LAND TENURE BILL.

HC Deb 12 November 1906 vol 164 cc1071-264

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [8th November] on Consideration of the Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee):—

Which Amendment was— In page 2, line 24, at the end, to insert the words,'' (4) This section shall not apply to Scotland.' "—(Mr. Cochrane)

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

MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.)

said that before rising he had waited for a moment to see if any right hon. or hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench rose to offer any reply to the arguments of his hon. friend. He did not wish to recapitulate those arguments but merely to urge one or two reasons why, in his judgment, this clause should not apply to Scotland. There was no question as to the desirability of giving compensation for damage by game. There had been at all events no question of that sort in Scotland for the last thirty years; they had had there during that period practically complete compensation for damage done to crops by game. The system had stood the test of time. Their faith had been justified by their works. The present system had been in operation for the past generation and by common consent it had worked well. They were now invited to change it, and if he thought they were going to gain something by the change he for one would not object to it. There would then be some reason to change their faith, but unless they had some inducement to recant, they should be, unlike the hon. and learned Gentleman, somewhat slow to change their faith in the method which had hitherto been pursued, and adopt a system which was much more complicated and certainly less effective than that at present obtaining. What advantages would they gain? It might be said that they would have the advantage that a man who had received a reduction in his rent for possible damage would be able to get from an arbitrator compensation for the same damage. He put that on one side, however, because that was a case which they on that side of the House and a large number of hon. Members opposite thought violated the principle of natural and essential justice. Apart from that, in case of ordinary damage where there was no contract subsisting between the farmer and the landlord, the farmer would get the right which he had not now to recover for that ordinary damage up to 40s., but in order to get that the farmer had to prove the area, and that the damage over that area was over 1s. an acre. That was not good enough to induce the Scottish farmer to support the provisions of the Bill. Upon an earlier Amendment the Solicitor-General for Scotland had stated that this Amendment would not affect any of the provisions for ground game, that hares and rabbits would not be included in its scope. That was all very well and good, but then the hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say in answer to a subsequent Amendment that the only game in regard to which the Scottish farmer ever thought of making any claim for damage was ground game. He asked, therefore, if this clause was not to apply to ground game, and the damage by ground game was the only damage which was ever claimed by the Scottish farmer, what was the use of applying all this curious machinery to Scotland? The only other argument which he had heard in favour of its application to Scotland was from the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill, who had said that it had been approved of by the Chamber of Agriculture. The hon. Baronet seemed, however, to be under somewhat of a misconception because the Chamber, by their report stated that— It was moved to approve the second clause of the Bill which had reference to damage by ground game. If that was the reason why the Agricultural Chamber approved of that clause, ex hypothesi they did so under a complete misapprehension. Under this clause the Scottish farmer stood to gain practically nothing at all; at any rate, he stood to lose a great deal more than he would gain.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. URE, Linlithgowshire)

said the House would see that it was quite impossible to make a common answer as to all the clauses of the Bill as applied to Scotland, or to pick or choose and say that this clause should apply and that should not. They would have either to proceed by way of a separate Bill for Scotland altogether, as the Liberal Government did in 1883, or to deal with both countries in the same Bill, as the Unionist Government of 1900 did. If the Amendment were carried, so far as damage for injury by game was concerned, they would come under an entirely distinct method of procedure from that applicable to other claims under the Bill. If there was one thing upon which Scottish farmers were absolutely united it was that all questions of dispute between them should be settled by one arbitrator. Therefore if effect was to be given to the proposal of his hon. friend, a single arbitrator would be called in to settle all other disputes, but when they came to a case of game damage they would have to revert to the procedure of 1877 and have two arbitrators and an umpire called in to settle what after all might be a trivial amount of damage. Supposing they did not have two arbitrators, then the case would have to be tried in the Sheriff's Court, and he had never heard anyone say that that was a good tribunal to dispose of disputes between landlord and tenant. Hon. Members had extolled the merits of Scottish Acts of Parliament, but the clause for which he was responsible embodied the pith and marrow of the Scottish legislation although it was true that he had omitted the provision which gave landlords and tenants the power to fix a minimum sum beyond which a claim for compensation should not go, because the House had decided that there was to be no contracting out as regarded damage done by game, and as to the insertion of a minimum a claim. His recent statement that in Scotland they did not have claims for damages for winged game was correct and it was also quite correct to say that this clause in its present form only applied to winged game and not to ground game, because is was not intended by this clause in any way to affect the Ground Game Act of 1880. But his hon. friend asked what was the use of this Act for Scotland if the landlords did not pay damages for injury done by winged game. What was the answer? The Scottish landlords and tenants were very reasonable. The tenants knew very well that they had a right to make a claim if excessive injury was done, and the landlord knew that if he unduly preserved game the tenants had that right, and the fact that they had the right led the landlord to take the course of not unduly preserving game, and the fact that the tenant had the right to claim led him not to press any trivial claim against the landlord. But was that any good reason for saying that the Scottish tenant should not have the right of making a claim if necessity arose? The course proposed by hon. Members opposite would lead to the making of claims which would not be made at the present moment. The Scottish Chamber of Agriculture unanimously came to the conclusion that this clause should be accepted, but the hon. Member for North-West Lanark seemed to think from an extract from the report that they believed it applied to ground game. He thought, however, that the words which the hon. Member read must have been a misprint; he did not think so skilled a body as the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture could have been under such a misapprehension. These were the reasons which led him to say that it was impossible to accept the Amendment and draw a distinction between England and Scotland which would have the effect of prejudicing the Scottish farmer.

MR. YOUNGER (Ayr Burghs)

said it appeared that the Amendment pre- judiced the Scottish landlord in regard to compensation, because it was possible for the Scottish tenant to claim a second time for damage which had been allowed for in the rent. In the case of deer forests, the tenants were aware of the effect which their vicinity would have in regard to the grazing of sheep, but it seemed that under this clause it would be perfectly possible for a grazing tenant to claim compensation for damage done by deer for which he had already received allowance in the fixing of his rent. It seemed to him that if any proof were wanted of the impossibility and unfairness of applying this Act to Scotland it would be found in this clause. If they looked at the genesis of the Bill they would find that its sponsors included two English solicitors, one English barrister, one English newspaper proprietor, and an English author. They were all English gentlemen; there was not a Scottish name among those who backed the Bill, and its authors could not be expected to know anything about the law of Scotland. He, in fact, rather admired the boldness of these gentlemen in trying to apply their legislation to Scotland, and he also admired the Solicitor-General for Scotland for the ability with which he had endeavoured to make the worse the better case. He certainly thought that Scotland so far as this clause was concerned should be exempted from the Bill.

VISCOUNT TURNOUR (Sussex, Horsham)

understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the Committee upstairs acquiesced in this clause, and thought it would be in the interest of all parties in Scotland. He and those on that side of the House, however, objected very strongly to the clause and also to its application to Scotland.

MR. URE

In its final form no division in regard to it was taken.

VISCOUNT TURNOUR

said that that was not his recollection. He thought the objections to it were sustained to the end. It seemed to him that the fact that a Small Holdings Bill applying to Scotland was to come before the House was another reason for not applying this clause to Scotland. The whole system of Scottish land tenure would be upset by this Bill, and he thought they ought to discuss the Small Holdings Bill before they passed the measure now under discussion.

*MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)

wished to corroborate the impression of the hon. Member for Horsham in regard to the action of the Committee. He quite admitted that they did not divide against the clause as it finally stood, but they fought against the original clause to the very best of their ability, and the original clause still remained, although some subsections for which they were grateful had been added. It was because they were grateful to the hon. and learned Solicitor-General for Scotland for introducing those subsections that they did not divide against the clause as finally framed.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (City of London)

asked whether in Scotland deer were game, and if they were not, what protection would the crofter get under this clause in the way of damages.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)

said it was always desirable not to have one law in Scotland and another in England upon the same subject. It would, therefore, have been desirable to have embodied the clauses of the Scottish Act in regard to landlord and tenant in a Bill for England. He had always been told that where the Scottish law differed from the English the former was the better, and having regard to the admission of the Solicitor-General for Scotland he thought

it would be better that this Bill should not apply to Scotland. There ought to be a real grievance to remedy before proposing legislation. It had been admitted that there was no damage in Scotland by winged game, and as this clause was quite unnecessary for Scotland, why should not that country be exempted from its operation?

MR. ALEXANDER CROSS (Glasgow, Camlachie)

, as an old member of the Chamber of Agriculture for Scotland, and with a large knowledge of farming opinion in Scotland, asked his hon. friends not to take a course which he considered would defeat the protection which this Bill attempted to give to farmers. Was it to be contended by Unionists that there should be one law for Scotland and another for England? They ought to apply the same justice to farmers whether they wore in England or in Scotland. He was perfectly certain the opinion of the Chamber of Agriculture was in favour of this clause, and that the Scottish farmers would feel that they were entitled to the same benefits as were English farmers in this matter. If the same excess of game preserving should occur in Scotland as in England why, in the name of justice, should not the benefit of this Act be applied? They could not be passing Bills of this sort every day, and, therefore, let them make it fair all round.

Question put.

The House divided;—Ayes, 69; Noes, 284. (Division List No. 393.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F	Courthope, G. Loyd	Lane-Fox, G. R.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Craig, Chas, Curtis(Antrim, S.)	Liddell, Henry
Ashley, W. W.	Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir	Craik, Sir Henry	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)
Balcarres, Lord	Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Baldwin, Alfred	Faber, George Denison (York)	Lowe, Sir Francis William
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (CityLond.)	Fell, Arthur	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Magnus, Sir Philip
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Fletcher, J. S.	Marks, H. H. (Kent)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Forster, Henry William	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Bowles, G. Stewart	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Bull, Sir William James	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Haddock, George R.	Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington
Carlile, E. Hildred	Hamilton, Marquess of	Percy, Earl
Cavendish, Rt Hn Victor C.W.	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cochrane. Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Collings, Rt. Hn. J.(Birmingh'm	Kimber, Sir Henry	Remnant, James Farquharsou
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall
Rothscbild, Hon. Lionel Walter	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)	Younger, George
Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)	Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury
Salter, Arthur Clavell	Thornton, Percy M.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)	Turnour, Viscount	Mr. Mitchell-Thomson and
Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)	Valentia, Viscount	Viscount Dalryample.
Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton	Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)
Starkey, John R.	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. (Stuart
NOES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)	Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Jenkins, J.
Alden, Percy	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Ambrose, Robert	Delany, William	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)
Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)	Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N	Joyce, Michael
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Kearley, Hudson E.
Barker, John	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Kekewich, Sir George
Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset	Dillon, John	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Barnard, E. B.	Dobson, Thomas W.	Kincaid -Smith, Captain
Barnes, G. N.	Dolan, Charles Joseph	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Donelan, Captain A.	Laidlaw, Robert
Beale, W. P.	Duckworth, James	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster
Beauchamp, E.	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Beck, A. Cecil	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Lambert, George
Bellairs, Carlyon	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Lamont, Norman
Bennett, E. N.	Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Berridge, T.H. D.	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Bertram, Julius	Evans, Samuel T.	Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)
Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford	Everett, R. Lacey	Lehmann, R. C.
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Lewis, John Herbert
Billson, Alfred	Fenwick, Charles	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Ferens, T. R.	Lough, Thomas
Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire	Ffrench, Peter	Lundon, W.
Boland, John	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Lyell, Charles Henry
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Lynch, H. B.
Bowerman, C. W.	Flynn, James Christopher	Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs)
Brace, William	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Mackarness, Frederic C.
Branch. James	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Maclean, Donald
Brigg, John	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Fuller, John Michael F.	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Brooke, Stopford	Fullerton, Hugh	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)
Brunner, J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh)	Gibb, James (Harrow)	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J.T.(Chesh.	Gilhooly, James	M'Crae, George
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen	Ginnell, L.	M'Killop, W.
Bryce, J.A.(Inverness Burghs)	Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John	M'Micking, Major G.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Maddison, Frederick
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.	Gooch, George Peabody	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Byles, William Pollard	Grant, Corrie	Markham, Arthur Basil
Cairns, Thomas	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston
Cameron, Robert	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Marnham, F. J.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Halpin, J.	Masterman, C. F. G.
Chance, Frederick William	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Meagher, Michael
Changing, Francis Allston	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Menzies, Walter
Cheetham, John Frederick	Hart-Davies, T.	Molteno, Percy Alport
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Haworth, Arthur A.	Mooney, J. J.
Clarke, C. Goddard	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Cleland, J. W.	Helme, Norval Watson	Morrell, Philip
Clough, William	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Morse, L. L.
Clynes, J. R.	Henry, Charles S.	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)	Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)	Murphy, John
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Murray, James
Cooper, G. J.	Higham, John Sharp	Myer, Horatio
Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Hills, J. W.	Napier, T. B.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Hobart, S r Robert	Nicholls, George
Cox, Harold	Hodge, John	Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Hogan, Michael	Nolan, Joseph
Cremer, William Randal	Horniman, Emslie John	Norman, Henry
Crombie, John William	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Crooks, William	Hutton, Alfred Eddison	Nuttall, Harry
Cross, Alexander	Idris, T. H. W.	O'Brieu, Kendal(TipperaryMid
Dalziel, James Hour	Jardine Sir J.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Ure, Alexander
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Rose, Charles Day	Verney, F. W.
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Rowlands, J.	Vivian, Henry
O'Dowd, John	Runciman, Walter	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Wallace, Robert
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Walters, John Tudor
O'Malley, William	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Walton, Sir John L.(Leeds, S.)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
O'Shee, James John	Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent
Parker, James (Halifax)	Sears, J. E.	Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton
Paul, Herbert	Seddon, J.	Wardle, George J.
Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)	Seely, Major J. B.	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Perks, Robert William	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.	Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)
Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Waterlow, D. S.
Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Pollard, Dr.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Whitbread, Howard
Price, Robt. John (Norfolk, E.)	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Radford, G. H.	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Rainy, A. Rolland	Snowden, P.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Raphael, Herbert H.	Soames, Arthur Wellesley	Whitehead, Rowland
Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')	Steadman, W. C.	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Williamson, A.
Redmond, William (Clare)	Strachey, Sir Edward	Wilson, Hon. C. H. W. (Hull. W)
Rees, J. D.	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. R.)
Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S )
Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)	Sullivan, Donal	Young, Samuel
Rickett, J. Compton	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)	Yoxall, James Henry
Ridsdale, E. A.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)	TELLERS FOB THE NOES—Mr.
Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee	Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)	Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)	Thomasson, Franklin	Pease.
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Thorne, William
Robinson, S.	Torrance, Sir A. M.

*MR. SPEAKER

The first part of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire has already been discussed, but he may move the second and third parts.†

*MR. BEALE (Ayrshire, S.) ,

in moving the remaining portions of the Amendment of which he had given notice, said that the second part of the Amendment was necessary in the interests of justice and that the third part was necessary because in many cases the shooting tenant could not prevent the damage and he might not be the tenant of all the land from whence the game came. In the next place the shooting tenant did not always hold the land for the whole of the season, and was very frequently limited to prevent diminution of the stock.

Amendment proposed— In page 2,line 24, at end, add the words ' And for this purpose (1) such other person shall be entitled to have the amount of compensation determined by arbitration to which he is a party, and (2) the arbitrator

† The words ruled out of order were:—" The tenant shall, if so requested by the landlord, give to such other person the same notices as he is hereby required to give to the landlord."

may relieve or partially relieve such other person from his obligation to indemnify, if it appear to the arbitrator that such other person was prevented by the terms on which he hold his right to kill game from preventing or mitigating the damage."—(Mr. Beale)

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

MR. ABEL SMITH (Hertfordshire, Hertford)

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if a farm tenant commenced proceedings to recover compensation for damage by game, would the shooting tenant, who would be the third party, necessarily have notice of the proceedings. As he would be the party who would have to pay the damage it seemed most unfair that he should be kept in ignorance of the fact that a claim was being made until the whole thing was settled and the landlord called upon him to pay.

MR. URE

said it was not advisable to complicate the clause by accepting the Amendment of his hon. friend. The landlord against whom the claim was made by the tenant would give notice of the claim to the shooting tenant, and in the ordinary course of events he would make the shooting tenant a party to the arbitration. Claims for relief were not at all unusual in law, and the invariable course taken by a man who was entitled to relief was to make the person ultimately liable a party to the litigation or arbitration. If he did not do so, and ultimately he was found liable in damages, he might find it very difficult to recover from the shooting tenant if that tenant could say, "You had a very good defence against that claim, and if you had come to me you might have been able to show quite easily that the damage was very much less than has been found. Why did you not intimate it to me?" A man entitled to relief as a matter of invariable practice intimated his claim to the person ultimately liable, and, although the arbitration took place nominally between the landlord and the tenant, in reality it was between the tenant and the shooting tenant. It was quite unnecessary to introduce provisions of this kind. As to the second part of the Amendment, it would always be in the power of the arbitrator to mitigate the damages or disallow the claim altogether if he found that the man who had a right to kill the game could not prevent or mitigate the damage. He was aware that it was not made imperative upon anybody to give the shooting tenant notice of a claim, but as a matter of fact he would have notice because the landlord would for his own sake instantly give notice of any claim made against him. In the Scottish law there was no claim to relief given and it had never been found in practice to work out unjustly. He did not know of any precedent for making it necessary to intimate a claim to a man against whom they had no right, and in practice the landlord would intimate the claim to the shooting tenant.

MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin. S.)

said the reply of the hon. and learned Gentleman only seemed still further to complicate the position, and the practical difficulty raised by the mover of the Amendment had not been dealt with. This clause proposed to give a claim for damages to the tenant against the owner irres- pective altogether of the source from which the damage came. The Amendment naturally sought to provide for the third party, that was to say the shooting tenant, having proper notice. The object of the clause, he presumed, was to give a right of compensation to the tenant of agricultural land for the damage done to his crop by game coming from the property of his landlord. In practice there would be thousands of cases where the damage would be done by game which did not come from the landlords' property at all. The landlord would have an intimation that a claim for damages was going to be made against him and he would, of course, inform the shooting tenant; but the man against whom the claim was made would have no knowledge of the person who was the real cause of the mischief, namely, the shooting tenant. The Amendment was the natural corollary of the proposal of the Government. If the Government were going to give the tenant a right to claim compensation against his landlord for damage for which he was in no sense responsible, then it was only fair that the Amendment should be accepted. Unless such an Amendment were adopted one inevitable result of the Bill would be considerable litigation. Another result of this clause would be that the very object which the Government had in view would not be attained, namely, that, if a tenant sustained real damage in consequence of game he should get compensation from the person who had caused the damage. In this case, unless they brought in the shooting tenant and gave him a right to be a party to the proceedings, it seemed to him that the tenant would make his claim, and that the landlord, if he were wise would at once bring the shooting tenant into the business; but if he did not, the shooting tenant would not know anything of what had been done until the award had been made. The hon. Gentleman had said in regard to the second part of the Amendment that they must trust the arbitrator to take into consideration the position of the shooting tenant. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred in this country the shooting tenant took a shooting subject to one of two conditions. The more general condition was that he was allowed to shoot what he liked; and the other condition was that the limit of game he might kill was fixed under the agreement. If the damage was done by game which was over-preserved and the shooting tenant was only allowed to kill a limited quantity, how was the farmer to recover against him if he said that under his agreement he was not allowed to kill more? If the landlord proved that he had let the shooting, what became of the unfortunate tenant to whom they were giving the right to compensation? Unless some words were added to this clause it would not effect what the Government desired to do, and yet they refused to adopt the only practical Amendment by which they could give effect to their own wishes.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)

said the argument which he had heard up to the present had assumed that the shooting tenant was the owner of the game that caused the damage. He pointed out that that need not be so. The game might be from the estate of a neighbour of the landowner whose tenant had suffered damage. Therefore, they were not really doing justice to the shooting tenant by arguing from the point of view that he was really the owner or controller of the game, or that he had it in his power to prevent the damage. That appeared to have been overlooked by the learned Solicitor-General for Scotland and also by the mover of the Amendment. He thanked the Solicitor-General for Scotland for having given the sanction of his great authority to the view that it would have been better in dealing with this question to introduce the principles of the Scottish Act. That was what he had asked the Government to do and what they had refused to do.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

said the Solicitor-General had not grasped the true meaning of the Amendment. There were two principles involved. The first was that the shooting tenant should have the right to get the amount of compensation determined by the arbitration to which he was a party. He need not refer to what had already been decided— that the tenant should not be obliged to give notice to the shooting tenant. The shooting tenant would not receive notice from the farmer, but the principle in the first part of this Amendment was that the landlord who was going to recover from the shooting tenant should send him notice.

*MR. SPEAKER

That portion of the Amendment has not been moved.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

With all respect, the second section of the Amendment says— Such other person shall be entitled to have the amount of compensation determined by arbitration to which he is a party. He cannot be a party to the arbitration unless he is informed.

*MR. SPEAKER

He becomes a party to the arbitration, but he receives no notice of the damage. He becomes a party to the arbitration under the words of the Bill.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

said he did not think there was anything in the Bill which would provide for that, and that was the reason why the shooting tenant complained that the landlord could claim from him the amount which he had had to pay. The landlord could merely say, "An arbitration has taken place and I have had to pay £60." That was the reason for this Amendment. It was only fair that the shooting tenant should be a party to the arbitration if he was to be liable to pay for damage. It seemed to him impossible that the Government could refuse to accept that plain and simple proposition. The second principle, which contained the Amendment, was a different thing altogether. The Amendment said— 'The arbitrator may relieve or partially relieve such other person from his obligation to indemnify, if it appear to the arbitrator that such other person was prevented by the terms on which he held his right to kill game from preventing or mitigating the damage. It was possible, as his right hon. and gallant friend had pointed out, that game might come from the land of an adjoining owner, and that the shooting tenant had no power to stop it from doing damage. It was only fair, therefore, that the arbitrator should take that fact into consideration. It should be remembered that in a good many parts of England the shooting rights were very valuable, and farm were let at a rent reduced by 4s. or 5s. per acre on account of the value of the shooting rights. If they put this clause in the Bill, they would do great damage to the farmers in those districts where the farming rights were worth very little on account of the badness of the soil. The hon. and learned Gentleman thought this Amendment unnecessary, because everything which it proposed would be done. Why not put it in the Bill if it was going to be done? It would be a safeguard and would hurt no one.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

jointed out that there was to be compulsory arbitration between landlord and tenant and the amount of damage would be fixed for which the landlord was responsible. If no notice was to be given to the shooting tenant it was perfectly plain that the amount of compensation would be fixed behind the back of the shooting tenant. The next step would be that the shooting tenant would have to indemnify the landlord for the amount of damage fixed by the arbitrator. It had been said that subsection (ii.) of the Amendment was unnecessary, but that was not so, because all litigation would not be avoided. If hon. Members would look at the clause

itself they would see that the words were that— The landlord shall be entitled to be indemnified by such other person against all claims for compensation.

For everything for which under the arbitration the landlord was liable, he was to have an indemnity from the shooting tenant. The House ought to provide against that monstrous injustice. Most of the claims arising against the shooting tenant would be small and might lead to litigation; but it was desirable that there should be as little litigation as possible. He agreed that it would be better instead of having law suits on the top of arbitration, one arbitration should decide the matter. It seemed to him that if the hon. Baronet, instead of rejecting every Amendment, would try to understand the sense and force of the Amendments reluctantly proposed from his own side in order to improve the Bill, they would get on more quickly.

MR. BEALE,

in order to save the time of the House, asked leave to withdraw his Amendment. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."]

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

The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes, 299. (Division List, No. 394).

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F	Dalrymple, Viscount	Lowe, Sir Francis William
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Ashley, W. W.	Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan	Magnus, Sir Philip
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Faber, George Denison (York)	Marks, H. H. (Kent)
Balcarres, Lord	Fell, Arthur	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Baldwin, Alfred	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(City Lond.	Fletcher, J. S.	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Forster, Henry William	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Percy, Karl
Beach, Hn. MichaelHughHicks	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Haddock, George R.	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Bull, Sir William James	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Carlile, E. Hildred	Hills, J. W.	Rutherford. W. W. (Liverpool)
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C W	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.	Salter, Arther Clavell
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Worc	Kimber, Sir Henry	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Cleland, J. W.	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Collings, Rt. Hn. J. Birmingh'm	Liddell, Henry	Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R,	Starkey, John R.
Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Craik, Sir Henry	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Thornton, Percy M.	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.	TELLERS TOR THE AYES—Mr.
Turnour, Viscount	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-	Beale and Mr. Courthope.
Valentia, Viscount	Younger, George
NOES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)
Alden, Percy	Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)	Joyce, Michael
Ambrose, Robert	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Kearley, Hudson E.
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Delany, William	Kekewich, Sir George
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.	Dickinson, W.H. (St. Pancras, N	Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Barker,John	Dillon, John	Laidlaw, Robert
Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset	Dobson, Thomas W.	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster
Barnard, E. B.	Dolan, Charles Joseph	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Donelan, Captain A.	Lambert, George
Beauchamp E.	Duckworth, James	Lament, Norman
Beck, A. Cecil	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Bellairs, Carlyon	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Bennett, E. N.	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)
Berridge, T. H. D.	Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Lehmann, R. C.
Bertram, Julius	Evans, Samuel T.	Lewis, John Herbert
Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)	Everett, R. Lacey	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maiden)	Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Lough, Thomas
Billson, Alfred	Fenwick, Charles	Lundon, W.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Ferens, T. R.	Lyell, Charles Henry
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire)	Ffrench, Peter	Lynch, H. B.
Boland, John	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Flavie, Michael Joseph	Mackarness, Frederic C.
Bowerman, C. W.	Flynn, James Christopher	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Brace, William	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Bramsdon, T. A.	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.
Branch, James	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)
Brigg, John	Fuller, John Michael F.	M'Crae, George
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Fullerton, Hugh	M'Kean, John
Brodie, J. C.	Gibb, James (Harrow)	M'Killop, W.
Brooke, Stopford	Ginnell, L.	M'Micking, Major G.
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Maddison, Frederick
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh.	Glover, Thomas	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Markham, Arthur Basil
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)	Gooch, George Peabody	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Grant, Corrie	Meagher, Michael
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Menzies, Walter
Byles, William Pollard	Griffith, Ellis J.	Molteno, Percy Alport
Cairns, Thomas	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Cameron, Robert	Haldano, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Montagu, E. S.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Halpin, J.	Mooney, J. J.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Morrell, Philip
Chance, Frederick William	Hart-Davies, T.	Morse, L. L.
Channing, Francis Allston	Harkey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Cheetham, John Frederick	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Murphy, John
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Haworth, Arthur A.	Murray, James
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Myer, Horatio
Clarke, C. Goddard	Helme, Norval Watson	Napier, T. B.
Clough, William	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Nicholls, George
Clynes, J. R.	Henry, Charles S.	Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)
Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)	Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)	Nolan, Joseph
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Norman, Henry
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Paneras, W)	Higham, John Sharp	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Cooper, G. J.	Hobart, Sir Robert	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Corbett, C. H (Sussex (EGrinst'd)	Hodge, John	Nuttall, Harry
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Hogan, Michael	O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid
Cowan, W. H.	Horniman, Emslie John	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Cox, Harold	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Hutton, Alfred Eddison	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Cremer, William Randal	Idris, T. H. W.	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Crombie, John William	Jardine, Sir J.	O'Dowd, John
Crooks, William	Jenkins, J.	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, W.)
Cross, Alexander	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	O'Kelly, James(Roscommon)
Dalziel, James Henry	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea	O'Malley, William

O'Mara, James	Runciman, Walter	Thorne, William
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Torrance, Sir A. M.
O'Shee, James John	Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)	Ure, Alexander
Parker, James (Halifax)	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Verney, F. W.
Paul, Herbert	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Vivian. Henry
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne	Wallace, Robert
Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)	Soars, J. E.	Walters, John Tudor
Perks, Robert William	Seddon, J.	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Philippe, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)	Seely, Major J. B.	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke	Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Ward, W. Dudley (Southamptn)
Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Wardle, George J.
Pollard, Dr.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Radford, G. H.	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)	Waterlow, D. S.
Rainy, A. Rolland	Snowden, P.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Raphael, Herbert H.	Soames, Arthur Wellesley)	Whitbread, Howard
Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Spicer, Sir Albert	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford	Steadman, W. C.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Redmond, William (Clare)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Whitehead, Rowland
Rees, J. D.	Strachey, Sir Edward	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th.)	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Rickett, J. Compton	Sullivan, Donal	Williamson, A.
Ridsdale, E. A.	Summerbell, T.	Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)	Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)	Young, Samuel
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)	Yoxall, James Henry
Robinson, S.	Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)
Robson Sir Robert Snowdon	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Rose, Charles Day	Thomasson, Franklin	Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Rowlands, J.	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E)	Pease.

MR. DUNN

moved to add the words, "The word 'game' in this Act shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to include deer, pheasants, patridges, grouse, and black game."' The reason he left out hares and rabbits was that the tenant had at the present time a right to shoot ground game. The term game was a very indefinite term and he submitted that if a definition clause of this kind was not adopted it might be difficult to say what exactly was meant by "game." He did not think the House would for a moment doubt the necessity of a definite pronouncement of what they meant when they used the word "game," and it was in order to avoid possible litigation in the future that he now begged to move.

MR. NICHOLLS (Northamptonshire, N.)

formally seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 24, at end to add, ' the word "game" in this Act shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to include deer, pheasants, partridges, grouse, and black game' "—(Mr. Dunn.)

