Commons Sitting of 24 July 1883

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Withdrawn—Channel Tunnel Railway; South Eastern and Channel Tunnel Railways *.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Report—Agricultural Holdings (England) [186] [Sixth Night]—R.P.; Consolidated Fund (No. 4) *.
Committee (on re-comm.)—Report—Friendly, &c. Societies (Nominations) [264].
Report—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) * [229]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 9) * [238]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 10) * [249]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 11)* [250].
Considered as amended—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) * [216]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4)* [223]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) * [227].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAILWAY BILL (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR CHARLES FORSTERsaid, he had to move, on behalf of the promoters, that the second reading of this Bill be postponed until Friday, the 27th instant.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Second Reading be deferred till Friday."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he objected to the proposal. This was a matter of great interest throughout the whole country, and everyone supposed it was coming on for discussion to-day. He understood that the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin), who was in charge of the Bill, was not present, because he was attending a meeting of his own Railway Company. He could not imagine what that had to do with the Business of the House of Commons. If anything ought to have been put off, it ought to have been the meeting of the Railway Company, and not the Business of the House of Commons. The Motion to postpone consideration of this Bill until 2 o'clock on Friday ought not to be entertained for one moment. It was very possible
    282
    that many Members would be put to great inconvenience to attend at that time on Friday to discuss this matter. All hon. Gentlemen had perpetual calls upon them, many of the calls being of a public nature. The Business of the House of Commons, however, was never postponed for the convenience of any single Member. It was quite time they should discuss the Bill. If it were put off now, it could not come on for some weeks, when, in all probability, many Members would have left for the country. He should certainly vote against the present proposal.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he came down to the House to-day with the full understanding that this Bill and the South Eastern and Channel Tunnel Railways Bill wore to be brought on; and he could not help reminding the House that on the last occasion that the Bill was down upon the Paper, the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin), who was in charge of one of the Bills, expressed a strong opinion that to-day the Government ought to come down and state their views upon the expediency of constructing the proposed Tunnel. He (Mr. Chamberlain) was disappointed to find they were now asked to postpone the Bill again. The question of postponement was really one for the House to decide; and the only thing he could say in favour of a postponement was that, inasmuch as at the instance of the Government on many previous occasions the Bill had been postponed, the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe was, perhaps, to some extent, justified in supposing it was not a matter of great consequence that the second reading of the Bill might be taken to-day, and that he might, therefore, attend to the important business which he had in hand.
    SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he hoped the House would not assent to the Motion for postponement. The Bill had been postponed many times already. All hon. Members had made up their minds; they had all heard what could be said pro and con, and they were perfectly ready to-day to dispose of the Bill.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, there was another reason why the second reading of this Bill should not be taken on the 27th instant. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board

    283
    of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) remembered that the Prime Minister had given up Friday next for the discussion of a very important Indian subject indeed; and if the question involved in this Bill was to come on at the Morning Sitting, the House would not probably have more than an hour for the discussion of the proposal that India should not be called upon to contribute in any way towards the expenses of the Egyptian Expedition. Under the circumstances, it appeared to him a monstrous proposition that this important Business should be taken on Friday; and he hoped the House would unanimously reject the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Forster).
    MR. MONKsaid, he thought that if any postponement of this discussion was to take place, it ought to be until tomorrow. He would not be favourable to a postponement except for one single reason. The country desired to have a discussion upon the merits of the Channel Tunnel scheme; and though he had no doubt what the result of the discussion would be, still he thought great disappointment would be felt in the country if the Bill was simply thrown out this afternoon, in the absence of the promoters of the Channel Tunnel scheme. He (Mr. Monk) would be in favour of the postponement, but a postponement only until to-morrow. It was unreasonable, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) had said, that the second reading of this Bill should be postponed until the day which had been given up by the Prime Minister for another most important discussion.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, it seemed to him that the best way of raising this question would be to move to leave out of the Motion the word "Friday," and substitute for it the words "this day three months." At this period of the Session the House ought to be very careful how it allocated any portion of the few days which remained to them, especially as this must be a purely academical discussion. Everyone knew perfectly well that, for all practical purposes, the Channel Tunnel Railway Bill was dead for this Session, and he personally hoped for a great deal longer. But they were now asked, first of all, to hypothecate a portion by anticipation of this afternoon; and then they were asked
    284
    to give up a portion of next Friday, a day which had already been handed over by the Prime Minister for the consideration of an important question, or to take to-morrow, on which day they hoped to dispose of important Government Business. He thought it was very unreasonable that on the threshold of the month of August the House of Commons should be asked to give up day after day for purely academical discussions of this kind. He did not wish to enter into the merits of the question; but he should be glad if they bad an opportunity of repudiating the objects of this Bill. But that, however, at the present moment, was a secondary consideration. They ought to be careful of the expenditure of time now remaining to them; and, therefore, he begged to move the substitution of the words "this day three months "for "Friday."
    Amendment proposed, to leave out word "Friday," in order to insert the words "this day three months,"—(Mr. J. Lowther,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Friday' stand part of the Question."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, it was perfectly evident the feeling of the House was against any postponement, and under the circumstances he would appeal to his right hon. Friend (Mr. J. Lowther) to withdraw his Amendment, and allow the Bill to be called on, in which case he (Mr. Chamberlain) would have a Motion to make as a satisfactory substitute for the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther).
    SIR CHARLES FORSTERsaid, he had no instructions from the promoters, except to ask that the second reading should be further postponed.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsuggested that the Orders should be discharged.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he understood that the Bill they were now discussing was the Bill in which the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor) was interested, and not the Bill which was promoted by the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin). As a matter of fact, the South Eastern and Channel Tunnel Railways Bill stood third upon the Paper. The Bill which was now before the House was the Channel Tunnel Railway Bill; and that, he believed, was the Bill which was promoted by the Company of

    285
    which the noble Lord (Lord Richard Grosvenor) was Chairman. If the noble Lord were to suggest that the Bill should be withdrawn, it would possibly relieve the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Forster) of any responsibility in the matter.
    LORD RICHARD GROSVENORsaid, that, having been appealed to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), he had only this to say—that he should acquiesce willingly and freely in any course which seemed necessary to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. He (Lord Richard Grosvenor) believed the present feeling of the House and the country was such that it would be impossible to go on with the Channel Tunnel scheme this year; and, though it was with deep regret the promoters had to drop it even for this year, he thought he should be only doing what was right in acquiescing in the Motion which had been made.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he should be quite ready to withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that a Motion would be made that the Order be discharged.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the House would recollect that the Orders for the Channel Tunnel Railway Bill and the South Eastern and Channel Tunnel Railways Bill had been postponed from time to time at the instance of the Government. It was thought desirable that some further evidence should be taken in the matter; and, at the suggestion of the Government, a Committee of both Houses was appointed. That Committee had now concluded its labours; and although the Members of the Committee had been unable to agree upon any detailed Report, they had made a Report to the House to the effect that the majority of the Committee were of opinion that Parliamentary sanction should not be given to a submarine communication between England and France, and that Resolution of the Committee was arrived at by a majority of 6 to 4. The Government, having considered both the Report of the Committee, and also the state of circumstances which it disclosed, had decided to adopt their decision. Under these circumstances, they could not give any assistance
    286
    to the further progress of these measures; and he should, consequently, move that the Order be discharged.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Order for the Second Reading be discharged,"—(Mr. Chamberlain,)—put, and agreed to.
    Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  QUESTIONS.

    PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS)—PRECAUTIONS AGAINST CHOLERA.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, especially with regard to the danger of cholera, he will issue a Circular to the Vestries and District Boards in the Metropolis, calling upon them to put in force the provisions of the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Acts, 1868–82 (Mr. Torrens's Acts)whether, for the same reasons, he will call the attention of local authorities in the provinces to the provisions of the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Acts, 1875–82 (Sir Richard Cross's Acts)?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Circulars have already been issued to the Vestries and District Boards in the Metropolis, and to the local authorities in the Provinces, drawing attention to the Acts referred to, and urging the authorities to avail themselves of the powers which these Acts confer on them.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the President of the Local Government Board, Whether they will respectively call upon the Medical Officers of Health in the Metropolis for Returns of all places which in their opinion ought to be dealt with under one set of Acts or the other; and, whether they will lay such Returns before Parliament during the present Session?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, as the Medical Officers of Health in the Metropolis are officers of the Vestries and District Boards, and are in no way subject to the jurisdiction of the Board, the Board have not considered that they could properly call upon those officers to furnish such Returns as are suggested direct to the Board. The Board have, however, communicated with the Vestries and District Boards, and urged

    287
    them to call upon the Medical Officers of Health to make Returns, without delay, of the places which they consider ought to be dealt with under the Acts mentioned. They have also asked that they may be furnished with copies of such Returns, and the Board will have no objection to lay on the Table of the House copies of any Returns which they may receive.
    MR. MONKasked whether the Local Government Board could not send round a Circular, to be left at the door of every householder, stating the best means to be taken for the prevention of cholera?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, this Question did not quite come within the scope of that on the Paper; but if the House permitted him to do so he would answer it. It would not do for the Local Government Board to act as the local authority in the various districts; but they had already issued Circulars, not only to the district authorities of the Metropolis, but to every health authority in the country, calling attention to the powers they had under the Artizans' Dwellings Act. The Local Government Board could not issue instructions to every householder; but he had no doubt that, should there be imminent danger of cholera, that would be done by the local authorities. The authorities of the parish of Kensington had already adopted this course.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether he would again call the attention of the Board to the provisions of the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act?
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: Sir, I can assure my right hon. Friend that the Metropolitan Board of Works is fully sensible of the importance of the provisions of the Artizans' Dwellings Acts, and the whole subject stands referred to a Committee, who will consider whether, having regard to the number and present position of the schemes already in hand, it is desirable for the Board to introduce others in the next Session.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRY: I should like to ask this Question of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. Whether he will communicate with the different Vestries and local authorities, and suggest to them that stands, direct from the
    288
    pipes of the different Water Companies, should be put up in the streets, so as to enable persons, particularly in the poorer districts, to draw their water direct from the mains? It has been proved, over and over again, that cholera and other diseases are produced by the retention of drinking water in dirty cisterns.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The attention of the officers of the Local Government Board is being directed to this point.

    THE CHANNEL TUNNEL COMMITTEE—THE PAPER "HOSTILITIES WITHOUT DECLARATION OF WAR."
    MR. GIBSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, Whether he will cause to be printed and circulated in a separate and useful form the important historical paper on "Hostilities without Declaration of War," that was submitted to the Channel Tunnel Committee?
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: Sir, in reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have to say that the document alluded to, entitled "Hostilities without Declaration of War," is about to be published for general information. Copies will then be procurable at a low price; and, as the Paper will also appear in the Appendix to the Report of the Joint Committee on the Channel Tunnel, it appears to me—in which view my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War concurs—to be a needless expense to present it separately to Parliament as a Command Paper. Having regard to the value of this Paper, I should certainly have acceded to the request to lay it on the Table of the House, had it not been about to be distributed to all Members, and accessible to the public at a low price.

    LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—DISLOYAL PLACARD IN MONAGHAN.
    MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has received any report from the police to the effect that the disloyal placard published apparently by the National Candidate in Monaghan, on the polling day, issued in reality from the printing office of a local Tory newspaper; whether a search on the premises, with a comparison of type, &c. will be made as was done in the case of

    289
    the "Kerry Sentinel;" and, if not, whether any attempt has been or will be made to discover the authors; and, if the Government will accept an amendment to the Corrupt Practices Bill compelling the publisher's name to be attached to election placards, and penalising the appending by the printer of a false name and address?
    MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have received no such Report as is suggested in the first paragraph of the Question; on the contrary, the police state that from a careful examination of the printing and texture of the paper it is not thought that the placard was printed in any printing office in the county. There is no ground whatever upon which the premises of the newspaper referred to should be searched, as was done in the case of The Kerry Sentinel, where there was abundant reason for the action taken. The police have made careful inquiry, with a view to ascertain, if possible, who printed or posted the placards at Monaghan, but as yet without success. If the hon. Member sees fit to bring forward such an Amendment to the Corrupt Practices Bill as he proposes, it will, no doubt, receive duo consideration from the House.
    MR. HEALY: As the right hon. Gentleman states that the police have no reason to suspect any local newspaper office, it may be of interest to him to know that I put my Question at the request of a police constable, who informed me that this placard was printed in the office of a local Tory newspaper.

    SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND—REPORTED DEFEAT OF CETEWAYO.
    MR. DILLWYNasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Mr. Henriquez Shepstone was recently sent on a special mission to Cetywayo; and, if so, whether he will lay Mr. Shepstone's Report upon the Table of the House?
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Mr. Henriquez Shepstone was recently sent on a special mission to Cetewayo. His Report is already on the Table, and will be distributed in a few days.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Government have any news, confirmatory or otherwise, of the intelligence that has been received of the defeat of Cetewayo?
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The hon. Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Guy Dawnay) has a Question to this effect on the Paper, and I will answer it now. We have received a telegram from Sir Henry Bulwer, in which he says that Mr. Osborne, the British Resident in the Reserve Territory, reports that information had just been received by him that an attack was made upon Ulundi by a strong force, that Cetewayo's forces were defeated, and that Cetewayo himself escaped on horseback, though wounded. The attack was stated to be made by Usibepu in retaliation for an attack and heavy loss inflicted on his rebellious people by Cetewayo's forces a few days previously.
    MR. R. N. FOWLER: Is anything known as to whether Ulundi has been burned?
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: That is all the information we have.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Can the hon. Gentleman state to the House the number of human lives which have been sacrificed in consequence of Cetewayo's restoration to power?

    NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
    MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true the head teacher of Quay Street National School, Sligo, has not been paid his salary for three months ending on 30th June last; and, that the same teacher has not been paid for two months in 1878, when master of Derryknockevan National School; and, if so, can he give any reason?
    MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the salary of the head teacher of Quay Street School was paid some days ago. There had been some slight delay, for which, however, the Education Department was not responsible. It arose from an irregularity in the form of application. The salary earned by the same teacher in two months in 1878 was remitted to the manager of Derryknockevan School in November of that year, and the Commissioners of National Education have not had any complaint made that it was not duly received by the teacher.

    LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—CASES BEFORE THE LAND COMMISSION.
    MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

    291
    In what number of cases dismissed under section 21 of Land Act, where the evidence was fully heard, were transcripts of the shorthand writer's notes made for the Land Commission (excluding those dismissed on preliminary legal points); and, whether there would be any difficulty in furnishing the names of the litigants in such cases, and also the names in similar cases where no transcript of evidence was made by the shorthand writer?
    MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the number of such cases in which the evidence was transcribed was 38. The Land Commissioners inform me that they can give a nominal list of the cases in which the notes were transcribed; but that to do so in the cases in which they were not transcribed would involve considerable expense and take some time.
    MR. HEALYasked whether a list of the 38 cases would be laid on the Table?
    MR. TREVELYAN: Yes, Sir.

    CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT—PLEURO-PNEUMONIA IN IRELAND.
    MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that, at the meeting held on Saturday June 30th, the Local Inspector under the Cattle Diseases Act reported to the Wexford Guardians that pleuro-pneumonia had broken out on the farm of Lemuel Furney, Ballycross, near Bridgetown; that he had slaughtered four heifers affected with it early in the week; that the Guardians at once declared the farm an infected place under the Act; and, being very anxious to prevent the spread of the disease, unanimously recommended (as desired by the authorities in Dublin Castle) a certain area to be restricted—namely, the farms surrounding the infected place, as cattle on some of these farms were only separated by a ditch from the diseased cattle; whether, although the Guardians fully expected that this recommendation would have been carried out by the Government on the following Monday, as it was of great importance that the cattle would not be allowed to be sent over the Country, nothing was done until Friday, 6th July, when Mr. Headley, the Government Inspector, was sent down to examine into the case; whether, at the meeting of the Guardians on Saturday, 7th.July, no communication was received from the Castle,
    292
    only a formal acknowledgment of the Letter sent on the previous Saturday; whether two more beasts were slaughtered in the meantime; whether, on Thursday, 12th July, the disease broke out on the farm of Ballybough, also held by Mr. Furney, and another beast slaughtered; whether Ballybough adjoins Ballycross, and was one of the townlands recommended by the Guardians to be restricted; whether a part of this being occupied by a farmer who takes in cattle by the month, and from different parts of the country, thus created much greater danger; whether several of these cattle have been taken home since the disease broke out, and further risk of spreading the disease be caused; whether, on Saturday, July 14th, a copy of the report of the Government Inspector was received by the Guardians stating that it was not necessary to restrict an area nor to interfere with the fairs of Bridgetown, but recommending the Guardians to slaughter all the cattle and sell the carcasses; whether, before this Report reached the Guardians, the disease (as above stated) broke out in one of the places they wished to restrict; whether they consequently issued a strong protest against the action of the Castle authorities in thwarting them in their endeavours to stamp out the disease; whether they are now trying to negotiate for the sale of the cattle, with the view of having them slaughtered at once; and, whether the defect in the Act, in not giving absolute power to the local authority to deal with the restriction, is likely to be remedied?
    MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the hon. Member asks me 13 Questions in one; but they resolve themselves into a small compass. The facts are, I believe, for the most part, set forth with substantial accuracy in this Question; but the Government has no information as to the particular circumstances under which the lands of Ballybough are grazed, as referred to in paragraphs seven and eight. The Veterinary Department acted in this matter without any avoidable delay; and the reason why the very large area recommended by the Guardians to be declared an infected district was not at first so declared was because, on the receipt of the Inspector's Report, it was hoped it would not be necessary to do so. However, when, as stated, a further case of disease occurred at

    293
    Ballybough, and the Guardians urged their recommendation, it was complied with. The area recommended was declared infected, and the usual restrictions were imposed as to the movement of cattle and holding of fairs. The orders have been for some days in the hands of the Guardians and the police, and no fresh case of disease has been reported within the area since the 17th instant. I cannot give any undertaking that the powers of the local authority will be enlarged by legislation as suggested.

    ARMY (INDIA)—ROMAN CATHOLIC SOLDIERS.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Secretary of State for War, What arrangements have been made for the services of a Roman Catholic priest on beard the troopships returning from India with invalids?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the troopships which return from India with invalids are those which have proceeded to India with drafts. It has been arranged with the India Office that when a troopship going out to India takes out a minimum of 300 Roman Catholics, including soldiers' wives and children, a priest of that denomination will be provided for the voyage out and the return home of the same vessel. It will, therefore, be for the military authorities in India to arrange that Roman Catholic invalids shall, as far as possible, be sent home in the troopships with Roman Catholic clergymen on board.

    POOR LAW (IRELAND)—LIMERICK WORKHOUSE.
    MR. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that an inmate of the blind ward in the Limerick Work-house has given birth recently to an illegitimate child; and, whether the Local Government Board will hold an inquiry into the case?
    MR. TREVELYAN: The fact is as stated in the first paragraph of the Question; and the Local Government Board have ordered their Inspector to hold an inquiry on oath into the case.

    NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—THE PROFESSORS.
    MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
    294
    Whether Mr. P. W. Joyce, LL.D. T.C.D., and Mr. J. J. Doherty, LL.B. T.C.D., Professors in the Central Training Department of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, kept terms by examination in Trinity College, Dublin, while acting as teachers in the Board's direct service; whether Mr. William James Browne, M.A., District Inspector of Schools, and the late Mr. Edmond Wren, M.A., attended the London University examinations while in the same service; whether these gentlemen were not on several occasions absent from duty for the purpose of attending the University examinations; and, whether deductions were made from their salaries or other emoluments in respect of every such absence; and, if not, whether he will recommend the Commissioners to deal with teachers attending the examinations of the Royal University of Ireland on the same footing?
    MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Commissioners of National Education inform me that the Questions relating to the four gentlemen hero named refer to periods so long passed that it would be impossible now to obtain accurate information on the points mentioned. With regard to the last clause of the Question, I may say that the Commissioners made au Order in November last, under which they are empowered to deal with all such cases as are referred to in such a way as to prevent any hardship or grievance arising. If the words of the Order are strictly carried out, as I believe they will be, hardships will not occur; and if the hon. Member knows any instance in which it is not being strictly carried out I will inquire into it.

    OPEN SPACES (METROPOLIS)—THE METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS AND THE MEETING IN SOUTHWARK PARK.
    MR. BORLASEasked the honourable and gallant Member for Truro, Whether it is true, as stated in the "Daily Telegraph" of yesterday, that—
    "By order of the Metropolitan Board of Works, the names of several speakers at a meeting held yesterday in Southwark Park, were taken down with a view to a prosecution;"
    and, whether it was not a meeting of ratepayers who would, by the action of the Metropolitan Board of Works, be cut

    295
    off from that part of the Park which they are rated to support?
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL - HOGG: Sir, the meeting referred to by the hon. Member took place without permission, and in direct contravention of the Board's bye-laws; and the persons concerned were informed beforehand that, in the event of a meeting being held, the names and addresses of the speakers would be taken by the Board's officers, which was accordingly done, as stated in The Daily Telegraph. As to the other Question, I was not there, and do not know whether those present were ratepayers or not.
    MR. BORLASEgave Notice that he should take the earliest opportunity of bringing the matter before Parliament.
    MR. LABOUCHEREasked whether application had not been made by the persons concerned for permission to hold the meeting; and whether that application had not been refused?
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG, in reply, said, that a certain man, who wished to hold meetings perpetually in the Park on Sundays, and upon every possible subject, did apply; and he and his friends were informed that it was contrary to the bye-laws to hold such meetings, and that if they persisted in breaking the bye-laws they must take the consequences. The bye-laws had been approved by the Secretary of State, and the Board had its duties to perform.
    MR. LABOUCHEREasked on what ground permission to hold the meetings had been refused?
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, that the permission had been refused because the Board were of opinion that the Park was set apart for the purposes of general recreation, and not for the purpose of holding noisy meetings.

    CRIMINAL LAW—CASE OF FOOTE AND RAMSEY.
    MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received Memorials from many thousands of persons, including clergymen of the Church of England, Nonconformist Ministers, and persons of high literary and scientific position, asking for a mitigation of the sentences of George William Foote and William James Ramsey, now imprisoned in Holloway Gaol on a charge of blasphemy; whether they have already
    296
    suffered five months' imprisonment, involving until lately confinement in their respective cells for 23 hours out of every 24, and now involving 22 hours of such solitary confinement out of each 24; and, whether he will advise the remission of the remainder of their sentences?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, the Question of my hon. Friend is based upon a misconception of the duty and rights of the Home Secretary with reference to the sentence of the law. That misconception I have often endeavoured to remove, but apparently with entire want of success. It is perfectly true that I have received many Memorials on this subject. Most of those Memorials were founded upon a disapprobation of the law on which the sentence rested. I must say, as I have often done before, that this is not a matter which I can take into my consideration, either upon my own opinion, or upon that of clergymen of the Church of England, or of that of persons of high literary and scientific position. Until Parliament has altered the law, I am bound to assume that the law is right, and that those who administer it administer it rightly. If I were to take any other course, and if I were to exercise my own opinion—if I had any—on the subject, I should be transferring the power of making the law from Parliament to the Executive and to a Minister of the Crown—a course which I am quite sure my hon. Friend would be the last to desire. Then it has been said that I might deal with the sentences. But sentences must not be dealt with upon the assumption that the law is wrong, or that the jury or the Judge are wrong, but in reference to the special circumstances of the case, which might be such as to justify the Minister in recommending that the mercy of the Crown should be exercised. Let us see, then, what are the special circumstances of the present case. Nobody—I do not care whether legal persons, or belonging to the class mentioned in this Question—can judge properly of this matter who has not seen the publication. I have seen it, and I have no hesitation in saying that it is, in the most strict sense of the word, an obscene libel. It is a scandalous outrage upon public decency. That being so, the law has declared that the publication of such an obscene libel is punishable. I have

    297
    no authority to say that the offence shall not be punishable, nor do I think that before the expiration of less than half the period of the punishment awarded by the Court, I should be discharging, with a sound and sober judgment, the responsibility which rests upon me if I were to advise the Crown to remit the sentence.

    SUEZ (SECOND) CANAL—CLAIMS OF M. DE LESSEPS.
    MR. M'COANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the pretension of M. de Lesseps to an exclusive right of canal-way across the Isthmus of Suez was raised or considered either before the International Commission at Constantinople, which, in 1874, authorised the surtax, or during the negotiations for the purchase of the Canal Shares by Her Majesty's Government in 1875; and, whether, in fact, the claim in question has ever been put forward by M. de Lesseps, or has been in any way acknowledged by any Government of Her Majesty until the present month?
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEThe question does not appear to have been raised on either of the occasions mentioned by the hon. Member; nor has it, as far as I am aware, been the subject of official Correspondence in former years.

    NAVY—REPORTS OF SHIPS.
    COLONEL KENNARDasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Why the Report on the sailing and steaming qualities of ships, which used to be issued every six months, is now discontinued?
    SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: Sir, half-yearly Reports are rendered to the Admiralty during the first commission of a ship, and yearly Reports during the second commission. It is not considered necessary to continue the Reports on ships for a longer period, as their qualities will have been fully tested in two commissions.

    INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE SCARIFF DRAINAGE SCHEME.
    MR. KENNYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he has received a Copy of Resolutions adopted at a meeting of tenant farmers principally concerned in the Scariff drainage scheme,
    298
    held at the Courthouse, Feakle, county Clare, on 18th July; if the Resolutions in question set forth the heavy loss in farm produce annually sustained by the local farmers through floods, condemn the inaction of the Board constituted under the Act, who for three years have done nothing to carry its provisions into effect, and call upon the Treasury to place the undertaking in the hands of a competent authority, with a view to its execution, and, also, if an extension of time under the Act is not asked for; and, if, having regard to the great local importance of the scheme and the benefits if proposes to confer upon the people of great portions of six parishes, the Treasury will accept the recommendations of the local occupiers, and see that effect is given to their wishes upon this subject?
    MR. COURTNEY: Sir, I received yesterday a document to the effect stated in the Question; and it will be considered at the Treasury, and answered in due course. In other respects I must refer The hon. Member to an answer I gave to his Question on the same subject three weeks ago.
    MR. HEALYgave Notice that on the first opportunity he would call attention to the subject.

    CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—THE WEXFORD RIOT.
    MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that the Police have prosecuted for riot the men engaged in the affray on the polling day at Wexford; and, if he intends to grant an inquiry into the circumstances leading to the bayonet charge, and by whom the charge was ordered? The hon. Member said, the Question now appearing on the Paper was not his, but that of the Clerk at the Table. What he originally asked was, whether the Government would prosecute every man whom their police had bludgeoned or stabbed?
    MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I was prepared with a very simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question as it appears on the Paper. I must say that, as far as I have got information—and I made the most careful inquiries, this being the first riot which has happened in Ireland since I have been Chief Secretary—I have ascertained that 23 or 25 policemen were wounded, four seriously;

    299
    whereas on the other side I cannot gather that anyone was seriously wounded, and it is only alleged that one man was rather seriously stabbed, and he refused to have his wounds looked at. [Laughter.] I do not say that one man may not have been injured with the baton; but that, as far as I could gather, I would have taken to be case, were it not for the additional Question of the hon. Member. Proceedings have been taken against the persons charged with rioting, and the inquiry before the magistrates will disclose the facts of the case. Pending that inquiry I prefer to say nothing more.
    MR. HEALYsaid, at the earliest opportunity he would draw attention to this question. Hon. Members laughed when the Chief Secretary said the man wounded by the police refused to have his wounds looked at. But the man knew, which the House did not, that if he consented to go into hospital his name would be immediately taken by the police, and he would be prosecuted.

    SUEZ (SECOND) CANAL—THE PROVISIONAL AGREEMENT WITH M. DE LESSEPS.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I placed a Question on the Notice Paper last night to the following effect:—
    "To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, after the withdrawal of the Agreement with the Suez Canal Company, in consequence of the general dissatisfaction which has been expressed as to its provisions, the Government adhere to their opinion that M. de Lesseps has a well-founded claim to an exclusive monopoly in respect of communication by canal between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea?"
    Since I placed this Question on the Paper, it has occurred to me that it is one of a somewhat argumentative character, and might lead to an argumentative answer, and probably require some discussion. I have, therefore, thought, having made up my mind as to a Notice which I wish to give as re. Bards a future discussion, that it would be better for me, instead of putting this Question, to give the following Notice:—I propose on Monday, if the right hon. Gentleman can give me that day, or some other day which may be convenient to him, to move—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that, in any negotiations or proceedings with reference to the Suez Canal Company to which Her Majesty may be a party,
    300
    She will, while respecting the undoubted rights of the Company in regard of their own concession, decline to recognise any claim on their part to such a monopoly as would exclude the possibility of competition on the part of other undertakings, designed for the purpose of opening a water communication between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea."
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I do not rise for the purpose of commenting on the Notice of the right hon. Gentleman, further than to say that I will carefully examine the state of Business, and shall be prepared at an early day—perhaps to-morrow, certainly not later than Thursday—to make a communication as to the precise date upon which it might be convenient to take it. This Question having been placed upon the Paper, I think I ought to make the answer which I was prepared to snake. The first part of that answer was to exclude from my view the preamble which the right hon. Gentleman has inserted, and which is expressive of his opinion as to the reasons which we have given for the withdrawal of the Provisional Agreement—an opinion which I do not seek now to question; and, in answering the Question, I will simply say that I do not adopt that opinion. I must also observe that the Question contains a statement which is quite erroneous—no doubt unintentionally erroneous. It asks whether the Government adhere to their opinion that M. de Les-sops has a well-founded claim to an exclusive monopoly in respect of communication between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea? No opinion to that effect has, at any time, been expressed by the Government. With regard to the substance of the Question—which I suppose is intended to apply chiefly to the Isthmus of Suez—the Government have never, in any communication relating to the Canal, placed any construction—by communication, I mean not what has been said in this House, but communication with persons abroad—upon the instrument of concession with regard to any exclusive right or claim. Nor have they done anything to bind this country to any particular view of the concession. The Question includes the inquiry whether we have altered the opinions which we have expressed to Parliament? We have not seen cause to alter those opinions. Those opinions are upon record, and, in the judgment of the Government, it would not be attended with public

    301
    advantage, but the reverse of public advantage, if we gave any further exposition of them. I may also observe—for the sake of greater clearness—that the exclusive power, to which reference has been made more than once in the course of this discussion, was a power to prevent others from piercing the Isthmus by a Canal, and did not touch the separate and distinct question whether the present Canal Company, without any fresh concession, have power to make a new Canal.
    MR. GIBSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any public inconvenience can result from giving the date of the opinion of the Law Officers with reference to the alleged exclusive rights of M. de Lesseps and the Suez Canal Company, bearing in mind that the First Lord of the Treasury has given publicly the fact and the effect of that opinion?
    THE CHANCELLOR. OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Yes, Sir. As I have already stated, it would be a matter of public inconvenience to establish the precedent of giving the dates of the Law Officers' opinions, any more than the cases submitted to them, or the language they employ. Her Majesty's Government are responsible for acting or not on these opinions, and all that it has been usual to state is their general effect. This my right hon. Friend did in the present case.
    MR. GIBSONwished to know whether any precedent existed, after the Prime Minister had stated the fact and effect of the opinion, which justified the refusal to state whether that opinion was given before or after the negotiations?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, in the Office which I hold I am rarely in the receipt of the opinions of Law Officers; but I have consulted those of my Colleagues who are more in the habit of consulting the Law Officers, and the answer which I have given is the result of that inquiry.

    AFRICA (RIVER CONGO)—NEGOTIATIONS WITH PORTUGAL.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What is the present position of the negotiations with Portugal on the subject of the Congo; and, whether any Treaty has been concluded; and, if so, when it
    302
    will be made known to Parliament in accordance with the promise given by him in April last?
    MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that negotiations were still in progress; but no Treaty had yet been concluded. If any Treaty should be concluded, it would, of course, be presented to Parliament.

    IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN ANIMALS—THE RESOLUTION OF JULY 10.
    MR. CHAPLINasked the First Lord of the Treasury, with respect to the Resolution of the House of Commons of July 10th, Whether it is the intention of the Government, in case the evidence to which he referred should lead to the conclusion that there is any danger of importing Foot and Mouth Disease, by the landing. of animals alive from any specified foreign Country, from which they are allowed to land alive at present, to take steps to prevent their landing in future; until, in the opinion of the Privy Council, the general sanitary condition of such specified country or countries and of the animals therein is such as to come within the terms of the fourth section of the Fifth Schedule of "The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878," under which animals coming from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and British North America, are exempted from slaughter at the port of landing at the present time; and, if not, what other steps the Government intend to take to give effect to the Resolution of the House of Commons of July 10th?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I may correct an expression used by the hon. Gentleman. I am not aware that I ever said that the Government intended to take evidence. That would have been a phrase conveying, I think, a different sense from that which I intended to convey. As I understand this Question, it amounts to this—Whether Her Majesty's Government will abolish the practice of slaughtering cattle upon importation, and will deal simply in one of two ways with foreign cattle—either allow them to pass where they are justified under the terms of the law at once into the country, and the other of excluding them altogether? We cannot undertake to pursue that course, because that is a course which we have already declared we do not think we could pursue consistently with the law. What I

    303
    stated on a former occasion was, that the Privy Council would carefully examine into the evidence laid before it from foreign countries, of course receiving any new evidence that might come before it; and if they find that in any instance where cattle are now admitted they ought to be slaughtered on importation, or if they find where they are now slaughtered upon importation there ought to be absolute prohibition, upon seeing that the law justified the adoption of that course, the Privy Council would proceed to that course.
    MR. CHAPLIN: It was precisely because I was unable to understand the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the other day that I placed this Question on the Paper; and I confess I do not understand very much more now than I did then. What I wish,to know is, whether, in the opinion of the Government, they are not able, under the existing law, to carry out the Resolution of the 10th of July; and whether they intend to introduce any further legislation on the subject?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I think I may say the Government has no intention of proposing further legislation this Session.
    MR. CHAPLIN: Then I am to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government intend to set at nought the Resolution of the 10th of July?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Gentleman can put whatever construction he pleases upon the answer I have given; But I have, I think, afforded the clearest evidence that we desire to give the utmost effect we can to the Resolution of the House of Commons, compatible with that duty which is higher than that of any Resolution of the House—namely, obedience to the provisions of the law as it stands.
    MR. JAMES HOWARD: Is the House to understand from the statement of the Prime Minister that should the evidence the Privy Council collect, and should the powers of the Act of 1878 be insufficient to prevent the introduction of disease, the Government will refuse to amend the Act? That is what the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) wants to know.
    MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I do not think that I made any representations as to the intention of the Government which justify the statement of the
    304
    hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard). The Government will ascertain, by careful examination, whether the provisions of the existing law are sufficient to carry out the Resolution of July 10. Should they have reason to think that the provisions of the existing law are insufficient, it will be their duty to consider whether there ought to be fresh legislation.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I should like to ask this Question, whether the results of that examination will be published? Then we should know whether importation will be prohibited from a single country from which it is now allowed.
    MR. GLADSTONE: What I have said is, that a certain course of administrative action would be pursued in a certain Department; and probably the Member of the Government who represents that Department will be better able than I am to answer the Question of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. CALLAN: On Monday I will ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will give effect to the Resolution of the House as to the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, as the Government has done to the Vote of the House with reference to the Contagious Diseases (Man's) Act?
    MR. CHAPLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that, in the event of any cargo of diseased animals being landed from a foreign country, the fact shall be publicly notified?
    MR. GLADSTONE: That is also an administrative Question, on which I will satisfy myself by inquiry, as I am not in charge of the administration of every Department of the Government.

    THE SUEZ CANAL—LIST OF SHAREHOLDERS.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he had given Notice of a Motion for Copies of the List of all Shareholders in the Suez Canal Company, whose shares had been registered up to the 20th day of July, 1883; and of those Shareholders whose names were deposited at the offices of the Company, prior to the last general meeting, together with the number of Shares so registered or deposited by each of such Shareholders. As he saw that a hostile Amendment had been put down by a Member of the Government, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the

    305
    Exchequer whether he had any objection to give the Return?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, I unfortunately had no Notice of the Question, or I would have explained in detail the difficulty of giving the Return. The fact is that it is not possible to obtain the information in the shape in which the right hon. Gentleman has asked for it, and I have suggested to him au amended form of the Return.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Return which the right hon. Gentleman has offered would be a totally different Return, and would not give the public the information they desired to obtain. If the right hon. Gentleman would assure him that he was unable to procure the information for him he would do his best to obtain the information for the right hon. Gentleman.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): The part of the Return to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is never given to the public. It can be obtained by an individual shareholder, but only for personal and private use. That is the information which I have obtained from the Company. Personally, I have no objection whatever to the information being published; but it could not be properly made public in accordance with the rules of the Company.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Am I to understand that it is in the power of any shareholder to obtain a copy of this document, and that the British taxpayers, who hold £4,000,000 of Shares, are not to have the same advantage as any other shareholder?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, I have informed the right hon. Gentleman that it is in the power of any shareholder to obtain a list of the very small proportion of shareholders who deposit their Shares. But it is a rule of the Company that the list should not be published. If, therefore, we apply for it we should be told—"Here is the list, but it is not to be published." That is the rule of the Company, which I cannot break under any circumstances. I may say, moreover, that the information would be entirely delusive, inasmuch as the shareholders do not deposit the whole of their Shares, but only a sufficient number to qualify themselves.
    MR. J. LOWTHERgave Notice that he would take an early opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the subject.

    SUEZ (SECOND) CANAL—THE PROVISIONAL AGREEMENT WITH M. DE LESSEPS—LETTER OF M. DE LESSEPS.
    MR. BOURKE: With reference to the letter of M. de Lesseps, which is published in the newspapers of to-day, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government whether any reply has been sent to that letter; and, if so, whether the reply will be included in the Papers which are to be presented to Parliament?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; a reply has been sent, and will be presented to the House.

    EGYPT—THE CHOLERA.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention had been directed to a telegram from Egypt in The Times of that morning—
    "The Minister of the Interior and the Prefect of Police, without consulting Sir Edward Mulct, General Stephenson, or apparently any other authority, determined to evict in the middle of Saturday night the inhabitants of Boulak, and to transport them up the river to Turrah, near Helouân, where the English are forming a cholera camp. The scene is described as a pitiable one—men, women, and children carrying the small possessions which they could gather hastily together, such as old bedding—often emitting a horrible odour—accompanied by a few goats, sheep, donkeys, and poultry, being driven bare-footed in the middle of the night to the barges. No violence was necessary, but no attempt was made to mitigate in any way the horrors of the situation. Meanwhile, nothing had been done to prevent several hundreds of the evicted wretches from escaping, and rushing in crowds through the town."
    He also wished to ask if it was correct, as afterwards stated, that Sir Evelyn Wood, Sir Edward Malet, and General Stephenson had given orders directing that no further evictions should take place; and whether any instructions had been given to the English authorities in Egypt and in Cairo to prevent this state of things taking place, which was a discredit to us, occupying the country as we now were?
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, I cannot, of course, state from day to day whether the various events which ale telegraphed as happening in particular

    307
    places are true and accurate in every respect. I stated yesterday that a Committee, of which the leading Members are the officers named just now in the Question of the hon. and gallant Member, had been formed, with the view of preventing the painful scenes that were alluded to in the Question of the noble Lord on the Front Bench (Lord Eustace Cecil). That Committee was appointed, not only with the view of preventing administrative confusion, but also for the purpose of carrying out the orders which had been given, and, I understand, of controlling the action of the local authorities by directing it into wise channels. Although I understand the anxiety of some hon. Members, and of the House generally, more than that I cannot say, except this—that the clearest instructions have been given to Sir Edward Malet to lose no opportunity of doing everything he can to support and guide the Egyptian Government in the difficult times on which they have fallen.
    Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOTdesired to know whether the noble Lord had heard that these evictions actually took place?
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICENo, Sir; I cannot state that.

    SUEZ (SECOND) CANAL—THE PROVISIONAL AGREEMENT WITH M. DE LESSEPS—THE PAPERS.
    MR. BOURNE: Can the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs now state, whether the letter of M. de Lesseps will be distributed to Members to-morrow?
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: These Papers, I have reason to believe, will he in the hands of Members to-morrow; and, with regard to further Correspondence mentioned yesterday, I have every reason to believe it will be in the hands of Members on Thursday.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked if the noble Lord would lay on the Table any communications that had been received from Foreign Governments as to the Suez Canal?
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that was a Question of which Notice should be given.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Prime Minister whether he adhered to the statement which he made on the 19th of July that the exclusive privilege
    308
    of piercing with a Canal the Isthmus of Suez did not determine with the life of M. de Lesseps, but would pass to the Company formed by him?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have already said so. We adhere to the opinion which we have given in this House.

    PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—SUPPLY.
    In reply to Mr. JUSTIN M'CARTHY,
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that Irish Votes in Committee of Supply would be taken on Thursday.
    MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to state the specific Votes and the order in which they would be taken?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that the whole of the remaining Civil Service Votes in Class II. would be taken, if possible, on Thursday, beginning with a few English Votes, proceeding to the Scottish Votes, and then the Irish Votes, including those of the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, and the different Departments of the Government in Ireland, but not the Land Commission.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked when the Vote for Major Baring's salary would be taken, as he should like to raise a discussion upon it?
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it would be premature to mention a date just now.
    COLONEL STANLEYasked when the remaining Army Estimates were to be taken?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, that it would be impossible absolutely to name a day until the Committee stage on the Bills now before the House had been disposed of, and some progress made on the Estimates just referred to.

    PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—MR. HARRINGTON'S CASE.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, Whether it was true that Mr. Harrington had been arrested and conveyed to prison?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that he could not answer definitely; but he had every reason to believe that Mr. Harrington had been arrested in accordance with the decision of the magistrates.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORgave Notice that he would ask a further Question in

    309
    reference to the case of Mr. Harrington on Thursday, with a view to further proceedings.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.— [BILL 186.]
  (Mr. Dodson, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Solicitor General)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 23rd July.]
  [SIXTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  PART II.
  Distress.
  Clause 15 (Limitation of distress in respect of amount and time).
  MR. CARPENTER GARNIERrose to move, in page 7, line 12, to leave out the words "after the commencement of this Act," in order to insert the words "after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five." He said that, as the Committee were aware, the commencement of the operation of this Bill was fixed for the 1st of January next; and all he asked was that a little more time should be given before this particular provision came into force. He had nothing to say against the principle of the clause—there was a general agreement upon that; but what he asked was for a little more time before the commencement of so great a change. During the late agricultural depression landlords had allowed arrears to grow up; but they did this relying on the security of the law as it stood, and if that security was taken away very suddenly great inconvenience would ensue. Moreover, the rents were often not collected until many months after they became due; and it was not asking too much that a little time might be given to enable both landlords and tenants to consider the subject, with the view of arriving at the best course which might be convenient to them both.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 12, to leave out "after the commencement of this Act," and insert "after the first day of January one thousand eight
  310
  hundred and eighty-five."—(Mr. Carpenter Garnier.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he hoped his right hon. Friend who had charge of the Bill might see his way to accept this Amendment. A great alteration was to take place in regard to the Law of Distress; and, seeing the peculiar position in which a very large number of tenants were placed at this moment, especially after the great depression which there had been in agriculture, and after the full consideration which he hoped it would be acknowledged had been shown to them with regard to their rents by their landlords, it would be unfair to bring the Bill into play in the hurried way proposed. He was quite sure that arrangements would be made, if time were given to make them—arrangements which would be satisfactory both to the tenants and to the landlords; and it was principally in the interests of the tenants that he asked that the Amendment should be accepted. It would be most inconvenient if the Bill came quickly into operation, so far as it affected the Law of Distress; and it would be both wise and prudent that this point should be very carefully considered by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It was in that belief that he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) ventured to press this Amendment strongly on his attention.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he trusted that the Government would not consent to the alteration suggested by the two hon. Members who had just spoken. It had often been stated, with regard to the Law of Distress, that it had generally been kept in abeyance, and that, though it conferred a vast power upon the landlord, it was a power which was only exercised in rare cases. But it struck him, unless he heard arguments to the contrary, that if this Amendment were passed it would put both landlord and tenant, during a great number of months, into a most cruel position, because as the clause now stood—limiting the power of distress to one year—the landlord might make up his mind whether or not he would distrain for all the previous arrears; and large Companies, Corporations, trustees, and others, must come to their decision in four months as to whether they would distrain to an extent to which landlords

  311
  never distrained before. It would be a rather unfortunate matter if, when a Bill was passed to place tenants and landlords in a more satisfactory position, the landlord should have a longer time to consider whether he would exercise the right of distress which was now about to be taken away for any period beyond a year, on a scale larger than it had ever before been exercised upon. In the case of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, for instance, he knew that there were very large arrears due to them; and, as a public body, if they had a certain number of months given to them for consideration, it would be a serious question whether they ought not to exact almost the whole of the arrears before the Act came into operation. He did not see what advantage could be claimed for the tenant under such an arrangement—indeed, the tenant would be considerably endangered by it. He hoped the Government would not assent to the proposed Amendment.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he thought the advantage to the tenant was very clear, for if the Amendment were passed it would not be necessary for the landlord to take these harsh steps which were so injurious to the tenant until the 1st of January, 1885, instead of having to take them by the 1st of January, 1884. That was a gain of 12 months to the tenant, who for that time would be free from the extremely disagreeable and painful position which the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had vividly described. That was the advantage to the tenant which the Amendment proposed, and because he (Mr. Chaplin) viewed it in that light he should support the Amendment. There could be no doubt that the clauses relating to distress would fall with very great hardship, or they might do so, upon all those tenants who were in arrear at the present time, if they were brought into operation too rapidly. That was beyond dispute. There were an enormous number of tenants who were in arrear to-day, and if the Bill passed in its present form, one of two things must happen—either the landlords would have largely to sacrifice rents which were justly due to them, or they would be obliged by this law, passed nominally in the interests of the tenant, to step in and take measures which they would greatly regret; but which would be absolutely necessary
  312
  in their own self-defence, if they were to have any regard to their own interests at all. He thought the Amendment one of the most reasonable and sensible of all that had been proposed, and he hoped the Government would give it their best consideration.
  Sir HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had wrongly assumed that the provisions of this Bill would come into operation immediately on its receiving the Queen's sanction. But such was not the case, as he would see by reference to Clause 22, by which it was provided that the Act should come into force on the 1st January, 1884. He (Sir Henry Holland) hoped that the Government would accept this Amendment to extend the time to 1st January, 1885, and he advocated this extension in the interest of the tenant. Unless the time were extended, landlords, including trustees and corporate bodies, would have only three or four months to consider what course to adopt with reference to existing arrears; and in many cases they would feel compelled to distrain at once for two or three years' arrears which, unless they took immediate action, they would lose. If they had more time allowed within which such arrears might be recovered, they would be in a position to make much more favourable terms with the tenants. The forcing a hasty decision upon landlords must lead to the issuing of many distress warrants, which would bear hardly upon the tenants, many of whom would be able, if more time were allowed, to make satisfactory arrangements with their landlords.
  COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEsaid, he hoped the Government would assent to the Amendment and allow the change to come into operation as slowly as possible in the interests of those tenants who owed between three and four years' rent, as many thousands of them did, and who hoped with a fair harvest this year and next to be able to get round. He was afraid they would not have a very good harvest this year; but he could assure the Government that there were hundreds of tenants now who owed two, three, or four years' rent, and who, if the Distress Clauses of the Bill came into operation at the beginning of next year, and they were unable to come to any arrangement with their

  313
  landlords in the meanwhile, would be reduced to ruin. In the interests of the tenants, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he did not think the point of the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had been quite understood by hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Opposition Benches. The question was, not whether the landlords would be hard upon the tenants in the course of the coming six months, but whether they could pile up the agony, and add another 12 months to the amount already to be paid, when the rent would be still more in arrear. Was it not better to have the present arrears settled, so that both parties could start fair afterwards, instead of having it hanging in suspense? That was the real point.
  An hon. MEMBER said, he was strongly of opinion that the Amendment was in the interests of the tenant. Where a tenant was in embarrassed circumstances, and the Government came down upon him with this alteration on the 1st of January next, it would be extremely hard.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) had entirely misapprehended the object of the Amendment. He (Mr. J. Lowther) was not sure that the right hon. Member for Ripon, whose views the hon. Member for Grimsby undertook to make clear, at all understood the effect of the Amendment, and yet it was very clear what the effect of adopting it would be. The hon. Member for Grimsby seemed to think that its object was to enable the landlord to distrain for another year's rent. He (Mr. J. Lowther) did not read the Amendment in that way. No doubt, another Amendment did propose to extend the period during which the arrears of rent might be claimed from one year to two; but that was not done by this present Amendment, which merely deferred the evil day for both landlord and tenant from the 1st of January next to the 1st of January, 1885. How could the right hon. Member for Ripon make out that that was an injury to the tenant? It might be bad for the landlord, who might have to wait another year for his money; but he did not see how it could be a bad thing for the tenant. He would not anticipate the discussion
  314
  upon subsequent Amendments, in favour of which he had a very strong opinion; and he hoped the Committee would not be led away from the consideration of the proposal before them by anticipating those which would come on afterwards. This particular Amendment was simply a proposal to give a respite of another 12 months to those tenants who, perhaps, through the pressure of exceptionally disadvantageous seasons—he would not say anything about other causes—might be temporarily short of money.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he only wanted to say one word in order to make his meaning clear. He understood the matter thus. Under the present law, the landlord had power to distrain for six years' arrears; under the new law, he would only have power to distrain for one year. But if this Amendment were passed, that power to distrain for six years instead of one would remain in force for a year and four months, instead of for four months only. That was his point. If he were wrong in his view, he would withdraw all he had said. The question was, was it a desirable thing for the tenant that the landlord should retain the power of distraining for six years' arrears for a short time, or for a long time? Hon. Members opposite said it should be retained for the longer period; he, on the contrary, thought it was better that the power should be cut short. His desire was to abbreviate the time at the disposal of the landlord for recovering arrears which reached back for so long a period.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought it was quite clear that if they postponed the operation of the clause for 12 months, the landlord would retain for that period the power of distraining for six years' arrears. He had been much struck with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Ripon, who, as it seemed to him, was confirmed by the remarks previously made by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). There was considerable danger in extending the time during which the landlords would have to consider whether they would take advantage of the opportunity to recover the six years' arrears. The right hon. Member for Ripon had pointed out that trustees and other public bodies might

  315
  feel themselves bound to distrain, and where their tenants were now two or three years in arrear, these tenants would probably be another year in arrear in another 12 months' time. Not only was this the case with trustees, but there were many other persons who had an interest in property, but who had no very great interest in the condition of the tenants. There were mortgagees and others who had an interest in an estate, and who, if they had a long interval during which to decide whether they should distrain or not, might naturally be driven to the conclusion that they ought to distrain for their arrears; and it might be the case that other and ordinary landlords might come to the same conclusion, for they might feel, on reflection, that they could not afford to lose the right of distraining. What did all this point to? Why, to this—that if the Bill were passed in its present shape, its passing might possibly be signalized by the issue of an enormous number of distress warrants to secure terms in regard to past years' arrears, and that, he thought, would be a most unfortunate thing. He had no great expectations from this Bill; he would have liked to see it much stronger than it was; but it would be most unfortunate if its passing should be signalized by the putting into force, even for three or four months, of the Law of Distress. To accept the Amendment would add enormously to the evils to which he had referred; and he thought it would be far better, in the interests of all classes, and for the maintenance of good feeling between landlords and tenants hereafter, that the operation of this clause should commence, not with the commencement of the Act, but the very moment the Bill received the Royal Assent. There would then be no interval at all for consideration—an interval that must otherwise be employed in a most disastrous manner.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he thought there would be something in the argument of the right hon. Member for Ripon if the Bill was to come into operation when it received the Royal Assent; but as that was not the case, it was better to postpone the new Law of Distress for 16 months, so that the whole matter might be well considered, rather than to give only four months for decision.
  MR. DUCKHAMcould not allow the Amendment to pass without making one observation. It was well known that great distress was prevalent throughout the Kingdom over a great majority of the tenantry. They had sustained severe losses, and, no doubt, there were many tenants who were in arrear. If it should please the Almighty Ruler to bless them with a good harvest this year, and another next, they might possibly have a chance of recovering themselves; and it would be an advantage to them if the clause was not put into operation for another 12 months, as they would then have the benefit of two harvests instead of only one. It was quite true that it would extend the time longer than, under other circumstances, it ought; but it must be remembered that the landlord could use the provisions of the Bill in anticipation. The Amendment was not likely to extend the tenant's credit, but it would give him an opportunity of reducing his liabilities; and holding that view he should support the Amendment.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, the hon. and learned Member who had recently spoken (Mr. Staveley Hill) argued that it would be better for the tenant to be liable for six years' rent instead of one, for a period of 16 months rather than for a period of four months. They had often heard it said that the Law of Distress existed for the benefit of the tenant; but if this Amendment were carried the tenant would be liable to a distress on his farm very soon after he had gathered his next harvest, and next year, after harvest, he would be liable to a second distress. The sooner the power of the landlord was terminated the better. He would have been glad to have had this clause come into operation on the passing of the measure; and he should support a subsequent Amendment, which would provide that it should come into force at Michaelmas. He was afraid that his hon. Friend who had last spoken had not seen the object of the Amendment.
  MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, it had been argued as if the law under which a landlord might distrain for six years' rent was a law of constant application; but he was bound to say that that was not the case. Not in one case in 6,000 was a distress put in for such a long period as six years. They should deal

