FURTHER CONSIDERATION.

HC Deb 31 July 1883 vol 282 cc1159-203

[SECOND NIGHT.]

Bill, as amended, further considered.

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

MR. STAVELEY HILL

moved, as an Amendment, to leave out the clause, in order to substitute the following new clause:— Notwithstanding anything contained in the agreement for tenancy, or any other agreement subsisting between him and his landlord, a tenant may give notice, in the manner provided by this Act, of his intention to claim compensation under this Act, as though an agreement were subsisting between them, and thereupon all the Clauses contained herein as to compensation shall apply between such landlord and tenant, and all questions as to compensation shall be settled in manner provided by this Act, and the agreement for tenancy, or any other agreement existing between the landlord and tenant, shall, so far as any question in respect of compensation between such landlord and tenant is affected thereby, unless the tenant shall make his claim thereunder, to the exclusion of the mode of compensation contained in this Act, become and be wholly void and of no effect: Provided always, That where, under any of the provisions of any such subsisting agreement of tenancy, the landlord has made any payment or outlay, or has given to the tenant any other valuable consideration in respect of the said tenancy, and the tenant shall, notwithstanding such agreements, give notice for compensation under this Act, such landlord may give notice of counter-claim in respect of any such payment or outlay, or other valuable consideration, in the manner prescribed in this Act.

New Clause (Notice by tenant to claim compensation,)—(Mr. Staveley Hill,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he objected to the proposed clause, as being a distinct alteration of the Bill for the worse. The Bill proposed that it should rest with the Law Courts, if they chose, to set aside an agreement entered into between two parties; but what his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Staveley Hill) proposed was to leave it open to one of the parties to set aside the agreement without the intervention of a Law Court at all. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was astonished at such a proposal coming from the hon. and learned Member, and hoped he would not press it to a Division. It would be most unfair to give one party to an agreement the option of setting it aside after he had taken advantage of its provisions.

MR. DODSON

said, that he had nothing to add to what had been so well expressed by his right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), further than to say that be could not support the clause, which would render all agreements between landlords and tenants so much waste paper. The clause, as proposed, would apply not only to agreements under Clause 5, but to present, past, and future agreements. The effect would be that no one would enter into an agreement at all, because either party would have the right to violate the agreement when he chose. He hoped the clause would be withdrawn.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

considered the proposal a reasonable one. It was desirable that a landlord and tenant should he allowed to make a private agreement, as the landlord might give the tenant better terms than were proposed under the Bill. But, while that was provided by the clause, care was taken that the tenant under such an agreement should not have less compensation than was provided under the Bill. He could not see any hardship in the landlord and tenant having power to contract, so that the tenant should have the power to obtain compensation either under the Bill, or under his private agreement. Hon. Members, therefore, ought to accept the clause. It was an Amendment which he was sure was greatly desired, and would be welcomed by and meet with the approval of the majority of the tenant farmers of England as one that would do away with many causes of disputes and misunderstandings. For that reason, if his hon. and learned Friend went to a Division, he should support him.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he thought the whole of Clause 5 was open to great objection, and he therefore hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Staveley Hill) would take a Division on the question. There was an opinion outside the House, and one which would be strengthened by the course adopted in reference to the Amendment, that an understanding had been arrived at between the two Front Benches to defeat all Amendments, like the one under notice, which would tend to make the Bill a good one; and, in his opinion, the effect had been to prevent its being made as efficient as was desired by the country.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he was surprised and disappointed to find that when an improvement was suggested from the other side of the House it should receive so little consideration from the Government. He hoped the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Staveley Hill) would go to a Division.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

explained that it was the intention of his clause to apply to all agreements existing or in the future.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 255: Majority 192.—(Div. List, No. 248.)

Clause 1 General right of tenant to compensation).

On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, Amendment made, in page 1, line 9, before "Schedule," insert "First."

MR. J. W. BARCLAY,

in moving, as an Amendment, to insert, in line 14, after "tenant," the words "entitled to the benefit of the improvement," said, he proposed it with the object of making the standard of valuation as clear as possible for the benefit of country valuators.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 14, after the word "tenant," to insert the words "entitled to the benefit of improvement."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)

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

MR. DODSON

said, he could not accept the Amendment, which he thought would make the clause less plain than it was, and would give rise to entanglements.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. DUCKHAM,

in moving, as an Amendment, the omission, in page 1, line 14, of the following Provisoes which had been inserted at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) and the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) when the Bill was in Committee:—namely, Provided always, that in respect of those improvements for which the consent of the landlord is not required, the amount of compensation shall in no case exceed the amount of outlay incurred by the tenant: Provided also, that in estimating the value of any improvements in Part I of the schedule hereto, there shall not be taken into account anything that may be due to the inherent capabilities of the soil, said, the principle of the Bill was that the compensation should be measured by the value of the improvements to the incoming tenant, and he rose for the purpose of suggesting to the House that the Bill should be restored to the form in which it was introduced by the Government. During the passage of the Bill through Committee, two Amendments were carried, which, in his opinion, were extremely detrimental to the interests of the tenant farmers. The first of these Amendments, which limited the amount of compensation to the outlay of the tenant, was altogether contrary to the principle of the measure, and since it had been carried it had been condemned by numerous meetings of agriculturists and by the agricultural newspapers. Mr. Clare Sewell Read wrote last week that by far the most mischievous Amendment was that of the hon. Member for Hertford. [Cries of "Agreed!" and "Divide!"] He was sorry that hon. Gentlemen opposite who represented counties throughout England should be so impatient that they could not hear him give the opinions of such a practical farmer as Mr. Clare Sewell Read. He trusted the House would consider the propriety of eliminating these two prejudicial Amendments from the Bill.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 14, to leave out all the words after the word "tenant," to the end of Clause 1.—(Mr. Duckham.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'Provided always, That' stand part of the Bill."

MR. DODSON

said, he would suggest that his question would be better discussed on an Amendment which stood in his (Mr. Dodson's) name on the Paper. He would, therefore, ask his hon. Friend the Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham) to withdraw his Amendment in order to allow him (Mr. Dodson) to move his. He thought that would be the more convenient and more intelligible conrse, and by it an opportunity would be afforded to the hon. Gentleman of practically voting for his own proposal.

MR. DUCKHAM

said, he could not do that, because the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would only make a bad matter worse. He felt so strongly on the subject that he would certainly go to a Division.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he would also appeal to his hon. Friend (Mr. Duckham) to withdraw the Amendment. He would point out to him that while he did so, he would still have an opportunity of supporting it by voting against the Amendment to be brought forward by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson).

MR. DUCKHAM

said, that being so, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DODSON,

in moving the Amendment which stood in his name—namely, to leave out the words— In respect of those improvements for which the consent of the landlord is not required, the amount of such compensation shall in no case exceed the amount of outlay incurred by the tenant: Provided also, that in estimating the value of any improvements in Part I of the schedule hereto there shall not be taken into account anything that may he due to the inherent capabilities of the soil, and to insert the following words:— In estimating the value of any improvement in Parts I and 2 of the First Schedule thereto, there shall not be taken into account as part of the improvement made by the tenant, what is justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil, said, the Government had accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) as an excess of caution; for, while they did not consider it in any way necessary as explanatory of the meaning and intention of the clause, they had consented to adopt it as a further safeguard against the landlord being charged for improvements which the tenant had really not made. At the same time, they had kept themselves free to alter the phraseology, and he had told the right hon. Baronet that they should, if necessary, take the liberty of considering whether the words of his Amendment would admit of improvement. The Government considered the words of the right hon. Baronet too indefinite—they might be construed as indicating a bias against the tenant, and as directing the valuers, in case of doubt, to give the benefit of the doubt to the owner. Accordingly, the Amendment bad been drawn up which he was now moving. They were in this clause only laying down the principle by which the valuers were to be guided, and were not laying down hard-and-fast rules. The words he now proposed were also necessarily rather vague; still, he thought they were more precise than those in the Bill, and, therefore, he moved their insertion. As to the words limiting the amount of compensation to be given to the tenant by the amount of his outlay, he should not delay the House by giving reasons for their omission, for it almost appeared to him that it was only necessary to state the proposition they involved in plain words, in order to make it apparent that it was not a fundamentally fair or just proposition. It practically said that if a tenant made improvements, though he might receive less, he was never to receive more than the amount of the outlay. That would exclude the skill shown by the tenant in executing the work wisely and successfully. There were many improvements that did not begin to yield a profit for a number of years, such as liming, the planting of orchards, the laying out of gardens, and the laying down of land in grass. If drains had been well laid, so that they would last a long time, the tenant might not derive benefit for three or four years; they might be as good when he left as on the day they were made; the price of labour and materials might have risen in the interval, and he was entitled to consideration for the increase in the value of the improvement he had made. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), which provided that the compensation should not exceed the outlay of the tenant, had been voted for under a misapprehension, many hon. Members having left the House in the belief that the question it raised had been finally disposed of by the Division immediately preceding. Moreover, since then the Government had agreed to adopt that of the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire. The measure of value was, in the opinion of the Government, the only sound one. It was a right and true measure, and fair to all concerned. He moved the present Amendment, with the view of restoring the Bill as regarded value to the original principle on which it was based, and at the same time of accepting loyally the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 14, to leave out all the words after the word "that," to the end of Clause 1, in order to insert the words "in estimating the value of any improvement in Parts 1 and 2 of the First Schedule hereto, there shall not be taken into account as part of the improvement made by the tenant, what is justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil." — (Mr. Dodson.)

