HC Deb 22 June 1906 vol 159 cc498-560

As Amended by the Standing Committee, considered.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)

said his object in moving the new clause of which he had given notice was to safeguard arrangements which he believed to be for the mutual convenience both of landlords and of tenants. It was a matter of general knowledge that at the commencement of any tenancy arrangements were made between landlord and tenant as to the ordinary repairs of the premises, etc., and if by reason of the passing of this Act these existing arrangements were upset-it must work to the inconvenience of both parties and to the advantage of no one-It would be wise, therefore, to make provision that existing arrangements should stand good. The clause referred only to ordinary repairs. The arrangements varied in different parts of the country, and hence the necessity for this clause.

LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBT (Lincolnshire, Horncastle),

in seconding the clause, insisted on the importance-of including some such provision in the Bill. There were certain places in England and Scotland where the terms of the agreements as regarded the letting of lands varied very greatly,, and when he raised this question upstairs several hon. Members objected to any alteration with regard to the question of repairs, as it was not the custom in their parts of the country for the tenant to contract himself to do any repairs. His own experience, however, was very different, for he well knew that before a tenant signed an agreement or lease he covenanted to do certain repairs. It was most essential that the small repairs referred to in this proposed clause should be done by the tenant, as nothing was more necessary to the proper cultivation of a farm than that the ditches should be adequately dug out and that the outfalls of drains should be properly cleaned. He had known thousands of pounds expended on the drainage of the land rendered absolately useless owing to the fact that the tenant had not cleaned out the outfalls of the drains. In most of the agreements with which he had had to deal the tenant had undertaken the responsibility for these repairs, and in his opinion, unless they put into the Bill some such explanatory clause as that now proposed, when the measure came to be put in force enormous difficulties would arise in connection with the interpretation of Clause 7. All those matters, the repairs of roads bridges, etc., he maintained, if the tenant had covenanted to do them, he should be bound to do them. They were not to form the subject of compensation. If they formed the subject of compensation it would mean the alteration of every tenancy and lease which at present existed where the tenant had bound himself to do these small repairs. Under these circumstances there should be some such clause as had been proposed by the right hon. Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire.

New clause—

"Nothing in this Act shall affect existing arrangements between landlord and tenant as to ordinary repairs to premises, gates, fences, drains, or ditches, whether established by agreement or by the custom of the country." (Colonel Kenyon-Slaney.)

Brought up and read the first time.

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

MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple)

said as they were anxious to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite so far as possible they would accept this clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.


said he hoped the hon. Member would also accept the new clause he now desired to move. It had the support of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, which represented all the agricultural societies of Scotland. The clause was substantially the same as that moved by the hon. Member for Kincardineshire in Committee, and the reason for its incorporation in the Bill would be much stronger in the future than it had been in the past, because under Clause 5 of this Bill a new form of compensation—compensation for disturbance—was given which might fall upon the incoming tenant. It was in the interest of agriculture that the incoming tenant should have his capital free for investment in the profitable cultivation of the farm, and if the burden of the incoming tenant was piled up by his having to pay not only the old forms of compensation which already existed but also the new forms of compensation provided under the Bill, including compensation for disturbance to the out-going tenant, it would be a burden he would be unable to bear. The owner, who was the man upon the land, was the person to settle with the outgoing tenant. The cost of arbitration would also be greatly increased under the Bill, especially by Clause 5, and those costs would also be put on the incoming tenant, who would be thus deprived of much capital which ought to be employed on the cultivation of the land. He begged to move.

MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)

seconded the clause on behalf of the agriculturalists of the midland counties of England. Many of his strongest agricultural supporters had again and again represented to him the loss sustained by the incoming tenant in this way: "He paid for the improvements in the rent, which was charged at the full current value, and also had to pay once for the improvements on paying the compensation of the outgoing tenant." The principle was one that ought to be embodied in the Bill.

New Clause—

"It shall not be lawful for a landlord to bind an incoming tenant to settle the claim of the outgoing tenant for compensation for improvements?—(Mr. Munro Ferguson.)

Brought up, and read the first time.

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


said he quite understood the point of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, and his desire to see the incoming tenants' capital preserved intact for the purposes of husbandry. But the hon. Member seemed to have forgotten that the incoming tenant was a free agent; that he was not obliged to come in unless he liked. Under this Bill they were simply piling up the compensation to be paid by the landlord. However much they disliked the landlord, he thought it was very hard that he should not be allowed to make such arrangements as that described by the hon. Member. Under this Bill they wished to mulct him in the cost of compensation for disturbance and every sort of compensation it was possible to conceive. He did not see that the good done to husbandry would be so great as was suggested by the hon. Member, because the tenant was just as well able to protect himself as was the landlord. He opposed the clause.

LORD HELMSLEY (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk)

said the proposed clause would go a long way to prove the truth of the contention that they were going too far in the direction of giving compensation for improvements to the outgoing tenant. The wording of the Amendment showed that those who supported it thought so themselves, because, instead of going the right way to work to stop the burden on the in- coming tenant, they transferred the burden, which they admitted was an unfair one, from the incoming tenant to the landlord. The most natural, cheapest, and simplest arrangement was one whereby the incoming tenant arranged to take over the unexhausted improvements from the outgoing tenant. If they substituted this clause for the existing conditions—under which it was optional for an arrangement to be made directly between the outgoing and incoming tenants—there would be a much more expensive deal to arrange in handing over a farm from one tenant to another. In the first place, instead of having a simple arbitration between the outgoing tenant and the incoming tenant, with the landlord standing apart altogether, they would have an arbitration as between the outgoing tenant and the landlord and secondly between the incoming tenant and the landlord. The two arbitrations meant double the cost and probably would be less satisfactory in the end. Why, when an arrangement had to be made for the benefit of the incoming tenant, should he not be allowed to make the best arrangement he could with the outgoing tenant? By this clause they would be adding to the burden of the outgoing tenant and the incoming tenant and the landlord and would do no good to anybody.

CAPTAIN BALFOUR (Middlesex, Hornsey)

said that from the Scottish point of view there were many provisions in this Bill with which they, as landlords, might agree, and with others disagree. There were two kinds of improvements, one of a less and one of a more permanent character which might be a benefit to the landlord by enabling him to secure a better rent for the farm when the time for letting came. When a tenant left his farm the ordinary rule was that the incoming tenant took over the manure left by the outgoing tenant. Did the hon. Member wish to prevent the incoming tenant making a bargain with the outgoing tenant with regard to the manure? If he did many leases in Scotland would be affected thereby. Then in the greater part of Scotland the incoming tenant took over the way going crop; he bought it from the outgoing tenant—a very fair arrangement. If the hon. Member excluded the taking over of the manure which the former tenant left on the farm and the taking over of the way going crop this clause was of a very far-reaching character. If he did not exclude those matters then he thought the clause was a wise one. He would like to have some clearing up of these points before proceeding further.


agreed with what had been said in favour of the clause, but said there was the fact to be considered that they could not have everything in one Bill. He wished they could include a great deal more in the Bill, but time was limited, and they could not have everything they desired. Having regard to that fact, he would appeal to his hon. friend to withdraw the clause and allow the discussion on the Bill to proceed.


in deference to the wishes of his hon. friend, asked leave to withdraw the clause.


Is it your pleasure that the clause be withdrawn? [OPPOSITION cries of "No."]

SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)

said he wanted to make a few observations on the clause. The Bill was not one to promote and encourage agriculture, but it was a Bill to take something away from the landlords. He was glad to think that every hon. Member opposite did not hold that view.


The hon. Member is not entitled to review the whole Bill.


said the speech of the hon. Gentleman in introducing the Amendment showed that the best thing he could have done was to have opposed the Second Reading of the Bill.

MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)

said he rose to make an appeal. His hon. friends behind him did not quite realise the situation when the hon. Gentleman for Leith Burghs asked leave to withdraw the clause. The hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill suggested with great wisdom and perfect fairness to all concerned that the clause should be withdrawn. That was the object obviously that his hon. friends behind him had in view, and he would ask them to agree to the request to-allow the withdrawal of the clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HICKS BEACH (Gloucestershire, Tewkesbury)

moved a new clause to provide that the Act should come into operation on January 1st, 1908. If the Bill passed in its present form the whole system of land tenure would undergo a complete change, and it was only fair that landlords should have time to review their position, and consider what steps they should take to secure their rights before the Bill came into force. Under the Bill as it stood the landlords would find that they had practically lost complete control over their own property. No arbitrator would be able to say what was reasonable or unreasonable, and there would be endless disputes. Besides that, the landlord would find that his own property might have undergone a complete change-without his being able to say anything at all about it, for under Clause 7 the tenant had only to say that he wished to lay down part of his farm to permanent pasture, another part to orchard—100 acres to strawberries and 100 acres to asparagus, and so on—and however much the landlord might object to his property being transformed in this way it would be impossible for him to take any steps to prevent it. Moreover, there were landlords who took a great interest in farming and kept very good stock, some of the best herds of cattle, flocks of sheep, and pigs being owned by landlords, who had given a great impetus to the breeding of stock. Under the Bill as it stood, however, it would be impossible for any landlord in the future to take any of his land in hand to farm it for himself unless he gave compensation to the sitting tenant. It was an absolute attack on the rights of property. Then there was the question of making further provision for allotments and small holdings throughout the country. He believed many hon. Gentlemen opposite were very favourable to the idea of further increasing the number of small holdings, and providing greater facilities for allotments. Would it be unreasonable for a landlord to give notice to his tenant because he wished to divide some of his property into small holdings? It was quite a new doctrine that landlords were to have no consideration at all. He was always led to believe that Members of this House, when they considered a measure, were impartial enough to hear both sides. It must be remembered, too, that land in this country was not held entirely by large land-owners, and any attack that was made upon their fights would also be made upon the small landowners who formed a very large class. He begged to move.

LORD TURNOUR (Sussex, Horsham)

seconded; he thought it was absolutely necessary that both landlords and tenants should have at least eighteen months to consider their position under the Bill. He understood that the promoters of the Bill would accept the clause and therefore he would only formally second it.

New Clause—

"This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and eight."—(Mr. Hicks-Beach.)

Brought up, and read the first time.