  317
  with this matter not in the way of absurd theory, but as practical men; and what were the facts? There were a great number of instances where rent was due for two, and, perhaps, for three years. Landlords had extended to their tenants great consideration, and trustees had done so too, because they were able, if necessary, to put the existing law into force; but if this clause passed in its present form, every trustee in defence of his trust must speedily put the law into execution, and thus a mischief of great extent would be created which they all desired to avoid. This Amendment was clearly conceived in the interests of that unfortunate class of tenants who were in great difficulties through a succession of disastrous seasons. It would be much the best course to have the Bill, so far as this point was concerned, to come into operation, as was suggested, a year later. If they were afraid that the accruing rent between this and that time might add to the tenant's difficulties, it would be easy to insert a provision that the accruing rent, from the time of the passing of the Bill, should be subject to the Bill, and that the rent recoverable as rent in arrear should be rent that was in arrear at the date of the passing of the Bill. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had suggested another plan—quite a new way to pay old debts. How would that hon. Member like his business transactions to be cut short by a severe Act of Parliament, which should come into operation the moment it was passed, and prevent him from having the chance of recovering any of his bad debts, if he should be so unfortunate as to have any? But possibly there was an amount of prosperity in the hon. Gentleman's trade which did not extend to agriculture. He hoped the Amendment would be passed in the interests of the tenants.
  MR. D. DAVIESsaid, he would urge the Government to accept the Amendment, not on account of the landlords at all, but on account of those tenants who owed 18 months' or two years' rent. If the Bill was passed in its present form, giving such a short time to put the existing Law of Distress into operation, it would be like raising a flood ate, and letting the flood in on the tenant before he had made arrangements to pay. If the Government would
  318
  give them a year, there were thousands, and perhaps ten of thousands, who would probably be able to carry on; but otherwise everybody would come down upon them all at once, and their livelihood would be taken away from them. Indeed, he thought it would be much better for the tenant that the interval should be two years instead of one; and he spoke simply in the interests of the tenant farmer. He agreed that if the tenant owed his landlord six years' rent the sooner he was put out of his trouble the better, because he never would pay; but he spoke of those—and he knew scores of them in his own neighbourhood—who had carried on under great difficulties. He would not take up the time of the Committee any further; but he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment in the interests of the tenant farmers.
  MR. DODSONsaid, in strict principle this clause ought to be brought into operation immediately on the passing of the Act; but the Government had not provided for that, because they thought it would be somewhat hard on the parties concerned to bring it into instant operation. They had postponed the operation of the clause until the 1st of January, 1884; and he could not see what advantage there would be in postponing it any longer. In the case of tenants in arrears of rent, what would be the effect of deferring the operation of the clause? It would give an opportunity to add another year's rent to the arrears which had already accumulated. He believed that any further postponement would work injuriously towards the tenant, without being of any benefit to the landlord.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he thought there was no disposition on the part of Members on that side of the House to extend distress to six years' rent; but they did think, in the interest of the tenant, that some further extension of time should be given for the collection of the existing arrears. He ventured to offer a suggestion to the Government which he hoped would be considered favourably—namely, that the clause should be left as it stood in the interest of the tenant with regard to the power of distraint, and that at the end of the clause they should add—
  "Except in the case of arrears of rent existing at the time of the passing of this Act, which

  319
  shall be recoverable by distress up to the 1st of January, 1885."
  MR. CROPPERsaid, he thought the Government would do well to accept the proposal just made by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). Although in general he agreed with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), yet, under the existing law, they could not help seeing that an immense number of executions would be put in at once. There were a vast number of Trustees of Corporate Bodies in the State—the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, for instance, and others, who would have no alternative but to put in executions as soon as this Act became law; and, therefore, he agreed that it would be advisable that some such addition as was proposed by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire should be made to the clause.
  MR. STORER, said, he preferred the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Devon (Mr. Carpenter Garnier), in the interests of the tenants, to that of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), because it was well known that there were arrears of rent, and that these arrears of rent were being paid up by instalments, and because he believed that the extension of time would enable the tenants to go on paying these instalments, and, perhaps, retain possession of their holdings. He was certainly of opinion that an extension of time for one year would be a good thing.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, there was this much in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire—that it met a practical difficulty. He suggested that the hon. Member for South Devon (Mr. Carpenter Garnier) should withdraw his Amendment, with a view to qualifying it in the sense indicated by the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  MR. ACLANDsaid, he ventured to add his approval of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire. His reason was that many tradesmen to whom farmers were indebted were not aware to what extent the landlord could come down on the tenant; and the result of the clause, as it stood, would be to bring down upon the tenants not only trustees and persons having the care of property, but also the tradesmen who had accounts against them.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he believed the Amendment practically carried out the opinions and the intentions of Parties on both sides of the House—namely, that due security should be given for existing arrears. He thought it would be advisable that the tenants should have some further time to make arrangements, otherwise it would be absolutely necessary for the owners to press for the outstanding arrears between the passing of the Act and the 1st of January next. But he considered it most necessary that, with regard to the sale of this year's crops, the tenants should not be compelled to force them into the market and sell them at a considerable loss. It was the practice of factors and others to take advantage of the necessities of the tenant in paying his rent, and the consequence of that was that directly the crops were got in the prices went down; and, therefore, he said, with regard to stock, corn, or other produce of the farm, that it was most desirable to enable the tenants to realize them on proper terms. The effect of the Amendment would be to give further time for the settlement of arrears, which was a matter of great convenience to the tenant. The question was, whether it was fair and reasonable, under the circumstances, to give some extension of credit to the tenant in arrear, so that he might not be forced to make bad bargains to meet the demands of the landlords, and in order that the landlords, particularly when in a fiduciary position as trustees or corporate bodies, should not be compelled at once to resort to extreme measures of law?
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, which entirely removed his objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Devon. He did not think it mattered whether the clause came into operation on the passing of the Act, or on the 1st of January, 1884, as long as the suggestion of his hon. Friend was adopted.
  MR. CARPENTER GARNIERsaid if the Government would accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mid. Lincolnshire, he would ask leave t withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Devon for the reason he

  321
  had already stated. He thought the principle contained in the words suggested by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire was a good one, in so far as it would continue for a year the term of credit for arrears due and recoverable at the time of the passing of the Act. He had some hesitation in accepting the words themselves, which might go further than was intended; and he would suggest to his hon. Friend that they should not be pressed then, but that they should be again brought up on Report.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, undoubtedly, he should not quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman about words, as he understood him to accept, on behalf of the Government, the principle of his proposal.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, the Amendment he was about to move would carry into effect the recommendation of the Committee which sat last year to consider the question of distress. The recommendation of that Committee was that the right of distraint should be restricted to one year's rent, and that it should only be exercised after six months' rent had become due. The majority of the Committee wore in favour of that recommendation, and he believed it was also supported by many Members of that House. He thought his Amendment expressed the object of the clause more plainly and intelligibly than the words in the Bill. The clause, of course, gave 12 months for distraint; but he pointed out that, after that point had been settled by the Committee, they came to the conclusion that if distraint were made after the last half-yearly portion of rent became due, it would not be in the interest of the tenant, landlord, or general creditor that the credit should continue for a longer period than six months. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 14, leave out all words after "for" to the end of the Clause, and insert—"More than one year's rent; and proceedings for such distraint must be commenced within six months of the day on which such rent on the last payment to be made in respect thereof became due."—(Sir Joseph Pease.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he did not think the hon. Gentleman opposite had quite realized that on most estates the rent was not collected until three months after it became due. The effect of the Amendment would be to make distress compulsory, perhaps within two or three months of the rent becoming due. This was clearly not in the interest of the tenants, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would not accede to it, but that he would give his very careful consideration to the Amendment further down on the Paper, which proposed to extend the period within which a landlord might distrain from one year to two.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, it was his custom only to receive his rents once a-year; but the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) would compel him to collect them half-yearly, because he could only put in distress for the half-year that became due. It would be an unusual thing in his neighbourhood to collect the rents half-yearly, and he knew many large estates in Kent where the same custom prevailed. The effect of the Amendment proposed would, in this respect, be very hard upon the tenants.
  MR. DODSONsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Durham was intended to carry out, literally, the recommendation of the Select Committee, the effect of which, if it were carried out, would be that the landlord could never secure more than half-a-year's arrears. He would point out to the Committee the effect of the clause as it stood. Suppose that he had a half-year's rent due to him at Lady Day, and another half-year's rent due at Michaelmas, 1883; he could allow those two half-years' rents, being one year's rent together, to remain in arrear up to one day short of Lady Day, 1884, and then he could destrain for one year's rent, because every part of it had become due within one year. If they were to say that the rent should be collected within six months, the effect would be, as regarded that half-year due at Lady Day, that he would not be able to collect it after Michaelmas, 1883; therefore, practically, he would not be able to collect more than half-a-year's rent. But the effect of the clause, as it stood, would be to carry out the recommendation, and what was, no doubt, the intention, of the

  323
  Select Committee—namely, that the owners should be allowed to distrain for one year's rent, and no more. As the clause was drawn, he would be compelled to distrain within one year from the time at which the first half-year's rent became due.
  MR. BIDDELLsaid, as a Member of the Committee referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, he begged to say that he openly dissented from the recommendation with regard to distress at six months. He did not think there was any necessity for this stipulation at all, because, when they limited the amount of rent to be distrained for, practically they limited the time within which they could put in the distress. He agreed that the Amendment would operate harshly in the case of landlords whose rent, as the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) said, was collected yearly.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he would point oat that this clause was identical with the 51st section of the Irish Act relating to distress; and, so far as he could ascertain, no difficulty had arisen in that country in the working of that section. What he desired was to get a distinct statement from the Government as to the construction they put upon this clause; and he was glad to find that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster held clearly that a landlord would have practically six months after the last half-year's rent became due within which to distrain; in other words, that if half-a-year's rent became due on the 29th September, 1882, and another half-year's rent in the following March, the landlord could distrain for those two half-years' rent at any time up to the 28th September, 1883. He was aware that a different view had been taken upon this point, which was, doubtless, the reason of the Amendment now under consideration. It was clear now that, though the rent was, in fact, accruing due from day to day, up to September, 1882, in the case suggested, it was not till the whole of that half-year's rent was due—namely, on the 29th September, 1882—that the time began to run.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he rose to acknowledge that the Government were greatly indebted to the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) for the wording of this clause,
  324
  which was wholly taken from the Bill introduced by him. The Government had carefully considered the way in which the clause should be drawn, to see whether they could improve upon the hon. Gentleman's wording; but they had come to the conclusion that improvement was impossible, and they had accordingly adopted the clause as it stood. The construction placed on the clause by the Government was to this effect. If the landlord had a half-year's rent due on Lady Day, 1883, and a half-year's rent due at Michaelmas, he might allow these two half-years' rent to wait until one day short of Lady Day, 1884, and then distrain for two half-years' rent. That was distraining for one year's rent, the first half of which became due at Lady Day, 1883.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, it appeared there was very little difference between the clause and the Amendment proposed.
  MR. DODSONsaid, it appeared, then, that he and the hon. Member were agreed in principle; nevertheless, he preferred the words in the Bill, as being much clearer than those of the Amendment.
  MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, it appeared to him that the Committee were all agreed to what it was desirable should be done. In his district it was usual to have an agreement which reserved the rent to be paid at each quarter-day; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the explanation he had given held good with regard to agreements which reserved the rent in the manner he had described?
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, if the Committee had arrived at the conclusion that the words of the clause were as plain as those which he wished to substitute for them, he was quite ready to acquiesce in that opinion. But he had proposed the Amendment because he thought the wording of the clause was indistinct, and he had sought to improve it.
  SIR MATHEW WHITE - RIDLEYsaid, that owing to the manner in which rents were payable in his district, landlords would find themselves in very considerable difficulty. If the clause passed in its present form, it would be necessary to put in execution almost before the rent became by custom payable.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, in cases where rent was payable every three months, it would not ordinarily be collected for the first three months unless the words "due and ordinarily payable" were in the agreement.
  MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he would repeat the question with reference to agreements which reserved the rent to be paid at quarter-day. Would it be necessary to alter those agreements to provide for the payment of the rent half-yearly?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, in cases where the rent was payable in December, March, June, and September, the landlord could distrain down to the following December. He did not quite understand the point which the hon. Gentleman wished him to reply upon.
  MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) had stated that if a half-year's rent were due at Lady Day, 1883, and a second half-year's rent at Michaelmas, 1883, the landlord could distrain until within one day short of Lady Day, 1884. The point on which he desired information was this. If the rent were payable quarterly, must the landlord distrain at Christmas and March?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERCHELL)signified dissent.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, there was no doubt that if the Government intended that there should be the right of distress for one year from the date the rent became due, they had, practically, curtailed the time to some six or eight months. The hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) had pointed out that the rents in that district were duo on the old Lady Day. He would also be aware that, practically, on most estates they were not collected for some considerable time afterwards. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman, with the aid of his legal advisers, would take into consideration a form of words that would obviate the difficulty Which might arise in this case.
  MR. WHITBREADwished to point out that if a tenant were in arrear for a whole year's rent, under ordinary custom that rent would be received three months after the expiration of the year; therefore, if the landlord could distrain for a year's rent under this clause, he could, practically, only distrain for three quarters
  326
  of a year's rent. He hoped his right hon. Friend would make this matter clear on Report.
  MR. FLOYERsaid, it was quite clear that where rents were payable quarterly and collected half-yearly, the landlord would only be able to get three quarters of a year's rent under the clause.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he thought the point that it was the custom, on many estates, to give a certain amount of grace in the collection of rents might be met by a proviso at the end of the clause, to the effect that where it appeared to be the ordinary practice of the estate by agreement between landlord and tenant that the rent should be payable some time after it became legally duo, there should be a corresponding extension of time. He would not bind himself to the actual words, but would take the matter into consideration.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BLENNERHASSETTsaid, he desired, by the Amendment he was about to move, to give effect to a Resolution arrived at by the House not more than two years ago, and which received the support of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench; amongst them, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who, on that occasion, said he was prepared to support the Resolution, and would have been also ready to support a Bill dealing with the Law of Distress. It was with feelings of disappointment that he saw that the Government had dealt with the question of distress by way of legal compromise, instead of the abolition of a mischievous law. He believed that the alterations which the Bill made in the Law of Distress removed some of those scandals with which they were occasionally astonished; but, at the same time, it utterly failed to touch the points which he and his hon. Friends objected to. They objected to the Law of Distress, because it was a highly exceptional privilege altogether opposed to the general principles of our law, and because it was an old law derived from a state of society that had entirely passed away. The Law of Distress sprang into existence at a time when the agricultural interests in the country stood upon very different conditions. The Law of Distress in its ancient form bore no resemblance to its present shape. He did

  327
  not think it desirable to occupy the time of the Committee by going into the history of that law, although it would be an exceedingly interesting subject; but he would remind the Committee that the Law of Distress was enforced by the most arbitrary, unjust, and severe proceedings. He ventured to say that it stood alone in the legal system of the country, in so far as it allowed a man to take the law into his own hands, simply on account of a certain right arising out of the Law of Property. This question had been before a Select Committee, which came to the conclusion that the Law of Distress, by the way in which it was enforced, inflicted great hardship on tenants. In former years, when the subject was under discussion in that House, a great deal was heard about hypothecations, and matters of that kind, which he did not now propose to go into. He thought he was justified in assuming that the law was entirely exceptional in our legal system so far as it gave a preferential right to the landlord over all other creditors. One of the main reasons why they objected to the Law of Distraint, and asked for its abolition, was that it impaired the credit of the farmer, because it gave a preferential security to one particular class of creditors, while it diminished the security of all the others. But it was always said, in reply to that argument, that although the Law of Distress might operate unfavourably to the tenant with regard to bankers and merchants, on the other hand, it improved the credit of the farmer with the landlord, and enabled the landlord to stand by him year after year, and show him an amount of kindness and consideration, and that, by abolishing the Law of Distress, they would destroy the advantage which the tenant enjoyed through the forbearance of his landlord. Again, it was urged against the abolition of the Law of Distress that the existing law enabled persons who would not otherwise be accepted as farmers to get farms; and it was said that the law should be retained for the sake of an industrious class of men with small capital. It seemed to him that it would be a most unfortunate thing to lay down the principle that the Law of Distress should continue for a reason of that kind; and it was upon that ground that they believed the law
  328
  to be injurious to the community at large. He put forward this Amendment as a protest against the action of the Government in not logically and consistently acting upon a principle which they themselves had accepted. It was a very great pity that the Government had not dealt with this question once for all, because he believed that the farmers throughout the country would not be satisfied while this law, founded upon an obsolete state of things, was allowed to remain on the Statute Book. For these reasons he asked the Government, even at the eleventh hour, to accept the Amendment which he now begged to move.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 14, leave out all after "rent."—(Mr. Blennerhassett.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. DODSONsaid, he hoped the Committee would not think it necessary to enter into a long debate on this Amendment. He was not himself over favourable to the Law of Distress in its present form; but he could not disguise from himself the fact that there existed a great diversity of opinion as to its merits on the part of those who were concerned in it. The Government had recently before them the Report of two Bodies who sat to inquire into the subject—namely, the Royal Commission on Agriculture, and another Committee, presided over by his right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), both of which Bodies concurred in recommending, not the abolition, but the modification, of the Law of Distress—that was to say, the limitation of the power of distress to a specified period. Accordingly, the Government had limited the power of distress to one year. He was not going to enter on all the arguments bearing upon this question; but he would shortly state two of them. The argument which they heard generally in favour of the abolition of the Law of Distress was that it enabled a landlord to accept a tenant with little capital, because he could trust to the power of distress for the payment of his rent. The other argument was that it gave an unjust preference to the landlord over the creditor. Well, both the evils to which those arguments applied were

  329
  reduced to a minimum by limiting the distress to one year. In the first place, when the landlord knew that he could only distrain for one year's rent, he would not be so ready to accept tenants with small capital; secondly, other persons would be able to measure the credit which they gave to the tenant, because they would know that the landlord's preferential claim through the power of distress was limited to one year's rent. Without going into the subject any further, he contended that the Reports of the two Commissions constituted a complete justification for the Government in proposing this clause, which he trusted the Committee would allow to be retained in its present form.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, this was one of the most important questions dealt with in the Bill, and he thought it should be fairly placed before the Committee. He was willing to admit that the amendment of the law introduced by the Government would, to a certain extent, be favourable to the farmer's creditors; but he said that it did not constitute any advantage to the tenant himself; indeed, it seemed to place him in a worse position than he occupied before. The complaint of the tenant farmers was that the Law of Distress induced landlords to take tenants with capital inadequate for the farms which they wished to occupy, the result being that that those tenants offered a larger rent in order to induce the landlords to accept them. The landlord having done that, the law stepped in and gave him a guarantee before all the other creditors of the tenant for the payment of that excessive rent. He was entirely in favour of the poor man getting a farm in proportion to the capital which he possessed; but there was no kindness in giving a man a farm larger than his capital justified, because the practice could have no other effect than to get the man into difficulties. It was in this way that capital was driven away from the land. He said it would have been far more creditable to the Government not to have touched the question of distraint at all, than to have brought in this compromise, which was really detrimental to the tenant farmers, while, at the same time, it disappointed the expectations which had been raised amongst that class. He could not understand the change that had come over
  330
  the Government since the time when they supported the Resolution of the hon. Member who had just moved the abolition of the Law of Distress.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in deprecating any prolongation of the discussion on the Law of Distress, because he foresaw the uselessness of argument. Anyone having sat in that House for a length of time must know that in matters of this kind the House was entirely dominated by landlords. Now, when the Government supported the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Kerry (Mr. Blennerhassett), he presumed that that support rested upon some intelligible basis, and that when the Prime Minister assured the farmers of England that the Law of Distress was a law of severity which could not be justified, the right hon. Gentleman had some ground for expressing that opinion. Had anything happened since that time to alter the character of the law in question? The subject had been discussed over and over again; and, as far as he was aware, it stood in precisely the same condition as when the Government supported the Motion of his hon. Friend, and the Prime Minister expressed the opinion to which he bad just alluded. Had the Government changed its opinion, because a Royal Commission and a Select Committee, composed in the main of landowners, expressed themselves in favour of maintaining the Law of Distress, restricting it to one year? He was forced to the conclusion that the Government had taken their stand upon the opinion expressed by two Bodies obviously favourable to the landlords. He would ask the Committee whether, if this law were not in existence, any Government, Conservative or Liberal, would have dared to propose its introduction—would they have dared to propose a measure conferring a class privilege of the worst kind? They would have found such a proposal denounced by all classes in the country. They had heard a great deal upon the doctrine of freedom of contract, both out-of-doors as well as in the House; but landlords and owners of real property were not prepared to depend upon freedom of contract for the payment or recovery of rent; they wanted the protection of an exceptional law, and abandoned the principle of freedom

  331
  of contract. He considered that the Committee by its action was preparing for the circumstances which would attend the advent of Henry George and his followers. He (Mr J. Howard) was opposed to the advent of Henry George. He was opposed to the principles Henry George advocated; and it was on that ground, and because he wished to stave off the occasion for revolution, that he supported this Amendment.
  MR. GUY DAWNAYsaid, he sincerely hoped that this Amendment would be pressed to a Division, and that the country would have a chance of seeing, in the black and white of the Division List, the names of each of those who supported the Amendment, and who, on a point which the farmers themselves were well qualified to judge, were ready to write themselves down as the worst enemies of that class. With the plausible absurdity of the sitting tenant fallacy, it might be possible to impose on the ignorance and discontent of a section of the agricultural community; but on this point, as regarded the abolition of the Law of Distress, the miscalled Farmers' Alliance were obliged at last to cast off the sheep's clothing of pseudo-friendship for the farmer, and to show themselves in their true colours. The matter had been thoroughly sifted, both by a Select Committee appointed for that purpose, and by the Duke of Richmond's Committee on Agriculture; and there was absolutely no evidence in favour of the view of those who would abolish the Law of Distress; while to-day the Committee had heard nothing new upon the question. As the Representative of a constituency which, he believed, contained a larger number of tenant farmers than any other constituency in the country, he could honestly say that to his views on this subject did he attribute his presence on the Conservative Benches. He did not intend to repeat the well-known arguments on the subject. They all knew the manner in which the abolition of the law would operate against the small tenant farmer; and they all knew that it was not a landlord's question, because the landlord had various means of protecting himself. As regarded the belief that the abolition of the law would work in favour of the general creditor, he would only remind the Committee that last year the hon.
  332
  Gentleman the Member for Cardigan (Mr. D. Davies) had said that he was a creditor of agriculturists each year to the extent of thousands of pounds, and that his losses had never been more than £10 per year. It was from the big farmers, the money-lenders, and the agricultural implement makers that this agitation sprung. The large farmer saw in this proposal a prospect of being able to add smaller farms to his own at decreased rent, owing to diminished competition. The money-lender knew perfectly well that, if the Law of Distress were abolished, the farmer would be driven to borrow money from him at a high rate of interest, instead of, as now, receiving a credit of many months from his landlord; and the agricultural implement maker knew full well that big farmers meant large capital, and the ability to invest freely in expensive agricultural implements. He (Mr. Guy Dawnay) was at a loss to understand how anyone who pretended to have an interest in the welfare of the smaller tenant farmers could support an Amendment for the abolition of the Law of Distress. The acknowledged injustice of the present system, under which a landlord was able to exercise his power of distraint for the long period of six years, and over certain properties not the property of the tenant, was effectually removed by the present measure; but he trusted that, with regard to the present sweeping and pernicious Amendment, the country would note the quarter from which it emanated, and that the Committee would show its appreciation, both of object and subject, by rejecting it by an overwhelming majority.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he did not propose to prolong the discussion, but merely wished to explain the suggestion which had been put forward by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard), that the Government in this matter had taken their view solely from the landlords. On the second reading of the Bill, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) stated that in his opinion a large majority of tenant farmers at the present time were opposed altogether to the total abolition of the Law of Distress. Everything he had heard since then confirmed that view. There was no doubt that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire represented the view of a very small section of tenant farmers.