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.)

thought the hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that there ought to be some definition, because in every Act dealing with "game" there was a definition. He was prepared to accept the Amendment in the form moved and was glad to see that it included deer. A certain amount of damage was done by deer, and it was therefore desirable that the tenants should be compensated for such damage.

COLONEL KENYON SLANEY

said he did not object to the spirit of the Amendment. He only desired to point out that by accepting it in its present form there would be many exclusions—quail, bustard, and wild duck, for instance. It seemed to him that with the best intention in the world the hon. Member who moved the Amendment took a short-sighted view. With regard to quail, they were most harmless birds, and many people were making great efforts to preserve them. The bustard had become largely a matter of natural history, but he should be sorry to see such a bird excluded from the definition of game. There was also a largely increasing desire among shooting people to include wild duck. Without saying anything against the spirit of the clause he asked the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill to take a little time to consider what should be included in the definition.

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

pointed out that these were not excluding but including words, and, further, that duck were not game.

MR. YOUNGER

moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to insert before the word "deer," "under any contract of tenancy made after the passing of this Act." Although they knew that deer were game under the Crofters Act of Scotland, and it was quite right that compensation should be paid for any damage done by them, in Scotland they had many deer forests which were also grazed by sheep and consideration was given, if not in terms, to the tenant who rented the grazing. He did not think it was the desire of the House that compensation in such a case should be given twice over. It was a i special case and was entirely distinct from that of over-preservation of game on an agricultural estate. It would therefore be a great hardship if this Amendment applied to Scotland, because the result would be what they had no desire to see, namely, that sheep would be cleared off the deer forests altogether. It would not pay a man to keep sheep in his deer forests, as he practically got all his rent from his shooting tenant. He thought the Bill should not apply to deer forests.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

thought this was a very important Amendment and he hoped the Government would accept it. Its object was really to prevent people in Scotland who paid large sums for a deer forest from being liable to pay compensation to the tenant, who only paid a small rent for the grazing in the forest. In that rent he had already been compensated and he ought not to be compensated twice over. Such an Amendment therefore was absolutely essential. Had the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty been supporting it, the original Amendment would have looked like an insidious attempt to destroy deer forests altogether. But, as the hon. Member was not present, he thought the word "deer" had been introduced in error by people who had overlooked what the result would be. The hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill had made some allusion to deer in the southern parts of England, which he believed was the only part of the country where deer were unenclosed. But unless he (Sir F. Banbury) was mistaken, the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Wellington division did not say he wished deer to be included, but, i on the contrary, thought that if deer were included, people who subscribed to the hunt would be hardly dealt with. But supposing for the sake of argument it was necessary to include deer in the southern part of England, it would be extremely easy to amend the Amendment by adding to the proposal of his hon. friend the words "in Scotland." There was no Member of the House save perhaps the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, who would not agree that the Amendment ought to be modified. He would like also to know whether deer were game in Scotland or not.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— To insert after the word 'deer' the words ' under any contract of tenancy made after the passing of this Act.' "—(Mr. Younger.)

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

MR. URE

said this Amendment would seem to be a little belated. Deer had been game in Scotland ever since the year 1587. And in the Act of Parliament held in such high esteem by hon. Members opposite, deer were included in the first item of the first schedule as game, and the tenant had a right to compensation for the damage done by deer.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

VISCOUNT TURNOUR

moved as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to insert after the word "deer" the words "other than deer escaped from a deer park." He regarded this as a most important Amendment. There was nothing under this Bill or this clause as it stood to prevent an evil which might easily occur. A number of deer might get out of a deer park, come on to his land, do considerable damage to the crop in the field of one of his tenants, and the tenant would come to him for compensation. The hon. Baronet seemed much amused at the suggestion contained in the Amendment. He assured him, however, that in Sussex considerable injury might be done in this way, and the landlord might have to pay a large sum of money in compensation for damage from a cause over which he had no control whatever. He asked whether under the original Amendment there was anything to prevent such an occurrence as he had stated. As far as he knew there was not He might have land lying adjacent to a deer park the owner of which was perhaps a Radical—and therefore, an enemy of his—who took an opportunity of letting his deer out. If they went on to his (Lord Tumour's) land and the tenant asked for compensation for the damage done, there was nothing under the Amendment to prevent his having to pay. In another case of which he had personal knowledge a number of deer got out owing to a fence breaking down during a gale. Forty fallow deer strayed and a considerable amount of damage was done to a wheat, field adjacent to the park, which park did not belong to the same owner. Under the Bill the tenant would be able to claim a large sum of money as compensation, and great injustice would be done to the landlord. He wished to protest against the action of the hon. Baronet in treating the Amendment, before he had heard it, apparently as a joke. It was a very serious matter as far as owners of land near deer parks were concerned.

MR. STANLEY WILSON (Yorkshire, E.R., Holderness)

said that close to his home there had been a case where a dozen deer had escaped from a park and roamed through the country doing a great deal of damage. It seemed to him it would be a very great hardship if the landlord, who had nothing to do with the deer, was to be mulcted in heavy compensation for damage done by them. The matter was one which required most careful consideration. He quite agreed with the remarks of the noble Lord and gladly seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— 'After the word ' deer ' to insert the words 'other than deer escaped from a deer park.'" —(Viscount Turnour.)

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

SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD (Somersetshire, Wellington)

said with reference to deer escaped from a park, it was in the power of any owner to shoot deer on his land with the ordinary 10s. licence. If deer were made "game" he would have to take out a £3 3s. licence. He thought this was a reasonable Amendment and one the Government ought to accept.

MR. ABEL SMITH

asked if this Amendment was to apply to deer kept in parks. He pointed out that such deer had never yet been regarded as game, but as a chattel, and that if a man killed and carried away a deer he was under the present law guilty of larceny. Was it intended by the Government, when they accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Camborne, that it should apply to such deer as those which were practically tame and kept in parks as an ornament? If they escaped, as they often did, and ate the crops on a neighbouring owner's land, were they to be regarded as "game?"

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

thought this Amendment only revived the Amendment they had already dealt with. The question as to whether or not the deer were tame did not, in his opinion, matter very much, because in either case the tenant had his crop eaten up. The whole object of this clause was to give compensation to the tenant and to see that he was protected, and the Government were determined to achieve that object. In the case given by the noble Lord, the landlord could very well take care of himself.

ME. WALTER LONG

did not think the hon. Baronet quite appreciated the effect of this Amendment. Had said that the heroic determination of the Government was that the tenant should be protected from the damage of which they had heard so much in this House and so little from agricultural tenants. The Amendment proposed that the provision should not apply to those deer that had escaped from parks. The hon. Baronet had stated that the taking out of a licence was only a small matter, and that there would not be many such cases as had been put forward. That, however, did not alter the great injustice which would be done It was only fair that the compensation should be obtained from those who did the damage. The difficulty into which they had got was only another illustration of the extreme absurdity of dealing with this question in the way proposed. The Government had declared that it was their sacred principle to give the tenant compensation, but they had not yet realised that they were not doing it in a reasonable and just manner. What was more they were giving the tenant a right which he could not establish, to claim against the person who had not done the damage, and they were ignoring the facts connected with the tenure of land and the preservation of game. If the Government wished to do justice in this matter the beet thing they could do was to drop the whole of this unjust clause, and leave the law as it stood at present, under which the tenant farmer got absolute justice in regard to this matter.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON, South Shields)

said the answer which the right hon. Gentleman had himself put forward was perhaps the best that could be given under the circumstances. He had said that although they heard a good deal about damage by game in the House of Commons they heard very little about it in the country. He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that point. The noble Lord who moved this Amendment had mentioned a case where deer escaped from a park and did a certain amount of damage in a wheat field. He wondered whether in that case the owner of the deer failed to pay compensation for the damage done.

MR. STANLEY WILSON

Compensation was not paid in my case.

SIR W. ROBSON

said that those who kept deer, as a rule, were persons well able to afford compensation, and there was nothing more uncommon than that an English gentleman who kept deer should refuse anybody compensation. What they desired to prevent was deer doing damage without any liability attaching to their owner. It should not be forgotten that this Bill only applied to game which the tenant had not the lawful right to kill, but the tenant had the lawful right to kill deer, and the landlord could not call upon him to pay damages at all, because he had the right to shoot the deer. Of course the tenant would not shoot the deer, but would rely upon the owner paying adequate compensation. If for any reason the owner did not pay adequate compensation, then the tenant could shoot the deer, and in that way he would get far more compensation than the landlord would be likely to pay him.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

said the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that there was no part of England where wild deer could be found. He wished to point out that in his own county there was a stretch many thousands of acres upon which wild fallow deer had existed since the days of Robin Hood. There was another place on the flank of Shropshire where also wild deer were to be found, and in many places in England wild deer had become indigenous to the soil. How did the law stand? The occupier of land could save himself by shooting those deer just as if they were hares or rabbits, but if they made them come under the definition of game he could not shoot them without a licence. He noticed that Mr. Speaker not long ago was enjoying himself very much upon an English deer forest and more than one heavy stag fell to his rifle, so that in the interests of Mr. Speaker's sport he hoped the House would be careful how they proceeded in this matter. The result of the Government proposal would be that they would limit the power of the tenant to protect himself.

SIR FEEDERICK BANBURY

said that if a fence was broken down by a gale of wind and the deer got out of the park into a field of wheat belonging to a neighbouring tenant, as the law stood at present the tenant could protect himself by shooting those deer if he possessed a 10s. gun licence. It had been said that the gamekeepers might assist him, but in many cases the keepers had not got a game licence and consequently the farmer would be thrown back upon his own resources. The hon. Baronet the Member for South Somerset had said the tenant could easily go and get a game licence, but that was not so simple a matter as he appeared to think. It was obvious that to say that landlord A was to pay compensation because the deer from the park of landlord B had damaged his tenant's crops was absolutely absurd. The Solicitor-General had said that nobody with a sporting instinct would do that sort of thing, but he did not think they ought to rely upon sporting instinct in a matter of this kind. As a rule the deer escaped by an Act of God, and it was quite possible for the shooting tenant to say that he had done everything he could to keep his farm in order. He was not quite sure that under this Bill the tenant would not be able to get compensation twice over. If the owner of the deer compensated the farmer, he believed that the tenant would be able to proceed against the landlord as well. The case had bean put so clearly

that even hon. Gentlemen opposite must see that they were not doing the tenant any good by refusing to accept this Amendment.

MR. DUNN

said the words of his Amendment were distinct and emphatic. It stated that— The word 'game' in this Act shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to include deer, pheasants, partridges, grouse and black game. Therefore his Amendment altered no existing law and took away no existing right, and to suggest that it did was, to use the words of the hon. Baronet opposite, absolutely absurd.

*MR. COURTHOPE

asked if the agricultural tenant would have the right under the clause as it stood to kill the deer as if they were wild. He also wished to know if the tenant would be able to claim compensation from the owner of the deer from whose park they had escaped. The clause seemed to him to assume that the deer were private property, but they were not. If they were wild animals they might be killed as such, but in that case they could not be recognised as private property. It was reasonable that a farmer should either retain the right to shoot deer as wild animals, or be allowed compensation from the owner, as if they were private property, but not that he should have both rights at the same time.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 78; Noes, 319. (Division List No. 395.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F	Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)
Ashley, W. W.	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Haddock, George R.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Bir'ingham)	Hamilton, Marquess of
Balcarres, Lord	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.
Baldwin, Alfred	Courthope, G. Loyd	Hay, Hon. Claude George
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (CityLond)	Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Houston, Robert Paterson
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Craig, Captain Jas. (Down, E.)	Hunt, Rowland
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Craik, Sir Henry	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Dalrymple, Viscount	Kimber, Sir Henry
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan	Lane-Fox, G. R.
Bull, Sir William James	Faber, George Denison (York)	Liddell, Henry
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Fell, Arthur	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.
Carlile, E. Hildred	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)
Cave, George	Fletcher, J. S.	Lansdole, John Brownlee
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.	Forster, Henry William	Lowe, Sir Francis William
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)	Thornton, Percy M.
Magnus, Sir Philip	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)	Valentia, Viscount
Marks, H. H. (Kent)	Salter, Arthur Clavell	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Mason, James F. (Windsor)	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)	Younger, George
O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens	Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Percy, Earl	Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)	Viscount Tumour and Mr.
Randles, Sir John Scurrah	Starkey, John R.	Stanley Wilson.
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Remnant, James Farquharson	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark
NOES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)	Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius
Alden, Percy	Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W)	Halpin, J.
Ambrose, Robert	Corbett, CH. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Baker Sir John (Portsmouth	Cory, Clifford John	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc' r)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Harmsworth, R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Cowan, W. H.	Hart-Davies, T.
Barker, John	Cox, Harold	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Barlow, John Emmott (S'merst)	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Barnard, E. B.	Cremer, William Randal	Haworth, Arthur A.
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Crombie, John William	Hazel, Dr. A. E.
Beale, W. P.	Crooks, William	Helme, Norval Watson
Beauchamp, E.	Cross, Alexander	Hemmerde, Edward George
Beck, A. Cecil	Dalziel, James Henry	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Bellairs, Carlyon	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)
Bennett, E. N.	Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Henry, Charles S.
Berridge, T. H. D.	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Herbert, Col. Ivor (Manch. S.)
Bertram, Julius	Delany, William	Herbert, Arnold (Wycombe)
Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Higham, John Sharp
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Dickinson, W. H. (St.Pancras, N)	Hobart, Sir Robert
Billson, Alfred	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Hodge, John
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Dillon, John	Hogan, Michael
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire	Dobson, Thomas W.	Horniman, Emslie John
Boland, John	Dolan, Charles Joseph	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N. E.	Donelan, Captain A.	Hutton, Alfred Eddison
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Duckworth, James	Idris, T. H. W.
Bowerman, C. W.	Duncan. C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Jackson, R. S.
Brace, William	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Jardine, Sir J.
Bramsdon, T. A.	Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Walsall)	Jenkins, J.
Branch, James	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Brigg, John	Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)
Brodie, H. C.	Evans, Samuel T.	Joyce, Michael
Brooke, Stopford	Everett, R. Lacey	Kearley, Hudson E.
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes, Leigh)	Faber. G. H. (Boston)	Kekewich, Sir George
Brunner, Rt Hn. Sir J. T.(Chesh.)	Fenwick, Charles	Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Bryce, Rt. Hn. Jas. (Aberdeen)	Ferens, T. R.	Laidlaw, Robert
Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs)	Ffrench, Peter	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Lambert, George
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Flynn, James Christopher	Lamont, Norman
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Byles, William Pollard	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Cairns, Thomas	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Lehmann, R. C.
Cameron, Robert	Fuller, John Michael F.	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Fullerton, Hugh	Lough, Thomas
Carr-Gomm, C. W.	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Lundon, W.
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Ginnell, L.	Lyell, Charles Henry
Chance, Frederick William	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Joh	Lynch, H. B.
Channing, Francis Allston	Glendinning, R. G.	Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs
Cheetham, John Frederick	Glover, Thomas	Mackarness, Frederic C.
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Maclean, Donald.
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Gooch, George Peabody	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Clarke, C. Goddard	Grant, Corrie	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Cleland, J. W.	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)
Clough, William	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)
Clynes J. R.	Griffith, Ellis J.	M'Crae, George

M'Kean, John	Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)	Strachey, Sir Edward
M'Killop, W.	Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke)	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
M'Micking, Major G.	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Maddison, Frederick	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Sullivan, Donal
Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Pollard, Dr.	Summerbell, T.
Markham, Arthur Basil	Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)	Sutherland, J. E.
Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Radford, G. H.	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)	Rainy, A. Rolland	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Masterman, C. P. G.	Raphael, Herbert H.	Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)
Magher, Michael	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Menzies, Walter	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Molteno, Percy Alport	Redmond, William (Clare)	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Mond, A.	Rees, J. D.	Thomasson, Franklin
Money, L. G. Chiozza	Richards, Thomas (W'Monm'th)	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E)
Montagu, E. S.	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n	Thorne, William
Montgomery, H. G.	Rickett, J. Compton	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Mooney, J. J.	Ridsdale, E. A.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Ure, Alexander
Morrell, Philip	Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)	Verney, F. W.
Morse, L. L.	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Wallace, Robert
Murphy, John	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Walters, John Tudor
Murray, James	Robinson, S.	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Myer, Horatio	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Napier, T. B.	Rose, Charles Day	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Nicholls, George	Rowlands, J.	Ward, W. Dudley (Southamptn)
Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)	Runciman, Walter	Wardle, George J.
Nolan, Joseph	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Norman, Henry	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Nussey, Thomas Willans	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Waterlow, D. S.
Nuttall, Harry	Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester)	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid	Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)	Whitbread, Howard
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Sears, J. E.	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)	Seddon, J.	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Seely, Major J. B.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	Whitehead, Rowland
O'Dowd, John	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
O'Malley, William	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)
O'Mara, James	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Snowden, P.	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
O'Shee, James John	Soames, Arthur Wellesley	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Parker, James (Halifax)	Spicer, Sir Albert	Young, Samuel
Paul, Herbert	Stanger, H. Y.	Yoxall, James Henry
Pearce, Robert (Stan's. Leek)	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Steadman, W. C.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Perks, Robert William	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)	Pease.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. FORSTER (Kent, Sevenoaks)

asked what would be the position of the landowners and tenants of land within the boundaries of the New Forest? He believed that in the New Forest there were a considerable number of deer belonging to the Crown. He was not aware that the old statute about the killing of deer being a hanging matter had been repealed. He asked whether he would be able to get the amount which he had to pay refunded to him by the Crown, or whether the Crown would refuse to accept any responsibility in the matter, in which case he would be infinitely worse off than other landowners in other parts of the country. That was a point on which they were entitled to have some information.

COLONEL L0CKW00D (Essex, Epping)

said he wished to enter a caveat on behalf of his constituents in Epping Forest. The forest was full of deer and, as there was not much to eat there, they ate the crops in his constituents' gardens and fields. He understood that up to the present time the tenant, when his crops were damaged, had power to shoot the depredator without any licence at all. Under this Bill, unless the tenant was in possession of a £3 licence, was he to sit still and see his whole garden devastated by the inroads of deer? If he shot the deer he might be prosecuted for shooting game without a licence. That seemed to him to be perfectly unfair. If these fallow deer were to be allowed more and more to commit these depredations, were his constituents to be deprived of the right of shooting them?

VISCOUNT TURNOUR

said it appeared to him that part of this Amendment was out of order. It said the word "game" should be deemed to include "deer." He understood that, under the law as it stood, a tenant had the right to shoot deer, but the clause said— Where the tenant has sustained any damage from game that he has not a lawful right to kill, he should be entitled to compensation from his landlord. Would he have the right to compensation for damage by deer?

*MR. SPEAKER

That is a subject for litigation in the future.

LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

asked what was the view of the Government as to the question of deer. The clause said— Where the right to kill game is vested in some person other than the landlord, the landlord shall be entitled to be indemnified by such other person against all claims for compensation under this section. Did or did not that give any right to compensation against the Crown in the case mentioned by his hon. friend? If it did, how was it going to be enforced? Was there any case of a right against the Crown being given in that way? Was not the citizen's right limited to bringing a petition, that the Crown out of its goodness should grant that for which he prayed? But that right was hedged about by extremely rigid rules, and such a petition could not be brought for a tort. To say that there should be a right to compensation— the right to enter an action for tort in such a case as that to which his hon. friend had referred—would certainly be a new departure in the law of the country. Had the law officers of the Crown really considered how such a claim could be enforced? Though he had no particular objection to litigation in principle, he did not wish litigation to be chaotic.

SIR W. ROBSON

pointed out that the Bill only applied in cases in which damage was done by game which the tenant had not the lawful right to kill. The latter part of the section dealt with the case of indemnity where the right to kill was vested in somebody else. In the case of deer which the tenant had the lawful right to kill, his remedy was in killing the deer. The hon. and gallant Member for Epping had said that up till now his constituents had had the right to shoot deer when they came on their land.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD

Perhaps I was wrong in using the word "right." They have done so.

SIR W. ROBSON

was quite sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman's constituents would not break the law. When this Bill passed, in his opinion they would not even have to take out a game licence, as deer were only made game for the purposes of the Bill. They were not made game generally.

MR. WALTER LONG

said the hon. and learned Gentleman had with great adroitness answered the easier of the questions put to him, but he had omitted to answer the graver of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks as to the condition of things in the New Forest. He complained that without any explanation the Government proposed to add to a Bill they had made their own these remarkable words proposed by the hon. Member below the gangway. The hon. and learned Gentleman had laid down what he believed to be the law, but, however highly they estimated his opinion, it would not be security against legal difficulties hereafter. This Amendment was not moved by anybody on the Opposition side of the House. Why did the Government want to complicate the measure by introducing a fresh definition of game?

SIR W. ROBSON

The definition is limited to the purposes of this Act.

MR. WALTER LONG

said what the Government proposed to do would make confusion worse confounded. Why not withdraw this Amendment? Would it make the Bill better to add these remarkable words which required so much explanation? What was the object of having this definition of game?

MR. MILDMAY (Devonshire, Totnes)

said that in future if they passed the clause as it stood, anyone who went deer stalking would be in considerable doubt as to whether or not he should take out a game licence.

*MR. RAWLINSON: (Cambridge University)

said that he was compelled on this occasion to support the Solicitor-General. By the Act relating to game licenses a man was compelled to have a license if he wished to kill deer, although deer was not game. Then came one exception that the licence was not required for the taking and killing of deer in any enclosed lands by the owner or by his direction and permission. This seemed to answer the question propounded by his right hon. friend.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

said that under the Amendment the tenant would not be in quite as good a position as he would be under the clause as it stood. There was no reason why this Bill should have been introduced by people who did not know what they were doing, unless it was for a political purpose, and he thought the Amendment had been proposed with a similar object.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

thought the Government should leave out the words of the Amendment, for the word "game" was much more comprehensive than the suggested definition, which excluded wild duck and other kinds of wild fowl which were generally regarded as game and did more damage to crops than other kinds of game. Capercailzie was not included in the Amendment, and yet they did damage. Moreover the definition would also prevent other species of game which might be introduced into the country from coming under the Bill.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)

said that after the speeches to which they had listened the Government must feel that some explanation of their policy was necessary. The Solicitor-General's ingenious speech scrupulously avoided explaining why these words should be added to the Bill at all. Everybody admitted that pheasants, partridges, hares, rabbits, grouse, heath or moor game or black cock were game already; but there were certain animals which might be included in the term "game" which might come under the Act. If deer were only game for the purpose of this Bill, then deer could be killed now, and would be equally liable to be killed if the Bill became an Act. Were deer to be killed under this Bill or could they be killed now?

SIR W. ROBSON

said that tenants might have been limited in their contract in the right to kill deer.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that the Government applied themselves to the main subject of the Amendment only by way of courtly interruption. It would be better to disclose what was the Government policy; and some answer should be given to a point which had been raised regarding the right of the Crown in the New Forest. The Amendment possessed almost every fault it could have. It put in what ought not to be put in and omitted what, if it was to be in the Bill, it ought to include. It was at best totally unnecessary. The Government ought to give a general account of their policy on this matter.

*MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)

said that the Amendment was very incomplete. Some birds which did most damage to crops were omitted from this specification, and he did not see why the collection should not be very considerably increased. He supposed it was possible for the House to constitute as game other animals than those included in the Amendment. He suggested that rooks should be added to the Amendment. He did not want to intrude private matters on the attention of hon. Members, but being a farmer himself he had suffered very severely from rooks—not from his own rooks, but from those of his neighbours; his own rooks were very well conducted. Rooks in pursuit of wire worm—had often torn up his root crops. Then there were pigeons. He believed they were all agreed that pigeons ought to be made game for the purposes of this Act. They seriously injured the crops and were very difficult to control and to shoot. He ventured to appeal to hon. Members, especially to those sitting about him, to insist on the inclusion of rooks and pigeons in the ornithological catalogue of the Amendment. There were also certain wild animals which ought also to be included. It seemed an undesirable thing that such a meagre and indifferent list should have been submitted to the House, and he suggested that the rest of the names to be found in Buffon's Natural History should be included.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOB WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington)

said he only rose in response to the appeal made for a statement. The point was very simple. Here was a clause which enacted something in the nature of a statutory stipulation to be introduced into the relationship of landlord and tenant. The first subsection provided that, where a tenant sustained damage from game he had not the lawful right to kill, he should be entitled to compensation, and this was followed by subsections working out that right. Then at the end it was found there was no definition of game, a nomen connotativum which had varied at different periods of history and in England and Scotland meant different things; therefore it was desirable to insert a clause defining game, not generally, but for the purpose of this measure Another point raised had relation to the New Forest and Crown lands, but there no difficulty was presented. The relations might be twofold; the Crown might have as tenant somebody who stood in relation of landlord to a sub-tenant, and the sub-tenant would have the right against the immediate tenant. As in any other case, if he had the right to kill he had not the right to compensation, and if he had not the right to kill he had a right to compensation. Then the noble Lord took a case where the Crown was direct landlord.

LORD R. CECIL

said the right hon. Gentleman was not familiar with the third subsection. Where the Crown had an intermediate tenant, then the subtenant would go against his immediate landlord, who would have right of compensation from the Crown, but no means of enforcing that right.

MR. HALDANE

said it was a statutory provision that could be enforced in the same way by petition of right.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershire, E.)

said he had had officially to do with Crown property and had been advised that no Act bound the Crown unless the Crown was expressly mentioned. The Postmaster-General, for instance, as representing the Crown, was not bound by the obligations of the Building Acts.

MR. HALDANE

said this, no doubt, was true in regard to the prerogatives of the Crown, but in the relations of landlord and tenant and within the purview of the Act, the Crown would be bound by the stipulations in the Act like any other landlord, and the stipulations could be enforced by petition of right.

*SIR ROBERT HOBART (Hampshire, New Forest)

said a great deal had been said about deer in the New Forest, but he could not say they were very numerous. He had lived there all his life, and he had recently been round and round the Now Forest, perhaps to the discomfiture of hon. Members opposite, but in the course of his perambulations he had never seen any deer nor heard of any damage committed by them. He was perfectly aware that there was a pack of deer hounds in the New Forest, and he had no doubt that it was most gallantly followed, but the only way in which he could follow it now was in the newspapers, and he regretted to say that he frequently learned that they had had a "blank day." Some allusion had been made to the removal of the deer; a few years ago the deer certainly used to do some damage, but an Act was passed and latterly no damage had been complained of because under the Act the deer had been removed.

MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)

said that, after all the learning which had been lavished upon the House by many professors of the law, he could not see anything in this Amendment except an attempt to take away existing rights in the most mischievous and perplexing way possible. He congratulated the Government upon the perplexity and the conflicting state of things which the Amendment they had accepted would bring about.

Question put.

I The House divided:— Ayes, 309; Noes,81 (Division List No. 396.)