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


pointed out that customs differed in various parts of the country. In the part from which he came the holdings invariably dated from Lady Day to Lady Day, and even the extension suggested by his hon. friend would not give time for any such arrangements being made as would absolutely and inevitably be necessary in many cases if this Bill were passed. Supposing a tenant wished to give notice to a landlord or a landlord wished to give notice to a tenant, such notice could not be given until Lady Day next year, to take effect the following Lady Day, so that the earliest quittance would not be until Lady Day, 1908. Therefore he thought if the opera- tion of the Bill was to be postponed so as to give time for the notice to take effect on either side it would really have to be after Lady Day,1909,before there could be any practical advantage from the extension. His hon. friend had shown many good reasons why the extension should be made. A landlord face to face with this Bill would in many cases desire very largely to reduce the expenditure on his estate and would certainly dismiss many agricultural labourers, and some time should be given to these poor fellows to look about them. If the Bill came into operation there would be 100,000 men out of employment. Then, again, the landlord might be contemplating for some time improvements in various directions, but so as not to disturb an old tenant he put off the improvements until the tenant's death. What was he to do under this Bill? If he wanted to carry out any of his improvements he feared he would have to harden his heart, and give notice now instead of waiting until the farm in the natural course of things came into his hands. The result of the Bill was likely to be that such a holding would become empty. He strongly supported the new clause, but he wished to see it so far extended as to cover the natural condition of things. He did not know how the proposal would affect leaseholders in Scotland, but they would always meet with difficulties owing to the difference between tenure under leases and tenure under yearly agreements. From the point of view of yearly tenancies there was every reason why this extension should be made.


said he was sorry that the promoters of the Bill could not accept the clause. It had been said that this Bill was an attack upon landlords, but it was nothing of the kind. The only landlords who would suffer under it were the bad landlords. When the promoters first introduced the Bill they hoped that it would come into operation immediately the Royal Assent was given to it. He wished to state that an Amendment would be moved in due course by the hon. Baronet who represented the Board of Agriculture, which would make the date January 1st, 1907, and that would be accepted.


hoped the hon. Member for Barnstaple would look at this question from a practical point of view. If the promoters had been content to confine the measure to amending the Agricultural Holdings Act he should have asked his hon. friend not to press his Amendment, but this was an omnibus Bill, which not only dealt with the Agricultural Holdings Act but also altered in a drastic fashion the law of tenure and the law relating to ground game. Under these circumstances was it reasonable to say that the Bill should come into operation within a few days of its passing? The hon. Memer must have made his own time table and he must have taken into account the time it would take to consider the Amendments on the Paper. As a matter of practical politics, it was impossible for this Bill to pass into law in its present form until the end of this year, and was it a reasonable proposition that a Bill should pass late in November or December and then immediately after publication expect its provisions to be known to the thousands of farmers and others who would be affected by it? He submitted that that was not a reasonable position for the hon. Member to take up. The Bill did a great many things which it was necessary that both farmers and landlords should have time to consider. He presumed that upon this question hon. Members opposite had the big landlords in their mind. He had never thought of the big landlords, because they could very well be left to take care of themselves; but there were thousands of small landlords who owned small holdings and they were just as much affected by this Bill as the big landlords. Did anybody imagine that all these small owners could make themselves acquainted with the provisions of the Bill in so short a time? Only that morning he had received a communication upon this very point which he had not had time fully to consider. He submitted to the hon. Member that he would lose nothing by putting in a date that would allow people sufficient time to make themselves acquainted with the Act, while by pressing the measure in its present form he would only be imperilling its passage into law.

MR. NUSSEY (Pontefract)

thought that the Bill as a matter of draughtsman-ship was so badly drafted that it would take a person of ordinary intelligence at least several months before he could understand what the Bill meant and what his hon. friend meant to achieve by it. The Bill had had the good fortune of the ballot, but it contained principles which deserved more attention than could be given to them upon a Friday afternoon. It dealt with the advisability of setting up the Irish system of dual ownership in this country. ["No."] That was a conclusion they would have to face, whether they liked it or not, and there was a clause in the Bill which did set up the principle of dual ownership. It also challenged the whole system of land tenure in this country. When such questions were dealt with in one Bill they required time and consideration before the measure was put into operation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin had pointed out that the Bill could not come into law and receive the Royal Assent until the end of this year, and he understood that the Government were going to propose an Amendment that the Act should come into operation on the 1st of January next year. There was much that was good and also much that was harmful in the Bill, and he hoped the Amendment would be accepted, in order that the various interests might have an opportunity of adjusting themselves to the new conditions.

COLONEL WILLIAMS (Dorsetshire, W.)

said he intended to support this Amendment, which was necessary under the terms of the Bill itself; for the Bill provided that where freedom of cropping was allowed the conditions should not apply in the last year of the tenancy. There were a great many landlords who had already given their tenants entire freedom of contract, and some of the tenancies would not have a whole twelve months to restore the farms unless the further date was given. Under the terms of the Bill itself they must give more than a whole agricultural year before the measure came into operation.

SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER (Wiltshire, Chippenham)

thought there was a great deal of force in the argument advanced by his right hon. friend the Member for South Dublin. His speech was not the least in the way of obstruction, but in a practical direction. The Bill would take some time to pass through this House and another place, and consequently there would only be a very short interval between the passing and the commencement of the Act. He thought the acceptance of the Amendment would greatly facilitate the passage of the Bill. He did not agree with the apprehensions which had been expressed in connection with this measure, because he believed that there was much good in it, although there were some matters susceptible of amendment. When one realised how slowly the practical working of a Bill of this kind operated in country districts he thought it was of the greatest possible importance that due notice should be given to both landlords and tenants and to all concerned, in order that they might be made fully conversant with its provisions before it came into operation. The proposal was reasonable, and he urged his hon. friend to accept it.

MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)

said he agreed with the hon. Member for Pontefract that it would take a great many months to understand the Bill. He had done his best to understand it in the time at his disposal, but he confessed he had not been able to make head or tail of a good many of its provisions. If passed in its present form there would be such a crop of litigation as would absolutely surprise the promoters of the Bill.


(interrupting), said he was prepared to accept the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.


moved to amend the new clause by substituting April 7th for January 1st. In most districts in England the landlord and tenant would not have sufficient time to make the new arrangements in connection with agreements which might be necessitated by the passing of the Bill if the date now in the clause were retained. He hoped the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would see the reasonableness of this proposal. If changes had to be made in regard to future agreements it was only right that those concerned should have fair warning, and it would only be possible to give such warning if sufficient time were allowed.

MR. LANE-FOX (Yorkshire, W.R., Barkston Ash),

in seconding the Amendment, associated himself with the noble Lord in the appeal for an extension of time in the interests of tenants who would wish to consider their new position, as well as in the interests of landlords in the North of England where tenancies dated up to Lady Day. It was obvious that the granting of the time asked for would be of extreme importance from the point of view of the Bill itself. All that was asked was that the Bill should be made practical. He supposed that the hon. Gentleman wished to make it practical and useful, and he appealed to him in the interest of both landlords and tenants to make the proposed alteration in the date.

Amendment proposed to the proposed clause— To leave out: the words 'first day of January,' and insert the words 'seventh day of April' — (Lord Willoughby de Eresby) — instead thereof.

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


said he had made a. concession of a rather important nature, but if hon. Members opposite were going to use any concession which might be made as a step towards further concessions he certainly would not be inclined to make any. He had done his best to comply with the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he did not think he should be asked to accept this Amendment.


admitted that the hon. Gentleman had done his best to meet the objections to the Bill. Reference had been made to difficulty in connection with the legal interpretation to be placed on the clauses. He was no lawyer, but he had taken the trouble to obtain the opinion of lawyers, and he was certain that if the measure passed through the House in anything like its present form, subject only to those Amendments which were on the paper and seemed likely to be carried, it would go quite as far as his hon. friend behind him had stated, and in some cases further. Although the Sill dealt drastically with agricultural holdings, ripped up the law with regard to land tenure, and amended a number of Acts of Parliament, the Committee upstairs had not the advantage for five minutes of the presence of an English law officer of the Crown. Demands were made by his hon. friend and by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House for a definite expression of opin on by a responsible law officer of the Crown as to the effect of the clauses. The only law officer present was the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who rendered most valuable service to the Committee, for which he tendered to the hon. and learned Gentleman his warmest thanks. But the hon. and learned Gentleman said he would not express definite opinions on questions of English law and practice. That was the position in which the Committee found themselves. If this Bill passed in its present form it would lead to an enormous amount of friction and difficulty, and there would be considerable labour in interpreting the real meaning of the clauses. He thought the date proposed in the Amendment was better fitted to meet the requirements of the case than that mentioned in the clause. This was not a foolish proposal. The Amendment was one of substance, and therefore he could not ask his hon. friend to withdraw it. If the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill accepted the Amendment no one would be injured in any way. He did not regard the 1st of January as an effective date, but the 7th of April was.

MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby)

hoped that those who were in charge of the Bill would think very carefully before accepting the Amendment. It was moved on the plea that landlords and tenants should have time to rearrange their tenancies. He noticed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin in his support of a later date merely asked for time to consider and understand the Act, and made no mention of any desire that land lords might be enabled to give notice to their tenants. That was rather a remarkable omission.


The hon. Gentleman should not make suggestions of that kind. I dealt with some of the most important reasons for this proposal, and I said frankly that when I was speaking I had not realised that the original date would not cover this particular case.


replied that that was exactly what he said. He suggested that there should not be an exception made in favour of Michaelmas tenancies, as was made in the clause as it now stood. On the other hand, the 7th April was not much use to them in Cumberland and Westmoreland where the tenancies changed frequently on the 1st or 12th of May.


expressed the hope that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would accept the Amendment. The hon. Member must not be surprised if small landowners like himself and some of his hon. friends who felt they were going to be attacked by the Bill, should be determined to obtain every possible advantage they could by way of Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin had said that it was the small landlords who were going to be principally attacked by the Bill. He would take every means in his power to have every clause thoroughly discussed. Was it surprising that the small landlords, a class in which he included himself, should feel the greatest anxiety about a Bill which, as the hon. Member for Pontefract had said, would practically establish fixity of tenure, fair rents, and dual ownership, and desire that its operations should be delayed as long as possible? For himself, he wanted to have time to think it over, to make such pecuniary arrangements as were left possible for him, and to come to some terms with his tenants. He frankly admitted that with these ideas in his mind it was but natural that he should look for every means for escape. He thought that they had every right to ask the hon. Gentleman to accept the small addition of time proposed by his hon. friend.

MR. CAWLEY (Lancashire, Prestwich)

said that most of the tenants in this country terminated their tenancies on Lady Day. The Bill was of an extremely important character. Nobody could deny that it interfered with vested interests, and created new interests. He thought that a Bill that created new interests in land, which took something from the landlords and gave it to the tenants, was not a Bill which would do much good to the general community. They were all in favour of a scheme which would employ more people on the land. This Bill would not put one more man on the land, nor even lead to the employment of an additional agricultural labourer. It certainly would be of some benefit to the tenant farmers, because it would give them a vested interest in property which they did not at present own. He was in favour of many parts of the Bill, but, as he did not wish to see it rushed through the House without sufficient consideration, he hoped the Amendment would be accepted.

MR. J. F. MASON (Windsor)

said it could not for one moment be contended that landlords could be expected to continue to give the same conditions to the tenants under this Bill as they gave now. It could not be expected that landlords were going to accept the responsibilities and liabilities that would be cast upon them, without increasing their rents and making new conditions with their tenants. In many cases the landlords would farm the land themselves, or else throw it out of cultivation altogether. He knew of a case in his own county, where a tenant farmer had bought two small farms, of 200 acres in all. That represented the whole savings of that man's lifetime. What was the position in which this Bill would place that man? It would make it possible for the tenant of one of his farms to bring him into the bankruptcy court, and probably the only man who would be able to buy the land would he a neighbouring big landlord. The prolongation of time asked for by the Amendment was necessary in order to enable the small landlords to safeguard their own interests, and he believed it would also be beneficial to the tenants as well.


thought the arguments to which they had just listened ought to have been addressed when Clause 5 was under discussion. At the same time he thought that the request for time to understand the Bill was a reasonable one.

MR. ABELSMITH (Hertfordshire Hertford)

said there were good grounds why the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill should accept the Amendment. Whether owners or occupiers they ought to have time for the consideration of their position. The only object of his hon. friend in moving his Amendment was that the concession proposed to be made in the Bill would make it fair all round, that tenancies which came to an end at Michaelmas and Lady Day should be placed on exactly the same footing. Something had been said in regard to the legal considerations in relation to this Bill. That recalled to his mind the fact that when the Bill was under review in the Grand Committee they had not the services of an English law officer. He recognised the good service rendered to the Committee by the hon. and learned Solicitor-General for Scotland. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman very candidly acknowledged that he was not capable, and could not be expected to give advice to the Committee on subjects of English law. He strongly protested against the absence of the law officers of the Crown during the discussion of a Bill which raised many difficult legal points. What he wanted to know was, whether tenancies in regard to which notices had been given before this Bill came into operation, but which would expire after the date at which it came into operation, came within its provisions. ["Yes."] That was a most important point, and although he was obliged to his hon. friends for their advice he thought this question ought to be decided upon the authority of the Government and of the law officers of the Crown. Numerous cases might arise in which either the landlord or tenant might give notice to quit or to determine the Lady Day tenancy. That day was, as had already been pointed out, the 25th of March, 1907, and the notice would not expire till the corresponding day in 1908, and he thought they were entitled to know whether in a case like that the complicated provisions of this Bill would apply.