  333
  Although there might be many theoretical views in favour of total abolition, yet he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) believed that if they attempted to carry out that view it would be attended with very disastrous results. He need hardly remind the House of what had already been stated in the course of the debate—namely, that a large number of tenant farmers were in arrears with their rent, owing to agricultural depression. Now, if it were known that Parliament were contemplating the total abolition of the Law of Distress, he believed that great pressure would be brought to bear, and that distress would be levied immediately. Holding the view that tenant farmers as a class were not favourable to the views on this matter of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire, he hoped the Committee would not assent to the Amendment.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he hoped the Committee would bear with him for a few moments while he offered some observations upon the remarks which had just been made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Guy Dawnay) and by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). He admitted that there was a difference of opinion among tenant farmers upon this subject, and he had never disguised that fact either from himself or from the Committee. He had, however, attended as many meetings of farmers up and down the country as any hon. Member, and he had had as many opportunities of judging of the opinions held by tenant farmers. He had addressed scores of meetings at which the question of the Law of Distress had been raised, and he could only remember one occasion on which a tenant farmer had stood forward to advocate the continuance of the Law of Distress. He had, however, known scores of farmers advocate the total abolition of the Law of Distress. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire had referred to what he called the want of evidence in favour of the proposed abolition. Now, he (Mr. J. Howard) had been a Member of the Select Committee which sat on this question, and one intelligent farmer after another—including the Gentleman who contested the North Riding of Yorkshire, at the last election, with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Guy Dawnay)—conclusively
  334
  proved to his (Mr. J. Howard's) mind, that the Law of Distress led to rent being raised to an artificial standard, that it impaired the credit of the farmer with the banker and with the trader, and that it had the effect of repelling capital from the land. Now, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire had alluded to the trade in which he (Mr. J. Howard) was engaged. If the hon. Gentleman, or any other hon. Gentleman, imagined that he (Mr. J. Howard) was ashamed of his calling, they were very much mistaken. He was proud of being an agricultural implement maker, proud of the advantages which his class had conferred on the agriculture of this country, and upon the agriculture of the world. He was still more proud of the various ways in which his class had lightened the toil of humanity; and, therefore, do not let hon. Members suppose that these allusions to his business, although displaying want of taste, were annoying to him. As a matter of fact, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire showed by his speech how little he knew of the question on which he was talking. If the hon. Member knew anything at all about the trade, he would know that the great agricultural implement makers had really no relations with the farmers; their relations were with the middle men. To show how little the great agricultural implement manufacturers were concerned in the abolition of the Law of Distress, when the charge was first made that this agitation against the Law of Distress was got up by agricultural implement makers in their own interest, he ascertained what the losses of his own firm were in the shape of bad debts. He found that they did not amount altogether to ½ per cent, and he had compared notes with other implement manufacturers, and he found that their experience corresponded with his own; the extent to which their interests would be affected by the proposed abolition was infinitesimal. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dawnay) had said that he had advanced nothing new upon this subject. He (Mr. J. Howard) might retort that charge, and say that if the hon. Gentleman would tell them what natural right the landowners, the most opulent class of the community, had to these exceptional privileges, he would

  335
  be advancing something new. He (Mr. J. Howard) had often propounded this question, but had never had an answer.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 207, Noes 58: Majority 149.—(Div. List, No. 224.)
  LORD BURGHLEYproposed, in line 15, to leave out "one year," and insert "two years." He said that the Law of Distress was instituted in the interest of agriculturists generally, and if they cut it down to the short period of 12 months, they did not inflict harm particularly upon the tenant and the landlord in cases where they were both solvent, but they did create a burden upon the interests of agriculture generally. It was quite impossible for hon. Members to shut their eyes to the fact that agriculture did not depend upon a 12 months' system. If a tenant had only to have 12 months' credit wherewith to work his farm, he would stand in a very poor position as compared with tenants of former days, who had very long credit at their disposal. Hon. Members knew full well the low condition to which agriculture had arrived in consequence of the late bad seasons; and it was impossible for them not to know that, owing to the Law of Distress system for six years, many insolvent tenants had been able to carry on their farms through the bad times, and that now they were gradually righting themselves. There was a class of tenant attention to whom had not been as yet called, and that was the class who now occupied their farms, having nothing at their disposal at all, except what they were given by the kindness of their landlords, to keep the farms going as best they could. How would such a class of tenants exist if a 12 months' system of distress only prevailed? He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 15, leave out "one year," and insert "two years."—(Lord Burghley.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'one year' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the Committee must recollect that, in the course of the earlier part of the debate, many hon. Members expressed
  336
  themselves on the subject, and stated that it was only on very rare occasions that distress had been levied for more than two years. If this Amendment were adopted, the Committee practically would be doing nothing; it would be practically no change whatever. The proposal of the Government was that distress should be reduced to 12 months, and in favour of that view they had the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons which sat last year. That Committee was one of the most important which ever sat on agricultural questions. It was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), and it reported unanimously in favour of reducing the Law of Distress to one year. The noble Lord (Lord Burghley) compared the condition of the farmers of the present day with that of the farmers of former days. It would be most undesirable that farmers should take two years' credit for the purpose of working their farms. If that were the only ground on which the Law of Distress could be maintained, it would appear to him to be a weak argument in its favour. It was one of the strongest arguments against the proposal. If farmers were to obtain credit indirectly in this way—if they were to be enabled to get into arrear for two years for the purpose of enabling them to work their farms, it certainly appeared to him to be an argument against the proposal of the noble Lord, rather than an argument in its favour. All he could say was, that he hoped hon. Members would adhere to the recommendation of the Committee of last year, and stand by the proposal in the Bill.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he should support the Amendment; but, after the question had been so extensively discussed, he did not propose to detain the Committee any length of time with regard to it. What they ought to endeavour to arrive at was this—to give the landlord an opportunity of extending to the tenant the utmost latitude that was possible in bad times compatible with the best interest of the tenant himself. He meant by that, that it was not to the interest of the tenant to allow him to run so far into arrear as to become hopelessly involved and in such a condition as to be unable to extricate himself again from his difficulties. They should

  337
  give a tenant as much latitude as possible short of forcing him into a position of this kind. They should give him sufficient latitude to enable him when good times recurred to clear off his liabilities. Two years, it seemed to him, should be sufficient time to enable the tenant to recover his position, although he did not think it would be wise to go beyond two years. It appeared to him that this was the only logical ground upon which they could defend the Law of Distress. The Bill proposed to limit the period to one year; but he did not think that was a sufficiently long period, as it would very often oblige landlords in their own interest to step in and claim arrears, greatly to the disadvantage of the farmer, and when it would be more convenient to all parties concerned to be able to allow the tenant another year, so as to avail himself of a recurrence of good times to extricate himself from his difficulties. Reference had been made to the Select Committee and the Royal Commission. He (Mr. Chaplin) did not know how far the labours of the Select Committee might have extended; but of this he was sure that, undoubtedly, an enormous amount of evidence was taken on this question by the Royal Commission; and speaking from memory, because he had not the evidence before him, he believed the farmers were, with very few exceptions—he might say practically unanimous—in favour of retaining the Law of Distress in a modified farm. The farmers took this view in their own interests. The period that seemed to commend itself generally to their views was two years, and not a shorter time than that.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he desired to state that in the Bill which he had introduced last year upon this subject, he had fixed the limit at two years. But since then he had made further injury into the subject, and he thought, upon the whole, that tenant farmers, and, in many cases, landlords, preferred one year to the limit of two years. The Committee of 1882 had also reported in favour of one year, and the evidence before them was strongly in favour of the shorter time. In making the change to one year in the Bill which he introduced this year, he was also influenced by the hope that the opposition to the Law of Distress would be, if not put an end to, at all events greatly diminished,
  338
  if the right to destrain was so limited. He would only add that this clause was the same in terms as the 51st section of the Irish Distress Act, 23 & 24 Vict. c. 154; and, therefore, as uniformity in the legislation of the two countries was desirable, so far as was practicable, the adoption of the clause in this Bill would be a step in that direction.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, that having voted against the proposal for enabling the landlord to distrain for one year's arrears, he felt he could not consistently vote for an Amendment enabling the landlord to distrain for two years' arrears. If the Law of Distress was not to be abolished, he would much rather that it should remain as it was than that it should be modified in the manner proposed by the noble Lord (Lord Burghley). He believed the Amendment would be of no benefit to the tenant farmers; and, seeing that the Government were committed to the retention of the proposal in the clause, he should abstain from voting on this occasion, and if he had any influence with hon. Members around him he should certainly advise them to follow his example.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, he did not wish to discuss the question at any length; but he would point out that unless this Amendment were adopted, distress for tithe would remain at two years, and distress under the Bill would be for one year only; also, where the landlord paid the tithe and merged it in the rent, he would be able to distrain for two years for one portion, and for only one year for the other part. That would be unequal and anomalous.
  MR. AKERS - DOUGLASsaid, he could not support the Amendment of his noble Friend (Lord Burghley), believing that one year was the best period. He had the honour of serving on the Committee of last year, the majority of which were in favour of one year as against two. The constituency he had the honour to represent was in favour of the shorter period, and the county in which that constituency was situated was the one in which the agitation against the Law of Distress first began, and where the subject had been most thoroughly considered. There were other reasons beyond those laid down by the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) why they should stick

  339
  to one year, one of which was that I when there was a meeting of creditors or proceedings under bankruptcy, a landlord could only distrain for one year's rent.
  MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he had had the honour to serve on the Select Committee of last year, and they were unanimously of opinion—except those Members who were in favour of the total abolition of the Law of Distress—that the period should be one year. He trusted that no alteration would be made in the proposal of the clause.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he hoped his noble Friend (Lord Burghley) would bring this matter to a Division. The hon. Member for Midhurst had mentioned that he originally proposed two years in his Bill, and that he subsequently came to the opinion that one year was better than two. Well, he would point out that he never knew any subject in which public opinion in agricultural circles had so steadily changed as it had done on the Law of Distress. Some two or three years ago a clause in favour of the entire abolition of the Law of Distress would have been carried by the solid vote of hon. Members opposite representing farming constituencies, and would have been supported by not a few hon. Members sitting on the Opposition side of the House. If Her Majesty's Government would question hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies upon this point, they would find from those hon. Gentlemen that those constituencies had of late entirely changed their views upon this subject. The fallacies that passed muster at one time had been one by one removed; and he thought that now it would be found that there was a general prevalence of opinion in favour of a two years' distress.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that the greatest evil of the Law of Distress was that it would lead to undue competition for farms. But, however, if the Law of Distress was to be continued, it would be more advantageous to the farmer that the period should be two years than that it should be one. The great objection he had to the Law of Distress was in regard to its effect of raising the rent of tenant farmers, and he considered that to restrict it to one year would only give the landlords more reason for being sharp with the tenants than they had at present. It would be of no benefit to
  340
  the farmer to limit it to one year, and for that reason he could not vote upon the question.
  Colonel KINGSCOTEsaid, that having heard the evidence taken before the Royal Commission, he wished to add his testimony to the fact that tenant farmers, were strongly of opinion that the Law of Distress should not be abolished. That fact came out very strongly before the Commission from witnesses who were entirely of the tenant farmer class. As to whether the limit should be one or two years, the Commission had come to the conclusion that the longer period would be by far the best. He was not very strongly of that opinion himself; but still, having gathered evidence upon the subject, he wished to add his testimony to the fact that the tenant farmers of the country did not wish to see the Law of Distress abolished.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he wished to put in a plea on behalf of the tenant farmers—the small tenant farmers, and not the large ones, as the latter could do with the Law of Distress as it at present stood on the Bill. He wished to put in a plea on behalf of men who had struggled into the position of tenant farmers from the position of farm labourers, who hon. Members sitting below the Gangway on the Ministerial side of the House were so anxious to see in the occupation of the land. On behalf of these people he urged upon the Committee that it would be more to their benefit to fix the period at two years than to retain it at one. Supposing a landlord was not able to let a holding to a tenant of this kind without some valuation as to improvements. If there was a valuation upon the holding it would be allowed to stand against the rent, and the tenant having two years allowed him would be able gradually to pay the rent and clear off the valuation. In all probability the tenant would not be able to pay the valuation at once, as he would have to expend his small stock of money in buying cattle and horses and farming tackle. He would be naturally anxious to struggle on, and, being a working man earning his subsistence by his own labour, he would be able to pay off the valuation by putting extra labour into his farm. It was clear that to such a man two years would be better than one to enable him to pay off the whole debt in this way.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he should not have risen to address the Committee but for the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down in favour of the period of two years. He would draw the attention of hon. Members to the singular fact that the name of the hon. Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was on the back of the Bill of the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), which Bill fixed the term at one year.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson). It was true his name was on the back of the Bill of the hon. Member for Midhurst; but it had been put there on the distinct understanding that he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) should propose and vote for a period of two years instead of one year.
  MR. DODSON: Then I congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman on having made a precedent unknown in the annals of Parliament.
  Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT: I must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again. I think the right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the fact that the period in the Bill was two years. The hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland) came to me and said—"You won't take your name from the back of the Bill if the period is altered to a year?" And I replied—"No; I will not do so if I am allowed to vote for a period of two years."
  MR. DODSON: So the hon. and gallant Baronet said—"No; I will keep my name on provided I am allowed to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds." The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) said that the greatest evil of the Law of Distress was that it led to undue competition for farms; and yet he argued that the period should be two years rather than one. I must point out that so far as there is a tendency to undue competition, the longer the period the greater will be that competition. I have only one other point to call attention to. We have upon this question of two years and one year, the opinion of the Royal Commission on the one side, and the recommendation of the Committee of the House on the other. Well, the Committee was appointed specially to inquire into this particular subject; whereas the Royal Commission only went into it
  342
  amongst a host of other matters. Therefore, if we are to form an opinion between the two, I must say that the conclusion of the Committee appears to me to be the weightier.
  MR. KNIGHTsaid, he had attended a meeting on the subject of this Bill of the Chamber of Agriculture at Worcester. When they had come to this provision, he had intimated his intention of voting for two years, and when he did so there was a general cheer all along his line.
  Colonel RUGGLES - BRISEsaid, there had been a very strong opinion in the Committee in favour of one year; and, so far as he had been enabled to gather the opinion out-of-doors, that term received the most general support. He trusted, therefore, that the noble Lord (Lord Burghley) would not divide the Committee upon his Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 32: Majority 56.—(Div. List, No. 225.)
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Clause 16 (Limitation of distress in respect of things to be distrained).
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he wished, in line 19, to move, after the word "tenant," to insert—
  "And notice has been given to the landlord that such stock is not the property of the tenant."
  He thought it only reasonable, if the distress was to be limited in this way, that when the stock upon a farm did not belong to the tenant, the landlord's attention should be drawn to the fact. If this were not done, a landlord might be for some time erroneously under the impression that his tenant was a man of considerable means, when all the time that tenant's stock might belong to somebody else.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 19, after "tenant," insert "and notice has been given to the landlord that such stock is not the property of the tenant."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. DODSONsaid, he did not know how this would work. Who was to give the notice?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The tenant.
  MR. DODSONsaid, the tenant would not take the trouble to do it. Why should he?
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) in this matter. The Bill proposed to afford the tenant facilities he did not now possess for obtaining cattle in some parts of the country for agistment; and he thought it only fair, that if this security of the landlord was to be limited, the landlord should be notified when the stock was not the property of the tenant. The right hon. Gentleman asked why the tenant should notify to the landlord? He should do it for this reason, that information might be conveyed to persons who put their cattle on a farmer's land as to the position of that farmer, so that their property might not be seized for the payment of his debts. The tenant had every inducement to give the notice to the landlord which the hon. Member (Mr. Chaplin) suggested. Probably the right hon. Gentleman opposite had not considered that point. The Attorney General seemed to object to this view; but if he had any knowledge on this subject, he would know that a great grievance had been felt in regard to the persons who let their cattle to go to the farms of other people as to their being placed in an unfair position. The Amendment would not cast much trouble upon the tenant; but it would prevent—and this was a point which had not been referred to—the risk of fraudulent transfers of cattle in moments of difficulty to third parties. Where a tenant was in a serious difficulty, if he were inclined to be fraudulent, he would be very likely to make over his cattle to a third party, by means with which the Committee were familiar, and which he need not dwell upon in detail. There should be some protection afforded to those who needed protection in this matter, and the landlord should be notified when that which to all outward appearance was a security was really nothing of the kind.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that this Amendment would in no way meet the case of fraudulent transfers.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that if a tenant purposed making away with his property by fraudulent transfer, the requirement of notice would defeat that
  344
  purpose. In the same way, if cattle or horses upon a farm belonged to some person other than the tenant, it was not asking anything extraordinary of the tenant that he should give notice to the landlord, because, if he did not give notice, the cattle would be liable to distraint. If he himself wore to let cattle or horses go on to another man's farm, he should insist on notice being given to prevent their being swept away to pay another man's debts. The right hon. Gentleman might think this unnecessary, or might disapprove of it; but he could not understand his saying there would be no inducement to give a specified notice, for there would be every inducement. If the tenant wished to devote his land to pasture for other people's cattle, it would be absolutely necessary for him that he should give notice that the cattle were not liable for other people's debts. He hoped the Government would undertake further to consider this point.
  MR. BIDDELLsaid, he did not think this would be of any beneficial or practical use to the landlord, for there was nothing to prevent a tenant who was in difficulties combining with a dealer to take over the cattle in his name, and then give notice to the landlord that it was the dealer's cattle. If notice was to be given to the landlord, it ought to be given to the other creditors also, because everything on the farm was secured to the landlord. He was satisfied that the Amendment would have injurious effects.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he thought the argument of the hon. Member was in favour of the abolition of the Law of Distress altogether; but, as this was a minor point in the Bill, he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDproposed to add, after the word "feeding," in line 29, the following words:—
  "Provided always, that so long as any portion of such live stock shall remain on the said holding the right to distrain such portion shall continue to the full extent of the price originally agreed to be paid for the feeding of the whole of such live stock, or if part of such price has been bonâ fide paid to the tenant under the agreement, then to the full extent of the price then remaining unpaid."
  He said that this Proviso was substantially taken from the Hypothec Amendment

  345
  Act, 30 & 31 Vict. c. 42, s. 5, and the object which he had in proposing it was two-fold. In the first place, it was only reasonable that if the owner of the live stock removed some part of it from the tenant's holding, the remaining part should be subject to the same liability as attached to the whole; and, in the second place, it seemed only just and reasonable that if, under the terms of the agistment agreement, the owner of the stock, as was frequently the case, had made bonâ fide payment to the tenant on account of the whole price originally agreed upon, he should not be called upon or be liable to pay to the landlord the whole of the price originally agreed upon, or have his stock distrained, but that he should in such case only be liable for the part unpaid. He hoped the Government would accept this Proviso.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 29, to add, at the end of the Clause, "Provided always, that so long as any portion of such live stock shall remain on the said holding the right to distrain such portion shall continue to the full extent of the amount originally agreed to be paid for the feeding of the whole of such live stock, or if part of such price has been bonâ fide paid to the tenant under the agreement, then to the full extent of the price remaining unpaid."—(Sir Henry Holland.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he thought the proposed addition would be desirable, and would make clear what otherwise might be left open to doubt. He would, therefore, accept the Amendment.
  Question put and agreed to.
  LORD BURGHLEY (on behalf of Sir JOSEPH PEASE)proposed to insert, in page 7, line 31, after "tenant," the words—
  "Having upon it, or upon one or more of the main parts thereof, the name of the owner."
  He thought this was a very necessary Amendment, for when the implements belonging to the tenant had to be distinguished from the hired implements, it would be a great advantage to have the names of owners who supplied agricultural implements.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 31, after "tenant," to insert, "Having upon it, or upon one or more of the
  346
  main parts thereof, the name of the owner."—(Lord Burghley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. DODSONsaid, he could not see any special advantage in this proposal. It would involve a good deal of trouble, and would give no security against fraud.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he approved of the Amendment, believing that it would be a great advantage to have the maker's or the owner's name on the implements. People who had valuable articles had them all marked for their protection, and it was much more necessary to have protection for property on a farm. That the argument of trouble should be advanced by a Minister showed what a wretched pitch this Bill had reached.
  COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEsaid, he thought there was something in the Amendment. It was the habit of many manufacturers to lend implements to farmers, to be paid for in three or four years; and it would be well that their name should be on the implements until the expiration of that period.
  MR. ACLANDsaid, he hoped the Government would not agree to the Admendment, for it was distinctly inexpedient, and would not effect its intended object. He believed the effect of it would be that fraudulent persons would be enabled to act in collusion, for there would be some ground for supposing that the presence of the name was sufficient proof of the ownership. In all cases he believed it was the law that the person whose property an article was had the burden of proof upon him; but this Amendment would, he believed, practically alter that presumption.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, he thought there was a great deal to be said in favour of this Amendment. It was the custom in many parts of the country for manufacturers to lend implements and machines, to be paid for by instalments, and this clause was drawn for their protection. There was something to be said in favour of making these things distrainable; but, on the whole, he thought it would be for the advantage of agriculture that that should not be done; it would, in fact, be a concession to freedom in agriculture. He would appeal to his noble Friend to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he wished to move an Amendment which he thought was deserving of consideration. He was informed that there was a custom in vogue by which machines were lent upon terms which were exceedingly arbitrary. They did not purchase the machines at once, and, in the event of difficulties on the part of the tenant, not only were the machines seized, but the tenant forfeited all the instalments he had paid. That was a harsh system, which ought to be checked.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 31, after "tenant," to insert "except where a tenant hires upon what is known as the hire and purchase system, and has entered into a contract to purchase."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he thought the Amendment was not needed. An agreement of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) was, in truth, a contract of sale, and the property in the article passed; but the clause only applied to machinery which was on the premises of the tenant under an agreement "for the hire or use thereof."
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he hoped the Government would take this point into consideration.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he could not assent to the Amendment, because it would import what was known as the "hire and purchase" system. If there was a contract for the purchase of property, the property would pass to the tenant, even although there would be a right to the tenant to take it back if the money was not paid.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he had proposed the Amendment to bring the matter under notice, and he should be satisfied if the Government would consider it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDproposed to insert, in line 33, after the word "business," the following words:—
  "And live stock of all kinds which is the bonâ fide property of a person other than the tenant, and is on the premises solely for purposes of breeding."
  He need only observe that this provision was in both the Bills on Distress
  348
  which he had the honour to bring before the House, and that it had been twice approved of on the second reading of those Bills, and in Committee on one of them. The Committee on the Law of Distress, which reported last year, had also distinctly approved this provision.
  MR. DUCKHAMsuggested an Amendment to substitute "for breeding purposes" for the words "for purposes of breeding."
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he would agree to this alteration.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 23, after "business," to insert "and live stock of all kinds which is the bonâ fide property of a person other than the tenant, and is on the premises of the tenant solely for breeding purposes."—(Sir Henry Holland.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. DODSONsaid, the Government were ready to accept the words of the Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 17 (Remedy for wrongful distress under this Act).
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, to leave out Sub-sections (a) and (b).—(Mr. Biddell.)
  Question proposed, "That the Subsections proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. DODSONsaid, he could not understand a proposal to leave out Subsections A and B, and yet retain Subsection C. Sub-section C was a general guide, and he thought it would assist the Court in the construction of the Act if the preceding sub-sections were retained, because they indicated the matter the Court would have to deal with.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WAUGHsaid, the clause was intended to remedy cases of distraint on, and yet to leave on the farms, stock which belonged to other persons. The Court would generally be composed of magistrates, who, as a rule, were landlords, and the questions to be determined by them were questions between landlords and tenants. He could not

  349
  help thinking that the jurisdiction in these matters should be given to a different tribunal, and he could find no tribunal better than the County Court. In the County Court matters would be determined with regard to sets-off, and that would remedy some of the difficulties of tenants. He, therefore, proposed to provide that these matters should be referred to County Courts.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 8, line 1, leave out from "by" to end of Clause, and insert "the County Court by way of interpleader and the provisions of the County Courts Acts relating to interpleader shall apply thereto as if they were re-enacted herein mutatis mutandis."—(Mr. Waugh.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be let out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he quite agreed that the County Court would form a better tribunal than a Court of Summary Jurisdiction; but there was the difficulty that one of the points to be considered was the restoration of live cattle. A County Court might not be sitting for four or six weeks; but the magistrates would sit once a-week or even twice a-week, or they could sit at any time. Therefore, much as he should be inclined to think that the County Court would be the better Court, there would be this delay, and the Bill was, on the whole, better as it stood.
  MR. DODDSsaid, there was a question of expense involved in this matter. The hon. Member opposite had said the Magistrates' Court would be constantly sitting; but in his county the magistrates only sat once a-fortnight. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment, as the hon. Member (Mr. Waugh) had had great experience in these matters, and his evidence before the Select Committee on the Law of Distress showed that he had a clearer view on the subject than almost any other witness.
  MR. PUGHsaid, he trusted the Government would accept the Amendment. There could not possibly be any doubt about the desirability of having a tribunal which would be satisfactory to the parties concerned. In his opinion the tribunal which it was proposed to make use of under the Bill would not prove satisfactory. Very difficult questions of law would arise with regard to distress, and he did not think it fair that the whole
  350
  branch of the law should be referred to magistrates in the manner intended. Without in the least wishing to treat the magistracy with the slightest disrespect, he could not look upon them as a fitting tribunal to deal with such questions as those which would arise under this clause. It must be recollected that the majority of magistrates were landlords. He did not wish to insinuate that they would be biassed on that account; but, as the Court to deal with the matters which would arise under this clause, they would certainly not give satisfaction to the tenant, because they would not inspire confidence. On these grounds, he trusted the Government would assent to the Amendment.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he trusted that the Government would adhere to the clause as it stood. Nothing whatever had been said to meet the weighty objections urged against the Amendment by his hon. Friend (Mr. Staveley Hill). No doubt, it was well that when questions of this kind arose they should be determined as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) had said that the magistrates in his borough only met once a-fortnight. That, however, was an exceptional state of things. As it was desirable that the matters arising under the clause should be settled promptly, he hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment.
  MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he believed that, under the law as it at present stood, the Registrar of a County Court took security for replevy. Surely he ought to do the same for live cattle under the Law of Distress as he did for replevy. He much preferred the County Court to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Whatever was decided upon, he (Mr. Duckham) hoped that the provisions of this Bill would be so settled that a landlord would not be able to distrain for the whole amount of rent due to him, and thus place the tenant under the necessity of bringing an action for compensation for improvements under the Act. If the tenant were to be placed in such a position, in many cases the benefit of the Act would be completely destroyed.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, there was no doubt that in any question of this kind one had to consider what would be the most convenient course to adopt. He