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

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, that he did not wish to interfere as regarded the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach); but, as the Amendment which had just been moved practically contradicted one which he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was successful in carrying in Committee, he wished to offer one or two observations upon it. It was not out of any particular love for his Amendment that he objected to the Government re-opening a question which had been discussed and decided in a large and fully attended Committee; but he would warn them that in doing so they were setting an example which they must not be surprised if they found it taken advantage of in other quarters, and used against themselves. The Amendment now proposed divided itself into two parts—the first omitted the words which he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) introduced into the Bill; and the second introduced a modification of the words suggested by the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire. As the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster seemed to be of opinion that many hon. Members would not have voted for his (Mr. A. J. Balfour's) Amendment had they known that the right hon. Baronet's was subsequently to be introduced, he was constrained to say that, while he approved of it as far as it went, the latter did not, in his opinion, quite meet the situation. What wore the inherent capabilities of the soil, and how were they to be defined? No doubt, the intentions of the Government and of the right hon. Baronet were excellent; but how would the clause, as they proposed to amend it, work in practice? For instance, a railway might be made in the neighbourhood of a farm. Would the increased value of the farm, in consequence of that improvement, go to the landlord or to the tenant? He believed that the Government would acknowledge that it should go to the landlord; but it could not do so, if the clause was amended in the manner proposed, as a railway was neither a tenant's improvement, nor could it be included among the inherent capabilities of the soil. That would show the weakness in the proposal of the Government in the Bill which he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had wished to correct. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) had not, he (Mr. A. J. thought, in dealing with the Amendment carried in Committee, fully grasped its meaning. The cases lie mentioned were not touched by the Amendment, for he deliberately accepted precisely the improvements on which the right hon. Gentleman founded his objection. If the Amendment were carried out, the tenant would be able to get the full value of his outlay while lie remained, and the whole of his capital when he left the farm. Was not that a just arrangement? If it were not, he could not understand how the Government could refrain from bringing in a Bill dealing with house property, where a tenant, who had increased the value of his house, would have to leave without getting sixpence by way of compensation. How grossly unjust, on the theory of the Government, must be a law which they had refused to inquire into. Then, with regard to the landlord, he let to the tenant a most delicate instrument of production, in the shape of the land, which, by unskilful handling, might be so misused as to be greatly injured; for instance, lime might be so used as to greatly destroy the fertility of the soil, and yet, under the Bill, the landlord would have no remedy at all. It would, therefore, be very unfair to him to compel him to part with all control over his land with regard to certain improvements, at the same time that the tenant was allowed to speculate upon them. The Bill was founded on the principle of valuation; valuers were a necessary instrument for carrying it out; but he thought that every practical agriculturist would agree with him that they were very imperfect instruments. In the Highlands of Scotland there had been a custom that the stock on a farm was handed over to the next tenant, or to the landlord, at a valuation; the valuation was fair for the tenant, but it was 20 or 25 per cent higher for the landlord. There was danger that such a custom would arise here and of its becoming general. It it did, it would practically be a system of compensation for disturbance, and no landlord could take his land into his own hands without paying a heavy fine. Believing that that was not the desire of any one in the House, and that the tenant farmers would be the first to repudiate it, he should ask the House, recollecting what came sometimes from the germs of legislation, to resist this Amendment, and to abide by the Bill as it left the Committee.

MR. SHAWLEFEVRE

said, that with reference to the remark of the hon. Members opposite (Mr. A. J. Balfour), that the Government were re-opening this question on Report, after it had been settled in Committee, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) would remind him that his Amendment was carried only by the small majority of 8, and that, too, after a considerable number of hon. Members had left the House under the impression that no further Division on the point would take place. He thought, therefore, they were quite justified in re-opening it. The hon. Gentleman had also said that the Amendment now proposed would not give adequate protection to the landlords, and he went on to quote some hypothetical cases, which were always difficult to answer. The hon. Member asked, if a railway coming into a district added to the general value of the farm, whether that would be considered a tenant's improvement? He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) should say not; but that was only his opinion. He presumed it was covered by the phrase "inherent capabilities of the soil." But even if such an improvement was not covered by those words, he should think a valuer, in assessing compensation for a tenant's improvements, would not be justified in reckoning such adventitious improvements. The fallacy which, he thought, underlay the whole argument and the Amendment of the hon. Member was this. He appeared to think that, under the principle of the Bill, the tenant would get the full value of his outlay in all cases; but he seemed to have forgotten that if, in consequence of the deterioration of the improvement, or from other causes, the value of the improvement was less at the time the tenant quitted his holding, the tenant would get less for that improvement. Their contention was, that when the reverse occurred—when, through the greater skill with which the improvement had been effected, or a rise in prices, its value was greater—the tenant ought to be entitled to enhanced compensation in proportion to his reduced compensation in the contrary case. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford would come into effect rarely, for he would admit that the cases would be extremely rare in which the value of the improvements would increase; but whenever it did it, if this Amendment were left in the Bill, it was his confident belief that it would work such an amount of injustice and create such a sense of grievance and bitterness as would inevitably lead to demands for fresh legis- lation, which hon. Members opposite would do well to avoid. Mr. Clare Sewell Read, whom they were sorry not to see still in this House, particularly when they were discussing questions of this kind, spoke of the hon. Member's Amendment in this language— The Amendment of Mr. Balfour is a most complete example of 'Heads I win, tails you lose' against the improving tenant. He may spend his money, and take the chance of losing it all, or the greater portion of it, if his expenditure has in any way failed; but if he has made a decided hit, than he never shall be paid more than his original outlay. The instances of an agricultural improvement in Clauses 2 and 3 being worth more than the prime cost are so exceedingly few that this niggardly precaution can only benefit about one owner in 100, whereas it will exasperate 99 tenants, who will chafe under a sense of injustice which they fancy may one day tell against them. That was his (Mr. Shaw Lefevre's) own opinion, and he believed if the words were retained there would be further agitation. Under those circumstances, he hoped the House would not agree to the proposal of the hon. Member for Hertford.