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.)

said there seemed to be a general agreement that something ought to be done in regard to the date at which this Bill should come into operation, and his hon. friend who was in charge of the Bill agreed that there must be an extension of time. That proposal had not met with entire approval, and it was suggested that there should he a later date. He thought it would be better to put an end to this discussion, and defer the debate on this matter until they came to Clause 11, upon which he had an Amendment to the effect that the Bill should not come into operation until the 1st of January, 1907. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to take a pessimistic view of the Bill as it affected landlord and tenant, and therefore it would be much letter if they postponed the discussion of the date at which it should come into operation till the time when the provisions of it had been settled, and when they knew what alteration it made in the law.

MR. LAMBTON (Durham, S.E.)

argued that it was only reasonable that the time before which the Bill came into operation should be prolonged so that landlords might give notice to their tenants in regard to their intentions as to the continuance of the tenancy. In his view this was an utterly impossible and unreasonable Bill. If contracts were upset by the Bill, surely it was entirely right and just that the parties should have an opportunity of making other arrangements than those which now existed. All the benefits of the Bill would be given to the incoming tenant and not to the outgoing tenant; for his part he thought the landlord stood in loco parentis to all his tenants but especially to the outgoing tenant. All existing arrangements were upset by the Bill, which was loosely drawn and impossible of application. It was most desirable therefore that this discussion as to the postponement of the date upon which the Bill should come into operation should not be concluded until they had received some assurance which was in accordance with common sense.

MR. LAURENCE HARDY (Kent, Ashford)

inquired whether, if this new clause were withdrawn, it would be in order to bring forward subsequently a proposal to the same effect.


said that if the new clause proposing that the Bill should come into operation on the 1st of January, 1908, was negatived then the same date could not at a later period be inserted in the Bill, because the House would have pronounced its opinion upon it and would have negatived that date. If the clause were withdrawn the question of the date could be raised again at a later period of the Bill.


said he was under the impression that the clause had been read a second time and that they were proceeding to amend it.


said he still had to put the question to the House that the clause should be added to the Bill, and if that were negatived then it would be possible to raise the same question but not the same date again.


And another date can be raised by Amendment?


Yes; any other day can be proposed.

MR. PIKE PEASE (Darlington)

expressed himself in favour of the landlords of the country being given an opportunity to give notice to their tenants before the Bill came into operation. As a. matter of fact a considerable number of landlords had given notice to their tenants in consequence of the introduction of the Bill, and it seemed to him that others should have the opportunity of doing so. [MINISTERIAL Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh, but he could prove that that was a reasonable contention. Under the Bill dual ownership would be introduced, and, as had been stated, two vested interests created. If that was going to be the case was it not reasonable that the landlord should have an opportunity of giving notice to his tenant before the Bill came into operation?

MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)

wished to make a practical suggestion. It seemed to him fair to say that, when Parliament was imposing terms which were not in operation when the rent and other terms of tenancy were settled, each party should have an opportunity of considering whether he desired the tenancy to continue on those new terms. Therefore, instead of trying to fix a date, why should they not make a provision that the Bill should not apply to any existing tenancy till the earliest date at which it might have been determined by a notice given after the passing of the Act?

MR. GUEST (Cardiff District)

said he was just about to make the same suggestion as the last speaker. It seemed to him to be most unfair that one landlord should be able to determine his tenancies before January 1st, 1908. and others should not have the same opportunity of doing so. He thought that all parties should have an opportunity of regulating their position before the Bill came into operation.

MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)

hoped the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman who represented the Board of Agriculture to postpone this Question until they got to Clause 11 would not be accepted. If the promoters of the Bill wished to get it through they would do well not to accept it themselves, because, so far as he was personally concerned, the opposition to many clauses of the Bill depended largely upon the time when it came into operation. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had charged them with using one concession — and he admitted it was a great concession —in order to ask for another. But before the hon. Gentleman made that concession a proposal to change the date on which the Bill should come into operation was made by the hon. Member for Pontefract, and he gathered that that proposal would have covered Candlemas entries. He desired to add his voice to what other speakers had insisted on, namely, the importance of treating all landlords alike. It was perfectly ridiculous to say that only sufficient time should be given to enable the agricultural community to understand the Bill. There was every reason why landlords should have time to reconsider their arrangements with their tenants, and, if necessary—as in some cases it would be—to terminate them altogether. The case of the very small landlord had been mentioned. A man who owned two farms might live on one and let the other. It would be impossible for him to risk the huge outlay of capital which he might be called to find if the Bill were passed. He would— as had been suggested—have to go straight into bankruptcy or get rid of his tenants. It would only be fair and common justice that he should have an opportunity of terminating the tenancy. He did not think that the tenant farmer was going to get the slightest advantage from, the Bill. If he were allowed to have this vested interest of course he would get an advantage, but rather than risk the disadvantage of this vested interest the landowner would get rid of the tenant altogether, and that would be disastrous to the whole agricultural community. There were many estates where the sporting rights were of far more monetary value to the landowner than the agricultural rent. Did they think the landowner was going to risk the loss of sporting rights of such value by keeping agricultural tenants under a Bill of this kind? Of course not. He would get rid of them, and it would be a great disaster to all concerned. Then there was the question of the great variety of custom with regard to covenants in leases and agreements indifferent parts of the country. In the part he came from, there was a material difference in the rents of farms according to the distance from the main road, for the simple reason that a tenant, farmer covenanted under present arrangements to repair the roads.


That question has nothing to do with the alteration of the date.


(continuing) said that the argument in favour of January 1, 1908, advanced by the promoters was that there was no reason for giving time to landlords to review their tenancies. He was trying to show cause why in cases of tenancies which expired on Lady Day time should be given. He could not enlarge on the subject, but it was an important point. Under the Bill the tenant would get compensation from the landlord for many repairs which he now did at his own cost. That was a reason for allowing time for the reconsideration of the arrangements between landlord and tenant. He held a lease in his hand in which there were covenants as to repairs which would be upset by this Bill. That also was a reason for giving time—not to some—but to all landlords to re-arrange their tenancies before the Act came into operation. He hoped the promoters of the Bill would see their way to accept either the Amendment now before the House or some other Amendments which had been suggested, and would have a similar effect. If they did not, personally he would have to take up an attitude of uncompromising hostility to the Bill. [Laughter.] He did not see what there was for hon. Members to laugh at, because the chance of passing the Bill depended a great deal on the attitude he and his friends might take up in regard to it.


said he wished to join in the appeal which had been made by his hon. friend for an opinion from the law officers of the Crown. Although the law officers for England were not present he saw before him the Solicitor-General for Scotland and the Attorney-General for Ireland, one or the other of whom might be able to help landowners in their difficulties. At present they were in a rather perplexed state as to how they might be affected if this Bill became law, and therefore he made this appeal. He would also put before the House the difficulties landed proprietors who owned property in

various counties were in. He would take only England; the Bill had nothing to do with Scotland. The tenancies in England varied greatly, and what had been said did not help them out of their difficulty. In the county of Sussex all his tenants on a large property had two years agreements. How would they be affected, and how would he be affected as landlord, in regard to those agreements so far as the date of this Bill was concerned: would the last agreements hold good, although they might not expire until after the Bill had come into force? What, again, as to other counties, where the dates were different, some Lady Day, and some Michaelmas, etc.? There was Cumberland, for instance, and the adjoining county of Westmoreland, alluded to by the hon. Member for Appleby, where the dates differed again. He thought, therefore, the House was justified, and they on that side especially, in pressing on one of the law officers the desirability of saying how they stood.


said it was impossible for him to give a categorical reply to the plaintive appeal which had been made—and very properly made—for advice, but generally speaking, he thought he might say that if a notice was given to terminate a tenancy before the Bill came into force, but the notice took effect after the Bill came into force, he thought the Bill would take effect in so far as it amended the existing law. In other words so far as the Bill effected a change in the existing law it would apply to present agreements, but so far as it made a change in the law of landlord and tenant it would not apply.


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, 249; Noes, 74. (Division List No. 144.)

Abraham, William (Cork, NE. Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Ashton, Thomas Gair Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight
Barker, John Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Marnham, F. J.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Fullerton, Hugh Massie, J.
Barnard, E. B. Gibb, James (Harrow) Meagher, Michael
Barnes, G. N. Gill, A. H. Meehan, Patrick A.
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Ginnell, L. Menzies, Walter
Beale, W. P. Glendinning, R. G. Molteno, Percy Alport
Beck, A. Cecil Goddard, Daniel Ford Montagu, E. S.
Bellairs, Carlyon Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Mooney J. J.
Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets. S. Geo. Greenwood, Hamar (York) Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall).
Bennett, E. N. Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Morse, L L.
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Gulland, John W. Murnagham, George
Billson, Alfred Halpin, J. Murphy, John
Boland, John Hammond, John Murray, James
Branch, James Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Myer, Horatio
Brigg, John Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r Napier, T. B.
Brooke, Stopford Hart-Davies, T. Nicholls, George
Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs., Leigh) Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Nicholson, Charles N(Doncaster
Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire) Hayden, John Patrick Nolan, Joseph
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) Hazel, Dr. A. E. Norman, Henry
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Hazleton, Richard Nussey, Thomas Willans
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Hedges, A. Paget O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid
Byles, William Pollard Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Cairns, Thomas Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W. O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W
Cameron, Robert Henry, Charles S. O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Causton. Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe O'Doherty, Philip
Cawley, Frederick Higham, John Sharp O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Channing, Francis Allston Hodge, John O'Dowd, John
Cheetham, John Frederick Hogan, Michael O'Hare, Patrick
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Holden, E. Hopkinson O'Malley, William
Clarke, C. Goddard Holland, Sir William Henry Parker, James (Halifax)
Cleland, J. W. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Partington, Oswald
Clough, W. Hudson, Walter Paul, Herbert
Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W. Hutton, Alfred Eddison Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Hyde, Clarendon Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye
Cogan, Denis J. Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Jones, Leif (Appleby) Perks, Robert William
Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras W. Jowett, F. W. Phillipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton
Condon, Thomas Joseph Joyce, Michael Power, Patrick Joseph
Cooper, G. J. Kelley, George D. Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central.
Corbett, C H(Sussex, E. Grinst'd Kennedy, Vincent Paul Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford. E.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Kilbride, Denis Raphael, Herbert H.
Cory, Clifford John Kincaid-Smith, Captain Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro
Cowan, W. H. King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Reddy, M.
Crombie, John William Kitson, Sir James Redmond, John E.(Waterford)
Cross, Alexander Laidlaw, Robert Rees, J. D.
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster Renton, Major Leslie
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Rickett, J. Compton
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Lambert, George Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Lamont, Norman Roberts, John H.(Denbighs.)
Delany, William Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Robertson, Sir G Scott(Bradf'rd
Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galw'y Lawson, Sir Wilfrid Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Layland-Barratt, Francis Roche, John (Galway, East)
Dickinson, W.H.(St. PancrasN. Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E. Rogers, F. E. Newman
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Lehmann, R. C. Rowlands, J.
Dolan, Charles Joseph Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich Russell, T. W.
Donelan, Captain A. Lever, W.H.(Cheshire, Wirral) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland
Duffy, William J. Lewis, John Herbert Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Scott, A.H.(Ashtonunder Lyne.
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Lundon, W. Sears, J. E.
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Lupton, Arnold Seddon, J
Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Lynch, H. B. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Erskine, Davies C. Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Macdonald, J.M (Falkirk B'ghs Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.
Essex, R. W. Mackarness, Frederic C. Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulphf Chesh.)
Everett, R. Lacey MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Ferens, T. R. MacVeagh. Jeremiah (Down. S. Strachey, Sir Edward
Ferguson, R. C. Munro MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal E. Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Ffrench, Peter M'Callum, John M. Sullivan, Donal
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W. Summerbell, T.
Findlay, Alexander M'Mieking, Major G. Torrance, A. M.
Flynn, James Christopher Maddison, Frederick Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Ure, Alexander White, George(Norfolk) Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.
Vivian, Henry White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton
Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) White, Luke (York, E.R.) Winfrey, R.
Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) White, Patrick (Meath, North Woodhouse, Sir J.T(Huddersf'd
Ward, John (Stokeupon Trent Whiteley, George (York, W.R. Young, Samuel
Wason, Eugene (Clackmanon) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney) Wilkie, Alexander TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Waterlow, D. S. Williams, J. (Glamorgan) Soares and Mr. Arthur. Dewar.
Watt, H. Anderson Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n
Wedgwood, Josiah C. Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
Weir, James Galloway Wills, Arthur Walters
Anstruther-Gray, Major Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Gov'n Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Faber, George Denison (York) O'Neill, Hon. Robert (Torrens
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Fardell, Sir T. George Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Fell, Arthur Percy, Earl
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Fletcher, J. S. Ramnant, James Farquharson
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Forster, Henry William Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Bowles, G. Stewart Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Sandys, Lieut-Col. Thos. Myles
Brotherton, Edward Allen Hardy, Laurence(Kent Ashfo'd Sloan, Thomas Henry
Bull, Sir William James Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. Smith, Abel H. (Hertford. East)
Butcher, Samuel Henry Helmsley, Viscount Starkey, John R.
Carlile, E. Hildred Hervey. F. W.F. (Bury SEdm'ds Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hill. Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Turnour, Viscount
Castlereagh, Viscount Hill, Henry Staveley(Staff'sh.) Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Cave, George Hills, J. W. Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cavendish. Rt. Hn. Victor C.W. Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Warde, Col. C. E, (Kent, Mid)
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Courthope, G. Loyd Lane-Fox, G. R. Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S. Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Craig. Captain James(Down, E) Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt-Col. A.R. Younger, George
Craik, Sir Henry Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S)
Dalrymple, Viscount Lowe, Sir Francis William TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Dixon, Sir Daniel Marks, H. H. (Kent) Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Question put accordingly, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