  351
  quite admitted that, other things being equal, he should prefer the County Court to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction; but one had to bear in mind that it would be expedient, if possible, to give a cheaper and an easier remedy. Whether the two tribunals might be equal with regard to cheapness or not was a matter to be determined; but certainly, as regarded speed, the advantage was in favour of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The clause was not compulsory, and took no right away from the tenant. The tenant retained all his rights with respect to excessive distress or illegal distress, and it was not proposed that he should take his case before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, but merely that he should have the option of doing so if he thought proper. In fact, all that was done was to give the tenant the option of that remedy as distinguished from any other remedy. This being the case, surely they were conferring an advantage on the tenant, because they allowed him to sue in the County Court if he liked, while, if he preferred, he might get speedy justice elsewhere.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 28: Majority 18.—(Div. List, No. 226.)
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 18 (Extension of certiorari) agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Amendment of Act of 57 George 3, c. 93, and of the Schedule of that Act).
  MR. WAUGHsaid, there seemed to be certain defects in this clause. It was provided that—
  "The limit of twenty pounds fixed by the first section of an Act passed in the fifty-seventh year of the reign of His Majesty King George the Third, Chapter ninety-three, shall in the case of an holding to which this Act applies be raised and be taken to be fifty pounds."
  Now, he considered that the matter might have been very well left as it was in the old Act, as far as £20. The clause then went on to say—
  "And the allowance for a man in possession shall in the like case be a sum not exceeding five shillings per day, instead of the sum of two shillings and sixpence as provided by the Schedule of the said Act."
  It would thus be seen that there was
  352
  nothing allowed for the levying of the distress. He was sure no broker could be obtained who would levy up to £50 for 5s. Then, again, the clause did not go far enough, for it ought to extend not only to distresses of £50, but to all distresses. As far as his knowledge extended, there was no means whatever of taxing the charges of brokers and bailiffs and their men in possession; but he intended to propose a method by which their charges could be taxed. What he meant to propose was, to leave out this clause and insert in its place a provision to regulate the costs of distress, not only up to £50, but to any extent. If hon. Members would look at the new clause, which stood on the Paper in his name, they would see that he proposed to allow for the levying of a distress—
  "Three per centum on any sum exceeding twenty pounds and not exceeding fifty pounds. Two and a half per centum on any sum exceeding fifty pounds."
  The charges made on distresses were in some cases most exorbitant. It sometimes happened that after a distress was levied and the landlord and tenant came together, they made some compromise. For such a case, he proposed to provide—
  "Such costs and charges, in case the parties differ, to be taxed by the Registrar of the County Court of the district in which the distress is made."
  If this proposal were accepted, it would afford protection to the poor tenant, who at present had no protection whatever. The present system led to nothing more nor less than simple extortion on the part of the brokers. Brokers knew full well that no action could be brought against them except for excessive distress, and this they knew really amounted to nothing, as the remedy was worse than the disease. He begged to move that the clause be omitted.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 19.—(Mr. Waugh.)
  Question proposed, "That Clause 19 stand part of the Bill."
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that he had introduced a similar clause in his Distress Bill of this year, in deference to the recommendations in the Report of the Committee of 1882. But, looking to the necessity of protecting the tenant against the extortionate expenses of

  353
  these proceedings, he was disposed to support the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth (Mr. Waugh) in going further than was provided by this clause, and in regulating the expenses in cases above £50. Care would have to be taken in fixing the different amounts in the Schedule; but he hoped the Government would undertake to look into this matter, and thus put an end to a scandalous state of things, which bore very hardly upon a poor tenant.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the question, of course, was one, to a considerable extent, of detail. In some degree, what was suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth was proposed by the clause as it stood. The clause proposed that, as to all sums up to £50, the amount of expenses charged should be the same as that allowed by the Act of George III., with the exception that the charge for the man in possession should be increased from 2s. 6d. to 5s. It would be impossible for the Government off-hand to accept the scale which his hon. Friend proposed. Any proposal of that sort ought to be very carefully considered. If the Committee thought that it would be the best plan to omit the present clause, and to put in another one subsequently, they would be glad to do so. The Schedule of the hon. Member, however, could not be accepted, because, in some respects, it would allow even higher charges than those which were now made.
  MR. WAUGHsaid, his hon. and learned Friend must remember that, with respect to sums of above £50, the Government made no arrangement at all. He should be extremely glad if the present clause were omitted, and a new clause brought up, with such a Schedule of charges as the Government might consider fair.
  MR. DUCKHAMsaid, that this was a most important matter; and to give an idea of its importance he thought he need only read an account of the expenses of a distress which was levied last year in his neighbourhood. The distress was levied for £1,317. The charges for the levy were £59; for the possession by the bailiff, £11 16 s. 6d.; for the appraiser, at 6d. in the pound, £34; and auctioneer's commission, £65. The costs of the distress, exclusive of the auctioneer's commission, were, therefore,
  354
  in round numbers, £105, and, including that commission, £170.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 20 (Repeal of 2 W. &. M., c. 5, s. 2, as to appraisement and sale at public auction) agreed to.
  Clause 21 (Extension of time to replevy at request of tenant).
  MR. DUCKHAMbegged to draw the attention of the Committee to the case which he brought before them yesterday upon Clause 6. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) had said that the point he introduced on Clause 6 must be brought forward when the Committee had the question of the Law of Distress under consideration.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member propose any Amendment to Clause 21?
  MR. DUCKHAM: No.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Then The hon. Member will not be in Order in addressing the Committee at this point.
  Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  PART III.
  (General Provisions.)
  Clause 22 (Commencement of Act).
  MR. BIDDELLsaid, he wished to move to leave out "the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four," and to insert "the twenty-ninth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three." He here suggested that the Act should commence sooner than was proposed by the Government; and he made his proposal for the reason that the agricultural year never commenced in the month of January.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 9, line 10, leave out "the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four," and insert "the twenty-ninth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three."—(Mr. Biddell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. DODSONsaid, he had no objection to the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Biddell), except that he thought it

  355
  would be attended with considerable practical inconvenience in this way. They had now reached the 24th of July, and though he was sanguine that the measure would receive the Royal Assent next month, yet he could not anticipate that it would become law before some further time had elapsed. If the Amendment were adopted, the interval between receiving the Royal Assent and the time at which the Act would come into operation would be exceedingly short.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he saw great objection to the proposal, looking at the time at which it was customary for landlords and tenants to enter into their agreements. It would be almost impossible for them to make their arrangements by the 29th of September of the present year.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, it would be open to tenants and landlords, at any time after the passing of the Act, to enter into agreements; and he therefore hoped his hon. Friend would press the Amendment. It would be much more convenient that the Act should come into operation at that time when the great bulk of the tenancies in England commenced. He would also point out that the Act itself fixed two periods. The Law of Distress, as the Bill was drawn, was to come into operation on the Royal Assent being given to the Act; but that was not the date fixed for the other portion of the Act to come into operation. As he understood it, the Government had consented to consider, between now and the Report, at what date the provision with respect to the Law of Distress should come into operation; and he saw no reason or advantage in the Act commencing on the 1st of January next year; but there would be great advantage in its coming into operation on the 29th of September.
  Mr. ACLANDsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Biddell) had told them that there would be great convenience in the Act coming into force on one of the half-yearly days. Well, in a general way he could imagine that there might be reasons why this should be so; but he was utterly at a loss to know what those reasons were. He could not understand what practical difference it could make in any way whether the Act came into operation in January or on the 29th of September, or on Lady Day. The sooner
  356
  it came into operation in reason the better; but surely there was considerable force in what the right hon. Gentleman had said—namely, that they did not know that the Bill would have the Royal Assent before the beginning of the month of September. Possibly, for aught they knew, it might not receive the Royal Assent until the middle of September; and surely it was too much to expect that all the people who would be interested in the working of the Act, such as responsible agents, lawyers, and others, would be able to render themselves familiar in so short a space of time with the questions of law which would arise. They should have several weeks, at least, of absolute leisure in which to become acquainted with all the details and the points which were likely to have to be settled.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he would point out one reason why the Amendment should be adopted. If the Act did not come into operation until January, then the tenant who wanted to carry out drainage works under it would find it too late, at any rate for this year, for him to do it. Drainage works should be commenced in November. Therefore, unless the Bill came into operation in September, they would lose a year. That was one reason why the Amendment should be adopted, and, he had no doubt, other Members would be able to point out other reasons.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsuggested that the hon. Member (Mr. Biddell) would save the time of the Committee by withdrawing the Amendment with regard to drainage. With regard to what fell from the last speaker, everyone familiar with agricultural operations knew that it would be as easy to commence drainage in January as in November.
  MR. BIDDELLsaid, of one thing he was perfectly sure—namely, that no worse period could be fixed than that laid down in the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) could not see his way to accept the proposal which he (Mr. Biddell) made, it would be advisable to accept April as the period, as in that month a large number of tenancies began. That would be a month in which landlords and tenants would be much more likely to begin the agricultural year than the 1st of January. Under the circumstances, however, he would withdraw the Amendment, reserving to

  357
  himself the right of bringing up the matter again on Report, when he saw what the Government intended to do in regard to arrears of rent.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 23 (Exception of non-agricultural and small holdings).
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the question he had to raise was one of great importance, not only to the farmers, but also to the labouring class, and a great deal of difficulty would arise in endeavouring to define what "agricultural" meant. The first question which would crop up would be, was a market garden "agricultural?" According to his view, the word "agricultural" should be interpreted to include market gardens; and for this reason he had, after considerable discussion of the subject, been unable to find any line of demarcation between a market garden and a farm. Many farms in the neighbourhood of London were carried on very much as market gardens; but if it should be found that the word "agricultural" did not cover market gardens they were put in this difficulty—that a farm which at present came under the Act would cease to be under it if the farmer converted any portion of it into a market garden. The clause provided that—
  "Nothing in the Act shall apply to a holding that is not either wholly agricultural or wholly pastoral, or in part agricultural and as to the residue pastoral."
  Now, if it were let for market gardens, or was not agricultural, it would follow that on a farm, say, of 100 acres of land, if 10 acres of the worst portion of it had been converted into a market garden, the whole holding would be outside the Act. It seemed to him to be of very great importance indeed that the Act should be clear and explicit. If market gardens were not to be included under the term "agricultural," then farmers ought to know it, and should not be led away and tempted into market gardening, or converting portions of their farms into market gardens, if they were to lose by it benefits such as were to be conferred upon them under this Act. He did not know precisely what the view of the Government was; but he thought it would be most unkind of
  358
  them, and certainly on the part of the Prime Minister, to exclude market gardens from the operations of this measure. He (Mr. J. W. Barclay) recollected very well that in one of his memorable speeches delivered during the Mid Lothian campaign the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister recommended the farmers to direct their attention more and more to the conversion of their farms into market gardens. That advice he (Mr. J. W. Barclay) believed to have been very sound; and it would surely be a very poor return to make to the farmers of Mid Lothian for having taken that advice—and he knew that a number of them had taken that advice—if they found that the effect of it would be to exclude them from the operation of the Act. So much for the question as it affected the farmers and market gardeners. But there was another class which would be very seriously affected by the interpretation to be put upon this clause; and that was the labouring class—the farm Labourers. They very frequently heard a great deal about the willingness of hon. Members to do something for the farm Labourers. Those Members would now have an opportunity of showing the earnestness of their desire to benefit the agricultural Labourers, as they would be able to confer upon them, as well as upon the farmers, the benefits of this measure. This matter was of very great importance to the agricultural Labourers and to the farmers, and indirectly, no doubt, of very great importance also to the landlord. Complaints were continually being made about the rise of labourers' wages throughout the country; and, in England and Scotland particularly, they were told a great deal about the inefficient work which the labour gave for those increased wages. Everybody was complaining—[An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] Well, he was glad, at any rate, to hear there was one exception; but he was sorry to say that in Scotland and England generally complaints were made amongst a good many farmers, and certainly amongst the farmers to whom he had spoken on the question, that the labourer did not give so much for his wages now as he used to. That was very intelligible. The position of the agricultural labourer had been, form any years past, particularly in England and Scotland, a very

  359
  wretched one; and the consequence was that those men who were a little above their fellows left farming to take occupations in the towns, so that there had been a continual process of selection going on. All the better labourers had either left the country, or had betaken themselves to more profitable occupations in the towns. That seemed to him to be an intelligible explanation of the process of deterioration which had been going on in the quality of the farm Labourers of which they had heard so much during the last six years. He (Mr. J. W.Barclay), as a farmer, having Labourers on his own farm, was perfectly willing and desirous that they should obtain the same benefits from the measure in proportion to those he himself was able to obtain from it. If the labourer improved his piece of garden ground, or his allotment which was granted him by the farmer, he was surely as much entitled to compensation for any improvements effected upon it as the farmer; and, to his (Mr. J. W. Barclay's) mind, it would be to the interest of the farmer to give him such compensation. If the farmer could not see his way to giving that compensation voluntarily, he ought to be compelled to give it under the Bill, just as much as the landlord was compelled to give it to his tenant. For these reasons it was that he sought to substitute the word "cultivated" for the word "agricultural." It seemed to him there would be less ambiguity about the word "cultivated" than there would be about the word "agricultural." Every man in the occupation of land would then, in respect of that part which was cultivated, be entitled to the benefits of the Bill. He had an Amendment to follow, which was to the effect that the Bill should apply to allotments of less than two acres, which was the limit in the measure. At any rate, the present Amendment was one which should recommend itself strongly to all those who were in favour of giving the benefits of the Bill to the higher forms of cultivation of land, commonly known as market gardening, and of giving its benefits to the agricultural labourer. In conclusion, he wished to invite the attention of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) especially to the point he had raised at the beginning of his remarks, which was this—that if he held that
  360
  market gardening was not agricultural, what would be the position of a farmer holding 100 acres for the purpose of farming, but devoting 10 acres of it to the raising of market garden produce? According to his reading of the clause, a farmer, by so doing, would exclude himself from the benefit of the Act, because in the words of the clause the farm would not be "either wholly agricultural or wholly pastoral, or in part agricultural and as to the residue pastoral" If it was held that market gardening was not agricultural, it would be an absurd position for the Committee to take to pass a Bill which would have the effect of discouraging the higher class of Agriculture—namely, the production of the higher qualities of food, and which was one of the greatest hopes of British agriculture for the future. He thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) would find it impossible to lay down any clear line of definition between agriculture and market gardening. If the right hon. Gentleman intended to include market gardening in this Bill, it would be better to substitute the word "cultivated" for the word "agricultural" which he (Mr. J. W. Barclay) proposed.
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 14, leave out "agricultural," and insert "cultivated."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
  Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he could not hear the observations of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down without rising in his place to state that he was of an opposite opinion, and that our agricultural Labourers, at the present moment, were as efficient as they were 50 or 60 years ago. He had just let 300 or 400 acres for harvesting to a body of Labourers; and, judging from their work in former years, including the last, he knew that they would do the work as well as their fathers and grandfathers had done for him 50 or 60 years since—quite as honestly and thoroughly. There were some reasons, no doubt, which bad diminished the amount of work to be obtained from the Labourers. At one time, every farmer had two or three agricultural Labourers living in his house, taking their meals with the farmer's family, and getting to work at regular hours under the eye and supervision

  361
  of the farmer himself. Under that system the Labourers were probably longer at work than when living in their own cottages. Now they had allotments, and raised some produce for their own families; but he was quite sure that even these, when working for a good landlord, would fulfil their duty just as conscientiously and thoroughly as though they were working for themselves. His bailiff had often told him that they did so, and he saw it himself. He was confident the agricultural Labourers, when well treated, were just as good as ever they were.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he confessed he did not quite understand on what ground the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) drew this distinction between agricultural land and land cultivated for the purpose of market gardens. It appeared to him (Mr. Gregory) to be incontestable that "agricultural" land included market gardens. It appeared to him that the cultivation of a field, whether it was for the production of corn, or hay, or market garden produce, was one and the same thing. he should take it that agricultural would be in contradistinction to horticultural, which latter word would imply simply a plot where the land was used for the growing of flowers. It seemed to him that market gardens would be covered by the word "agricultural." If the word "agricultural" was taken out, and the word "cultivated" inserted, it would lead to considerable ambiguity and difficulty in construing the clause, which would run—
  "Nothing in this Act shall apply to a holding that is not either wholly cultivated or wholly pastoral, or in part cultivated and as to the residue pastoral, or to any holding that is of less extent than two acres.
  If there was any part of the holding which was not cultivated—that was to say, if there was a small piece of waste land connected with the holding, he doubted whether the Act would apply to that holding at all. If they referred to the Schedule of the Act, they would find in Part I the making of gardens was one of the operations to which the Act applied. That, of course, would include market gardens; so that, under the provisions of the Bill, as they at present stood, the word "agricultural" would apply to market gardens. The hon. Member for Forfarshire seemed to him
  362
  to be really raising a difficulty which did not exist.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) in the belief that the Bill could be construed along with the Schedule as applying to market gardens. He would point out to the hon. Member for Forfarshire that the word "agricultural" was one of very wide import, and was one which had been considerably widened of late years. What the hon. Member meant was that a farm should be wholly cultivated in tillage, or partly in tillage and partly pastoral. Tillage was a Saxon term, and, if adopted in the clause, would remove any difficulty which might be felt with regard to the inclusion of market gardens.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he hoped The hon. Member for Forfarshire would not think it necessary to press his Amendment to a Division. The definition of "agricultural" in this Bill was the same as that in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875; and, under that Act, no difficulty had ever arisen on the point suggested by the hon. Member. The word "agricultural" was not only a word perfectly well known and understood, as well as any Saxon word in the language, but it was adopted in previous Acts of Parliament, and it had acquired a fixed meaning from the decisions of the Courts. The hon. Member put a question as to whether, if a farmer turned part of his holding into a market garden for the growing of vegetables for the consumption by man instead of by animals, his entire holding would be excluded from the operation of the Act? Well, he (Mr. Dodson) hardly thought it necessary to answer such a question as that. The clause should be allowed to remain as it stood.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that, suppose a farmer occupied five or six acres of land as a garden, would he have the same benefits under the Act as another farmer? If he would, the question would be settled. It ought, however, to be clearly understood what the position of such a person would be.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, it did not appear to him very plain that the right hon. Gentleman knew whether market gardens would be included under the word "agricultural" or not. It was important that these gardens should be included, and he was not disposed

  363
  to take the statement of the Members of the Treasury Bench on the subject. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, he merely meant he was not inclined to accept the interpretation of the law of those sitting on the Treasury Bench. He was justified in refusing to accept the interpretation of right hon. Gentlemen sitting in that quarter by what had already taken place. He had, on one occasion, stated that a certain clause would have a certain effect, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) had denied it; but the point had since been decided in favour of his (Mr. J. W. Barclay's) contention. If the word "agricultural" really included market gardens, it did not appear to him that the Government would have much difficulty in making the matter more clear than it was at present. Out-of-doors a considerable amount of discussion had taken place on this point, and great difference of opinion had arisen as to whether market gardens were included or not. It would be much more simple to have the matter decided now, instead of waiting to have it settled by some protracted lawsuit. No doubt, the Schedule of the Bill dealt with the making of gardens, but it did not deal with market gardens; and there was all the difference in the world between the two. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) had appealed to the Agricultural Holdings Act, and had said that the word "agricultural" was one well known to the law, and that the definition in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875 had been settled by decisions in the Courts. Could the right hon. Gentleman refer to any case that had been decided under the Act of 1875? He had asked the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard) to find out whether any case had been decided under that Act; and the hon. Member had advertised in The Standard newspaper, asking if anyone would be good enough to quote a case, or to refer him to a case, in which there had been such a decision, but no reply had been received to that advertisement. It was, therefore, absurd to appeal to the Act of 1875, since there had been no decisions under it, so far as it could be ascertained. Seeing the Prime Minister now in his place, he (Mr. J. W. Barclay) would appeal to him to make this clause as clear and distinct as possible,
  364
  seeing that the question was a very important one to many of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents in Mid Lothian. The question was, whether under the word "agricultural" was included market gardening? If it was, he hoped the Government would make it clear in the Bill, and if it was not the farmers ought to know it.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he thought they ought to have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman on this point.
  MR. DODSONsaid, with regard to the construction placed on the word "agricultural," the word was not only in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875, but also in the Land Act of 1870, under which Act it had been interpreted by the Law Courts. What the hon. Gentleman wished was that holdings which were horticultural, or partly horticultural, should not wholly be excluded from the objects of the Bill; and there could be no objection to putting in words to carry out that object.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he was very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he was prepared to make on this matter, which, he thought, would give great satisfaction to a great many people. He (Mr. J. W. Barclay) would propose to withdraw his Amendment, and would subsequently move to insert, after the word "agricultural," the word "horticultural."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 14, after "agricultural," insert "or horticultural."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was bound to say that he thought the insertion of the word "horticultural" in a Bill, the object of which was to give compensation to tenants for improvements in agricultural holdings, was really something like an absurdity. He hoped the Government would reconsider this question, particularly because the compensation provided under the Bill related only to farming operations. He apprehended, though he was not very well acquainted with the mode in which cultivation was carried on in market gardens, or with horticultural occupations, that the compensation

  365
  which was provided for agricultural holdings would not be applicable or beneficial to tenants who were carrying on purely horticultural operations; and he, therefore, thought they had better stick to the word "agricultural." If any case in which a horticultural occupation was concerned was so serious as to render legislation necessary, it was one which should be dealt with by itself, in a separate Bill, on its own merits.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, the Bill, if these words were inserted in it, would have a tendency to exclude market gardens altogether. The hon. Member evidently meant holdings pastoral, horticultural, or agricultural, or partly pastoral, horticultural, or agricultural. Market gardens might not be partly one or the other, and unless they were wholly one or the other they would not come under the operation of the clause.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had not observed that the difficulty might be got over by the rest of the clause, which included holdings partly pastoral.
  MR. E. STANHOPEthought it absurd to adopt the proposed Amendment; and he, therefore, hoped that it would not be pressed.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, that when the hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. Stanhope) rose, he (Viscount Folkestone) had been going to refer to a case which was very much to the point. He happened to have a friend who resided near London, and who had a piece of land of within easy reach by road which he used as a garden for flowers, and grew nothing but flowers in the garden. What he wanted to know was, whether that piece of land, being used as a garden, would come under the provisions of this Bill; and, if so, were they to conclude that the garden was an agricultural holding? It seemed to him (Viscount Folkestone) that if the Government were to extend the provisions of this Bill to market gardens, it would be quite fair for him to ask them also to add a clause extending it to household property. He (Viscount Folkstone) had improved the house he occupied, and should be very glad if, a the expiration of his lease, under the provisions of this Bill, he would be able to obtain compensation from the landlord for those improvements.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that in the neighbourhood of Warwick they would find a large number of tenants farming from 10 to 20 acres of land, or, rather, cultivating these plots as what might be called market gardens. These people were yearly tenants, and what he wished to know was, whether they would be subject to the benefits of this measure or not? If the word "agricultural" would cover them, well and good; but if not, he thought some words should be inserted to entitle them to the benefits which it was the object of this Bill to confer.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he also felt the difficulty that some other hon. Gentlemen seemed to entertain as to the interpolation of this word "horticultural" in a Bill which was obviously passed to apply to something other than horticulture. Would not the places the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) had mentioned be included under the words making of gardens, the planting of orchards, and so forth? He could not help thinking it was out of his exceeding good nature that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) had given way to the insertion of this word "horticultural." He (Colonel Stanley) was not aware that hitherto any question had arisen as to the exclusion of market gardens from agricultural holdings. If the right hon. Gentleman remained constant to his opinion that market gardens were covered by the provisions of the Bill, it would be much better to leave out the words it was proposed should be inserted.
  MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he was surprised that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard) had stated that there was no case to be found as having arisen under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875.
  MR. JAMES HOWARD: I did not say that no case had arisen. My hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) stated that I had endeavoured, by advertisement and other means, to obtain information of a case, but had failed.
  MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he understood the hon. Member to say he had advertised for cases, and that no answer had been received. He thought it would be better to leave the clause as it stood than to adopt any of the suggested Amendments.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would carefully reconsider his decision as to "horticulture." It seemed to him (Mr. Warton) that the right hon. Gentleman was about to commit an error in accepting this Amendment too easily. It was quite clear that it did exclude something, because it specifically stated "That nothing in this Act shall apply to a holding which is not" something or other. It was intended to exclude all holdings which were not "wholly agricultural or wholly pastoral, or in part agricultural and as to the residue pastoral"—it was intended to exclude all holdings that were not really agricultural in the common sense of the word. If they were to accept the word "horticultural" they would have to construct the section in this way—"Nothing in this Act shall apply to a holding that is not wholly agricultural, or wholly horticultural, or wholly pastoral, or which consists of any two of these kinds or all of them together." That was what it came to. To insert the word "horticultural" would be contrary to the whole spirit of the clause, and it seemed to him that they would be landed in a whole sea of absurdities if they accepted this Amendment. The object of the section was to limit the holdings to which the measure applied to those really within the scope and design of all its provisions—to limit the Bill to holdings that were agricultural or pastoral; but he (Mr. Warton) would not go on, as he saw the Prime Minister was anxious to explain his views to the Committee.
  MR. DODSONsaid, to remove the difficulties as to the word "horticultural," he would propose the clause should run as follows:—
  "Nothing in this Act shall apply to a holding that is not either wholly agricultural or wholly pastoral, or in part agricultural and as to the residue pastoral, or in whole or in part cultivated as a market garden."
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that would be perfectly satisfactory to him; and he would beg leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 9, line 15, after the word "pastoral," to insert the words "or in whole or in part cultivated as a market garden."—(Mr. Dodson.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, the next Amendment was one standing in his name, to leave out all the words of the clause after the word "pastoral;" but since the adoption of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, the terms of his (Mr. Jesse Collings's) proposal would. have to be altered to leaving out "all the words after the word 'garden,'" so as to get rid of the words "or to any holding that is of less extent than two acres." The object of the Amendment was to enable occupiers of small holdings, who were mostly Labourers, to enjoy the benefits of the Act.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, he had an Amendment before that of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings). It was, after the word "is," to insert "valued at less than £4."
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich comes in after the word "garden," and, therefore, has precedence of that of the hon. Baronet.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, his Amendment was very important, as it would affect a very large number of people, and would remove a grievance which was felt in a great many quarters. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney) had spoken of good agricultural Labourers of the South of England. Well, a part of the livelihood of many of these people depended upon the small allotments which were granted to them. As a rule, when the Labourers came into possession of their allotments those allotments were in very bad order. The Labourers got the land into good order, and kept it in good cultivation, and effected many improvements upon it; and yet the landlord could throw them over at any time. The landlord was a kind of terror to such people in many parts of the country. Very often, after the Labourers had spent many years upon their holdings, and devoted a great deal of time to their improvements, and had spent a considerable amount of their little savings in manure, and so forth, they were turned off, at short notice, without getting a penny for the improvements they had effected. That seemed to him to be very unfair. There was a case within his own knowledge where a considerable tract of land was let to a number of Labourers; it had been stony, and altogether waste land; but the men to whom it was let

  369
  put labour upon it for some years, and at last got it into good condition; and almost as soon as they had brought it to such a state that it yielded good crops, it was taken away from them without compensation; all the parts were thrown together, and a large piece of valuable, well-cultivated land was the result. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had accused many hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House below the Gangway of predatory habits; but it seemed to him, in cases such as that he had cited, the habits of some landlords, backed up by laws they had made themselves, were predatory enough, at any rate. The landlords would have to find out before long that a great many people considered some of their habits predatory, and were determined that they should alter them. He would ask the Prime Minister whether it was not fair that farm labourers or small occupiers should be protected, as well as persons farming large tracts of land? He hardly thought that hon. Members on the other side of the House could raise any reasonable objection to removing from the Bill the limitation of two acres. Two acres was a large piece of ground; and a man might spend a great deal of time upon it, or even upon a less quantity, in bringing it into a good state of cultivation; and he might plant a great many fruit trees upon it, as an hon. Member below him remarked. Why should not the cultivator in a case of that kind have the benefit of the Act? If his Amendment were adopted, it would have a further effect, as it would put a stop to the great injustice sometimes practised upon agricultural Labourers by their landlords, who continually held over them their power of eviction. By threatening the exercise of that power, in many rural districts in the country the agricultural community were coerced into doing that which was distasteful to them—they were terrorized over. He had known small occupiers threatened with eviction, and absolutely turned out of their holdings, for such a thing as doing a little work on a Sunday. If there was some compensation to be paid to these people before they could be removed evictions would not be likely to take place for trivial cases. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 15, to leave out the words "or to any holding that is of less extent than two acres."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'or to any holding that is' stand part of the Clause."
  COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEsaid, he did not often agree with the hon. Member opposite; but, on the present occasion, he must say he concurred in his view. He had known many cases where Labourers had greatly improved their small holdings—holdings, say, of an acre or an acre and a-half—and he did not see any reason why they should not be allowed the benefits of the Bill. His attention had been drawn to this question by an incident which happened only the other day. A woman had come to him and asked for his advice under the following circumstances. She said that her landlady had given her notice to leave her house and garden of half an acre at Michaelmas. It had been in the occupation of the family for over 100 years, and many improvements had been effected upon it; her husband, for instance, having erected piggeries and planted apple trees. The woman wished to know whether her landlady had it in her power to take possession of these piggeries and apple trees without compensating her? He (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) had been bound to inform the poor woman that, as the law stood, the landlady was able to seize these improvements if she chose. That had seemed to him to be a very hard case. He did not say that compensation would necessarily have been given if this Bill had been law; but he still thought the case was a hard one, and that Labourers, under somewhat similar conditions, should be protected under the measure.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he must congratulate The hon. and gallant Member for South Essex (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) upon having made so liberal a speech. After the consent of the Government to introduce the words which had just been adopted, there was all the more necessity for the excision of these words "or to any holding of no less extent than two acres." He had contended just now that the clause should be read in connection with the Schedule, and what did the Schedule say? Why, it referred to the making of gardens.