LORD EDWARD CAVENDISH

said, that if he had been aware, when he voted for the hon. Member for Hereford's (Mr. A. J. Balfour's) Amendment, that the question would have assumed its present shape, he, for one, would not have voted for it. He considered that they had two main objects in view in the principle of the Bill. One was, that the tenant should receive a full and perfect return for his outlay on any improvements he made; the other was to encourage both landlord and tenant to increase the interests of agriculture generally. The Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) appeared to him to meet the necessities of the case, and he should consequently support it. He believed that, if it were agreed to, it would have the effect of stimulating them to lay out money upon agricultural improvements, and thus benefit the whole country. He thought both landlord and tenant ought to do all in their power to have this question decided now, so as to prevent its having to come before Parliament again.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he wished to point out that the Proviso of the right hon. Gentleman was limited to the First Schedule of the Bill, and that, if it were adopted, it would make the clause actually considerably worse than when it was first introduced. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was that in regard to all improvements under the First and Second Schedules, the improvements due to the inherent capabilities of the soil were not to be reckoned in calculating the compensation; but as no mention was made of the Third Schedule, the inference to be drawn was that, in regard to improvements made under that Schedule, improvements clue to the inherent capabilities of the soil were to be considered in the tenant's favour. He hoped the House would adhere to the decision they had already come to in Committee, for the Amendment as now proposed was not just. Anyone conversant with practical matters of farming knew how the fertility of light soils might be improved without any outlay on the part of the tenant; and it was, therefore, neither just nor fair that he should have a right to a larger compensation than the actual sum he had expended.

MR. JAMES HOWARD

supported the Amendment.

MR. DODSON

said, he would point out that there were certain improvements which grew in value from year to year, and to limit the compensation to the actual outlay of the tenant in such a case would be a great injustice.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 76; Noes. 166: Majority 90.—(Div. List, No. 249.)

Question proposed, That the words in estimating the value of any improvements in Parts 1 and 2 of the First Schedule hereto, there shall not be taken into account as part of the improvement made by the tenant what is justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil' be there inserted.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he desired to propose an Amendment to the Proviso of the right hon. Gentleman. He would ask why Part III. of the Schedule was not included in the Proviso? Surely it was just as true of improvements under the 3rd Part, as of the 1st and 2nd, that the tenant had no right to what was due to the inherent capabilities of the soil. Of course, as the Bill stood, this Proviso had been applied only to one Part of the Schedule, for the simple reason that the other Parts were covered by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour). Unless this Pro- viso was applied to improvements of the third class as well as of the first and second, it was possible that a valuer, through ignorance, might attribute to the tenant, in estimating the unexhausted value of such improvements, something which really belonged to the owner of the soil. He was of opinion that the only guide which the valuers were to have under the Bill was the Proviso which the right hon. Gentleman had just proposed, and it seemed to him that Proviso ought to apply to all classes of improvements; and he would, therefore, move to amend the proposed Amendment by leaving out the words "Parts 1 and 2."

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "Parts 1 and 2."—(Sir Michael flicks-Beach.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'Parts 1 and 2' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. DODSON

said, he could not appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's reason for blaming him (Mr. Dodson) for not including Part III. in his Amendment. One reason for not doing so was the example of the right hon. Baronet himself, who, in the first instance, proposed to confine it to Parts I. and II.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

No; I did not.

MR. DODSON

said, it was the case, unless his memory deceived him; and by referring to the debate the right hon. Gentleman would find it was so.

MR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

Then I did not mean it.

MR. DODSON

said, another reason for leaving out Part III. was because the improvements mentioned in the 3rd Part of the Schedule were in the nature of superior acts of husbandry; they were not of the same character as the works contemplated in the other parts of the Schedule, and therefore it had not been deemed necessary that this Proviso should apply to them.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, it was now more necessary than ever that the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) should be accepted. He would explain that when his right hon. Friend moved his Amendment, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had already been carried. He considered the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Dodson's) argument extraordinary and inconsistent. Because the improvements were matters of cultivation, it was no reason why the tenant should not have the value of them. For instance, on certain light soils turnips could not be grown without the application of artificial manure; but by spending £2 an acre on artificial manure the finest crop of turnips in the world might be produced. The cultivation of turnips was necessary to the four-course rotation, and it was impossible to say how much might depend upon the tenant's outlay upon artificial manure for the production of that crop. The whole value of the other crops might be affected by it. What was to prevent the valuer saying that he hardly knew how to value land artificially manured? He was exceedingly sorry that the House had reversed its opinion. When the Bill was first introduced the Government held the view that compensation should not exceed the outlay in the great majority of cases; but now—if he was to judge from the arguments of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—the whole value of the improvements, however much they might exceed the expenditure, were to be claimed and awarded in every case. This, he thought, was a very serious matter indeed. It was a great question of principle. They might be told that no valuers would dream of awarding compensation of that nature; but he could not but remember that the same assurances that no evil results would follow were made when the Irish Land Act was passed. The Prime Minister himself, he believed, had then informed the House that no great reduction of rents would take place; but experience had shown the fallacy of relying on such assurances. He confessed be was afraid, if in future there were valuers of the character of the Irish Sub-Commissioners, that advantage would be taken of the loose wording of the clause, and compensation given to a degree infinitely greater than the Government had any idea of.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he thought the Amendment was much more objectionable in principle than it would be in practice. He thought that considerable difficulty arose as to what was precisely meant in the Bill by the word "improvement." So far as he could make out, it did not mean the making better of the holding, but something done or applied to the holding. Without that interpretation he did not think the clause was intelligible. In practice, in every case, the incoming tenant would always pay something less than the actual cost of the improvement, except in such cases as liming the land or permitting it to lie fallow. He thought that, except in some cases, the incoming tenant might be called on to pay the full value.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

failed to see on what principle the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) had left out Part III. What was good in the case of the 1st and 2nd Parts of the Schedule was good in the case of the 3rd Part. The valuers would naturally conclude that the total value was to be charged against the landlord, if Part III. was excluded. He would urge on the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) to accept the Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, that there was a very strong feeling on the Opposition side of the House in favour of the words which had been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach); and he hoped the Government, on further reflection, would see their way to assent to them. If they were accepted a feeling of great protection would be created. There was nothing in them inconsistent with the principles of the Government, and they would act as a chock upon rash valuers.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he must explain that he had introduced his Amendment in order to prevent any misapprehension arising with respect to Part III. in consequence of the course Government had adopted in reference to Parts I. and II.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, the Proviso had been originally proposed to be introduced to meet cases in which, by a very small expenditure, large results might be produced, owing to the inherent capabilities of the soil. In illustration of the nature of the improvements to be dealt with in the manner proposed, it was stated that the removal, for instance, of a hedge might bring a considerable piece of land into cultivation, and so produce considerable results. But Part III. of the Schedule dealt with matters which were not connected with such a class of cases; and, therefore, to introduce the Proviso into Part III., would only lead to confusion.

COLONEL KINGSCOTE

said, he thought it was necessary to exclude Part III. He thought the valuers ought to be restricted to valuing for the outgoing tenant, and he wanted to protect both tenant and landlord from rash valuers. He, therefore, hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach).

MR. GREGORY

said, he thought that as it had been admitted by hon. Gentlemen who were really the representatives of the tenant farmers' interests that the Amendment could do no harm, and as it was a just Amendment, the Government might very well accept it.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he was sorry the Government had ever adopted the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) at all. The truth was, directly they introduced the question of the inherent capabilities of the soil, they introduced a subject of enormous difficulty. It was impossible to draw the line; and to put in this qualification would be simply to embarrass the valuer, and might lead him not to give the tenant fair and reasonable compensation.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, that the argument of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was not to the point now before the House. He had argued against the Amendment which had been adopted by the Government in Committee—namely, that the inherent capabilities of the soil must not be taken into consideration by the valuer in certain cases. The hon. Member had contented himself with arguing that such a limitation was impracticable, and would only lead to difficulty; but the Committee had agreed to adopt this test of the value of the improvements, and the only question before the House was whether that test should be applied to Part III. of the First Schedule or confined to Parts I. and II. He thought the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for West Gloucestershire (Colonel Kingscote) had been misunderstood. That hon. and gallant Member had argued that the whole Proviso was really unnecessary, as any valuer of sense and fairness must exclude the value which arose from the inherent capabilities of the soil; but he (Sir Henry Holland) understood him to admit that, if the Proviso was to be inserted with reference to Parts I. and II. of the Schedule, it ought to be extended to Part III. He (Sir Henry Holland) must say that it appeared to him that the cases under the three Parts of the Schedule were alike in substance, though not in degree, as in all the cases they had the raw material—that was, the soil and the added material, whether drainage or manure. It was essential, then, that all cases should be treated alike as regarded the manner of testing the value of the compensation. He was afraid that, unless the Amendment were adopted, a lay valuer would say—"Parliament has given me this test specially in Parts I. and II., but has excluded it in Part III.; I must, therefore, not consider the inherent capabilities of the soil when dealing with a case under Part III." That was not intended; but he feared it would be the practical result, and he could not understand why the Government should refuse the Amendment.