AYES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork. N. E.)	Dalziel, James Henry	Hodge, John
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Hogan, Michael
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Holden, E. Hopkinson
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Horniman, Emslie John
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Delany, William	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh. S.)	Hudson, Walter
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Dickinson, W.H.(St, Pancras, N	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Barker, John	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Jackson, R. S.
Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset	Dillon, John	Jardine, Sir J.
Barnard, E. B	Dobson, Thomas W.	Jenkins, J.
Barnes, G. N.	Dolan, Charles Joseph	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Donelan, Captain A.	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea
Beale, W. P.	Duckworth. James	Jones, William(Carnarvonshire
Beauchamp, E.	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Joyce, Michael
Beck, A. Cecil	Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	Kearley, Hudson E.
Bell, Richard,	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Kekewich, Sir George
Bellairs, Carlyon	Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Benn, W.(T'wr Hamlets, S. Geo.	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Bennett, E. N.	Edwards. Frank (Radnor)	Laidlaw, Robert
Berridge, T. H. D.	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Bothell, J. H. (Essex, Ron ford	Evans, Samuel T.	Lambert, George
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Eve, Harry Trelawney	Lamont, Norman
Billson, Alfred	Everett, R. Lacey	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W. )
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire	Fenwick, Charles	Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington
Bolton, T. D.(Derbyshire, N. E.)	Ferens, T. R.	Lough, Thomas
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Lundon, W.
Bowerman, C. W.	Ffrench, Peter	Lupton, Arnold
Brace, William	Findlay, Alexander	Lyell, Charles Henry
Bramsdon, T. A.	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Lynch, H. B.
Branch, James	Flynn, James Christopher	Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs
Brigg, John	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Mackarness, Frederic C.
Bright, J. A.	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Maclean, Donald
Brodie, H. C.	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Brunner, J. F. L.(Lanes. Leigh)	Fuller, John Michael F.	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh.)	Fullerton, Hugh	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen	Gibb, James (Harrow)	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)	Ginnell, L.	M'Crae, George
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Gladstone. Rt. Hn. Herbert John	M'Killop, W.
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Glendinning, R. G.	M'Micking, Major G.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Maddison, Frederick'
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles	Gooch, George Peabody	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Byles, William Pollard	Grant, Corrie	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln
Cairns, Thomas	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Markham, Arthur Basil
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Greenwood, Hamar (York)	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Griffith, Ellis J.	Masterman, C. F. G.
Chance, Frederick William	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Meagher, Michael
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Menzies, Walter
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Haldare, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Molteno, Percy Alport
Clarke, C. Goddard	Halpin, J.	Mond, A.
Cleland, J. W.	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Clough, William	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Montgomery, H. G.
Clynes, J. R.	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Mooney, J. J.
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Hart-Davies, T.	Morgan, G. Hay Cornwall
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W,	Harvey, A. G. G. (Rochdale)	Morrell, Philip
Corbett, C. H(Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Morse, L. L.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin E.	Haworth, Arthur A.	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Cory, Clifford John	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Murphy, John
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Helme, Norval Watson	Murray, Tames
Cowan, W. H.	Hemmerde, Edward George	Myer, Horatio
Cox, Harold	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Napier, T. B.
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.	Nicholls, George
Cremer, William Randal	Henry, Charles S.	Nicholson, Chas. N.( Doncaster)
Crombie, John William	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Nolan, Joseph
Crooks, William	Higham, John Sharp	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Cross, Alexander	Hobart, Sir Robert	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Nuttall, Harry	Robinson, S.	Torrance, Sir A. M.
O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Rowlands,	Ure, Alexander
O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)	Runciman, Walter	Verney, F. W.
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford )	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
O'Dowd, John	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Wallace, Robert
O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Walters, John Tudor
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N	Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
O'Malley, William	Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne	Ward, John(Stoke upon Trent)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Sears, J. E.	Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton
O'Shee, James John	Seddon, J.	Wardle, George J.
Parker, James (Halifax)	Seely, Major J. B.	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Paulton, James Mellor	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.	Wason, John Cathcart ( Orkney
Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Waterlow, D. S.
Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Whitbread, Howard
Perks, Robert William	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)	Smyth, Thos. F. (Leitrim, S.)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke	Snowden, P.	White, Patrick (Heath North)
Philip, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Spicer, Sir Albert	Whitehead, Rowland
Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Stanger, H. Y.	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Pollard, Dr.	Steadman, W. C.	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Radford, G. H.	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Rainy, A. Rolland	Strachey, Sir Edward	Williamson, A.
Raphael, Herbert H.	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	Sullivan, Donal	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford	Summerbell, T.	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Redmond, William (Clare)	Sutherland, J. E.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Rees, J. D.	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)	Young, Samuel
Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Yoxall, James Henry
Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Rickett, J. Compton	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Ridsdale, E. A.	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)	Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Thomasson, Franklin	Pease.
Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee	Thompson, J. W. H(Somerset, E
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Thorne, William
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F	Fell, Arthur	Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Rawlinson, John FredcrickPeel
Ashley. W. W.	Forster, Henry William	Remnant, James Farquharson
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall
Balcarres, Lord	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(City Lond.)	Haddock, George R.	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Hamilton, Marquess of	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.
Bockett, Hon. Gervase	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Bertram, Julius	Hills, J. W.	Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Houston, Robert Paterson	Starkey, John R.
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Hunt, Rowland	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Bull, Sir William James	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Univ)
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Kimber, Sir Henry	Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury
Carlile, E. Hildred	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark
Castlereagh, Viscount	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Thornton, Percy M.
Cave, George	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Tumour, Viscount
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S.	Valentia, Viscount
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone. E.)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Worc)	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.
Cheetham John Frederick	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. (Stuart-
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Mason, James F. (Windsor)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Collings, Rt. Hn. J.(Birmingh'm)	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Younger, George
Craig, Capt. James (DOWN, E.)	Montagu, E. S.
Craik, Sir Henry	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petetsfield)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Dalrymple, Viscount	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens	Hicks Beach and Mr. Court-
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington	hope.
Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Faber, George Denison (York)	Randles, Sir John Scurrah

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

moved to insert, "provided that any redress given by this section may be enforced against the Crown as fully as against a subject." That was, he said, the intention of the Government, because the right hon. Gentleman had expressed the opinion that the Crown would come within the purview of this Act, though not specially mentioned. He failed to see the distinction drawn by the right hon. Gentleman between the Bill and the Buildings Act, which specially did not bind the Crown. He also took this opportunity of putting another question which arose with regard to the New Forest and other parts of the country. There were certain freeholds within the boundaries of the New Forest. Supposing a freeholder let such land to a tenant, and the crops were injured by the deer of the forest, the tenant would be compensated by his landlord, unless he had the right to kill. The question he wished to ask was this: Had any person beyond the Crown a right to give to another the right to kill deer within the forest? He spoke with all hesitation, but he had been hearing a little about forest law lately, and unless he was much mistaken the severest penalties could be imposed upon any person killing deer within the forest without the special licence from the Crown.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 24, after the words last inserted to insert the words, 'Provided that any rights given by this section may be enforced against the Crown as fully as against a subject.' "—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)

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

SIB W. ROBSON

said he did not complain of the moving of this Amendment without notice. The right hon. Gentleman was quite within his right; he only called attention to the fact that no notice had been given to excuse himself for stating what hon. Gentlemen opposite sometimes complained of, namely, his opinion only. It seemed to him that all this discussion was unnecessary for two reasons. First of all, because no ground for complaint arose on the part of the landlord unless he had restricted his tenant from killing game.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said his point was that the landlord in this specific case had not the right himself, and therefore could neither give nor restrict the right.

SIR W. ROBSON

said it was not at all a question of whether the landlord had the right to kill or not. The Act applied when the landlord restricted and only when he restricted. [Cries of "No."] Indeed, it was so. The subsection applied to game which the tenant had not the lawful right to kill, but now the tenant had the lawful right to kill game unless the landlord stopped him. Cries of "No."] Would the right hon. Gentleman tell him of any statute or provision which forbade the tenant to kill game unless the landlord stopped him by agreement?

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said he could not refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to such a statute. He had hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman, being learned in the law, would have been able to refer him, who was ignorant of the law, to a statute. He believed, however, that the Forest law made it an offence for anyone to kill a deer within the forest. The freeholder could not restrict the rights of the tenants, but they could not give the tenants a right they had not themselves got. This Bill gave the tenant a claim to compensation against the landlord. Would the landlord have any claim against the Crown for damage done to crops by game?

SIR W. ROBSON

said he knew of no statute that forbade a tenant from killing deer in the New Forest. This Bill was an Amendment to the Act of 1900, and that Act was to be read with the Act of 1883, which expressly gave rights against the Crown. They had been told that there was now no damage by deer in the New Forest. In other times there were great complaints about damage by deer, but the Crown had been careful since to restrict the deer to enclosures, where no harm could be done. He had no objection to the application of the Act to the Crown except a natural hesitation to support anything which affected the prerogatives or rights of the Crown. Of course, if they found that any substantial damage was likely to be done to any one by the omission of these words the Government would take care to have them inserted in another place; but he hoped the House would not ask the Government to accept them without fuller information.

MR. FORSTER

thought the consideration just advanced might be weighed with the hon. and learned Gentleman before the Government accepted the last Amendment. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had had time to reflect upon all the points involved in that Amendment he would probably have saved the House much time, hon. Members a good deal of trouble, and the country a great deal of future litigation. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not touched the point raised by the present Amendment. They had asked for information as to whether there was any statute which prevented freeholders or their tenants from killing deer within the boundaries of the New Forest. He had lived in the New Forest for a number of years, and understood that ever since the time of William the Conqueror the killing of a deer there had been a crime punishable by hanging. The point they desired to have elucidated was, if one of the New forest deer damaged a tenant's crops, and he claimed from his landlord, could that landlord obtain payment from the Crown?

SIR W. ROBSON

said he had looked up the sections to which he had referred, and he thought he could now satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that this Bill was to be read and construed with the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1900. The principal Act, by Section 1, referred to the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883, which said that the Act should extend and apply to land belonging to the Crown, and that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, as representing the Crown, were "to be deemed to be the landlord," so that the difficulty did not arise.

LORD R. CECIL

submitted that the position in which they were was an illustration of the strange course which the Government had taken with regard to this Bill. Nothing could be clearer than that the section last referred to by the Solicitor-General would not apply to this Bill as at present drafted. By this measure the landlord was to be indemni- fied by the person who had the right to kill the game. Where the right to kill was vested solely in the King would the landlord get any redress? He wished to point out one further matter. The Solicitor-General had said that after all they were not dealing with a very substantial matter as this was not a grievance likely to arise. Precisely the same grievance would arise where there were more pheasants. In the case of an owner who had land adjoining Crown lands, whose tenant had his crops damaged by game coming from Crown lands, that tenant would have the right to sue his landlord, but the point was whether that landlord would have a right to recover from the Crown. This was a case that ought to be met somehow, and he thought it was met by the Amendment of his hon. friend. He pressed the Government to accept the Amendment, which was clearly reasonable.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he was not sure that there was a question, if not of order, at all events of Parliamentary propriety involved. His recollection was that no clause relating to the Crown could be introduced without the leave of the Crown. No such message had been received in the present case. At any rate he recognised that the Solicitor-General had had thrown at his head a series of problems dealing with an obscure branch of the law, and with matters of very great importance, though not perhaps of wide extent. The Solicitor-General could hardly perhaps be expected to be armed cap-a-pie for the purpose of meeting all these problems, and dealing with an Amendment which was no more that of the Government than was the rest of the Bill. He felt the difficulty of asking a Government who were themselves in Cimmerian darkness to give the House guidance as to the proper way of dealing with this subject on the present occasion. He could only suggest that the Bill should be recommitted on the Third Reading for the purpose of dealing with this problem, or that the Government should introduce Amendments in another place. He thought it better that the House should not divide on this occasion. He did not think that the clause was in accordance with Parliamentary practice.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment, and expressed the hope that when the Third Reading was reached the Solicitor-General would be prepared to make a statement early in the day as to the position and as to the course which the Government intended to take.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY ,

in moving the omission of Clause 3, was understood to say that it was quite clear that snaring and trapping were the best means of destroying rabbits, and if the House did not desire to encourage the preservation of rabbits, this particular clause was quite unnecessary, because the tenant at the present time had all the advantages he required. It had been anticipated that the result of the Ground Game Act would be the total destruction of hares and rabbits, but in the part of the country he knew best the result had rather been to encourage the preservation of rabbits, because the keepers and the tenants had combined to protect them, and he knew a case where the landlord had been asked not to shoot the rabbits because the farmer was going to have a shooting party of his own. He did not think the good tenant deserved to have extra sporting rights as regarded rabbits, and all the tenants wanted was protection against damage done by winged game. It was not in his opinion desirable that any good land should be farmed as a game preserve unless the landlord chose to keep it in his own hands. Tenants should be encouraged to destroy rather than preserve rabbits on their farms. Rabbits bred very rapidly, and were very difficult to keep down, and they went off into other people's land doing damage. The same thing applied to hares. For these reasons the Government had decided to adopt the course he now proposed.

Amendment proposed— To leave out Clause 3."—(Sir E. Strachey.)

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

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

congratulated the hon. Baronet on his conversion to the views which were strongly urged upon him when the Bill was before the Committee.

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

May I remind the hon. Gentleman that I voted against the clause in the Committee.

MR. LANE-FOX

said he entirely accepted the hon. Gentleman's reminder. The Committee spent three whole days on this clause, and those who opposed it were subjected to very caustic criticism. He congratulated the hon. Baronet and the Government on having come to an absolutely sensible view on the question. The giving of extra facilities for shooting rabbits was not the way to promote good husbandry.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause 3, left out accordingly.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

moved the omission of Clause 4 which, to his mind, was one of the worst clauses in one of the worst Bills he had ever seen introduced. It was absolutely contradictory and the only effect of it would be to give employment to lawyers. The first part said— Notwithstanding the provisions of any contract of tenancy or agreement respecting the mode of cultivation, cropping or disposal of produce (other than an agreement or contract not to break up permanent pasture, or not to grub underwoods, or not to fell, cut, lop, or injure trees), or imposing any penalty, forfeiture, or liability in respect of the same, a tenant shall have full right to cultivate, crop, or dispose of the produce of his holding without incurring any such penalty, forfeiture, or liability, provided he shall have made adequate provision to protect the holding from injury or deterioration. Then it went on to say— If the tenant exercises his rights under this section in such a manner as to injure or deteriorate the holding, or to be likely to injure or deteriorate the holding, the landlord shall be entitled to recover damages in respect of such injury or deterioration, or, as the case may require, to obtain an injunction restraining the exercise of the rights under this section in that manner, and the amount of such damages may, in default of agreement, be determined by arbitration. The first part of the clause said that a tenant might do what he liked, and the second part said that he might do nothing of the sort, and that if he damaged the holding, legal proceedings might be taken by the landlord. It seemed to him that the clause had been introduced owing to the apparently very prevalent misconception on the other side of the House as to the mode of dealing between landlord and tenant in England. Hon. Members seemed to have the idea that the only object of a landlord in letting a farm was to impose such onerous conditions that no good tenant could possibly ever take it. They seemed also to have the idea that there were so many people running after a farm that the tenant was obliged nolens volens to take it, although he knew perfectly well that the conditions were impossible. That was absolutely untrue. The landlord was only too anxious to get a good tenant and to give him all freedom in cultivating the land, always provided, according to the concluding words of the first portion of the clause, he would make "adequate provision to protect the holding from injury or deterioration." But the landlord said that a custom of the country had grown up out of experience as to the best manner of cultivation, and he put in the lease or agreement that a certain rotation of crops should be observed. He did that not because he wished to make himself disagreeable to the tenant, but because he wanted to see that adequate provision was made for protecting the holding from injury or deterioration. It might be argued that the tenant would pay no attention to this clause, but would find out the ordinary mode of procedure in in the country and cultivate the land according to that manner. But it should be remembered that all farmers were not good farmers, and that it was quite possible a farmer might take a farm with the purpose beforehand of getting as much as he could out of it, irrespective of the ordinary method of cultivation, and at the end of the term leaving the farm. The landlord would have the remedy provided for in Section 2, but he had shown that that was a remedy which meant legal proceedings.

Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

said that subsection (2) of the clause, which he presumed was intended to be a protection for the landlord, would necessitate so many legal proceedings that practically it would be no protection to anyone. If the tenant who ruined the holding should be a man without much money, or if he became bankrupt, the protection given by the clause would be valueless. There was another very great objection to the first part of the clause. It read very well, but there was at present no objection on the part of the landlord to the tenant selling straw off the holding provided he brought in artificial manure to compensate for what he sold off the land. It could not be said that the tenant suffered under the existing mode of proceeding. In regard to the question of cropping, it should be remembered that the majority of farms were cultivated on the four courses system. The hon. Baronet opposite knew very well that if they got out of the four courses system it was very difficult to get back into the rotation. If a farmer disregarded the ordinary rules of husbandry in the neighbourhood, and farmed on what would be the most advantageous system for himself, and afterwards became bankrupt, the landlord would have to take the farm into his own possession, and practically he would have no remedy as against the tenant. It would take three or four years before he could get the farm into a proper state of cultivation, and during that period he would be farming at a dead loss. They had heard about this being a Bill to provide more food for the people, but in his opinion its effect would be to promote bad husbandry. The good farmer did not want the clause, and on the other hand the clause would make it possible for the bad farmers absolutely to ruin the land and leave it on the hands of the landlord. As to subsection 2, how was the landlord to know all those things so as to be entitled to recover damages or to obtain an injunction restraining the exercise of the rights under the subsection, unless he or his agent was continually walking over the farm and seeing what the tenant was doing? That would introduce a bad system, and was certain to make bad blood and cause friction between landlord and tenant. He supposed that it would be stated this subsection had been introduced for the protection of the rights of the landlord; but he thought it was not a question of the rights of the landlord, but a question ensuring that the land was properly cultivated. He was certain that the clause would encourage litigation and result in a rich harvest for the lawyers and the valuers. He sincerely hoped that the Government, having dropped Clause3, which was not so important as this, because Clause 4 dealt with the whole system of husbandry all over the kingdom, would drop this also. The clause would revolutionise our whole system of husbandry, under which he maintained that the land of England produced more food per acre than the land of any other country in the world, with the possible exception of Belgium. He was sorry to see that those hon. Gentlemen of the Ministerial Party who were supposed to be the friends of the tenant were conspicuous by their absence when this important clause was being discussed; but their anxiety for the welfare of the tenant did not outrun their anxiety for their dinner. It was they on the Opposition side of the House who were willing to make sacrifices—even the sacrifice of their dinner—in the interest of the tenant. If this country was better cultivated than any other in the world under the present system of husbandry, why should a Bill be introduced which would upset that good state of things? He had shown that there was no necessity for this clause, because landlords and tenants could get on very well by themselves. They could make their own arrangements, settle their own differences in all parts of England, and remain free and independent on both sides. The hon. Baronet knew that perfectly well; and if it had not been for the landlords during the run of bad seasons the farms would not have been in the good state they were now- in. This clause would be of no use to anyone; it would encourage litigation, and bad farming, and go far to injure the reputation, already much damaged, of hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches. He moved that it be left out of the Bill.

*MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)

, in seconding the Amendment, said he wished to add a few words to what his hon. friend had said, and to urge the Government to take this clause out of the Bill as they had taken out Clause 3. What was it wanted for, and what would be its result? The present restrictions upon freedom of cropping in some counties were not very severe, but they were restrictions which the experience of many generations had found necessary in order to secure holdings from injury in the event of a farm getting into the hands of an unscrupulous farmer, and this clause proposed to do away with them. Supposing the clause was passed and there was freedom of cropping, providing the tenant made adequate provision to protect the holding from injury or deterioration, how on earth was an arbitrator—a valuer— coming on to a farm in October to judge whether due provision had been made to protect the holding from injury or deterioration? He could not do it. He would take a case as an illustration. Supposing there was a tenant farmer holding land in Sussex, say on a yearly agreement, and that this Bill passed. The farmer would think how he could get the most out of certain parts of his farm and the most out of the benefit the clause conferred upon him. He would know that over a good deal of the farm, which was at present under a four years' course of cropping, it would be the proper time to have a white straw crop in three years time, according to the rotation. He would have two years white straw crops, and then give notice and grow a third white straw crop. Anyone who had practical experience of farming knew that the land would be ruined for many years, although apparently it might be a proper course of cropping according to the custom of the country or according to the covenants of the lease under which the tenant held the farm. Notwithstanding that the land would be thus ruined, this clause deliberately set up the power to do it. It was said to be a Bill to protect a good landlord against a bad tenant and a good tenant against a bad landlord, but it was exactly the opposite. This clause deliberately gave a bad tenant the power to rack out the land he held, knowing perfectly well that the arbitrator, coming in in October, could not possibly tell what he had been doing to the land and whether he had made adequate provision against injury or deterioration. The landlord could do nothing to take advantage of the illusory protection held out to him under subsection (2) of the clause. He hoped the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill would think of these facts and of the confusion, litigation, and loss it would cause. He knew from his practical experience well enough what the meaning of this clause was, and he implored him to think well before he placed it upon the Statute Book.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 30, to leave out Clause i." —(Sir Frederick Banbury.)

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

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

admitted that he attached importance to the clause, but he could not agree with the hon. Baronet opposite that it was so very dangerous. It was meant to extend the Act of 1900. Under that Act a tenant farmer could crop his land in any way he liked, notwithstanding any penal provisions in his agreement or contract of tenancy not to do so, provided he made certain restitution to the land before quitting his holding.

MR. WALTER LONG

asked where was that in the Act of 1900? (MINISTERIAL cries of "Order.") The hon. Baronet had stated definitely that this clause in the Bill was merely meant to extend the Act of 1900. Would the hon. Baronet quote the words in that Act which said that a tenant had the right of free cropping provided he made restitution to the land in the way of manures?

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

said that his contention was that the penal provisions in the contract of tenancy frequently prevented good farming and the tenant from working his farm to the best advantage; and the Act of 1900 provided that the compensation to be recovered by the landlord from the tenant was limited to the amount of damage done. By this Bill if the tenant exercised the right of free cropping in such a manner as to injure or deteriorate the holding, or did not bring it back to a proper condition, the landlord would be entitled to recover damages, the amount to be determined by arbitration. The hon. Baronet opposite had said the clause would produce bad blood between landlord and tenant, and that the landlord or his agent would have to be continually walking over the farm to see what the tenant was doing. From his own personal experience he could say that the tenant would be only too glad to see the landlord often on his farm, because the landlord would then observe for himself what was required in the way of fences and buildings, etc. He could not admit that encouragement to landlords to take more interest in the cultivation of their land would be likely to lead to bad feeling. A tenant would have to farm under the conditions of his tenancy subject to the clause, but to meet objections that had been raised the Government would be prepared to accept an Amendment in the nature of that of which the hon. member for South-East Durham had given notice, to limit the right of cropping to arable land, and restricting the tenant in dealing with pasture land to the terms of his agreement. It might be quite right to restrict the right of mowing. Some drafting amendment of the terms of the Amendment would be necessary, but in the effect it would simplify the clause and leave the right to dispose of produce with the liability to bring back manure value to the land.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD

said he had not up to that time seen any desire on the part of the Government to make those concessions which the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill said that they desired to make. On the contrary, they had been very stiff backed over and had resisted many Amendments, not only those proposed on the Opposition side of the House, but many which hon. Members on their own side considered reasonable. The hon. Baronet had announced a concession of a sort, but he was not prepared to say that it would altogether meet their objections. There was one concession which the hon. Baronet mentioned, and that was with regard to mowing twice, to which he took exception. He mentioned the point because for the purpose of experiment he himself mowed a meadow twice to prove that it was deleterious, and he was successful in showing that that was so. Hon. Members were mistaken when they thought that they upon that side of the House were opposed to any measure which would conduce to the well-being of the tenants at large. If hon. Members would look back and see how landlords had met their tenants in the past such a charge would be refuted. When he remembered the prices charged for land thirty years ago, and saw the reductions which had been made all round to the tenants, he asked himself was it fair that they on that side of the House should be put forward as being opposed to measures which were favourable to the tenants? The ground of their opposition to this clause was that it gave the minimum of comfort and advantage to the tenant, combined with the maximum of discomfort and disadvantage to the landlord. It was for that reason that they were determined to oppose it. Under this clause the Government were interfering with every contract which the landlords made with their tenants. They were upsetting the customs of the country which in the past had proved to be beneficial to the land, the landlords, and the tenants generally, and they were introducing a form of dual ownership, which if it was right should be boldly brought forward and enforced by taking the land from the landlords. It was not a question of custom, it was a question of price. The permission to grow anything they liked would never do any good to the tenant farmers at large until they could get a proper price for their produce. On one of the few days lately when his duties at the House had permitted him to go hunting, he met a tenant farmer and asked him what advantage he would gain by this Bill. The farmer did not think he would gain much, but he complained that his landlord insisted upon having his rent on the very day that it was due, and said he ought to pay interest if he was twenty-four hours late. He inquired the name of the landlord, and it appeared that he was a distinguished opponent of his, so that there wore bad landlords on the other side of the House. As a rule, however, he quite believed that the landlords both on that and the other side were good landlords, but they wished to protect the good tenant against the bad landlord. So long as landlords had rights, however, they should maintain them. Hon. Members seemed to forget that there were bad tenants as well as bad landlords, and under this clause every inducement was given to the bad tenant to extract from the landlord all the compensation possible, and then get it over again. The Government said they were going to restrain the bad landlord by legal methods, and it meant that they would be brought down to deal with their tenants by nothing else than legal methods, and they would have to act upon nothing except that which was written down by lawyers. No regard was apparently to be paid to the good feeling which at present existed between landlord and tenant. The object of the four years course system had been met, he was glad to say, by the hon. Baronet. The object of the four years course was to prevent the landlord being put, as he might be, to great expense to ensure the continued fertility of the soil, by a tenant's not farming fairly. Clauses 4 and 5, unless they were severely altered by Amendments, constituted practically a dual system, under which the landlord would no longer be allowed to judge what was the best way of farming his land, and at the end of the tenancy he was to be mulcted in heavy damages. He might be told his land was suitable, from its proximity with London, for fruit farming. He knew it was not. This clause would give the tenant a right to grow such crops as he liked, to dispose of the produce as he liked, and at the end the landlord would have to pay heavy compensation when the tenant gave up the farm. He was a small owner himself, and it was out of his power to go round his fields to see how his tenants cropped them. He was kept at the House. He had been able to do so in the past, and now he was told that under this Bill he would only have an expensive legal remedy. What he wanted to know was how was he to find out under this Bill whether his tenant was carrying out a system of husbandry which was fair and right and suitable to the land? If what he was told was true, he was to have no opportunity of seeing that either this year or next. Clause 4 was one of the most unfair clauses of the whole of this unfair Bill. Even if it was amended in the way suggested by the hon. Baronet, the Bill would be manifestly unfair to the landlord without doing any permanent good to the tenant.

MR. SUMMEEBELL (Sunderland)

said he was somewhat surprised at the further concessions that had been made by the Government in Clause 4, after Clause 3 had been taken out of the Bill. If they were going to have two or three all-night sittings to finish this Bill they ought to see that the Government did not concede too much. The hon. Gentleman who moved to strike out Clause 4 got to the crux of the question when he said it was a question as to whether or not the land was properly cultivated. The discussions of the last few days had related to the question of the cultivation of "game" rather than the cultivation of the food of the people. The hon. Member for the City of London had said that this country could produce as much from the land as any country in Europe, except Belgium. That was quite correct; Belgium produced twenty-eight bushels, France twenty-one and this country twenty-seven to the acre. Hon. Gentlemen had referred to the cultivation of the soil of this country, and in that he hoped they would show they were sincere, and talk more about the cultivation of grain and less of the cultivation of game. Complaint had been made of the fact that some hon. Members had been absent from this debate whilst others had been asleep. Candidly speaking, the talk that had been indulged in on this particular Bill had rendered it very difficult for hon. Members to remain in the House, or for those who did remain to keep awake. It had been said the tenant farmers could take care of themselves, but so far as his knowledge went, they wanted more representation in this House than they had.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

said the hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment before the House.

MR. SUMMEEBELL

said he. only wished to appeal to hon. Gentlemen to consider the tenant farmer a little more and the landlord a little less in this Bill. He hoped the Government would hot concede too much, but that they would adhere to Clause 4, and get as strong an Act as they could in the interest of the tenant farmer, who wanted so much protection.

COLONEL KENYONSLANEY

said that both his interest and inclination was to accept the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for South-East Durham, but he would like to hear how far that Amendment would meet the objections to the clause. He had been wondering whether the hon. Baronet the Member for South Somerset could really mean what he said about the Act of 1900. The hon. Baronet must either j have had bad information, or forgotten what the provisions of the Act were. The hon. Baronet had also said he would be prepared to move such an Amendment if it was the general feeling of the House. He himself would rather a stronger lead had been given to the House and that the hon. Baronet had said he would move the Amendment if it was in the interest of the Bill and of the community. If it was a good Amendment let it be proposed, but not because it was merely popular. This clause required careful consideration from the point of view of everyone. It was perfectly true that as a broad principle the interests of a good tenant and these of a good landlord were identical. They must assume that the interest of the landlord was chiefly concerned with the continued fertility of the soil, which was his permanent possession. But it must be realised that there came times when a conflict arose between the tenant and the landlord, and the tenant decided to leave the farm. Two years before he left it would become his selfish aim not to continue to fertilize the soil, but to get the most he could out of it. The whole of the present system, which in the contracts of tenancy limited the powers of the tenant as the user of the soil, was entirely directed to the continued fertility of the soil, and to protect it from the abuse of a tenant who wished to get the most he could out of it before he left. Those who treated the landlord fairly must always recognise that these prohibitive clauses were not put in to hinder the progress of good, scientific farming, but in order to protect the land against the mischief that could be done by an unfair farmer when leaving the land. He would like hon. Members to realise what the basis had been for all these arrangements that people called prohibitive. It was to apply to the cultivation of land to-day all the accumulated experience of the best owners and best cultivators as years went by. This country had been farmed, and well farmed, for a long time. Each county demanded something different in the treatment of the soil, and in the mode of its cultivation, and there had sprung up on all sides what was called "the custom of the country," by which the country was enabled to produce the most under the best conditions. One of the points which he wanted to safeguard, and one which he thought was mainly imperiled by this clause, was the rotation of crops. If hon. Members read one of these limiting agreements, they would find that its main object was to ensure a certain rotation of crops and the continued fertility of the soil These customs had not grown up only in England; we had some experience drawn from America. In Dakota the constant growing of one crop had considerably reduced the fertility of the soil, and the yield had been reduced to about fifteen bushels per acre. Curiously enough, that fifteen bushels to the acre had been the result of thirty years growth of the same crop, and unless they wanted the land to deteriorate considerably they must limit and prohibit any system under which there was continuous user of land for the growing of the same crop. In the State of New York he was told—and he believed it was true — there were thousands of farms derelict because of the want of system in cultivation. Experience showed that it was only by the rotation of crops that it was possible to keep up production. No landlords who studied the question would deny that there might be an advance made in the system of cultivation, or that they had much to learn from science in the treatment of land; but they, at all events, considerd that they should have a fair say in the matter before experiments, which might be advantageous, but which might be disastrous, were made on their land. Another danger was that if they did not maintain the system of continuous fertility they ' might be sacrificing the land against the incoming tenant in favour of the outgoing tenant. They ought to be very careful how they sacrificed the interests of the tenant who was going to farm for years to come for the sake of the tenant who had only a short time left of his tenancy. So long as freedom of cropping had a bad effect on the land it would be necessary that the owner should exercise a much increased surveillance, and keep a much more jealous eye on his tenants. Naturally, the tenants would dislike a constant system of espionage and surveillance, and it would be an unfortunate thing to set up such a relationship between landlord and tenant. It was impossible to apply a much sounder principle for the cultivation of the soil in any particular district than the consensus of opinion of farmers both of to-day and of preceding generations, to the general lines of cultivation which were best for the land. Would it not almost of necessity close the landlord's pocket if they removed his right to have any voice in the cultivation of his own land? He could conceive nothing more pernicious in regard to the fertility of the soil, the interests of the tenants, and the employment of more labour, than to limit and retard the active interest of the landlord in the development of his own land. Although he did not pledge himself to-oppose this clause altogether, and although he fully recognised that there should not be a hide bound system in regard to cropping, he did say there was no real grievance on the point. He begged hon. Members not to run away with the idea that by going against the view he had expressed they were thereby going to set free farmers of greater intelligence and farming capacity to make a better use of the land than hitherto. The landlords were their best friends now. The system proposed by the Government was bad for the tenant, bad for the owner, bad for the continuous fertility of the soil, and bad for those who got their livelihood by working on farms. Speaking broadly, that which was best for the landlord in these days was best for the tenant, and for all connected with the land.