  371
  Well, a holding of two acres would certainly be a large garden, and surely it would not be the design of the framers of the Bill to exclude from the benefits of the Bill the occupier of a garden of two or one, or even of half an acre. He could corroborate what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for South Essex as to those cases of hardship, for he himself remembered some years ago a labourer in his own village, who had a small holding which he had cultivated with great skill, and planted with strawberries and fruit trees, being called on suddenly to leave, and being unable to claim compensation for the results of his labours from the landlord. He hoped that, in the interest of the agricultural Labourers of the country, the Government would consent to the excision of these words.
  MR. D. DAVIESsaid, he thought these words should be struck out, because some people might spend as much money in improvements upon two acres of land as others would spend in improving 100 acres. He himself occupied a small piece of land upon which he kept several men at work who were constantly applying to him for money for manures, and so forth; he did not know how much that small plot of land did not cost him every year.
  MR. KNIGHTsaid, he considered that if small plots were to be taken in, some limit should be put to the valuation, because the valuation of the small plots of ground might cost as much as that of the large farms. If small plots were to be included, there ought to be some arrangement that the valuation should not exceed a given amount. In the wild district in which he lived, there were a great many garden plots of land not worth more than £20 an acre. It was very necessary that the valuation of these small plots should be managed without an expensive arbitration.
  MR. WIGGINsaid, he hoped the Government would consent to adopt the suggestion made by previous speakers. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) would bear him out, when he said that in the neighbourhood of Birmingham there were an immense number of small gardens cultivated by artizans in their leisure hours. A great deal of time, money, energy, and ability, was spent in the cultivation of these plots; and it would be a most
  372
  unjust and unfair thing if these artizans were deprived of their little possessions without any compensation for any improvements they might have made.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he hoped the Government would not think of accepting this Amendment. They were agreed that small tenants were just as much entitled to be compensated as large tenants, and he was quite satisfied that in the majority of cases they did obtain compensation now. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was anxious that poor men who held garden plots should not suffer in respect of any improvements they might make. He (Mr. Stanhope) was also anxious that they should not lose the benefit of their improvements; but if it were thought right that such people should be compensated, it would be better that a separate clause should be inserted in the Bill in order to meet their case. If the Government were going, in this Bill, to deal with the case of holdings of less than two acres in extent they would get into a condition of enormous confusion. A vital distinction existed between the case of these gardens and the cases the Committee had been dealing with. Hitherto they had dealt with yearly holdings; but now it was proposed to introduce weekly tenancies into the Bill. In the case of yearly tenancies all tenants understood exactly what the position was, and they made preparations accordingly. Both landlord and tenant perfectly well understood that if, at the end of a given term, the tenant received notice to quit, he would be entitled to claim compensation. The tenant would take care he was in a position to produce proper evidence, and the landlord was able to exercise watchful care over what the tenant was doing. In the case of weekly tenancies, however, it would be almost impossible to employ the present system of estimating the amount of compensation to be paid. He, therefore, hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment.
  MR. ACLANDsaid, that, thoroughly as he appreciated the motives of the hon. Gentleman who had moved this Amendment, and the motives of those who supported his proposal, he agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He was convinced that if the proposed Amendment was incorporated in the

  373
  Bill there would be very great difficulty in inducing some landowners to break up their property into small holdings. Many men would be unwilling to lay themselves open to all the difficulties which would surround them if this Amendment were accepted, and they had many small holdings on their estates. He (Mr. Acland) was persuaded the Government would be perfectly ready to deal with any proposal which was intended to remedy any real injustice with regard to the holders of small gardens. Nothing was more important in this country than the encouragement of the system of letting small plots of land as gardens; but he was confident that the proposal would rather prevent, than encourage the extension of, that system.
  MR. DODSONsaid, the Government would be prepared to accept the Amendment, leaving out the limit of area; but not so as to let in weekly holdings. If they looked at the Interpretation Clause they would see that—
  "Contract of tenancy' means a letting of or agreement for the letting of land for a term of years, or for lives, or for lives and years, or from year to year, or at will."
  The words "or at will" should be omitted. Hon. Members knew what improvements were. It was not very often that a tenant holding land under two acres would make any of the improvements contained in the Bill. If, in any case, he did, he (Mr. Dodson) did not see why he should not be entitled to compensation just as much as a larger tenant.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he did not think that what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy suggested mot the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Acland). The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the effect would be to diminish the temptation which landowners now had to let land in allotments. He was glad to say that the willingness to let land in allotments was extending; but he feared that if this Amendment were adopted the system would be put an end to.
  SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, he was one of those who had encouraged the letting of land in allotments; but he was satisfied that if the principle suggested were adopted the system of letting land in small holdings would be very greatly checked. The holders of garden
  374
  plots made their money by growing early crops. The land was let in small plots in order that it might be cultivated, and that the produce might be sold to the manufacturing population at the best advantage. The holders of the plots brought manure on to the land, and cultivated it in the best way they could. If once they allowed these men to make claims for compensation, he was persuaded they would do a great amount of harm to the general body of the labouring population, because landlords would in that case very soon be found to revert to the system of large holdings.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he considered that the Amendment would work very injuriously to the interests of the labourer. In the North of England it was a very common practice to let half an acre or a quarter of an acre, with a cottage, for a nominal rent. In some cases it was given to the Labourers as a matter of course; and if the landlords were going to be put to the expense of a valuation every time there was a change of Labourers—and they know the Labourers flitted frequently every year—it would be absolutely necessary that some rent should be charged for the holdings, if it was only to pay for the expense of the valuations. There was another instance which he might give. A very large number of farmers in Lancashire and Yorkshire held cottages in connection with their farms. These cottages were let to the Labourers, and garden ground allotted to them on the farms, and were included in their weekly hiring; in fact, the privilege of living in one of them was part of the pay the men received for the work they did. Was it to be understood that when there was no more work for the Labourers, and they were required to leave the cottages, that the tenant farmer should be put to all the expense of a valuation? If so, gardens would become the exception, and the labourers injured by this Amendment.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, he understood that, under the Interpretation Clause, weekly lettings would not be affected by the Bill. Allotments were not always weekly lettings; but he particularly desired to know what allotments would come under the phrase, "or at will?"
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that if a piece of land were not let from year to

  375
  year it would be most unjust to turn a man out just when his crop was ripe without giving him compensation. His hon. Friend (Mr. Heneage) had referred to the case of cottages with gardens being let from week to week. The letting might be nominally from week to week; but if a man put any value upon his garden, he must have the enjoyment of the cottage for six months, at least, during which he could reap his crops. If the land should be wanted for anything, and he should be turned out before he reaped his crop, in all fairness he ought to be compensated. He (Mr. J. W. Barclay) did not see anything in this Amendment which could in any way prejudice the interests of the Labourers. He thought it would be a very good thing if the labourer knew that the House of Commons took so much interest in him as to make provision in that Bill for his welfare. There was now an opportunity to do something for the Labourers of the country, and he hoped hon. Members would avail themselves of it.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he had no desire to speak in opposition to the spirit of the Amendment. He entirely concurred in that spirit, and he believed he would even go further than some of his hon. Friends in the direction indicated by the Amendment. At the same time, he could not disguise the fact that they might be led into considerable difficulty if they adopted the proposal as it stood. The hon. Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Acland) pointed out very ably one of the effects which were likely to result from the adoption of the Amendment. The system of allotment was not one of which they knew very much in the county in which he lived. In Lancashire servants were mostly engaged on the farm for half-a-year, and there was not so large a number of cottages as in many other parts of the country. In cases where a farm which had attached to it a certain number of cottages was let, it appeared to him that considerable difficulty would arise if the Amendment were agreed to. It would be a question for the landlord to consider whether he would be liable to have claims made against him by people whom he did not himself bring on the land, but who were actually employed by the farmer to whom he let the holding on which the cottages stood. Perhaps one of the Law Officers of the Crown would inform the Committee
  376
  whether the words "tenant at will" in any way modified the "yearly tenancies," to which they understood the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was intended to apply. It seemed to him that the Government were, perhaps, going further than they thought they were in taking away the limit of two acres. If they did take away that limit, where was it intended that they should stop? It must be remembered that valuers would have to be employed in reference to all these small plots, and that very likely the expenses of valuation would be larger than the amount of the compensation granted. He feared that one serious result of the Amendment, if agreed to, would be the abandonment of allotments and the merging of them in greater holdings. He hoped that if the Government were inclined to assent to this proposal they would, at least, take time to consider the terms they meant to attach to it.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, it was very possible indeed to raise objections to any Amendment. The question, however, in the present case, was simply whether equal justice should be meted out to the poor man and to the rich man. There appeared to be a general wish to do the Labourers good; but the good must be done in the Labourers' fashion, if it was to be appreciated. This was a question which affected thousands of the labouring classes. He knew nothing about Yorkshire; but he knew a great deal about most counties in the Southern part of England, and he knew that there the labouring classes were subject, at the present time, to great injustice, through being liable to be turned off at any time from allotments which they had enjoyed for years. The noble Lord (Viscount Folkestone) seemed to wish that a man holding under weekly tenancies might be turned off at the will of the landlord. This would involve the confiscation of all his crops, and of everything he had put into the land. It was unfair that a small tenant should be liable to be turned out of his holding, without compensation, at a week's notice. He knew a case in which a man was said to be a bad character because he frequented a public-house. He had paid his rent, and the crops undoubtedly belonged to him; but he got notice, and had to leave. Was it not unjust that a man

  377
  should be turned out of his holding in this way because another man, who happened to be his landlord, chose to consider he was a bad character? Such a state of things would not be permitted with regard to the farmer, and he hoped it would not be allowed with regard to the labourer. He hoped that hon. Gentlemen who expressed themselves as being so anxious to benefit the Labourers would benefit them in the way the Labourers wished. Of course, when the labourers were enfranchised, he and his hon. Friends would have a very easy task in urging such proposals as this upon the House of Commons. He intended to go to a Division on the subject, unless the right hon. Gentleman could assure him that the thousands of poor men to whom these allotments were a very great consideration, standing, as they often did, between them and actual starvation, would have their interests respected.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that when he threw out to the Committee the suggestion that they should omit the words as to the limit of the area, his remarks were accompanied with the condition that the tenancies affected by the Bill should be year and year tenancies, or those extending over longer periods. Now, the hon. Member who had just sat down talked of weekly and monthly tenancies. It was perfectly clear that the provisions of the Bill were totally inapplicable to tenancies of that kind; and he (Mr. Dodson) could not undertake to accept a proposal such as was now made. He would, however, still be willing to agree to the Amendment, subject to the omission of the words he mentioned. He had thrown out the suggestion, thinking it would be one which would be generally acceptable to the Committee.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he saw so many practical difficulties in connection with the Amendment that he hoped the Government would reconsider the question, or, at all events, postpone its further consideration until they arrived at the stage of Report. He desired to ask one question which had occurred to him during the discussion. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) pointed out, in some parts of the country cottages with considerable gardens were let free of rent; but they were let to the tenants occupying the farms. In such a case, he should like to know who was
  378
  to be responsible for the compensation which was to be given under the Bill to the persons who cultivated these small gardens? Was the landlord or the tenant to be responsible for the compensation to be paid in case the gardens had been anywise improved? He certainly believed that men would infinitely prefer to take the gardens without any compensation rather than not have them at all. The tendency of this Amendment would be to prevent landlords, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cornwall (Mr. Acland) had pointed out, conferring upon the labouring classes a boon which was so much appreciated. This proposition had been sprung upon the Committee without notice, and it appeared to him that in discussing the Amendment they were mixing up two things which were wholly distinct from each other. On the one hand, they had been dealing with agricultural allotments pure and simple; and, on the other hand, they were asked to insert in the Bill a provision giving compensation to people who occupied allotments or possessed common Labourers' cottage gardens. In his opinion, if they accepted the Amendment, they would find themselves landed in great difficulties, many of which would come at a moment's notice, and so be impossible to foresee. He, therefore, hoped the Government would postpone the consideration of this question till a later period of their deliberations, and that, at all events, they would not now commit themselves to the principle contained in the Amendment.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) would accept the suggestion of the Government. Although that suggestion was not everything that might be desired, still it was very fair. There was one observation he should like to make, in consequence of the arguments used by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Acland), and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). Those hon. Gentlemen had said that the effect of accepting this Amendment would be to render the landlords less willing to portion out their land into small holdings, because of the trouble it would entail upon them. Such an argument, however, must work the other way also; for if, in accordance with this Bill, those

  379
  who occupied small tenancies were to get benefits, there would be a much greater demand for small tenancies, and, as a natural consequence, the value of land would be greatly increased.
  SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYwished to answer the observation made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich to the effect that small holders were turned out, lost their crops, and so suffered great detriment and injury. He (Sir Gabriel Goldney) had had considerable experience with reference to the allotment of land in garden plots; and he knew of no case where a man having a garden crop did not, according to the custom of the country, get the fair value of that growing crop if he happened to leave his holding. He had known scores of instances where men had refused compensation; but they had been put in the County Court, and the County Court had always held that a man was entitled to the fair value of a crop when he quitted his tenancy. What he feared, as regarded this Amendment, was that small holders and the occupiers of cottage gardens would be tempted to claim for small quantities of manure that they might have put on the land for the purpose of increasing the market stuff which they grew upon it. The holders of these small plots of land invariably sold off the produce, which was not the case as regarded the farmers. The latter sold their corn and straw and other produce, and, in return for some of it, bought manures, which they used on the farm, with the view of keeping up the fertility of the soil. If they accepted this Amendment they would deter landowners from allowing their land to be let in small holdings, because if they had a number of small lettings they would be kept in a perpetual state of ferment all their lives.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it seemed to him that the speech of The hon. Baronet (Sir Gabriel Goldney) was one of the strongest that could have been made in favour of the Amendment. The hon. Baronet had told them that in his part of the country the holders of small plots of land did get compensation according to the custom of the country. It must be remembered that the custom of the part of the country to which the hon. Gentleman belonged was not universal—that it was confined, in fact, to certain counties. The object of
  380
  this Bill was to render universal throughout the country that which prevailed in certain counties. he thought that, as the Bill stood, the onus was properly thrown on hon. Members who wished small holdings to be exempted to show that small holdings were such that they ought not to be compensated. He trusted his hon. Friend (Mr. Jesse Collings) would accept the proposal of the Government.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, it appeared that they were discussing two distinct questions. Gardens were frequently let by the week or by the month; but, as a rule, allotments were let by the year. The Government had said they would meet the case of weekly and monthly lettings of cottage gardens, not by accepting the Amendment as it was at present framed, but by accepting it subject to the omission of the limitation of two acres, and that then they would bring up words to provide that the provisions of the Act should not apply to weekly and monthly tenancies. He thought that even the Amendment suggested by the Government would lead to endless difficulties. The case of the holders was undoubtedly a strong one, and unless the Government were very careful they would find that their provisions would not last as long as would be desired.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman could scarcely complain that this Amendment had been sprung upon him, for it had been on the Paper for a considerable time. As to the good nature of landlords, it consisted generally of charging a rent of £4 or £5 an acre.
  SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, the allotments were nearly all under £2.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that, as he understood, the Amendment was agreed upon so far as leaving out these words; but the right hon. Gentleman had stated truly that many of these allotments were held for years, and yet they were subject to a week's or a month's notice. Therefore, if only those allotments, held upon a yearly tenancy, were to come in then, not one in a thousand would be affected by the alteration. But he accepted the Amendment of the Government, and on Clause 28 he would raise a further question, and endeavour to obtain his object.
  MR. DODSONwished to know whether the hon. Member accepted the

  381
  proposal the Government had made or not, because unless he was prepared to accept it entirely the Government would withdraw it.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, the hon. Member had asked for bread and got a stone. The Government were prepared to accept this Amendment, with the Proviso that it should only apply to holdings hold from year to year. The gardens attached to these cottages were to be left to the tenants who took the farms on lease or on a year to year tenancy. Farmers let these cottages to Labourers as weekly or monthly holdings; and, therefore, the result of the Amendment, with the alteration proposed by the Government, would be that when a farmer left a farm he would be able to claim compensation from the landlord for the good cultivation of the cottage gardens; and, that having been carried out by the Labourers, they themselves would be prevented from getting any compensation for their own labour, and would not come under the Bill in consequence of the cottages being held by them as weekly or monthly holdings. The result of the Amendment, as altered by the Government, would be that the farmers would get the benefit of the compensation of which the hon. Member wished the Labourers to have the benefit.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he thought the offer of the Government, under the circumstances, a harsh one. Because the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) had refused to accept it, and threatened a further Amendment on Clause 28, the Government, he thought, should allow those who would support them on both clauses to have a chance of accepting the Amendment. The proposal of the Government did not enable a cottager who held from a farmer, and who, therefore, could be turned out when the farmer ceased to employ him, to get compensation; but, still, there were many persons holding cottages who would be benefited by this clause, because they held their cottages on yearly tenancies.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that in the ease of a cottage let with a farm, the occupant of the cottage might be the servant of the farmer, and the landlord would have no control over it. The Government held that under that arrangement the landlord would be liable for
  382
  compensation, and he was to join in the valuation when it was taken. But was it to be the landlord or the farmer from whom the small tenants were to hold?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to a person holding one of these cottages by the week or month, and not by the year. In that case, as the Government proposed to deal with the matter, there would be no claim for compensation, because the tenant would not be a yearly tenant.
  COLONEL STANLEY: But suppose the cottager is a yearly tenant?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): If he is a yearly tenant, then, undoubtedly, the farmer who had the cottage with the farm would be liable.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:— Ayes 48; Noes 143: Majority 95.—(Div. List, No. 227.)
  MR. BOLTONsaid, he had an Amendment to propose which he thought explained itself; but the necessity of the Amendment might not be absolutely clear to hon. Members. Railway Companies were never allowed to hold surplus land; but they were allowed to hold laud for purposes connected with their undertaking, and they could for a time use them for purposes other than those for which they possessed them. For example, land obtained compulsorily for the purpose of increasing their siding accommodation, or making coal depôts, was frequently let for grassing, or some such purpose, until they required it for its original purpose. The plots were let for short terms, probably for a year, and at low rents; but, under this Bill, the Companies would be subject to having to pay compensation considerably in excess of the rent received. Therefore, unless these lands were excluded from the operation of the Act, they would probably become a cause of loss to the Companies; and for that reason he would move his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 9, line 16, after "acres," insert "or to any holding acquired and held by any Railway Company or Companies under the provisions of any Act of Parliament."—(Mr. Bolton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. DODSONsaid, he was unable to accept this Amendment, for he could not see how they were to draw a distinction between Railway Companies and any other holders.
  MR. WIGGINsaid, these surplus lands were only let for short periods until they were required for the use of the railway; and he thought it would be only fair that the Companies should be able to let these lands without being called upon to pay compensation. If that was not allowed, these lands would be a loss to the community during the time when tenants might cultivate the lands and grow crops for the benefit of individuals. If the clause remained as it was, the Railway Companies must refuse to let these lands, and they would then he waste; and he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, this Amendment was an admirable illustration of the wisdom of the Government in accepting the last Amendment. He admitted that he felt a sort of malicious satisfaction at seeing the hon. Member placed in his present difficulty in consequence of the Amendment which had been just carried, and which he had supported by his vote.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, that the Midland Railway Company had had in their possession for many years a tract of land at Bedford, and said he failed to see why Railway Companies should not come within the range of this Bill in the same way as other landed proprietors.
  MR. BOLTONthought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) scarcely seemed to realize his duty. Hon. Members opposed the Amendment because they imagined it would benefit the Railway Companies; but the fact was that it would benefit the public. But he did not wish to detain the Committee, and would, therefore, withdraw the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 9, at end of Clause, add—"Nevertheless, the sections relating to recovery of rent shall apply to rents of houses and other real property."—(Mr. Biddell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. DODSONsaid, this Amendment ought to have been moved earlier, and he was not prepared to accept it.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that before this clause was agreed to he had a question to ask, especially as the whole structure of the Bill had been altered in the last two hours. It had been extended in a manner which there was no reason to expect. Everyone who had left the House had gone away under the belief that the contested parts of the Bill were disposed of; but, to the surprise of the Committee, the Government had introduced Amendments which had extended the provisions of the Bill in various directions. In the first place, Railway Companies were to be inconvenienced by all their surplus lands being subject to the Bill. He wished them joy of all the proceedings they would have to go through in respect to compensation likely to be claimed by tenants; and he thought those who represented Railway Companies, and who had thought fit to support the Amendment, had only themselves to thank. He hoped tenant farmers would also note the vital change which had taken place contrary to their interests. It had been pointed out that there were a large number of cottages and cottage gardens let to farmers, and subsequently relet on monthly or yearly tenancies to Labourers; and also that compensation would have to be paid to Labourers when they left these cottages by the farmers, and not by the landlords. That was a matter which the tenant farmers would have to consider; and, in the third place, the Committee had found out that, in regard to allotments, those who let land in allotments were to be liable to all the provisions of this Bill. At least, they ought to know the limits of the changes that had been made; and he wished to ask the Government whether they were prepared to adhere to the determination they had expressed, and to take stops to exclude from the Bill weekly and monthly holdings?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that the Government intended distinctly to adhere to their determination, and to move an Amendment in the clause dealing with the definition of a tenant. As to the Railway Companies, that was a matter

  385
  which was absolutely untouched by the discussion about two acres, because the hon. Member behind him informed him that if the two acres had remained, that would have been no good, because the lands let by the Railway Company generally exceeded two acres. As to the other matter, when the right hon. Gentleman said the Committee had been taken by surprise, the Amendment was down on the Paper. The Government had taken Amendments from the other side of the House, and had been abused by this side for doing so; but the Committee could not suppose that the Government were blind and deaf as to Amendments. If they thought any Amendment desirable they were prepared to listen, and, if need be, to yield; and, therefore, he did not think there was any ground for complaint. They intended to adhere distinctly to their undertaking.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, there was good reason for his question, for the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) stated that if the hon. Member persisted in his Amendment, it was doubtful whether the Government would adhere to their determination.
  MR. KNIGHTsaid, there were tens of thousands of Labourers who had been living as yearly tenants for many years; but there would be few yearly tenants left if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was adhered to. They would all get notice to quit, and would be made weekly or monthly tenants; and getting rid of allotments would do more harm to the agricultural Labourers than it was possible to conceive.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 24 (Avoidance of agreement inconsistent with Act) agreed to.
  Clause 25 (Right of tenant in respect of improvement purchased from outgoing tenant) agreed to.
  Clause 26 (Compensation under this Act to be exclusive).
  COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEsaid, he was under the impression that if the clause was carried out it would have a harassing effect on the operations of the land bailiff, as carried out in his county; and he wished to ask the Government what would be the effect of this clause on Clause 60 of the Agricultural
  386
  Holdings Act, which was incorporated in this Bill, for it seemed to him that the one contradicted the other? Clause 26 said the tenant should not claim compensation by custom or otherwise for any improvement which was liable to compensation under this Act; but Clause 60 of the Act of 1875 said—
  "Except in this Act expressed, nothing in this Act shall take away or permanently or injuriously affect any power, right, or remedy under any custom of the country."
  Therefore, it seemed to him that the one affected the other, and he should be glad to know how that was?
  MR. DODSONsaid, there was no inconsistency between the two clauses. Clause 26 excluded compensation in this way, that a tenant should not be allowed to claim under custom compensation for improvements for which he was authorized to claim compensation under the Act. Section 60, which was incorporated, said—
  "Except as in this Act expressed, nothing in this Act shall take away or permanently or injuriously affect any power, right, or remedy under any custom of the country."
  COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEsaid, his difficulty was that if a tenant was entitled to compensation under the Act he could not also claim under custom.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that was so. It was expressly provided that if a person was entitled to compensation under the Act he was not entitled to compensation under custom.
  Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 27 (Provision as to change of tenancy) agreed to.
  Clause 28 (Interpretation Clause).
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSmoved, after "year," to insert "or for any shorter term." He said he moved this Amendment in order that the large number of persons whom he had already described should not lose the benefit of the Act. Another reason was that under the Allotment Extension Act of last year there were something like 250,000 acres of charity land in England and Wales to be let in allotments, and it rested with the Trustees and Charity Commissioners whether they should let the land under that Act at six or twelve months' notice. Practically, the land would be let from year to year; otherwise it would be of no use for the tenant to cultivate it;

  387
  but by inserting the words "three or six months' notice," the holders would be deprived of all the benefit of the Act. Although there might be some inconvenience in theory in accepting his Amendment; he did not think there would be in practice; while, on the other hand, unless it was accepted there would be great inconvenience and a great deal of suffering in the case of men holding these allotments. He knew of a case in which a man had a large tract of land, which he let in portions to a number of agricultural labourerss. As soon as these men had cleared the land from stones and got it into good condition the owner took it all away, and began to cultivate it himself, thus appropriating all the labour of those men. As this clause stood such men would not be protected in any way from that kind of proceeding; but by the words he proposed they would be protected. He could not see that there was any objection to them, and he thought the House ought to be as careful of the interests of these poorer people as of any other.
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 16, after the words "year to year," to insert the words "or for any shorter term."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. DODSONsaid, he could not assent to the Amendment.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he thought the Committee might accept this Amendment, for it was of very great importance to the agricultural interests of the country to encourage Labourers. He was advised that the scarcity of labour in the country was very serious indeed, and the consequence was that wages had increased 25 per cent. If it was the fact that many of these Labourers held from week to week or month to month, great injustice would be done to these Labourers by being turned out of their cottages after they had put crops into the land. Fair equity to the Labourers would secure them such compensation as was provided under the Act; and he thought the House would be very glad to manifest some practical sympathy with them.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, a tenant-at-will meant a tenant on sufferance, who could be turned out at the will of the
  388
  landlord; and, therefore, the proposal of the hon. Member applied to tenants who were not so secure as others. There was a great deal in this Amendment to recommend it to the Committee.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHasked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) to give some reason why large proprietors were being protected, and those to whom the landlords let the land, and who cultivated the land, were not? They might suffer less than other tenants, because they had less to lose; but that was no reason why they should not have the same security.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the Government had only accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) to the 23rd clause on the terms that it should be limited to tenancies from year to year. That being the arrangement come to, the hon. Member said he could not accept it, and the Government were now only standing by it, as several hon. Members had urged them to do.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, the agricultural labourers had not had much of the attention of the Committee—not so much as they would get in three years' time; while landlords and tenants could not have too much of the time of this law-giving Assembly. Labourers were rarely mentioned, although they were our true farmers, after all. They spent their lives on the land, but got the least out of it, and had the hardest lot of all. He, therefore, urged the necessity of accepting this Amendment, to which there were no objections. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had simply said it could not be accepted; but he advanced no practical objection whatsoever to it. The great objection to the Amendment was that there were a large number of allotments which would probably be withdrawn if this Amendment was passed; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman, if he had the will, might easily find some means by which those allotments might be excluded from the operation of the Amendment. Why keep in the words "at will," if the words "weeks" or "months'" or "half-year's" notice were not admitted. He would ask the hon. Member for Cornwall (Mr. Acland) or his father (Sir Thomas Acland), if he knew of allotments subject to a year's notice? And he ventured to say the hon.