MR. ALBERT GREY

said, he could not help thinking that, unless the Amendment were accepted, the whole Proviso should be struck out of the Bill.

SIR THOMAS ACLAND

said, that experience suggested that it was not advisable to lay down too tight a rule in these matters of manures and such things. The House must trust very much to the practice of farmers and the honesty of valuers, as well as to the progress of agricultural science, which had clearly developed this fact—that the value of artificial manures was chiefly pertinent to the crop which immediately followed, an opinion which was rapidly gaining ground amongst experienced men. He felt assured that anything the Government could do to secure honest valuers would be welcomed by landlords and farmers alike.

MR. PELL

said, he could not understand how the Government could refuse to extend the Proviso to the 3rd Part of the Schedule, for there were in that improvements which might give remarkable results, owing to the inherent capabilities of the soil. It was important, therefore, to impose some limitations upon valuers, with whose advertisements the papers would teem as soon as this Bill became law, for many persons were specially preparing themselves for this new occupation.

MR. ECROYD

said, he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment, as otherwise there would be great risk of wrong being done, the improvements included in the 3rd Part of the Schedule being precisely those which were most subject to variation in their effects, in consequence of differences in the quality of the soil, and in regard to which, therefore, a direction to valuers would he of special importance. It was also worthy of remark that in this particular class of operations there was the greatest danger of injustice being done to the incoming tenant, to whom, therefore, he hoped that the Government would give the safeguard provided by the Amendment.

MR. FRANCIS FOLJAMBE

said, that it was easy for Lincolnshire valuers, as they had precise instructions to guide them in valuing land, as between incoming and outgoing tenants. As an illustration of what might happen in the absence of instructions, he would mention an instance in which a tenant put three times as much manure on land as the crop could take up, and the valuer allowed for the full amount of its cost, instead of the manurial value.

MR. M'LAGAN

said, that liming, one of the improvements in the 3rd Part of the Schedule, acted both as a food to the plant and as a stimulant to the soil; but if lime were applied to some soils, the effect was so lasting and prejudicial that they could tell for years afterwards that the soil had been over-limed. If a valuer came down to make a valuation where limo had been beneficially used, he ought to take into account the effect lime had upon the inherent qualities of the soil; and if his attention was called by Act of Parliament to the fact that the inherent qualities of the soil should be taken into account for the 1st and 2nd Parts of the Schedule, but not for the 3rd Part, the valuer would not attempt to give all that was due to the inherent qualities of the soil. Ho, therefore, hoped the Government would improve the 1st Part of the Schedule as well as the 2nd and 3rd.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

said, the question was one for incoming tenants rather than landlords. If the Amendment was not accepted, lie could conceive cases in which, if not otherwise directed, the valuer might take into consideration the inherent value of the soil, and the incoming tenant would have to pay not only the cost of the improvement made by the outgoing tenant, but also for the inherent value of the soil, the latter being the very thing lie would pay rent to the landlord for. He appealed to the Government to adopt the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), on the ground that it could not do any harm, and might possibly do a great deal of good.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 31: Majority 59.—(Div. List, No. 250.)

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he objected strongly to so much of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) as declared that "what is justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil" should not be taken into account. If the words of the Amendment had the meaning they appeared to have, the consequences would be that the improving farmer would have no compensation whatever in respect to certain improvements mentioned in the Schedule. For instance, if he raised a crop without manuring the land, that crop would be justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil, plus his labour; but, if he reclaimed land, it might be increased in value, and therefore he proposed to leave out the words lie had quoted and insert in their place the words "the inherent value of the soil." If the Amendment was not accepted, he feared the tenants would be defrauded of their just rights.

Amendment proposed, to the said proposed Amendment, To leave out the words "what is justly due to the inherent capabilities," and insert the words "the inherent value."—(Mr. Barclay.)

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

DR. FARQUHARSON

supported the Amendment, which was a great improvement on the principle which the Government unfortunately accepted. As to the inherent capabilities of the soil, a farmer's business depended on the development of the inherent capabilities of the soil by his labour and outlay; and by this unfortunate Proviso, he might, under certain circumstances, be prevented getting any compensation for improvements he had effected, and to which he had a right.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, that the idea of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) and that of the Government was the same. Both the hon. Member and the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Dr. Farquharson) understood the effect of the words as they stood, and the only question between them and the Government was as to which set of words should be adhered to, seeing that both meant the same thing. He (the Solicitor General) thought the language of his right hon. Friend's (Mr. Dodson's) Amendment was best suited to the case. It must be remembered that this was a Proviso in an enactment which already said that the tenant must receive the value of the improvement be had made, and therefore the right of the tenant was secure. the Amendment only called the attention of the valuer to this—that he was to deal justly as between landlord and tenant, and not to give to the tenant what was justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil.

Question put, and agreed to.

Question again proposed, That the words 'in estimating the value of any improvement in Parts 1 and 2 of the First Schedule hereto, there shall not be taken into account as part of the improvement made by the tenant what is justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil' be there inserted.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he rose to oppose the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson), who proposed the words in question as a concession to the views of those who represented the owners of land. He (Mr. Chaplin) believed, however, that their effect would be mischievous. As the valuer was directly instructed not to take into account, in the case of improvements under Parts I and II of the Schedule, what was justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil, why should he do so in the case of improvements coming under Part III.? But that would be the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

MR. DUNDAS

also believed that if the Amendment was not to apply to Part III. as well as to Parts I. and II. of the Schedule, the Bill would be much better without it.

MR. DODSON

said, the Government had not thought these words necessary at all; but they had accepted them to satisfy those who feared that without them injustice would arise. Having accepted the Proviso, he felt bound to support it as it stood.

COLONEL STANLEY

said, he felt bound to bear testimony to the honourable way in which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) had adhered to his agreement in this matter.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he was afraid that the Amendment would give rise to considerable litigation.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 41: Majority 42.—(Div. List, No. 251.)

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 (Restriction as as to improvements before Act).

On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, the following Amendments made:—In page 1, line 26, before "Schedule," insert "First;" page 2, line 3, leave out "this," and insert "the said First;" and in line 4 leave out "the," and insert "this."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 (Consent of landlord as to improvement in first part of schedule).

On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 16, before "Schedule," insert "First;" and in line 28, before "Schedule," insert "First."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 (Notice to landlord as to improvement in second part of Schedule).

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH,

in moving, as an Amendment, to insert 6 per cent, instead of 5 per cent, as the amount to be charged by the landlord to the tenant for 25 years to repay capital and interest of money expended by the landlord in drainage, said, he did so in order to raise the question as to the rate at which interest was to be paid in such cases. As the clause stood, 3 per cent was the amount of interest to be charged. Now, no landlord could borrow money on mortgage at less than 4 per cent; and it was impossible to conceive any- thing more unjust than to require landlords to borrow money for drainage at that rate, and then forbid them to charge as much to the tenant who had compelled them to incur the expenditure.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 39, to leave out the word "five," in order to insert the word "six."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)

Question proposed, "That the word five' stand part of the Bill."

MR. DODSON

said, 3 per cent was as much as, or more than, landlords made on the purchase of land, and 5 per cent was a common and fair rate to charge for drainage. Besides, it ought to be remembered that no limit was put upon the time for which this interest might be charged. The point had been discussed very fully the other night in Committee, and the reasons which had induced the Government to adopt 5 per cent as the rate of interest had then been fully explained. He had agreed to an alternative Amendment, to enable the owner to recover his principal and interest in 25 years, at the rate of 3 per cent. He thought that was really a liberal proposition as regarded the owner. The tenant had nothing to do with the landlord's credit, or the terms upon which he could obtain money.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) had made one of the most extraordinary speeches he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had ever heard. He protested against the idea that, because a landlord was willing to purchase land, on which he would only get 3 per cent of a return, he should therefore be compelled to make improvements at the same rate, whenever his tenant might require him to do so. Was it fair that a tenant should be able to compel a landlord to lend him money at 3 per cent, whereas the landlord could only borrow at 4?