MR. URE

said no one would challenge the moderation with which the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had discussed this question. He would also willingly bear testimony to the extreme fairness and moderation with which the right hon. Member for South Dublin and I those who acted with him presented the case on behalf of the landlords in Grand Committee; so far as he could judge their desire seemed to be to advance the interests of agriculture generally. There appeared to have been two questions raised in this discussion. The first was whether the clause would be advantageous to agriculture in this country, and the second was whether it made a revolutionary and startling change in the law. As to the first question he was not competent to offer an opinion that would be of any use, but he found that on the 15th June last the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture carefully discussed all the clauses of this Bill. A gentleman who he supposed would be a farmer, in giving his view of Clause 4, said— We have here a clause framed in the interests of intelligent agriculturists. We are living in the twentieth century, and it is high time we got rid of all those cast-iron provisions that lawyers have copied out of musty documents hundreds of years old. The intelligent man in the future is to be advised to use his brains, and is not to be tied down to a number of 'thou shalt nots'; but he is to use his land and cultivate his land as he thinks best, to sell his produce in the market to the best advantage, and what is good for the tenant cannot in the long run be bad for the landlord. He (Mr. Ure) adopted most of the quotation as his own. After all, the landlord had the choice of tenants, and it was not likely that he would deliberately let a farm to a person who would deteriorate the soil. But some hon. Gentlemen seemed to forget that this clause made provision for bad tenants. The Bill expressly provided that if the tenant did anything to injure or deteriorate his holding, the landlord should be entitled to step in and stop him, if there was time to do so, and if not to obtain damages. The right hon. Member for Newport had said that the clause would lead to a system of espionage on the Part of the landlord against his tenant. He, however, did not think so, because agricultural operations were not executed in a hurry, and good landlords of the present moment were able easily to see what was going on the farm and to stop at any time anything they thought might injure the soil. The landlord under this Bill was entitled to an injunction in order to prevent the tenant from doing any injury to the soil, but if the landlord were an absentee, and his agent neglected his duty, so that the mischief was done before it could be stopped, then the landlord could make a claim for the injury done to the soil. More than that, the clause expressly provided that freedom of cropping should not be exercised in the last year of the tenancy, and it had always been the law that if the tenant did anything to deteriorate the cropping the landlord was not entitled to damages if the tenant were able to show that before the expiration of his tenancy he could put the land into as good condition as before. There were three adequate safeguards to protect the rights of the landlord—first against damage being done, secondly; compensation for damage actually done; and thirdly, the right he had just mentioned. He now came to a region with which he was more familiar, namely, whether or no the Bill made a revolutionary and startling change in the law. Even if it did it would not be a very fatal objection to it. But was it so? His hon. friend in charge of the Bill had said that sanction had been given to this change by a Unionist Government in the Act of 1900. There was no clause in that Act giving freedom of cropping, but a very distinguished agricultural lawyer, the Secretary of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, by piecing three clauses together, held that they had that effect. One clause gave the right to lay down temporary pasture without asking leave, and to claim compensation at the end of the tenancy in respect of it; another declared that, if in any contract of tenancy it was provided that the tenant should pay damages to his landlord for having violated the conditions of the-lease and the damages were fixed by the lease, the landlord was to prove the amount of damage he had actually suffered; and a third, the 36th Section of the Act of 1883, which had to be read with the Act of 1900, provided that any agreement by which a tenant deprived himself of his right to claim compensation for improvements santioned by the Act should be void. By piecing these three enactments together Scottish agriculturists and lawyers held that the result was freedom of cropping under the Act of 1900. He admitted that there was no clause in the Act of 1900 which expressly provided that tenants were at the present moment free to crop as they pleased. If the tenant violated the rules of good husbandry the remedies he had indicated were open to the landlord. He thought he had made clear that Scottish tenants had at heart the interests of their landlords just as much as Scottish landlords had at heart the interests of their tenants and that they were under the impression that to allow freedom of cropping would not be detrimental to the interests of agriculture. Speaking now in the presence of some Scottish Members who were landlords, he thought he might say without fear of contradiction that at the present moment there was no good landlord in Scotland who did not give perfect freedom of cropping, and that no harm had come to his land in consequence. He admitted the far-reaching importance of the clause now under the consideration of the House. He thought hon. Gentlemen, if they reflected a little, would see that it did not involve the large startling, and revolutionary change in the law which the right hon. Gentleman opposite would have the House believe.

MR. WALTER LONG

acknowledged the ability of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speeches and the courteous, fair, and kindly manner in which he crossed swords in these discussions, refraining from the insinuations made by others in the debate that the Opposition discussed this question solely from the landlord's point of view. He respectfully differed, however, from the hon. and learned Gentleman when he alleged that the justification of Clause 4 could be founded, not on any evidence of manifest injustice suffered by farmers or on any proved case of hardship, but on the passing of the Act of 1900, which, it was alleged, had already established freedom of cropping. If this was the case, why was it necessary to introduce this clause, which he regarded as one of the most contentious, unnecessary, and mischievous clauses in the Bill? The hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted the opinion of the Secretary of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture and adopted it as his own. He founded his opinion of the effect of the Act of 1900 on its provisions as to temporary pasture. The power to lay down temporary pasture meant the application to the land by the farmer of the four-course or the six-course system, according to the local circumstances; but to ask the House to accept that as a sanction of the freedom of cropping was absurd. There was no justification for saying that freedom of cropping was conferred by the Act of 1900. Much that had been said about the clause giving freedom to the good tenant was humbug. What was wanted he under- stood perfectly well and agreed with it. What was wanted was that there should be no unjust limitation placed on the intelligence and development of his industry by the farmer. If the Government were going to justify this clause they must prove that the present agricultural system limited the intelligence of the British farmer. Could anybody show him that the productive power of England was not greater than that of any other country in the world, except that of Belgium? Nobody had made any suggestion of the kind, or that the productive power of England would be made greater by this proposal. It was said by the supporters of the clause that they wanted to enable a good farmer to make the best possible use of the land at his disposal. But what was ignored was that the land must be looked at, not from the view of the landlord and tenant of to-day, but from the point of view of succeeding generations; not from the view of owners and occupiers, but from the view of the general community, so that the land should be a real asset in the wealth of the nation. Were they doing that by this clause? Not a single case had been produced to show that existing agreements hampered tenants and occupiers or prevented them working the land to the best advantage. There had been talk of good tenants who were held in check by bad landlords; but nothing had been said of cases where in times of agricultural depression, so much heavier, he was happy to say, than it was at present, farms had been taken by men with the deliberate intention of experimenting upon them. Did hon. Gentlemen opposite mean by Clause 4 to enable a tenant to use such skill and capital as he might possess in order to experiment on the land? Unless they could answer that question they had no right to ask for the passage of Clause 4. He maintained that under the law as it at present stood dealing with agricultural improvements, the good tenant farmer could get back every penny he put into the land in the shape of feeding, manuring, or general cultivation. Were they going to give him something else? If so, let them say distinctly to the House what that something was. Was it proposed that the landlord should bring in his fixed capital of the land and of the equipment of the farms, and that the tenant farmer, who could go away to-morrow anywhere, should bring in his moveable capital in the form of cultivation and stock, and have the right to experiment on the land at no risk to himself, but at the sole risk of the landlord? If that was the change proposed it was no exaggeration to call it a revolution; and some better reason ought to be given for this extraordinary change in the land laws of the country. The hon. Gentlemen below the gangway had said that this was a safeguard with regard to experiments in agriculture, and the House was asked to view that as a practical proposal! What did it mean? They might have land vacant for a time during agricultural depression, when there was a difficulty in some parts of the country in letting it. He was happy to say that he had had no difficulty in always getting tenants for his land. Men came from every part of the country and offered to lake land in his district. Let it be supposed, however, that they wore willing to rent the farm, but that they thought the system of cultivation pursued there was altogether wrong, that they desired to cultivate the farm on a totally different system, and that they occupied the land for three years. In the first year everything seemed flourishing; in the second year things were not so good; and in the third year everything was bad. The hon. Gentleman had said that that had been provided for by the clause, because the man who had deteriorated the land had to pay compensation to the landlord. But what was the value of a right to compensation to the landlord from the tenant under these circumstances? On the principle of ex nihilo nihil fit, compensation of that character had no value at all. The man who had ruined the land was not likely to have much money left to pay compensation with. They must frankly do one of two things—either leave the law as it now stood, under which the landlord had to exercise his own control and discretion over the user of the land, or say that the landlord should have merely a nominal right in the soil, and that the tenant should have a right to experiment with it as he liked and run no risk. If the Government believed that, let them lay it down practically, but not come with soft phrases and ask Parliament to accept such a change. If the Government did that, acknowledging frankly that they were proposing a real change in the land laws of the country, then the House would know where they stood. He regarded Clause 4 as the most mischievous Clause in the whole of this bad Bill. He had never concealed his view on the subject. He had had the practical management of land for thirty years, and he only asked that the same, principles of management which prevailed in his part of the country should be followed generally, and he was sure that few evil results would follow. Twenty years ago there was a great alteration in the system of cultivation of land in the country. A large number of farmers adopted the plan of putting down a considerable part of the land in grass; but they did not realise that the successful application of that principle would depend entirely on the soil of the district. If the Government meant that the tenant farmer should be able to make experiments at the expense of the landlord, let them say so. If their object was to secure a good tenant in the occupation of his holding, so that he might he able to do the best for himself, his landlord, and those who came after them, then this clause was not wanted. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had said that he would be prepared to accept the Amendment standing in the name of his hon. friend the Member for South East Durham. He was very glad to hear that. For his part he hoped to have the opportunity of voting that this, clause was bad and mischievous; but he did not suppose that in the existing condition of the House that would have any effect; and therefore he would have to consider the question, not of the ultimate rejection of the clause by the House, but of the acceptance of the clause on the Paper. He would like to have heard the hon. Baronet take that matter up and deal with it and other questions with some courage. Why did he talk about "the general opinion of the House"? A Government with so large a majority ought to have its own decided opinion. Either the hon. Baronet thought the Amendment would improve his Bill, or he did not. On the Opposition side, they thought the Amendment would make a bad Bill a little less bad, and if the clause were not rejected he should be glad to see the Amendment of his hon. friend incorporated in it. He must not, be taken as implying that it would in any way lessen his objection to the vicious principle which the clause contained, but if the House was determined to pass a clause of this kind, then the Amendment would make it a little less objectionable.

*MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith Burghs)

said they had had two very excellent speeches for and against this proposal, but there was not so much involved in the Amendment as in the acceptance or the rejection of the clause. Upon the whole he thought it would be of advantage to agriculture to have freedom of cropping, although he knew there was a great deal to be said against it, and that in some cases great injury would be done to the land under that system. He thought, however, that by means of it the interests of agriculture as a whole would be preserved. In many instances he thought the tenant farmers knew how to work the land better than the proprietors or their agents. He was not quite so sanguine as the Solicitor-General for Scotland in regard to the alteration of systems at one year's notice, but he would willingly risk any evil results from the process of free cropping in order to secure initaitive. He thought that the system on which a farm was to be worked was a good deal determined by the equipment of the buildings on the farm, and if they left the owner with the right to determine exactly what the equipment should be, they left to the owner the determination of the use to which the farm might be put. He was willing to maintain that for the sake of avoiding duality of ownership, the owner should have the right to determine the equipment of the holding, but by giving him that right they, gave him very large power as to the use to which the land should be put. He regarded the clause, improved as it had been, as a very important one. He did not regard it as revolutionary, but as evolutionary—we had been coming to it for a long time.

MR. LANE-FOX

said that many hon. Members would agree with the last speaker in regard to freedom of cropping if the clause contained the necessary safeguards. In a great many cases the covenants as to cropping were not enforced at all, and where tenants were to be trusted, and in his part of the world they were to be trusted, they were unnecessary. Still there must be cases in which tenants could not be trusted. He challenged hon. Members to instance a single case of injustice where good husbandry had been shown. There was not a single case which could be quoted as justifying the sweeping provisions of this clause. In the absence of such allegations there was no genuine case for relief. One serious drawback to the clause was the remedy given to the landlord for bad husbandry by his tenants. It was by injunction, an extremely lengthy and tedious process. The whole essence of dealing with a man who was deteriorating his holding was to deal quickly; otherwise he would do irretrievable injury. There was no adequate provision for retaining in or returning to the soil manurial value. There were certain words in the Bill which he hoped would be explained before the discussion terminated; they were absolutely unsatisfactory, and, as they stood, were of no use for the maintenance of good husbandry. When once the mischief was done they had to do their best to remedy it. The clause ' provided half-hearted remedies which were of no value because of the inherent disadvantage of not being able to deal with the matter at once. The present system gave the landlord a chance to deal with his tenant at once and stop him before he had gone too far. The farmers in the North of England at any rate were perfectly well able to take care of themselves and had no objection to the present law. In Yorkshire he believed they were prepared to stand by the present system, and so for as that part of the country was concerned he believed there had not been any injustice or any deterioration of the soil. He did not believe there was any justification for the statement that the land was by the present system prevented from yielding the best result possible. Were we to part from the present system which had worked exceedingly well in order to adopt a system the result of which we could not know? Was it not safer to retain the system which we had rather than fly to a system of which we had had no experience?

MR. SEDDON (Lancashire, Newton)

said his chief reason for intervening in the debate were the observations that had been made by the right hon. Member for South Dublin. When this Bill was before the House last year he himself made a few strong remarks, and he had been told in letters from various farmers that those statements were absolutely true. The farmer was often the victim of his landlord either for political or other reasons. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin had said he would not be afraid to present his case before any company of tenant farmers. That was true because the company in which he would be when he met the tenant farmers was such that the fanners would be afraid to express their views. The speech of the right hon. Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire was seductive and persuasive and would lead the House to believe that the tenant, farmers in this country had landlords who would look, and who had at all times looked, after the farmer where there was identity of interest between the landlord and the farmer. Where there was this identity of interest this Bill would not come into operation. The fourth clause was to protect and to widen the scope of the operations of the tenant. The right hon. Member had said that at the present time the relationship between the landlord and the tenant tended to apply the accumulated experience of the past to the cultivation of the land leased to the tenant. But while that might be so, there had been occasions where the landlord for sporting or other purposes had inflicted injustice on the tenant, and he took it; that the laws passed by Parliament were always for the protection of men suffering from injustice. He would like to join in the appeal to the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill to stiffen his back. He did so because his circumstances in life brought him in contact more with the tenant farmer than with the landlord. He did not say that every landlord was a villain or that every tenant was a saint, but experience had proved that the landlord could look after himself. He begged the hon. Baronet to remember that the tenant had his living and his position to look after. The landlord could always look after his property. They could give the landlord, the credit of always being able to look after his interests in this House. On this occasion they wanted the tenant farmer to be looked after, and they j hoped that the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill would not accept without due consideration Amendments coming from the landlords.

MR. J. F. MASON (Windsor)

said he did not rise owing to any hostility to the principle of this clause, because he believed that if agriculture was to advance considerable elasticity was needed in the methods by which it was conducted. Personally he had never enforced the cropping clause in his own agreements, but he regarded it as a very valuable safeguard against a tenant who might farm the land in a detrimental manlier. It was but a poor consolation for the taking away of this safeguard to be able to recover damages, which at the best might be a very doubtful process, after the land had been deteriorated. What was wanted was to prevent bad farming and not to raise the necessity for litigation. I If that were the Government's desire he trusted that they would see a way of introducing words more satisfactory than the clause now contained as a safeguard against damage to holdings.

MR. STARKEY (Nottinghamshire, Newark)

thought the tenant would be probably better off under an agreement than under this clause. The object of any agreement was to maintain the fertility of the soil at a certain standard, which could be easily obtained in a particular locality, or by a method which was well-known. In this country, where the land had been cultivated for many centuries, in order to maintain its fertility it was necessary continually to bring back something of that which was taken from the soil. That was the object of an agreement. It seemed that this clause aimed at the same thing, but proposed to bring it about in a totally different manner. The idea of an agreement was that the landlord and tenant by mutual arrangement satisfied one another what was best to be done. But under this clause litigation alone was to settle the matter. That was a most unsatisfactory method of procedure. It was a very arguable question as to how far a tenant had or had not deteriorated his holding. It appeared to him that this clause would be of advantage to the bad tenant and the legal profession. It was not to the interest of a good tenant that the land should deteriorate, and in the interests of the country as a whole it was desirable that the fertility of the soil should be maintained.

MR. NUSSEY (Pontefract)

did not think this clause ought to be called revolutionary; it was nothing of the kind. It was quite true that in some agreements there were a great many restrictions, but as a rule they were mere verbiage. Cases of hardship might arise under this clause, and whether they would be met or not by the words at the end of the clause he did not know. Nevertheless the principle of the clause was a good one, and it had his hearty support. They had heard a good deal about the capital which landlords had put into the erection of farm buildings and spent upon improvements, but it should not be overlooked that the tenants also had sunk a large amount of capital in farming operations. After all, the tenant farmers country were not mere novices; they knew how a farm ought to be farmed to the best advantage just as well as the land agent or the landowner. Therefore he thought the tenant fanners might safely be entrusted in nine cases out of ten with the cropping of their farms. They had heard a good deal about; the cropping of farms in an extravagant manner, but how was it possible to stop a farmer doing this if he liked? After all, they did not pretend to legislate for exceptional cases, but for the general good. The supporters of the Government had been challenged to produce hard cases, but had any hard cases been produced by the Opposition? He hoped the Government would stick to the clause which on the whole would benefit agriculture by giving farmers greater freedom.

SIR JOHN RANDLES (Cockermouth)

said it had been urged on the Ministerial side that there was a demand for this clause and that it granted certain privileges which already more or loss existed. With regard to the alleged demand he could not speak either as a landlord or as a tenant, but he had had comparatively recent opportunities of ascertaining how far the tenant farmers in his constituency were inter- ested in the Bill and in this clause in particular. He desired to say that there was not a single tenant farmer in his constituency, which was largely agricultural, who cared one straw about this particular measure. In the course of the recent electoral contest in his constituency, he did not think that one single tenant farmer either directly or indirectly asked him to support a measure of this kind. He believed there was a strong desire to retain good relations on the part of the tenants with good landlords, but at the same time there was a danger lest the operation of a clause like this should lead to the good landlords being made to pay either directly or indirectly for the experiments of reckless tenants of which nothing could prevent their being made the victims. It had been said that no one need fear a righteous law, but the tenant might have reason to fear a law which might not be righteous. He thought this clause was admirably calculated to produce friction between landlord and tenant. Very great difficulties might arise, because a large number of the landlords were under monetary obligations in regard to their land, which was often heavily mortgaged. There was a strong desire on the part of farmers to maintain good relations with their landlords, but those relations were likely to be destroyed by the espionage, litigation, and friction the clause would encourage. There was danger also that the tenants might suffer from the necessity for imposing increased rents arising from the pressure of mortgagees, who might apprehend shrinkage in the value of their land security from the operation of such a clause.

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put." but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

MR. WHITBREAD (Huntingdonshire, Huntingdon)

regretted that some Amendment to this clause had not been placed on the Paper by the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill, but in the absence of any Government Amendment they must content themselves with voting for such Amendments as they might find it possible to accept. He certainly hoped that before this clause passed through the Report stage it would be amended and safeguarded in several directions, The Solicitor-General for Scotland by taking two clauses from the Act of 1900, and one from the Act of 1873, had finally arrived at a position which was somewhat startling. The hon. and learned Gentleman had assured them that the stipulations in the agreements which; limited the freedom of cropping on the part of the tenant were all moonshine, and that, as a matter of fact, the present law allowed a tenant the fullest freedom. He was not himself a lawyer, and therefore was not in a position to dispute that statement, but he knew, as hon. Members who were acquainted with agriculture in this country knew, that, subject to certain limitations, landlords were only too glad ' to allow- tenants freedom of cropping, as far they liked, so long as they did not deteriorate or permanently alter the land from the condition it was in when they went into the farms. The tenant had practical freedom of cropping so long as his farming operations produced fertility of the soil. The objection he had to the present form of the clause was that it encouraged an adventurous, and possibly not very successful, tenant, to try experiments with the holding and permanently to change its character contrary to the terms of the agreement. Unless this clause was amended it would allow a tenant to change an arable farm into one of almost entirely permanent pasture. In this connection he might mention incidentally that it was certainly worth while for hon. Members who were enthusiastic on the subject of bringing the people back to the land to remember that the more permanent pasture there was on a farm the less demand there was for agricultural labourers. But he had a more serious objection to the freedom of cropping and the freedom to change the character of a holding. They had heard a good deal from both sides of the House of the relations between and the respective claims of landlord and tenant, but there was in all these matters another party whose interests had not up to now been very much mentioned. After all, the test of a man's farming was the condition of his holding when he left it. It was just when a tenant left a holding and the owner had to look out for a fresh tenant that the interest of the person on whose behalf he pleaded came in. He meant the incoming tenant. If a tenant was allowed "to skin a farm" as it was called—to farm it no doubt quite honestly, and with the best intentions, but to try experiments in cropping and leave it in a foul and exhausted condition, it was all very well to say that the landlord could get an injunction, or that he could sue the tenant for damages, but what landlord ever succeeded in getting or would ever attempt or wish to attempt to get damages out of the tenant? What he was afraid of was that this clause might result in the character of the holding being changed, or of the soil being deteriorated to such an extent as to limit the number of possible tenants who might be able to take it. He knew an estate where the soil was of a light sort, suitable for the growing of vegetables. It was very largely farmed by vegetable farmers, who sank considerable capital in the land and employed a large number of hands to work it. On the whole they were successful. There were also upon the same estate a certain number of tenants who belonged to the older school of four-course farmers—men of limited capital, and perhaps nowadays, it might be said, restricted ideas as to cultivation. After all, they made a steady and moderate profit, and it would be a cruel and inadvisable thing if a tenant in changing the character of the holding made it such that it would be impossible for a tenant of that nature to take it. It was because he feared this clause, if unamended, might offer scope, and even encouragement, to risky, unwise, and perhaps unsuccessful farmers permanently to alter, change and deteriorate the character of the holdings, that, although he wished to vote for the clause he would hold himself entirely free to support any Amendment, from whatever quarter of the House it was proposed, which appeared to safeguard the true interests of the soil and of agriculture.

MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)

said the hon. Member for Huntingdon had made a speech which must impress the House, because it was the speech of a man who knew what life in the rural districts was like and who was not prepared suddenly to introduce a great change without giving that change and its possible consequences the grave and deliberate consideration which it demanded. At the beginning of his speech the hon. Member expressed surprise that the Government themselves had not put down some Amendments to this clause. As it stood it was of a revolutionary character, and was drafted in terms which would not commend themselves to anyone who knew anything of the life of rural England. The hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill had altogether misconceived the situation. His right hon. friend the Member for South Dublin, who for thirty years had taken a prominent part in benefiting the agriculture of the country, had complained that there had been no defence of the clause. Since that speech there had been no defence of the clause from any member of the Government. The only defence had been made by the hon. Member for Leith Burghs, who, in a very interesting and able speech, had put forward some arguments not for keeping the clause as it stood, but as the raw material of a clause which might be improved by ' grafting upon it subsequent Amendments. Most of the arguments against the clause had turned on the question of justice between the landlord and tenant. But much more than that was involved. This, clause would be interpreted not only by the law courts but by the landlords and tenants of the country. Parliament could not legislate in regard to agriculture without giving a bent to the customs of the country in the future, although they did not know what direction that bent would take; and when it was laid down by law that in future it was to be the tenant and not the landlord that was to guide the policy of farming, they were embarking on a great social and economic change. Such a change should only be made after long deliberation. They could not more effectually throw power and responsibility from one class to another than ' when they said that no contracts or agreements, however binding, were to stand. Therefore, this clause involved far more than the relations between landlord A and tenant B. The hon. Member for Leith Burghs, who alone had defended the clause with some agriculturad; knowledge, had great doubt about its full effect. He had said that the equipment of the farm would still be left to the landlord, but far more would be involved than that. He had said that this question turned on initiative. He had argued very well, but he had balanced, and, had decided if anything, that more initia- tive would be got from the tenant farmer than from the owner. But even if that were so, the argument was not an adequate defence of the clause. He (Mr. Wyndham) did not think that the landlords of the country need be ashamed of the part they had taken in the matter, for they had not only taken the initiative in England but had shown an example to farmers in other parts of the world, whose prosperity pressed upon us so heavily here. And where could not a tenant farmer be found who was not imitating the example set by progressive landlords, whose names were honoured everywhere because of the initiative they had taken in advancing agriculture? He was not saying for a moment that all the initiative had rested with the landlords. On the contrary, the tenants had often shown the best initiative, and he did not deny that many landlords took narrow and hide-bound views. But even if it were conceded that the tenants had all the ideas in regard to scientific and progressive farming, that would not be a defence of the clause. Who was likely to put the most capital into the land to work out ideas—the landlord who had a permanent interest in the land or the tenant who went from one farm to another, from one county to another, or even from England to one of our Colonies? Which of the two classes was most likely to back up progressive ideas with adequate capital? It was the landlord who was-entitled to initiative, because he was the man who stood to gain or lose most, and if he lost the whole country lost, and that was against the sound progress of the agricultural industry. But initiative-was not all: capital was not all. There was something else. They could not regard this matter merely in its relation as between landlord and tenant in respect of one holding. All holdings were related to each other: and they owed something to a comprehensive view of agriculture; that was to say, in respect to the position or condition of many holdings of totally distinct types. In regard to an industry so closely connected with other industries, such as railways and motor vans, if the farmers were destroyed their places would be taken by-large syndicates running upon scientific lines of development in regard not only to production but to transit and other matters. They knew there were a number of prospective farmers ready to come in and run the farms upon lines approved in regard to each particular county. At present the class of the community represented by landlord and tenant formed, say, fifty out of 500 in those happy districts to which desolation had not yet come. The other people in these districts had, however, their rights as well as landlords and tenants, and had a right to look forward to conservative changes for their benefit. If, however, the one man in possession—the tenant—was given the power to change the character of the farm, it would shut out all improvement. The result would be to stereotype the new conditions in favour of one class as against the other classes.

*MR. TOMKINSON (Cheshire, Crewe)

said that in his opinion the clause was a very valuable and good one, and gave freedom of cultivation and freedom to carry on a very important industry in the best possible manner. At present a farmer might farm his land in the very best manner, and although under his agreement debarred from breaking up certain grass fields, he might break one up, an instance of which he knew, with the agent on the spot taking no exception to his action. It was well known that grass fields which had laid down for half a century were often better for being broken up, because the grass became sour and the cattle would not graze there. Yet, although the tenant had pursued a good course of husbandry on that field, put on artificial manure and finished off with clover, making it a very much better field than it was before, with the agent standing by—although no expense he had incurred was allowed for—there was exacted from him a penalty of £10 per acre for breaking up that particular field.

MR. WALTER LONG

said that that must have been before the Act of 1900.

*MR. TOMKINSON

said he was quite aware of that, but he heard the right hon. Gentleman state that the Act of 1883 and 1900 must be read together.

MR. WALTER LONG

remarked that what he said was that the Act of 1900 rendered the penal clauses of the Act of 1883 illegal. The penal clauses had therefore nothing to do with the subject they were discussing.

*MR. TOMKINSON

asked what then, after all, was the objection to the clause? Were not right hon. and hon. Gentlemen making a mountain out of a molehill? Was it not an unnecessary waste of time to discuss the matter further? It certainly did seem rather strange to him that the right hon. Gentleman and the Party opposite wore never tired of saying how excellent relations were between landlord and tenant; but the moment they asked them to put a principle into practice and to give the tenants a little more power and freedom, their proposals were denounced as revolutionary. He appealed to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in their own interest to allow this clause to pass.

MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH (Derbyshire, West)

said they had been waiting anxiously throughout the course of this debate for some adequate reason for the introduction of this clause into the Bill. The case which the hon. Member for Crowe had cited had nothing to do with the subject, because the case would have come under the previous Act, which would have prevented anything of the kind from happening. Even before that Act it would have been possible for an arbitrator to decide in regard to what had happened to the field. The whole clause needed a great deal more justification than had been given to it. They were asked, without justification, to tear up all agreements, and place in the hands of tenant-farmers the power of cultivating the land according to what might seem the best course for the moment. He had some knowledge upon this subject, and, he asked, was there any justification for saying that the agreements under which tenant farmers held the land acted injuriously to agriculture as a whole? It was possible that they prevented a tenant farmer from having that immediate turnover which he might otherwise have, but the carrying on of the great industry of agriculture could not be said to be analogous to the keeping of a shop, where an immediate turnover was necessary for the well-being of the shopkeeper. He asked the Government to give some adequate reason for the assertion that the agreements under which tenants held had proved disastrous to agriculture as a whole. It had been said that landlords knew nothing of their land, and that they restricted their tenants from cultivating it in the best manner. There were very few landlords in this country who would not gladly assist their tenants, and help them in every way, if the tenants could show them that they saw a better means of cultivation, under which the land would yield better results. But they required to be shown that the system was better. This clause would produce fundamental changes and would place a very heavy and unenviable duty on the landlords of the country. It would be necessary for them in the future, instead of allowing their tenants to cultivate the land to the best of their ability, to watch them and endeavour to find out what they were doing in the cultivation of the soil. He ventured to say that the tenant might be considered to be a reasonable human being, and that when he took a farm he knew what he was doing that when he signed an agreement he knew what he was about, and that he was an honourable man and intended to adhere to the bargain he made. There was no reason to believe that tenants to-day had been forced to make agreements and to put their signatures to documents which they knew to be wrong. Before they agreed to a fundamental change in the law of this kind they were entitled to some further explanations from the Government.

MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey)

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

MR. BARKER (Penryn and Falmouth)

said as he had some land perhaps his experience as a farmer might be of interest. He had two farms which he tilled himself under no restrictions, and he had four farms which he let and which were tilled without restrictions. Those farms were, he believed, throughly well tilled, and there was no agreement except that the land when given up should be in the same condition as when it was taken. He was one who did not believe in divided responsibility. He thought many farmers knew a great deal more as to how the land should be tilled than the landlords themselves, and he believed that if landowners let their land at a fair rate and gave absolute freedom in tilling they would get far better results than by the imposition of such restrictions as were put upon land in some instances. He would like hon. Gentlemen opposite who were afraid to trust the British farmer to see the land that was tilled under the conditions of which he had spoken. He believed the more liberty that was given to the tenant the better it would be for the landlord.

MR. ABEL SMITH

thought the argument of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down really strengthened the view of those who did not want to restrain good tenants from carrying out forms of agriculture which they believed to be most advantageous to themselves and the land they farmed; but they thought that the owner should have some voice in regard to experiments which might prove disastrous to the tenant and the land he cultivated. This clause was an absolutely new departure. Was it really going to be of such great benefit to the tenant farmers? Was it a genuine clause? He maintained that it was a fraud. It contradicted itself. If it were absolutely necessary for the prosperity of agriculture in this country that the tenant farmers should have absolute freedom of cultivation, why did the promoters of this Bill and the Government who had taken it up at the eleventh hour immediately begin to make exceptions in the clause? If this clause were going to confer such great benefits on agriculture they ought not to admit any of those exceptions. In his opinion, the clause was absolutely unnecessary, because any farmer who carried on his business in such a manner as to maintain the fertility of his holding enjoyed as much freedom of cultivation as he could possibly want. In his own experience he had never known any of these restrictive clauses put in force. The clause, besides being absolutely unnecesary, did not carry out what it professed in a logical and complete manner. The tenants had practically freedom of cultivation at the present time, and there was no justification under present conditions for taking the control of the land out of the hands of the owners, and placing it in the hands of men who were simply the occupiers of the land. He hoped the Government's supporters would take up a reasonable attitude on this question, and accept Amendments which would give some real security to those who were entitled to look to Parliament for protection in this matter.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER

thought it was quite time they came to a decision on this question. After all, the tenant who worked on a farm was the best judge of how the farm ought to be cultivated, and he ought, by law, to have freedom of cultivation. That was the point at issue. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had stated that this clause was a great revolution, and that it was much better for the landlord to retain control of the cultivation of the land. The only point they had to decide at the present moment was whether the landlord or the tenant should have control of the cultivation. He hoped they would vote upon that question, and when they came to the words of the clause he was quite sure that the Opposition would find the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill quite ready to accept reasonable Amendments. There was one reasonable Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South East Durham, but that was not the question they were now debating. He thought it was quite time the House came to a decision on the question whether the landlord or the tenant ought to control the cultivation of the soil.

MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on Trent)

said he had followed this debate from the very beginning, and had listened to the arguments on both sides. Several speakers had stated that Clause 4 was a revolutionary proposal. He took it for granted that the real principle of the clause was contained in the words "a tenant shall have the whole right to cultivate, crop, or dispose of the produce of his holding without incurring any penalty." That really was the principle of the clause, and consequently that was what was supposed to be democratic and revolutionary. He was afraid that this Parliament would see many proposals far more revolutionary than that before very long. The Members of the Opposition, by their hostility to the attempts now being made by the Government to mitigate some of the evils of peasant proprietors and cultivators of land, would make it possible to bring about far more revolutionary proposals than those they were now considering. A mere stupid, senseless hostility to reforms which had been proved to be necessary would only lead to more extreme proposals being made later on. It had been said by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, that no defence had been made of this clause by the Government. He wished to remind them that the Solicitor-General for Scotland had made a statement which lasted about twenty minutes explaining this clause. He explained that it was only carrying out a principle taken from the Acts of 1900 and 1883, and showed very clearly that there was nothing revolutionary in it at all. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, who was not in his place when the Solicitor-General for Scotland made his statement, and the right hon. Member for West Derbyshire had complained that no explanation of the clause had been given, in spite of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman representing the Opposition had thanked the hon. and learned Gentleman for his lucid explanation. Considering that a great number of the hon. Gentlemen who were now asking for explanations could have had those explanations if they had been present earlier in the evening, he thought they must agree with the hon. Member for Lichfield that to a great extent they were absolutely wasting time. The question was simply whether they agreed with the words that "a tenant shall have full light to cultivate, crop, or dispose of the produce of his holding without incurring any such penalty." That was the sole principle involved, and if hon. Members opposed that principle let them say so. He should like the country generally to understand that the opposition to the clause was not due to any want of explanation of the principle, but because they did not believe in the principle itself.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said the hon. Member for Stoke made it a matter of reproach to his hon. friends and himself that they were not present at the time when what the hon. Member described as the able and lucid defence of this clause was delivered by the representative of the Government.

MR. J. WARD

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin so described it.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he was sure that the defence was able and lucid, because the Solicitor-General for Scotland never spoke in this House without deserving such an eulogy. He himself had been present from a quarter to four till a quarter past eight. He was aware that under the ingenious rules passed by the present Government the House was supposed to be able to legislate without eating, but he unfortunately, was not superior to the ordinary needs of humanity, and unless his observation deceived him the same lamentable weakness was to be found among hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for Stoke who had reproached them with this want of endurance was himself absent continuously until he addressed the House, but he was too modest to admit the fart. He had politely informed the Opposition that they were too senseless and stupid to carry out reform or to deal with change when change became necessary. He was surprised to hear that statement from the hon. Gentleman, for he understood from other portions of his remarks, that the lucid speech of the Solicitor-General for Scotland was devoted to showing that the Government were trying to bring to perfection the legislation of the Conservative Government, of 1900. The Government had no word to say in support of their own proposal except that in their opinion it carried out the policy of the "senseless and stupid" party of whom the hon. Gentleman made his polite references. The principle which seemed so obvious to hon. Gentlemen opposite was that it was to the farmer and not to the landlord that the guidance of the cultivation of this country should be entrusted wholly and without control. He did not think that was a principle which was at all obvious or plain. He supposed if he talked about the rights of property that would be regarded in this assembly as a ludicrous and antiquated suggestion. He would defer, as he always endeavoured to do, to the prejudices of the audience he happened to be addressing, and he would refer to that unpleasant theme as little as he decently could, but he must in passing and parenthetically, remind the House that to say that land which was owned by a man was to be taken entirely cut of his own control in every particular if he happened to let it for the purpose of cultivation appeared to him to be a very violent paradox. Let him remind the House that it was not merely the soil that the land owners owned; they owned more than half the capital on which the tenants of this country worked. To hear some Gentlemen talk one would think that the ordinary English or Scottish landlord owned simply an unimproved area, and that all the capital for working a farm was supplied by the tenant. Well, that was not the fact. It had not the remotest resemblance to the tact. Not only was the land owned by the landowner but all the permanent capital was owned by the landowner. It was provided very often from borrowed money, he regretted to say, but still it belonged to him. He had invested his own money and the money of his children in it, and to say that they should not only require that his land should be cultivated in the way somebody else desired to cultivate it, but that his capital also was to be used, not as he wanted it to be used, but as somebody else wanted to use it, was one of the most violent paradoxes which could be put forward in an assembly which still accepted the principle of private property. He was aware that it was not a principle which was accepted by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. It was the private property of the farmer that hon. Gentlemen were anxious about, and there was no approach to the collectivism dear to their hearts, or to nationalisation of the land, in any of the proposals of this measure. He believed it would be admitted on all sides of the House that this was a very violent interference with the ordinary and natural rights of a man who owned the land which he had bought and the capital he had expended upon it. Was there any justification from the point of view of public policy for overriding the presumption that a man might have some right to conduct his own property as he chose? He assumed that the view of the hon. Gentleman was a very simple one, and that it was founded on the fact that if they left it to the landlords to lay down the lines of agricultural policy they would do the best for the country, and the best in the interests of the farmer himself as well as of the landlord. The history of agriculture in this country was not a history of which either the landlords or the tenants need be ashamed. They had been in all matters appertaining to the cultivation of the soil the pioneers of the world—in the East, on the Continent of Europe, and in the great West. They were the great breeders of stock; the great inventors of agricultural methods; and they had always been most eager to carry out new improvements. Owners and occupiers claimed a share in that great advance. They had been told that the landlords had a margin of capital over the tenants, and had been more ready to risk their capital in agricultural improvements. Well, if that were admitted, and there could be no question of it as an historical fact, to which class would one most naturally entrust the permanent qualities of the soil? He agreed with hon. Gentlemen below the gangway that the landlords, the tenants, and the whole community had an interest in seeing that the land was used to the best advantage; but whom would they naturally make the trustee of the fertility of the soil? The men who dealt with it for a year or two, or the men whose interest in it was of a permanent character, and who had got the land through a long line of ancestors, and hoped to leave it to a long line of successors? They all knew that the vast majority of the tenants and landlords of the country were on an absolute parity as to their interest in husbandry; but there were tenants who desired to derive the greatest advantage from their tenancy as against the permanent good of the land. Therefore, they had to admit that it was not impossible — it came within their own experience—that the interests of the tenants might not always be identical with the interests of the permanent qualities of the soil. But there never could be a permanent conflict of interests between the community and the landlord. The man who had not only the natural right to the land, because he had either bought it or inherited it, but had invested in it in a great measure the permanent capital by which it was worked, had the right to guard the interests of the soil, and to say how that soil was to be used. He was sure that that was a policy consistent with the interests of the agricultural labourer. The hon. Member for Huntingdon had told the House that by this clause they would give power to the man whose connection with the farm might be absolutely temporary to drive away nine-tenths of the agricultural labourers from the land whether the landlord liked it or not. The Government had shown no sense of the importance of the problem with which they were dealing, and the whole conduct of the Bill had been left to lawyers and Court officials. No Cabinet Minister would touch it with the tip of his finger. They naturally left it to those who were acting under orders, and to whom responsibility could not be attached in connection with measures of this kind. The hon. and learned Gentleman, of whose capacity he would not think of speaking without the highest respect, had never come to the merits or the policy of this clause. The very able and distinguished, but necessarily subordinate officials, upon whom the Government had thrown the burden of defending the Bill, had only fallen back upon legal precedents and arguments, and had utterly failed to explain the policy which ought to underlie so great a change as that which was here proposed. He ventured to make the third appeal which had been made from that bench to the Government to defend their own clause. This they had up to now refused to do, except by references to the Act of 1900. There might be some Cabinet Ministers on the Treasury Bench—yes, there were two at the end. Doubtless in the recesses of the Cabinet the high policy which dictated this clause had been thrashed out in their presence and with their sanction. The members of the Government were not senseless; they were not stupid; they were great statesmen; let them not shield themselves under the incompetence of their predecessors. Let them come forward in their own glory and let the House hear what were the real reasons for the policy which had led them to father this strange legislative abortion.

*MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

laid the farmers of Lincolnshire wanted his clause, and he ventured to say they were as good and clever farmers as there were in Europe. One of the best and cleverest farmers in Lincolnshire was asked to sign an agreement which limited his freedom of cropping. He refused to sign that agreement, and although he had been on the estate all his life and his father before him, he was turned out because he demanded the freedom of cropping which he got on another farm. That was why the Lincolnshire farmer desired this clause, but anyone who listened to right hon. and hon. Members opposite would imagine that there was no need for it, and that everything was managed in the best of all possible way in the best of all possible worlds. He remembered a statement by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that agriculture was dead, and nearly all the hon. Members opposite had been going up and down the country saying it was dead, or at all events, that agriculture was depressed; that the landlords were being ruined; that the tenants were being ruined; that the labourers were dismissed; that the industry was an absolute failure, and they proposed a most drastic remedy which the country had rejected by an overwhelming majority. Now, however, when a Liberal Government came forward and suggested a moderate and temperate remedy, not a harsh one such as right hon. Gentlemen opposite proposed, but one which met with the approval of the tenant farming class, and partly transferred the management of the land to the farmers from the class which had confessed, professed and advertised its failure, then right hon. and hon. Members came forward and said the present system was successful though, in order to resuscitate it, they were ready to tax the food of the people of this country.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said that during the fourteen years he had had the honour of having a seat in this House he could recollect no debate upon any great or important question which had been conducted in the way in which this debate had been. The House knew that originally this Bill was not a Government Bill, but they did not understand until that day that in fathering the Bill the Government had absolved themselves from all responsibiity for defending it, and that the Opposition were to have no answers to the arguments they brought forward against it, or if they had any they were to come from private individuals who had originally brought in the Bill but who had ceased to have any responsibility for conducting it. Alter the last remarks of the hon. Member for Sleaford he should think that even the Government would feel that there was some inconvenience in leaving the defence of Government measures to individuals. The hon. Member had invited the House to a discussion of the fiscal question as it affected agriculture. That was his sole object in rising. [Cries of "No."] Hon. Gentlemen should not contradict him, because the hon. Member for Sleaford was in his place, and would correct him if he was wrong.

MR. LUPTON

said he certainly would do so. His object was to show that the landlords had confessed their incapacity to manage the land, and therefore on their own showing it was necessary to have a change of management.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said he was wrong in stating that the sole object of the hon. Member was to raise the fiscal question. He confessed he was wrong, and he apologised, but if that was not his object he could not have more effectually done so than by the statements he had made. Nothing would have restrained him from following the hon. Member on that topic except that having been a Member of the House longer than the hon. Member he knew that he would be out of order if he did so. But he did rise to make a protest against the conduct of the Government. The Government had treated this measure rightly, perhaps, inasmuch as they had declined to argue it. They had also dealt rightly with the clause from that standpoint, but under these circumstances how was the House to proceed with the discussion? There was no attempt to defend the Bill by the Government, and against it arguments were answered by the laughter of Ministerialists, who forgot that their rôle was to be the defence of the interests of the tenant farmers and behaved as if they were at a farce. The silence of the Government was not decent, but it was more decent than the noisy interruption of their followers. Three times in the course of the debate serious appeals had been made to the Cabinet Ministers who were recently present, but who, when attention was called to their presence, unlike strangers under the present rules of the House, withdrew. It was a pretty state of things that when they called attention to the presence of strangers they remained, but when they called attention to the presence of Ministers they withdrew. Serious appeals had been made by his right hon. friend and no answer had been attempted. No reply had been given to his right hon. friend the Member for West Derbyshire who had challenged the Government to show the necessity for such a clause as this. Two attempts were made but not by the Government. One hon. Member illustrated his arguments by a case in which permanent pasture was broken up and in which great penalties wore imposed on the tenants. But that was no answer to this Bill because the case was taken under the Act of 1900.

MR. URE

was understood to say that the Act of 1900 did not apply.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

asked wheather the hon. and learned Gentleman would say that this Act would apply. He would not. That was quite sufficient for his (Mr. Chamberlain's) purpose. This Bill would not remedy that defect. The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that this Bill would not deal with that case. There had been two defences. The hon. Member for Penryn defended the clause because he desired that a tenant should cultivate a farm as he thought best, provided only that he left the land in the same condition as it was when he took it over. This Bill would not allow that. This clause made the tenant the arbiter of how the land should be cultivated, subject to his leaving the land in the same condition in which it was when he took it. But who settled that condition? The landlord laid down that condition. No defence had been given by the Government, no answer had been given to his right hon. friend the Member for South Dublin, who pointed out the danger there was of the tenant permanently deteriorating the land. There had been no answer to his right hon. friend the Member for Dover, who called attention to the higher interest of having an estate managed as a whole in the interest of the whole, when the interest of the whole was possibly different from the interest of a particular tenant, and where it was a matter of great importance to those concerned, that the whole produce of an estate should be marketed on the most advantageous terms, and when in order to get low railway rates it was necessary to have a homogenity of tenure. There had been no answer from any quarter of the House to the point raised by the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire, reinforced by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that they were putting it in the power of a tenant who might be a temporary dweller in a particular district permanently to deprive of their sustenance the great bulk of the labourers. There had been no attempt to answer the point of principle raised by his right hon. friend as to who was the best guardian of the permanent interests of the land, the land owner who by himself and his descendants represented people who had a permanent interest in the land, or the tenant who might be the occupier of the land only for a short period. Hon. Gentlemen below the gangway defended the Bill, but they were not very enthusiastic. Their appeal was not so much on behalf of tenant farmers as because they were looking to the national ownership of of land. Did hon. Members below the gangway suggest that there would be no restrictions when the State owned the land? There was land owned by the State now vested in the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and having regard to what took place at the accession of the late Queen and the present King, Crown Lands would always be vested in the Commissioners of Woods and Forests and be surrendered in return for grants from the Civil List. Was that a condition of ownership which hon. Gentlemen below the gangway would like to see extended? Had hon. Members ever read a Crown lease? Crown leases were far more exacting than the leases granted by any private owner in this country. None of these points had been dealt with by the Government, and those on the Treasury Bench, representing the Government, sat in silence or took turn and turn about to gag debate and move the closure. Cabinet Ministers lurked behind the Speaker's chair, or flew from the House when attention was drawn to their presence. Serious arguments had been left unanswered, and he had never known a Government attempt to carry on the business of the country in such a way He had known five Houses of Commons and he had not yet seen the House of Commons which would have submitted to be treated in this way. As a protest against the conspiracy of silence which had been adopted by the Government, he begged leave to move "That this debate be now adjourned."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)

MR. GEORGE WHITELEY

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not persist in his Motion. He did not suppose that the House very much wished to sit after Christmas, and if they did not wish to sit for an inordinate length it was absolutely necessary that they should get through the Report stage of this Bill tomorrow night. This Bill would have been discussed on the Report stage for seven days in this House and nine days were spent upon it in Committee. It was absolutely necessary that they should finish the Bill to-morrow night. [OPPOSITION cries of "Why?"] Perhaps the Government might be allowed to manage the business of the House. He suggested that they should conclude Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill to-night and the rest of the Bill to-morrow night, and he trusted hon. Members silting on the Ministerial side would remain in force in order to carry out this intention.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

asked was there ever a more extraordinary position? Whatever else might be said of this Bill nobody would deny that it touched very great interests and raised questions of a very controversial character. They wore now left without a single Cabinet Minister on the Treasury Bench, and they were being lead not by the Leader of the House but by the Chief Whip. He was sure the hon. Member had every qualification, but he knew from long experience that on an occasion like this it was not usual for that to be done. If the Leader of the House was kept away by any necessity the House regretted it, but where was the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary for War? Why were they not having the help and guidance of some responsible Member of the Government? The hon. Gentleman had stated that he expected to get Clauses 4 and 5 to-night, but it was impossible to do that. He did not mean it was impossible if they sat con- tinuously for a long period, but that they could not pass both those clauses to-night and adequately discuss them. To ask for Clauses 4 and 5 to be passed during that sitting was really asking for something that was impossible.

MR. GEORGE WHITELEY

said the House sat till four o'clock "the next afternoon" upon the Agricultural Rating Bill when the right hon. Gentleman himself tried to get that measure through the House.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he remembered that Bill very well, because he was Leader of the House and he sat up. As the hon. Gentleman had mentioned that measure he might say he thought it was an instructive parallel. The Agricultural Rating Bill embodied a single narrow principle with no important details of machinery. The principle might have been right or wrong, but the majority of the House thought it was right and the minority thought it was wrong. It was a narrow simple issue discussed on the First Reading at great length, and after the Second Reading they had the Committee stage in the House, and although that measure did not command unanimity the great mass of Radical agricultural Members supported it. Did it offer any parallel to this Bill which had not been discussed on the Second Reading at all, which was withdrawn from the House on the Committee stage, and which came before the House now practically for the first time? The Patronage Secretary now desired that they should take Clauses 4 and 5 in one night, beginning at eight o'clock and going on to some indefinite period in the morning. He thought that was profoundly unreasonable. If they searched the records of the last Parliament or any Parliament they would not find a parallel case. If the hon. Member thought that the debate on this clause had lasted a very long time, who was responsible for that? Why, the Government who had refused to answer the questions put to them. They had in terms varying from earnest requests to invective tried to induce hon. Gentlemen opposite to tell them why they wished to carry out this great scheme and they had failed. One Scottish lawyer had spoken upon the subject from the legal point of view with great ability, but no Cabinet Minister had spoken, and the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill had not done more than indicate that he was prepared to accept certain Amendments. Nobody had defended the Bill from the Government Benches. That was not the way to get through the business. He agreed that there was a point after which it was useless for the Government to attempt to reply, but that was after they had made their case out, and put their arguments seriously before the House. He wished to say two things to the Government. In the first place he wished to point out that the way to get through the business was not deliberately to refuse to answer serious arguments seriously; and secondly, he wished to observe that the notion of pressing through proposals of this great importance—which had never been discussed in the whole House—in the small hours of the night and the early hours of the morning was not good for the House of Commons, for the conduct of the business, or for the interests of the Government themselves.

MR. HALDANE

did not think the challenge which the Leader of the Opposition had just uttered ought to pass unnoticed. The principle of this clause had been debated since eight o'clock. It was a clause which embodied an important principle, but the Government were most anxious to meet right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. What he desired to say was that there was a serious interest taken in this measure in the agricultural constituencies. They had now been discussing this clause for four-and-a-half hours. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman opposite called those personal diatribes to which they listened a short time ago debate. He confessed he should like to have heard something which touched the principle of the Bill, because the question was one, he agreed, of great moment. The result of all the debate had been to prove that it was useless to make offers of concessions. [An HON. MEMBER: You have not tried it.] The exigencies of a busy department had prevented his being present throughout the debate, but he had followed the proposed compromise with some interest. (OPPOSITION cries of: "What compromise?") It was an Amendment from their own side of the House. This Question had been debated as if it had never been before Parliament and the country before. He held that there had been ample opportunity for discussion, and that it was high time this part of the debate was brought to a conclusion. Therefore the Government would resist the Motion which had been made.

MR. WALTER LONG

said the right hon. Gentleman had stated that on this side they had rejected the overtures made from the other side. The only overture made was by the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill, and what was it? The right hon. Gentleman called it a compromise. It was a faint indication, guarded in the most careful way, that the Government might accept the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for South-East Durham if the House generally approved. The Secretary of State for War was not present when he asked the hon. Baronet what he meant by the term "if the House generally approved." In reply the hon. Baronet made a most remarkable statement. He altered the original words, and said that the Amendment would be adopted if the Opposition side of the House approved of it. The right hon. Gentleman had fallen back on the argument that this Bill was debated nine days in Committee. Yes, but who had been present upstairs to defend the measure on behalf of the Government? Throughout the whole of those proceedings there was no Cabinet Minister present, nor had the Committee the advantage of the advice of any law officer of the Crown except a Scottish law officer. The fact that the Bill was debated nine days upstairs was no reason why it should now be forced through the House. The right hon. Gentleman could allow this debate to be continued, but he could not alter the fact that the clause they were discussing contained a vital principle in connection with land legislation. Practical Questions had been asked, but they had not been answered except by private Members. He and his friends had endeavoured to unravel the mystery in connection with the clause, but they had not succeeded, and no Motion for the adjournment of a debate was ever better justified.

MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)

said he did not associate himself with the persistent opposition to this Bill, but at the same time he recognised that, looking on the principles raised by the measure, it was not desirable, even in the interest of those who wished to see it passed, that it should be rushed through the House in the dead of night without due and adequate consideration. The Patronage Secretary's desire to get to the end of the fifth clause that night was a very laudable one, but he knew from his experience of Parliamentary warfare that to carry by the mere force a large majority any proposal, however reasonable they might consider it, was not after all in the real interest of the Government or the measure they brought forward. He had heard with surprise the comparison of the procedure on this Bill with that on the Agricultural Eating Bill. What was the history of that measure? It was brought forward at night. [Interruption.] He was not going to be bullied down by the opposition of hon. Members on his own side of the House. He did not change his opinions even if he changed the side of the House on which he sat. The Agricultural Rating Bill was brought on after twelve o'clock, and the discussion of the measure was objected to on the ground that the public had no opportunity of knowing what was going on. That was an important measure. This also was an important measure. In the best interests of the Government it was not wise to keep the House sitting after midnight to discuss measures of any great importance. What was the intention of the House when the eleven o'clock rule was suspended When a Motion for the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule was carried, it did not necessarily mean that the House should sit all night. It meant that the House should not adjourn at 11 o'clock, but it did not deny the right of the House to adjourn at 11.30 or 12.30. He had taken this position all along; and he warned hon. Members who were new to the House, and he did so with great respect, that the history of the Opposition during the last twenty years showed the futility of the Government of the day trying to push measures through after 12 o'clock. Eight hours a day was quite long enough for hon. Members to sit, just as eight hours a day was quite long enough for labourers outside to work. He spoke in the interests of legislation itself. Not only so, the House had its duty to discharge to the officials whom they had no right to ignore. He protested generally, as he had done when sitting on the other side of the House as well as on this, that this method of legislation was not for the advantage of the Government itself or for the advantage of the country. In all seriousness he appealed to the Government to agree to the adjournment. They knew from the history of these all-night sittings that it never paid to press forward a matter when a great body of opinion was against it. He suggested as a compromise that the adjournment should take place now. and that the Leader of the Opposition should agree not to prolong unduly the debate on the morrow. In his humble judgment the continual suspensions of the eleven o'clock rule were unreasonable. They had had more suspensions of the rule this last session than they had ever had before. In his opinion that was not in the interest of the House or of the Government itself.

MR. LAMBTON (Durham, S.E.),

supported the adjournment.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

said he was quite sure he was speaking on behalf of those round him when he said how much they regretted that the Secretary of State for War had not been able to be present in the House earlier, for he was sure that if the right hon. Gentleman had been there they would not have got into their present difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman would have recognised that the arguments put forward against the clause were temperate and that the clause needed amendment. Moreover, the House would have had some leadership and guidance, and the right hon. Gentleman would have seen where the Opposition was strong and the supporters of the Bill were weak. He asked the

hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, who talked about the time he had been in the House, whether, in the plenitude of his experience, he had ever known a Bill of this importance, a Bill adopted by the Government, being conducted in debate in the absence of any Cabinet Minister or of any strong member of the Government? Had he ever known the closure to be moved on such a Bill, not by the Leader of the House or by a responsible Cabinet Minister, but by the official Government Whip?

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 77; Noes, 256. (Division List No. 397.)

