HC Deb 11 July 1900 vol 85 cc1245-83

As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 2:—

Mr. GHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)

said he had to move the omission of the words requiring that the arbitration should, in the first place, be in accordance with any agreement between landlord and tenant, and in default of and subject to any such agreement in accordance with the provisions of the Act. He said that the effect of striking out these words would be that they would revert to the provisions of the existing Act as to procedure. The present Bill adopted the phraseology of Section 8 of the Act of 1883, in so far as the landlord and tenant wore enabled to agree as to the amount, time, and mode of payment of compensation for any improvement. But it went on to add that if they did not so agree the difference should be settled by arbitration in accordance with provisions, if any, in that behalf in any agreement between landlord and tenant: but in default of, and subject to, any such provision, by arbitration under this Act, in accordance with the provisions set out in the second schedule of the Act. It would therefore be seen that another stage was introduced into these proceedings in this clause, in the form in which it now stood, and the tenant would be shut out from the arbitration procedure set forth in the schedule of the Bill. He did not himself think that there was anything in the wording of the Act to prevent a wholly unreasonable method of settling the differences between the two parties being set up by such an agreement as was indicated; neither could he trace any check to prevent the parties agreeing to appoint an arbitrator years beforehand to settle all questions which might arise between them. He had put down this Amendment in order that the House might know exactly what it was doing in passing this particular piece of legislation. It was most important it should be fully realised that, while the chief merit of the Bill was that it un doubtedly simplified the procedure for settling differences between the two parties by means of a single arbitrator, and thereby affording a clearer, cheaper, and shorter process, and one less calculated to lead to friction between the parties, vet having set up this admirable machinery, it was by these words proposed to place in the hands of the landlords and their agents an almost irresistible weapon which they could use if they wished, and if they were so arbitrarily inclined, to deprive the tenants of all the advantages they might derive from adopting the procedure laid down in this Act. He wished to remove one misconception which arose in a short discussion at the Council of the Central Chamber of Agriculture on the previous clay on this question. He wished to make it plain that he did not in the least propose to interfere, nor would there be any interference if his Amendment were carried, with the reasonable power of contracting out as regarded settlements of claims for compensation for improvements, as already provided in the existing Act. That Act provided for a perfectly reasonable and most desirable exercise of freedom of contract between the parties in cases where a tenant was taking an improving lease of land. If his Amendment were carried the parties in such a case would still retain absolute freedom to agree on matters of that kind, provided, of course, that the agreement was reasonable and fair. What be objected to, however, was the power they were creating under this Bill of giving the landlord or his agent the right to set up their own particular form of arbitration, and to appoint their own particular arbitrator, and to say to the tenant, "You must accept your lease or agreement subject to our conditions." He ventured to say that it would cause profound disappointment to many farmers in this country if a provision of this kind were allowed to remain in the Bill. The whole object of this legislation was to supersede and clear away what was inoperative and unsatisfactory in the old Act. That Act had proved a source of friction and difficulty between the parties. This Bill, he repeated, had for its chief merit that it set up a cheaper, simpler, and clearer machinery, and a serious responsibility would lie upon the Government if it placed in the hands of the landlords power to contract themselves out from the use of that machinery He thoroughly recognised the desirability of retaining Clause 5 of the old Act, which enabled the landlord and tenant to agree, either at the beginning or during the course of the tenancy, on the amount, time, and mode of payment of compensation for any improvement that might be claimed for. But he also made a strong claim for the maintenance of the most absolute freedom on the part of the tenant, where a dispute had arisen, to have recourse, at the close of his tenancy, if he saw fit, to the machinery which this Bill provided, and he submitted that the tenant ought not to be shut out from it by an agreement which might have been entered into years before, under circumstances and conditions in which he could not possibly contemplate the position he found himself placed in at the end of the tenancy. It seemed to him that this was the most undesirable course to adopt with regard to both new and old tenants. What would happen if the words were left in, in the case of tenants who had invested a large amount of capital in carrying out improvements upon their holdings, on the security of a tenancy from year to year? They had, of course, a large stake in the land, and if they wished to retain their holdings they would, in many cases, be placed in the position of having to choose between signing an agreement of this kind and surrendering their farms. He had heard that already agreements were being entered into which excluded tenants from the benefits of this Bill. He ventured to say that a tenant in such a position would have a very inadequate power to resist the imposition upon him of a course of procedure which might be very prejudicial to his interests. It might very probably be objected to this Amendment that by Section 55 of the Act of 1883 it was provided that the rights of the tenant should not he contracted out. But he would draw attention to the fact that that section only protected the rights of the tenant as regarded the claiming of compensation in respect of any improvement, and it did not protect in any way the right of the tenant to take advantage of the procedure under the Act. He was well aware it might be contended that they were now trying to amalgamate and bring together all claims that might arise under agreements and custom under the provisions of the Act. That was eminently desirable, and those who had followed cases in the courts of law know perfectly well that great hardship and injustice had been caused by inability to enforce claims by reason of the undue limitation of the law. It was claimed for this Bill that it would enable the tenant to exercise his own choice with regard to procedure as to whether he would claim under custom or under the provisions of the Act or under a special agreement. But that was no answer to the argument he had laid before the House. It might be said that the power of contracting out might be limited to a certain extent by the inclusion of claims set up under custom or special agreement. But that did not remove the main objection which he had to this sub-section, which placed it in the power of landlords to set up another procedure for settling the claims of their tenants, and for determining in their own favour. He thought that would be most prejudicial to the working of the Act, and would cause grievous disappointment among the farmers of this country. Under these circumstances he begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 10, to leave out the words from the word 'arbitration on' to the word Minder,' in line 13."—(Mr. Channing.)

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


The hon. Gentleman is quite right in assuming that the words as they stand in the Bill do give priority to any arrangement entered into between landlord and tenant with regard to the way in which these matters should be settled, and that, I take it, is the simple issue between the hon. Member and those who think with him and the Government. We have shown by this Bill that we believe in the arbitration system, but we also hold most strongly that the parties should be free, if they so desire, to make any arrangement they please for the settlement of any difficulty that may arise. There is only one possible alternative to that coarse. If it is not to be adopted we must make the procedure of arbitration compulsory in all cases. The hon. Gentleman tells the House that there are cases where landlords are trying to contract out of the Act in a way which is extremely injurious to the tenant. I do not deny that there may be cases of hardship here and there. But I think that even in this matter, as in others, the percentage of such cases in regard to contracts affecting agricultural tenancies will be found to be much smaller than in contracts affecting other industries. Does the hon. Gentleman seriously ask the House of Commons to compel the vast majority of owners and occupiers, who are anxious and willing to make their own arrangements, to come under the Bill, simply because in a limited number of cases injustice has been done, or may be done in the future. I resist the Amendment because I think it would be unwise thus to trammel both landlord and tenant, and I resist it also in the interests of the tenants themselves, because I believe that they value quite as highly as the owner of the land, and as hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, the right and privilege of making their own arrangements. I do not believe that they are so incapable of making arrangements as the hon. Member seems to suggest.


Under Sub-section 5 they retain that power.


No; that is another matter altogether. If the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is carried it will make arbitration compulsory whenever any difficulty arises. What this Bill does in the words which the hon. Gentleman wishes to strike out is to leave it to the owner and occupier to settle any difficulty that may arise by that form of arbitration which they themselves select. We are told that a tenant farmer may enter into some agreement for a form of arbitration which would be unjust. I confess I have my doubts as to the existence of any very large number of those cases. But if they do exist I believe we may remedy them not by passing a compulsory enactment of this kind, but by teaching farmers to study their own interests when entering upon a holding, and to see for themselves that they do so under conditions which afford them a reasonable prospect of success. We must teach them not to rely too much upon Acts of Parliament. The less we interfere with the relations between landlord and tenant the better it is for both parties, and that being my belief I ask the House to reject the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.