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, it was unfair that the tenant should pay for the improvement at all. The proposal that the tenant should pay 5 per cent of the money was a fair one, and he hoped that would be adhered to. With regard, however, to the other proposal, that the tenant should pay off the cost in 25 years at the rate of 3 per cent, that was really causing him to bear the whole cost of the permanent improvement, both capital and interest, of which the landlord would reap the benefit for whatever length of time the drainage works might last beyond that period, and during which he would get a higher rent from the succeeding tenant in consequence.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 40, after the word "improvement," to insert the words "or not exceeding such annual sum payable for a period of twenty-five years as will repay such outlay with interest at the rate of three per centum per annum in the said period."—(Mr. Dodson.)

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

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (for Mr. DONALDSON-HUDSON),

in rising to move, as an Amendment to Mr. Dodson's proposed Amendment, to leave out all the words after "rate," and to insert— Per centum per annum at which the money can be borrowed from the Government or a Land Improvement Company in the said period, said, his hon. Friend's Amendment was of a very simple character. It amounted to this—that the landlord should not be compelled to lend his money at a lower rate than that at which he could borrow it. It appeared to him that the proposal was perfectly obvious and fair.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, To leave out all the words after the word "rate," and insert the words "per centum per annum at which the money can be borrowed from the Government or a Land Improvement Company in the said period,"—(Mr. Arthur Balfour,)

—instead thereof.

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

MR. DODSON

said, he could not accept the Amendment, on the ground that it would be exceedingly unfair to the tenant.

MR. DUCKHAM

said, he thought the Bill would be far better without the Amendment just proposed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Original words inserted.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the, last Amendment, to insert the words,—"As an addition to and to be payable and recoverable at the same time and by the same means respectively as the rent of such holding."—(Mr. Gregory.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

SIR THOMAS ACLAND

said, he thought it unwise to insert in the Bill provisions as to matters that could be settled by private arrangement.

MR. DODSON

said, that, in his opinion, the Amendment was of no great importance one way or the other; but he thought it was desirable that it should not be inserted in the clause.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

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

On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, the following Amendments made:—In page 3, line 12, before "Schedule," insert "First;" and in line 20, before "Schedule," insert "First."

MR. DUNDAS,

in moving, as an Amendment, to add to the concluding sub-section of the clause which substituted "fair and reasonable" compensation, secured by an agreement for compensation under the Act, words to the effect that such particular agreement should only be set aside on the ground that the compensation therein provided— Was not fair and reasonable under the circumstances and conditions which existed at the time when such agreement was made, said, he thought that would make it clear that the referee should look only to what was in the mind of the landlord and tenant at the time they made the agreement.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 25, to insert, at the end thereof, the words "For the purposes of compensation such particular agreement shall only be set aside on the ground that the compensation therein provided was not fair and reasonable under the circumstances and conditions which existed at the time when such an agreement was made."—(Mr. Dundas.)

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

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCIIELL)

said, he did not think the Amendment necessary, for the clause, as it stood, really accomplished what the hon. Member (Mr. Dundas) desired. He farther objected to the words, because they would exclude any mode of impeaching the agreement except the particular mode limited by the word "only." Even if the Amendment were accepted it could not be accepted in the proposed form.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he thought, if the Amendment was not accepted as it stood, other words embodying the intention of it should be inserted, for it was decidedly necessary that the object it aimed at should be secured in some way or other. The Bill was intended to direct valuers, and not lawyers, and would be interpreted by them, and its ambiguity ought, therefore, to be minimized to the greatest possible extent.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH

said, he hoped that before the Bill became law something of the kind to carry out the intention of the hon. Member (Mr. Dundas) would be adopted, otherwise he was afraid the Bill would lead to ligitation amongst landlords and tenants.

MR. ALBERT GREY

joined in the appeal. He said landlords would hesitate to make leases, if they knew that agreements, fair and reasonable at the time of making, might be upset by an out-sider at some future date.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, that, if the Government agreed with the principle of the Amendment, he would suggest that the words be accepted as an interpretation of what was fair and reasonable.

MR. DODSON

said, he was very shy of inserting merely precautionary words in the clause, through a fear that their effect might go beyond what was intended. The Government would, however, consider the point, and endeavour to devise some words to meet the apprehensions of hon. Members.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 25, to add, at the end thereof, the words "Either party to any such particular agreement may demand a reference under the provisions of this Act, and the referees so appointed shall have power to determine whether such particular agreement has secured to the tenant fair and reasonable compensation for any improvement made in the third part of the Schedule hereto; and, should the referees find that the compensation provided by the agreement is not fair and reasonable, compensation in respect of such improvement shall not in that case be payable in pursuance of such agreement, but under the provisions of this Act."—(Mr. James Howard.)

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

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, after the word "may," to insert the words "before the execution of such agreement."(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)

Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the said proposed Amendment."

MR. DODSON

said, he hoped that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard) was not so simple a bird as to walk into the trap prepared for him by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). In nine cases out of ten questions arising under the Act would be settled by arbitration; but it was desirable to give the power of appealing to a Court of Law.

Question put, and negatived.

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Appointment of referee or referees and umpire).

SIR JOSEPH PEASE,

in moving, as an Amendment, to insert words in the clause, providing that, if the parties did not concur to appoint a single referee, either party might give notice in writing that a single referee should be appointed. by the County Court where the claim was for less than £50, or by the Land Commissioners, where the claim exceeded that amount, said, he feared the tendency of the Bill would be to raise up a class of referees and valuers who would generally he unsuccessful farmers, and who would endeavour to live by fomenting disputes between landlords and tenants, and he did not want to encourage the growth of such a crop under this Bill.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 37, after the word "jointly," to insert the words "If the parties do not concur to appoint a single referee, either party may give notice to the other party in writing that a single referee shall be appointed by the County Court where the claim for compensation shall not exceed fifty pounds, or by the Land Commissioners for England and Wales when the claim exceeds that amount, then the single referee and any successor to him shall be appointed on the application of either party by the said Court or Commissioners, as the case may be."—(Sir Joseph Pease.)

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

MR. WAUGH

opposed the Amendment on the ground that it would really increase the cost and the litigation.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH

said, he hoped there would be no change made in the Bill, which would in any way interfere with the appointment of an umpire by the Land Commissioners. It would be better to adhere to the Bill as it stood in that respect, for he considered it a most valuable part of the measure.

SIR THOMAS ACLAND

said, lie was persuaded that the farmers would view the Amendment with dissatisfaction.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PUGH

proposed, as an Amendment, to leave out certain words, so that the clause should provide that in case one of the parties, having received notice, failed to appoint a referee, the party giving the notice should be able to appoint a single referee.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 11, to leave out the words "on the application of."—(Mr. Pugh.)

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

MR. DODSON

opposed the Amendment.

MR. GREGORY

said, he would point out that the party giving notice would, by the present proposal, be rendered complete master of the situation, and able to appoint his own partizan.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10 (Requisition for appointment of umpire by Inclosure Commissioners, &c.).

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 33, to leave out Sub-section (2).—(Mr. Pugh.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section, (2) stand part of the Bill."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13 (Power for referee, &c. to require production of documents, administer oaths, &c.).

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 14, to leave out the word "sworn," in order to insert the word "swearing."—(Mr. Wanton.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'sworn' stand part of the Bill."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 (Award to give particulars).

COLONEL KINGSCOTE (for Mr. HENEAGE)

proposed, as an Amendment, to omit the words "so far as reasonably may be." He maintained that the retention of these words would completely nullify the object of the clause. It was proper that the valuers should receive distinct instructions under the Bill as to what they were to do.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 4, to leave out the words "so far as reasonably may he."—(Colonel Kings-cote.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Bill."

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH

supported the Amendment.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, that the Government intended what was proposed by the Amendment to be carried out as far as possible; but it would be inadvisable to attempt to make it absolutely compulsory on the umpire to specify the details of his award.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he would suggest that the words "so far as possible" should be substituted.