AYES.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Cross, Alexander	Morpeth, Viscount
Ashley, W. W.	Dalrymple, Viscount	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Peters field)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Dalziel, James Henry	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Balcarres, Lord	Faber, George Denison (York)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.	Fell, Arthur	Percy, Karl
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Banner, John S. Harmood	Forster, Henry William	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Remnant, James Farquharson
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Haddock, George R.	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Hamilton, Marquess of	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bull, Sir William James	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Carlile, E. Hildred	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Hills, J. W.	Smith, F. E. (Liverpool Walton
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hunt, Rowland	Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)
Cave, George	Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.	Starkey, John R.
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey	Keswick, William	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Turnour, Viscount
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Wilson, A. Stanley,(York, E. R.)
Chance, Frederick William	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt,-Col. A. R.	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Younger, George
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Courthope, G. Loyd	Magnus, Sir Philip	TELLERS FOR THE AYES-Sir
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Marks, H. H. (Kent)	Alexander Acland-Hood and
Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Viscount Valentia
NOES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)	Beauchamp, E.	Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Beaumont, Hn. H. (Eastbourne)	Bowerman, C. W.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexh'm	Brace, William
Armitage, R.	Beck, A. Cecil	Bramsdon, T. A.
Astbury, John Meir	Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp't)	Brigg, John
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Benn, W. (T'wr' Hamlets, S. Geo.	Bright, J. A.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Bennett, E. N.	Brocklehurst, W. B.
Barker, John	Berridge, H. T. D.	Brodie, H. C.
Barnes, G. N.	Bertram, Julius	Brooke, Stopford
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)	Brunner, J.F.L.(Lanes., Leigh)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Burns, Rt. Hon. John
Beale, W. P.	Billson, Alfred	Burnyeat, W. J. D.
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.	Hogan, Michael	Philips, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)
Byles, William Pollard	Horniman, Emslie John	Philips, J. Wynford (Pembroke
Cairns, Thomas	Horridge, Thomas Gardner	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Pollard, Dr.
Cawley, Frederick	Hudson, Walter	Price, Robert John( Norfolk, E.)
Cheetham, John Frederick	Idris, T. H. W.	Radford, G. H.
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Jardine, Sir J.	Rainy, A. Rolland
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Jenkins, J.	Raphael, Herbert H.
Cleland. J. W.	Johnson. W. (Nuneaton)	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Clough, William	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W	Joyce,.Michael	Redmond, William (Clare)
Cooper, G. J.	Kearley, Hudson E.	Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)
Corbett. C. H(Sussex. E. Grinst'd	Kekewich, Sir George	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Rickett, J. Cumpton
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Kincaid-Smith. Captain	Ridsdale, E. A
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Cremer, William Randal	Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James	Robinson, S.
Crombie, John William	Laidlaw, Robert	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Crossley, William J.	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Roe, Sir Thomas
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Lambert. George	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Delany, William	Lamont, Norman	Rose, Charles Day
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Rowlands, J.
Dickinson, W.H.(St, Pancras, N.	Lehmann. R. C.	Runciman, Walter
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Lever. A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Dolan, Charles Joseph	Levy, Maurice	Samuel, M. M. (Whitechapel)
Duckworth., James	Lough, Thomas	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Duncan. C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Lundon, W.	Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Lupton, Arnold	Seddon. J.
Dunne, Major K. Martin(Walsall)	Lyell, Charles Henry	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)	Simon, John Allsebrook
Everett, R. Lacey	M'Crae, George	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Fenwick, Charles	M'Killop, W.	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S-
Ferens, T. R.	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Ferguson. R. C. Munro	M'Micking, Major G.	Stanger, H. V.
French, Peter	Maddison, Frederick	Stewart, Halley (Greenock
Findlay, Alexander	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Mansfield, H. Rendal (Lincoln)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Markham, Arthur Basil	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Fuller, John Michael F.	Masterman, C. F. G.	Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Gardner, Col. Alan(Hereford, S.	Meagher, Michael	Sullivan, Donal
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Mond, A.	Summerbell, T.
Gilhooly, James	Montagu, E. S.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Ginnell, L.	Montgomery, H. G.	Tennant, Sir Edw. (Salisbury)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Mooney, J. J.	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.
Glendinning, R. G.	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Glover, Thomas	Morrell, Philip	Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Thorne, William
Grant, Corrie	Murphy, John	Tomkinson, James
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Murray, James	Toulmin, George
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Griffith, Ellis J.	Nicholls, George	Ure, Alexander
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)	Verney, F. W.
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Norman, Henry	Ward, W. Dudley(Southampt'n
Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Nuttall, Harry	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Haworth, Arthur A.	O'Dowd, John	Whitbread, Howard
Helme, Norval Watson	O'Grady, J.	White, George (Norfolk)
Hemmerde, Edward George	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Hemmerde, Edward George	O'Maltey, William	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	O'Shaughnessy. P. J.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)	O'Shee, James John	Whitehead, Rowland
Henry, Charles S.	Parker, James (Halifax)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Herbert, Co'. Ivor(Mon., S.)	Paul, Herbert	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Higham, John Sharp	Paulton, James Mellor	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Hobart, Sir Robert	Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)	Williamson, A.
Hodge, John	Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)	Wills, Arthur Walters

Wilson, Hn. C. H. W.(Hull, W.)	Winfrey, R.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Wilson, Henry J.(York. W. R.)	Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk, Mid)	Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)	Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(Huddersfd)	Pease.

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

MR. HICKS BEACH (Gloucestershire, Tewkesbury)

thought they ought to get some definite explanation and reason from the Government for having brought forward this Bill He was compelled to ask what had been the answer which had been given to the House on this question. They had had appeals to the Government from hon. Members sitting on that side of the House, but there had been no answer from the Government or even from hon. Members interested. What was likely to be the position of the incoming tenant if this clause was carried? Under the clause as it stood, the existing tenant might apply any vagaries he chose as regarded cropping and carry them on for a certain time and then find out that his method was not likely to be beneficial to himself or to the holding, and with the superior knowledge which they were told he had to that of his landlord he might come to the conclusion that his method of cropping having detoriated the farm he would move elsewhere. But that deterioration, although it might be apparent to himself might not be apparent to the valuer or to the incoming tenant, the result with that the latter would suffer to pay on a valuation by having very seriously in excess of the improvements which had been made to the soil. It appeared to him that great reflections had been cast on the ability and intelligence of the present class of tenants. For the last twenty years they had been the masters of the situation, and if a tenant had bound himself to arduous conditions which did not allow him to cultivate his farm on remunerative terms he had only himself to blame. The so-called arduous terms with regard to cropping were seldom enforced in the ase of a good tenant. If a tenant was a good one and the farm was well cultivated, although not strictly in accordance with the terms of the tenancy, ninety nine out of 100 landlords would be desirous of keeping him. But they objected to have all these contracts overriden and to have no specific terms of cultivation at all, because they were a great safeguard against bad tenants. Many men came up from the west of England to the more central parts of the country with the intention of skinning the land. He should vote against this clause, because he thought it was prejudicial to the interests both of the landlord and of the incoming tenant.

LORD R. CECIL

said he had observed, as most Members had, that the defence of this Bill had been left entirely to the legal members of the Government. He was not surprised, because, so far as he could follow it, it was likely to be of great advantage to the legal profession but not to anybody else. He did not object to a Bill being brought in for the advantage of the legal profession. What puzzled him was the title of the Bill. It was called a Land Tenure Bill; he should have thought it ought to have been called a Lawyers' Relief Bill. This clause purported to say that whatever contract was entered into between landlord and tenant it should be disregarded. The certain matter of the agreement was to be put on one side, and in substitution for that they were to have in the first place an action for damages, in the second, an action for an injunction, and in the third, a reference to arbitration. All these proceedings were contemplated in the case of a breach of this clause by the tenant. At present, all that had to be inquired into in these disputes was whether a provision was complied with or not. But when this Bill passed they would have to inquire as to whether the tenant was exercising his rights under this clause in such a way as to injure or deteriorate the land. He could not conceive a more complicated inquiry to be brought before a Court. The procedure was equally complicated. First of all, it had to be determined as to whether the tenant had done damage, and if he had, what that damage was; and those two inquiries were absolutely divorced one from the other, for what reason he could not conceive. Could a more unworkable or absurd proposition be put before the House? This was the clause which the Government, at 1.15 in the morning, desired to force the House to accept without any serious consideration, because no one supposed that the House was capable of giving any kind of serious consideration to a subject at that hour. He had no doubt that he would be incapable of clearly understanding the very difficult legal questions raised by the clause, and probably at any time he would be unable to understand the agricultural questions. He submitted that to ask the House at the hour to accept this complicated clause was utterly unreasonable. Was there anything more irrational than to pass measures, not by argument, not by reasoning, but by the test of which Members of the House could do without sleep for the longest period? It was not worthy of that great democratic House. They were perpetually being told of the changes that that House was going to introduce. He was merely asking the House, apart from any Party spirit and that endless tu quoque argument adopted by many hon. Members, to consider the question whether they ought to accept this clause at that time of the night and under those conditions. He honestly believed that the example of legislation which was now being set was amongst the worst that had ever disgraced the House of Commons.

VISCOUNT TURNOUR

said it seemed to him that this clause could be attacked upon a good many grounds and on none more strongly than the effect it was likely to have on agricultural labourers. They were now dealing with a Government which through the mouth of its Leader had expressed the wish to encourage the peasant and discourage the pheasant. That catch phrase had not been very well carried out by the provisions contained in this clause, for there was nothing in it which encouraged the peasant whilst there was a great deal in it which encouraged the pheasant. He never saw a clause which was less likely to encourage the peasant. It was a serious menace to agricultural labourers throughout the length and breadth of this country. He wished them fully to realise how the Government were treating them, and more especially the way in which the Department of Agriculture were dealing with them in this Bill. This clause appeared to him to be one of the most ill-drafted clauses which during his two years experience of this House he had seen. Whatever views hon. Gentlemen below the gangway might have, in the opinion of most hon. Members, the clause was considered to be sufficiently important to justify the presence of more members of the Cabinet. In the last division—

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! That argument is hardly relevant to a clause about cropping.

VISCOUNT TURNOUR

said he was only endeavouring to show that this was a very important clause. The division list would be sufficient indication to the country to show how the Government treated this clause.

MR. HUNT (Shrophire, Ludlow)

said that as far as he could make out, before a farmer could sell anything at all he had to make adequate provision to protect his holding from injury or deterioration. The hon. Baronet in charge of this Bill proposed exactly to reverse what had always been the custom of the country. We grew more wheat, oats and barley than almost any country in the world, and that in spite of the fact that the land in this country had been cultivated for a great number of years. Unless the cultivation had been well done, the land would have produced very much less. The land of England produced more than the land of any other country because of the agreements existing between landlord and tenant which for a good many years had provided for carrying out the customs of the country. Those agreements had been instrumental in keeping up the fertility of the soil. If the clause they were now considering was carried, it would do a great deal towards ruining the fertility of the soil. He did not think there were many hon. Members on the Ministerial side who knew much about agriculture, but it was acknowledged on all sides that if a landlord had a good tenant he would not desire to turn him out of his holding.

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! I must invite the hon. Member to discuss the clause only and not be led away by interruptions.

MR. HUNT

said that most people who knew anything about agriculture knew that at the present time a good farmer could do what he liked with the land, for he could sow what he liked, and sell what he liked. That being so this clause seemed to him to be a premium upon bad farming. It was generally agreed that the great majority of landlords and farmers were good and did their best with the laud. The present system encouraged tenants to farm the land and stay on it, but this clause would encourage farmers to get all they could out of one farm and then go to another farm and do the same thing. Those were the sort of men they would encourage be this legislation. The consequence would be that they would do those farms a great deal of harm, and it would be bad not only for the incoming tenants but for the labourers as well, because the farm would go down in value and the incoming tenant would not be able to employ so many labourers. Thus they would be driving more men out of the country districts into the slums of the big towns. The hon. Member for Sleaford had said that the farmers in his county were all in favour of this clause, but he could assure the House that the case was absolutely the reverse in Shropshire. He thought he was justified in saying that, taking the country as a whole, the great majority of the farmers did not want this clause and had never asked for it. The Bill would do the labourers harm and the small tenants no good.

MR. HALDANE

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 236; Noes 67. (Division List No. 398.)

AYES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork X.E.)	Beale, W. P.	Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Beauchamp, E.	Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexhm)	Billson, Alfred
Armitage, R.	Beck, A. Cecil	Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)
Astbury, John Meir	Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)	Brace, William
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)	Bramsdon, T. A.
Barnes, G. N.	Bennett, E. N.	Brocklehurst, W. B.
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Berridge, T. H. D.	Brodie, H. C.
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Bertram, Julius	Brooke, Stopford
Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs., Leigh)	Hobart, Sir Robert	Radford, G. H.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Hodge, John	Rainy, A. Rolland
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Hogan,.Michael	Raphael, Herbert H.
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.	Horniman, Emslie John	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Byles, William Pollard	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')
Cairns, Thomas	Hudson, Walter	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Idris, T. H. W.	Redmond, William (Clare)
Cawley, Frederick	Jardine, Sir J.	Richards, Thos. (W. Momn'th)
Chance, Frederick William	Jenkins, J.	Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'rapt'n)
Cheetham, John Frederick	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Rickett, J. Compton
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Ridsdale, E. A.
Churchill, Winston Spencer Jones,	William (Carnarvonsh.)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Clarke, C. Goddard	Kearley, Hudson E.	Robinson, S.
Cleland, J. W.	Kekewich, Sir George	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Clough, William	Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Roe, Sir Thomas
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Collins, Sir Win. J.(S. Pancras, W	Laidlaw, Robert	Rowlands, J.
Cooper, G. J.	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Runciman, Walter
Corbett. CH.(Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Lambert, George	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Lamont, Norman	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Seott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Lehmann, R. C.	Seddon, J.
Cremer, William Randal	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.
Cross, Alexander	Levy, Maurice	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Crossly, William J.	Lough, Thomas	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Dalziel, James Henry	Lundon, W.	Simon, John Allsebrook
Davies, Ellis William (Eiffion)	Lupton, Arnold,	Smeaton, Donald Mackensie
Delany, William	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Dickinson, W.H.(St Pancras, N.	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	M'Crae, George	Stanger, H. V.
Dolan, Charles Joseph	M'Killop, W.	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	M'Laren. H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Stewart-Smith, D. Kendal
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	M'Micking, Major G.	Strachey, Sir Edward
Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall)	Maddison, Frederick	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)	Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Markham, Arthur Basil	Sullivan, Denial
Everett, R. Lacey	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston	Summerbell, T.
Fenwick, Charles	Masterman, C. F. G.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Ferens, T. R.	Meagher, Michael	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Mond, A.	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
French, Peter	Montagu, E. S.	Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E
Findlay, Alexander	Montgomery, H. G.	Thorne, William
Flavin. Michael Joseph	Mooney, J. J.	Tomkinson, James
Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Fuller, John Michael F.	Morrell, Philip	Ure, Alexander
Gardner, Col Alan(Hereford, S.	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Murphy, John	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Ginnell, L.	Murray, James	Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Gladstone. Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Glendinning, R. G.	Nicholls, George	Whitbread, Howard
Glover, Thomas	Nicholson. Chas. N. (Doncast'r	White, George (Nor folk)
(Goddard, Daniel Ford	Norman, Henry	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Grant, Corrie	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Nussey, Thomas Willans	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Nuttall, Harry	Whitehead, Rowland
Griffith, Ellis J.	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	O'Dowd, John	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Williamson, A.
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	O'Malloy, William	Wills, Arthur Walters
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)	O'Shee, James John	Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.
Harmsworth, R. L.(Caithn'ss-sh	Parker, James (Halifax)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Haworth, Arthur A.	Paul, Herbert	Wilson, W. H.(Westhoughton)
Helme, Norval Watson	Paulton, James Mellor	Winfrey, R.
Hemmerde, Edward George	Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)	Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk, Mid
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye
Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.	Philips, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)
Henry, Charles S.	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)	Pollard, Dr.	Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Higham, John Sharp	Price, Robt, John (Norfolk, E.)	Pease.

NOES.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Craig, Capt. James (Down, E)	Percy, Earl
Ashley, W. W.	Dalrymple, Viscount	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Balcarres, Lord	Fell, Arthur	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A J.(City Lond.)	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Remnant, James Farquharson
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Forster, Henry William	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.	Haddock, George R.	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Hamilton, Marquess of	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Hills, J. W.	Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton
Bull, Sir William James	Hunt, Rowland	Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Carlile, E. Hildred	Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.	Starkey, John R.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark
Cave, George	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Turnour, Viscount
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S.	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Wore	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Younger, George
Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)	Magnus, Sir Philip
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Marks, H. H. (Kent)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Morpeth, Viscount	Alexander Acland-Hood and
Courthope, G. Loyd	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)	Viscount Valentia.
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingtn)

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'notwithstanding' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided:—Ayes, 236; Noes, 65. (Division List No. 399.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Gibb, James (Harrow)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch	Churchill, Winston Spencer	Ginnell, L.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Clarke, C. Goddard	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John
Armitage, R.	Cleland, J. W.	Glendinning, R. G.
Astbury, John Meir	Clough, William	Glover, Thomas
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight	Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Goddard, Daniel Ford
Barnes, G. N.	Collins, Sir Wm J.(S. Pancras, W	Grant, Corrie
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Cooper, G. J.	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Corbett, C. H. (Sussex.E. G'st'd	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Beale, W. P.	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Griffith, Ellis J.
Beauchamp, E.	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (H'x'm)	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Beck, A. Cecil	Cremer, William Randal	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Dev'np't	Cross, Alexander	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Benn, W. (T'w'r' H'ml'ts, S. Geo	Crossley, William J.	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)
Bennett, E. N.	Dalziel, James Henry	Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh
Berridge, T. H. D.	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Haworth, Arthur A.
Bertram, Julius	Delany, William	Helme, Norval Watson
Bethell, J.H. (Essex, Romford)	Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras. N	Hemmerde, Edward George
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Billson, Alfred	Dolan, Charles Joseph	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.)	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Henry, Charles S.
Brace, William	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.
Bramsdon, T. A.	Dunne, Major E. Martin (Wals'l	Higham, John Sharp
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Hobart, Sir Robert
Brodie, H. C.	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Hodge, John
Brooke, Stopford	Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Hogan, Michael
Brunner, J. F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Everett, R. Lacey	Horniman, Emslie John
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Fenwick, Charles	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Ferens, T. R.	Hudson, Walter
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles	Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Idris, T. H. W.
Byles, William Pollard	Ffrench, Peter	Jardine, Sir J.
Cairns, Thomas	Findlay, Alexander	Jenkins, J.
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Cawley, Frederick	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Chance, Frederick William	Fuller, John Michael F.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire
Cheetham, John Frederick	Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.	Kearley, Hudson E.
Kekewich, Sir George	Nuttall, Harry	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.
Kennedy, Vincent Paul	O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Kencaid-Smith, Captain	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Stanger, H. Y.
King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	O'Dowd, John	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Laidlaw, Robert	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	O'Malley, William	Strachey, Sir Edward
Lambert, George	O'Shee, James John	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Lamont, Norman	Parker, James (Halifax)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Layland-Barratt, Francis	Paul, Herbert	Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Lehmann, R. C.	Paulton, James Mellor	Sullivan, Donal
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)	Summerbell, T.
Levy, Maurice	Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Lough, Thomas	Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Lundon, W.	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Lupton, Arnold	Pollard, Dr.	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.	Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E	Thorne, William
MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.	Radford. G. H.	Tomkinson, James
M'Crae, George	Rainy, A. Rolland	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
M'Killop, W.	Raphael, Herbert H.	Ure, Alexander
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Rea., Russell (Gloucester)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southamp'n)
M'Micking, Major G.	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Maddison, Frederick	Redmond, John E. (Waterford	Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney
Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Redmond, William (Clare)	Wedgwood, Josiah. C.
Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln	Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)	Whitbread, Howard
Markham, Arthur Basil	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)	White, George (Norfolk)
Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Rickett, J. Compton	White, J. D. (Dumbarton shire
Masterman, C. F. G.	Ridsdale, E. A.	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Meagher, Michael	Roberts, Charles H-(Lincoln)	White, Patrick (Meath, North
Mond, A.	Robinson, S.	Whitehead, Rowland
Montagu, E. S.	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Whitley, J.H. (Halifax)
Montgomery, H. G.	Roe, Sir Thomas	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Mooney, J. J.	Rogers, F. E. Newman	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Rowlands, J.	Williamson, A.
Morrell, Philip	Runciman, Walter	Wills, Arthur Walters
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland	Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.
Murphy, John	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Murray, James	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Seddon, J.	Winfrey, R.
Nicholls, George	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid)
Nicholson, Charles N.(Donc'r	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Norman, Henry	Silcock, Thomas Ball	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Simon, John Allsebrook	Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Nussey, Thomas Willans	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Pease.
NOES.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Dalrymple, Viscount	Percy, Earl
Ashley, W. W.	Davies, David (Montgomery Co.	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Balcarres, Lord	Fell, Arthur	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Remnant, James Farquharson
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Forster, Henry William	Roberts, S (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Barrie, H.T. (Londonderry, N.	Haddock, George R.	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Hamilton, Marquess of	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Harisson-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Hills, J. W.	Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton
Charlile, E. Hildred	Hunt, Rowland	Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormsk'k)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.	Starkey, John R.
Castlereagh, Viscount	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
Cave, George	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Turnour, Viscount
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.	Long. Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wor.	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)	Magnus, Sir Philip	Younger, George
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Marks, H. H. (Kent)
Courthope, G. Loyd	Morpeth, Viscount	TELLERS FOR THE NOES-Sir
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)	Alexander Acland-Hood and
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)	Viscount Valentia.

*MR. STEWART-SMITH (Westmoreand, Kendal)

said that the object of his Amendment was to bring under the operations which contained no express provision as to rotation of crops. The section as drawn applied to agreements in which the mode of cultivation was express, but in a number of cases there was no express mode of cultivation provided for, and the law in such cases implied an agreement by the tenant to cultivate in a reasonable manner, in accordance with the custom of the country. The principle of the clause ought to apply whatever the form of the tenants agreement might be. There was a special reason why this clause should be clear, viz., that its provisions would have to be considered by lay arbitrators who had had no legal training. If they had to decide whether a particular agreement did or did not come within the section, and legal arguments were addressed to them they might get puzzled and do injustice to one party or the other. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 30, after the word ' notwithstanding,' to insert the words 'any custom of the country or.'"—(Mr. Stewart Smith.)

SIR EDWARD STRACHY

accepted the Amendment.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

said he was surprised that the Government had accepted this Amendment without giving any reason. What was the Amendment? The clause said that no landlord might make any agreement with his tenant, and that no tenant might make any agreement with his landlord. But apparently the hon. Members who drew the Bill had forgotten that in many parts of the country no agreement existed at all. The farms wore managed according to the custom of the country. It was not a good way to manage a farm, but in some parts of the country such was the confidence of the landlord in the capacity and integrity of his tenant, that he let the farm without any agreement at all. Hon. Gentlemen had just found this out, and so anxious were they to prevent a tenant entering into an agreement with his landlord that they said, "Oh, if he has no agreement, and what he has done is to accept the word of his landlord and take the farm on a mutual understanding without anything in writing we will not allow that; we will not put him under what we understand to be the custom of the country." He did not know how many counties there were in England, but he knew that in every different county there was a different custom. The custom of the country was regulated by the soil and the climate, and in every county in England there was a different custom, and now hon. Gentlemen, knowing nothing about the custom of the country, were going to put in words to the effect that the custom of the country should be voided. They had heard a great deal about the capabilities of the farmers to farm the land, and it was said that the farmer knew better than his landlord. Why then could they not leave the farmer to make his own agreement with the landlord and to make his own arrangements? But, hon. Members would not do that. They said that there should be no agreement. Until we had a Democratic Parliament, he had thought that we lived in a land of freedom, but now the country appeared to be in an age of tyranny, because nobody must make an greement unless hon. Gentlemen agreed with it. Hon. Members seemed to suggest that whatever the custom of the country had been for 200 years they were coming down to tell the tenant what he should do. If the business of the country was to be managed on those lines he was sorry for the country, and he was sure that it would not be the tenant farmers who would be thankful for this Amendment. They might say, although he could not admit it, that there was something for them in the Bill, but that would not be the final verdict when they knew that they were to be told, "You may not adopt a form of agreement unless it contains the terms I tell you to agree to."

MR. WALTER LONG

inquired why the Government had accepted this Amendment, because although he had a very considerable acquaintance with the subject he had not the slightest idea of what hon. Members meant to provide by it. What was the hon. Member's own explanation? It was that in many counties farms were held without agreement, but that while in many parts farms were held without agreement the custom of the country prevailed. His hon. friend who had just sat down had said that in every county in England there was a separate custom, but he might have gone further and said that in many counties there were different customs, because the cultivation of a farm in different districts depended upon different circumstances. But the hon. Member who belonged to the legal profession and who had taken so large a part in promoting this Bill, and would take the greater part of the profit, did not explain what the Amendment meant. He was sure there was a rosy prospect before the lawyers but for no one else.

*MR. STEWART-SMITH

said the right hon. Gentleman did not understand him. He said that where there was no distinct provision as to the rotation of crops the custom of the country was by law imported into the agreement between the landlord and tenant.

MR. WALTER LONG

said that those who had some knowledge of this question knew that the custom of the country prevailed in many places but in a part of the Kingdom the custom of the country was not enforced unless it was embodied in an agreement. In the custom of the country however, nothing operated at all except the necessary condition for good husbandry, but the meaning of this Amendment that if a tenant farmer did that which according to all rules of husbandry was bad, he was to be given compensation for wrongly cropping his farm. He wanted to know why the Government had adopted this Amendment without one single word of explanation, and what was the effect of it. He submitted that the incorporation of this Amendment would be to the considerable injury of the farmer where neither agreement nor custom existed. In his part of the country there were many cases where there was no agreement and nothing operated in determining the tenancy but good husbandry. That was the custom of the country. If the right hon. Gentleman was going to lay it down that where a fanner cropped freely but not in accordance with the principles of good husbandry he was to get the benefit, he would do great injury. They had been told that this Bill had to be carried through certain stages by a certain time. He did not know why it should be carried through at all. Nobody had asked for it. The Government had added it to the burden of the legislation they were pledged to carry, but neither the Opposition nor the followers of the Government had asked for it. He contented himself now with asking the Government to tell them why they had added to the Bill this addition which did not improve it, but which would be extremely injurious to the small farmers.

MR. HALDANE

said the question asked by the right hon. Gentleman was very simply answered. The right hon. Gentleman had used the word "custom" in two senses, and this clause applied to the first sense in which he had used the word—the sense which the law recognised where the farm was let by a custom which was equivalent to an agreement. The clause was completed by the insertion of the words of his hon. and learned friend. There was another sense in which the right hon. Gentleman used the word "custom," the sense in which it meant not a custom equivalent to an agreement but a condition of good husbandry. The protection of the landlord against bad husbandly was found in the second part of the clause, which said that if a man excercised his powers to the injury or deterioration of the land he was liable to damage. The right hon. Gentleman agreed.

MR. WALTER LONG

Yes.

MR. HALDANE

Then that is the answer to the the question of the right hon. Gentleman.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

asked the House to imagine the position of a tenant farmer who had just listened to the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. He had to make up his mind to two readings of the word "sense" and three readings of the word "custom." Anything more hopeless for a bucolic mind to understand it was impossible to imagine. Let him put the ease of an ordinary transaction from the agricultural point of view and see how it bore on the Amendment.

MR. FLAVIN

was understood to say. "Put it from Horne's point of view."

COLONEL KENYON - SLANEY

said that if the hon. Gentleman would cease from his rude and vulgar interruptions they might get on faster, [interruption and ironical cheers from the IRISH Benchers.]

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

appealed for protection for the speakers on the Opposition side of the House. He hoped an appeal to the Chair would secure a fair hearing to hon. Members.

MR. FLAVIN

explained that all he said was that putting it from the tenant's point of view, was putting it from Home's point of view, and he had nothing to withdraw.

*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

said he did not hear the interruption, but he would appeal to hon. Members not to interrupt hon. Members who were in possession. The expression used by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was not in order and should be withdrawn.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

said he would put the case of a very common transaction.

*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

said he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw the expression he had used.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

Certainly Sir, I will if you wish it, but it was a peculiarly offensive expression and intended a personal insult to myself. If you, Sir, had heard the interruption and understood the allusion you would have backed me up.

MR. FLAVIN

The right hon. Gentleman may take it how he likes.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

That is the way I take it. The right hon. Member continuing, said he would put a very ordinary transaction. A man purchased a 100-acre farm for which he paid £2,000. He was looking about for a tenant for that farm. Those who knew anything about letting farms today knew that the ordinary capital of a man taking a 100-acre farm, would not be more than about £4 an acre Let them assume that £2,000 were invested in the farm, the owner of the land having £1,500 and the tenant, say, £500, and that the landlord tried to make an agreement for a tenancy. Hitherto he had been able to rely upon the arrangement made under his agreement with the tenant, but that would be stopped by this clause. Being forbidden to make any ordinary arrangements, what protection would the landlord have for his capital? Up to the present he had relied upon the custom of the country, and that had been his principal safeguard. The result would be that owners would not purchase land, or else they would use the land for their own purposes. By this clause the Government were doing the most pernicious thing in the interests of the smaller type of tenants. They were depriving the landlord of his natural security and diminishing any inclination he might have to invest money in his land.

MR. ABEL SMITH

said he had listened to the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench, but he confessed that he did not understand it. He should like some hon. Member who had had experience of agricultural affairs to explain to the House what benefit such an Amendment as this could possibly be to the tenant farmers. The whole of the transactions for the letting and hiring of land depended upon the customs which had grown up to facilitate the letting and hiring of land on reasonable terms, not only for the benefit of the landlord and tenant but also for the benefit of the whole community. A man went into a farm upon certain terms, and when his tenancy came to an end he should go out on something like the same sort of terms, and allow his successor to come in on the same terms as himself. This had been the custom for many generations past, and it was necessary to have some such mutual arrangement as that which had gradually grown up, and which had proved to be for the general benefit and not for the benefit of any particular party to the transaction.

