occupied in the present state of things. They had heard a great deal about freedom of contract in relation to the Agricultural Question; but he held that freedom of contract between the tenant farmer and the landlord was a thing that could not possibly exist. The usual time at which the landlords were likely to raise the rent was when farming was prosperous. They would certainly not be likely to raise it after a series of bad years, because then the rents would be tending to fall generally, and the landlords would be very anxious to keep the tenants on at the former rents; but in good years there was a tendency to believe that a prosperous state of things would continue for a considerable time, and it was under those circumstances that the landlords insisted on an increase of rent being paid to them. The position of the tenant, then, was that he must submit to an advance that might be fair so far as a single good year was concerned, but which would be more than was fair on an average of 10 years, because if he did not agree he would be obliged to sell his stock and implements at a loss. Thus it was that the tenant agreed to pay more than a fair average rent in good times, at, d when the bad times came he found himself embarrassed; and although in some cases landlords gave a reduction of rent, there were many cases in which no such reduction was given, and the consequence was that the tenant was ruined through having made an imprudent bargain with his landlord under pressure. He would remind the Committee that 30 years ago there was a considerable agitation in Ireland in relation to the land, and that the landlords at the time would not listen to the proposal that the tenant should be compensated for the visible improvements on the holding. But, although those landlords would not consent, their successors many years afterwards were forced to agree to larger terms; and he thought it no harm to say to the English landlords that the passing of a Bill like the present, which gave no substantial relief to the tenant farmer, would, in his opinion, only be an encouragement to agitation in Eng- 200 land, and that, too, at no very remote day. He believed that the Amendment which he now begged to move would improve the Bill, and make it snore acceptable to the tenant farmers.
Amendment proposed, In page 3, after line 37, after the word "landlord," to insert the words—"(e.) When the tenant of any holding held by him under a yearly tenancy or on the expiration of a lease is disturbed in his holding by the act of his landlord, he shall be entitled to such compensation as the county court, judge of his district, in view of all the circumstances of the case, shall think just, subject to the scale of compensation hereinafter mentioned; when the rent is thirty pounds or under, a sum not exceeding seven years' rent; when the rent is abeve thirty pounds and not exceeding fifty pounds, a sum not exceeding five years' rent; when the sum is abeve fifty pounds and not exceeding one hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding four years' rent; when the sum is abeve one hundred pounds and not exceeding three hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding three years' rent; when the rent is above three hundred pounds and not exceeding five hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding two years' rent; when the rent is abeve five hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding one year's rent."—(Mr. Biggar.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ MR. STORER
said, it was exceedingly thoughtful of the hon. Member for Cavan to endeavour to bring the English Laud Law up to the Irish standard; but the alteration was ono for which the English landlords were not prepared.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, he could not support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan; but he thought the present a convenient opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to explain the difference between English and Irish tenants in relation to this question.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
thought, on the other hand, it was quite unnecessary to enter into the explanation suggested by the hon. Member for Forfarshire. The Government would oppose the Amendment.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, that his Amendment was taken in substance from an Act passed by the present Government; and if they gave no reasons for not accepting it, the tenant farmers would naturally conclude that they had no reasons to give, and in that way they would simply be playing into the hands of their political opponents. he should certainly divide the Committee on the 201 Amendment, whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite supported it or not.
Question put.
The Committee divided: — Ayes 6; Noes 80: Majority 74. — (Div. List, No. 222.)

§ VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE
said, he had been told that the Amendment he was about to move was not within the purview of the Bill; but he trusted that in a very few words he should be able to convince the Committee that that was not the case. The Amendment had reference to the landlord having an original claim for waste committed, or permitted, by the tenant. He was aware there was no such provision in the Act of 1875; and yet in that Act there was a clause which went a long way in the same direction. It contained a provision by which the landlord, having a claim for waste on the part of the tenant, might put it against the tenant's claim for compensation. he understood that the present Bill was to be carried in the interest of good husbandry; it was said that it was in the interest of good husbandry that the tenant should be able to claim compensation for the improvements carried out on the holding. But was it not also in the interest of good husbandry, and in the interest of the country, that a clause should he introduced into the Bill which would be a check upon the tenant committing waste? They knew it was not likely that the landlord would get any actual payment by means of the clause which he proposed to introduce. The landlord had now power to sue the tenant for rent due in the Courts of Law; the result of the exercise of that power being almost invariably that even where the landlord obtained judgment for the amount of rent due to him with costs—the tenant generally being a man of straw—he got no money whatever, and had to pay the costs himself. It appeared to him that as the tenant was to I be entitled to compensation for improvements, the landlord also should be en-, titled to compensation for waste which took place by the default of the tenant. In 99 cases out of 100 he felt satisfied' that the landlord would get nothing out of the tenant if his Amendment were accepted by the Government; but, at the same time, he believed that it would have a material effect in preventing a tenant going in to commit that waste 202 which it was the object of his Amendment to prevent. When they were considering a Bill of this kind, he thought they should have regard to the opinion of those whose interests they were there to represent and uphold; and he know no better way of making that opinion known than by referring to a Motion made by a tenant farmer sent up as the representative of his district in the Central Chamber of Agriculture. He moved to add to Clause 6 of the Bill the words— Provided, That the landlord shall have power to proceed by original claim, and not merely by way of counter claim. That proposal, having been put before the representatives of the farming interestthroughout the country, was carried without any discussion, a fact which ' showed, whatever might be the idea of the Government concerning his proposal, that it was not in opposition to the wishes or ideas of justice entertained by the agriculturists of the country. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 38, to insert "where a tenant commits or permits waste, or commits a breach of a covenant, or other agreement connected with the contract of tenancy, the landlord shall be entitled to obtain, on the determination of the tenancy, compensation in respect of the breach or waste, provided that."—(Viscount Folkestone.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
said, the Government could not accept the proposal of the noble Viscount, which was superfluous, if the intention was not to alter the existing law; because the landlord was, undoubtedly, already entitled to compensation from the tenant if he committed waste, or a breach of covenant or agreement, in connection with his contract of tenancy. The words of the Amendment were—"Where a tenant commits or permits waste." What was called permissive waste was not considered to apply to an ordinary tenancy from year to year. The effect, therefore, that he could see of the noble Viscount's Amendment would be in this respect to change the law, and change it in a serious manner by making a tenant from year to year liable for permissive waste. That would be a matter 203 of far too wide a scope to deal with in an Amendment of this kind. The noble Viscount would see that, in reality, he gave the landlords nothing; but merely said that a landlord sbeuld have that which he had now. The noble Viscount would see, on reflection, that nothing would be gained to the landlord by the adoption of this Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE
said, that after what had been stated by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General he should ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, more especially as he saw further down on the Paper an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard), which contained the essence of what he wished to do by this clause. Perhaps the Government might be able to accept the principle of the Amendment of that hon. Gentleman.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. BORLASE
moved, in page 3, line 41, to leave out "four," and insert "two." He knew there was a great deal to be said on both sides with regard to this question; but he thought that, considering the clause as it stood, and considering also some of the Amendments which were to follow, it would be as well if the word "four" were replaced by the word "two." He thought that two years were amply sufficient; and he trusted Her Majesty's Government would be able to accept his proposition.
Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 41, to leave out the word "four," and insert the word "two."—(Mr. Borlase.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'four' stand part of the Clause."

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, that the provision of the Bill in this respect was similar to that of the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act of 1875. It appeared that this principle was accepted in 1875 witheut a discussion. He had no doubt that the main reason for adopting four years was that that covered the usual period of the rotation of crops. They were giving compensation to tenants in respect of improvements which might have happened seven, or eight, or 10 years ago. It was, therefore, not unreasonable to enable a landlord to make a counter claim for waste which had occurred within a reasonable time. Looking to all the circumstances of the 204 case, he could not think that four years was an unreasonable time.

§ MR. STORER
said, he had an Amendment to the same effect as the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Borlase). He knew very well that four years was the term put in the Agricultural Holdings Act. That term was adopted in consequence of an Amendment of his own. Previous to that the period was unlimited during which a landlord could claim compensation; but in consequence of an arrangement with the late Mr. Ward Hunt four years was made the time. At that time he (Mr. Storer) thought that four years was too long; and now he considered the circumstances of the present day were so totally different from those of the time when the Agricultural Holdings Act was passed, that he hoped the Government would reconsider their determination, and consent to the substitution of two years for four. Four years was rather a long time to go back to. They could conceive cases where the tenant had not intended any waste. The waste might have occurred quite accidentally, and the land agent might have taken no notice of it. He (Mr. Storer) thought that if waste was allowed to go on by the land agent it might be said that the land agent had condoned the matter.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, that the clause was illusory. It was not an enacting clause, and there was nothing in it to limit the landlord's power. A landlord had power at Common Law, irrespective of this Bill, to claim for waste. As the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said a little time ago, there was nothing in the Bill which enabled a landlord to claim compensation for deterioration. In fact, this clause was altogether illusory. If they made the term one year it would not limit the landlord's power; he would still have the right at Common Law to claim compensation for deterioration. He hoped the Government would reconsider the advisability of retaining this clause in the Bill.

SIR HENRY FLETCHER
said, he hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment. It had been well determined that the four years' system was a very good system, and one for which the Committee ought to hold out most strongly. There was no doubt that 205 the landlords and tenants could make any private arrangements they liked between themselves; still, he hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.

§ COLONEL KINGSCOTE
said, he hoped the Government would adhere to the clause as now framed. Waste came on gradually, and a tenant might make great havoc in a holding in the course of four years.