MR. BUCHANAN (Aberdeenshire, E.)

said he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman, by the speech he had just delivered, had shown any great confidence in the efficacy of the remedies he pro- posed in the Bill. The clause as it stood was a direction to the landlords that they should devise a separate scheme of arbitration rather than have recourse to the system of arbitration provided by the Bill. Now, that was evidence of very little confidence in the merits of that arbitration system. If there was any merit in this Bill at all, it was supposed to be in the process of arbitration set up in the second schedule, and yet it was proposed that any private agreement should have priority over that system. Surely it was only right they should secure to the tenants the benefits of the procedure set up by the Bill. With regard to the suggestion that the tenants should be careful in entering into agreements of this sort, surely the right hon. Gentleman know it was a common practice to have estate rules on all large estates. In those rules an average system of arbitration was provided for, which limited the rights of the tenants, and undoubtedly care would be taken in the future to prevent tenants enjoying the benefits intended to be conferred by this Bill. He had already heard of several estates in which new rules had been introduced more or less limiting the statutory rights of the tenant, and they might depend upon it that that system of limitation would be continued unless the words with which the Amendment of his hon. friend dealt were struck out of the clause.

COMMANDER BETHELL (Yorkshire, E. R., Holderness)

said he was very glad that his right hon. friend had so stoutly resisted the Amendment. The hon. Member for East Northamptonshire had been trying to frighten the agricultural interest by suggesting that unfair agreements would be imposed on the tenants by the landlords. But that was a bogey of the hon. Gentleman's own imagination, for the interests of both landlord and tenant were completely adverse to any such proceeding. This Bill was undoubtedly a step in advance. It provided that in default of any agreement between the parties interested a certain form of arbitration procedure should be adopted. Under the old Act of 1883 such a provision did not exist, and therefore this Bill was clearly an extension of the principle of arbitration. He thought the right hon. Gentleman very correctly stated the position when he suggested that they should encourage the tenants themselves to sec that they did not enter into agreements which wove calculated to preclude them from making a fair living. He thought the right hon. Gentleman acted wisely in opposing the Amendment.

DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)

said he did not think the last speaker was quite correct in saying that the danger apprehended by the Member for East Northamptonshire was a more bogey of his own imagination, because the President of the Board of Agriculture had himself admitted that there might be cases of hardship under the provisions of this particular Bill.


Yes; I said there might be.


said that statement of the right hon. Gentleman was a complete answer to the assertion of the hon. Member for Holderness. Our system of legislation was to legislate not for the good, but for the bad; and he thought they ought to take care to provide a remedy as far as possible for all cases of possible grievances. Personally he was not very much afraid of private arrangements, and he would bitterly regret anything calculated to prevent amicable arrangements being come to between landlord and tenant, as they were constantly in all parts of the country. All his hon. friend desired was to maintain the status quo which would carry out exactly the principle approved of by the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that landlord and tenant should have power to agree between themselves as to the amount, time, and mode of payment of compensation, and that if they could not agree their differences should be settled by arbitration. He agreed with his hon. friend, and would support him in a division.

MR. HEDDERWICK (Wick Burghs)

I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman has, to some extent, unconsciously, no doubt, magnified the scope of my hon. friend's Amendment, and may accordingly have misled some hon. Members as to its exact application. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to he under the impression that if this Amendment were adopted it would put an end altogether to private agreements between landlords and tenants. Of course it would have no such effect. Landlords and tenants would be quite as much at liberty to make their own private agreements if this Amendment were carried, as they would be if the clause stands as it is. The whole effect of the Amendment would be that where the landlord and tenant failed to come to an absolute agreement as to the amount, mode, and time of payment, recourse should be had to the machinery of arbitration proposed to be set up. Such cases would be comparatively rare, and, therefore, the scope of my hon. friend's Amendment is very limited indeed, because the words in the clause are conjunctive, not disjunctive, and it is only where the parties are unable to agree that recourse would be had to arbitration. On the face of it the clause proposes a fair arrangement. It is seemingly fair to say that the landlord and tenant may agree if they like as to the amount, mode, and time of payment, and that in that event the arbitrator is bound by the provisions of that agreement. That seems more or less fair, but when it is taken into consideration that in many cases the landlord is in a superior position, and can dictate to the tenant, the effect of the clause will be that the landlord will be given power, if he chooses, to contract himself out of the provisions of the Act which we are taking such pains to pass in a perfect condition, and which we all hope will do some good to the agriculturists of the country, it is not stated in any clause of the Bill that the landlord or the tenant may contract himself out, but the landlord is empowered to make any private agreement he chooses, and in that event the machinery of the Act shall be of no effect, and the arbitrator must have regard simply and solely to the terms of that private agreement.


Oh, no! It is provided that the compensation to be given by the landlord to the tenant must reach the standard laid down in the Act as amended by this Bill.


.: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation; but in point of fact it comes to this: that, as far as arbitration is concerned, the landlord and tenant can, if they choose, practically contract themselves out of the Act; and the result will be, as the right hon. Gentleman very fairly says -although he will not admit that there will be cases of injustice-that there may be cases in which in justice may ensue.


Hear, hear!


Is it beyond any reasonable doubt that such cases will occur? The land legislation which this House has passed has been based entirely on the inability of tenants and landlords to make what would be regarded by men of common sense as fair agreements, because the position of the tenants has been such, not only in England but in the north

of Scotland and in Ireland especially, as to prevent them from making any fair agreement at all. I suppose it is useless to ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his position as regards this Amendment, but considering the small-ness of its scope and the desirability of giving real effect to the machinery proposed in the Bill, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept it.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 168; Noes, 70. (Division List No. 206.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. Flower, Ernest Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.
Arrol, Sir William Fry, Lewis Milward, Colonel Victor
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Galloway, William Johnson Monckton, Edward Philip
Bailey, James (Walworth) Garfit, William Monk, Charles James
Baird, John George Alexander Gibbons, J. Lloyd Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) Giles, Charles Tyrrell More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W (Leeds) Goldsworthy, Major-General Morgan, Hn. F. (Monmouthsh.)
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) Gordon, Hon. John Edward Morrell, George Herbert
Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B. (Hants) Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Goulding, Edward Alfred Mount, William George
Bethell, Commander Greville, Hon. Ronald Mowbray, Sir. Robert Gray C.
Bill, Charles Gull, Sir Cameron Muntz, Philip A.
Blakiston-Houston, John Gunter, Colonel Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Halsey, Thomas Frederick Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Boulnois, Edmund Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm. Myers, William Henry
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn) Hanson, Sir Reginald Nicol, Donald Ninian
Brassey, Albert Hardy, Laurence Nussey, Thomas Willans
Bullard, Sir Harry Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow) Hickman, Sir Alfred Penn, John
Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H. Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead) Percy, Earl
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Hobhouse, Henry Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cawley, Frederick Howard, Joseph Pretyman, Ernest George
Cayzer Sir Charles William Howell, William Tudor Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) Purvis, Robert
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies Pym, C. Guy
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Rankin, Sir James
Charrington, Spencer Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.
Chelsea, Viscount Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson
Coddington, Sir William Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William Round, James
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Knowles, Lees Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Lafone, Alfred Samuel, Hy. S. (Limehouse)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cripps, Charles Alfred Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.)
Cubitt. Hon. Henry Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'l'd) Simeon, Sir Barrington
Curzon, Viscount Leeky, Rt. Hon. William Ed. H. Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Dalkeith, Earl of Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Davies Sir Horatio D. (Chatham) Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a) Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)
Denny, Colonel Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (L'pool) Spencer, Ernest
Digby, John K. D. Winglield- Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Donkin, Richard Sim Lowe, Francis William Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Dorington, Sir John Edward Lowles, John Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lowther, Rt. Hn. Jas. (Kent) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore Loyd, Archie Kirkman Strachey, Edward
Faber, George Denison Macartney, W. G. Ellison Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)
Fardell, Sir T. George Macdona, John Cumming Thornton, Percy M.
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. Maclure, Sir John William Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) M'Killop, James Warr, Augustus Frederick
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Malcolm, Ian Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.
Fisher, William Hayes Maple, Sir John Blundell Williams, Joseph Powell (Birm.)
Fitzgerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Melville, Beresford Valentine Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Fitz Wygram, General Sir F. Meysey- Thompson, Sir H. M. Willox, Sir John Archibald
Wilson, John (Falkirk) Wylie, Alexander Younger, William
Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.) Wyndham, George TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath) Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart- Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Allan, William (Gateshead) Harwood, George Reckitt, Harold James
Ashton, Thomas Gair Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H. Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Baker, Sir John Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H. Shaw, Charles Ed. (Stafford)
Barlow, John Emmott Holland, William Henry Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)
Billson, Alfred Horniman, Frederick John Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Brigg, John Jameson, Major J. Eustace Souttar, Robinson
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Joicey, Sir James Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Burt, Thomas Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Buxton, Sydney Charles Kitson, Sir James Tennant, Harold John
Caldwell, James Lewis, John Herbert Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow) Lloyd-George, David Wallace, Robert
Causton, Richard Knight Macaleese, Daniel Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Colville, John MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Wason, Eugene
Crombie, John William M'Ghee, Richard Wedderburn, Sir William
Dillon, John M'Laren, Charles Benjamin Williams, John Carvell (Notts)
Donelan, Captain A. Maddison, Fred. Wilson, Henry J. (York, A. V. R.)
Doogan, P. C. Mandeville, J. Francis Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Wilson, John (Govan)
Fenwick, Charles Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Yoxall, James Henry
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Flynn, James Christopher O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Channing and Mr. Price.
Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis Palmer, George W. (Reading)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. Philipps, John Wynford
Goddard, Daniel Ford Pickard, Benjamin