  389
  Member did not know of one. He believed it would be difficult to find any rule which obtained under the Allotments Act, by which a tenant had a year's notice, and in cases where the allotments were let under a year's notice, they would get no benefit from this Bill. he had known very hard cases, in which men had been turned off their allotments for insufficient causes, and had lost the fruits of years of labour. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment to prevent such injustice. If they did not, he should divide in order to show the country what all these provisions meant.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASstated that in a great many villages there was a considerable quantity of land let out for the benefit of the people in the village, and not to make a profit. The letting of allotments was not always attended with any considerable profit; but, in many cases, the holders made the most of the good feeling of the landlord. He did not think allotment land was let out in every instance for the benefit of the landlord; it was frequently let for the benefit of the tenants only, and, therefore, he thought it would be monstrous if this Amendment was accepted.
  MR. C. SEELYsaid, he was one of those who disapproved of this Bill altogether; 'but he did not see why the benefits which the measure proposed to confer should not be extended to Labourers with small holdings as well as to ordinary agricultural tenants. He thought it would be a great mistake not to provide for the benefit of the labourer as well as the tenant.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 214: Majority 193.-(Div. List, No. 228.)
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 10, line 25, after "landlord," to insert "for a term of years, or for lives, or for lives and years, or from year to year."—(The Solicitor General.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked whether, under these words, a tenant who was a sub-tenant would be excluded?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the landlord did not let in these cases.
  MR. WARTONwished to know why a tenant should not be a tenant-at-will as well as a cottager? There were many landlords who let cottages for no rent at all, and who did not expect any rent; and in that case he wished to know whether, if it were so, there would be any inconsistuency between the two sections, because the context seemed to indicate tenancy at will? Did the Solicitor General intend to omit the words "at will;" and, if so, had his attention been called to the fact that there were many persons who were in possession and wore strictly tenants-at-will?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he thought it desirable not to leave these words out at present. He should, of course, consider the words; but one could not see at once how they would affect the whole Bill. He would bear the matter in mind, and, if necessary, omit the words on Report.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. PUGHmoved to insert, in line 25, after "landlord," the words "and quitting includes receiving notice to quit." This condition, entitling to compensation, was an entirely now condition, and had no place in the Act of 1875. He was aware that many of the arguments on the Amendment to the 1st clause were applicable here, and he should not advance them now. All he wished to point out was that some Amendment here was clearly necessary, because, as the clause stood, the tenant would only be entitled to quit his holding. In that case, no right would accrue to him, and he would not be entitled to anything at all. He was in hopes the Government would agree to this Amendment. If it met with their approval, he should be glad to put in another place a provision to the effect that payment should not be made until a subsequent period.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member could not move the Amendment after the word "landlord," but he could move it at the end of the last Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 35, after the last Amendment, insert "and quitting includes receiving notice to quit."—(Mr. Pugh.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREcould not accept the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 29 (Repeal of Act of 1875).
  MR. DODSONsaid, this was one of the clauses concerning which Notice had been given by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), and one which he (Mr. Dodson) had agreed to amend on re-commitment, when the clauses of the Act of 1875 which were to be retained in this Bill should be fully set forth.
  Clause, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 30 (Short title of Act) agreed to.
  Clause 31 (Limits of Act) agreed to.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, he wished to propose a new clause, to the effect that where compensation was claimed under Part III. of the Schedule, the landlord might require a description of the materials used. The object of the clause was to give the landlord that which he thought he might fairly claim—namely, the power of satisfying himself as to the quality of the manures, artificial or otherwise, or the quality of the feeding stuffs that have been used on the holding. Not only should the landlord be in the position to require information as to the kind of materials used when called upon to compensate the tenant for them, but it was desirable to pass a provision requiring the tenant to give the information, in order that the tenant himself might be saved from imposition. He had had before him, the other day, the tables of the analysis which had been undertaken by the Agricultural Society in Scotland. A professional analyst had analyzed certain manures sold by companies of manure manufacturers and manure dealers to tenant farmers in the neighbourhood, and the report of the analyst was very striking in more than one respect. It showed that in some cases farmers had been called upon to pay £9 or £10 a-ton for manures, the intrinsic value of which did not exceed £4 or £5 a-ton. Well, under this clause, not only would the landlord be protected against imposition, voluntarily or involuntarily, on the part of the tenant,
  392
  but the tenant would be protected by the fact that the landlord would have power to take samples of the manure for analysis by a competent analytical chemist. He (Sir Herbert Maxwell) trusted that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) would be able to see his way, if not to accept this clause as it stood, at all events to give the landlord some power of satisfying himself as to the nature of the stuff to be put on the land for which he was afterwards to be called upon to pay compensation; but not only that, but as to the mode and time of its application. It would be observed that, under this clause, during the currency of the lease it was not proposed to interfere with the manures to be applied. The clause would not apply until within the last five years of the lease, when it was provided that the description should be given to the landlord during the last rotation of crops previous to the termination of the lease. Where there was no lease, a landlord might require a description of the manures at any time during the tenancy. It seemed to him (Sir Herbert Maxwell) that this clause would be a great advantage to both landlord and tenant.
  New Clause:—
  (Where compensation is claimed under Part III. of Schedule, landlord may require description of materials used.)
  "Where compensation may be claimed for any operation under the third part of the Schedule, it shall be competent for the landlord or his agent at any time during the last rotation of crops previous to the termination of the lease, or in the case of a yearly tenancy then at any time during the same, to notify to the tenant in writing his intention to satisfy himself as to the quality of the material to be used or applied, and of the mode and time of its use or application, and, upon receiving such notification, the tenant shall be bound to inform the landlord or his agent, not less than fourteen days before the commencement of such use or application, of his intention to use or apply such material, and shall give facilities to the landlord or his agent to visit and inspect such material, to satisfy himself as to its proper use and application, and to take samples for analysis by a competent analytical chemist, such analysis to be taken into account in awarding compensation under this Act. No claim for compensation under the third part of the Schedule shall be considered unless the provisions of this section shall have been complied with,"—(Sir Herbert Maxwell,)
  —brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. DODSONsaid, this clause very much resembled, if it was not quite the same, an Amendment of which the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Loder), who was unfortunately absent from the House, had given Notice, and which was moved last night, in his absence, by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). As he understood it, in a year to year tenancy a tenant would never be able to apply manure without first giving notice to the landlord.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: Yes, if required to do so.
  MR. DODSON: Yes, if required to do so; and then the manures it was proposed to use were to be submitted to an analytical chemist. As he (Mr. Dodson) had stated last night, this Amendment was one which appeared to be drawn up mainly in the interest of analytical chemists. It would give those gentlemen a great deal of employment. He was not prepared to accede to the proposal, as every landlord would have the moans of protecting himself which he now possessed under the customs of the country.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he had to propose a new Clause, after Clause 5, as follows:—
  (Landlord to have compensation in case of waste by tenant.)
  "Where a tenant commits or permits waste, or commits a breach of a covenant or other agreement, the landlord shall be entitled, within two years after such waste or breach, and before the termination of the tenancy, to claim compensation in manner hereinafter mentioned in respect of such waste or breach. Every such claim shall be made by notice in writing served upon the tenant, and setting forth the particulars of the same; and, in case the landlord and tenant do not agree to such claim within one month after the service of such notice, the difference shall be settled by a reference in like manner as differences in relation to the payment of compensation to tenants, subject to and in accordance with the compensation provisions of this Act. Provided always, that in case of a reference the award may prescribe the mode and time of payment of any compensation there-under, and the terms and conditions (if any) upon which the tenant may be relieved from the payment of such compensation or any part thereof."
  The subject was discussed fully last night, so that he would not occupy the time of the Committee by going into it at any length. Two Amendments to it were to be proposed by the hon. Member
  394
  for Surrey (Mr. Brodrick)—namely, to leave out, from line 2, "within two years of such waste or breach and before," and to insert "at any time before or at." Also, in line 10, to leave out from "Provided" to end of the Amendment. His (Mr. Heneage's) object in making this proposal was, that when the waste took place the landlord might at once call the attention of the tenant to it, and so, probably, put a stop to it. If the tenant did not put a stop to the waste or deterioration, an arbitrator might be appealed to without waiting until the end of the four years, at the end of which period, in all probability, it would be forgotten how the land was situated when the waste was committed. With these few words he begged to move the Amendment.
  New Clause (Landlord to have compensation in case of waste by tenant,)—(Mr. Heneage,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. DODSONsaid, that, as he understood the proposed clause, the effect of it would be to give a direct claim for waste to the owner under the Bill, and not a mere set-off of a claim for waste against compensation claimed by the tenant, such as had been provided for by the Bill. If that were the case, it was an alteration of the law on the subject of waste in favour of the landlord. Furthermore, as he understood it, it would make a year-to-year tenant liable for permissive waste, which he was not liable for at the present moment. There was a distinction between active and permissive waste; leaseholders only were liable for permissive waste, and as he (Mr. Dodson) read the clause it would incidentally extend the clause in that respect also. As this provision was one to alter the law in regard to waste in either or both of these matters he had pointed out, the Government were not prepared to accept it, as they did not intend to make any alteration in the Law of Waste in the interests of the landlord. If, however, he misunderstood the proposition, and it was not one that altered the law, then it appeared to him there was no need for it, because it contained nothing that could not be inserted in the covenant of

  395
  an agreement or lease. It appeared to him that the clause either went beyond the intention of the Bill, or that it was unnecessary.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, he hoped the Government would reconsider their decision in this matter. He believed there was a general feeling amongst the landlords of the country that the general provisions of this Bill were not sufficient to guard their property against deterioration by waste. The provisions of the measure were entirely directed to according tenants compensation for the improvements they made, and to give the landlords au adequate set-off. What the right hon. Gentleman asked them to do was to wait until the end of the tenancy to assess deterioration, and by waiting so long it might be found, when the witnesses were called, it was almost impossible for the landlord to satisfy any arbitrator that the waste had been committed. It was obvious to anyone who had any knowledge of husbandry that the most difficult thing in the world to decide was the question of the waste committed, especially when it referred to matters that might have occurred some months, or even a year or two before; and he did, therefore, sincerely hope that in the interest of fairness the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, as they had done so much to strengthen the position of the tenant in performing improvements on his holding, would give the landlords who had to pay for those improvements some power of preserving their property when the tenants quitted their holdings. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) had stated that in the case of a year-to-year tenant permissive waste was recognized by this clause. If that were an innovation in the law, no doubt his hon. Friend (Mr. Heneage) would withdraw that portion of the clause. He (Mr. Brodrick) would ask the hon. Member to do so. It might be said the clause was unduly stringent; but it gave a landlord what was obviously fair and just as a set-off to that which was given to the tenant. To allow him to assess the waste that might take place on his property could not be called too stringent. The right hon. Gentleman had not given them a particle of argument why this power should not be given to the landlord, except that it was a new power. Well, the Bill gave a new power in the
  396
  case of the tenant; and, that being so, why should it not give a new power in the case of the landlord? he hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Heneage) would press the matter to a Division, because he believed the arguments against it from the Front Bench opposite were absolutely inadequate, and most unsatisfactory. If the Bill was not strengthened in this particular, he believed its progress would be seriously interfered with. On the 6th clause, hon. Members had been anxious not to put down Amendments which they might have put down and had discussed, because they thought they would have had no difficulty in passing such a clause as the present.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he could not help thinking there was some misapprehension on the part of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that the clause would alter the law—
  MR. HENEAGE, interrupting, said, be should be prepared to strike out "permissive waste."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, then it came to this, that where the tenant committed waste the landlord should be entitled, within two years after such waste, to claim compensation. But the landlord could do that now—that was the law of the land. They did not give fresh power to the landlord by passing these words; in fact, they would limit the landlord's power to the extent of enacting that the landlord should only be entitled to compensation in respect of waste within two years after it had occurred, and before the termination of the tenancy. All this clause would do would be to provide that, in the case of a reference, the award might describe the mode and time of payment of any compensation there-under, and the terms and conditions, if any, on which the tenant might be relieved from payment of such compensation, or any part thereof.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he intended to omit that part of the clause.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): Be it so, then the clause did not alter the law one bit; it said the landlord should be entitled to compensation for waste, and the law said that already. The hon. Member would gain nothing by the insertion of this clause. The clause provided that

  397
  in these cases the claim might be settled by arbitration; but it was always open to agree by arbitration—a clause could be inserted in any agreement to the effect that claims of this kind should be settled by arbitration. The hon. Gentleman opposite said the Government were unreasonable in refusing to accept this Amendment; but it seemed to him (the Solicitor General) that if they did accept it they would be giving nothing whatever to the landlord, and would only be throwing a doubt on what the landlord possessed in point of law at the present moment. [Mr. BRODRICK: No, no.] He (the Solicitor General) was of a contrary opinion, and believed that it always threw doubt on a settled thing if, for the first time, they put it into an Act of Parliament. People grew fearful that it was seine kind of limitation, and doubts and difficulties arose. On the whole, unless the Committee were prepared to give a new right, it would be better to leave this matter alone.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, the question was pretty fully discussed yesterday, and it was generally recognized that the object of the proposal was to give the landlord a set-off against the claims of the tenant; and the effect of it would be to give another remedy for waste, in addition to that already provided by law, which was much more simple and effective. The clause would have the effect of complicating the matter, and would drive the landlord into a reference to an arbitrator to obtain compensation, instead of enabling him to take a direct course, which it was competent for him to do.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, there were two objects which seemed to him to be desirable. The first was to prevent deterioration and waste going on year after year until the determination of the tenancy, and the next was to give the landlord more summary powers to prevent waste and deterioration. With these objects in view, he had given Notice of a new clause by which landlords would be empowered to apply to the County Court, not only to stop waste and deterioration upon the holding, but to stop any act of the tenant which would be injurious to the estate. He ventured to think that such summary power as his clause would give was far more desirable than an expensive
  398
  suit such as the landlord could bring under the existing Common Law. He trusted the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) would withdraw this clause, and that the clause which he had now drawn attention to would receive favourable consideration at the hands of the Government. There was a great deal to be said from the point of view of those who urged that whatever might be law with regard to tenancies should appear on the face of the Act. The Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) had told them that certain things which did not appear on the face of the Bill were Common Law, and so forth. He understood this Bill to be a codification of the law with regard to tenancies. Certainly it professed to be so, though he had no doubt it would prove very different from what it professed to be. However, it had hitherto been recommended to Parliament on the ground that it was a codification of the existing law. The other day there was a good deal of reference to another Act, the provisions of which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) undertook to embody in this Bill. he referred to the Act of 1875. A good deal of what was urged, they were told, was already law. He was glad to hear it; but it would certainly be wise that it should be included in the Bill.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that if they were to introduce all the laws relating to landlord and tenant into this Bill, they would have a very large and unwieldy Act. It would, however, as a matter of fact, be impossible to incorporate all the laws respecting landlord and tenant into the Bill.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. GREGORYproposed to insert, after Clause 8, the following Clause:—
  (Provision in case of trustees).
  Where the landlord is a person entitled to receive the rents and profits of any holding as trustee or in any character otherwise than for his own benefit the amount due from such landlord in respect of compensation under this Act or in respect of compensation authorised by this Act to be substituted for compensation under this Act shall be charged and recovered as follows and not otherwise (that is to say):

  (1.) The amount so due shall not be recoverable personally against such landlord nor shall he be under any liability to pay such amount but the same shall be a charge on and recoverable against the holding only;

  399

  (2.) Such landlord shall either before or after having paid to the tenant the amount due to him be entitled to obtain from the county court a charge on the holding to the amount of the sum required to be paid or which has been paid as the case may be to the tenant;

  (3.) If such landlord neglect or fail within one month after the tenant has quitted his holding to pay to the tenant the amount due to him then after the expiration of such one month the tenant shall be entitled to obtain from the county court in favour of himself his executors administrators and assigns a charge on the holding to the amount of the sum due to him and of all costs properly incurred by him in obtaining the charge or in raising the amount due thereunder;

  (4.) The court shall on proof of the tenant's title to have a charge made in his favour make an order charging the holding with payment of the amount of the charge including costs in like manner and form as in case of a charge which a landlord is entitled to obtain.

  He had given Notice of other clauses, which, he believed, would be taken up by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) at a subsequent stage of the Bill; and therefore he would not now move them. The clause he now moved was not in the Act of 1875. Under the Bill as it stood the tenant, on obtaining this award, would be entitled immediately to obtain compensation from his landlord, and the landlord would be bound to pay it down there and then. In the case of trustees this might involve very great personal liability. The trustees of an estate might be what were called the legal owners of the property, and they would be responsible under the terms of the lease. It often happened, however, that trustees had no funds in their hands out of which to pay compensation; but they would have to provide the funds in some way or other out of their own pockets, because they would be liable to an action by the tenant. This would be very hard in the case of gentlemen acting in the capacity of trustees, whose liabilities as trustees were already very heavy. What he ventured to suggest was, that the liability should be transferred to the holding itself, and that the claim should be recoverable against the property. His Amendment enabled this to be done, because it provided that unless the landlord paid the compensation within a month, the tenants should be entitled to obtain a charge upon the property.
  New Clause (Provision in case of trustees,)—(Mr. Gregory,)—brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. DODSONsaid, it appeared to him that the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory) was a very just and reasonable one. As far as he understood the clause, it gave effect, very properly, to what the hon. Gentleman had stated. He must, however, speak with a certain amount of reservation, which his hon. Friend would understand. He was prepared to agree to the clause if the Committee was disposed to accept it, and between this and Report they would examine it very carefully and see if it required any alteration.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  MR. HENEAGEproposed to insert, after Clause 11, the following Clause:—
  "When, by any Act of Parliament, deed, or other instrument, a lease of a holding is authorised to be made, provided that the best rent, or reservation in the nature of rent, is by such lease reserved, then, whenever any lease of a holding is, under such authority, made to the tenant of the same, it shall not be necessary, in estimating such rent or reservation, to take into account, against the tenant, the increase (if any) in the value of such holding arising from any improvements made or paid for by him on such holding."
  New Clause (Mr. Heneage) brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. DODSONsaid, he considered that the clause might need consideration as to its form; but its object was a right one, and the Government were prepared to agree to it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  MR. WAUGHproposed to insert, in lieu of Clause 19, the following Clause:—
  "No person whatsoever making any distress for rent on a holding to which this Act applies, when the sum demanded and due shall exceed the sum of twenty pounds for or in respect of such rent, shall be entitled to any other or more costs and charges for and in respect of such distress or any matter or thing done therein

  401
  than such as are fixed and set forth in the fourth part of the Schedule hereto."
  New Clause (Mr Waugh) brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  MR. STORY-MASKELYNEproposed the following Clause in page 10:—
  "If the landlord's interest in a holding, subject to a contract of tenancy from year to year or at will is transferred by sale or otherwise, or transmitted on death or otherwise, the terms of tenancy shall not be altered without the consent of the tenant until the expiration of two years from the date of the transference or transmission."
  The clause was one which the Government had given their assent to by anticipation. Its object was, that anyone coming into a property either by inheritance or by purchase should not be able at once to pounce upon the tenants and turn them out, until he had had an opportunity of looking round and making their acquaintance, and until the tenants themselves knew the position in which they stood with regard to their new landlord. The clause invaded no existing right, and he hoped the Committee would allow it to be added to the Bill without discussion.
  New Clause (Mr. Story-Maskelyne) brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, The hon. Gentleman had not advocated the adoption of the clause on the ground that it was beneficial to the tenant. In point of fact, the clause was simply intended to prevent an owner of property making a fool of himself.
  MR. STORY - MASKELYNEsaid, that what he meant was that the tenant should be protected from anything like arbitrary action on the part of his landlord. He certainly had advised the adoption of the clause from the point of view of the landlord's interest, because he thought that that was the line of argument which would be most likely to weigh with the Committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he understood that it was intended by the Amendment to prevent a man who came into possession of property doing whatever
  402
  he chose with the property until two years had elapsed. He hoped the Government would not agree to such a proposal.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, that the clause had been before the public for five years. It was originally introduced in the Tenants' Compensation Bill, and there was nothing which would give more satisfaction to tenant farmers than that they should be protected against the arbitrary conduct of a new agent or a new landlord. All that was desired was that the tenant should have time to make terms with a new landlord. He earnestly hoped the Committee would adopt the clause. The only objection that seemed to be raised against it was that it would very much depreciate the value of property. Of course it would; but it must be remembered that a man who wished to sell his land should not be allowed, at the same time, to sell manures which the tenant had put into the land.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he understood that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) accepted the spirit of the Amendment some time ago.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that when the hon. Baronet (Sir Thomas Acland) remarked that the landlord would be prevented from selling the manures the tenant had put on the land, he forgot that the tenant had power to claim compensation for those manures.
  MR. PEMBERTONsaid, he considered this a distinct invasion of the right of the landlord to sell his own property. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Story-Maskelyne) had said the clause was intended to prevent the tenant being robbed of the value of his manures. But the tenant would have precisely the same remedy against the new landlord as against the old. Therefore, to restrict the right of the landlord to sell his property, or to prevent his successor occupying the land himself, if he chose, seemed the most monstrous proposition that was ever brought forward in the House of Commons.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, they had been told that land was to be a marketable commodity; but the present proposition was certainly one which, if agreed to, would place a special disability upon those who acquired land in open market. The hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Thomas

  403
  Acland) said that the clause had been before the public for five years, and that it was first introduced into the Tenants' Compensation Bill. What Bill was that, pray?
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, it was the Bill he had moved in 1875, and which he had constantly brought before the House since.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought the hon. Baronet had referred to some measure which had become law. The hon. Baronet, however, had not told them that his proposal had met with no favour in the House. He (Mr. J. Lowther) did not think the Government would be disposed to encourage exceptional legislation of that kind.
  MR. DODSONsaid, there were many objections to the insertion of the clause in an Act, though it might be a very proper and considerate one for an owner to introduce into an agreement. If, however, it were made law, he could very well see that serious difficulties might arise from its adoption in the case of the landlord dying or selling his property under certain circumstances. The more he consided the clause the less it seemed desirable that it should be adopted.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. SLAGGbegged to move the following new Clause—
  (Division of holding for building purposes.)
  "Nothing in this Act shall apply to prevent any landlord from taking under any contract, agreement, or covenant entered into with the tenant, the whole or any part of any holding with the object of conveyancing or demising the same to any person or persons willing to enter into covenants for the erection thereon of any buildings: Provided, That, in case of the whole of the holding being taken for such purpose the tenant shall be paid such compensation as he would have been entitled to under this Act, upon the determination of his tenancy by effluxion of time, and in case of part only of the holding being taken the compensation in respect of the entire holding shall be paid at the expiration of the tenancy of such part thereof as shall not be taken under this Clause unless otherwise agreed upon between the landlord and tenant."
  New Clause (Mr. Slagg) brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he understood
  404
  the object of the clause was to give compensation to the tenant in respect of the land taken for building purposes at the expiration of the tenancy where the tenant remained in possession of the holding. He pointed out that a landlord might take a portion of the holding under agreement or covenant, and he apprehended that if the landlord was able so to take a portion of the holding the tenant would remain the tenant as to the rest of the holding. As to the part which he had to give up, that, he thought, was within the Bill. He would consider the matter, although he was not sure the clause would meet all cases that would arise.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that in Scotland it was always in the power of the landlord to take land in plots for building purposes.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he saw no reason why a tenant should lose his compensation because a portion of his holding happened to be taken away from him for building purposes under an arrangement between himself and the landlord. If the hon. Member would withdraw the clause he would consider the matter before Report.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDproposed the following new Clause to come in at end of Part II.—
  (Bailiffs to be appointed by county court judges.)
  "From and after the commencement of this Act no person shall act as a bailiff to levy any distress unless he shall be authorised to act as such by a certificate in writing under the hand of the judge of the county court having jurisdiction in the district in which the distress is levied; and every county court judge shall, on or before the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, and afterwards from time to time as occasion shall require, appoint a competent number of fit and proper persons to act as such bailiffs as aforesaid in the district in which he has jurisdiction. If any person so appointed shall be proved to the satisfaction of the said judge to have been guilty of any extortion or other misconduct in the execution of his duty as a bailiff, he shall be liable to have his appointment summarily cancelled by the said judge."
  He thought this a clause of some importance, as frequent complaints were made of the conduct of bailiffs, and he trusted the Government would accept it.
  New Clause (Bailiffs to be appointed by county court judges)—(Sir Henry

  405
  Holland)—brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. DODSONsaid, as the clause seemed a proper one to be introduced. into the Bill, he would accept it, and, if necessary, amend it on Report.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  On the Motion of Sir HENRY HOLLAND, Amendment made, in the first line of the clause, after the word "bailiff," by inserting the words "under this Act."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he rose to ask leave to insert the following Clause:—
  "Any sum found due by the landlord to the tenant may be set off against any rent due to the landlord, and the landlord shall not be entitled to distrain for more than the balance due."
  This clause was in accordance with the Report of the Select Committee of last year. It was unanimously resolved by that Committee that the Law of Distress, enabling the landlord to distrain for the amount of rent due without allowing for any counter claim, had given rise to some cases of great hardship, and that some provision should be made to meet that defect in the law. Evidence was given before the Committee of two cases of hardship which occurred in his own county. In one case the tenant had occupied a farm for a great many years, he had been at a very heavy expense and had considerably improved the farm, he was obliged by circumstances to give notice, and on a valuation being made it was found to be more than was due to the landlord. The tenant left his holding, and some time afterwards he was applied to for payment of his rent, but that he declined on the ground that there was a balance due to him. After correspondence had taken place between the lawyers, the man's wheat crop was seized and sold at public auction, although at that time the landlord was growing a crop of hops on the poles belonging to the tenant which he had not paid for; the inhabitants of the district were so disgusted with the treatment he received that they subscribed a sum of money, and an action was brought against the landlord at the
  406
  Assizes, which, after the venue was changed to London, ended in favour of the tenant receiving a considerable sum of money. He begged to move the addition of the clause he had described to the Committee.
  New Clause (Mr. Duckham) brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. DODSONsaid, he thought the Committee would see that they could not satisfactorily discuss so complicated a clause as that which the hon. Member had just announced without having Notice of it. Therefore, he would suggest to his hon. Friend its withdrawal in order that it might be put upon the Paper and considered on Report.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought the proposal of the hon. Member a very good one; at the same time, he thought it would be better that it should be brought forward again on Report.
  MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he was willing to yield to the suggestion that the clause should be withdrawn and brought forward again on Report, when he trusted it would receive the favourable consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SCHEDULE. PART I.