The House divided:—Ayes, 242; Noes, 91. (Division List No. 145.)

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E) Burns, Rt. Hon. John Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Delany, William
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Byles, William Pollard Devlin, Charles Ramsay (G'lw'y
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Cameron, Robert Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras. N.
Barker, John Channing, Francis Allston Dolan, Charles Joseph
Barnard, E. B. Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Donelan, Captain A.
Barnes, G. N. Clarke, C. Goddard Duffy, William J.
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Clough, W. Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness
Bellairs, Carlyon Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)
Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo. Cobbold, Felix Thornley Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)
Bennett, E. N. Cogan, Denis J. Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Erskine, David C.
Billson, Alfred Collins, Sir Wm J.(S. Pancras, W. Esmonde, Sir Thomas
Blake, Edward Condon, Thomas Joseph Essex, R. W.
Boland, John Cooper, G. J. Everett, R. Lacey
Branch, James Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, E. Grins'd Ferens, T. R.
Brigg, John Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Ferguson, R. C. Munro
Bright, J. A. Cowan, W. H. Ffrench, Peter
Brooke, Stopford Crombie, John William Fiennes, Hon. Eustace
Brunner, J.F.L. (Lanes., Leigh) Cross, Alexander Findlay, Alexander
Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire) Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Flynn, James Christopher
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Bryce, J.A.(Inverness Burghs) Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Fullerton, Hugh
Gibb, James (Harrow) Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Gill, A. H. Mackarness, Frederic C. Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradfrd
Ginnell, L. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Glendinning, R. G. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Roche, John (Galway, East)
Goddard, Daniel Ford MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. Rogers, F. E. Newman
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E. Rowlands, J.
Greenwood, Hainar (York) M'Callum, John M. Russell, T. W.
Gulland, John W. M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Halpin, J. Maddison, Frederick Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Hammond, John Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston) Scott, A.H. (Ashton-and.-Lyne
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Marnham, F. J. Sears, J. E.
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r Massie, J. Seddon, J.
Hart-Davies, T. M'Cagher, Michael Shaw, Rt. Hn. Thos. T(Hawick B.
Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Meehan, Patrick A. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Hayedn, John Patrick Menzies, Walter Sloan, Thomas Henry
Hazel, Dr. A. E. Molteno, Percy Alport Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)
Hazleton, Richard Money, L. G. Chiozza Spicer, Albert
Hedges, A. Paget Montagu, E. S. Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen. W. Morrell, Philip Strachey, Sir Edward
Henry, Charles S. Morse, L. L. Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Murnaghan, George Sullivan, Donal
Higham, John Sharp Murphy, John Summerbell, T.
Hodge, John Murray, James Thompson, J.W.H(Somerset, E.
Hogan, Michael Myer, Horatio Torrance, A. M.
Holden, E.-Hopkinson Napier, T. B. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Holland, Sir William Henry Nicholls, George Ure, Alexander
Hope, W.(Bateman Somers't, N. Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncas'r Vivian, Henry
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Nolan, Joseph Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Hudson, Walter Norman, Henry Wallace, Robert
Hutton, Alfred Eddison O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent
Hyde, Clarendon O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Waterlow, D. S
Jowett, F. W. O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Watt, H. Anderson
Joyce, Michael O'Doherty, Philip Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Kelley, George D. O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Weir, James Galloway
Kennedy, Vincent Paul O'Dowd, John White, George (Norfolk)
Kilbride, Denis O'Hare, Patrick White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
King, Alfred John (Knutsford) O'Malley, William White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Kitson, Sir James O'Shaughnessy, P. J. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Laidlaw, Robert Parker, James (Halifax) Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster Paul, Herbert Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Pearce, William (Limehouse) Wilkie, Alexander
Lambert, George Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Lamont, Norman Pease, J. A (Saffron Walden) Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Perks, Robert William Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton) Wills, Arthur Walters
Layland-Barratt, Francis Power, Patrick Joseph Wilson, Hon. C.H.W.(Hull, W.)
Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E. Price, C.E.(Edinb'gh, Central) Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Lehmann, R. C. Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) Raphael, Herbert H. Winfrey, R.
Lewis, John Herbert Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' Woodhouse, Sir J.T. (Huddersf'd
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Reddy, M. Young, Samuel
Lundon, W. Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Yoxall, James Henry
Lupton, Arnold Rees J D
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Rickett, J. Compton TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Lynch, H. B. Ridsdale, E. A. Mr. Soares and Mr. Arthur Dewar
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F. Beale, W. P. Cave, George
Agnew, George William Beck, A. Cecil Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.
Anstruther-Gray, Major Beckett, Hon. Gervase Cawley, Frederick
Ashton, Thomas Gair Bignold, Sir Arthur Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Bowles, G. Stewart Cheetham, John Frederick
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Brotherton, Edward Allen Cleland, J. W.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Bull, Sir William James Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Banner, John S. Harmood- Butcher, Samuel Henry Courthope, G. Loyd
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Carlile, E. Hildred Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Castlereagh, Viscount Craik, Sir Henry
Dalrymple, Viscount Kincaid-Smith, Captain Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan Lane-Fox, G. R. Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham Starkey, John R.
Faber, George Denison (York) Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R. Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark
Fardell, Sir T. George Lowe, Sir Francis William Tumour, Viscount
Fell, Arthur M'Micking, Major G. Valentia, Viscount
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Marks, H. H. (Kent) Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Fletcher, J. S. Mason, James F. (Windsor) Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Forster, Henry William Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Nussey, Thomas Willans Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill O'Neiil, Hon. Robert Torrens Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Hardy, Laurence (Kent. Ashf'rd Partington, Oswald Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S. Edm'ds Percy, Earl Younger, George
Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.) Remnant, James Farquharson TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Hills, J. W. Renton, Major Leslie Lord Willoughby de Eresby and Viscount Helmsley.
Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Roberts, S. (Sheffield. Ecclesall)
Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

said he now moved the Amendment to which he had previously alluded. The Bill proposed to import into existing agreements conditions entirely new, which no one conceived would be imported into them when the tenancy was accepted, the rent fixed, and the terms of the tenancy agreed to. The effect of his Amendment would be to give a chance to the parties to those agreements to consider whether they would continue under the new conditions. The effect of the Bill was to throw upon the landlord the possibility of very heavy charges for new buildings to the erection of which he did not consent; for new drainage, wells, water courses and so on, for all of which he might be called upon sooner or later to pay. The landlord might well say that he did not contemplate these charges being made when he let his land; that he could not afford to pay them and that he would rather not let the land at all. Again, an agreement of tenancy often contained clauses as to cropping the land and other matters, which were duly considered when the agreements were entered into Parliament was going to say by this Bill that they were to be struck out. The same thing also occurred with regard to the question of game. The landlord might have accepted a lower rent on the ground that damage would be caused by game, and now the Bill proposed that he should be responsible for the damage but should continue to receive the same rent. Under all these circumstances it was only justice that the landlord should be allowed to say whether or not he would determine the tenancy before the Act came into operation. He begged to move.


said he seconded the Amendment for which a very good precedent could be found in the Ground Game Act— a precedent which the hon. Member would do well to follow. In that Act a saving clause was inserted in almost the very words moved by his hon. friend. He suggested that it was only reasonable that the hon. Member should put a safeguard of this kind into the Bill and that he could not do better, if he refused the words of his hon. friend, than look up Clause 5 of the Ground Game Act.

Amendment proposed to the proposed clause— At the end to add the words 'Provided that it shall not apply to any existing tenancy until the day next after the earliest day on which such tenancy might have been determined by notice given after the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. Cave.)

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


said he hoped he would not be considered discourteous if he said he declined to consider the merits of this Amendment—for this reason. He had already accepted the Amendment asked for by the right hon. Member who led the Opposition in this matter. After that Amendment had been accepted it was discussed by the right hon. Gentleman's followers, and the discussion had been prolonged by the moving of further Amendments on the same point.


said he sympathised with, the difficult position in which the hon. Member found himself. He was certain that when the hon. Member made the concession he made it frankly and in a friendly spirit. But the hon. Gentleman did not quite realise that the extension for which they now asked was not a frivolous, but a necessary augmentation in order to get into the Bill the meaning which the hon. Member had in his mind when he made the concession.


said he made it with the object of enabling everybody to accept the Bill.


agreed that his hon. friend had made a bona fide concession to extend the time, but the augmentation they now asked for was to make real and effective that which they understood his lion, friend was willing to concede. It was well to remember, and it was a curious and significant fact, that on every occasion in the legislative history of this country when there had been an Act altering as this Bill did things which had stood for many years it was the almost invariable practice to insert a saving clause of this description to cover existing agreements. The object of the Amendment was not obstructive, and all he desired to point out was that such a clause had been inserted in all Bills of this character.


said the hon. Member in charge of the Bill quite misunderstood their ground for the action they were taking up in asking for this concession. The previous Amendment was destined to give time to the landlords and the tenants to arrive at a proper understanding of the Bill, but the object of the Amendment now before the House was to give time to the land- lords and the tenants to make new arrangements in regard to their tenure. The Bill made a very great change in the land tenure of the country, and he could not see why the hon. Gentleman could not accept the Amendment.


thought that both precedent and justice required that the Amendment should be accepted. The precedents were too many to cite and he felt confident that hon. Members opposite would see the justice of the Amendment. Unless it was accepted the effect would be that they would have read into many existing contracts a Bill which would introduce into land tenure innovations of a very alarming nature. All contracts and agreements made up to the present time were naturally made in ignorance of any legislation being passed of the kind now proposed. Was it reasonable to suppose that the landlord and tenant who had entered into arrangements agreeable to both of them should have read into those arrangements legislation of the character now proposed? The Bill would affect more injuriously the smaller landlords than the larger because, as had been said, and with a certain show of reason, the larger landlords could look after themselves, but the smaller landlords did not, unfortunately, fall into that category. Clause 4 was going to do away with the system of cropping altogether. That in itself was a revolution, and would be very injurious to landlords who depended largely upon the cropping system for the proper cultivation of the land. Clause 7 might be fatal to the small landlord, because it proposed that improvements of the most material and vital kind might be set afoot without the consent of the landlord ever having been obtained. Unless, they wiped the slate clean and allowed landlords to enter upon fresh arrangements after having seen what was in the four corners of the Bill they would be doing an injustice to many landlords. No one, he was sure, wished to do that. If they were to have this legislation, lei them have it with their eyes open and. put no one in an unfair position. They would do their best to carry out the law of the land if the Bill became an Act of Parliament, but they should allow the opportunity of terminating existing arrangements before the Bill was brought into operation.

MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)

said one part of the United Kingdom had been completely left out of view by the hon. Members who framed this Bill. Whether they had an adequate knowledge of agriculture carried on in the South of England, he had no means of judging; but the Bill certainly aimed a deadly blow at the Scottish system of agriculture. The system in Scotland was one of nineteen-year leases, for which period a rotation of crops suitable to the different districts was laid down. Under that system of rotation of crops the cultivation of the soil in Scotland and the produce would bear comparison with any part of the United Kingdom, not because they were favoured with a more suitable climate, but simply because more science had been followed and greater attention paid in the North than in the South. The Bill gave no consideration to the fact that in Scotland the leases were for nineteen years, and a lease might have been entered into quite recently. During the course of the proceedings in Committee the Solicitor-General for Scotland delivered himself of the saying that the more he looked at this Bill from the Scottish point of view the less he liked it. When the hon. and learned Gentleman gave expression to such a strong view as that they might be assured that the case of Scotland had not been adequately considered by the framers of the Bill. It seemed that under this Bill all sorts of covenants to a lease could be swept away. Anything more unjust and unreasonable it was impossible to bring before the House. It was very little likely to do any real good to the tenants; and what would be the position of the landlord who owned a property constantly falling in value?

MR. BILLSON (Staffordshire, N.W.)

Is this in order?


ruled that the hon. Gentleman was in order.


said that except for his hon. friend who made a speech from the Scottish point of view he was the only Scottish Member who had had an opportunity of saying anything. All the time that he had been in the House he had never known such constant interruptions on the part of hon. Members. He maintained it was most necessary that in Scotland existing tenancies and arrangements which had been so satisfactory in the past should be excluded from the purview of the Bill. There was a precedent in the Bill introduced by the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, and supported by the hon. and learned Solicitor-General for Scotland. He preferred to pin his faith to the carefully drawn measure promoted by the Department, and supported by the hon. and learned Gentleman, than to a measure proposed by a private Member who knew nothing of the conditions in Scotland.


said the Party to which the hon. Member for North Ayrshire belonged passed in 1900 an Act dealing with agricultural holdings for Scotland as well as England, and they fixed that the Act should come into operation on January 1st, 1901, without making exceptions.

SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University)

said the Act to which the hon. Gentleman referred did not break contracts, lie desired to ask a question to which perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for Scotland would give an answer. This Amendment was to give an opportunity of reconsidering the question of contracts entered into between landlord and tenant. Looking through the Bill he discovered one very curious result, namely, that they were going to apply to England a Scottish agricultural Act, and to Scotland an English agricultural Act. If the hon. and learned Gentlemen would look at the short title he would see that they were all made one Act, presumably, so far as this Bill went. It said— This Act may be cited as the Agricultural Holdings and Ground Game Act, 1906, and may be cited with the Agricultural Holdings (England) Acts, 1883 to 1900, and the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1883 to 1900. What he desired to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider was what effect it would have upon contracts.


said that in a case in which notice was given to terminate a tenancy it was plain that whilst some of the clauses in this Bill would apply, others would not apply. He would give a general answer which he thought would be satisfactory to the House. It was this: when this Bill passed it was the intention of the Government to embody most of these clauses in a Bill which had been introduced consolidating and amending the Agricultural Holdings Acts. That would follow a very convenient precedent set by the late Government in regard to another matter. Some very minor and secondary alterations would be made. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire was quite right in saying that this Bill as originally drafted was certainly not applicable in its terms to Scotland, and the remark of his to which attention had been called passed his lips at a very early stage of the proceedings in Grand Committee. A number of Amendments were subsequently introduced which modified the Bill for Scotland, so that the remark he made early in the proceedings could scarcely be considered as his final view of the matter.


said the speech they had just listened to must surely have convinced the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that the only common-sense course was to accept the Amendment. If ever a Motion for the adjournment of the debate was justified I it would be justified on this occasion in order to draw attention to the extraordinary position in which they found themselves. They had just heard a statement from the Solicitor-General for Scotland that in his view the Bill as originally in the Committee would have produced hopeless confusion in Scotland. Under the hon. and learned Gentleman's guidance that result had been avoided. But in what position were they who represented other parts? He had always envied the greater advantages which Scotland enjoyed under many of our laws and customs. In the case of the present Bill Scottish interests had had the inestimable advantage throughout the proceedings of the assistance of the extremely able gentleman who had just spoken. Prom the beginning of the proceedings they had never been favoured upstairs or downstairs by the presence of either of the English law officers. The Bill made important proposals. It made direct changes and amendments in the law, and they were now debating an Amendment which would safeguard all interests and put all on the same footing; and surely every word that fell from the Solicitor-General for Scotland justified them in pressing the Amendment. The hon. Member in charge of the Bill had accepted the Amendment postponing the operation of the Act, and he (Mr. Long) was not alive for the moment to the real effect of the change. In the light of what had been said since it was perfectly clear that the date ought to be prolonged to cover existing contracts and put all men on the same footing. He believed if a vote could be taken of the House regardless of Party considerations that would be the decision at which they would arrive. If they proceeded on the lines existing in the clause it would give protection to those whose tenancies expired within the period, and would give no protection in cases where the tenancies expired afterwards. He did not know why the promoters should object to the Amendment; was it because they had made one concession they declined to make another? That might be good Party tactics, but it was not common-sense, and it was not the sort of conduct that was going to help them get their Bill through. They were wasting time in resisting an Amendment which was fair and just, and they were deliberately determined to do a gross injustice to a considerable section of the community.

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


said he thought the House was prepared to come to a decision. [Cries of "No,"and Members rose on both sides to continue the debate.]


Then the Question is "that the question be now put."

The House divided: — Ayes, 278; Noes, 77. (Division List No. 146.)

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Donelan, Captain A. Lambert, George
Ainsworth, John Stirling Duffy, William J. Lamont, Norman
Alden, Percy Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Lawson, Sir Wilfrid
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Layland-Barratt, Francis
Ashton, Thomas Gair Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.
Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.) Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Lehmann, R. C.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Erskine, David C. Lewis, John Herbert
Barker, John Esmonde, Sir Thomas Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Barlow, John Emmott (Somers't Essex, R. W. Lough, Thomas
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Evans, Samuel T. Lundon, W.
Barnes, G. N. Everett, R. Lacey Lupton, Arnold
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Ferens, T. R. Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Beale, W. P. Ferguson, R. C. Munro Lyell, Charles Henry
Beauchamp, E. Ffrench, Peter Lynch, H. B.
Beck, A. Cecil Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Bellairs, Carlyon Findlay, Alexander Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs
Bonn, John Williams(Dev'np'rt Flynn, James Christopher Mackarness, Frederic C.
Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Macnamaia, Dr. Thon as J.
Bennett, E. N. Fullerton, Hugh MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Gibb, James (Harrow) MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)
Billson, Alfred Gill, A. H. MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.).
Blake, Edward Ginnell, L. M'Callum, John M.
Boland, John Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Branch, James Glendinning, R. G. M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Brigg, John Goddard, Daniel Ford M'Micking, Major G.
Bright, J. A. Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Maddison, Frederick
Brooke, Stopford Greenwood, Hamar (York) Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Brunner, J.F.L. (Lanes., Leigh) Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)
Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire) Gulland, John W. Marnham, F. J.
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen Halpin, J. Massie, J.
Bryce, J. A.(Inverness Burghs) Hammond, John Meagher, Michael
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) Meehan, Patrick A.
Byles, William Pollard Harmsworth, R.L (Caithn'ss-sh. Menzies, Walter
Cairns, Thomas Hart-Davies, T. Micklem, Nathaniel
Cameron, Robert Haslem, James (Derbyshire) Molteno, Percy Alport
Cawley, Frederick Hayden, John Patrick Money, L. G. Chiozza
Channing, Francis Allston Hazel, Dr. A. E. Montagu, E. S.
Cheetham, John Frederick Hazleton, Richard Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Hedges, A. Paget Morrell, Philip
Clough, W. Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Morse, L. L.
Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.) Murnaghan, George
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Henry, Charles S. Murphy, John
Cogan, Denis J. Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Murray, James
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Higham, John Sharp Myer, Horatio
Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W Hodge, John Napier, T. B.
Condon, Thomas Joseph Hogan, Michael Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)
Cooper, G. J. Holden, E. Hopkinson Nicholls, George
Corbett, C.H(Sussex, E. Grinst'd Holland, Sir William Henry Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N Nolan, Joseph
Cory, Clifford John Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Norman, Henry
Cowan, W. H. Hudson, Walter Nussey, Thomas Willans
Crombie, John William Hutton, Alfred Eddison O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid
Cross, Alexander Jones, Leif (Appleby) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Joyce, Michael O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) Kearley, Hudson E. O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Kekewich, Sir George O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Kelley, George D. O'Doherty, Philip
Delany, William Kennedy, Vincent Paul O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galw'y King, Alfred John (Knutsford) O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N. Kitson, Sir James O'Dowd, John
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Laidlaw, Robert O'Hare, Patrick
Dillon, John Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster) O'Malley, William
Dolan, Charles Joseph Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Palmer, Sir Charles Mark Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent
Parker, James (Halifax) Schwann, Chas. E.(Manchester) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Partington, Oswald Scott, A.H.(Ashton-und.-Lyne) Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Paul, Herbert Sears, J. E. Waterlow, D. S.
Pearson, W.H.M(Suffolk, Eye) Seddon, J. Watt, H. Anderson
Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Seely, Major J. B. Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Perks, Robert William Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Weir, James Galloway
Pickersgill, Edward Hare Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) White, George (Norfolk)
Power, Patrick Joseph Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) Sloan, Thomas Henry White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E. Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim. S.) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' Snowden, P. Wilkie, Alexander
Reddy, M. Spicer, Albert Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.) Williams, L. (Carmarthen)
Renton, Major Leslie Stewart, Halley (Greenock) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Richards. T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n Strachey, Sir Edward Williamson, A.
Rickett, J. Compton Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) Wills, Arthur Walters
Ridsdale, E. A. Sullivan, Donal Wilson, Hon. C.H.W.(Hull, W.)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Summerbell, T. Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras S.)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) Winfrey, R.
Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(Huddersf'd
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Torrance, A. M. Young, Samuel
Roche, John (Galway, East) Trevelyan, Charles Philips Yoxall, James Henry
Rogers, F. E. Newman Ure, Alexander
Rowlands, J. Verney, F. W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES —
Runciman, Walter Vivian, Henry Mr. Soares and Mr. Arthur Dewar.
Russell, T. W. Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland Wallace, Robert
Anstruther-Gray, Major Faber, George Denison (York) Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fardell, Sir T. George O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Fell, Arthur Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Percy, Ear,
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Fletcher, J. S. Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Banner, John S. Harmood- Forster, Henry William Remnant, James Farquharson
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Gordon, Sir W. Evans (T'r Ham. Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Bignold, Sir Arthur Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Bowles, G. Stewart Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Bridgeman, W. Clive Hay, Hon. Claude George Starkey, John R.
Brotherton, Edward Allen Helmsley, Viscount Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark
Butcher, Samuel Henry Hervey, F.W.F(Bury S. Edm'ds Turnour, Viscount
Carlile, E. Hildred Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hill, Henry Staveley(Staff'sh.) Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Castlereagh, Viscount Hills, J. W. Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Cave, George Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. Williams Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W. Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Lane-Fox, G. R Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Courthope, G. Loyd Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S.) Younger, George
Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S. Lowe, Sir Francis William
Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred TELLERS FOR THE NOES — Sir
Dalrymple, Viscount Mason, James F. (Windsor) Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Gov'n Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: — Ayes, 96; Noes, 257. (Division List No. 147.)