Formal Amendments made.


The point raised by the Amendment standing in my name is very simple and specific, and one to which "the tenant farmers have, in their various gatherings, attached exceptional importance. It is that the time over which a landlord shall be entitled to set up a counterclaim for acts of waste or breaches of covenant committed by the tenant, which is now restricted by the existing Act to four years, should be restricted to two years before the determination of the tenancy. I wish to lay concisely before the House the grounds upon which I move this Amendment. It has been felt in the Chambers of Agriculture, and in the reports of their committees, which have been laid by deputation and otherwise before the right hon. Gentleman, that it is desirable, in the interest of both parties, that there should be a time limit to these counterclaims for waste or breaches of covenant. I will at once say that if the right hon. Gentleman objects to the insertion of this Amendment at this particular point, it is quite immaterial to me at what point in the Bill it is inserted. I especially base the case for my Amendment upon the Report signed by the majority of the Royal Commission on Agriculture, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. At the close of the chapter of the Report dealing with proposed amendments, there is a summary of recommendations, and the sixteenth of these recommendations is— We recommend that the period in respect of which the landlord may consider claim for acts of waste or breaches of covenant under Section 6 of the Act, should be limited in all tenancies from year to year, to a period of two years. Objection may be taken to the form of my Amendment, by saying that the recommendation of the Royal Commission only concerns tenancies from year to year. The majority of tenancies in England are from year to year, but this would not have application to Scotch tenancies. That is a matter which the right hon. Gentleman may perfectly easily deal with in some other portion of the Bill, by some form of limitation of this provision. What I insist on is that, after having considered the evidence of a great number of witnesses, the Royal Commission did arrive at the conclusion that in respect of all tenancies from year to year, the landlord's counterclaim should be limited to two years. Now the argument for this is very simple. In estate management it would be far better that acts of waste should be checked at the earliest possible moment. It would also simplify procedure in arbitrations under the Act. If the Bill is left in its present form the landlord or his agent may ransack the distant past to set up a counterclaim for various dilapidations, which the landlord or his agent might have long since checked. The Amendment has the unanimous support of the Chambers of Agriculture, and the hon. Member for North Hampshire supported it upstairs. So far as I understand, the arguments against it are only two: first, that it was desirable to increase rather than diminish the inducements to landlords to come under the Bill; and, second, that the Statute of Limitations would operate to check these counterclaims if they were carried beyond the limits that would make them outrageous I concede that the Statute of Limitations would check counterclaims going beyond six years, but it would not be fair to the tenant to allow the landlord to spring upon him a counterclaim for transactions going back six years, which ought to have been checked long before.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 24, after the word 'tenant,' to insert the words 'within two years before the determination of the tenancy.'"—(Sir Channing.)

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


The hon. Gentleman says that the Royal Commission recommended that in the case of tenants from year to year the limitation placed on the landlord's power to recover for acts of waste and breaches of covenant should be two years; but the Royal Commission had not, in making the recommendation, got before them, as the Government have since had, a general reform and amendment of the law in order to make the position of tenants more satisfactory. This proposal is one which conflicts at once with the amendment of the law which we ask the House to adopt. The hon. Gentleman said that the landlord might ransack the records of a farm for an unlimited period in order to set up a counterclaim for waste and broaches of covenants, but the Statute of Limitations would limit the landlord's power to do so to a period of only six years.

MR. S. T. EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid)

Twenty years in the case of leases.


That does not interfere with my argument. The landlord is restricted in the recovery of his rights by the Statute of Limitations, and consequently what you do under this Bill, unless you take away from him the statutory right he now enjoys, would merely affect the manner in which he obtains redress. If the hon. Gentleman's Amendment were accepted the result would be that the landlord would claim under the Act for waste for a period of two years, but would still retain his right to claim for the further period of four years at common law. That would involve a dual procedure. The object of the Government in providing this machinery, and also in giving the landlord, for the first time, the power of bringing all his claims into a single arbitration, is, that all the differences between landlord and tenant may be embraced in one settlement. We believe it to be to the advantage of both landlord and tenant to have a complete statement of the case on each side. Hitherto there has been necessarily no knowledge on the part of the tenant, in a settlement under the Agricultural Tenants' Compensation Act, of the claims that the landlord might in tend, to make at common law. If the procedure provided in the Bill be availed of by the landlord, he will be able to make a full claim before the arbitrator, and the tenant and arbitrator will know what that full claim amounts to If the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman were to be adopted, this procedure would be materially interfered with, because the landlord would only claim under the Act for two years, while he would have an action at common law for four years more or longer. I ask the House not to adopt the Amendment, not because I do not share the opinion of the Royal Commission, but because, generally speaking, the landlord should exercise his lights as against his tenants during the tenancy, and not allow them to accumulate until the end of it. In the interests of good husbandry, and in those of the tenant and landlord, it is desirable that the landlord or his agent should know what is being done by the tenant, and if he believes that there is waste going on, or breaches of covenants taking place, he should step in and stop them, or let the tenant know that he means to recover in respect of them.


I think my hon. friend would be well advised to with- draw this Amendment or to re-draft it; because, although there is a good dead in the argument he used as applied to tenancies from year to year, it is quite clear that harm would be done in the case of other tenancies. It is quite true that the Royal Commission did advise the limitation of the landlords claim in respect of waste to two years where the tenancy was from year to year, and the reason was obvious. Because in tenancies of that description it was always within the landlord's power to put an end to the tenancy at the termination of the year, and if he allows the waste to go on from year to year he has only himself to blame for the result. But the scope of the Amendment is not limited to tenancies from year to year. There are many other tenancies affected by the Bill—for instance, those in Scotland, which are generally for a period of nineteen years—and in tenancies of that description it is perfectly obvious that the landlord would have no power over the tenant, although he might be wasting the land for many years. Unless my hon. friend limits the application of his Amendment strictly to tenancies from year to year, I shall feel compelled to go into the Lobby against it.

