CONSIDERATION. [FIRST NIGHT.] (Hansard, 27 July 1883)

§ MR. DODSON
moved, in page 18, after Clause 54, to insert the following Clause—
(Restriction in respect of improvements.) Subject as in this section mentioned a tenant shall not be entitled to compensation in respect of any improvements, other than manures as defined by this Act, begun by him, if he holds from year to year, within one year before he quits his holding, or at any time after he has given final notice to quit, and, if he holds as a lessee, within one year before the expiration of his lease. A final notice to quit means a notice to quit which has not been waived or withdrawn, but has resulted in the tenant quitting his holding. The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply in the case of any such improvement as aforesaid—

(1.) Where a tenant from year to year has begun such improvement during the last year of his tenancy, and, in pursuance of a notice to quit thereafter given by the landlord, has quitted his holding at the expiration of that year; and

(2.) Where a tenant, whether a tenant from year to year or a lessee, previously to beginning any such improvement, has served notice on his landlord of his intention to begin the same, and the landlord has either assented or has failed for a month after the receipt of the notice to object to the making of the improvement."

New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

§ MR. CHAPLIN
said, the new clause proposed did not carry out the effect of the Amendment he moved in Committee, and which he withdrew on the understanding that the Government would bring up a clause on Report to meet it. He pointed out at the time that the object of his Amendment was twofold; first, that it was obviously fair that a tenant should not be allowed to claim compensation for the expenditure of a large sum of money in improvements 817 which had been made at the time when he was going to leave his holding; and, secondly, that it would give the landlord in extreme cases, especially in those in which money was lavishly and unwisely spent, a general control over the execution of improvements. As the clause stood, he did not see any power of the kind given; and, therefore, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had departed from the undertaking that was given—that he would substantially carry out the Amendment he (Mr. Chaplin) moved. If he had known that was the clause to be placed upon the Paper he should have pressed his Amendment, and from the support he got he should have taken a Division upon it. He would now move to add in the fourth line, after the word "given," the words "or received." If this was done it would meet the object he had in view.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
said, the Government could not accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member in Committee, because in the case of a tenant who might have begun and nearly completed an improvement, and who then received notice to quit, the landlord, by giving that notice, might deprive him of all right to compensation. The clause, as drawn, he thought solved the difficulty, and was not open to that objection. It fairly met the hon. Member's object; because if the improvement were begun after the notice to quit by the landlord the tenant would not be entitled to compensation unless he had given notice beforehand to the landlord of his intention to make the improvement, and the landlord had not objected.

§ MR. DODSON
said, the Government were prepared to accept the words moved by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire; and, under those circumstances, he hoped the clause would be accepted.
Clause read a second time, amended, and added.

§ MR. DUCKHAM
moved, in page 15, after Clause 43, to insert the following Clause:—

§ MR. DODSON
said, the Government could not accept the clause as it stood, because it provided really that the landlord could not act until after the expiration of the tenancy, which would have the effect of defeating distress altogether he would, however, accept the clause in this form— where the compensation under this Act to a tenant has been ascertained before the landlord distrains for rent due, the amount of such compensation may be set off against the rent due to the landlord, and the landlord shall not be entitled to distrain for more than the balance.

§ MR. E. STANHOPE
said, he was sorry to interpose; but, to put himself in Order, he should conclude by moving the adjournment of the debate. They came down to-day under the full impression that they were to discuss one or other of the Agricultural Holdings Bills, if any time should be left; but in the course of the debate on the Indian Question, which lasted longer than was expected, hon. Members began to inquire what subject should be taken. All he could say was that many Members en his side of the House were led to believe that the Scotch Bill would be taken; and, under the full impression that the English Bill would not be taken, they left the House. In the circumstances, he did not think the House was fairly in a position to discuss a good many of the important questions on the Paper. He moved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Stanhope.)