§ MR. GREGORY
said, that this was no new right a landlord had; but the Amendment would rather restrict a landlord's Common Law rights. he took it that at Common Law a landlord would have a right to claim for waste for six years.

§ MR. ACLAND
desired to say a word or two upon this Amendment, because he had an Amendment on the Paper which he would have to move if this Amendment were not passed. His object in his Amendment was this—that if a landlord noticed any waste going on on the farm he should give notice to the tenant to discontinue the waste; and that if after that notice the tenant wilfully or negligently persisted in such waste, the landlord should be allowed, for any time after that, to set up a counter claim against the claim for compensation. Although not now moving his Amendment to line 42, he wished, at the proper time, to add, after the word "to," in the fourth line of his Amendment, "a counter claim for." If this Amendment should be carried, then he thought that for unobserved and very casual waste two years were sufficient. He wished to give encouragement to landlords to keep a strict eye over their estates. If they did their duty in this way it was only proper they should reap the fruits by being able to set up a counter claim. He hoped the Government would be prepared to look favourably upon the Amendment he had upon the Paper to line 42. He intended to support the Amendment now before the Committee.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
asked what part of the clause gave the landlord right to claim for deterioration against his tenant? If there was no such power this clause was altogether illusory. He wished also to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the landlord's rights at Common Law would be affected by this clause?

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
said, there was no power in this Bill to enable a landlord to claim for compensation which he had not at present under the Common Law. All that the provision did was to enable a landlord to set off any claim he might have for waste for four years past against, or in reduction of, a tenant's claim for compensation. The clause did not weaken or diminish a landlord's Common Law right.

§ MR. BORLASE
said, it would therefore seem that this clause was altogether out of place; it was, in fact, entirely illusory. It was well to point out that this Amendment did not come from the Liberal side of the House alone; but a similar Amendment had been placed upon the Paper by the hon. Gentleman sitting opposite (Mr. Storer), and by his (Mr. Borlase's) own Colleague (Mr. Acland). He hoped the Government would see fit to adopt the Amendment he had proposed.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSOHELL)
said, that the Amendment, if adopted, would not take away the landlord's right to claim. Supposing they were to say that a landlord should only be able to claim for two years past, they would not limit his rights; but they would render it extremely probable that there would be increased litigation between landlord and tenant. He (the Solicitor General) did not think the tenant would gain by the adoption of the Amendment.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
asked whether it would prevent a landlord at Common Law setting up a claim for six years against a tenant's compensation, if the claim for deterioration was limited to four years? ["No!"] Then the clause was altogether illusory.
Amendment negatived.

§ MR. ACLAND
proposed, in page 3, line 42, to add— Unless notice shall have been given of the intention of the landlord to claim such compensation, and specifying the character of the waste or breach complained of, and in that case the landlord shall be entitled to compensation for any such waste or breach committed or continued after the date of such notice. In moving this Amendment, he wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the fact that there were Amendments on the Paper in the names 207 of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), and the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard), to a similar effect. He (Mr. Acland) ventured to think that the Amendment he had to propose hero was a very much simpler and a less complicated way of attaining the object he and his hon. Friends had in view. It was certainly a much simpler Amendment than that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby; and, in respect of net rendering it necessary to have recourse to a Court, it was very much better than the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire. His (Mr. Acland's) object was simply this—that where a definite notice was given to a tenant of waste, he should have to pay for it if he allowed the waste to continue. He wished this to be enacted specially in the interest of the incoming tenant, for nothing was more detrimental to a farm than a negligent treatment of the land.
Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 42, at end, add—"Unless notice shall have been given of the intention of the landlord to claim such compensation, and specifying the character of the waste or breach complained of, and in that case the landlord shall be entitled to compensation for any such waste or breach committed or continued after the date of such notice."—(Mr. Acland.) Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

§ MR. HENEAGE
said, the difference between the Amendment of his hon. Friend and the Amendment he (Mr. Heneage) proposed to move as a now clause was, that a landlord at any time should be able to make a claim for any dilapidations or waste he might see going on, and that then the arbitrator or referee who was called in might be able to state that, unless the tenant put the farm in proper order, he would be fined so much at the end of his agreement; but if he put it in proper order, the landlord would not then have any claim for compensation. He (Mr. Heneage) wished to prevent litigation. He wished the tenant's attention to be called to any waste, so that if he chose to put it right there sbeuld be no claim against him at the end of his agreement. If the Government would accept the principle of the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Acland), he (Mr. Heneage) sbeuld be perfectly willing to move his clause at the end of the Bill. He 208 thought that something ought to be done to give a landlord an original claim for dilapidation witbeut having to use a counter claim, where there might be nothing to counter claim against.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he thought the Amendment would have been a reasonable one if the Committee had agreed to substitute two years for four years. Under the circumstances, it seemed a little unreasonable. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, that, upon the whole, he thought he should prefer a separate clause similar to that suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Hone-age). Indeed, he would suggest that the hon. Member should withdraw his Amendment, and that he should reconsider the matter in conjunction with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Heneage). he (Mr. Barclay) thought it would be only fair to the tenant that a landlord should not be able to claim both under this Act and under Common Law.

§ MR. ACLAND
said, he would be glad to withdraw the Amendment if the Government would give some assurance that they were prepared to consider the question of giving landlords who attended to their property some power of preventing waste.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, he thought the Government ought to be careful not to make the Bill more severe than the Act of 1875. It would appear from their remarks that some hon. Gentlemen desired to make the claim for waste an original claim. Now, the Act of 1875 distinctly laid down that the landlord could only make a counter claim if the tenant made a claim, but not otherwise.

§ SIR THOMAS ACLAND
said, the object of this Amendment was to encourage landlords to look after their property, and to give notice to the tenant when they perceived any waste going on. In his (Sir Themas Acland's) opinion, the Amendment would tend very much to diminish litigation; and lie hoped the Government, if they did not accept the Amendment in the form in which it was proposed, would do something in the direction it indicated. Nothing could be more detrimental to a farm than broken down gates and neglected hedges, and it was very difficult to get valuers to 209 look those things fairly in the face. Oftentimes very heavy claims were made, and injustice was committed. As a rule, the incoming tenant was the greatest sufferer.

§ MR. GREGORY
trusted the Government would not give any pledge that they would accept the principle of this Amendment. They ought not to do anything which would prejudice the consideration of this matter hereafter. He regarded the Amendment as open to very great objection, and thought that instead of diminishing litigation nothing could be more calculated to encourage it. It would put landlords and tenants at arms' length, and it would make landlords far more particular in checking dilapidations than they were at present. A landlord would feel that unless he noticed any little bit of waste, any building out of repair, or any gate broken down, and warned his tenant immediately, he would lose his claim to compensation, or his set-off in respect of any compensation for improvements. He (Mr. Gregory) could not think that this Amendment was expedient, either in the interest of the landlord or the tenant.

§ MR. ACLAND
said, he was ready to withdraw the Amendment, and he would do so at once. He wished, however, to say that this was a very important subject, indeed, in the interest of the incoming tenant, and in the interest of agriculturists generally. They wanted to simplify, as far as possible, every occasion of dispute between landlord and tenant. If a clear notice was given, as was proposed in this Amendment, he believed a great deal would be gained in that way. He only hoped that when the subject came on again the Government would extend to it more favourable consideration.

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
said, he saw no objection to the terms of the Amendment of his hon. Friend, except that it did not deal with the question of dilapidations and deterioration in as comprehensive a manner as was desirable. On page 4 of the Paper there would be found an Amendment in his (Mr. J. Howard's) name, and he rose now for the purpose of commending that Amendment to the attention of the Government before they passed this clause. In his opinion, cases of dilapidation and deterioration should not be allowed to go on to the end of the tenancy; but that a tenant who 210 committed waste or dilapidation should be pulled up at once in order to prevent any further injury to the holding accruing.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. ALBERT GREY
asked whether it would not be better to strike out the words "before the determination of the tenancy," in order to meet the case of long tenancies of 19 to 21 years?

§ MR. DODSON
could not accept the suggestion.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN
The first Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard); and it proposes, in page 4, line 3, after "Act," to insert— Or where notice is given by a landlord to his tenant of his intention to raise the rent of the holding or to determine the tenancy? That question has already been determined, and it therefore appears to me that the Amendment cannot be put.

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
said, that perhaps the Committee would allow him to point out the object of the Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear me. I stated that the first Amendment could not be put, as its principle has already been negatived by the Division taken upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Borlase).

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
said, the next Amendment in his name was to insert, in page 4, line 4, after the word "tenant,' the words— In respect of any such matter or thing, and any difference arising between them in respect of any such matter or thing. That Amendment, however, was consequential upon the first; but as the Chairman had ruled that he might move this Amendment, he would proceed to address a few observations to the Committee upon it.

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member must not address any observations to the first Amendment, which I am of opinion cannot be put.

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
Then I will not move the second Amendment, which is consequential upon the first.