VISCOUNT LYMINGTON

supported the Amendment. It was reasonable that the tenants should understand the principles upon which valuers acted. Nothing would cause more dissatisfaction to both parties than arbitrary decisions, without full specification of their reasons, on the part of the valuers.

MR. DODSON

said, he thought the difficulty would be got over by omitting the words "so far as reasonable," and inserting the words "so far as possible."

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he trusted the Government would stand by the words as they appeared in the Bill.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he thought it would be undesirable to leave a loophole to the valuers. The suggestion of the Government was reasonable.

MR. DUCKHAM

said, he hoped the Government would leave the words as they were.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, Amendment made, in page 7, line 4, by leaving out the words "so far as reasonably may be," and inserting the words "so far as possible."

MR. PUGH

moved an Amendment, as an addition to Sub-section "a," that the award should specify the several matters and things taken into account in the reduction of such compensation.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 6, after "awarded," insert "and the several matters and things taken into account in reduction of such compensation."—(Mr. Pugh.)

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

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, he thought the Amendment quite desirable in the interest of both landlord and tenant; and the Government would accept it as an improvement on the Bill.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

On the Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, said Amendment amended, by inserting, after the word "account," the words "under the provisions of this Act."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19 (Costs of reference).

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 16, to leave out the word "The," in order to insert the word "No."—(Mr.Pugh.)

Question proposed, "That the word ' the ' stand part of the Bill."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 22 (Appeal to County Court).

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 36, to leave out the word "claimed," in order to insert the word "awarded."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)

Question, "That the word 'claimed' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed. to.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 28 (Power for landlord on paying compensation to obtain charge).

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH

said, that, in order to make the Bill work fairly, the landlord should be empowered to charge a holding with the expenditure which he might incur under the Bill in executing drainage when required to do so by the tenant. He begged to move an Amendment to that effect. There was ample provision made in the Bill, under which it would be impossible for a landlord to charge the holding improperly with any such expenditure; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) might see his way to accept the proposal.

Amendment proposed, In page 9, line 20, after "Act," insert "or on expending such amount as may be necessary to execute an improvement under the Second Fart of the First Schedule hereto, after notice given by the tenant of his intention to execute such improvement in accordance with section four of this Act."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)

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

MR. DODSON

said, he thought the proposal a very fair one, and he had no objection to offer to it.

Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

On the Motion of Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, the following Amendments made:—In page 9, line 22, after "paid," insert "or expended;" in line 23, after "payment," insert "or expenditure;" and in line 26, after "paid," insert "or expended."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33 (Application of Act to Crown lands).

On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, Amendments made, in page 11, line 31, before "Schedule," insert "First;" and in line 38, before "Schedule," insert "First."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 34 (Application of Act to land of Duchy of Lancaster).

On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, Amendments made, in page 7, line 12, before "Schedule," insert "First;" in line 16, before "Schedule," insert "First;" and in line 30, before "Schedule," insert "First."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 39 (Resumption of possession for cottages, &c.).

On the Motion of Mr. BOLTON, Amendment made, in page 14, line 1, by inserting, after the word "road," the word "railway."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 41 (Limitation of distress in respect of amount and time).

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he had an Amendment to propose to the clause, in page 14, to add at the end— Except in the case of arrears of rent existing at the time of the passing of this Act, which shall be recoverable by distress up to the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson), however, had an Amendment on the Paper previous to this, which, if agreed to, would render it inappropriate. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was to add, at the end of the clause, this Proviso:— Provided, That where it appears that according to the ordinary course of dealing between the landlord and tenant of a holding, the payment of the rent of such holding has been allowed to be deferred until the expiration of a quarter of a year or half a year after the date at which such rent legally became due, then for the purpose of this section the rent of such holding shall be deemed to have become duo at the expiration of such quarter or half year as aforesaid, as the case may be, and not at the date at which it legally became due. He (Mr. Chaplin) wished to know whether it would not be competent for him to move his Amendment first?

MR. DODSON

said, the hon. Member's Amendment might be taken first; but he (Mr. Dodson) had two alterations to propose in it. One, which was more or less a question of drafting, was, after the word "rent," to add the words "in respect of a holding to which this Act applies;" and the other, which was a material alteration, was to add at the end, after the word "five," the words "to the same extent as if this Act had not been passed." If these latter words were not adopted, the Amendment would enable a landlord to recover more than six years' rent.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he would not move his Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) would bring it forward in the amended form he proposed.

Amendment proposed, In page 14, at the end of Clause, add "except in the case of arrears of rent, in respect of a holding to which this Act applies, existing at the time of the passing of this Act, which shall be recoverable by distress up to the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five, to the same extent as if this Act had not been passed."—(Mr. Dodson.)

Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In page 14, at end of Clause, insert—"Provided, That where it appears that according to the ordinary course of dealing between the landlord and tenant of a holding, the payment of the rent of such holding has been allowed to be deferred until the expiration of a quarter of a year or half a year after the date at which such rent legally became due, then for the purpose of this section the rent of such holding shall be deemed to have become due at the expiration of such quarter or half year as aforesaid, as the case may be, and not at the date at which it legally became due."—(Mr. Dodson.)

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

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he was not sure whether he fully understood the effect of the Proviso; but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) whether the terms "quarter of a year" and "half a year" were not too specific? Payment of rent would, of course, in cases to which the clause would apply, be deferred until after the time at which it became due. It might be deferred for three months and a-half, or four months; and it would seem as though, under those circumstances, the Proviso would not apply. He would suggest that the words should be "until the expiration of a period not exceeding half a year." That, he thought, would make the meaning clear, and he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would agree to it.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, it would not be practicable to introduce the words in that form. In Committee, they had spent a great deal of time over this matter; and what had been pointed out to them was, that a half-year's rent was often not collected until the whole of the next half-year had expired. Though the rent was supposed to be paid quarterly, in many cases it was only paid half-yearly; therefore, there was always something duo to the landlord. The Govern- ment had promised to meet the cases put to them, and it was with the view of doing that that this clause had been drawn. It was impossible to meet cases of an indefinite lapse of time in these matters, for there might be a week or a fortnight one way or the other, either under or over the fixed period; yet it was necessary to have some fixed time other than the legal rent day. They appreciated the difficulty, and had not been altogether able to meet it, because sometimes there would be a little more than half a year, or a little more than a quarter of a year allowed. All they could do was to fix the running half-year or quarter. It was necessary to name some time which both parties would understand, otherwise there would be endless disputes as to whether the landlord was or was not entitled to distrain. They had endeavoured to extend the Proviso beyond these two periods, but had been unable to do it.

MR. DUCKHAM

said, the point had been considered by the Committee on the Law of Distress last year; and they recommended the period of six months, which would cover the period of two, three, or four months.

MR. R. H. PAGET

said, he thought the Amendment would hardly have the effect that was intended. There were many instances where the collection did not take place on the day it was due, but at a fixed period, according to the custom of the estate; it might be one, or two, and, possibly, more months after the rent day. What he wished to point out was, that the result of this Proviso would be that the landlord would derive no advantage from the clause, unless he habitually collected the rent a whole quarter after it was due. To his own knowledge, a great many rents were collected just within the period of three months, and in those cases the landlords would receive no benefit whatever from the clause. He would suggest to the hon. and learned Solicitor General that the difficulty would be met if he were to use the words "a quarter of a year, or half a year, or any less period." That would enable the Government to carry out what he understood to be their intention when they announced the Amendment originally, and when they declared that their intention was to meet those cases where the rent was collected after it was legally due.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, after the words "half a-year," to insert the words "or any less period."—(Mr. R. H. Paget.)

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

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. R. H. Paget) would see that it would be impossible to accept these words, as he (the Solicitor General) had been informed that the rent audit was not always on a fixed day. The difficulty would be to know from what day the year should count. They could not say it should count from the expiration of such less period, because the period might differ each year. One year it might be a week after the rent was due, another year a fortnight, another year a month, and so on.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH

asked whether the hon. and learned Gentleman could not consent to the insertion of the words "until the expiration of a period exceeding a quarter of a year or half a year;" for, as the clause now stood, it certainly appeared as though it were not intended to apply in cases where the rent was collected a day after the quarter of a year. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he intended the clause to apply to such cases; but he fixed the periods of a quarter and half a year. If the words he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) suggested were accepted, where the payment of the rent had been allowed to be deferred for a period beyond a quarter, but within half a year, the quarter would then be the period taken at the time at which it was due; and where the payment had been allowed to be deferred a short time after the half-year, the half-year would be taken.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, that was the intention of the Government—what they meant the clause to say. He was willing to consider whether they could not make the provision clearer than it was, as he was anxious that there should be as much certitude as possible about it.