AcIand-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex. F. Arkwright, John Stanhope Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)
Agnew, George William Ashton, Thomas Gair Banbury, Sir Frederick George
Anstruther-Gray, Major Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hn. Sir H. Banner, John S. Harmood-
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N. Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Percy, Earl
Beach, Hn, Michael Hugh Hicks Fletcher, J. S. Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Beck, A. Cecil Forster, Henry William Remnant, James Farquharson
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) Renton, Major Leslie
Bignold, Sir Arthur Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Bowles, G. Stewart Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Bridgeman, W. Clive Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Brotherton, Edward Allen Hay, Hon. Claude George Sandys, Lieut-Col. Thos. Myles
Burdett-Coutts, W. Helmsley, Viscount Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Butcher, Samuel Henry Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S. E'm'ds Smith, Abel H. (Hertford. East)
Carlile, E. Hildred Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Starkey, John R.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.) Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisb'ry
Castlereagh, Viscount Hills, J. W. Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Turnour, Viscount
Cawley, Frederick Kenyon-Slaney Rt. Hn. Col. W. Valentia, Viscount
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E. Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Walrond. Hon. Lionel
Cheetham, John Frederick Lamont, Norman Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lane-Fox. G. R. Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Courthope, G. Loyd Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R. Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Craig. Charles Curtis(Antrim, S. Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin. S. Wilson, Hon. C. H.W. (Hull, W.
Craig, Captain James (Down, E. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Dalrymple, Viscount Mason, James F. (Windsor) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Younger, George
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Nield, Herbert TELLERS FOR THE AYES — Mr.
Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan Nussey, Thomas Willans Cave and Mr. Laurence Hardy.
Faber, George Denison (York) O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Fardell, Sir T. George Partington, Oswald
Fell, Arthur Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E- Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew. W. Flynn, James Christopher
Ainsworth, John Stirling Cogan, Denis J. Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Alden, Percy Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Fullerton, Hugh
Allen, A. Acland (Christch.) Collins, Sir W.J. (S. Pancras. W. Gibb, James (Harrow)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Condon, Thomas Joseph Gill, A. H.
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Cooper, G. J. Ginnell, L.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E. Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, E. Gr'st'd Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Glendinning, R. G.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Cory, Clifford John Goddard, Daniel Ford
Barker, John Cowan, W. H. Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Barlow, John Emmott (S'mrs't Crombie, John William Greenwood, Hamar (York)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Cross, Alexander Gulland, John W.
Barnes, Ct. N. Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Halpin, J.
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Hammond, John
Beauchamp, E. Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh
Bellairs, Carlyon Delany, William Hart-Davies, T.
Benn, John Williams (D'v'np't Devlin, C. Ramsay (Galway) Harwood, George
Benn, W.(T'w'r' H'ml'ts. S. Geo. Dickinson, W.H. (St. Pancras, N Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Bennett, E. N. Dillon, John Hayden, John Patrick
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Dolan, Charles Joseph Hazell, Dr. A. E.
Billson, Alfred Donelan, Captain A. Hazleton, Richard
Boland, John Duffy, William J. Hedges, A. Paget
Branch, James Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Brigg, John Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.
Bright, J. A. Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Henry, Charles S.
Brooke, Stopford Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Higham, John Sharp
Brunner, Sir John T. (Chesh.) Esmonde, Sir Thomas Hobart, Sir Robert
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberd'n Essex, R. W. Hodge, John
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) Evans, Samuel T. Hogan, Michael
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Everett, R. Lacey Holden, E. Hopkinson
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Ferens, T. R. Holland, Sir William Henry
Cameron, Robert Ferguson, R. C. Munro Hope, W. Bateman(S'm'rs't, N.
Channing, Francis Allston Ffrench, Peter Hudson, Walter
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Fiennes, Hon. Eustance Hutton, Alfred Eddison
Clough, W. Findlay, Alexander Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Joyce, Michael Newnes, Sir George (Swansea) Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Kearley, Hudson E. Nicholls, George Shipman, Dr. John G.
Kekewich, Sir George Nicholson, Charles H (Doncaster Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Kelley, George D. Nolan, Joseph Sloan, Thomas Henry
Kennedy, Vincent Paul Norman, Henry Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Kilbride, Denis O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, N. Snowden, P.
Kitson, Sir James O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Laidlaw, Robert O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Spicer, Albert
Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) O'Doherty, Philip Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Lambert, George O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Strachey, Sir Edward
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid O'Dowd, John Sullivan, Donal
Layland-Barratt, Francis O'Hare, Patrick Summerbell, T.
Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E. O'Malley, William Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Lehmann, R. C. O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Thompson, J.W.H. (Somerset, E
Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) Palmer, Sir Charles Mark Torrance, A. M.
Lewis, John Herbert Parker, James (Halifax) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Paul, Herbert Ure, Alexander
Lough, Thomas Pearson, W. H.M. (Suffolk, Eye) Vivian, Henry
Lundon, W. Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Lupton, Arnold Perks, Robert William Wallace, Robert
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Pickersgill, Edward Hare Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Lynch, H. B. Power, Patrick Joseph Ward, John(Stoke-upon-Trent)
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'hs. Price, Robert John (Norfolk. E. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Mackarness, Frederic C. Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradf'd, E.) Waterlow, D. S.
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro') Watt, H. Anderson
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Reddy, M. Wedgwood, Josiah C.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Weir, James Galloway
MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) Rees, J. D. White, George (Norfolk)
M'Callum, John M. Richards, T. F. (Wolverham'n White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Rickett, J. Compton White, Luke (York, E.R.)
M'Micking, Major G. Ridsdale, E. A. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Maddison, Frederick Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Manfield, Harry (Northants) Roberts, G. H. (Horwich) Wilkie, Alexander
Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Marnham, F. J. Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth 'n
Massie, J. Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Meagher, Michael Roche, John (Galway, East) Williamson, A.
Meehan, Patrick A. Rowlands, J. Wills, Arthur Walters
Micklem, Nathaniel Runciman, Walter Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Molteno, Percy Alport Russell, T. W. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Money, L. G. Chiozza Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Winfrey, R.
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Woodhouse, Sir J.T. (H'dd'rsf'd
Morrell, Philip Schwann, C. E. (Manchester) Young, Samuel
Murnaghan, George Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne Yoxall, James Henry
Murphy, John Sears, J. E.
Murray, James Seddon, J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES — Mr.
Myer, Horatio Seely, Major J. B. Soares and Mr. Arthur Dewar.
Napier, T. B. Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Clause added to the Bill.


moved an Amendment to the preamble of the Bill, which states that — it is expedient, in the interest of good husbandry, that better security should be made for the capital and labour invested by tenants in the cultivation of the soil. The Amendment was that the words "landlords and" should be inserted after "by." He said that an examination of the provisions of the Bill would show that it was necessary that a proposal of this sort should be introduced. After the speeches they had heard that day from the opposite side it was most necessary to have the House express an opinion, and landlords as well as tenants ought to have some security for their capital and labour. This was a very far-reaching Bill. It established dual ownership and other things, and none of the hon. Members opposite seemed to consider it necessary that the capital and labour expended by a. landlord on his property for the purpose of agriculture should be safeguarded. If they looked through the provisions of the Bill they would see that it was absolutely necessary that his Amendment should be adopted, because there were many clauses under which the landlord would suffer considerable hardship. He would forfeit not only some of his interests, but the security he had now for his life, because under one of the clauses right was given to a tenant to kill hares and rabbits with firearms. The landlord and his guests would walk about, therefore, in fear of being struck by bullets. The fourth clause, dealing with the freedom of cropping and disposal of produce, raised a very large question. The mode of cultivation, cropping, or disposal of produce differed in every county, and he was told even in every estate; yet this Bill proposed to break every contract. They were told that landlords were to have time to discuss what the Bill meant, but they were not allowed time to alter their contracts. The dual ownership established by Clause 5 was a very large question, and there was not time to discuss it in one afternoon. This was a question of which notice certainly ought to be taken in the preamble of the Bill. The system of dual ownership, which was regarded with favour in some quarters, was not recognised as a desirable form of owning land in this country. The tenants at the present time enjoyed great advantages which, he thought, the owners did not enjoy. The promoters of the Bill seemed to look at the question from the point of view of securing the interests of the tenants; but the interests of the landlords were also deserving of consideration. Clause 7, for instance, provided that the consent of the landlord was not required for the laying down of permanent pasture, or for — Repairing buildings, roads, bridges, watercourses, ponds, wells, or reservoirs, or of works' for the application of water-power, or for supply of water for agricultural or domestic purposes. This far-reaching clause was one which he thought the promoters of the Bill could not have thoroughly considered. In most districts of England the landlords did the repairs themselves, and as to permanent pasture any landlord who was interested in the proper cultivation of his land should be consulted on the question. The provision as to "supply of water for agricultural or domestic purposes" might mean that a tenant could provide reservoirs and water-power which would enable him to provide the farmhouse with electric light. When the tenant left the farm the single arbitrator under the Bill would probably lay down that this was an improvement for which the land lord ought to pay compensation. It must also be recollected that the land lord had to pay compensation in cash. The compensation would be determined according to existing ideas of what a so-called improvement was worth, and it would be seen how inequitable this was when they considered the further provisions of the clause. It provided that the consent of the landlord should not be required, among other things, for the Planting of orchards, fruit trees, straw-berries, asparagus, and other vegetable crops. That would put the landlord in a perfectly impossible position. The value of land which was worth £5 an acre, when planted with strawberries or rhubarb, might fall in two or three years time to £3 or £2 10s.; but the tenant, when he went out, would be awarded, under this Bill, compensation on the basis of £5. Surely no man could call that justice. In the district of Biggleswade the market gardens produced onions which were worth £10 a ton a few years ago; but owing to foreign competition the labouring classes were now able to buy onions much cheaper. At any rate, what was worth £10 a ton a few years ago was now worth only £3, and the landlord might be called upon to pay to a tenant who had planted onions compensation at a rate which would represent their value at £10 a ton. The tenant in that way would profit in a double degree — he would profit from the fertility of the land while he remained in occupation, and he would on leaving get a profit from the landlord in the shape of compensation for improvements. The district of Leeds was not a very promising place for the growing of rhubarb, but a large amount of rhubarb was grown there and sold in the market at a large price. he method was —


The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment to the preamble. Many of his observations would have been pertinent to Clause 7, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to go into these matters now.


said he was pointing out how necessary it was to preserve the interests of the landlords. It was obvious that in the interests of good husbandry the interests of the landlord must be considered as well as those of the tenant. Under this Bill the whole subject would become a mass of litigation, and he desired that the Bill should be so amended that it would be clearly understood by all parties in the land that the landlords' interests as well as the tenants' were to be preserved. He begged to move.