§ MR. GREGORY
said, he begged to move an Amendment of some importance as to the structure and formation of the Bill—not one at all affecting the principle of the measure, or any of the points which had already been under discussion; but one for the purpose of improving its drafting. It was an Amendment for the purpose of making the Bill self-contained and intelligible. It would be seen that the clause, as it at present stood, proposed to incorporate certain provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875—in fact, all the provisions of that Act which related to the appointment of arbitrators, and valuers, and umpires, and which dealt with proceedings in regard to those authorities. The effect of passing this clause would be that anyone desirous of interpreting the measure would have first to go to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875, and find out what sections were incorporated in this measure; but this was by no means all. The person wishing to find out the law would find that certain sections of the Act of 1875 were incorporated in this measure, and that certain other sections were exempted; and he would have to render his mind clear upon this point before he would be able to understand what the law was. But he would further find that certain modifications had been introduced into the Act of 1875 by the present measure, and he would have to dovetail the one into the other before he could ascertain what the Bill meant. Let them take the case of a country surveyor endeavouring to frame an award under the provisions of this Act. First of all, he would have this difficulty to contend with — he would have to go back to the Act of 1875 and pick out the sections of that Act which would have an effect upon his award; and when he had settled that point he would have to take into consideration the exceptions made in those provisions by the clauses of the present measure, and certain modifications of other provisions made by this Bill. The modifications of the sections of the Act of 1875 made in this Bill he (Mr. Gregory) entirely agreed with. But what he did not assent to was this slipshod sort of legislation, by which a person endeavouring to werk under one Act would have to go back to another, and then have to revert to the first to see how the provisions of the second 212 were modified by the first before he could properly carry out his functions. It would be almost impossible for an unlearned man to find out what the law was; and even to a professional gentleman it would be extremely difficult. They ought to endeavour, to the best of their ability, to render the Act workable and intelligible. He should not like to part with this Bill until they had made it as clear as possible; indeed, he should look upon it as a reflection upon the House of Commons if they sent it out in its present form. he sincerely trusted that they would hear from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) that these reasons would prevail with him, and that he would make an effort to send out the measure in a form in which it could be readily understood, and in a way that an award could be arrived at satisfactorily to both parties. In matters of this kind it was very difficult to satisfy both parties; indeed, whenever an award was given, it was very likely that only one of the parties would be satisfied; and the other, therefore, would be ready to take any advantage offered to him for the purpose of upsetting the decision. The facilities for such a course would be greatly increased if the Act was complicated, and if it was necessary to go from one Act to another. It would be much more easy to dispose of any dispute as to the soundness of an award if the whole law on the subject was contained in one measure. The scheme he had werked out with some trouble was a workable and feasible one, and would only enact that which, he believed, was the real intention of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the measure was willing to adopt the Amendment, he would much rather the responsibility for this proposal rested on the right ben. Gentleman's shoulders than upon his own, and he would willingly make the right hon. Gentleman a present of it. If the right hon. Gentleman was willing to move the Amendment he (Mr. Gregory) would not trouble himself further with it. In order to insert the words he proposed, it would be necessary, in the first place, to strike out the following:— (2.) The award shall not award a sum generally for compensation, but shall, so far as reasonably may be, specify—(a.) The several improvements, acts, and things, in respect whereof compensation is awarded; (b.) The time at which such improvement, act, or thing 213 was executed, done, or permitted; (a.) The sum awarded in respect of each improvement, act, and thing. When these words were left out, his proposal was to insert in their place— But a tenant shall not be entitled to compensation under this Act unless two months at least before the determination of the tenancy he gives notice in writing to the landlord of his intention to make a claim for compensation under this Act. Where a tenant gives such a notice, the landlord may, before the determination of the tenancy, or within fourteen days thereof, give a counter notice in writing to the tenant of his intention to make a claim for compensation under this Act. Every such notice and counter notice shall state, as far as reasonably may be, the particulars of the intended claim. This proposal, if adopted, would render the Bill more intelligible. There were other Amendments to the same part of the Bill to be moved by other hon. Members; but these he would not go into; and he would now move the omission of the words to which he had drawn attention.
Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 8, to leave out from "and," to "and," in line 17, inclusive, and insert—"But a tenant shall not be entitled to compensation under this Act unless two months at least before the determination of the tenancy he gives notice in writing to the landlord of his intention to make a claim for compensation under this Act. Where a tenant gives such a notice, the landlord may, before the determination of the tenancy or within fourteen days thereafter, give a counter-notice in writing to the tenant of his intention to make a claim for compensation under this Act. Every such notice and counter-notice shall state, as far as reasonably may be, the particulars of the intended claim."—(Mr.Gregory.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

§ MR. DODSON
said, he rose to make a proposal to the Committee, which he earnestly hoped ben. Members would accept, as it would have the effect of very considerably abridging their labours. In answer to questions which had been put to him by various Members of the Committee at various times, he had stated that the Government would look favourably upon a proposal to set out in the Bill the clauses of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875 which were to remain in operation. Undoubtedly, he was in favour of embedying the whole law on the subject of tenants' improvements in one Act. The Amendment 214 which his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory) had moved was to this effect—it accepted the modification of the Procedure Clauses contained in Clause 7, but sought to set out the clauses of the Act of 1875 at length with those modifications. Well, the course he (Mr. Dodson) would propose would be this—that they should pass Clause 7 as it stood—that was the clause incorporating the Procedure Clauses, subject to minor modifications—and that they should proceed with the rest of the Bill, with one exception, to which he would directly advert. Having made certain Amendments in the Bill, it would in any case be proper that it sbeuld be reprinted for consideration on Report; and he would further make this proposal—that after the Bill had passed through Committee, it should be re-committed, pro formâ, to receive Amendments, and that those Amendments should consist of the Procedure Clauses set out in the Bill as modified by Clause 7, and Clause 7 would then disappear. This was, in effect, what the hon. Member proposed, although his (Mr. Dodson's) method would be a shorter ono.

§ MR. PELL
wanted to know whatwould be the Procedure Clauses which would be set out at length?

§ MR. DODSON
said, all those clauses which would be incorporated in this Bill.

§ MR. PELL
Not those struck out?

§ MR. DODSON
Certainly not; but only those which had been accepted. He would then propose to adopt the same course with regard to Section 13 of the Bill, which proposed to incorporate the clauses from 45 to 50, inclusive of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875, and also Clauses 52 to 60. He should propose, in the same way, to pass that clause, and, when the Bill was re-commated pro formâ, to strike it out and insert the clauses to be incorporated. [An hon. MEMBER: And how about Clause 29?] He would come to that directly. What he intended to do was to give effect to Clause 7, subject to setting out the clauses it incorporated. Clause 29 was the clause repealing the Agricultural Holdings Act, and that would stand; although, of course, when the clauses of that Act, which were to be continued, were inserted in this Bill, the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875 would be repealed entirely instead of partially. He trusted the Committee would be 215 prepared to accept this proposal, which was virtually the same as that of the lion. Member opposite (Mr. Gregory). The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, a short time ago, in answer to a question put by the lion. Member for South Devonshire (Sir Massey Lopes), had stated that it would be a proper course to pass the Bill through Committee, and then, on Report, to incorporate at length the clauses of the Act of 1875 which were to be continued.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he was glad to hear what the right lion. Gentleman proposed, the effect of which he understood would be this—that all the provisions of the Act of 1875 which were to be retained would be set out at length in this Bill. If that were so it would be extremely satisfactory, and the Committee need spend no further time upon this clause. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had ventured to suggest on the second reading that the Bill should be committed pro formâ, in order to have these clauses inserted; but lie was quite content that it should be done in the way proposed.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
said, he had some suggestion to make with regard to the modification of the 1st sub-section in the Procedure Clauses; but he did not know whether it would be proper to proceed with that suggestion now, or to wait until the right hon. Gentleman opposite moved the insertion of the proposed clauses. He suspected that the present time would be fitting for his Amendment.

§ MR. DODSON
said, the course he had ventured to recommend to the Committee was that they should first agree to Clause 7—which would, in fact, be agreeing to what was proposed by his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Gregory). He proposed to introduce the Procedure Clauses with modifications when the Bill was re-committed. On Report the House would have these clauses before it at length, and any alterations which any hon. Member thought should be made in them could then be proposed and discussed.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
said, that that did not give hon. Members the same opportunity of moving Amendments as that which they enjoyed in Committee. Probably he might be allowed to explain the alterations he desired to make, and 216 the Committee might accede to them. For instance, he objected altogether to the proposition that a tenant should give two months' notice in writing to his landlord of his intention to make a claim for compensation under the Act.

§ SIR JOSEPH PEASE
rose to Order. He had au Amendment on Clause 7, in line 12, which would come on before that of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin).

THE CHAIRMAN
If the lion. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) is going to discuss his Amendment, it will be necessary for me, in the first place, to call upon all those hon. Members who have Amendments down before the hon. Member.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
said, he was most anxious to agree to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson), so as to facilitate in every way the progress of the Bill; but, at the same time, there was a point in these modifications of the provisions of the Act of 1875 to which he attached great importance, and which lie should be bound to raise in the interest of the tenants in a way which was best calculated to effect the object he had in view. He was afraid that by postponing his proposal to the Report stage he would not have advantages similar to those lie possessed at the present moment. He would, therefore, with the permission of the Committee, explain the suggestion he had to make, and probably it would be found that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to accept it. If he was in Order in taking this course he should be very glad of the opportunity.

THE CHAIRMAN
I would point out to the hon. Member that the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) is before the Committee.

§ MR. HENEAGE
said, it would simplify matters if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) would state which of the Amendments, if any, he accepted or rejected at the present moment, instead of waiting until the Report stage. He (Mr. Heneage) had an Amendment to the clause with the view of omitting altogether the County Court and substituting the Inclosure Commissioners, which most agriculturists in the North of England were very much in favour of. If that point were settled now they 217 would not have to trouble themselves with it on Report.

§ MR. DODSON
said, he was in the hands of the Committee in this matter. If hon. Members who wished to propose Amendments to the modifications in the clause were anxious to do so now he had no desire to prevent them; and the suggestion he would therefore make to the hon. Member (Mr.Greory), whose Amendment was before thebCommittee, would be that he should withdraw his proposal, on the understanding he (Mr. Dodson) had already explained. This would allow the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Heneage), and the hon. Member for Mid. Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), who wished to propose modifications, to move their Amendments.