§ MR. DODSON
protested against the interpretation which had been put on the arrangement for Business by the hon. Member. It was distinctly stated over and over again yesterday that, if possible, they would proceed with the English Bill. The only doubt had arisen that afternoon, as the debate on India was prolonged, and the time becoming short he hesitated and intimated to some Members that he thought it would be better to proceed with the Scotch Bill in Committee, because he 819 was afraid that they should not complete the other. It was in deference more especially to applications from Member after Member on the other side of the House to the Prime Minister and himself that they decided to go on, though they were late with the English Bill. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would not only withdraw his Motion for Adjournment, but acquit the Government of any unfair motive or intention.

§ SIR JOHN HAY
said, he did not see the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor) in his place; but lie had no doubt the noble Lord would confirm what he was about to say. As they were going into the Division Lobby on the Indian Question, unsought by him, the noble Lord was kind enough to say to him, in so many words—"We are going to take the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill immediately after the Division." In consequence of that, the matter having been told to him distinctly, he mentioned it to many of his hon. Friends, particularly to Scotch Members, in the Lobby. He believed the Lord Advocate was under the impression that it was the Scotch Bill that was to be taken. Instead, however, of the Scotch Bill proceeding pari passu with the English Bill, the former was placed unfairly in the background. In the circumstances, he thought his hon. Friend was perfectly justified in moving the adjournment of the debate.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
remarked, that nothing had been said publicly on this question, and the idea was that it was best to proceed with the Scotch Bill. During and immediately after the Division, however, it was suggested that the English Bill should be brought on in deference to entreaties made to them, and as they considered it was the most convenient to the House the English Bill was brought on.

§ MR. HENEAGE
appealed to the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire to withdraw his Motion. In deference to the wishes of a large number of hon. Members, he himself' went to the Prime Minister and asked him to take the English Bill, and he was bound to say that the Government had done their best to consult the desires and convenience of both sides of the House.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said, he had no doubt the Government intended to act 820 for the best; but the question was whether they had acted for the best? More than one Member of the Government stated to Gentlemen on this side, up to the last moment, that they meant to go on with the Scotch Bill. That being so, he did not see how it was possible to go on with a Bill of this kind now. The right hon. Gentleman said it was taken in deference to many Members sitting on this side of the House; but the difficulty arose from the Government not having made up their minds. There were strong reasons for the House agreeing to the Motion of his hon. Friend.

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
said, he hoped the Government would defer to the evident wish of the House, and, delaying the English Bill, proceed at once with the Scotch Bill. Members had no opportunity until that morning of considering the Bill as amended.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
said, that he also was under the impression that the Scotch Bill would be taken on the conclusion of the Indian discussion, and for that reason left the House after the Division, so that he was not present when the English Bill was again brought up. They were now approaching matters of great controversy in regard to this Bill, and many Members who took a warm interest in the measure were absent in consequence of the misunderstanding that had arisen. The next Amendment, for instance, if adopted, would reverse a decision previously arrived at in Committee; and it would be unfair, therefore, to take it under the circumstances. At the same time, he acquitted the Government of any intention to act unfairly in any way.

§ MR. E. STANHOPE
said, it seemed that a mistake had been accidentally made, and it was the desire of the House and the Government to proceed with the English Bill; and if the Government liked to take a snatch Division upon the Amendment coming on, he would withdraw the Motion for Adjournment.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. DUCKHAM
asked for leave to withdraw his clause in favour of that of the Government.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause (Mr. Dodson) added.

§ MR. DODSON
said, the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had been kind enough to insinuate that 821 the Government wanted to obtain a snatch Division on the Amendment.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said, he had not said anything of the kind.

§ MR. DODSON
, continuing, said, that to avoid any misunderstanding on the subject, and so that there might be no suspicion as to the objects of the Government, he would move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion made, and Question proposed; "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Dodson.)

§ MR. E. STANHOPE
said, it was he who used the expression to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. He was now satisfied the Government had no such intention; and he, therefore, hoped they should proceed.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, he thought that since they had settled down to the consideration of a Bill, it would be better to proceed with it.
Motion agreed to.
Further Consideration of Bill, as amended, deferred till Monday next.