in seconding the Amendment, said it raised one of the most important questions which could arise in the discussion of the Bill. The point ultimately raised was as to which was the best system of land tenure — whether it should be a system in which the landlord and the tenant had each a distinct sphere of action, or whether it should be a system in which one individual only had a sphere of action in the land. The Bill recognised only the rights of the tenant, and the Amendment was necessary in order that the rights of the landlord, which the House surely would admit did exist, might be properly safeguarded. Under the existing system the tenant utilised the land at a certain rent, and he was able to get the use of more land, owing to the fact that the landlord's capital was sunk in the land, than he could if he were the occupying owner. A great many hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that occupying ownership was the only system which ought to prevail. If they were to say that the landlords' interests should be removed altogether it would be a position which one could understand, but it would not be a just form of legislation, and it was not the form of legislation which, as yet, they would expect any House of Commons to pass. The Bill went some way in that direction, for it did not recognise the rights of the landlords who had provided so much of the capital employed in connection with the land. There was no question as to whether a farmer would or would not be better if he owned his present holding. By employing a certain amount of capital the tenant farmer was able under the present system to get the use of so much land out of which he got his living. No one would dispute that the real thing that mattered to a farmer was the amount of land he was able to use; that was far more important to him than anything else. The more land he was in occupation of the more likely he was to make a profit out of it. Some interesting tables had been prepared showing that under the present system of tenure a man with a given amount of capital was able to obtain the use of a considerably larger area of land than he would be able to secure with the same capital under a system of occupying ownership. He dared say that hon. Members had seen the tables to which he referred, which showed pretty plainly that the tenant derived benefit from the capital which the landlord had in the holding. If it was admitted that the landlord's capital was of value to the tenant by enabling him to use more land than he otherwise could it must be admitted that this capital should be secured to the landlord and not confiscated. The Bill took away from the landlord part of his right in land. Instead of discouraging capital the object of legislation should be to encourage it and increase it so that there should be more for the tenants to have the use of.

Amendment proposed— In preamble, page 1, line 3, after the word 'by,' to insert the words, 'landlords and.'" — (Mr. Lambton.)

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


said that although he regretted the amount of time which had been occupied in discussing this Amendment, he must say that for some reasons he did not regret it had been moved. He sincerely trusted that tenant farmers who were watching the progress of this measure would observe the words of the preamble to which the Party opposite were taking exception. They were that — It is expedient in the interest of good husbandry that better security should be made for the capital and labour invested by tenants in the cultivation of the soil.


indicated dissent.


said it was to that proposition that objection had been taken and an Amendment moved. [Cries of "No" and "An addition."] The real parent of the Bill was the hon. Member for South Molton. Although he had now deserted the green fields for the blue water, let any hon. Member who wanted to know whether he had practical knowledge of tenant-farming go down into Devonshire and inquire. The preamble was passed unanimously by the Grand Committee upstairs. There was not a word said against it then. The Grand Committee was a very good one; they had no less than nine sittings, they had never to wait a minute for a quorum, and there were never less than forty-three Members present at any meeting.


reminded the hon. Member that he had proposed to amend the preamble from the beginning of the proceedings in Committee, and had only refrained from moving it to expedite progress. Therefore it was not quite accn-rate to say that they had consented to this part of the Bill being passed without any Amendment. Referring to the part taken by Mr. Agar-Robartes in Committee, he wished to say that although they did not agree with that Gentleman in politics, they on that side of the House could not but extend sympathy to him in the disappointment he had recently experienced, more especially as they understood the position to be the result of no misconduct of his own. His hon. friend who had last spoken and he were on common ground in their relation to the land. He was as proud of his Bohemian descent as no doubt the hon. Member for Barnstaple was of his Portuguese ancestry.


I fail to see what is the relevance of this genealogical research.


said that his object was to show that it took a family some time before they became competent to advise the House on land tenure. It had taken his family 700 years; his hon. friend's not, he thought, so long; but his descendants would look back with pride to the help he gave on this occasion. He wanted to say seriously that this Bill touched some of the most vital problems of the day, especially all economic questions relating to the land. The preamble of the Bill was not, he thought, accurate, and it wanted correction as well as some of the clauses. The occupier's position in a case of land tenure was very important, but it was not the sole interest, and they could not in the interests of the community at large forget the interests of other classes. It was a fatal mistake to give exceptional privileges to one class at the expense of another; to take away the legitimate property of one class, and give it without consideration to another. The Amendment asserted the joint interest of landlord and tenant in the problems dealt with by the Bill. It had been estimated that between 1875 and the year 1902, owing to the depression in agriculture, the tenants had lost no less a sum than £253,000,000. That undoubtedly established a very good case for the full consideration by legislation of the position of the tenants. But it should also be remembered that in the same time, and as a result of the same causes, the owner. had lost £ 1,054,000,000 worth of property. Surely that showed that they must be careful in helping one class that the other class was not sacrificed. It could not too often be repeated that there could be no hope for the agricultural industry unless it attracted capital, but he maintained that the return for an investment in land after deducting rates, tithes, insurance, etc., was small and precarious at the best. It was of the most intense importance to the occupants of land that the owners should be induced to live on their own soil; but his contention was that this Bill would tend very largely to restrict the enjoyment of those landlords who did so. There was a conviction, in some quarters that the landlords drew the money from the soil and spent it elsewhere. That was a mistake; he would give an instance, for the accuracy of which he could personally vouch. During fourteen years the total rental, received from a small estate in the country was £58,000. Rates, taxes, tithes, insurance, came to £10,000, leaving £48,000; but out of that 48,000 there had to be spent on improvements and repairs for increasing the accommodation of the tenants, for the better housing of the labourers, etc., £22,000. Further, there had been spent in wages to those who lived on the property £18,000, so that during the fourteen years, £ 50,000 of the rental had been returned to the soil. He could assure the Committee that the reason why the owners remained on the soil was because they had an intense love of their own homes; and they realised that the first duty of a man who lived in his own home was to consider the welfare of all members of the establishment and grant them guidance and assistance. He thought full reason had been given

why the Amendment which would unite owners and occupiers and all connected with the soil should be accepted. It would show a sense of fair play.


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

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

The House divided:—Ayes, 286; Noes, 78. (Division List No. 148.)

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Dalziel, James Henry Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Henderson, J. M. (Aberd'n. W.
Allen, A. Acland (Christch.) Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Henry, Charles S.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Delany, William Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe
Ashton, Thomas G-air Devlin, C. Ramsay (Galway) Higham, John Sharp
Astbury, John Meir Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Hobart, Sir Robert
Atherley-Jones, L. Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Hodge, John
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury.E. Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N Hogan, Michael
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Holden, E. Hopkinson
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight Dobson, Thomas W. Holland, Sir William Henry
Barker, John Dolan, Charles Joseph Hope, W. Bateman (Som'rs't. N.
Barlow, John Emmott (S'm'rs't Donelan, Captain A. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Hudson, Walter
Barnes, G. N. Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Hutton, Alfred Eddison
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Hyde, Clarendon
Beale, W. P. Dunne, Major E. Martin (Wals'l Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Beauchamp, E. Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Beck, A. Cecil Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Jowett, F. W.
Benn, John Williams (D'v'np't Erskine, David C. Joyce, Michael
Benn, W. (T'w'r H'ml'ts. S. Geo Esmonde, Sir Thomas Kearley, Hudson E.
Bennett, E. N. Essex, R. W. Kekewich, Sir George
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Evans, Samuel T. Kelley, George D.
Billson, Alfred Everett, R. Lacey Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Branch, James Ferens, T. R. King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Brigg, John Ferguson, R. C. Munro Kitson, Sir James
Bright, J. A. Ffrench, Peter Laidlaw, Robert
Brooke, Stopford Findlay, Alexander Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominst'r.
Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh) Flavin, Michael Joseph Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Brunner, Sir John T. (Chesh.) Flynn, James Christopher Lambert, George
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Lamont, Norman
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Fullerton, Hugh Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Buxton. Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles Gardner, Col. Alan (Heref'd, S. Lawson, Sir Wilfrid
Cairns, Thomas Gibb, James (Harrow) Layland-Barratt, Francis
Cameron, Robert Gill, A. H. Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras. E.
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Ginnell, L. Lehmann, R. C.
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. Lever, A. Levy (Essex. Harwich
Cawley, Frederick Glendinning, R. G. Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)
Channing, Francis Allston Goddard, Daniel Ford Lewis, John Herbert
Cheetham, John Frederick Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Clough, W. Greenwood, Haruar (York) Lough, Thomas
Coats. Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) Gulland, John W. Lundon, W.
Cogan, Denis J. Hammond, John Lupton, Arnold
Collins, Stephen (Lambert) Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Collins, Sir W. J. (S. Pancras, W. Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) Lyell, Charles Henry
Condon, Thomas Joseph Harmsworth, R.L. (Caithn'ss-sh Lynch, H. B.
Cooper, G. J. Harwood, George Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, E. Gr'st'd Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk B'ghas
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Haworth, Arthur A. Mackarness, Frederic C.
Cowan, W. H. Hayden, John Patrick MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Crombie, John William Hazleton, Richard MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.
Cross, Alexander Hedges, A. Paget MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.
M'Callum, John M. Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) Spicer, Albert
M'Micking, Major G. Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Stanger, H. Y.
Maddison, Frederick Perks, Robert William Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Manfield, Harry (Northants) Philippe, Owen C. (Pembroke) Strachey, Sir Edward
Marks, G. Croydon (Lavmceston Piakersgill, Edward Hare Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Marnham, F. J. Power, Patrick Joseph Sullivan, Donal
Massie, J. Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central Summerbell, T.
Meagher, Michael Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.) Sutherland, J. E.
Meehan, Patrick A. Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.) Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Menzies, Walter Radford, G. H. Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E.
Micklem, Nathaniel Rainy, A. Rolland Torrance, A. M.
Molteno, Percy Alport Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Money, L. G. Chiozza Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' Ure, Alexander
Montagu, E. S. Reddy, M. Vivian, Henry
Mooney, J. J. Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Rees, J. D. Wallace, Robert
Morrell, Philip Renton, Major Leslie Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Murnaghan, George Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Murphy, John Rickett, J. Compton Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Murray, James Ridsdale, E. A. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Myer, Horatio Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Waterlow, D. S.
Napier, T. B. Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Watt, H. Anderson
Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Nicholls, George Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd Weir, James Galloway
Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) White, George (Norfolk)
Nolan, Joseph Roche, John (Galway, East) White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Nussey, Thomas Willans Rowlands, J. White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Nuttall, Harry Runciman, Walter White, Patrick (Meath, North)
O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid Russell, T. W. Whitehead, Rowland
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Wiles, Thomas
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Wilkie, Alexander
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Schwann, Chas. E.(Manchester) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
O'Doherty, Philip Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne) Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth' n
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Sears, J. E. Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Seaverns, J. H. Williamson, A.
O'Dowd, John Seddon, J. Wills, Arthur Walters
O'Grady, J. Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
O'Hare, Patrick Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
O'Malley, William Shipman, Dr. John G. Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Huddersf'd
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Silcock, Thomas Ball Young, Samuel
Palmer, Sir Charles Mark Sloan, Thomas Henry Yoxall, James Henry
Parker, James (Halifax) Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Partington, Oswald Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Paul, Herbert Snowden, P. Soares and Mr. Winfrey.
Paulton, James Mellor Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Anatruther-Gray, Major Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Kenyon-Slaney. Rt. Hon. Col. W.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Keswick, William
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Courthope, G. Loyd Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Craig, Captain James(Down, E.) Lane-Fox, G. R.
Banner, John S. Harmood- Dalrymple, Viscount Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N. Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Lockwood, Rt. Hn Lt.-Col. A.R.
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Faber, George Denison (York) Lowe, Sir Francis William
Bignold, Sir Arthur Fell, Arthur Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Bowles, G. Stewart Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Bridgeman, W. Clive Fletcher, J. S Meysey-Thompson, E. C
Brotherton, Edward Allen Forster, Henry William Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield
Burdett-Coutts, W Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield
Carlie, E. Hildred Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Nield, Herbert
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Gordon, Sir W. Evans-(T'r Ham. Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington
Castlereagh, Viscount Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. Percy, Earl
Cave, George Hay, Hon. Claude Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W. Helmsley, Viscount Remnant, James Farquharson
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S Edm'ds Remnant, James Farquharson
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Hills, J. W. Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Coates. E. Feetham (Lewisham) Kennaway. Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) Walrond, Hon. Lionel Younger, George
Starkey, John R. Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Thornton, Percy M. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Tumour, Viscount Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E.R.)