MR. R. H. PAGET

said, that after the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman he should be happy to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment to the said proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

said, he doubted very much whether the term of six months would be of any value.

MR. WARTON

said, that, even in cases where a landlord had been in the habit of giving a quarter or half a year's credit, he should not be deprived of his right of distraining immediately the rent became due. It seemed an injustice to take that right away. At the end of the Proviso were the words—"And not at the date at which it legally became due." He did not himself see the importance of these words, and would, therefore, propose to strike out the word "not," and substitute the word "or."

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "and not," in order to insert the word "or."—(Mr. Warton.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'and not' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. DODSON

said, they would be led into great difficulties and inconveniences if they accepted this Amendment. A tenant would never know when a distraint was to be issued against him. The Government had proposed to consider whether they could do anything to meet the case of an intermediate period being allowed by the landlord; but they certainly were most unwilling to accept an Amendment which was sprung upon them, and which raised new Questions.

LORD BURGHLEY

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) would make it clear that the year's rent the landlord had power to distrain for was the year's rent plus six months' arrears, or, altogether, 18 months' rent?

Question put, and agreed to.

Original words inserted.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 43 (Remedy for wrongful distress under this Act).

MR. WAUGH

said, he wished to amend the clause by inserting, in page 15, line 28, after "or"— (c.) As to any claim by the tenant against the landlord, or by the landlord against the tenant, not otherwise provided for by this Act, which could in any action by or against the other of them be the subject of set-off or counter claim; or (d.). When the landlord sued the tenant for rent, the tenant had a right to set up any claim or set-off that he thought fit; but when a distress was issued, the tenant had no right to set anything off against the rent. If the landlord had obtained a sack of corn from the tenant, the latter could not set that off against the rent. His (Mr. Waugh's) object in moving the Amendment was to place the tenant in the same position as to distress as he was in regard to an action at law, in order to save the expense of his bringing a cross action against the landlord. If the Amendment were accepted, he should add other words to it.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 28, after the word "or," to insert the words "where a distress has been levied as to any claim by the tenant against the landlord, or by the landlord against the tenant, not otherwise provided for by this Act, which could in an action by or against the other of them be the subject of set-off or counter-claim; or (d)."—(Mr. Waugh.)

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

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, he did not think it would be possible to accept the words; and, no doubt, the hon. Member would see that they alone could not carry out the object he had in view. The hon. Member's view was that where the landlord had rent owing to him, and had, therefore, the right to distrain, the tenant should be allowed to set off as against the claim for rent any claim he had against the landlord, and the landlord should only be able to distrain for the balance. A Court of Summary Jurisdiction, or the County Court, was to be able to determine the claim against the landlord, which would be set-off as a counter-claim in an action. As the hon. Gentleman was, no doubt, aware, in a counter-claim in an action a man could set up anything. A landlord, having certain information given him about a tenant, might put in a distress, and the tenant would be able then to make a counter-claim against the landlord for libel. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes; that could be set up as a counter-claim, according to the Amendment. There was hardly any limit to what a man could set up as a counter-claim; so that if an Amendment of this sort were to be adopted it would have to be rendered much more complete than this. With all sympathy with the hon. Member's object, he could not accept his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. WAUGH, the following Amendment made:—In page 15, line 31, after "by," insert "the county court or by."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 45 (Limitation of costs in case of distress).

On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, the following Amendment made:—In page 16, line 9, leave out "fourth part of the," and insert "second."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 48 (Bailiffs to be appointed by county court judges).

On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, the following Amendments made:—In page 16, line 38, leave out "under this Act," and insert "on any holding to which this Act applies;" and, in line 39, leave out "such," and insert "a bailiff."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 50 (Exception of non-agricultural and small holdings).

MR. BOLTON

said, he wished to propose to add to the clause the words— Nor to any holding let to the tenant during his continuance in any office, appointment, or employment of the landlord. The object of the Amendment was to exclude from the operation of the Act all holdings held by men in the employment of a landlord whose right of occupation ceased with the termination of their employment. He would ask permission to substitute the word "or" for "nor."

Amendment proposed, In page 17, line 18, at end of Clause, add "or to any holding let to the tenant during his continuance in any office, appointment, or employment of the landlord."—(Mr. Bolton.)

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

MR. DODSON

said, the Government were ready to accept the Amendment.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he did not think these words really conveyed the intention of the hon. Member. They were not governed by the word landlord—at any rate, "office" and "appointment" were not; so that if a man held any office or appointment under a landlord he might be held not to come under the words as proposed.

Question put, and agreed to; words added accordingly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 51 (Avoidance of agreement inconsistent with Act).

On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, the following Amendment made:—In page 17, line 22, before "Schedule," insert "First."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 52 (Right of tenant in respect of improvement purchased from outgoing tenant).

Amendment proposed, In page 17, line 28, after "Act," insert "or of any agreement or custom sanctioned by this Act, or under or in pursuance of 'The Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875.'"—(Mr. Thomasson.)

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

MR. DODSON

said, that, as a matter of drafting, he preferred to retain the Bill as it was.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 56 (Interpretation).

On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, the following Amendments made:—In page 18, line 26, leave out "or at will; "in line 27, leave out from "a tenancy at will" to ''Act," in line 30, both inclusive; in page 19, lines 18 and 19, leave out "twenty and twenty-one," and insert "twenty-two and twenty-three;" and in line 19, before "Schedule," insert "First."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

said, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) to look at his Bill as he held it up. The right hon. Gentleman was about to move an Amendment to page 19; but there was no page 19 in the Bill, or in the copy which had been supplied to him. Page 19 was blank, and the next page he had was 19½, containing Clause 59a. There was nothing on his Bill between Clause 56 and Clause 59a. Was there any hidden meaning in this?

MR. DODSON

said, that if the noble Lord would look a little more closely at his Bill he would see that it was right, and that the Amendment which was about to be moved would come in.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

said, the Amendment did not come in properly in his copy of the Bill, which had evidently been wrongly bound up.

Schedule.

On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, the following Amendment made:—In page 20 line 1, before "Schedule," insert "First."

MR. SPEAKER

called upon Mr. PUGH.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

rose to Order. He wished to move an Amendment at the end of the 1st Part of the Schedule.

MR. SPEAKER

said, that Mr. Pugh had precedence.

MR. PUGH

said, he wished to move an Amendment to line 12. It was not unusual for a tenant to set up a waterwheel, and to do that he had to make a pit, which was a very costly process. He (Mr. Pugh) did not find anything in the Schedule referring to an improvement of that kind. It should be a fixture; and he would, therefore, propose to insert after "works," "for the application of water power or."

Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 12, after "works," insert "for the application of water power or."—(Mr. Pugh.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. JAMES HOWARD, the following Amendment made:—In page 20, line 11, after the word "orchards," insert the words "or fruit bushes."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he would now beg to move an Amendment which he should have moved at an earlier stage if he had known what he now knew. The Amendment was to put drainage in the 1st Part of the Schedule.

MR. DODSON

rose to Order. He would take the opinion of Mr. Speaker whether, the Committee having decided by Clause 4 that drainage should be dealt with separately, and in a different manner to the other improvements, it was competent for the hon. Member to make the proposal be (Mr. Dodson) understood he was about to make — namely, to include drainage in the let Part of the Schedule?

MR. SPEAKER

The House having passed the clause to which the right hon. Gentleman has adverted, clearly it is not now competent for the hon. Member (Mr. A. J. Balfour) to propose anything which would really involve a new arrangement of the Bill.