Question put, and negatived.

Other Amendments made.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 28, after 'party,' to insert "given by post or otherwise not later than seven days after the appointment of the arbitrator or arbitrators.' "—(Mr. Long.)

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

MR. STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.)

said that under this Amendment the notices might be sent in a halfpenny wrapper, and they all knew that documents in such wrappers often went wrong or were lost.

MR. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.)

said that he had an Amendment on the Paper to the effect that the landlord should, before the determination of the tenancy, send in writing to the tenant a claim in respect of any waste or breach of covenant, pro-vided that the landlord should have the power, within twenty-eight days after the determination of the tenancy, to amend his claim in respect to dilapidations to buildings occurring after the claim had been delivered. His object was that each should claim exactly what he believed due to him, and to do away with counterclaims in consequence of first claims. He had tried to pass the Amendment upstairs, but the Committee were against him. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had proposed this Amendment, that the claims should be put in not later than seven days after the appointment of the arbitrator. That was a very important concession, and he thought that under the circumstances it was very fair to both parties, and it had been accepted at a meeting of the Chamber of Agriculture the day before.


was obliged to differ from the hon. Member for North Hampshire. The view of the farmers in the East Hiding was that the old plan was better—that the tenant should make his claim, and that afterwards the landlord should make his so-called counterclaim. He had moved an Amendment in that direction upstairs, but the Committee took an unfavourable view of it. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was a sort of compromise between the extreme view held by the hon. Member for North Hampshire and that held by himself, and he supposed that, although he believed it would have been better had the old plan been adhered to, he must accept what he could get.

COLONEL MILWAKD (Warwickshire, Stratford-upon-Avon)

did not think the Amendment would amount to very much in practice, because the first subsection of the clause premised that the landlord and the tenant would first of all meet and endeavour to come to some agreement as to compensation. He believed that valuers would be present and take part in these deliberations, and that it would be only after they failed to come to an agreement that the arbitrator would be appointed. The Amendment, however, seemed to encourage them to go on with arbitration instead of by preliminary agreement.


The hon. and gallant Gentleman is mistaken in his view. There is no prohibition of a friendly discussion between the landlord or his agent and the tenant to settle their differences, as in- deed they do in a great majority of cases. But where that is not done, and differences of opinion arise as to the particular value of particular improvements, or otherwise, then the arbitrator is called in to decide. The effect of this Amendment is to compel the landlord to bring in his claim within seven days after the appointment of the arbitrator, and it would simply prevent delay.


said that this Amendment would effect one very serious alteration of the law. The right hon. Gentleman might not be aware of a decision of the Courts four or five years ago, under the principal Act, to the effect that the landlord might have a set-off against the tenant, but could not recover a sum that would overtop the claim of the tenant. It was perfectly clear that under this Amendment the landlord could recover the whole of his counterclaim.


That is undoubtedly the whole scheme of the Bill. Our object is to abolish the present law by which the landlord can put in a claim as a set-off under the principal Act, but he likewise enjoys his power at common law to claim and recover in many other matters. What we seek here is to induce the landlord to bring all his claims into one procedure, and not to have a dual arbitration—one under the Act, and the other at common law.

The Amendment was amended by leaving out "by post or otherwise" and inserting "by registered letter"; and, so amended, was agreed to.

Formal Amendments made.


, in moving the next Amendment standing in his name, said he was very anxious, in consequence of very strong representations which he had received from the country, that the right hon. Gentleman should state exactly what the course of the procedure would be in reference to arbitration. The sub-section, as it now stood, he thought, was fantastic. It said, "An arbitration shall, unless the parties otherwise agree, be by a single arbitrator." That was to say, either party might force the other to have a single arbitrator. The law hitherto, except in the Scotch Act of 1889, was that if either party objected to a single arbitrator t here would be two arbitrators together with an umpire. This was provided for both in the principal Act, and in the Arbitration Act of 1889.


If my hon. and gallant friend will excuse me, the section in the Arbitration Act makes provision for various cases. First, if the parties do not agree to a single arbitrator they apply to the court to appoint one; and then there is the other case where two arbitrators are appointed with an umpire.


said he was obliged to the Attorney General for his correction. He thought that it would be much more simple and English to go back to the Act of 1889, and say that a single arbitrator might be appointed, but if the parties did not concur, then the two arbitrators with an umpire should be appointed. He did not think that the question of expense would come in, because he could not conceive of any case in which each of the parties was not assisted from the first by a valuer. He was strongly in favour of a single arbitrator where both parties concurred, but he thought it would be very hard, if one of them wished to have two arbitrators and an umpire, that the Act should prevent it. He begged to move his Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 39, to leave out sub-section (5) of Clause 2, and insert '(5) If the parties, concur there may be a single arbitrator appointed by them jointly, but if the parties do-not concur in the appointment of a single arbitrator, each of them shall appoint an arbitrator, and the arbitrators so appointed shall appoint an umpire.' "—(Colonel Milward.)

Question proposed, "That the words. 'An arbitrator shall' stand part of the Bill."


I am afraid my hon. and gallant friend has got confused as to the operation of the Act. The Arbitration Act of 1889 adopts the principle of a single arbitrator, and the section to which the attention of the House has been called merely provides the necessary machinery for the appointment of an arbitrator or the appointment of two arbitrators and an umpire in the event of their being required. What my hon. friend suggests is that the proposal of the Bill that where the arbitration procedure is adopted the presumption shall be in favour of a single arbitrator. The parties, as I have previously pointed out, have full power to act according to agreement, and if they desire to have two arbitrators they duplicate the procedure; but the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners is that there should be one arbitrator. My hon. friend appears to be confused in his mind as to the duties of an arbitrator. If either party chooses to be advised by a skilled adviser they are entitled to employ him either before or after the arbitrator is appointed. The system my hon. friend advocates has long ago been dealt with, because it really amounts to this, that under the system of two valuers and an umpire they appoint an equitable judge who occupies the position of a single arbitrator. But those who do not require skilled advice can go before a single arbitrator and state their case and rely upon his position to secure fair treatment. There is, therefore, absolute freedom for the parties either to proceed on their own powers or the powers of their skilled advisers. All we say is that the court to which these cases come should be presided over by a single arbitrator who would hear and decide the case, rather than a court composed of two arbitrators with an umpire selected by them. It is self-evident that the new machinery tends not only in the direction of efficiency, but also of economy, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will not persist in a proposal which would only be destructive to a part of the Bill which only tends to cheapen the machinery.


, expressing satisfaction with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.


said he hoped that, after the remarks he had just made, the right hon. Gentleman would support the Amendment he now proposed to move, because that Amendment simply carried out the principle which the right hon. Gentleman had just enunciated. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out a few moments previously that the main object of the Bill before the House was that in the future the court should consist of a single arbitrator. All that this Amendment proposed was to insure that that should be the procedure, and that there should be no possibility of any other procedure being adopted. There was a great consensus of opinion throughout the country as to the cumbersome machinery of the old Act, but after what the right hon. Gentleman had said he did not think he need labour that point. There was another Bill before the House in which the principle of a single arbitrator was proposed without any appeal whatever, and although he did not intend to propose that such a clause should be put into this Bill, it certainly was an argument in favour of a single arbitrator. But if the clause as it now stood was incorporated in the Bill very little benefit would accrue, because the landlords would always endeavour to make such a provision in their agreements with the tenants that if a tenant desired to take advantage of the proceeding under the Bill he would be compelled to agree to two arbitrators. The object of his Amendment was to prevent that, and in moving the Amendment he was only endeavouring to fortify the Bill in the direction which the right hon. Gentleman thought would confer the greatest benefit on the rural community. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 39, to leave out the words, 'unless the parties otherwise agree.'"—(Mr. Buchanan.)