§ MR. GREGORY
said, his only object was to facilitate the progress of the Bill. He would, therefore, adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman and withdraw the Amendment.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, that before the Amendment was withdrawn, he should like to ask whether he correctly understood that Clause 7, on re-commitment, was to be struck out? [Mr. Dodson: Yes.] With a view to the introduction of the sections of the Act of 1875 in its place? If that were so, the Committee would only be wasting its time if it set to werk to amend the clause which it was intended to strike Out. [Sir THOMAS ACLAND: No, no!] The hon. Barenet, with great emphasis, said "No, no!" But he (Mr. Lowther), with equal emphasis, maintained the affirmative. They would be wasting their time if they went into these Amendments now. They should allow the clause to stand now without further discussion, so that on Report it might be struck out, and the provisions of the Act of 1875 inserted in its place.

§ SIR THOMAS ACLAND
said, he did not say "No, no!" at all. If they were to adopt the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875, it was better to settle what the clauses of that Act they intended to retain should be.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
said, the clause was not to be struck out in the ordinary sense of getting rid of it. It was to be incorporated in the Bill with other clauses when they had settled what those clauses were to be.

§ SIR THOMAS ACLAND
remarked, that that had not been previously stated.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
said, at any rate that was what was to be done.

§ MR. PUGH
said, he did not even yet understand what course was to be pursued as to the clauses of the Act of 1875. Take Clause 33, for instance. Were they to discuss the modifications proposed in that clause now, or on Report? That clause had reference to costs, which were to be at the discretion of the referees. No doubt, it would be the desire of the Committee to keep down the costs; and he intended to propose that the expense of employing a referee, as well as the costs of employing an umpire, should be divided between the parties. Would he be able to move that modification now?

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
said, that anything could be moved which did not deal with the provisions of the Act of 1875, to be incorporated in this section; but anything which had reference to this clause should be dealt with now.

§ MR. GREGORY
repeated his desire to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. HENEAGE
said, he had an Amendment to propose to line 11, the settlement of which would dispose of several proposals on the Paper.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
said, he had an Amendment which would come on before that of the hon. Member in line 11.

§ MR. HENEAGE
said, his Amendment was to add, after the words "twenty-one," the words "twenty-four."

§ MR. CHAPLIN
said, his Amendment was to insert before the words "twenty-one" the word "twenty." That word would represent the 20th section of the Act of 1875, which provided that a tenant must give a month's notice of his intention to claim compensation. He held the opinion that it was not necessary to require notice from a tenant of his claim for compensation either under this Act or under the Act of 1875. As a matter of course, in every case a tenant would claim compensation. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] An hon. Member said "No!" but all he (Mr. Chaplin) could say was that a man would be a very remarkable farmer indeed if, 219 during the course of his tenancy, he had done nothing in regard to which he would be entitled to claim compensation under one or other of the numerous operations specified in the Schedule. That being the case, he thought it would be exceedingly hard on the tenant farmer that because he might have forgotten, by a certain day or a certain week, to specify the improvements he had effected, he should be deprived altogether of compensation. He could not conceive anything harder or unfairer than that. He did not think it necessary, in the interest of the landlord, that this notice should be required. If this Amendment were agreed to, he should afterwards move to omit Sub-section 1, which ran as follows:— The tenant shall give two months' notice instead of ono month's notice in writing to his landlord of his intention to make a claim for compensation under this Act, and Section twenty shall be construed accordingly with the substitution of 'two months' for 'one month.' Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 11, after the word "Sections," insert the word "twenty."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'twenty' be there inserted."

§ MR. GREGORY
said, he did not altogether agree with the lion. Gentleman that in all cases tenants under this Bill would have a claim to compensation. There would be no harm in the proposal in the Bill—in fact, he did not think there would be any harm in allowing the tenant to give six or even 12 months' notice.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, that notice would be necessary to enable the landlord to inspect the premises if he required to do so.

§ SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEY
said, that notice should be given in order to enable the incoming tenant to know what lie would have to pay before he accepted the tenancy. The landlord, on making terms with an incoming tenant, might want to say—"Such and such improvements have been made. I will take these, and you take the remainder." But if the outgoing tenant was not required to give any notice, it might be impossible for the landlord and the incoming tenant to make such an arrangement, because they might not know what improvements were to be claimed, or what improvements had been made.

§ MR. DUCKHAM
said, an outgoing tenant should be given at least four months' notice. He thought it most desirable that the compensation should be awarded before the termination of the tenancy.

§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON
agreed that the time should be extended, as he did not know that there would not be great inconvenience to the incoming tenant if the time was limited. Instead of reducing the period it should be extended. Under the Lincolnshire custom the parties know what was to be paid; but the Lincolnshire custom did not apply to every part of the country. He would ask Her Majesty's Government to consider the propriety of extending the time as a matter of convenience.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, a tenant should give notice of the improvements he intended to claim within two months after receiving or giving notice to quit.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, he thought it was desirable that as long a time should be given as possible. A tenant, for instance, might not know how much cake he was going to use during the three months before he quitted his holding.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, the farmer would know what cattle he had on his farm; and, therefore, he would have some idea of the amount of cake he was likely to consume.

§ VISCOUNT EMLYN
said, he thought it necessary that some notice should be given, although whether the period contained in the Act of 1875 should be extended or not he could not say. It did not appear to him that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had had much to say in support of the extension under the clause which was to modify the Act of 1875, so as to extend the period from one month to two months. The proposals made to the Committee seemed to range from four months to one month. Whatever was the custom in Lincolnshire or other counties, it was clear that there should be some notice, and some limitation to that notice.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
said, it was contended that there were some parts of England where no claim for compensation would arise; and, even if that were so, there could be no objection to dispensing with the notice. If there was to be no claim 221 for compensation, all the less necessity was there for demanding a notice. He did not dispute that in instances pointed out by hon. Members, or where no claim for compensation at all would arise, that a notice to quit was in itself ample notice with regard to compensation. A tenant having given or received notice to quit, in the majority of cases, his claim for compensation would be sure to follow; but what he (Mr. Chaplin) said was this—that, with the exception of those cases to which he referred, and with which he was not acquainted, it would be very hard, indeed, on a man who might have spent a great deal in improving his holding, and might have to make a claim of £1,500 or £2,000 for compensation, that he should lose all that compensation, because he might have omitted, by a day or a week, to give notice of his claim. That would be a great hardship, and to him (Mr. Chaplin) would be altogether unnecessary. Hon. Members talked about the Lincolnshire custom. That custom was by no means limited to Lincolnshire. They might go through the whole of the counties of England, and they would find that nowhere was a man deprived of his right to make a claim because he had not given notice of his intention to do so.

§ SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEY
said, they must have some fixed period, otherwise a farmer might come at any time and say—"Oh, I am entitled to compensation for something or other I did such a time back." As to a tenant being entitled to £1,500 or £2,000 for compensation, it would be a very strange thing, where such an amount as that was involved, if the man, when his tenancy expired, was not in a position to give notice of his claim.

§ MR. PUGH
said, he objected altogether to these notices, because he was satisfied they would simply be so many pitfalls for the unwary. He was surprised that the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham) should have advocated a four mouths' notice.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, it appeared to him that this matter had been argued, to some extent, upon wrong premisses. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) had hardly himself cleared the matter up entirely. It had been assumed that the claim of the tenant was to be of a specific character; but much of the argument had proceeded upon the as- 222 sumption that the claim was to be of a most general character. The claim contemplated by the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875, and by this Bill, was to be a general claim that a pecuniary compensation of some sort or other was to be paid. Well, it seemed to him that for that purpose, whether the time allowed for notice was one month or two months—the longer period he was disposed to agree with—the objection of the hon. Member must be the same. The hon. Member said a man might forget a debt, and fail to make a claim within a specified period; but that difficulty was the same with one as with two or four months. There seemed to be some confusion upon this subject; and perhaps it would be better for the hon. Member to avail himself of the opportunity that would be presented of considering the matter at a later stage. He would, therefore, suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn.

§ MR. ACLAND
said, that if the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down would read the clause, of which this sub-section was a modification, he would find that there was a sub-section contained in it to the effect that every notice or counter notice should contain particulars of the intended claim. It appeared to him that it was desirable that the incoming tenant should know, as far as possible, what he would be called upon to pay for.

§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON
said, the notice given either by the tenant or the landlord for a farmer to quit the holding would be a sufficient notice with regard to claiming compensation.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
said, the observations of the hon. Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Aclaud) provided him with an additional argument in favour of his proposal, and against an extension of the notice. How was it possible for a tenant to put in a claim for the use of articles which might not be consumed for six mouths after that claim was made? However, he (Mr. Chaplin) had gained such little support for his proposal that he considered he would have a better chance of carrying the Committee with him at a later stage. Therefore, he would now withdraw the proposal.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. HENEAGE
said, he wished to propose, in line 11, after "twenty-one," to insert "twenty - four," and after "thirty-one," to omit "and," and after "thirty-two," to insert "and thirty-six." His object was to prevent any appeal to a Court of Law; the tenant farmers of England objecting to litigation. What the tenant farmers wanted was to have these matters decided at once; and he believed the proper mode of settling these matters was by really good men, such as the Inspectors of the Land Commission, who wore to be found throughout the whole of England, and who would give decisions between an incoming tenant and an outgoing tenant, which both of them would be willing to accept. he was sorry to have to allude to the Lincolnshire custom; but that which he wished to provide for had been going on for a great number of years, and had given satisfaction. If the two valuers did not agree one would give in three names, and the other would be bound to accept ono of the three, and the decision of that one would be final. In this way nothing was allowed to go to the County Court, or a Court of Law. The Chambers of Agriculture had discussed this clause for a long time; and although, perhaps, they were not judges of drafting, according to the Government, they might be allowed to have a voice in this matter. Their opinion was that no appeal should be allowed from the decision of the arbitrators to a Court of Law. He would, therefore, provide in the Bill that the valuers should decide the case once for all; and he trusted that the Government would see their way to accept this Amendment. There was a very strong feeling in favour of it throughout the country, particularly on the part of some of the Commissioners who had served under the Royal Commission. When he had been drawing up the Bill on this subject during the winter there had been nothing which had been pressed upon him more strongly than this point. Fie would not detain the Committee longer, but would simply move the Amendment standing in his name.
Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 11, after "twenty-one" insert "twenty-four," after "thirty-one" leave out "and," after "thirty-two" insert "and thirty-six."—(Mr. Heneage.)
224 Question proposed, "That the word and' stand part of the Clause."