*MR. COURTHOPE

thought the Government hardly realised what they were doing by accepting an Amendment of this kind. Did they recognise that the custom of the country was in favour of the tenants? What sort of condition would a new tenant find a farm which he took under the proposal now before the House? Where would the outgoing tenant get compensation? By the custom of the country the outgoing tenant was entitled to compensation for certain improvements, and by the custom of the country certain crops and manures had to be left on the farm. This was for the benefit of the incoming tenant, because he had not to make any great outlay, and he got certain things at the consuming price which was much less than market price. He thought the Government ought to hesitate before they imposed a proposal like this upon the country. The first sub-section of the clause concluded with the words "provided he shall have made adequate provision to protect the holding from injury or deterioration." How was that to be decided? It was no use a valuer going on to the land in October to find out what compensation was due, because he would have to satisfy himself that the farm had been farmed in accordance with the custom of the country. The hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill knew how fruitless it was to endeavour to estimate the state of cultivation on a farm by going over it after the harvest. He knew that the only test that could be applied was custom, and the law courts had always held custom to be the proper way of testing whether or not a farm had been properly cultivated. A well-known case had been decided on the ground that regard must be had to the custom of the country in such matters, and by this clause they were sweeping all that away. What test did the Government propose should be applied to find out the position of the farmer? What was the use of sending a man to walk over a lot of naked acres in the autumn? That would tell him absolutely nothing. The system now in force had been recommended by centuries of experience, and it was now being swept away by the thoughtless acceptance of an Amendment which had been moved by an hon. Member who knew nothing whatever about the question from an agricultural point of view.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said they ought to be very grateful to the Secretary for War for his very lucid explanation as to the two senses in which the word "custom" might possibly be used. The right hon. Gentleman however, did not explain in which of the two senses he would interpret this clause. The Amendment which had been sprung upon the House; was not a part of the Bill which was discussed for nine days in the Committee, it had simply been suggested by an hon. Member, and adopted at the last moment by the Government. It raised most important and serious points entirely outside the scope of the measure originally submitted to the House. Although in almost every other walk of life two men could make an agreement which would be held to be sacred, that right was not to be allowed in regard to the farming of land. The agreements now in force were to be entirely abrogated, and the landlord was to be deprived of his power to enter into agreements with his tenants. There were sometimes clauses in a lease which were favourable to the tenant, but these were now to be ruthlessly torn asunder. At the bidding of a private Member this point was to be carried a step further. Not only were the contracts entered into to be torn up, but they were also setting aside the accumulated experience of generations, all of which was included in the words "the custom of the country." Under those circumstances what kind of cultivation were they to expect in the future from the tenants, and what sort of behaviour would they get from landlords? He protested against this measure after two o'clock in the morning being vitally altered by the Government, for it meant that the whole over custom of the country as applicable to farming was to be ruthlessly cast aside. He hoped the House would decide that that was not the sort of thing they ought to accept, and he appealed to the common-sense of hon. Members to declare that it was a practice which could not be indulged in by the Government.

*MR. EVERETT (Suffolk, Woodbridge)

said he had listened with amazement to the utterances of hon. Members opposite. The object of this particular Amendment was simply that all holdings under whatever conditions of tenure should be subject to the provisions of this clause. If they were hired under some definite arrangement to crop in a certain way this clause was to be applied, and if they were hired under the custom of the country this Amendment applied and the clause would be equally applicable to such hires.

VISCOUNT TURNOUR

said he understood the hon. Member for Woobridge to say that the object of this Amendment was to bring all holdings under the Bill. It appeared to him that the effect would be very different from what the hon. Member supposed. It would not only bring all agricultural holdings under this clause, but it would interfere with holdings which were subject to the custom of the country. In Sussex every tenant farmer would look upon the Amendment with the greatest apprehension because it was a violent interference with both landlords and tenants. If it had been accepted by any hon. Member opposite instead of by the Government he should have said that he was demented because it was being adopted without any reason. The Secretary for War in an extraordinary legal argument, which he was unable to follow, had gone into the whole question of contract, but he had mentioned nothing of the inconvenience of this Bill to tenant farmers. He did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman had a very wide acquaintance with the holding of land; the President of the Local Government Board would be a better man to put in charge of the Bill, because he did know something about Battersea Park.

MR. WYNDHAM

said two hon. Members who had special knowledge of Sussex had stated that this Amendment would be incomprehensible in that county. It was because this was a proposal to take the control of agriculture out of the hands of the landlord and put it into the hands of the tenants that the people of Sussex considered it a bad one. The Secretary of State for War, instead of amending the Amendment, criticised the speakers for using the word "custom" in two senses. He had pointed out that it might moan something equivalent to an agreement, and, on the other hand, that it might mean no more than habits which were customary. He said that, of course, he meant the first. Did not the words of the clause as they stood include the custom of the country which was implied in law under any agreement? He was not a lawyer, and perhaps he was not capable of seizing these fine points. He had always been told that they could make no greater mistake in legislation than to put in words which were surplusage. Words which might be subject to various interpretations gave rise to many disappointments and much expense. Words which the promoters of the Bill never intended to be brought into litigation, but to be a guide to landlord and tenant, should be of such a character as to be easily understood even in "silly Sussex." If these words were surplusage they ought not to be in the Bill.

SIR W. ROBSON

said the right hon. Gentleman did himself an injustice when he indicated that he found these words mysterious. In the course of his argument he had shown that he understood them. Let him remind the House what the section was in which it was proposed to insert these words. It was that notwithstanding the provisions of any contract of tenancy or agreement respecting the mode of cultivation, cropping, or disposal of produce, freedom of cropping should apply within the limits prescribed by the section. The object of the section was to secure freedom of cropping. Anybody would agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it was desirable that the wording of every Act of Parliament should be clear, and he thought no one would deny that the ordinary lay arbitrator reading these words might well suppose that he was not to go beyond the provisions of the contract. But a tenant might be no less seriously restrained by the custom of the country which was applicable in matters to which the contract did not expressly apply. If they were going to give him freedom of cropping at all, and release him from the provisions of any contract, they must apply the same principle to the custom of the country. That was the reason for these words. He would remind the House how the discussion was initiated by the right hon. Member for South Dublin.

MR. WALTER LONG

I said I was not concerned to oppose this clause, and that I was not going to stand between the Government and their bad work.

SIR W. ROBSON

I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was not going to vote against the clause.

MR. WALTER LONG

I did not use the word "vote" at all.

SIR W. ROBSON

What the right hon. Gentleman said was that he was not concerned to interfere or oppose it he was only concerned to discuss it.

MR. WALTER LONG

The hon. and learned Gentleman if he takes an interest in my views might represent them accurately. I endeavoured to make myself perfectly clear. I was discussing this Amendment on its merits, and I said it was not my business to interfere between the hon. and learned Gentleman and his attempt to pass this bad and mischievous Bill.

SIR W. ROBSON

If the right hon. Gentleman has made anything clear it is that my statement was perfectly correct. The right hon. Gentleman had now repeated that it was not his business to protect the tenant. Why had not the tenant as much right to be protected as the landlord? The right hon. Gentleman's words seemed to him to be in the highest degree significant.

MR. LANE-FOX

reminded the hon. and learned Gentleman that if there was one man in the country to whom the tenant farmers could look with thanks for the protection they now enjoyed it was the right hon. Member for South Dublin, because the greatest benefit which they had received in modern times was from the Agricultural Holdings Act, which the right hon. Gentleman was instrumental in passing. The tenant farmers were thoroughly grateful for that, and they would not be led away by what the Solicitor-General had said. He was sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken the position he had just assumed, because he had been going to thank the Solicitor-General for his courteous explanation of the clause and of the meaning of the Amendment. But there was one thing which the hon. and learned Gentleman had not made clear, and that was in what part of the country the custom of the district was depreciative of good husbandry. He thought the House ought to thank the right hon. the Secretary of State for War for his kind and courteous intervention in the debate—[MINISTERIAL cries of "Agreed"]—and in taking charge of the Bill at a rather critical stage. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Agreed" and "Divide."] He would remind hon. Gentlemen who did not want to go home to bed that their interruptions did not make it any easier but more difficult for him to get on with his remarks. The difficulty he found in discussing the Amendment was that he did not quite see how they were to oppose it. If they were going to allow the tenant to be absolved from the express terms of his contract of tenancy or agreement, and he was not to be bound down by the custom of the country. But when he heard the more definite explanation of the Solicitor-General as to what the exact effect of the Amendment was he could judge better as to its meaning.

MR. CLAVELL SALTER (Hants, Basingstoke)

said he was sorry that this matter had degenerated into a somewhat legal and technical discussion. He would be very much interested to know whether the right hon. the Secretary for War and the Solicitor-General considered this proposed Amendment surplusage or not. It appeared to him that the words either meant nothing at all or that they made a very serious and mischievous alteration in this subsection. If they were dealing with a legal and provable custom in the district, and the landlord and tenant had made an express bargain without referring to that custom, he asked whether they were bound by that express contract or by the custom of the country. Why should the tenant not only be released from his express bargain but from the implied promise to his landlord and to his neighbours that he would farm according to the custom of the country, which by immemorial experience had been found to be the best method of cultivating land in that district? If a man had made an express contract he would not under th section as it stood be released from the custom of the country. He thought, without professing to be expert in these matters, that if a hasty hand was laid on these customs there would be widespread discontent among farmers.

CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.)

wished to pass from the highly technical part of the discussion to what was of more importance, the practical point of view. The discussion had so far related to landlords and tenants, the custom of the country and the way in which it affected those two classes, but it also had an effect between tenant and tenant and the buyers and sellers in the towns and villages. The House had had sprung upon them a proposal for the abolition of ancient customs, which prevailed not only in every county but in every market town in every county. The disposal of a standing crop of oats or potatoes required a knowledge of the custom of the country in which the crop was situated, and if these ancient customs were dealt with without proper consideration it would be a matter to be deeply regretted. In regard to some of the various customs of the country it was almost impossible for hon. Members to realise fully the far-reaching consequences of the simple words which had been moved. For instance, in the case of a bargain in regard to an important crop of flax, from the sowing of that crop until its final dis-

posal in the market, the dealings in it were merely a matter of word of mouth, there would probably not be a single document, except perhaps a nine months bill. He for one should certainly vote against the Amendment, which he thought would be absolutely unworkable; the effect of it would be to imposevery heavy penalties upon the buyer as well as upon the seller, not only in the case of flax but in the case of oats.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 203; Noes, 61. (Division List No. 400.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Laidlaw, Robert
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Armitage, R.	Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Lambert, George
Astbury, John Meir	Everett, R. Lacey	Lamont, Norman
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Fenwick, Charles	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Barnes, G. N.	Ferens, T. R.	Lehmann, R. C.
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Ffrench, Peter	Levy, Maurice
Beale, W. P.	Findlay, Alexander	Lough, Thomas
Beauchamp, E.	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Lundon, W.
Beaumont, Hon. H. (Eastbourne	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Lupton, Arnold
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (H'x'm)	Fuller, John Michael F.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.
Beck, A. Cecil	Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devon'pt	Gibb, James (Harrow)	M'Crea, George
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo	Ginnell, L.	M'Killop, W.
Bennett, E. N.	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Bertram, Julius	Glendinning, R. G.	Maddison, Frederick
Bathell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Grant, Corrie	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincon
Billson, Alfred	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Markham, Arthur Basil
Brace, William	Griffith, Ellis J.	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)
Bramsdon, T. A.	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Meaghor, Michael
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Mond, A.
Brodie, H. C.	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil	Montagu, E. S.
Brooke, Stopford	Hardy, George, A. (Suffolk)	Montgomery, H. G.
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Haworth, Arthur A.	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Helme, Norval Watson	Murphy, John
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles	Hemmerde, Edward George	Murray, James
Byles, William Pollard	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.	Nicholls, George
Chance, Frederick William	Henry, Charles S.	Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'r)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.	Norman, Henry
Clarke, C. Goddard	Higham, John Sharp	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Cleland, J. W.	Hobart, Sir Robert	Nuttall, Harry
Clough, William	Hodge, John	O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Hogan, Michael	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras. W	Horniman, Emslie John	O'Dowd, John
Cooper, G. J.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grin'd	Hudson, Walter	O'Shee, James John
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Idris, T. H. W.	Parker, James (Halifax)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Jardine, Sir J.	Paid, Herbert
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Jenkins, J.	Paulton, James Mellor
Crossley, William J.	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)
Dalziel, James Henry	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)	Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton
Delany, William	Kekewich, Sir George	Pollard, Dr.
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.	Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)
Radford, G. H.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)
Rainy, A. Rolland	Shipman, Dr. Joan G.	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Raphael, Herbert H.	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Simon, John Allsebrook	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Whitbread, Howard
Redmond, John E. (Waterford	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.	White, George (Norfolk)
Redmond, William (Clare)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Richards. Thomas (W. Monn'h	Stanger, H. V.	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Richards, T. F. (Wolver h'mp't'n	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Rickett, J. Compton	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)	Whitehead, Rowland
Ridsdale, E. A.	Strachey, Sir Edward	Whitely, J. H. (Halifax)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Robinson, S.	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	Williamson, A.
Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Sullivan, Donal	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Rogers, F. E. Newman	Summerbell, T.	Winfrey, R.
Rowlands, J.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid
Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.
Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset E	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Scott, A. H (Ashton-under-Lyne)	Thorne, William	Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Seddon, J.	Tomkinson, James	Pease.
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F	Dalrymple, Viscount	Percy, Earl
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Fell, Arthur	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Ashley, W. W.	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Remnant, James Farquharson
Balcarres, Lord	Forster, Henry William	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Rutherford. W. W. (Liverpool)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Haddock, George R.	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Hamilton, Marquess of	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Helmsley, Viscount	Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hills, J. W.	Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormsk'k
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Hunt, Rowland	Starkey, John R.
Bull, Sir William James	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.	Turnour, Viscount
Carlile, E. Hildred	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Valentia, Viscount
Castlereagh, Viscount	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.- Col. A. R.	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wor.	Lyttleton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Younger, George
Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)	Magnus, Sir Philip
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Marks, H. H. (Kent)
Corbett. T. L. (Down, North)	Morpeth, Viscount	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Courthope, G. Loyd	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)	Staveley-H anilld Mr. Craig.
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darl'gt'n

*MR. COURTHOPE

moved to insert the word "future" after the word "any," so that the clause should not apply to contracts now in existence. He thought the hon. Baronet the Member for South Somerset would agree that an extraordinary amount of hardship would be inflicted if this Amendment was not accepted, and that hardship would not fall upon the landlord so much as upon the tenant. Anyone who had had experience of large estates knew that there were many tenants who were not good farmers, whom the landlord was willing to keep on out of kindness of heart as long as he had sufficient safeguards to pre-vent their doing serious injury to the holdings. Under this clause there would be no course open to such landlords but to get rid of this class of tenants, and even if the landlord had to pay compensation, it would be better for him to do so rather than risk the ruin of his land and the destruction of the productive qualities of the soil by allowing it to be held by men whom he could not trust. Under this clause nobody would be able to tell exactly how a holding had been cultivated, because the custom of the country would no longer operate. Many of the class of tenants to which he had referred would not find it possible to obtain holdings elsewhere, and it was to prevent those tenants being displaced that he asked the hon. Baronet to prevent this clause being made retrospective. Let the clause apply to agreements drawn up in the future and not to those which were-already in existence.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

seconded. At the present moment it was the rule to arrange for tenancies of considerable length, but it must be obvious to every hon. Member that they would never have any long lettings of land under this Bill. Under the provisions of this clause no landlord would let his land for more than a year, and he would be sure to adopt a summary method of getting rid of his tenants. The clause would strike a blow at fixity of tenure, and freedom of contract was to be interfered with. It would also apply to existing contracts, which would be ruthlessly torn up, and the custom of the country was to be set at naught. He thought the House ought to attempt to do something to mitigate the harshness of the clause. He was surprised that the Government had not insisted upon inserting an Amendment such as the one they were now considering, and which he begged to second.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 30, after the word 'any' to insert the word ' future' "—(Mr. Courthope.)

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

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

said he was sorry to have to make the same answer as he had made in regard to a previous clause. He did not see that it would be right to take away the advantage of this clause from a very large body of tenants. Why should all the present tenants receive no benefit from the clause? The Central Chamber of Agriculture supported the proposal. There was also a provision which would bring bad tenants to book, and a tenant was not likely to do anything which would damage his holding, because his landlord could give him notice and then he would lose all the advantages under this clause.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

thought if the hon. Baronet would reflect he would see that there was a good point in this Amendment. At the present time the landlord in selecting a tenant felt secure that no injury would be done to his land whatever the experimental ingenuity of the tenant might be. If they changed the law a landlord might find himself with a tenant who might indulge in expenditure which neither good agriculture nor experience would show to be of a kind that could be indulged in without permanent injury to the holding. How could that land- lord safeguard himself? He did not think that existing contracts should be torn up without a very strong reason. The hon. Baronet had stated that all the landlord would have to do was to say next year that the tenant must brng back his farm to its natural condition, but that was hardly the case. In this instance there was no great public necessity, and in addition there was the possibility of individual hardship.

MR. HALDANE

said the right hon. Gentleman had argued that it was contrary to general principle to apply a change of this kind to existing contracts. There were a great many cases in which that was true, but what was being dealt with here was the relation of landlord and tenant, and that question had already been the subject of a great deal of legislation with which this House was familiar, and it had been dealt with retrospectively. It was found in a case like this that the stringency of the existing restrictions on freedom of cropping were bad for the community and prejudicial to the general interests. What was proposed "by Clause 4 was to make a change which would apply to the existing state of things in the interests not merely of the individual tenant but of the community generally, and there was substituted for the protection which the rigid contract gave the provisions of subsection (2) of this clause. Therefore it was in conformity with precedent as the change was being made in the interests of the community.

VISCOUNT HELMSLEY (Yorkshire, W.N. Thirsk)

said this was a clause which might be called "Encouragement of the bad tenant." If there was one clause in the Bill which would encourage bad farming more than any other it was this one. The right hon. Gentleman had argued that it was for the good of the community that the land should be well farmed, and that was exactly why this Amendment had been moved. The landlords did not want the land wasted by bad tenants, and, therefore, they made certain stipulations in the contracts.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

said the question was whether the clause should apply to any contract or agreement respecting cropping.

VISCOUNT HELMSLEY

said he expected that ruling. He was only answering the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The right hon. Gentleman was pointing out that contracts were sometimes interfered with for public purposes.

VISCOUNT HELMSLEY

said he was arguing that it was for the good of the community that the clause should refer only to future contracts. If it referred only to future contracts the landlord could do something to protect his land for the good of the community, in letting a farm, be would have regard to the past record of the incoming tenant in the farming world. It was all very well to say that the land would be well farmed, and that plenty of provision had been made to ensure that the farmer carried out his work under a proper system of husbandry, but, after all, the people who would take advantage of this clause under existing and future tenancies were the bad farmers who went about from place to place, taking farms as often as they could, and extracting as much as they could out of the land. To say that the landlords of these farms would be amply protected by the provisions later on in the clause was to say something which he did not think could possibly be maintained. There were more yearly leases than any other kind, and, after all, it was not such a big thing to ask that the clause should apply only to future contracts. The contracts would be reviewed at the end of the year, and both landlord and tenant would know where they were and could make arrangements for themselves. Landlords and tenants were not fools. They both knew their own business, and would be able to arrange their affairs mutually. If they knew what the wish of the Legislature was, as expressed by this clause, no hardship would be inflicted on anybody. What would be the position of a land-lord with a farm let on long lease with perhaps twelve or fourteen years to run? Having made a contract to ensure good husbandry, he would find it suddenly broken by legislation, and a worthless form of compensation substituted. He would be expected to get that compensation out of a tenant who had ruined both himself and the land by bad farming. The hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill had taken great credit for putting on the Paper an Amendment in regard to the value of manures and feeding stuffs. He himself moved that Amendment in Committee and it was not accepted. There could be no doubt that if the word "future" was not inserted in the clause very great hardship would be done in the case of existing tenancies and the bad farmer would be encouraged.

*MR. MUNRO FERGUSON

said he could not see that, in regard to yearly tenancies, the question of applying the clause to existing contracts was not a very important one. Where there were longer leases it no doubt became important. He very much doubted whether they could give freedom of cropping on a farm which was going out of lease next year, and restrict freedom of cropping on the farm next door for nineteen years. If they gave freedom of cropping at all they must apply it to all farms at the same time. He admitted that under this clause there might be a tendency to shorten leases, and to have yearly tenancies instead of a nineteen years tenure with a break. After all, the system of leases was supposed to be generally to the advantage of the tenants. The tenant farmers of Scotland had not raised any objection to this clause, and he thought rightly. The clause was on the whole right, and it should apply to existing leases.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

said it would be a great injustice to break existing contracts in the manner proposed. Those contracts had been entered into by landlord and tenant for their mutual advantage. The argument of the hon. Baronet, who was supposed to represent the Board of Agriculture, and to see fair play between the two parties, was apparently that the Government did not see how they could in any way withold the advantages which would accrue to the tenants from breaking the existing arrangement or agreement. If that were so, it surely must be to the disadvantage of the landlord. That was neither business nor fair play. The Government ought to hold the balance evenly between the two parties.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

sincerely hoped the House would accept the Amendment of his hon. friend. With all due deference to the Secretary of State for War he would point out that practically no legislation hitherto passed by this House had ever made retrospective. The Ground Game Acts respected current leases. He knew that an hon. Gentleman opposite had said that the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1900 was retrospective, but he had conclusive proof that it was not. He would go further and ask what legislation breaking contracts had ever been passed which was retrospective? He believed that there had been a precedent in Ireland, but it had been very disastrous. He believed there had been no such case in regard to England. He submitted that this question, involving the maintenance of the sanctity of contract, was very important. The hon. Baronet had said that it would be impossible to accept the Amendment, because, if they did, certain advantages which it was proposed to give to the tenant farmers could not be conceded. What was the position? Here wore contracts on which the whole of our social system depended, and by this clause one of the parties to those contract was to be released from their binding nature. If that held good in this instance, the whole of the security of contracts on which civilisation depended fell to the ground. Rather than agree to that he would support the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, because with Socialists they knew where they were, and to adopt their principles would ruin the country. Under this Bill, however, they were insidiously advancing step by stop towards what hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway would give at once. He could hardly find words strong enough to express his objection to this clause. The hon. Gentleman opposite had said that all the agreements under the Ground Game Acts were yearly, and that those yearly agreements were to be observed. It was true that the landlord would be able to enter into possession if the agreement were broken; but if no security was to be given for the maintenance the sanctity of existing contracts there would be some temptation to invest money in land, not in England but abroad. Nobody would then be more disadvantaged than the tenant farmer here, and even the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. As it was now, four o'clock in the morning he really thought they were not in a fit state to discuss such an important measure as one involving the breaking of contracts, and therefore he begged to move that this debate be now adjourned.

The motion was formally seconded.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this debate be now adjourned."— (Sir Frederick Banbury.)

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

asked if the Government were willing to adjourn. [Loud MINISTERAL cries of "No."] His hon. friend was certainly justified in saying—

MR. FLAVIN

asked on a point of order, whether the Question had not been put from the Chair.

*THE DEPUTY-SPEAKER

said that technically the question had not been fully put.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that the hon. Gentleman might have a perfect right to object to the Motion, but such a Motion had boon put on similar occasions frequently in Parliament, and discussion had followed thereupon. He did not remember such a prolonged sitting as the present on which more Motions for the adjournment of the House had been made. He thought the Government had taken a most disastrous course; and he did not see the smallest reason why the House should be asked to proceed with a matter of such importance at that hour in the morning. As regarded the discussions of Clause 4 he did not think they had been unduly prolonged and certainly they had been of great importance. Was it reasonable, or rather he would say was there sufficient reason why they should put themselves to the trouble of carrying on this debate any further? Why should they carry on the debate at this unhappy hour? It was unhappy on two or three grounds. First of all, because the House had decided not to sit after eleven o'clock. It was now five hours after that time. He did not, of course, deny that there were circumstances under which the Government had no choice but to pass legislation under these deplorable circumstances. But no Government thought it good either for legislation or for the House of Commons to pursue such a course. Every Government thought it was a hard course for them to have to pursue. Was there any necessity for taking it on the present occasion? (Cries of "Yes.") The only reason which had yet been urged, and that had been given not by the Prime Minister but by the Patronage Secretary of the Treasury, was that if they did not finish the Bill by to-morrow night they might have to sit till Christmas. It was impossible to regard that as a serious argument, and before the Opposition acquiesced in it they ought to have before them some general scheme of the Bills which the Government desired to pass during these sittings. At any rate, it was quite impossible to believe that the few hours in which they had been engaged in this matter made up for the loss of discussions in Committee. It must be admitted that so far no pressing or overwhelming necessity had been shown to exist for passing this Bill—which was not a Government Bill, was not mentioned in the King's Speech was not mentioned in the list of measures which were to be taken at the autumn sittings, and had been brought forward quite unexpectedly. They wanted to know what was the reason for pressing such a measure in this unprecedented manner? It was pretended that this Bill was much admired on the other side of the House, but it could not claim any admiration in regard to either its statesmanship or its draftmanship. Under those circumstances it appeared to him that it required special consideration, and that that consideration should be given in the hours of daylight and not in the small hours of the morning. He did not lay down the proposition that the House should never discuss anything at that hour in the morning it was impossible to lay down such a rule but it should only be done in cases of overwhelming necessity. He appealed to the common sense of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and to their desire to conduct the business of the House with decency and decorum to say whether such a proceeding was justifiable, and whether they should be called upon to debate a question of this sort under such circumstances as would not allow them to debate it properly and at a time when people outside the House could judge of the debate. He appealed to right hon. Gentlemen opposite to abandon a policy which he did not think advanced Government business and which he was sure was detrimental to the best interests of legislation.

MR. HALDANE

said the right hon. Gentleman had spoken as if this Bill was being pressed through the Report Stage with undue haste, but he would point out that somewhere about seven days had been given to the discussion of that stage.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

reminded the right hon. Gentleman that there was no Committee stage in the whole House, and it was not a Government measure.

MR. HALDANE

said that in any case it was not a long Bill, although he agreed that it contained important principles in which the keenest interest was displayed. The interest which had been shown in the Bill disproved the idea on the part of the Leader of the Opposition that the Bill was not regarded as of importance by large sections of the community. It was a Bill of great interest and was so regarded by farmers belonging co both parties. That being so what they had to consider was whether sufficient time had been given to the consideration of the Bill, and in his view ample time had been afforded.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

admitted it might be held that they had had discussions upon this Bill which had lasted too long, but the point they had to consider at the moment was whether it was necessary to discuss these proposals at that hour of the night and upon that occasion.

MR. HALDANE

said that that question depended entirely upon the length at which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends insisted upon taking up the time of the House in stating their views. If he and hon. Gentlemen opposite would undertake that, the discussion on the Report stage should be brought to an end by the next day at eleven o'clock there would be no necessity to proceed further. If the discussion, however, was not to end then, that was the justification of the Government for going on with it now. It was not the fault of the Government that the House was sitting at that hour. The Opposition had discussed this clause at enormous length. They had repeated the same arguments over and over again, said the same thing times without number, and prevented the House from coming to a decision. He did not wish to raise this question in any acrimonious spirit, and if the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to say that by eleven o'clock that night the discussion would come to a close he would be prepared to meet him. If the right hon. Gentleman did not say that, he would understand that, interested as the Government were in this Bill, they were prepared to go on.

MR. WYNDHAM

did not think the right hon. Gentleman in opposing the Motion would make much progress by including in his remarks a perfectly unwarranted attack upon the action of the Opposition. Those who had listened to the debate that evening would not, he thought, support the right hon. Gentleman in the charge he made. But he had some foundation for that charge. What was that foundation? It was this. The right hon. Gentleman bad paid arguments had been repeated over and over again. That was not quite accurate. What had occurred was that questions had been repeated. That was to say a question had been asked by the right hon. Member for South Dublin, who was qualified if anyone was to put a question on this Bill, and when unanswered that question was repeated by the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

And sometimes by the noble Lord.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he did not propose to shorten his remarks to suit the wishes of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. It was an exaggeration to say that arguments had been repeated. Questions had been asked, and the fact that they were not answered had been brought to the attention of the House three, four, five, so many times, that for shame's sake a Cabinet Minister was brought in to make what excuse he could for the absence of the Prime Minister. After all the Opposition did represent some people in the country. It was an unhappy conclusion to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, because the desire of the Opposition was not to raise any animosity in this debate. Let him bring a calm and unbiassed judgment to bear on the alternatives the right hon. Gentleman put forward. If the House consented to bring the Report stage of this Bill to a conclusion at eleven o'clock that night, hon. Members might go home to bed at four o'clock in the morning. [Cheers.] He gathered from those ironical cheers that it was supposed that the Opposition was making some personal complaint of the duress in which the Government hold them; nothing of the kind. It was because they thought this Bill was an important measure that they said the, alternative of the right hon. Gentleman was absurd. What did it amount to? If they took one horn of the dilemma and accepted the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Bill was not to be discussed at all. If they took the other, their discussions were not to be reported, although this was a Bill which affected the whole of rural England. Everybody knew that a question discussed after three in the morning was never reported. The Government had invented a form of closure subtle indeed the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the merits of the Bill. If the Bill was of the important character it was supposed to be there was no ground for the action of the Government. It was a very important Bill besides being a bad one, and a Bill of such a character ought to be properly thought out and brought in by the Government of the day, and properly discussed. Let thorn sit over Christmas, and then let the Government bring in their own Bill. They were taking a Bill brought in by a private Member; a Bill not discussed in this House; a Bill taken up by the Government at the last moment, and then they were told it was not to be discussed. In treating the Opposition in that way the Government were acting tyrannically to the House, and they would oppose them to the last.

*MR. MUNRO FERGUSON

said the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to rural England. There was also a rural Scotland. He agreed with his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War that the discussion upon this Bill, especially on the game clause, had been unduly prolonged, and so far as the Bill had gone he had been in almost entire agreement with its provisions. What he perceived was that one or two clauses were now coming on of a highly controversial nature. He believed the Bill was not a well drafted Bill and that it contained some ill-considered provisions. He did not think this Bill should have been adopted by the Government without being overhauled, and with regard to the position of his right hon. friend he did not think the discussion on this stage should continue until eleven o'clock that night. For that reason he should support the Motion for adjournment.