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided:—Ayes, 84; Noes 285. (Division List No. 149.)

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F. Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan Percy, Earl
Anstruther-Gray, Major Faber, George Denison (York) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Fll, Arthur Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Remnant, Janes Farquharson.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Fletcher, J. S. Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Banner, John S. Harmood- Forster, Henry William Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N. Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Beale, W. P. Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. Sneaton, Donald Mackenzie
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Hay, Hon. Claude George Smith, Abel. H.(Hertford, East)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Hervey, F. W.F.(Bury S. Edm 'ds Starkey, John R.
Bowles, G. Stewart Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury
Bridgeman, W. Clive Hills, J. W. Thornton, Percy M.
Brotherton, Edward Allen Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Tumour, Viscount
Burdett-Coutts, W. Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W. Valentia, Viscount
Carlile, E. Hildred Keswick, William Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Lamont, Norman Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Castlereagh, Viscount Lane-Fox, G. R. Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Cave, George Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareham Whitehead, Rowland
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W. Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R. Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S. Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Lonsdale, John Brownlee Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Coates, E. Feetham (Le wisham) Lowe, Sir Francis William Younger, George
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Mason, James F. (Windsor) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Courthope, G. Loyd Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Lambton and Viscount. Helmsley.
Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)
Dalrymple, Viscount Nield, Herbert
Dixon-Hartland. Sir Fred Dixon Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Branch, James Cowan, W. H.;
Ainsworth, John Stirling Brigg, John Cremer, William Randal
Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch) Bright, J. A. Crombie, John William
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Brooke, Stopford Cross, Alexander
Ashton, Thomas Gair Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh) Dalziel, James Henry
Astbury, John Meir Brunner Sir John T.(Cheshire) Davies, David(Montgomery Co.
Atherley-Jones, L. Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury. E.) Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles Davies, Timothy (Fulham)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Cairns, Thomas Delany, William
Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight) Cameron, Robert Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway
Barker, John Carr-Gomm, H. W. Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.
Barlow John Emmott(Somerset Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Cawley, Frederick Dickinson, W.H-(St. Pancras, N
Barnard, E B. Channing, Francis Allston Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.
Barnes, G. N. Cheetham, John Frederick Dobson, Thomas W.
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Clough, WT. Dolan, Charles Joseph
Beauchamp, E. Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew, W.) Donelan, Captain A.
Beck, A. Cecil Cogan, Denis J. Duffy, William J.
Benn, John Williams(Devonp't Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)
Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. Collins, Sir Wm J.(S. Pancras, W Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)
Bennett, E. N. Condon, Thomas Joseph Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Cooper, G. J. Dunne. Major E. Martin(Walsall.
Billson, Alfred Corbett, CH(Sussex, E Grinst'd Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)
Boland, John Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Erskine, David C. Lupton, Arnold Rickett, J. Compton
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Ridsdale, E. A.
Essex, R. W. Lyell, Charles Henry Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Evans, Samuel T. Lynch, H B. Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Everett, R. Lacey Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Ferens, T. R. Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs Robertson. Sir G Scott(Bradf'rd
Ferguson, R. C. Munro Mackarness, Frederic C. Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Ffrench, Peter MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Roche, John (Galway, East)
Findlay, Alexander MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S. Rowlands, J.
Flavin, Michael Joseph MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E. Runciman, Walter
Flynn, James Christopher M'Callum, John M. Rusell, T. W.
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter M'Kenna, Reginald Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Fullerton, Hugh M'Micking, Major G. Samuel Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S. Maddison, Frederick Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Gibb, James (Harrow) Manfield, Harry (Northants) Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Gill, A. H. Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston) Schwann, Chas. E (Manchester)
Ginnell, L. Marnham, F. J. Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Massie, J. Sears, J. E.
Glendinning, R. G. Meagher, Michael Seaverns, J. H.
Goddard, Daniel Ford Meehan, Patrick A. Seddon, J.
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Menzies, Walter Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Greenwood, Hamar (York) Micklem, Nathaniel Shaw, Rt. Hon. T.(Hawick B.)
Gulland, John W. Molteno, Percy Alport Shipman, Dr. John G.
Hammond, John Money, L. G. Chiozza Silcock, Thomas Ball
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Montagu, E. S. Sloan, Thomas Herry
Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Wore'r) Mooney, J. J. Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.
Harmsworth, R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Snowden, P.
Harwood, George Morrell, Philip Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Murnaghan, George Stanger, H. Y.
Haworth, Arthur A. Murphy, John Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Hayden, John Patrick Murray, James Strachey, Sir Edward
Hazleton, Richard Myer, Horatio Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Hedges, A. Paget Napier, T. B. Sullivan, Donal
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Summerbell, T.
Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.) Nicholls, George Sutherland, J. E.
Henry, Charles S. Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r Thompson, J.W.H-(Somerset, E.
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Nolan, Joseph Torrance, A. M.
Higham, John Sharpe Nussey, Thomas Willans Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Hobart, Sir Robert Nuttall, Harry Ure, Alexander
Hodge, John O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMic) Vivian, Henry
Hogan, Michael O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Holden, E. Hopkinson O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.) Wallace, Robert
Holland, Sir William Henry O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey O'Doherty, Philip Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent
Hudson, Walter O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Hutton, Alfred Eddison O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Hyde, Clarendon O'Dowd, John Waterlow, D. S.
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel O'Grady, J. Watt, H. Anderson
Jones, Leif (Appleby) O'Hare, Patrick Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Jowett, F. W. O'Malley, William Weir, James Galloway
Joyce, Michael O'Shaughnessy, P. J. White, George (Norfolk)
Kearley, Hudson E. Palmer, Sir Charles Mark White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire
Kekewich, Sir George Parker, Janes (Halifax) White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Kelley, George D. Partington, Oswald White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Kennedy, Vincent Paul Paul, Herbert Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) Wiles, Thomas
Kitson, Sir James Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Wilkie, Alexander
Laidlaw, Robert Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster) Pickersgill, Edward Hare Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Power, Patrick Joseph Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Lambert, George Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central Williamson, A.
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.) Wills, Arthur Walters
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.) Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Layland-Barratt, Francis Radford, G. H. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.) Rainy, A. Rolland Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Huddersf'd
Lehmann, R. C. Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Young, Samuel
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich Rea, Walter Russell(Searboro' Yoxall, James Henry
Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) Reddy, M.
Lewis, John Herbert Redmond, John E. (Waterford) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Rees, J. D. Soares and Mr. Winfrey.
Lough, Thomas Renton, Major Leslie
Lundon, W. Richards, T.F.(Wolverhampt'n

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


said that in consequence of the decision of the House on the last Amendment, an Amendment standing in the name of Colonel Kenyon-Slaney was out of order. This Amendment ran— Preamble, page 1, line 3, at end, to add the words 'but consistently with the rights of the owners thereof, and with the capital and labour invested by them in its cultivation and development, and with the interests of the rural labouring classes, and of the community generally in such investment fund.' The House had decided that better security should not be given for the capital invested by landlords, and therefore that decision covered the Amendment or at all events a portion of it.


on the point of order, asked whether the Amendment was not beyond the scope of the Bill.


thought that the interests of the agricultural labourer and the question in regard to investments in land came within the scope of the Bill. The House, however, had already dealt with a portion of the Amendment.


said the Bill only dealt with the relations between landlords and tenants and tenants and landlords.


wished to point out that the labourers formed a very considerable part of the arrangements between landowners and tenants, and to leave out the labourers was not part of the policy of hon. Members on that side of the House.


agreed that he could not say that the labourer was not a tenant. He thought he very often was a tenant.


wished to know, if the labourer was a tenant, whether he was within the preamble of the Bill.


said the words of the preamble dealt with the capital and labour invested. Therefore could it not be said that questions concerning labourers could be dealt with?


said that these additions to the preamble led to very little, and until one saw the Amendment or the clause which was proposed, one could not say whether it was in order or not. He could not say on the face of it that there might not be Amendments which might deal with this subject, which might come within the scope of the Bill.


said he would endeavour to keep within the ruling of the Speaker and to make his observations as short as possible. He moved the insertion of the words "but consistently with the interests of the rural labouring classes and of the community generally in such investment." The interest of the rural labouring classes happened to be a point which he had spent some fifty years of his life in attempting to solve. Therefore if there was any man in the House who could speak with authority on the matter it was himself. Every single labourer on his estate held his cottage from him and was his tenant. He held it under conditions which saved him from capricious eviction or any capricious action whatever. Therefore he was very much interested in this question, and on his estate the occupation of the labourers of their cottages was a matter of first rate importance as to the conditions attaching to the tenancies. There were many people who seemed to think that if they settled the financial question between the owner and occupier they had settled the whole question concerning the rural community. That, however, was not so.


said the promoters of the Bill were prepared to accept the Amendment provided the hon. and gallant Gentleman would finish his speech. He pointed out that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had himself said that he did not wish needlessly to occupy the time of the House.


said he was not going to be outdone in courtesy by the hon. Gentleman, and would at once finish his speech.

Amendment proposed— In the Preamble, page 1, line 3, at the end to add, but consistently with the interests of the rural labouring classes and of the commnuity generally in such investment.'"—(Colonel Kenyon-Slaney.)


rose to move to omit Sub-section 1 of Section 1 which amended the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1900. This sub-section repealed the proviso in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1900, which limited the scope of the improvements in respect to which compensation was to be given. It did not give any description or indicate in any way what the improvements were for which the tenant was to be compensated, and that appeared to him to set a very bad precedent. The Agricultural Holdings Act of 1900 had been in operation for something like six years and had worked extremely well. He was aware there were some hon. Members on that side who thought that a portion of the Act of 1900 might be omitted, and that the words "the inherent capability of the soil" might be left out. For his part he did not think so, and when one considered what the expression meant, he thought it was obvious that these words should be retained. What the tenant should be compensated for was for what he himself had done, and he ought not to be compensated for what he had not done. If he developed "the inherent capabilities of the soil" he was simply doing his duty and he reaped the reward of good, husbandry by the crops which his cultivation produced, and it seemed to him that it would be a mistake to remove this safeguard of the landlords' interest. There were a certain number of men among tenants who were called "scampers," who did not preserve "the inherent capabilities of the soil," their intention being to take as much out of the soil as they possibly could, and then go somewhere else. The preamble of the Bill said that it was brought forward "in the interest of good husbandry." Therefore it was not expedient to omit anything which was a safeguard for good husbandry. He thought the omission of the provision in the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900, would tend to realise the fear which had been expressed that this Bill would only increase litigation and not benefit the landlord or the tenant, but only the lawyer. He did not want to say anything detrimental to the legal profession, but they were not averse to anything which brought business to them. He thought the proper limit of the tenants' claim for improvements should be the actual cost, but he would not go into that matter now because it was possible it might be brought up at a later stage.

And, it being Five of the clock, further consideration of the Bill, amended by the Standing Committee, stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended (by Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Friday next.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 3, adjourned the House without Question put.

Adjourned at Four minutes after Five O'clock till Monday next.