§ MR. DUCKHAM
supported the Amendment. There was, he said, a general feeling throughout England that the Bill should be made clear and precise, and that nothing should be referred to the County Courts. Two good practical men should be left to decide the point at issue between landlord and tenant, or outgoing and incoming tenant; and if it was necessary to employ his services, an umpire should be obtained, whose decision should be final. He trusted the Government would accept the alteration proposed.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, he thought there must be some mistake in the minds of hon. Members on the subject of the Amendment.

§ MR. DODSON
said, he did not think it was desirable to accept the Amendment. Surely it would be desirable to leave a power of appeal, in certain cases, to a Court of Law, as there might be questions arising of law, and mixed law and fact, which would have to be decided. They might not be of frequent occurrence, still they would occasionally arise; and it was desirable that a Court should have power to go into them. Some of the appeals in minor matters which were allowed under the Act of 1875 had been taken away by this Bill. They had said, for instance, that there should be no appeal to the County Court unless the sum in dispute exceeded £100. In important cases it would be most desirable for all parties that an appeal should be allowed to a Court of Law.

§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON
said, the appeal would be on a question of valuation, and not a point of law.

§ MR. HENEAGE
said, that was so.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, the Committee seemed to be in a state of hopeless confusion on the subject of the provisions of the Act of 1375, with which hon. Members were proposing to deal in these Amendments. They were asked to strike out provisions of an Act of Parliament which they had not before them at the present moment. Some hon. Members had a copy to refer to by them, and some had not. Surely this was a most unfortunate way to do business. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) had realized the inconvenience of this proceeding, and had accordingly 225 undertaken to incorporate the sections of the Act of 1875, which were to be inserted bedily in this measure at a later stage. It would be well, therefore, to pass by the present clause, and to await the introduction of those provisions.

§ MR. CARTWRIGHT
said, the point under discussion was not as to questions of law, but as to questions of valuation; and he was perfectly convinced that when they came to such matters as that, all who had had anything to do with agriculture must know that it would be better to adhere to the decision of a skilled and practical man, rather than to trust to the decision of unpractical persons, who might, moreover, be closely connected with the interests of the localities.

§ MR. ALBERT GREY
said, he thought they should postpone the consideration of this matter until they had the clause in question before them, as it was almost impossible to follow the arguments and Amendments moved by lion. Gentlemen by such references as No. 21, No. 22, No. 23, and so on.

§ MR. DODSON
asked if he might be permitted to give the Committee an illustration of the inconvenience of the course they were pursuing of discussing clauses which were not before them? Hon. Members had spoken in favour of leaving out an appeal to the County Court, on the ground that Clause 36 had nothing to do with questions of law, but would only refer to valuation. But, as a matter of fact, the 36th section of the Act of 1875 dealt with the decision of the question as to the validity of the award of a valuer. Surely that was not a question of valuation. The section also dealt with the question of whether the award was given in respect of compensation to which the tenant was entitled, and with questions as to the award having been refused or reduced in regard to claims on the part of the landlord to which the landlord had no right. None of these could be called questions of valuation, but were questions of law, or of mixed law and fact. He thought the Committee would have been very wise if they had agreed to give effect to the proposal of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) in the manner he (Mr. Dodson) had proposed, and had accepted Clause 7 as it stood.

§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON
asked whether they were going to retain or repeal the clause referred to by the hon. Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Ac-land)?

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARBER HERSCHELL)
said, it was retained because it was in Clause 20 of the Act of 1875, which was only to be slightly modified.

§ MR. ALBERT GREY
said, that a great many people in the North of England were in favour of the substitution of the Inclosure Commissioners for the County Court.

§ MR. DODSON
urged the hon. Member (Mr. Heneage) to withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. HENEAGE
said, he was ready to withdraw the proposal, on the understanding that a discussion would be taken upon it on Report.

§ SIR JOSEPH PEASE
said, it had been fully explained that on Report they would have an opportunity of going into these matters; otherwise, he himself should have brought forward Amendments at this stage.

§ MR. DUCKHAM
said, that before the Committee adopted the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) he would suggest a new sub-section to the clause. The section, as it stood, required the valuator to give particulars of all claims made by the tenant; but there was no similar provision made for any claim as to waste or deterioration. He thought the particulars of that matter sbeuld be furnished, as well as particulars of other matters.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Charge of Tenant's Compensation.
Clause 8 (Power for landlord on paying compensation to obtain charge).

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, he had the following Amendment to propose:—Page 5, line 6, after "fit," insert,— Provided, That the whole repayment shall be made, and the charge on the holding removed, within twenty-five years from the date of the order, and that such charge by the County Court shall be a first charge on the holding, having priority over every other then existing and future charge and incumbrance affecting such holding, except any previous charge under this Act. By Clause 4 they had enacted that the 227 landlord might execute the works himself; but this clause did not provide for that contingency when the landlord executed the works out of his own pocket.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ MR. DODSON
said, it appeared to him that it was not desirable to accept this amendment. It would be, in fact, going out of this Bill, because it amounted to an amendment of the Land Improvement Act and the Settled Lands Act. Under these Statutes, the landlord could apply capital for improvements, but could not charge the estate except subject to certain specified conditions and safeguards. They would be introducing an entirely different matter into this Bill if they were to proceed to amend these Acts, and give a charge under this Bill priority over every other existing and future charge and incumbrance affecting the holding. He thought it better not to mix up these questions, and hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, the result would be that the landlord would have to proceed in two ways—under the Settled Estates Act as well as under this Act.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
apprehended that this Amendment would apply in a case of drainage where the landlord executed the improvement and charged the tenant. When a tenant made an improvement, the landlord paid him compensation; and what the hon. Member wanted to do was to provide that, in like manner, the landlord should be entitled to charge the estate with an improvement, if he preferred doing that to charging the tenant. In that case, the tenant's payment of interest to the landlord would come in payment of the interest upon the cost of the improvement.

§ MR. DODSON
said, there was a difference between these two kinds of expenditure. By this Act, a compulsory obligation was placed upon the landlord to pay compensation, and, therefore, power was given to him to charge the estate; but it was quite a different thing to give him power to charge the estate for what he did voluntarily.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON
proposed, on behalf of the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. H. T. Davenport), to insert, after "holding," "or such part thereof as is benefited by the outlay which is the subject of compensation." As the Bill stood, the whole holding would be subject to a charge, and that would make the person in whose favour the charge was given—that was the mortgagor—a necessary party to any dealings with that land as long as the charge remained. If there was a farm of 1,000 acres upon which £1,000 had been berrowed, the whole of those acres would be held by the mortgagor until the money was paid, and no dealing with that land could take place with regard to sale unless the mortgagor was willing, as he must be a necessary party to any such dealing. There was this further reason for only fixing the compensation on the land benefited. Supposing a farm was divided into two parts, and the charge was on the whole, it would be difficult to say how much of the increased rent should be thrown on the portion which was not benefited, whereas that portion of the farm would still bear the charge.
Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 40, after the word "holding," to insert the words "or such part thereof as is benefited by the outlay which is the subject of the compensation."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he thought this Amendment would be inexpedient, and almost impossible to carry out. If a tenant drained, say, 50 out of 1,000 acres, and then claimed compensation under the Bill, the landlord would be able to charge the property with the amount.

§ MR. DONALDSON-HUDSON
said, there might be a farm containing halfa-dozen fields, an improvement might be executed only on one field, and the owner might wish to sell the farm in six different lots. It was only fair that an improvement which had been executed upon one field should be charged on that alone, and the other fields not be burdened with the expense of the improvement. He thought there was a great deal of reason in this Amendment, and that it was quite worthy of consideration.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
wished to ask the Solicitor General whether "holding" would come within the definition of the clause, and be held to mean any parcel of land occupied by a tenant? In the case of a landlord entering as an incoming tenant himself, would it not be a question whether there was a holding within the meaning of the Definition Clause, "holding" meaning, as stated by this Bill, a parcel of land held by the tenant? He thought that might give rise to differences.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRIER HERSCHELL)
replied, that the clause dealt with this matter because it was the holding of that tenant by whom the holding was held.