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


said he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment. The Government considered that the best form of arbitration was before one arbitrator, but it did not necessarily follow that that form ought to be made compulsory upon those who preferred another form of arbitration. All that the Government proposed was that where the parties did not otherwise agree there should be one arbitrator. He therefore hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 189 Noes, 77. (Division List No. 207.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir. Alex. F. Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Myers, William Henry
Arrol, Sir William Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Nicol, Donald Ninian
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Goulding, Edward Alfred O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Baird, John Geo. Alexander Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y) Parkes, Ebenezer
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury) Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) Greville, Hon Ronald Pender, Sir James
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) Gull, Sir Cameron Penn, John
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Gunter, Colonel Percy, Earl
Bethell, Commander Halsey, Thomas Frederick Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Biddulph, Michael Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bill, Charles Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. Wm. Pretyman, Ernest George
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Hanson, Sir Reginald Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.
Boulnois, Edmund Hardy, Laurence Purvis, Robert
Brassey, Albert Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter Rankin, Sir James
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hickman, Sir Alfred Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Bullard, Sir Harry Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead) Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Gl'gow) Hobhouse, Henry Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hornby, Sir William Henry Robinson, Brooke
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Houston, R. P. Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire) Howell, William Tudor Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenhm)
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice- Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.) Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm) Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Savory, Sir Joseph
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r) Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William Sharpe, William Edward T.
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Knowles, Lees Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Charrington, Spencer Lafone, Alfred Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Chelsea, Viscount Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Cornw'll) Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)
Coddington, Sir William Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool) Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) Simeon, Sir Barrington
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Leighton, Stanley Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swansea) Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l.) Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)
Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W. Lonsdale, John Brownlee Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Spencer, Ernest
Cripps, Charles Alfred Lowe, Francis William Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Lowles, John Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent) Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)
Dalkeith, Earl of Loyd, Archie Kirkman Stewart, Sir M. J. M Taggart
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Lucas-Shadwell, William Strachey, Edward
Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham) Macartney, W. G. Ellison Talbot, Rt. Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Macdona, John Cumming Thornton, Percy M.
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- Maclure, Sir John William Tollemache, Henry James
Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon M'Killop, James Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Donkin, Richard Sim Manners, Lord Edward W. J. Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Dorington, Sir John Edward Maple, Sir John Blundell Warr, Augustus Frederick
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Martin, Richard Biddulph Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)
Doxford, Sir William T. Melville, Beresford Valentine Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Faber, George Denison Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J. Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.)
Fardell, Sir T. George Milward, Colonel Victor Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) Monckton, Edward Philip Willox, Sir J. Archibald
Finch, George. H. Monk, Charles James Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Moore, William (Antrim, N). Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Fisher, William Hayes More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) Wodehouse, Rt. Hon. E. R. (Bth)
FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose- Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.) Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. (Stuart-)
Fitz Wygram, General Sir F. Morrell, George Herbert Wylie, Alexander
Galloway, William Johnson Morrison, Walter Wyndham, George
Garfit, William Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) Wyvill, Marmaduke D' Arcy
Gibbons, J. Lloyd Mount, William George Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Giles, Charles Tyrrell Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Younger, William
Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. Muntz, Philip A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Goldsworthy, Major-General Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute)
Gordon, Hon. John Edward Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)
Allan, William (Gateshead) Caldwell, James Dillon, John
Ashton, Thomas Gair Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Donelan, Captain A.
Baker, Sir John Causton, Richard Knight Doogan, P. C.
Barlow, John Emmott Cawley, Frederick Dunn, Sir William
Billson, Alfred Channing, Francis Allston Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)
Burns, John Colville, John Fenwick, Charles
Burt, Thomas Crombie, John William Flavin, Michael Joseph
Buxton, Sydney Charles Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. Molloy, Bernard Charles Steadman, William Charles
Goddard, Daniel Ford Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Morgan, W. Pritchard (Merthyr) Tanner, Charles Kearns
Hedderwick, Thomas Charles H. Moulton, John Fletcher Tennant, Harold John
Holland, William Henry O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)
Horniman, Frederick John O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Jameson, Major J. Eustace O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Joicey, Sir James Oldroyd, Mark Wason, Eugene
Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) Wedderburn, Sir William
Kitson, Sir James Philipps, John Wynford Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land) Pickard, Benjamin Williams, John Carvell (Notts.
Lewis, John Herbert Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lancs SW. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Lloyd-George, David Price, Robert John Wilson, John (Govan)
Macaleese, Daniel Reid, Sir Robert Threshie Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Yoxall, James Henry
M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)
M'Ghee, Richard Soames, Arthur Wellesley TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Wallace.
Maddison, Fred. Spicer, Albert
Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

said the Amendment he now desired to move raised a question of considerable importance with reference to the right to appeal. The principle as at present laid down was that there should only be an appeal upon a question of law, but it had been pointed out that the only way in which an appeal might be taken on the schedule was upon a question of law and of fact as well. And as he read the Bill he gathered that at any point of the proceedings a party could go to the judge at the county court and ask him to intervene in the proceedings, which practically amounted to an appeal on a question of fact as well as law. From the county court there was an appeal to the High Court of England or the Court of Session of Scotland. The House had heard many explanations of how this Bill was to simplify and cheapen procedure; but if these appeals were allowed, instead of the cost being decreased there would be a very substantial increase. The object of his Amendment was to carry out the policy of the Bill as it had been set forth, which was to simplify and cheapen the procedure, and therefore he hoped it would be accepted. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 4, to leave out from the word 'final,' to the end of Sub-section 6 of Clause 2."—(Mr. Buchanan.)

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


said the point of the Amendment was that if a question of law arose out of an arbitration the decision of the county court judge should be final. The effect of this would be that there would be a great divergency of decisions, which surely was not desirable. One opinion would be held by one county court judge and one by another, and there would be no means of reconciling those opinions. The hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension as to what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture had said. It was impossible that the President of the Board of Agriculture should have said that the Bill gave a right of appeal on a question of fact, because the only question for appeal was to be a question of law. Of course to arrive at the question of law the question of fact must be entered into, but the arbitrator having found the question of fact, his decision was binding on the parties.


said it was desirable that questions of law should be settled once and for all. The county court judge was not to decide the law but to administer it, and if there was not an appeal to the High Court no settled decision would ever be arrived at. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the Amendment to re-duce the power of appeal so that the appeal could only be made to the county court or the Sheriff's Court, neither of which could give a decision which was binding.


, after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General, begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 13, after the word 'applies,' to insert the words, '(9) all claims, whether by tenant or landlord, shall be in writing.'"— (Mr. Channing.)

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


said that if this Amendment were carried it would lead to a great modification in the Bill which was not desirable, and therefore he hoped it would not be pressed. He had no doubt the claims would be in writing. That would be in the usual course of business.


begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.


said that the object of the Amendment which he now proposed to move was to render the clause inapplicable to Scotland. He felt considerable difficulty in discussing the matter in the absence of his Scotch friends, but it appeared to him that the Government were here introducing in Scotland a new body for administrative and legal purposes which at present had no locus standi there. New duties were being

given to the Board of Agriculture, which had neither offices nor officials in Scotland. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 34, to leave out the word 'sub-section,' and insert the word 'section.'"—(Mr. Buchanan.)

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


assured the hon. Member that he was mistaken. Acts were being administered in Scotland by officials of the Board, by which landlords were enabled to improve their property under the control of the Board of Agriculture. Some of the most eminent and practical agriculturists in Scotland were acting as representatives of the Board, and they were carrying out their duties to the satisfaction of the community. The Government were therefore not introducing a great change of policy for the first time in respect of Scotland.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 170; Noes, 71. (Division List No. 208.)

