PART III.

HC Deb 24 July 1883 vol 282 cc354-406

(General Provisions.)

Clause 22 (Commencement of Act).

MR. BIDDELL

said, 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. DODSON

said, he had no objection to the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Biddell), except that he thought it 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. CHAPLIN

said, 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 HOWARD

said, 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. ACLAND

said, 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 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 HOWARD

said, 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 LEIGHTON

suggested 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. BIDDELL

said, 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 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. BARCLAY

said, 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 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 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 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 VERNEY

said, 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 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. GREGORY

said, 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 to be really raising a difficulty which did not exist.

MR. JAMES HOWARD

said, 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. DODSON

said, 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 COLLINGS

said, 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. BARCLAY

said, 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 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, 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 COLLINGS

said, he thought they ought to have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman on this point.

MR. DODSON

said, 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. BARCLAY

said, 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. CHAPLIN

said, 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 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. GREGORY

said, 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-PEDDIE

said, 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. STANHOPE

thought it absurd to adopt the proposed Amendment; and he, therefore, hoped that it would not be pressed.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

said, 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 COLLINGS

said, 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 STANLEY

said, 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. GRANTHAM

said, 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. GRANTHAM

said, 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. WARTON

said, 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. DODSON

said, 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. BARCLAY

said, 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 COLLINGS

said, 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 MAXWELL

said, 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 COLLINGS

said, 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 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-BRISE

said, 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 HOWARD

said, 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. 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. DAVIES

said, 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. KNIGHT

said, 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. WIGGIN

said, 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 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. STANHOPE

said, 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. ACLAND

said, 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 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. DODSON

said, 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. STANHOPE

said, 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 GOLDNEY

said, 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 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. HENEAGE

said, 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 FOLKESTONE

said, 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. BARCLAY

said, that if a piece of land were not let from year to 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 STANLEY

said, 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 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 COLLINGS

said, 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 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. DODSON

said, 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. CHAPLIN

said, 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 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. BUCHANAN

said, 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 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 GOLDNEY

wished 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 CAMPBELL

said, 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 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. STANHOPE

said, 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 COLLINGS

said, 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 GOLDNEY

said, the allotments were nearly all under £2.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, 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. DODSON

wished to know whether the hon. Member accepted the proposal the Government had made or not, because unless he was prepared to accept it entirely the Government would withdraw it.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

said, 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 STANLEY

said, 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 STANLEY

said, 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 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. BOLTON

said, 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. DODSON

said, 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. WIGGIN

said, 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. CHAPLIN

said, 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 HOWARD

said, 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. BOLTON

thought 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. DODSON

said, this Amendment ought to have been moved earlier, and he was not prepared to accept it.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, 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 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. STANHOPE

said, 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. KNIGHT

said, 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-BRISE

said, 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 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. DODSON

said, 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-BRISE

said, his difficulty was that if a tenant was entitled to compensation under the Act he could not also claim under custom.

MR. DODSON

said, 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 COLLINGS

moved, 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; 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. DODSON

said, he could not assent to the Amendment.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, 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 HOWARD

said, a tenant-at-will meant a tenant on sufferance, who could be turned out at the will of the 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. ILLINGWORTH

asked 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 COLLINGS

said, 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. 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-DOUGLAS

stated 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. SEELY (Nottingham)

said, 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 LEIGHTON

asked 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. WARTON

wished 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. PUGH

moved 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 CHAIRMAN

said, 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 LEFEVRE

could 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. DODSON

said, 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 MAXWELL

said, 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, 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. DODSON

said, 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. HENEAGE

said, 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 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. DODSON

said, 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 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. BRODRICK

said, 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 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. HENEAGE

said, 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 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. GREGORY

said, 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 HOWARD

said, 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 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 LEFEVRE

said, 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. GREGORY

proposed 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. (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. (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. (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. (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. DODSON

said, 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. HENEAGE

proposed 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. DODSON

said, 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. WAUGH

proposed 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 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-MASKELYNE

proposed 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. BALFOUR

said, 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 - MASKELYNE

said, 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. BALFOUR

said, he understood that it was intended by the Amendment to prevent a man who came into possession of property doing whatever he chose with the property until two years had elapsed. He hoped the Government would not agree to such a proposal.

SIR THOMAS ACLAND

said, 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. HENEAGE

said, he understood that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) accepted the spirit of the Amendment some time ago.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, 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. PEMBERTON

said, 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. LOWTHER

said, 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 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 ACLAND

said, it was the Bill he had moved in 1875, and which he had constantly brought before the House since.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, 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. DODSON

said, 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. SLAGG

begged 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 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. BALFOUR

said, 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 HOLLAND

proposed 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 Holland)—brought up, and read a first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

MR. DODSON

said, 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. DUCKHAM

said, 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 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. DODSON

said, 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. LOWTHER

said, 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. DUCKHAM

said, 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.