§ MR. GREGORY
said, a landlord might not wish to charge the entire holding, and it might be quite unnecessary for him to do so for the purpose of raising the money required; and he suggested that the County Court might decide upon what portion the charge should be made.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, there would be no objection to that.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 90, after the word "holding," to insert the words "or any part thereof."—(Mr. Gregory.)
Amendment agreed to.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, he wished to propose that the charges on the holding for improvements under this Act should be placed on the same footing as the charges under the Lands Improvement Act, 1864. That Act provided that the whole charge should be paid off in 25 years, and he thought it was most desirable to adhere to that principle, for it was very objectionable to have charges hanging over an estate for half-a-century or more. But the chief part of the Amendment was that the charge should have priority over preexisting charges. If a landlord had an unencumbered estate, he would prefer raising money himself for improvements, and would not require to make use of the County Court at all. If the estate was encumbered to the full value of the property, the charge by the County Court on the holding would be very little indeed. No man would advance money upon a second or third 230 mortgage; and, therefore, though there might be an appearance of security by giving a charge on the belding, unless the holding was unencumbered there was really no value at all. He wished some of the learned Members of the Committee to consider whether it would not be desirable to place improvements under this Act on the same footing as under the Act of 1864?
Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 6, after the word "fit," to insert the words "except any previous charge under this Act, or under the Improvements of Land Act, 1864."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)
Question proposed "That those words be there inserted.

§ MR. DODSON
said, he did not see any reason for this Amendment. The hon. Member said an estate might be encumbered, and then the charge would not be worth much; but where was the justice, if an estate was unencumbered, in allowing the last charge to have priority over others? He hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.

§ SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEY
said, the Judge, under this clause, had full power to ascertain what the interest of the landlord was, and how long it would take to pay off.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, the words were taken identically from the Act of 1864, which the Government employed when they had Government money to advance. He would, however, withdraw them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 (Incidence of charge).
Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 19, after the word "holding," to insert the words "or the part thereof charged."—(Mr. Solicitor General.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 (Advance made by a company) agreed to.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
asked the Solicitor General to explain the meaning of "is by law necessary." So far as he was aware, the only case where it was 231 by law necessary was where people had contracted themselves out of the Act under the Act of 1875.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
replied, that the ordinary rule of law was that with a tenancy from year to year, six months' notice was necessary.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
said, he understood that the Act of 1875 had overruled that, and only allowed it to come into force when the people interested had deliberately contracted themselves by notice out of the provisions of the Act.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
said, that was so. In the case of an agricultural holding where the Act of 1875 came into operation it extended the time.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
said, it only operated when two persons had deliberately contracted themselves out of the Act.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
asked whether the hon. Member meant that, apart from this Bill, six months' notice was the ordinary Common Law time, subject to the alteration made as to an agricultural holding by the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875? Where it did not apply, six months' notice were required.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
said, that to raise this point he would move the omission of the words "by law." He did not think these words were applicable. Whatever was the law previous to the Act of 1875, that Act altered it, and all tenants brought under its operation were parties deliberately contracting themselves out of it, and it could and did only apply to cases in which they could be held to be out of the Act by law.
Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 33, to leave out the words "by law."—(Mr. R. H. Paget.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

§ SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEY
thought it was absolutely necessary to have this clause.

§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON
said, that if this clause remained there would be a certain amount of uncertainty, and tenants would find that by no fault of their own the six months' notice would 232 become 12 months. He would suggest that the Government should put in certain words which would not require au agreement in writing, so that where a tenant had been going on from year to year with six months' notice he might continue without special notice.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
said, he (lid not desire to detain the Committee on this point. If there was anything in it he was satisfied that the Solicitor General would attend to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. HENEAGE
said, he wished to propose an Amendment with a view to prevent tenants being turned out of their holdings and also the sale of their property.
Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 37, after "the same," insert "and, in case of any landlord entitled for his life, or for any other uncertain interest, the tenant of such holding shall be entitled to continue to hold and occupy such holding until the expiration of such notice, upon the terms of his contract of tenancy, anything in section ono of the Act of the fourteenth and fifteenth Victoria, chapter twenty-five, to the contrary notwithstanding."—(Mr. Honeage.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ MR. DODSON
said, the proposal appeared to be reasonable, and one that should be adopted; and if the hon. Member would bring it up as a new clause, he would consider it, and he thought he should be able to accept it.

§ MR. HENEAGE
said, he would adopt that course.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD
said, the time had now arrived to move an Amendment of great importance. The object was to make the notice compulsory. The effect of the omission he was about to propose would be to bring the clause into exactly the shape of the clause in the Act of 1875. The policy which the Liberal Party had recommended, up and down the country, of making the Act of 1875 compulsory would be enforced by the acceptance of this Amendment. The Committee need not discuss the question whether or not the time of notice should be fixed, for that was already determined by law. The question for the Committee to consider was only what that time should be. Everyone acquainted with agriculture in 233 England was aware that the practice of taking leases was declining. In Scotland leases were very common, but in England they were not; and he supposed no one would contest the proposition that probably three-fourths of the agricultural land in England was held on yearly tenancies; and it was because of that state of things that it appeared to him extremely important to make a year's notice compulsory. When the Act of 1875 was debated in that House, Mr. Disraeli, who had charge of the Bill, dwelt very much on this point, and he chiefly recommended that measure on the ground that it would, practically, make a year's notice the law of the land. On that occasion the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan) spoke of six months' notice to quit as a cruel condition. Sir James Caird had published the strongest recommendation possible in favour of a two years' notice. Two years, however, appeared to be very much too long, partly because the operations of Nature—the return of the seasons—seemed to have marked out one year as the proper time when notice to quit should be given. Having regard lo the fact that agriculture was mainly carried on in this country under yearly tenancies, it seemed to him to be the business of the Committee to make the system as good as possible; and he believed that by adopting his Amendment the Committee would be taking a step in that direction. He found that when this question was discussed in 1875, the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) was almost the only one who spoke strongly against the proposal for making it a rule of law that one year's notice should be given. If this Amendment were accepted by the Government, as he hoped it would be, it would constitute a fulfilment of their pledges, given in all parts of the country, that they would amend the Act of 1875.
Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 37, leave out from the word "same," to the word "but," in line 40.—(Mr. Arthur Arnold.)

§ MR. DODSON
said, he would point out to his hon. Friend who had moved the Amendment then before the Committee that the words which he proposed to leave out were expressly inserted by the Government, in view of the desire which he knew was felt by many tenant 234 farmers throughout the country that there should be liberty to quit at short notice. In good times a tenant generally liked a year's notice to quit; but in bad times it was the landlord who would be much more likely to be in favour of the longer period than the tenant. The tenant, in such circumstances, would naturally like to have an opportunity of getting out of the holding at a shorter period. With the knowledge of the circumstances possessed by Her Majesty's Government he would venture to say that the clause, as it stood, was agreeable to the great bulk of the tenant farmers, and that the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend was by no means what they wished.

§ SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEY
said, he had actual experience of the wishes of the farmers in his district, which entirely confirmed the view of this question as stated by the right ben. Gentleman.

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
said, he had never met in the course of his experience, which was by no means small, a single farmer who was in favour of a short notice to quit; on the contrary, they had always expressed their preference for a 12 months' notice. he agreed with the hon. Member for Salford in considering this a desirable Amendment to introduce into the Bill, the words proposed to be struck out being, in his opinion, most objectionable. Surely it did not require an Act of Parliament to tell people what they might do in a matter of this kind. But one effect of the permissive words which his hon. Friend sought to strike out might be to turn a man out of his house and holding, in a district where farms were difficult to obtain, at too short a notice to enable him to get another before the expiration of his tenancy. In 1879 and 1880 there was a great difficulty in getting good farms. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite seemed amused at that statement; but he would say unhesitatingly, and without fear of contradiction by anyone who was acquainted with the subject, that even in those most depressed years he had named there were no good farms to be let. He had at that time tried his best to get a farm in the Midland Counties for a man of large capital without success; and the only farms that were to be had 235 were those belonging to owners who had not the best reputation in the world, or inferior ones, which farmers did not in consequence care to occupy. He would remind the Committee that Lord Beaconsfield, in a celebrated speech, declared himself to be in favour of a two years' notice to quit; and he knew that in the Midland Counties the practice was to let at two years' notice. The practice, moreover, he knew was very much upon the increase, and he thought that was a proof that the majority of tenant farmers were in favour of it.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
said, that, like his hon. Friend who had just sat down, he had met many farmers, and while many of them preferred a six months' notice to quit, be was bound to acknowledge that others were in favour of a notice at 12 months. For that reason he supported the clause as it stood. According to his experience nothing would be more distasteful to the farmers in many parts of the country than to insist on 12 months' notice being compulsory. He could easily understand such a matter as compensation, which might be otherwise open to abuse, being made compulsory. That was a subject on which all parties were united; but even the hon. Gentleman himself had admitted that upon the question of the period of notice there was a great difference of opinion. He did not say that what he advocated represented the unanimous opinion of the farmers. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman as to the difficulty, or impossibility, of obtaining farms in 1879 and 1880, the statement hurt his feelings somewhat, because it brought to his recollection a correspondence which took place between the hon. Gentleman and himself. He remembered the hon. Gentleman saying there were no good farms to be let anywhere at the time, and he immediately offered to let him a good farm on favourable terms, telling him that lie should be glad if he would send him a tenant; but he heard no more from the hon. Gentleman on the subject. All he would say was that the farm in question was the best he possessed, and from the remark of the hon. Gentleman he was afraid his estate must be a very inferior one indeed.

§ MR. BULWER
said, he theught the hon. Member for Salford had somewhat 236 misapprehended the effect of the clause, for it would be seen that it required the consent not only of the landlord but of the tenant also that there should be less than 12 months' notice to quit. In order, then, to secure what the lion. Member said was so desirable, nothing more was necessary than that the tenant should insist that there should be 12 months' notice under the clause as it stood.