Allsopp, Hon. George Dickinson, Robert Edmond Houston, R. P.
Arrol, Sir William Big by, John K. D. Wingfield- Howell, William Tudor
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-
Baird, John G. Alexander Donkin, Richard Sim Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) Dorington, Sir John Edward Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore Kimber, Henry
Beckett, Ernest William Faber, George Denison Knowles, Lees
Bethell, Commander Fardell, Sir T. George Lafone, Alfred
Biddulph, Michael Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Finch, George H. Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)
Boulnois, Edmund Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne Leighton, Stanley
Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) Fisher, William Hayes Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'sea)
Brassey, Albert Flannery, Sir Fortescue Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Fry, Lewis Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)
Bullard, Sir Harry Galloway, William Johnson Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller
Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A. (Glasgow) Gibbons, J. Lloyd Lowles, John
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Giles, Charles Tyrrell Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.) Goldsworthy, Major-General Lucas-Shadwell, William
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Gordon, Hon. John Edward Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Macdona, John dimming
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Goschen, Geo. J. (Sussex) MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Bir.) Goulding, Edward Alfred M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edin. W.)
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury) M'Killop, James
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Greville, Hon. Ronald Malcolm, Ian
Charrington, Spencer Gull, Sir Cameron Manners, Lord Edward W. J.
Chelsea, Viscount Gunter, Colonel Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)
Coddington, Sir William Halsey, Thomas Frederick Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. Milner, Sir Frederick George
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W. Milward, Colonel Victor
Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W. Hanson, Sir Reginald Monckton, Edward Philip
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Hardy, Laurence Monk, Charles James
Cripps, Charles Alfred Helder, Augustus Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Hickman, Sir Alfred Morgan, Hn. F. (Monmouth'sh)
Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead) Morrell, George Herbert
Dalkeith, Earl of Hobhouse, Henry Morrison, Walter
Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham) Hornby, Sir William Henry Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Robinson, Brooke Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) Round, James Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Warr, Augustus Frederick
Myers, William Henry Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts)
Nicholson, William Graham Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd
Nicol, Donald Ninian Seely, Charles Hilton Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)
O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Sharpe, William Edward T. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Parkes, Ebenezer Shawe-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew) Willox, Sir John Archibald
Peel, Hn. William R. Wellesley Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Pender, Sir James Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)
Penn, John Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch) Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Percy, Earl Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Pier point, Robert Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Wylie, Alexander
Pretyman, Ernest George Spencer, Ernest Wyndham, George
Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk) Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Purvis, Robert Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth) Younger, William
Rankin, Sir James Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Talbot, Rt. Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W. Thornton, Percy M.
Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson Tollemache, Henry James
Allan, William (Gateshead) Hayne, Rt. Hon. C has. Seale- Reid, Sir Robert Threshie
Ashton, Thomas Gair Horniman, Frederick John Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Runciman, Walter
Baker, Sir John Kearley, Hudson E. Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Barlow, John Emmott Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Lewis, John Herbert Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Lloyd-George, David Steadman, William Charles
Burns, John Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Strachey, Edward
Burt, Thomas Macaleese, Daniel Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Caldwell, James MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Tanner, Charles Kearns
Cawley, Frederick M'Ghee, Richard Tennant, Harold John
Channing, Francis Allston M'Kenna, Reginald Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)
Colville, John Maddison, Fred. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Crilly, Daniel Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen) Wallace, Robert
Crombie, John William Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Dillon, John Moulton, John Fletcher Wason, Eugene
Doogan, P. C. Norton, Capt. Cecil William Wedderburn, Sir William
Dunn, Sir William O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Williams, John Carvell (Notts)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Fenwick, Charles Oldroyd, Mark Woods, Samuel
Flavin, Michael Joseph Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Flynn, James Christopher Philipps, John Wynford
Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis Pickard, Benjamin TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Buchanan and Captain Sinclair.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbt. John Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lancs, S.W.)
Goddard, Daniel Ford Price, Robert John

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That further proceedings on consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), be adjourned till To-morrow."— (Mr. Moulton.)

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

This motion has been made without a single word of explanation of the ground on which it has been made. I confess that I have waited for some time to see what course the Government were going to take on this motion, because it is in my experience perfectly unparalleled and unprecedented that in the course of any sitting of this House, when an important Government Bill is before the House, and is making rather slow progress, and with two pages of Amendments yet to be dealt with, a motion should be made for the adjournment of the proceedings until to-morrow without any justification whatever. I have never heard such a motion even submitted to the House, and it is certainly of an extraordinary character. That view is emphasised by the conduct of the Government, who have allowed the motion to be put to the House without the Minister in charge of the Bill giving us a word with reference to the motion. Why should we adjourn the proceedings on this Bill until to-morrow? Do the Government intend to drop or withdraw the Bill? Why are we stopping the Bill before the House in the middle of this important debate? I entirely fail to understand what the purpose of this motion is, and the only hint we have to guide us to the discovery of the reasons for this motion, and—what I attach a great deal more importance to—why the Government have received this motion on really an important matter, is the dark hint thrown out by the Leader of the House yesterday when he said he understood it would be inconvenient for some Members of the House to sit after four o'clock today, and accordingly he proposed to suspend the discussion of this Bill. I contend, if that be the position of the Government, that they are bound to make their own motion in the matter, and to explain to the House why they make it. I am not surprised, from one point of view, that they have adopted this extraordinary course of throwing out this hint yesterday and then running away from their own motion and getting a private Member to make it, because, if it be true, as I have heard it alleged, that the only reason for adjourning the debate is that certain Members of the House desire to attend a garden party, it is the first time in the history of the House of Commons that public business has been stopped to facilitate the attendance of Members at a garden party. We ought to know what we are doing. This is not the first occasion when hon. Members of this House in great numbers have desired to attend a garden party. We had a garden party and a great entertainment on the occasion of the Queen's Jubilee. The Government on that occasion, I believe, suffered a defeat, and that may be the explanation of their conduct to-day. But I maintain that this is a new departure in the history of the British House of Commons, and the least we are entitled to is some explanation from the Government in support of it. I might mention another occasion—a much more solemn occasion certainly than anyone can pretend the occasion is to-day — that was the occasion of a Royal wedding which took place during the sitting of the House, when something might have been said on due notice in support of adjournment. I can conceive a Minister advocating an adjournment of public business to suit the convenience of Members of the House on that occasion—a much more solemn occasion than a garden party (laughter). I do not see anything ludicrous in a Royal wedding. It will be in the memory of hon. Members present that on the occasion to which I allude no proposal was made to interrupt public business for the convenience of gentlemen who desired to attend, and that the public business of the country in the House of Commons went on without interruption. I again assert that, as far as my knowledge goes—certainly as far as my experience goes—the British House of Commons has never been adjourned or public business interrupted for the purpose of allowing Members of the House to attend a garden party, and that is what we are called upon to do to-day, as far as we can gather from the gossip of the lobbies, for the Minister responsible for the motion has not deigned to give us any information. It was the practice of the House for a great many years to adjourn on the day of a great national festivity—namely, Derby Day;, but a body of Members from the days since I first entered the House set themselves to abolish the practice as being a. great abuse, and after fifteen or twenty years opposition, that practice, I believe, has been completely abolished by general consent, and we no longer adjourn. But now we are to set up a new practice, and, I think, a much more far-reaching, extra-ordinary and indefensible practice. The Derby comes but once a year, but who can say how many garden parties we may have in a year? A principle is to be laid down and a precedent established to-day that we are to adjourn the House of Commons and stop public business for the convenience of gentlemen who wish to attend garden parties. Where are we to draw the line? Are you going to adjourn the House for every Minister who chooses to attend a garden party? [An HON. MEMBER: No.] Yes, I think we are entitled to know, before this precedent is established, where it is going to stop. If we adjourn the House to-day to enable hon. Members to attend a garden party at Buckingham Palace—I believe that is where it is to take place—why not adjourn for a garden party of the Prime-Minister? You might have a garden party in the country where it would be inconvenient for Members to attend while the House is sitting. The principle is vicious, and I say it is a bad precedent.. If the Government were resolved to form this totally new principle and to set up a precedent in this particular matter they ought to have given notice to the House. The proper time would have been question time yesterday, when the Minister in charge of this Bill could have got up in his place, and said frankly, "There is to be a Royal garden party, and we propose to adjourn the House of Commons to enable hon. Members to go to it." But a Minister gives a dark hint that it will be inconvenient for certain Members to-attend the House this afternoon. He does not withdraw the Bill or alter the business for the purpose of meeting the convenience of hon. Members. He announces that public business will be interrupted at a certain hour for the purpose of enabling hon. Members to go to some place, the nature of which he did not disclose. Instead of explaining the grounds on which the adjournment is asked, he allows a private Member to start up and make the motion. The course of procedure is utterly unprecedented in the history of the House.