  IMPROVEMENTS TO WHICH CONSENT OF LANDLORD IS REQUIRED.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he had had occasion, at the commencement of the discussions in Committee on this Bill, to point out the incomplete arrangement of the Schedule. He proposed to move that the words "formation of silos" be added to the Schedule. These were frequently in the form of an excavation in the ground, and they did not, therefore, come under the denomination of "erection or enlargement of buildings." He thought it absolutely necessary that silos should be included in the Schedule as one of the improvements for which the tenant was to be compensated.
  Amendment proposed, to add, after the word "buildings," in line 1, the words "and the formation of silos."—(Mr. J. Howard.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. STORERsaid, he did not think there was any necessity for this Amendment, because at present silos were quite experimental.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he thought the question of silos was not proper to the first line of the Schedule, and that it would be better to move it at the end of Part I.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he believed silos were destined to bring about a very important change in the agricultural interest, and that it was absolutely necessary to make provision for them. Seeing that the consent of the landlord was necessary to their formation, he trusted the Committee would assent to their being included in the Schedule, and he would now move the Amendment he had just withdrawn at the end of Part I.
  Amendment proposed, in Schedule, at the end of Part I., to add the words "formation of silos."—(Mr. J. Howard.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. DODSONhoped the Committee would not occupy a long time in discussing this. So far as he was concerned, if an enterprizing tenant wished to farm silos, and the owner consented, he did not see why he should not be entitled to do so. He was perfectly willing to accept the Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, he proposed to add, at the end of 1st Part—"(13.) Embankments and sluices against floods." He did not wish to take up time unnecessarily, if the right hon. Gentleman had considered this sufficiently; if not, he was quite ready to explain why he introduced it.
  Amendment proposed, in Schedule 1, Part I., at end, to add—"(13.) Embankments and sluices against floods."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. DODSONsaid, he would accept the Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDwished to add to the Schedule the planting of
  408
  fruit. If it was necessary to provide compensation, then it was necessary to include this item, for in many districts it was an important industry. What he wished to include was bush fruit and currant trees, such as were not included in the term "orchard." He had looked through the Schedule, and failed to see that any provision of the kind was made. Agriculturists were constantly exhorted to increase the production of fruit, and in some of the Southern and Western counties, it was a considerable item, and he hoped the Committee would see the importance of it.
  Amendment proposed, at end of Schedule, to add "planting of fruit-trees."—(Mr. J. Howard.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. DODSONsaid, he should have though this was unnecessary, because he should consider it was included in the "planting of orchards or making of gardens;" but if there was any doubt about that, if "orchard" could be held to be confined to any particular kind of tree, he did not see any objection to the Amendment.
  MR. STORERsaid, if the words "and fruit trees," were inserted after "orchards," that would meet the case.
  MR. PEMBERTONasked, did the hon. Member mean to include every kind of tree—"gooseberries," for instance; and, if so, why should "strawberries" be left out? He suggested to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire that the words should be "cranberries, strawberries, raspberries, gooseberries, or any other berries."
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. DUCKHAMsaid, the Committee had provided for the making of fences; but there was a heavy item sometimes for the removal of old hedge-rows. It was desirable also to provide for the removal of boulders and rocks, which sometimes occasioned a heavy outlay; this ought to be added to the Schedule.

PART II.

  IMPROVEMENTS IN RESPECT OF WHICH NOTICE TO LANDLORD IS NOT REQUIRED.
  MR. STORERsaid, the object of the Amendment he had placed on the Paper was to allow drainage when not costing

  409
  more than £20 to come under Part I. of the Schedule. He did not insist on the particular figure of £20—perhaps £10 would do; the object being that the tenant should not drain without the sanction of the landlord. In many parts of the country it was the custom for landlord and tenant to do the work between them, the landlord finding the tiles and the tenant putting them in, but subject to the supervision of the landlord or someone appointed by him. He had known drainage work done by a tenant in an inferior manner, but in such a manner that no valuer, when the tenant went out, could tell whether it was well done or not. he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment. It seemed to be the general opinion that a tenant should not be allowed to drain any land indiscriminately without the consent of the landlord but the tenant would, under the Amendment, be allowed to do anything to the extent of £20, and this was only reasonable, because it might be necessary to repair a drain or outfall quickly, and this might be required to be done almost before the consent of the landlord could be obtained.
  Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 18, to leave out Part II., and insert "Drainage where the total sum expended amounts to more than twenty pounds."—(Mr. Storer.)
  Question proposed, "That Part II. stand part of the Schedule."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he should have been tempted to vote with The hon. Member had the Bill remained in the same condition in which it had entered Committee; but protection had been given the landlord by two Amendments which had been inserted—the one, the Amendment to the 1st clause which he had moved, and which he understood' the Government would endeavour to dispose of at another stage; and, in the second place, there was the protection of the rate of interest the landlord might charge if he did the work himself. As the Bill was brought in, the tenant could do the work himself or compel the landlord to do it; but now a landlord, if he disapproved of the system the tenant meant to adopt, would be at liberty to do it in his own way, and to charge a rate of interest to the tenant for so doing. The landlord, therefore, would
  410
  be sufficiently protected, and he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment to a Division.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he would not follow the hon. Gentleman into his argument; but he must not suppose he admitted what was said because he did not controvert it now. The whole of this question was amply discussed on Clause 4, and he hoped the hon. Member would not insist upon the Committee going over the same ground again; and, in fact. it appeared to him it would not be in Order to do so.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, it appeared to him that, under the circumstances, Part II. was absolutely necessary; and he appealed to his hon. Friend not to press his Amendment, as otherwise he should support the Government clause as it stood, if it came to a vote.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

PART III.

  IMPROVEMENTS TO WHICH CONSENT OF LANDLORD IS NOT REQUIRED.
  MR. STORERsaid, his next Amendment was directed to a practical object, and it was, he thought, quite necessary. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport moved an Amendment something of the same nature earlier, but withdrew it because it could be dealt with in the Schedule. The Amendment was merely to secure the landlord from paying for manure of a worthless character, such as artificial manure often was, and in this direction it would serve as a guide to the valuer.
  Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 31, after "manure," insert "of fully and generally recognized value."—(Mr. Storer.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. DODSONsaid, to insert this Amendment would be to needlessly encumber the Act with words that would have no force in them for the protection of the landlord. If manure was to be paid for according to its value, it was obvious the valuer would have to ascertain if it was of good value.
  MR. STORERsaid, he thought it extremely necessary to have that pointed out. It was very well known in business that quantities of valueless artificial manures were palmed off upon tenants,

  411
  and valuers ought to be made aware of that; it would strengthen their case.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. STORERsaid, the addition which he next had to propose was necessary in relation to consumption by animals of feeding stuffs not produced on the holding, and, without it, a tenant might be unfairly treated. It was obvious that feeding stuffs might pass through horses on the holding as well as through cattle, sheep, or pigs. Many farmers devoted themselves very much to the breeding and rearing of horses for sale, and it seemed only right that this should be taken into consideration in reference to unexhausted improvements.
  Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 32, after "by," insert "horses."—(Mr. Storer.)
  Question proposed, "That the word ' horses' be there inserted."
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press this Amendment, and he would tell him why. Under the Schedule "corn" was included. It was undoubtedly among the feeding stuffs for which compensation was to be given, and though a farmer might keep many horses, he might keep them for other purposes than those of the farm. Farmers sometimes kept hunters and carriage horses. That being so, it was impossible to discriminate between the classes of horses consuming the food, and it would be unreasonable to give compensation in respect to horses kept for luxury only. Under the Lincolnshire custom corn was carefully excluded in the Schedule, for the very reason that horses were liable to be used. in that way.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he should support the Amendment. In the Fen country during the winter months a farmer would often have one yard filled with young cart horses, and another with bullocks. It appeared to him most unjust that the referee called upon to value the improvements on the holding should take into consideration the corn, the cake, and other things consumed by the bullocks, and not take into account the same feeding stuffs consumed by these growing horses. He was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) take exception to the Amendment, knowing
  412
  the great interest in the breeding of horses taken by his county. The breeding and rearing of cart horses was becoming a very important industry, and large numbers were being exported, and every encouragement should be given to the pursuit. He hoped the hon. Member, with faith in the justice of the provision, would press the Amendment to a Division.
  MR. CROPPERsaid, he thought it would be a great absurdity to make a charge on account of keep for horses kept for luxury, or which were let out for hire in carts or waggons, and all such would come in under the Amendment.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the fact was that the corn consumed on the farm by horses was produced on the farm.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 104: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 239.)
  SIR HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Charles Phipps) he would move the Amendment standing in his name. As many hon. Members would know, at present a very large quantity of milk was often sold from the dairy on a farm. In former days cheese was made and the whey was given to the pigs, so that the farm benefited largely by the produce of this consumption of corn and cake by the cows. But when the milk was sold off the farm, the farm was deprived of that produce. It was, therefore, a question whether a landlord should be called upon to compensate for the consumption by milk cows whose produce was sold off the farm.
  Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 32, after "cattle, insert "other than cows in milk."—(Sir Hussey Vivian.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. DODSONsaid, he felt some difficulty in dealing with this Amendment. He did not see how the Amendment could be made applicable to mixed farms, farms not dairy farms, but where a tenant kept cattle, sheep, and pigs, and among the animals a certain number of cows. How was anyone to determine the extent and proportion of the consumption by cows? He should think the case would probably be this. If the land was to be perpetually "dairied,"

  413
  which was an exhaustive process, that would be a matter considered in adjusting the rent; or, if not, there could be some agreement by which the tenant, in consideration of this, would be liable to bring back manure, and if the tenant claimed compensation, the owner would have a set-off under Clause 6. He did not see his way to accept the Amendment; but he did not wish to pronounce dogmatically on the subject, for he had had no experience of land perpetually "dairied" in that way.
  MR. STORERsaid, the Amendment, if accepted, would be another robbery of the tenant in addition to that just perpetrated.
  MR. DUCKHAMsaid, if the Schedule included a scale of compensation, then it would be desirable to consider the Amendment proposed; but it would certainly be a matter for the valuer and for arbitration in valuing the manure made from different kinds of animals. If on a dairy farm, where all the milk was sold off, which was very impoverishing to the land, it would be known there was very little benefit to the land from the consumption of feeding stuffs, and the valuation would be made accordingly. The Amendment was quite unnecessary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. STORERsaid, he wished to have corn and maize added to the Schedule after "cake," unless he was assured by the right hon. Gentleman these articles were covered by the words "other feeding stuffs." Hitherto corn had not been allowed for, but when, as now, it was at a low price, it was largely purchased for feeding stock.
  Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 32, after "cake," insert "corn, maize."—(Mr. Storer.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. DODSONsaid, these words were included under the general term "feeding stuffs."
  MR. STORERsaid, that was what he wished to elicit, and he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. STORERsaid, he had another Amendment which completed the series. It was necessary that the valuer should
  414
  be satisfied that the purchases were actually used for feeding purposes. Vouchers might be produced for the purchase, but the grain bought might have been used for seed or other purposes.
  Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 33, after "holding," insert "and bonâ fide purchased and used for feeding purposes only."—(Mr. Storer.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. DODSONsaid, the words appeared to him to be wholly unnecessary. The words in the Schedule dealt with the consumption of feeding stuffs on the holding, and to add to that "used for feeding purposes only" was more repetition. The bonâ fide purchase was a matter the valuer would have to see to.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, there was some necessity for some words of the kind, seeing that now in the feeding stuffs for which compensation was to be given corn would be included, for undoubtedly the door was opened to a good deal of fraud. Take the case of a tenant who was dishonestly inclined and about to leave his farm, it would be impossible for the valuer to place any check on the amount claimed to be consumed. The hon. Member supplied an admirable argument against his first Amendment when he said if they give compensation for corn they must insist on it having been used for food and not used for seed or sold by the farmer. What was to prevent a farmer exchanging corn with another, all purchased and not produced on the farm, who was to say what was used on the holding? He doubted whether corn should not be excepted altogether, and be still reserved the right, if upon consideration he thought it right to do so, to move its omission on Report. It would be wise to accept some such words as were proposed by the Amendment.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, if corn were purchased among feeding stuffs and no corn was ground on the holding, assuredly it must be used for feeding purposes.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, there still might be some doubt which words such as these would remove.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, fraudulent transactions might arise in connection with cake and any other feeding stuff.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, this must be left to the judgment of the arbitrator. As to what the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) said as to the elimination of corn from the feeding stuffs and the Lincolnshire custom, some two years ago, in discussing the hon. Member's own Bill, one of the principal farmers of that county had written to him (Mr. Howard) to say how unsatisfactory it was to the farmers of Lincolnshire that they were not allowed for corn, for when barley was so low in price it was a good deal used instead of cake, and it seemed unjust that those who purchased foreign cake were compensated for its consumption, while those who purchased home-grown corn were not.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he would ask the hon. Member whether he agreed that this compensation for corn did open the door to fraud? It undoubtedly would to an enormous extent. He knew perfectly well the gentleman to whom the hon. Member had referred, and he had often discussed the subject with him; but the view was far from being that of the Lincolnshire farmers, and the gentleman in question acknowledged the opinion was confined to himself. He owned a farm growing very little else than corn, and stood, therefore, in a very exceptional position.
  COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEsaid, he quite agreed with his hon. Friend that there might be instances of fraud; but the valuer, if he suspected any dishonesty, would look into the matter and examine witnesses. Such frauds required collusion, and strict inquiry would prevent it being carried on any considerable extent.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he did not wish to prolong the debate; but as he had been directly appealed to, he would say if a man was inclined to be a rogue in such matters, he could as easily exercise his roguery in reference to cake as to corn; but it would not be difficult to detect such roguery.
  MR. STORERsaid, he fully understood that state of things, and his Amendment applied to all feeding stuffs. With the same object with which he moved his Amendment in reference to the value of manure, so here he wished to insert the words as a guide to the valuer. The valuer would have to take care there was no fraud. The hon. Member for Mid
  416
  Lincolnshire justly said it was necessary to have some few words of this kind to guard the landlord against being imposed upon, making it absolutely necessary for the valuer to see that the corn was properly applied. It was very easy for a farmer to buy corn expressly for feeding purposes.
  Question put, and negatived,
  MR. WAUGHmoved, in page 12, after line 32, to insert—

PART IV.

  LEVYING DISTRESS.
  "Three per centum on any sum exceeding £20 and not exceeding £50. Two and a half per centum on any suns exceeding £50. To bailiff for levy, £1 1s. 0d. To man in possession if bearded,3s.6d. per day; if not bearded 5s. per day. For advertisements the sum actually paid. To auctioneer—for sale, five pounds per centum on the sum realised not exceeding £100, and four per centum on any additional sum realised not exceeding £100, and on any sum exceeding £200 three per centum. A fraction of £1 to be in all cases considered £1. Reasonable costs and charges where distress is withdrawn or where no sale takes place, and for negotiations between landlord and tenant respecting the distress; such costs and charges, in case the parties differ, to be taxed by the Registrar of the County Court of the district in which the distress is made."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the Government would assent to this for the present, holding themselves free to consider further upon Report.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

FRIENDLY, &c. SOCIETIES (NOMINATIONS) BILL.— [BILL 246.]
(Mr. Stuart - Wortley, Mr. Burt, Mr. Albert Grey, Mr. Northcote.)
FRIENDLY, &c. SOCIETIES (NOMINATIONS) BILL.— [BILL 246.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill re-committed.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Extent and short title of the Act).
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, leave out "nine," and insert "ten."—(Mr. Hibbert.)
  Question proposed, "That the word nine' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. BIGGARmoved to report Progaess. He did not object to going into Committee on the Bill; but his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), had telegraphed to him asking what stage the Bill had reached and intimating that he was interested in an Amendment which he was anxious to bring forward, and he hoped to be in his place on Thursday. He (Mr. Biggar) was unable to put forward the reasons and arguments of his hon. Friend; but he simply asked the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to consent to a postponement to Thursday.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, he hoped the Committee would not consent to the Motion. It would be rather hard upon the promoters of the Bill that they should, after waiting for this, the last Order of the Day, postpone it, simply because the hon. Member for Cork did not find it worth his while to attend. The Motion for re-committal was duly given Notice of, and it was well known it was coming on.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he did not think the hon. Gentleman would lose anything by assenting to the Motion. It was an unusual request he was aware, and he quite agreed that an hon. Member should be in his place when a Bill was called on in which he was interested. But an unusual course had been taken with the Bill, and Committee Amendments had been put down when the Bill had reached the stage of third reading. Why that should be done he did not understand. Amendments had been put down which hon. Members had not had an opportunity of seeing; and his hon. Friend might not have supposed that Amendments would be introduced when third reading was put down, so the request was not altogether unreasonable. The slight delay would not hinder the ultimate passage of the Bill; and the hon. Gentleman might accord this courtesy to the hon. Member for the City of Cork.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, of course, the determination of this question rested with the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley); but he thought the
  418
  latter had fair reason to complain of the stopping of the Bill now. The Amendments had been on the Paper for a week; and, as Members were well aware, the Bill, in its various stages, had been discussed, and had been a long time before the House. If the hon. Member for Sheffield consented, he should not object; but he thought a very slight case indeed had been made out for postponement.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he had only that afternoon received a telegram from his hon. Friend asking what stage the Bill had reached; and he had wired back that it was down for third reading; and all he could do was to try to get it postponed to Thursday, when his hon. Friend would be present. He (Mr. Parnell) was interested in an Amendment in reference to some Savings Bank in Cork; and all that was asked was that he should have the opportunity of putting forward his views. If the hon. Member for the City of Cork should not attend on Thursday, no obstacle would be placed in the way of the Bill going through its remaining stages; and nothing would be lost by this, for if the Bill went through Committee to-night the Report stage would still have to be deferred to Thursday.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, the question was between the convenience of the Committee, the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and himself; and, without wishing in the slightest degree to be discourteous to the hon. Member for the City of Cork, he must point out that to postpone the Bill at all would be to postpone it for a fortnight, for he should not be able to be present for that time. It was most important in the conduct of the Bill to take the Committee stage at once; and the convenience of Members who were present when the Bill was known to be coming on ought to be considered before that of a Member who was absent.
  MR. HEALYsaid, if the hon. Member carried the Bill through the present stage, he could not take the Report stage until Thursday, because his hon. and faithful Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) would block the Bill at once with a Notice. In point of fact, the hon. Member would be no farther advanced. There was reason, of course, in what he said—that the hon. Member for the City of Cork should be present if he had Amendments to move; but this

  419
  request was urged merely as a matter of courtesy. In the absence of the hon. Member for Sheffield on Thursday, another of the Gentlemen whose names were on the back of the Bill might take charge of it.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he believed it was the duty of every Member to be present when the House was sitting; and it was no reason for postponing Business that an eminent Member of the House was away.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not wish to be unreasonable, and he would not press the matter further. He would telegraph to his hon. Friend that the Report stage would be taken on Thursday, and would urge him to be in his place then.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2 (Definition of Terms).
  On the Motion of Mr. STUART-WORTLEY, Amendments made, in page 1, by leaving out lines 26 and 27; in page 2, by leaving out line 7; and in line 19, after "Bank," by inserting "or of a Trustee Savings Bank Insurance."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 3 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 60. s. 15 (3), (4), 39 & 40 Vict. c. 45. s. 11 (5), (6), 39 & 90 Vict. c. 35. s. 10, 26 & 27 Viet. e. 87. ss. 41 to 43, and 45 & 46 Viet. c. 51. s. 6 (e), extended to sums not over £100).
  On the Motion of Mr. STUART-WORTLEY, Amendment made, in page 2, line 28, after "1863," by inserting—
  "Section ten of an Act passed in the seventh and eight years of the reign of Her present Majesty intituled 'An Act to amend the law relating to Savings Banks, and to the purchase of Government Annuities through the medium of Savings Banks.'"
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 4 (How a nomination may be made) agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Nominations by savings bank depositors).
  On the Motion of Mr. TOMLINSON, Amendment made, in page 2, line 27, by leaving out "to" and inserting "be."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 6 (In 39 & 40 Vict. c. 45, s. 11 (5), (6), shares and interest extended to loans and deposits) agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Provisions in case of intestacy and no nomination) agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Provision for illegitimacy).
  On the Motion of Mr. STUART-WORTLEY, Amendment made, in page 3, line 27, by leaving out "may" to "approve" in line 30.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 9 (Payments made by directors under the power above given).
  On the Motion of Mr. STUART-WORTLEY, Amendments made, in page 3, line 40, by leaving out "without prejudice to the remedy of;" and, in page 3, lines 41 and 42, by leaving out from "claimant" to end of Clause, and inserting—
  "Shall have remedy for recovery of such money, so paid as aforesaid, against the person or persons who shall have received the same."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 10 (Directors to give notice of interest nominated over £50 to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue).
  On the Motion of Mr. STUART-WORTLEY, Amendment made, in page 4, line 5, by leaving out "or her."
  On the Motion of Mr. TOMLINSON, Amendment made, in page 4, line 5, after the second "any," by inserting "society or."
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 11, after "of," by inserting "probate or letters of administration or."—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he could not assent to this Amendment. It would take away a necessary defence of the Revenue in requiring, before a claim was made good, that the Trustees should require a stamped registered Legacy Duty receipt.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, it would not take away the protection to the Revenue, and the same arrangement was made in the Savings Bank Act.

  421
  The alternative was left; and it appeared to him that the production of the probate or letters of administration ought to be sufficient proof that it was the right person; and the fact of the probate having been given ought to be sufficient security that the Inland Revenue had been dealt with.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that a person taking out probate had the right to receive the money. If a rich person took it out, the fund to which he would go for expenses was the balance at the banker s; and he could not see why, when a person was in comparatively poor circumstances, an altogether different system should be enacted.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid, he thought the Revenue was abundantly guarded by the alternative of legacy receipt or probate; and he did not see why the smaller cases should be dealt with under a different law.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 23: Majority 9.—(Div. List, No. 230.)
  On the Motion of Mr. STUART-WORTLEY, Amendment made, in page 4, line 25, after "making," by inserting "any."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  MR. HIBBERTproposed, after Clause 10, to add the following new Clause:—
  (Island of Jersey.)
  "As respects the Island of Jersey, the following provision shall have effect. When any sum of money becomes payable on the death of a member, such sum shall, in default of any direction or nomination such as is contemplated by The Friendly Societies Act 1875,' or by this Act, be paid to the deceased member's legal representative according to the Law of Jersey."
  New Clause (Island of Jersey)—(Mr. Hibbert,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  Bill reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now taken into Consideration."—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought this was unreasonable under the circumstances, seeing, as he had already stated,
  422
  his hon. Friend the Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) had said he was specially interested in the Bill, as representing one of the largest Savings Banks in Ireland at Cork. He must protest against this stage of the Bill being taken before Thursday.
  MR. COURTNEYhoped the hon. Member would consent to the Bill being put down for consideration of Report on Thursday.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered on Thursday.

  PARLIAMENT—ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Lord Richard Grosvenor.)
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, with reference to a statement made earlier in the evening, that Irish Estimates would be taken on Thursday, and Education Estimates on Monday, he had to say that in consequence of communications which had passed in the course of the evening, it had been found that it would be more convenient to change that course, and not to take Irish Votes on Thursday, but to begin with the English and Scotch Education Vote on that day. It would also be necessary to take a Vote on Account for Services for which money was urgently required.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.