§ MR. DUCKHAM
said, if there were one part of the Act of 1875 more popular than the others it was that which required 12 months' notice to quit. He had consulted farmers, who were agreed in this opinion—that the clause of the Act of 1875 was sufficient and preferable without the permissive portion of it that was now proposed. he was sure that the Amendment of his hon. Friend was necessary, both in the interest of agriculture and in the interest of the occupiers of land, although he was ready to admit that recently, under severe depression, some men had felt the inconvenience of a long notice to quit. He regarded the clause as retrograde, and should, therefore, support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Salford, when he stated that this clause was exactly the same as that of the Act of 1875, had forgotten that under that Act it was the landlords alone who noticed themselves out the Act; whereas this clause required the concurrence of the landlord and tenant to contract themselves out of the Act. After the Bill became law every tenant would have the advantage of a year's notice, unless he contracted himself out of it. he knew that some tenants were now in favour of a system under which six months' notice would be sufficient, that being probably duo to the depression which had prevailed, and the belief on the part of tenants that if they could quit at half a-year's notice they could more easily obtain a reduction of rent.

§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON
said, he thought the clause, as it stood, might lead to inconvenience in the case of some tenancies.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 225; Noes 50: Majority 175.—(Div. List, No. 223.)

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
said, the Amendment they had just disposed of had reference to yearly holdings; but the Amendment he load now to move had distinct reference to leases. It was, after the word "sufficient," in page 5, line 40, to insert— And a tenant of a holding under a lease for a term of years made either before or after the commencement of this Act shall by virtue of this Act be entitled to two years' notice from the landlord of his intention not to renew the lease of the holding, and a landlord shall be entitled to two years' notice from the tenant of his intention to quit the holding at the expiration of his lease, and in default of such notice it shall be deemed that the landlord and tenant agree to renew the existing contract of tenancy for the same term at the same rent and on the same conditions as in the existing contract of tenancy. The object of the Amendment would be obvious; it was to do away with the uncertainty which would otherwise occur to wards the determination of the tenancy. Another object was to maintain the fertility of a holding to the end of the tenancy. He had no doubt it would be admitted by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) that the Earl of Leicester was an authority on agricultural matters. Now, in the noble Earl's leases it was provided that four years' notice was necessary on either side for the determination of a tenancy. It would be noticed in this Amendment that he (Mr. J. Howard) had made the proposition reciprocal; that it was not only necessary for the landlord to give two years' notice to quit, but that the same obligation should be imposed upon the tenant. It was as much in the interest, if not more, of the landlord than of the tenant that some such proposition as he now made sbeuld be adopted.

§ SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEY
rose to Order. He did not think that this Amendment had anything to do with the clause at all. The Amendment dealt with notice to quit. It might be competent for the hon. Gentleman to bring in a new clause; but he did not think that the Amendment was at all germane to the clause.

THE CHAIRMAN
ruled that the Amendment, as proposed, was strictly in Order.

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
said, he was about to say it was far more in the interest of the landlord than of the tenant 238 that such a provision should be contained in the Bill as he proposed; but it was also necessary in the interest of the public. He believed it to be important in the interest of all classes.

§ SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEY
again rose to Order. He said the clause dealt with the notice to quit that a man was entitled to give or receive under an ordinary tenancy. What the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire was moving had reference exclusively to leases; therefore, the Amendment had no relevancy to the clause.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, that the Amendment they had disposed of had reference to what sbeuld be the notice to quit in cases of yearly tenancies. What the lion. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire proposed was that the notice to quit in case of a lease should be two years.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he could not see that the Amendment, as proposed, was out of Order.
Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 37, after the word "same," leave out down to "sufficient," inclusive, in line 40, and insert—"And a tenant of a holding under a lease for a term of years made either before or after the commencement of this Act shall by virtue of this Act be entitled to two years' notice from the:landlord of his intention not to renew the lease of the holding, and a landlord shall be entitled to two years' notice from the tenant of his intention to quit the holding at the expiration of his lease, and in default of such notice it shall be deemed that the landlord and tenant agree to renew the existing contract of tenancy for the same term at the same rent and on the same conditions as in the existing contract of tenancy."—(Mr. J. Howard.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, there was no doubt that the condition of farming under yearly tenancies was at a very low ebb; but under the system of leases there was in Scotland, and he had no doubt there were in other places, a much higher system of farming. It was the system of leases he and other hon. Members were desirous of encouraging. He thought it would be a great advantage towards the maintenance of a high standard of cultivation that a tenant should have two years' notice to quit in case he held under a lease. If a tenant had twe years' notice to quit, he would have a much greater chance of looking 239 about for a fresh farm than he would have if he only got six or 12 months' notice. Hon. Members opposite who admired the policy and wisdom of the late Lord Beaconsfield ought to support this Amendment, because this was as feasible a solution as had as yet been presented of this question of compensation for agricultural improvements. He thought that two years' notice to quit would be very much better than any compensation that was provided for under the Bill, or under the Agricultural Holdings Act, and he hoped the Government would, at least in the case of leases, take care that the tenant should have good notice before he was required to leave his farm.

§ MR. DODSON
said, the Amendment involved an important principle, and went beyond the question of notice to quit. In the first place, it altered the law, because it said that the tenancy should not be determined at the time people had agreed; in fact, it amounted to saying that it should not determine when it did determine. That was a change of the law which he apprehended the Committee would scarcely be likely to agree to. In the cases of leases which had expired, if rent was accepted the tenant would go on sitting as a year-to-year tenant, and become entitled to a year's notice. The Government were not prepared to accept the Amendment.

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
said, lie would, after that expression of opinion, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. BIDDELL
proposed, in page 5, line 42, at end, to add—"All leases shall be continuous until either party has given a year's notice." His object in moving the Amendment was to abelish fresh negotiations as much as possible between the landlord and the tenant. He intended, by this Amendment, that either party should give a year's notice of the course of action he proposed to pursue, whether specified by lease or not specified by lease. If the parties wore satisfied to continue their relations, nothing whatever would be said, and there would be no need for fresh negotiations. He hoped the Government would consent to this Amendment, and that, if they could not assent to a year's 240 notice, they would, at least, assent to a six months' notice.
Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 42, at end, to add—"All leases shall be continuous until either party has given a year's notice."—(Mr. Biddell.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ MR. DODSON
said, the words of the Amendment were not very clear. When he first saw them he was puzzled to know whether the hon. Member meant that a lease should be renewed, or whether he meant that, unless there was a year's notice, a tenant should continue in his holding as a year-to-year tenant. The latter, he (Mr. Dodson) understood, was the hon. Gentleman's intention. That was not very different from the existing law under which rent was accepted, and the tenant continued in his holding. At present, under such circumstances, a tenant was entitled to a year's notice; and he (Mr. Dodson) confessed it did not appear to him werth while to make the proposed alteration. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

§ MR. BIDDELL
said, if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would consent that a landlord must give a year's notice, he (Mr. Biddell) would be satisfied. As it was, a tenant would be left in doubt as to the course a landlord would pursue in regard to him.

§ MR. DODSON
stated that a tenant could easily solve that doubt by asking his landlord what his intentions were.

§ MR. DODSON
pointed out that this was a proposal to make the Act retrospective. The Act was not made retrospective with regard to permanent improvements; and there would appear to he no need for any retrospective action 241 with regard to fixtures. Under the existing law a tenant, if he obtained the consent of the landlord, would be entitled to move his fixtures.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
indulged a hope that the Amendment he had now to move would receive a more favourable reception at the hands of the Committee than the last Amendment which he proposed had received. At all events, it was one that he cared a very great deal more about. What he had to propose was, in page 6, line 2, after "tenant," to leave out down to "tenant," inclusive, in line 7, and insert— Erects or enlarges any buildings or makes any other removable improvements upon his holding, for which no compensation would be payable under the provisions of this Act, the tenant may before, or within two months after quitting his holding, remove the same, making good all damage caused by their erection, formation, or removal. Provided that if the landlord, not less than three months before the termination of the tenancy, serves notice in writing on the tenant of his election to retain the same, paying compensation therefor, he shall be entitled to do so, and the amount of such compensation, failing agreement, shall be settled by a reference under this Act. The clause, as it stood, somewhat limited the right of a tenant to remove his fixtures; but he proposed to give the clause a wider application. About a month ago he met Mr. Huskisson, a former President of the Institute of Surveyors, who said to him—"I hope, whatever you do, you will insert the clause which was in your former Landlord and Tenant Bill, giving the tenant power to remove buildings or erections." That power of removal would be considered a great been by a very large class of improving tenants. It would be seen, at the same time, that there was power given to the landlord to claim the buildings and have them valued under the provisions of this' Act. He hoped the reasonableness of this Amendment would commend itself to the judgment of the Committee and of the Government. He would not waste the time of the Committee longer.
Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 2, after the word "tenant," to leave out down to "tenant," inclusive, in line 7, and insert "erects or enlarges any buildings or makes any other removable improvements upon his holding, for which no compensation would be payable under the provisions of this Act, the 242 tenant may before, or within two months after quitting his holding, remove the same, making good all damage caused by their erection, formation, or removal. Provided that if the landlord, not less than three months before the termination of the tenancy, serves notice in writing on the tenant of his election to retain the same, paying compensation therefor, he shall be entitled to do so, and the amount of such compensation, failing agreement, shall be settled by a reference under this Act."—(Mr. J. Howard.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

§ MR. DODSON
said, he was not prepared to accept the Amendment, were it only for this reason—that it proposed not only that the tenant should be at liberty to erect a building, but that he might remove it when he had quitted his holding, the effect of which would be that the landlord would probably be unable to let the holding, because the outgoing tenant was engaged in removing buildings. As regarded the question of allowing a tenant to remove a building in the same manner as he was allowed to move an engine, or machinery, or other fixtures, that was a point which was worthy of consideration; but the question would be best raised and considered on the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Biddell)—namely, in line 3, after "fixture," to insert "or erect any building." The Amendment now before them was one which he certainly could not accept.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire was so reasonable that he had hoped the Government would have accepted it. The right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Dodson's) main objection to it was that the tenant, under this clause, would have power to remove a building after he had quitted his holding. He (Mr. Barclay) would recommend his hon. Friend to amend his clause in that respect, by leaving out, in line 5, the words "or within two months after quitting his holding." Now, the clause provided that the tenant must have erected those buildings at his own cost, and that the landlord should have power to purchase it from the tenant; but that if the landlord did not elect to purchase it, then the tenant sbeuld have a right to remove it, making good any damage which might be done to the holding by the removal. 243 He hoped the Government would be able to see their way to accept the Amendment as he proposed to amend it; and, if they could not, he hoped his hon. Friend would go to a Division. There was no time like the present; and the Amendment came in very appropriately at this point.