The hon. Gentleman has suggested that there has been concealment in this matter. I deny that there has been any concealment on the part of the Government in connection with the motion for the adjournment of the debate on the Agricultural Holdings Bill. He spoke of dark hints and obscure suggestions. There have been no dark hints and obscure suggestions. There was a plain statement made by me last night based upon a plain reason which was given. The hon. Gentleman says we are starting a new and dangerous precedent in cutting off an hour's discussion upon this Bill to-day. I do not stop to inquire, although I might if I were inclined to indulge in personalities, whether the hon. Member has constantly and anxiously laboured to prevent the unnecessary expenditure of the time of this House. Let me ask, as a plain matter of business, what is my duty when it comes to my knowledge that it would be extremely inconvenient to Members of the House, and detrimental to public business, that we should carry on the public discussion during the remaining hour. When that question is put to me I answer that clearly it is in the general interest that the motion should be made, and on account of that general interest I propose to support it. There is no principle or dangerous precedent there. How often, in obedience to the convenience of a few Members, have not Bills been delayed from one day to another where there was far less necessity for that course than in this case! It appears to me that we have got a plain, practical ground for the course we propose to pursue.

MR. MOULTON (Cornwall, Launceston)

I wish to make a personal explanation. I moved the adjournment because I have the next two Amendments on the Paper—I think they are important; and I did it because I understood that it was known throughout the House that contentious business was to cease at a quarter past four. I know that hon. Members have left the House thinking that further debate on this Bill would at that hour cease. I certainly did not intend to raise any cause of dissension in the House.

MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid)

Like the hon. Member for East Mayo, I. object to the adjournment of this debate.. There are one or two important measures which may not be discussed this session for want of time. The Leader of the House has stated once or twice that the adjournment is asked to-day to meet the convenience of Members. I think it is incumbent that he should tell us how many Members are going to the garden party. I had no knowledge that there was to be a garden party until a few minutes ago, when the adjournment of the debate was moved. I think the Gentlemen who are going to enjoy themselves at the garden party, if they have been privileged with a Royal invitation, might have allowed those of us who are not, to go on with business. With the majority the Government have, I do not think they need fear a decrease of that majority by forty or fifty Members. I wish the right hon. Gentleman to tell us how many Members have received invitations, and how many Members will have their convenience interfered with. On this side, those who object to the adjournment of the debate might give way and allow those Members to go if there be a sufficient staff left to carry on the business. Why should the convenience of fifty or sixty Members be allowed to place itself in supremacy over the business of the country? I submit that the Government need not fear to go on with this Bill, because the division list has shown that, oven when there has been a slight revolt on the part of the Government's followers, as happened last night on the question of the inherent capabilities of the soil, there has always been a sufficient majority to carry any Amendment the Government propose or to refuse any Amendment brought forward by an individual Member.

MR. MADDISON (Sheffield, Brightside)

I join in the protest against the adjournment of the debate. The explanation of the hon. and learned Member seems to me a very peculiar one. It amounted to this: he has got some Amendments on the Paper, and he found that Members were leaving the House.


That was only a personal explanation on the part of the hon. Member. It is not material to the question before the House now.


I thought it was more than that, and entered into the debate, but I shall leave that point alone.


The hon. Member prefaced his remarks by stating that he rose to make a personal explanation.


I cannot help thinking that this is really a flagrant abuse of Parliament. It is a gross waste of the time of the House, which Mr. Gladstone used to call the national treasure. The right hon. Gentleman in his very ingenious speech tried to make out that he had to consult the convenience of Members of the House. That is quite true. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the number of Members who are going to the garden party is so large that it would materially affect the discussions in the House on this Bill? If the right hon. Gentleman had been able to show that, we will say, 200 or 300 Members were going to the garden party, then, of course, the business of the House would be practically stopped; but the chances are that only a small number of Gentlemen have received invitations to this garden party. Being a Royal party it will be, I presume, if one has to say so, select. [Laughter.] I do not think it at all follows, but I suppose in courtesy you have to say "select," and therefore the number will be small. [Laughter.] Yes, the number of Members who have received invitations, I am quite certain, will be a very small proportion of this House. The right hon. Gentleman's speech had no body in it, no substance in it, no point in it, unless he can show us that the number is so large as to materially affect the discussion of this Bill. If he had told us that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was desirous to go to the Royal garden party I should say that that would be a very considerable loss to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman does not look as if he were going to a garden party. I mean to say there is nothing in the right hon. Gentleman's latest speeches to show that exhaustion which, I take it, a garden party might help to remove. In fact, everything was going on smoothly. The Bill was not being obstructed. The Bill was being discussed, and although, an ignorant townsman, I had to grope my way along during the discussion, I was able to get gleams of light even from the right hon. Gentleman, as well as from Members on this side of the House. I would put it to the House calmly and fairly—hero we are in the midst of a Bill which deals with tenant rights and with the condition of farmers. We are constantly being told on the other side of the House that agriculture is the greatest industry. Now mark this: when we are dealing with the greatest industry in the country, when the right hon. Gentleman is telling us that they are fulfilling their election pledges, they suddenly break off in the middle of their work, just because there happens to be a gathering of Royal and other personages at Buckingham Palace. I say this solemnly, I say it earnestly, that no worse object lesson could be given to the workmen of this country than for this House, that is the mother of Parliaments, to be so frivolous, to be so vain, to have so little regard for the nation's business, as to go off at the first approach of Royalty. Why, the discussion of one clause of this Bill is worth all the garden parties you have in this country, and all the Royalties as well. [Cries of "Order, order! "]


The hon. Gentleman will withdraw the words "and all the Royalties as well." [Cries of "Withdraw!"]


I shall not withdraw for hon. Members opposite; but if the Speaker says it is not in order I shall withdraw at once.


I said it was not in order.


Then, of course, I at once withdraw. When I remember that the right hon. Gentleman in his place deliberately told us that he would not give us one hour to discuss the Children's Bill, a Bill affecting the vital interests of the people, and then that he can waste and squander an hour and a quarter on a useless visit to a useless garden party, then I say it is a shame that the working people of this country should be so treated.