MR. STORER

said, he had placed two Amendments on the Paper which were not printed. The first was, in page 20, line 23, after "manures," to insert "not more than two years before the determination of the tenancy." He did not know whether he was under a correct impression; but he believed there was no limitation of time in the Bill. That could not be through inadvertence, because there was a limitation to every part of the Agricultural Holdings Act, from which this Bill appeared to be taken. It might not, perhaps, be necessary that there should be any limitation under Part I. or Part II., or under some portion of Part III.; but that Part which applied to manures and to cake consumed by the cattle ought to have some limitation as to the time the application of manures might be supposed to have existed. He hoped he bad made his meaning clear. He should like to insert, after the word "manure," the words "not more than two years before the determination of a tenancy."

Amendment proposed, In page 20, line 33, after the word "manure," to insert the words "not more than two years before the determination of the tenancy."—(Mr. Storer.)

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

MR. DODSON

said, Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to accept the Amendment, which would be contrary to the principle upon which they had gone hitherto, which was that these matters were not to be minutely prescribed for by the Act of Parliament, but that they should lay down a principle of compensation according to value, and then leave it to experts and those interested in the locality to take the proper measures for ascertaining what the compensation should be.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he thought they should accept the Amend- ment. Compensation for manures depended on the quantity applied to the soil.

MR. STORER

said, that after the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) he would not persevere with his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. STORER

said, he would move the next Amendment for the express purpose of giving hon. Members who voted in the Committee, under, he thought, a misapprehension as to the effect of the words, a chance of correcting themselves. In Committee, he had proposed to insert the word "horses;" but his proposal now was to leave out of line 34 of the Schedule, in page 20, the words "cattle, sheep, and pigs," and insert "animals." Many hon. Members had told him they had gone into the Lobby under a false impression as to what would be the effect of these words; and he thought that mistake had been brought about by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), who appeared, in the interests of the landlords, to be averse to the insertion of these words. Everyone who considered the nature and scope of the Bill must see that these words were in accordance with it. It could not signify what the animals were that a tenant kept on his farm in the ordinary course of farming—whether they were those mentioned in the Bill, or whether they were hired horses, or other animals which he was constantly in the habit of using on the farm. No one knew better than the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire that, in his county, it was the common practice for farmers to farm horses as a part of their ordinary trade. He had known farmers of Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, and Yorkshire, who kept as many as 40 or 50 horses on their land at a time, bringing them up for the large fairs which supplied the manufacturing districts and London. No doubt, they consumed a large quantity of corn, and sometimes a little cake, and left valuable manure behind them. Were the farmers to be deprived of the benefit of that manure? They ought not to be. The tenants of the country were looking to this Bill to give them some advantage, and great hardship would be felt if they did not give the benefit of these manures, which to 99 out of 100 tenants would be the very cream of the Bill, the rest of it being of no value to them. There was not one tenant out of 100 who could effect the material improvements on his landlord's property with which the Bill dealt; but the one thing they were all obliged to do, to carry on their farms, and which it ought to be the landlord's interest to urge them to do, was to make the best manure possible on their holdings. When they did that, it should be the object of a Liberal Government, at all events—and he trusted of the Conservative Party also—to allow them all the compensation to which they were justly entitled. If the House refused this, they would be refusing to very many tenants the only advantage that the Bill could possibly give them.

Amendment proposed, In page 20, line 34, to leave out the words "cattle, sheep, and pigs," in order to insert the word "animals."—(Mr. Storer.)

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

MR. DODSON

said, the matter under notice had been discussed at sufficient length the other night. The hon. Member, however, had improved upon the position he had taken up on the last occasion, as he now proposed to use the term ''animals" generally—a term which would, of course, include not only the horses which were part of the necessary machinery of the farm, but race-horses, harriers, pointers, setters, poultry, pheasants, and all other animals the tenant might keep.

MR. JAMES HOWARD

hoped the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Storer) would press his Amendment to a Division. The hon. Member had asserted a very sound principle—namely, that food brought on to a farm and consumed by any animal should be taken into account in any award for compensation. But what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) said amounted to this—that the arbitrator and referee should take the whole amount into consideration. That was only an element to be taken into consideration, according to the Bill; and whether the food was consumed by a bullock, or a sheep, or a pig, or a growing horse, mattered very little. In the Fen Country the farmers raised young cart horses for sale; and the manure from these animals kept in yards was quite as valuable as that from other animals.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. STORER

said, he had an Amendment to propose which he hoped would meet with a better fate than the last Amendment; otherwise the farmers would have to consider before the next General Election who their friends were. After the word "cake" he proposed to insert "corn." On a previous occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) had intimated that "corn" was covered by "cake" or "feeding stuff;" but it was well known to agriculturists that that was not the view taken by valuers, and they had never taken "corn" into account at all. There might be several words introduced; but no doubt "corn" would cover them. Owing to the low prices of cereals, farmers were obliged to turn their attention, as far as possible, to the breeding of stock; and, under this Schedule, they would have to purchase great quantities of corn. They already paid for maize, and meal, and other cereals, for which, unless it was understood they should be repaid under this clause, they would get no compensation whatever. It was not the custom of valuers to take into consideration these things; and although it might be very well for the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) to put such implicit faith in the valuers, this was a grievance which had been long felt by the farmers, and everyone had supposed that it would be remedied by this Bill. The farmers considered they had not had sufficient compensation for unexhausted manure left on the land; and he wished to rectify that grievance as far as he could by this Amendment. It appeared not to be in consonance with the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he hoped the Government would consider the necessity of putting some words into this clause, which would give full and fair compensation for what a farmer would be obliged to leave behind.

Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 34, after the word "cake," to insert the word "corn."—(Mr. Storer.)

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

MR. CHAPLIN

said, that, to his great regret, he was obliged to differ from his hon. Friend (Mr. Storer), as he had an Amendment to precisely the opposite effect. The hon. Member had threatened them with a General Election; but that would not deter him from opposing an Amendment which was not necessary, and which would be mischievous if adopted. His first objection to it was that to give compensation for corn would lead to fraud to a greater extent than anything else he knew of. It had been found necessary in the Bill to insist that compensation should not be given for anything not produced on the holding. What would happen in the case of corn? Two neighbouring famers, if they were rogues, might exchange their corn. If this Amendment was adopted, a farmer would claim full compensation for all corn that was grown upon his farm. Who was to say for what purpose it had been used? It might be used for seed. [Mr. STORER: There would be "witnesses."] How could witnesses for every quarter of corn be produced? It would be absolutely impossible. The corn might be used for seed, or given to horses, which were practically part of the machinery of the farm. Compensation might as well be asked for for coal used to work machines. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard) had, the other night, quoted the case of a Lincolnshire farmer who was anxious to see this proposal adopted; but that case was an exception which proved the rule, and he had never heard of any other man asking for compensation for corn. He hoped, under these circumstances, that the Government would not accept the Amendment.

MR. JAMES HOWARD

said, he had had a great many letters from the county which the hon. Member (Mr. Chaplin) represented (Lincolnshire), showing that the case he had quoted was not the only case by far in that county of farmers wishing for compensation for corn. They complained that in Lincolnshire it was the custom to limit compensation to oil-cake, which might be foreign, and to shut out corn, which might be produced on the holding. He believed that was a very general ground of objection to the custom of Lincolnshire on the part of thousands of farmers; and he hoped the House would very carefully consider this point before coming to a decision.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) would exclude Indian corn, which was a very valuable, and frequently the cheapest food; but if it did that, then it would exclude all extraneous food. Refuse or manure remained very much on a farm; and he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment now before the House as a compromise; otherwise farmers would be placed at a disadvantage, and prices would be lowered.

MR. DODSON

said, both these Amendments had been discussed the other night, and he hoped the Schedule would be retained as it stood.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. CHAPLIN,

who had the following Amendment upon the Paper:—In page 20, line 35, after "stuff," to insert "not being corn, and," said, that, as he understood the Government would not accept his Amendment, and as the balance of opinion appeared to be in favour of the Schedule as it was, he would not press his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 35, after the word "holding," to insert the words "or mole ploughing."—(Mr. Duckham.)

Question, "That the words 'mole ploughing' be there inserted," put, and negatived.

On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, the following Amendment made:—In page 21, line 1, leave out Part IV., and insert "Second Schedule."

Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.