THE CHAIRMAN
The Amendment to the Amendment would not be in Order. The Question is, whether the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause, and that must be disposed of before the suggestion of the lion. Gentleman can be dealt with.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCUELL)
said, it would be very inconvenient to deal with the question in the way the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Barclay) suggested, because the point he desired to dwell upon was that there should be power to remove buildings. That the Government were perfectly ready favourably to consider; but if they were to accept the Amendment in the form in which it was proposed, it would be necessary to altogether change the drafting of the clause. It would be observed that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard) left out the words "fixtures, engines, machinery," and so forth.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, that for once he was disposed to agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire; but he also thought there was great force in what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Solicitor General had said, that this was not quite a proper form in which the matter should be introduced. He (Mr. J. Lowther) thought that the practice prevailing generally with regard to the Middlesberough leases, in cases of iron werks, and so forth, might be applicable to agricultural beldings. A very fatal objection to the Amendment was that it would give an outgoing tenant power to pull down buildings after his occupation ceased. He thought that, under all the circumstances, the hon. Gentleman would do well to postpone this matter.

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
pointed out that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Biddell) failed to give power to the landlord to make a claim to the 244 buildings at a valuation. As to its being inconvenient for a tenant to come to a holding after he had quitted it, he had purposely inserted two months, in order that there should be time for the landlord and the tenant to come to an agreement before the removal of the building. He had, however, no objection to postpone the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 3, after "any," insert "building."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'building' be there inserted."

§ MR. DODSON
said, that, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would withdraw the Amendment, he would propose one which would carry out the object in view.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. PUGH
proposed, in page 6, line 3, to insert after the word "machinery" the words "iron or wire fences."

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
suggested that the word "iron" should be left out, so that the Amendment would be confined to "wire fencing."

§ MR. PUGH
agreed to the alteration.
Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 3, after the word "machinery" to insert the words "wire fencing."—(Mr. Pugh.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. BIDDELL
said, he thought that there was reason why they should do what they could to bring about the erection of suitable buildings. To his mind, there was more evil consequent upon the want of sufficient farm buildings than in anything else the Act was intended to remove.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
said, he wished to point out, before this Amendment was further proceeded with, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) had accepted a word which would make the clause run—"any engine, machinery, fencing, or other fixture." Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to call fencing a fixture—did he deliberately 245 intend to suggest that an iron fence was a fixture?

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
contended that a fence was just as much a fixture as a steam engine.

THE CHAIRMAN
Does the hon. Member (Mr. Paget) rise to a point of Order? If not, I would suggest to him that there is no Question before the Committee.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
said, he wished to point out that the words "other fixture" were inapplicable to iron fencing, because fencing might be stuck into the ground temporarily, and removed at pleasure. He would move to leave out the words "or other fixture."
Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 3, after the word "fencing," to leave out the words "or other fixture."—(Mr. R. H. Paget.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
said, that the fencing intended to be covered by the Bill was fencing in the nature of a fixture. That was the only fencing for which they would need the clause.

§ MR. HALSEY
said, he should like, before this Amendment was passed, to ask whether it would not interfere with the Schedule? In Part I. of the Schedule he found that the erection of buildings was provided for, and that the consent of the landlord was required; but if they were going to allow the tenant to erect buildings at his own pleasure, they would be acting in a manner contradictory to the Schedule.

§ MR. DODSON
said, the position of affairs would be this. If a tenant obtained the consent of the landlord to putting up buildings, or making certain other improvements, he would be entitled to compensation on leaving; but if he put up buildings or improvements of that kind without the consent of the landlord, he would only be able to take them away on leaving, The clause said that any improvement of this kind which— Is not so affixed in pursuance of some obligation in that behalf or instead of some fixture belonging to the landlord, then such fixture shall be the property of and be removable by the tenant.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
asked whether he understood that the tenant would have a right to take these fixtures away?

§ MR. DODSON
replied in the affirmative.

§ SIR JOSEPH PEASE
said, he did not object to what was proposed in regard to this clause; but he felt that many tenant farmers in his own neighbourhood would object, because they would say it would place the onus of erecting buildings on themselves, and not on the landlords.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 5, after the word "affixed," insert the words "or erected."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 7, after the word "fixture," insert the words "or building."—(Mr. Biddell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ VISCOUNT NEWPORT
said, it seemed to him that, if these words were accepted, the clause would have a wide interpretation, and the whole sub-section would become useless. It must be remembered that the tenant would put up these fixtures for his own convenience and temporary advantage. When a tenant was leaving a farm he very often did not care as to the way in which he left these things. Therefore, it was necessary that the interest of the landlord should be protected by the Committee.

§ MR. DODSON
said, this Amendment appeared to him to be altogether unnecessary.
Amendment negatived.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
said, he wished to omit the word "it," in Sub-section 4, and to insert the words "such fixture or buildings."
Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 20, leave out the word "it," and insert the words "such fixture or buildings."—(Mr. R. H. Paget.)
Amendment agreed to.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, he proposed to omit Sub-section 5, which said— At any time before the expiration of the notice of removal the landlord, by notice in writing given by him to the tenant, may elect to purchase any fixture comprised in the notice of removal; and any fixture thus elected to be purchased shall be left by the tenant, and shall become the property of the landlord, who shall pay the tenant the fair value thereof to an incoming tenant of the holding; and any difference as to the value shall be settled by a reference under this Act, as in case of compensation (but without appeal). He did not see why the tenant should not be allowed to deal with improvements of this kind as he thought proper, seeing that they were his own property. He ought to be allowed to sell them or hand them over to an incoming tenant, or to anybedy else, just as he pleased; and he (Sir Alexander Gordon) did not see why the landlord should have a right of pre-emption. These improvements might be erected on the "hire and purchase" system, and in such a case considerable difficulty would be found to arise if the clause stood as it did at present. In a case where the tenant might desire to take an adjoining farm and to carry his fixtures with him, it might put him to expense and a great deal of inconvenience if the landlord were to have the right of acquiring the improvements.
Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 21, leave out Sub-section (5).—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)
Question proposed, "That the Subsection stand part of the Clause."

§ MR. DODSON
said, he was not prepared to accept this Amendment. If the privilege were granted to a tenant of erecting a building on the property of the landlord without first obtaining the consent of that landlord, the least they could do would be to give to the landlord on his part the privilege of acquiring the improvement when the tenant quitted his occupancy—that was to say, the least they could do would be to give the landlord the right of pre-emption. He (Mr. Dodson) failed to see any hardship whatever in this proposal.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 23. after the word "fixture," to insert the words "or building."—(Mr. Biddell.)
Amendment agreed to.
248 Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 24, after the word "fixture," to insert the words "or building."—(Mr Biddell.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ MR. DODSON
said, this clause was ono for incorporating certain sections of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875 relating to Crown and certain other lands and to resumption for improvements. He proposed now, as he had done in regard to other sections of the Bill, to accept the terms of the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) under the same conditions—namely, to accept the clause as it stood, and when the Bill was re-committed to insert all the sections of the Act of 1875 which were incorporated, with whatever modifications might have been agreed to.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 14 (Provision as to limited owners).

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH
said, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) a question upon this clause which related to limited ownership. A case had been put to him which would possibly be one of hardship—namely, the case of a clergyman, or the representative of a clergyman, farming his own glebe. Supposing such clergyman died, or exchanged into another living, would he or his representatives be entitled to compensation for unexhausted improvements from his successor, or what would be their position?

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
said, that would not be a case within the Act at all, because a clergyman, under these circumstances, would be a freeholder, and those who followed him would be subsequent freeholders.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH
said, he thought a clergyman and his representatives ought to be equally entitled to compensation for improvements with ordinary tenants. He failed to see why such a person should not be allowed the benefits of the Bill.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
pointed out that a clergyman was a tenant for life, and that, if he left, presumably he was going to another freehold.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH
Supposing he dies?

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
said, the Act could not apply in such a case, which would have to be separately dealt with. In a case of this kind they would be dealing with a man who was really farming his own land, and the question was not one between landlord and tenant. He was not at present prepared to say that no words could be introduced extending the provisions of the Act to cases of this kind. The matter would have to be considered; and if it were necessary to make an alteration in the Bill to meet this kind of case, it would have to be done at a later stage.

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
wished to know whether this provision would affect minerals and mines?

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
said, that if the right hon. Gentleman would turn to the title of the Bill, he would see that it was a Bill "for amending the Law relating to Agricultural Holdings in England." Minerals and mines could hardly be called agricultural holdings.
Clause, agreed to.