I consider that hon. Gentlemen are wasting public time. This is an attempt to suspend the business of the House for a Court function. I think we are the representatives of the people and the trustees of the people. My hon. friend had the misfortune to be called to order. I will not make that mistake. I know perfectly well the rules of the House with reference to Royalty. You cannot refer, except in certain terms, to two Royal personages—the Queen and the Prince of Wales. You can speak as you like of other Royalties. I say that this House is forgetting its duty to the constituencies, and that it is behaving falsely to the trust placed in it, if it gives one moment of the public time to enable Members to go and masquerade in a place like Buckingham Palace. The Irish Members come here at great inconvenience, and we do not wish the business of the House adjourned for any Court function whatever. We have come here to discharge serious business. If the House of Commons is to suspend the vital business of the country for any State function it appears to me that this kingdom is like Rome on the eve of destruction.


The question is not the adjournment of the House. It is whether the proceedings on this Bill should be adjourned until to-morrow.


I suppose we will discuss the adjournment of the House later on. Having regard to the Bill before the House, which is ostensibly to make the lives of agricultural labourers happier, I really think that a motion for the adjournment of the debate is a waste of public time. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham will support the motion for the adjournment, and show how consistent he is in connection with the policy of "three acres and a cow."

MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)

rose to speak.


rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided:— Ayes, 137: Noes, 50. (Division List No. 209.)

Allsopp, Hon. George Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lucas-Shadwell, William
Arrol, Sir William Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Faber, George Denison Macdona, John Cumming
Baird, John George Alexander Fardell, Sir T. George MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Baker, Sir John Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) M'Killop, James
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Malcolm, Ian
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) Fisher, William Hayes Manners, Lord Edward Wm. J.
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M H (Bristol) Fry, Lewis Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)
Beckett, Ernest William Galloway, William Johnson Milbank, Sir Powlett Charles J.
Bethell, Commander Gibbons, J. Lloyd Milner, Sir Frederick George
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Monckton, Edward Philip
Boulnois, Edmund Goldsworthy, Major-General Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) Gordon, Hon. John Edward Morgan, Hn. F. (Monmouths.
Brassey, Albert Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Morrison, Walter
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Goulding, Edward Alfred Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Bullard, Sir Harry Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)
Caldwell, James Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury) Myers, William Henry
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Greville, Hon. Ronald Nicholson, William Graham
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Gunter, Colonel Nicol, Donald Ninian
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Halsey, Thomas Frederick O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Rbt. Wm. Parkes, Ebenezer
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hardy, Laurence Peel, Hon. W. Robt. Wellesley
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. (Birm.) Helder, Augustus Penn, John
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r) Hickman, Sir Alfred Percy, Earl
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead) Pierpoint, Robert
Charrington, Spencer Houston, R. P. Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Chelsea, Viscount Howell, William Tudor Purvis, Robert
Coddington, Sir William Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice- Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Kimber, Henry Robinson, Brooke
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Knowles, Lees Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W. Lafone, Alfred Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Cox, Irwin Edward Bain bridge Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Crombie, John William Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Rnfrw.)
Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) Leighton, Stanley Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.
Dalkeith, Earl of Loder, Gerald W. Erskine Sinclair, Capt. Jno (Forfarshire
Davies, Sir Hor. D. (Chatham Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool) Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Lowles, John Smith, Hon. W. F. D (Strand)
Don kin, Richard Sim Loyd, Archie Kirkman Spencer, Ernest
Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk) Wallace, Robert Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. P. (Bath)
Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M. Welby Sir Charles G. E. (Notts. Wylie, Alexander
Strachey, Edward Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd Wyndham, George
Talbot, Rt. Hon. J G (Oxf'd Univ.) Williams, John Carvell (Notts) Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Thornton, Percy M. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Tollemache, Henry James Willox, Sir John Archibald
Tomlinson, Wm. Edw, Murray Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) M'Kenna, Reginald Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Maddison, Fred. Steadman, William Charles
Blake, Edward Morgan, W. Pritchard (Merthyr Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Burns, John O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Tanner, Charles Kearns
Hurt, Thomas O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Tennant, Harold John
Crilly, Daniel O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Doogan, P. C. O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)
Fenwick, Charles Oldroyd, Mark Wedderburn, Sir William
Flavin, Michael Joseph Paulton, James Mellor Weir, James Galloway
Goddard, Daniel Ford Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) Williams, John Carvell (Notts.
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Philipps, John Wynford Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Horniman, Frederick John Pickard, Benjamin Woods, Samuel
Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lancs SW) Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land) Power, Patrick Joseph Yoxall, James Henry
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Reid, Sir Robert Threshie
Macaleese, Daniel Runciman, Walter TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Dillon.
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
M'Ghee, Richard Shee, James John

Question put accordingly: "That farther proceedings on Consideration, as

The House divided:—Ayes, 138; Noes, 47. (Division List No. 210.)

Allsopp, Hon. George Fisher, William Hayes Monckton, Edward Philip
Arrol, Sir William Fry, Lewis Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Galloway, William Johnson Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.)
Baird, John George Alexander Gibbons, J. Lloyd Morrison, Walter
Baker, Sir John Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Moulton, John Fletcher
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Goldsworthy, Major-General Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)
Beach, Rt. Hn Sir M. H. (Bristol) Gordon, Hon. John Edward Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Beckett, Ernest William Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon Myers, William Henry
Bethell, Commander Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Nicholson, William Graham
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Goulding, Edward Alfred Nicol, Donald Ninian
Boulnois, Edmund Gray, Ernest (West Ham) O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Bowies, T. Gibson (King's Lynn) Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury) Parkes, Ebenezer
Brassey, Albert Greville, Hon. Ronald Paulton, James Mellor
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Gunter, Colonel Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Halsey, Thomas Frederick Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley
Bullard, Sir Harry Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W. Penn, John
Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H. Hardy, Laurence Percy, Earl
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale- Pierpoint, Robert
Cavendish, V. W C. (Derbyshre) Helder, Augustus Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) Hickman, Sir Alfred Purvis, Robert
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead) Reid, Sir Robert Threshie
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm Houston, R. P. Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W.
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore.) Howell, William Tudor Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Hutchinson, Capt. G. A. Grice- Robinson, Brooke
Charrington, Spencer Kimber, Henry Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Chelsea, Viscount Knowles, Lees Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Coddington, Sir William Lafone, Alfred Sharpe, William Edward T.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) Sidebottom, William (Derbsh.)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgw) Leighton, Stanley Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool) Spencer, Ernest
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Lowles, John Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Dalkeith, Earl of Loyd, Archie Kirkman Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.
Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham) Macartney, W. G. Ellison Strachey, Edward
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Macdona, John Cumming Tabot, Rt. Hon. J. G (Oxf'd Univ.
Donkin, Richard Sim MacIver, David (Liverpool) Thornton, Percy M.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- M'Killop, James Tollemache, Henry James
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Malcolm, Ian Tomlinson, W. E. Murray
Faber, George Denison Manners, Lord Edward Wm. J. Wallace, Robert
Fardell, Sir T. George Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)
Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J. Wharton, Rt. Hn. J. Lloyd
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Milner, Sir Frederick George Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Willox, Sir John Archibald Wyndham, George
Wilson-Todd, Wm. H (Yorks.) Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Allan, William (Gateshead) Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfars.
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Macaleese, Daniel Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Steadman, William Charles
Blake, Edward M'Ghee, Richard Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Burns, John Morgan, W. Pritchard (Merth'r) Tanner, Charles Kearns
Burt, Thomas O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Caldwell, James O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wedderburn, Sir William
Crilly, Daniel O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal) Weir, James Galloway
Crombie, John William O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)
Dillon, John Oldroyd, Mark Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (H'dd'rsf'd)
Donelan, Captain A. Philipps, John Wynford Woods, Samuel
Doogan, P. C. Pickard, Benjamin Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Fenwick, Charles Pilkington, Sir GA(Lancs S. W. Yoxall, James Henry
Flavin, Michael Joseph Power, Patrick Joseph
Goddard, Daniel Ford Runciman, Walter TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. John Wilson (Durham) and Mr. Maddison.
Horniman, Frederick John Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) Shee, James John

amended (by the Standing Committee), be adjourned till To-morrow."