VISCOUNT HELMSLEY

said the Secretary of State for War, in opposing the Motion for the adjournment, had used one of the strongest possible arguments in its favour, viz., the importance of the Bill. It was so important that it had been introduced by a private Member. The Bill was adopted by the Committee upstairs without any Minister being in attendance. He should continue to urge this point until the Government realised that the Opposition were in earnest upon this; matter. They meant, that this Bill should not become law until it had been adequately discussed and considered. Clause 4 encouraged bad farming, while Clause 5 dealt with dual ownership, and they meant to fight and discuss properly both those clauses, and they were not going to be bribed by the promise of a holiday at Christmas. The procedure when the Bill was before the Committee was absurd, but the Government were now doing something far worse, for they were trying to stifle discussion by bribes to the Opposition. He thought the Government must, realise that their procedure had been unfair to the Opposition.

MR. LANE-FOX

hoped the Leader of the Opposition would not allow himself to be either bribed or bullied. This measure was merely part of the policy of filling up the cup and endeavouring to pick a quarrel with the House of Lords. The worse they made this legislation the better, because it would have to be altered or thrown out in another place. Let the House look at the humiliating position to which the House of Commons would be reduced. The chief merit of this Bill was that it was bad. He felt certain that the Leader of the Opposition would find a faithful band ready to support him if he refused to be either bribed or bullied.

MR. DALZIEL

asked for some indication of what the intentions of the Government were. At an earlier stage in the debate he had ventured to predict that it would be a wise thing if some sort of arrangement could be arrived at with the Opposition. Everything that had happened since fully justified the view which he then took. He had risen to ask the Government whether they still adhered to the declaration that they were going on until they had passed Clause 5. [Cries of "Yes."] But did hon. Members realise what that meant? He hoped the Government in their own interests at this late hour would pay some heed to the wishes and desires or their supporters. He did not think the Government were altogether without blame in this matter. If a Cabinet Minister had been present at an earlier stage of the debate to conduct the Bill as a first-class Bill ought to be conducted, he believed its progress would have been much more speedy. If the Government knew the real view of their own supporters as to the manner in which this Bill had been conducted, they would find that what he had stated was not very far from the mark. He appealed to the Government, and asked them what they were going to gain by forcing the measure through in this way? He knew of no real urgency in the matter, for there were two or three other Bills of more importance. Personally, he was more concerned about the Small Holdings Bill for Scotland. The House had been asked to sit all night in order to advance the Report stage of this measure. The, fact that this Bill was not conducted through Committee like an ordinary Government measure was of vital importance, because it came before the House practically as a new measure. He appealed to the Government to suggest a reasonable compromise in order to arrive at a fair settlement of this unfortunate matter.

MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.)

doubted whether there was any real enthusiasm behind the Bill, and in support of this contention he only needed to call attention to the state of the Treasury Bench, which had been deserted by every Cabinet Minister. As a contrast he would ask them to look at the front Opposition bench. The Government were now trying to force down the throat of the House of Commons a Bill which even Cabinet Ministers did not trouble to come down to support either by voice or vote.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

said that at the commencement of this debate they were working together harmoniously, and there was every prospect of getting on at a reasonable pace, until the unfortunate intervention of the Patronage Secretary. They were told that if they did not pass Clauses 4 and 5 they would have to come back after Christmas. That was not a fortunate intervention and it had been the cause of a great deal that had happened since. That threat was still hanging over their heads. He wanted the hon. Gentleman to realise what was involved in his proposal. It was impossible that matters of such magnitude could be fairly and adequately discussed under such circumstances.

MR. HUNT

said the Government had not only treated the House badly, but they had kept them up till half-past four discussing a Bill which the private Member who introduced it said was so badly drafted that he could not understand it. The Patronage Secretary had stated that he was going to keep them over Christmas.

MR. GEORGE WHITELEY

I never said that.

MR. HUNT

said he hoped the House would remember what the hon. Member had said.

*MR. STANLEY WILSON

said the Government had one or two candid friends on their own side, and he appealed to those in charge of this Bill to be reasonable. There was a strong body of opinion opposed to the measure, and they disliked the method by which the Government had brought it forward. They were told they were obstructing the Bill. As a matter of fact two or three days were spent discussing Clause 2 and finally the Solicitor-General embodied an Amendment which more or loss carried into effect what the Opposition had been asking for during those days. Could this be called obstruction? If the Solictor-General had foreshadowed that Amend- ment the first day his opinion was that the clause would have gone through in a single day's discussion. He thought it was a hardship for Members of the House to be asked to continue the discussion at five o'clock in the morning; in a few hours they would come to the clause which contained the main principle of the Bill. He thought the representatives of the Government on the Front Bench might have some consideration for the House and not ask them to sit till ten or twelve o'clock discussing the most important clause of the measure. He implored the Patronage Secretary to reconsider the matter. The hon. Gentleman had said that if they did not get the Bill passed through the Report stage by tomorrow night the House would be compelled to sit after Christmas. He called that bullying the House, and he did not think they were prepared to sit there and be bullied.

MR. GEORGE WHITELEY

indicated dissent.

*MR. STANLEY WILSON

said there were plenty of them who could talk a little bit and they would do their best to fight this measure even if they were kept sitting there for the next two days.

VISCOUNT TURNOUR

said he understood the Patronage Secretary to deny that he had said that unless Clauses 4 and 5 were got to-night and the Bill to-morrow, the House would be compelled to sit after Christmas.

MR. GEORGE WHITELEY

I accept it in the way the hon. Gentleman beside the noble Lord described the statement.

VISCOUNT TURNOUR

said his hon. friend put it in a precisely similar way, although perhaps the words his hon. friend used were not quite the same. It seemed to him that the was not the way to go to work if the Government wished an important measure of this kind to be passed. He could assure the Patronage Secretary that so far as he was personally concerned—and he believed a good many of his friends thought the same thing— if the hon. Gentleman were to sit till the battle of Armageddon, it would make no difference to them. He thought the Government should allow the debate to be adjourned. The members of the Cabinet had become thinner since the morning. After getting visibly paler they loft the House without, he believed, taking part in a division. In the name of humanity he appealed to the members of the Government to allow the discussion to be adjourned till they were in a better condition to discuss the clause, which would be at four o'clock in the afternoon.

MR. GEORGE WHITELEY

said that what he had stated was that he was sure that if this stage of the Bill was unduly delayed they would be compelled to sit after Christmas. The Leader of the Opposition who immediately followed him was good enough to describe his speech as most courteous. His friends on the Ministerial side of the House hoped to be able to hold out a little longer. He believed it would be his duty to move the adjournment when that Motion was made, and he should not do so till the Prime Minister came down and authorised him to do so to-morrow. Meanwhile, he hoped hon. Members on that side would be as constant in their attendance as hon. Members opposite.

MR. WALTER LONG

said the amazing proceedings on this Bill passed from one phase to another. [An HON. MEMBER: Take off your coat.] When the Patronage Secretary said "to-morrow" it was to be presumed he meant to-day. He was sure that nobody wished to hurry the arrival of the Prime Minister, and therefore at five o'clock in the morning they must continue a discussion which had already been embittered by unwise interventions on the part of more than one member of the Government which had not tended to the smooth progress of the Bill. The Patronage Secretary had been given his orders and had asked his friends to stand by him. If this was to be a prolonged fight over a Bill which the Government had taken up at the last moment, the Opposition were ready to fight the Bill to the bitter end.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH (Maidstone)

said that the expression made use of by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury was unheard of in any Assembly. The hon. Gentleman had said that he would keep hon. Members there until he had received instructions from the Prime Minister. Why was not the Prime Minister on the Front Bench? [MINISTERIAL cries of "Question," "Oh, oh," and "Divide."] There was on the Treasury Bench a sprinkling of Ministers who were in no way connected with agriculture, and not one of whom was acquainted with the subject the House was now discussing. The Secretary for War should confine himself to discussing his own subject. It was impossible that Clause 5 of the Bill should be properly discussed at five o'clock in the morning. The course which had been edopted proved very conclusively that the Government did not want the clause to be adequately discussed. He supported the adjournment, and he sincerely hoped that the hon. Gentleman, who appeared to be affected by the hour of the morning, would also agree to it.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said that a new element had been introduced into the discussion. Hitherto their discussions had been confined to the consideration of a clause of much importance, which they were asked to pass at that sitting; but the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury had intervened and had made a statement which raised the whole question as to how Parliamentary business should be conducted. He hoped that neither the hon. Gentleman, nor anyone else, would think that he and his friends were discourteous to the Prime Minister. He did not know any reason why the Prime Minister should not have been present, and nothing had been suggested or alleged as a reason for the right hon. Gentleman's absence by his colleagues.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it needful?

MR. AUSTEN CHAMERLAIN

said he assumed that there were good reasons, on which he would make no comment, but he did make the greatest complaint of the absence from the House of any Minister who could take action in the absence of the Prime Minister. It was a customary charge in the late Parliament against his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition that he gave insufficient time to the debates in the House; but he knew of no occasion on which his right hon. friend did not come in and take charge of a debate of this importance. [An HON. MEMBER on the IRISH Benches: He ran away once.] It might not have been possible for the Prime Minister to be present on this occasion, but he should have left some responsible Minister in charge of the debate. Was the House of Commons to be kept sitting, whatever the circumstances, unable to do its business until the Prime Minister could appear?

MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

said that this was not the way to conduct business. So far as they on the Opposition side of the House could prevent it, not another line of this Bill should be obtained.

MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)

This is obstruction, naked and unashamed.

MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS

said that those who had been in the House for any length of time would admit that it was impossible to make further progress. He should have thought that with two Cabinet Ministers on the Treasury Bench, especially as they included the Minister for War with his common sense, the matter might have been easily solved.

*MR. H. H. MARKS (Kent, Thanet)

said the debate which had taken place on this Motion was remarkable, not only for the statement of the Patronage Secretary as regarded the Prime Minister, and the line of action which he had laid out for him upon the present occasion, but also in regard to the future, because the Patronage Secretary had told them that he would not move the adjournment until the Prime Minister came down to the House and instructed him to do so. They all earnestly hoped that no incident might arise to prevent the Prime Minister from coming down to give the necessary instructions, but he would invite the attention of the House to the situation which would arise, if through any unforeseen contingency the Prime Minister could not come down by four o'clock. It was that statement and the attack which had been made that had got the House into its present frame of mind, which did not conduce to the dispatch of business or to good temper. The debate commenced with good humour and there was steady progress made, and that progress was, he thought everybody would admit, interrupted by the language used by the Patronage Secretary of the Treasury. The Patronage Secretary's usual geniality appeared to have suffered a total collapse, and while threatening that side of the House, the hon. Gentleman had only succeeded in obstructing the business which he wished to forward. Nobody could contend that the debate on that side of the House had been of an obstructive character. The debate on the Amendment had been confined to the subject matter of the Amendment, and if there had been any delay, it had been due to the repetition of arguments, in order to extort from the Government Bench some answer to the contentions which they on that side had put forward. No such reply had been obtained. Whether it was due to the absence of Ministers who understood the measure he did not know,. Clearly there were very few of the Ministers who did understand the measure, and still fewer who took any interest in it, as the appearance of the Treasury Bench showed. They regretted the absence of the Prime Minister more than the absence of any other, because if the Prime Minister did not turn up, they might have to go on sitting indefinitely. This was an unparalleled state of things, and far more serious than the question of the prolongation of their debates. He made no complaint upon that score, nor did hon. Gentlemen sitting near him make any complaint, because they would shrink from no sacrifice to defeat the Bill under the circumstances in which it had been foisted upon the House. In order to do that they would, if necessary, sit there till Christmas, or until a certain unmentionable place was frozen over and then they would continue the argument on the ice.

*MR. CARLILE

rose to support the Motion for the adjournment. He thought the Patronage Secretary must be under some delusion that they were not enjoying themselves on that side of the House and that they were finding the time rather long. He hoped he would disabuse his mind of any such idea; the hon. Gentlemen had only to look at his hon. friend to see that they were a long way from being exhausted and were full of fight against this Bill. When the Patronage Secretary took to employing threats they cast them back with scorn. They did not care a straw about his threats, nor did they care whether the Prime Minister came down to the House that afternoon or not, although of course if he was kept away by illness they would regret it; but if the right hon. Gentleman thought that he had to come down to relieve them he need not disturb himself on that account. They were quite capable of continuing the debate so long as they thought it advisable to do so. They realised that if ever a Bill in this country, touching as it did the greatest of our industries, deserved the largest opportunities of discussion it was this Land Tenure Bill, and yet the present Administration had thrown it at them. Reference had been made to the fact that the attendance of Ministers was getting thinner, but he thought it was getting thicker, for he had not seen so many Ministers on the Treasury Bench since they began to discuss this measure. They could not compare, however, in number with the front Opposition Bench on which there were five Members of Cabinet rank at five o'clock in the morning. The only reason they had moved the adjournment was that they did not think five o'clock ni the morning was the best time to discuss such a measure. Anyone seeing hon. Members walk up the floor of the House would think that they were walking in their sleep. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are talking in your sleep."] No, they were all awake on that side, and they were going to keep awake, and would insist upon this measure being properly discussed. They owed that to those who sent them to Parliament. They owed it to the farm labourers. [Cries of "Oh!"] The interests of agricultural labourers were involved in this measure, although hon. Members did not seem to think that their interests were worth considering. They considered that the interests of the farmers ought to be safeguarded, and that could only be done by a proper discussion of this Bill. They did not propose to play into the hands of an irresponsible ministry—irresponsible so far as this Bill was concerned, in the sense that they had taken the Bill up in at the last moment. The Opposition washed their hands of the responsibility for the character of this legislation if it was to be discussed at that hour of the morning. It was an abominable thing that they should be dictated to by the Patronage Secretary. There were two Cabinet Ministers on the Treasury Bench. Wore they so incapable of conducting this Bill that the Opposition were to be dictated to by an understrapper? The Opposition would one day be sitting where the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite now sat, but they would not be under the thumb of the hon. Member for Stoke. He had no influence with hon. Members below the gangway, but he hoped they would give the Opposition an opportunity of expressing their views on this Bill.

*MR. CLAVELL SALTER

said when the discussion was interrupted by the Motion for Adjournment, the House was discussing a clause which would break every agricultural tenancy in the country. The next clause which the House would reach would, if it was adopted, convert every agricultural tenant into the real owner of his farm subject to the decision of a third party as to the condition of the holding. It would absolutely destroy the relations between landlord and tenant. He rose to ask in all sincerity whether the Secretary of State for War thought it right that the House should be called upon to discuss matters of such enormous gravity, at such an hour and in such a condition as that which the House had now reached. They listened to the speech of the Patronage Secretary a short time ago. It was highhanded and cynically tyrannical, and he submitted that the course which the Government had threatened to take was nothing more than physical bullying. It was the mere abuse of numbers and physical strength. He was a new Member of the House and this was the first occasion of this kind at which he had been privileged to assist. But he could not help thinking that in the country outside there would be a feeling of great disgust, first at the abuse of power on the part of the Government and later at the exhibition they proposed to make of the House of Commons.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 62; Noes, 182. (Division List No. 401.)

AYES.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Dalrymple, Viscount	Percy, Earl
Ashley, W. W.	Fell, Arthur	Bandies, Sir John Scurrah
Balcarres, Lord	Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Remnant, James Farquharson
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(CityLond.	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Forster, Henry William	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.	Hamilton, Marquess of	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Helmsley, Viscount	Smith, F. K.(Liverpool, Walton
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Hills, J. W.	Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Bull, Sir William James	Hunt, Rowland	Starkey, John R.
Carlile, E. Hildred	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Turnour, Viscount
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Whitbread, Howard
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Wor.	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin,S	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Magnus, Sir Philip	Younger, George
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Marks, H. H. (Kent)
Courthope, G. Loyd	Morpeth, Viscount	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Nicholson, Win. G. (Petersfield	Alexander Acland-Hood and
Craig, Capt. James (Down, E,)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)	Viscount Valentia.

NOES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)	Everett, R. Lacey	Lehmann, R. C.
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Fenwick, Charles	Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Ferens, T. R.	Levy, Maurice
Astbury, John Meir	Ffrench, Peter	Lough, Thomas
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Findlay, Alexander	Lundon, W.
Barnes, G. N.	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Lupton, Arnold
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Fuller. John Michael F.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Gibb, James (Harrow)	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)
Beale, W. P.	Ginnell, L.	M'Crae, George
Beauchamp, E.	Gladstone,Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn	M'Killop, W.
Beaumont, Hn. H (Eastbourne	Glendinning, R. G.	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Beaumont, Hn. W.C.B.(Hexhm	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Maddison, Frederick
Benn, Sir J. William(Devonport	Grant, Corrie	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Bonn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo.	Griffith, Ellis J.	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln
Bennett, E. N.	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Markham, Arthur Basil
Bertram, Julius	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston
Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex, Romf'rd	Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)	Meagher, Michael
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Mond, A.
Billson, Alfred	Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Wore'r)	Montagu, E. S.
Brace, William	Haworth, Arthur A.	Montgomery, H. G.
Bramsdon, T. A.	Helme, Norval Watson	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Hemmerde, Edward George	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Brodie, H.C.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Murphy, John
Brooke, Stopford	Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.	Myer, Horatio
Brunner, J. L. F. (Lancs., Leigh	Henry, Charles S.	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Higham, John Sharp	Nicholls, George
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Hobart, Sir Robert	Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r
Byles, William Pollard	Hodge, John	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Hogan, Michael	Nuttall, Harry
Clarke, C. Goddard	Horniman, Emslie John	O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid
Cleland, J. W.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Clough, William	Hudson, Walter	O'Brien, William (Cork)
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W	Idris, T. H. W.	O'Dowd, John
Cooper, G. J.	Jenkins, J.	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	O'Shee, James John
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Parker, James (Halifax)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh)	Paul, Herbert
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Kekewich, Sir George	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Crossley, William J.	Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)
Delany, William	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Pollard, Dr.
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N	Laidlaw, Robert	Price, Robert John(Norfolk, F.)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Radford, G. H.
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Lambert, George	Rainy, A. Rolland
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Lamont, Norman	Raphael, Herbert H.
Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro')	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Redmond, John E. (Waterford	Simon, John Allsebrook	White, George (Norfolk)
Redmond, William (Clare)	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'	Stanger, H. Y.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Rickett, J. Compton	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Whitehead, Rowland
Ridsdale, E. A.	Strachey, Sir Edward	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Robinson, S.	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	Williamson, A.
Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Sullivan, Donal	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Rogers, F. E. Newman	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Winfrey, R.
Rowlands, J.	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.	Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid
Samuel, Herbert L, (Cleveland)	Thompson, J.W. H.(Somerset, E
Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Thorne, William
Scott, A. H.(Ashton-under-Lyne	Tomkinson, James	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Seddon, J.	Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton	Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)	Pease.
Shipman, Dr. John G.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Question again proposed, "That the word 'future' be there inserted in the Bill."

Debate arising.

SIR SAMUEL SCOTT (Marylebone, W.)

did not think there was any hope that the Government would see their way to accept this Amendment. After the speech of the Patronage Secretary he understood how extremely difficult it was for those sitting on the Treasury Bench to accept any Amendment in view of the fact that there appeared to be no one responsible for the measure under discussion. The Amendment would prevent the breaking up of existing contracts. A great many tenancies were yearly tenancies, but a large number were also held under leases. Were they going to break the agreement on the one side, and not give compensation on the other? The Government came down to the House of Commons with this proposal, and tried arbitrarily to break up the relations between landlord and tenant. He thought that was a most iniquitous state of affairs. He did not expect much from the Government, but he did expect a small concession like that now asked for. He had let farms upon leases and upon yearly tenancies, and he found that the leases had been most satisfactory. By this clause they would ruin any prospect a tenant might have of being granted a long lease, because under the Bill it would be impossible for any landlord to grant anything longer than a yearly tenancy.

*MR. STAVELEY-HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)

said that hon. Members opposite and below the gangway appeared to look upon the landowners of this country in the same light as they looked upon those landlords who ruthlessly demanded high rents for small tenements in large towns. The Government thought they were going to get on their side by this Bill the tenant farmers of the country, but what would the farmers say to the Government when they found that in every case where they had the power under this Bill, they abrogated all the existing contracts? If there had been a popular mandate for this Bill surely the Government would have introduced it. As a matter of fact the Government had no mandate and the Bill was brought in by a private individual. Where were the Ministers who were responsible for the Measure?

*MR. SPEAKER

The argument which the hon. Member is pursuing does not seem to be relevant to this Amendment.

*MR. STAVELEY-HILL

said they were endeavouring to put an end to all existing tenancy agreements without which those who were anxiously looking for the prosperity of agriculture would look in vain.

*MR. COCHRANE

said that on this particular Amendment perhaps the House would allow him to say a word or two. He came from a part of the country where the system of tenure was long leases, and where sanctity of contract was one of the vital principles to which the people of Scotland paid tribute. By this clause they proposed to break up that sanctity of contract and interfere with the principle of long leases under which agriculture in Scotland had thriven so remarkably. He thought by so doing they would do a very great injury. Owing to the particular needs of the country there was a distinct rotation of crops, and to permit here and there a tenant to depart from the well-considered system which had grown up, and which formed part of the life of the community, would form a very risky experiment indeed. The whole of this question was investigated by a Committee appointed in 1893, which reported in 1897. He remembered the evidence given by a witness from Scotland. With one accord that Committee laid down that whilst they might be in favour of giving freedom and relaxation to various systems in regard to the rotation of crops, they thought it essential in the last years of the tenure that the system of the rotation of crops should be again in force, in order that the farm might be handed over to an incoming tenant in a proper condition. That was a proposition which no one would dispute. It was in the general interest that the well-arranged plane for the systematic cultivation of the land should not be departed from. The Secretary of State for War was well aware that in the Lothians high-class farming had resulted from the Scottish system of long leases and rotation of cropping. The whole of the buildings there had been put up to meet this particular demand. They had been put up to meet the requirements of feeding cattle on a large scale, and every year hundreds of cattle were imported from Ireland. If the present tenant who had agreed to carry out that system of farming were to lay the holding out in grass or to crop it in such a way as he liked, it would make the land less valuable to an incoming tenant. In the dairy portion of the country a different system of rotation existed because of the different class of business which had grown up. It would be to the disadvantage of an incoming tenant if a dairy fanner were to break up that system and apply the byres intended for cows to other purposes. There were parts of the country where early potatoes were grown in enormous quantities. This system of cultivation was very elaborate. The potatoes were started under glass, and, as the result of this operation, people wore able early in the year to have the luxury of new potatoes. For purposes of that kind it was necessary to have a regular rotation of crops. If they used the land over and over again for growing potatoes it would become exhausted and unsuitable for the purpose. There might be a tenant who, instead of following the rotation of cropping, would plant the whole of his farm with potatoes, and endeavour thereby to make a profit in the last year of his tenure. He would have liked to argue these matters in considerable detail.

*MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)

Give us some more potatoes.

*MR. COCHRANE

I should like to give the hon. Gentleman a hot one. At present if a tenant who had a nineteen years lease desired for some reason or another to alter the rotation of his cropping it was perfectly easy for him to go to the landlord or the factor and explain the circumstances of the case and ask to be allowed to make the change. He was sure no Member could bring forward a case where a farmer making such an application had been met with a refusal from the landlord or factor. The Solicitor-General for Scotland had said that he knew farmers were Conservatives because they voted against him. Would they vote against hon. Members opposite if they were treated with harsh-nos8 and injustice by those who represented the landlord class? Was not the fact that farmers gave their support politically and in other ways to Conservatives a true indication that landlords and tenants in Scotland were on the very best terms? Circumstances undoubtedly varied in different parts of the country.

MR. FLAVIN

Speeches do not.

*MR. COCHRANE

said they were not unaccustomed to hear the same speeches delivered time and again from the Nationalist Benches. The position at present made it extremely difficult for hon. Members who desired to discuss these questions to deal with them in the way they would like to do. Circumstances differed. In the case of a farm in the neighbourhood of such a large city as London or Edinburgh, it was perfectly obvious that the conditions of cropping might be relaxed, because it was very easy for the farmer to renew the fertility of the soil of his farm. All the farmer had to do was to sell his corn and root crop at a big price in the market, and in return he was able to cart back from the city to his holding a great deal of manure at a very cheap price; but how on earth was the farmer whose holding was situated twenty or thirty miles from a large town, or even from a railway station, to sell either his root or corn crop in the hope of getting cheap fertilizers from such sources?

MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby)

, asked if the hon. Member was not discussing rather the policy of the clause than the amendment before the House.

*MR. SPEAKER

agreed that that was so.

*MR. COCHRANE

apologised, but said he was endeavouring to explain the system of leases in Scotland. His object was to point out that while much greater freedom of cropping might be permitted on certain farms, say, ten or thirteen years ago—especially on farms situated near large towns and railway stations— that laxity could not be given to farmers n[...] remote rural districts. The point of

the Amendment, as he understood it, was to exempt such existing tenures from the operation of this clause. But even as it stood, he thought that the clause had a great deal to recommend it. For his own part, he was very much in favour of permitting tenants to have as great freedom as possible so long as the interest of the landlord, the present tenant, all future tenants and the general interest of the country were conserved by having all farms properly cultivated and maintained. But when he saw that those conditions were disregarded and that the principle of the sanctity of contract would be broken unless this Amendment were accepted, then he gave it his most hearty support.

MR. HALDANE

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, 177; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 402.)

AYES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)	Crossilliamley, W. J.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Dalziel, James Henry	Hudson, Walter
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Delany, William	Idris, T. H. W.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Dickinson, W. H.(St. Pancras, N)	Jenkins, J.
Barnes, G. N.	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)
Beale, W. P.	Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Kekewich, Sir George
Beauchamp, E.	Everett, R. Lacey	Kincald-Smith, Captain
Beaumont, Hn. H. (Eastbourne)	Fenwick, Charles	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B.(Hexhm)	Ferens, T. R.	Lamb Ernest H. (Rochester)
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonpt)	Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Lambert, George
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo0	Ffrench, Peter	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Bennett, E. N.	Findlay, Alexander	Lehmann, R. C.
Bertram, Julius	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)
Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex, Rom'frd)	Fuller, John Michael F.	Levy, Maurice
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Lundon, W.
Billson, Alfred	Ginnell, L.	Lupton, Arnold
Brace, William	Gladstone, Rt.Hn.Herbert John	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)
Bramsdon, T. A.	Glendinning, R. G.	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Goddard, Daniel Ford	M'Crae, George
Brodie, H. C.	Grant, Corrie	M'Killop, W.
Brooke, Stopford	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Maddison, Frederick
Burns, Rt. Hn. John	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)
Byles, William Pollard	Harmsworth Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Markham, Arthur Basil
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Haworth, Arthur A.	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)
Clarke, C. Goddard	Helme, Norval Watson	Meagher, Michael
Cleland, J. W.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Mond, A.
Clough, William	Henry, Charles S.	Montagu, E. S.
Cooper, G. J.	Higham, John Sharp	Montgomery, H. G.
Corbett, C. H(Sussex, E. Grinst'd)	Hobart, Sir Robert	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Hodge, John	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Hogan, Michael	Murphy, John
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Horniman, Emslie John	Murray, James
Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Rickett, J. Compton	Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E)
Nicholls, George	Ridsdale, E. A.	Thorne, William
Nicholson, Chas, N. (Doncastr)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Tomkinson, James
Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Robinson, S.	Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton)
Nuttall, Harry	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)	Rogers, F. E. Newman	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Rowlands, J.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
O'Dowd, John	Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)	Whitbread, Howard
O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	White, George (Norfolk)
O'Shee, James John	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Parker, James (Halifax)	Seddon, J.	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Paul, Herbert	Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)	White, Patrick (Meath North)
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Whitehead, Rowland
Pearson, W. H. M. (Syffolk, Eye)	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Pollard, Dr.	Simon, John Allsebrook	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Price, Robert John(Norfolk E.,)	Smyth, Thos. F. (Leitrim, S.)	Williamson, A.
Radford, G. H.	Soames, Arthur Wellesley	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Rainy, A. Rolland	Stanger, H. Y.	Winfrey, R.
Raphael, Herbert H.	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid)
Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Redmond, William (Clare)	Sullivan, Donal	Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Pease.
Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn)	Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)
NOES.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Ashley, W. W.	Dalrymple, Viscount	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Balcarres, Lord	Fell, Arthur	Percy, Earl
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Readles, Sir John Scurrah
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Forster, Henry William	Remnant, James Farquharson
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Hamilton, Marquess of	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Helmsley, Viscount	Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Bull, Sir William James	Hills, J. W.	Starkey, John R.
Carlile, E. Hildred	Hunt, Rowland	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W	Turnour, Viscount
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc)	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)	Younger, George
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Magnus, Sir Philip	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Courthope, G. Loyd	Marks, H. H. (Kent)	Alexander Acland-Hood and
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Morpeth, Viscount	Viscount Valentia.

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'future' be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided:—Ayes, 56 Noes. 176. (Division List No. 403).

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F	Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Lane-Fox. G. R.
Ashley, W. W.	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. AR
Balcarres, Lord	Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Craig, Captain James (Down, E)	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Dalrymple, Viscount	Magnus, Sir Philip
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Fell, Arthur	Marks, H. H. (Kent)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Morpeth, Viscount
Bickett, Hon. Gervase	Forster, Henry William	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)
Bull, Sir William James	Hamilton, Marquess of	Percy, Earl
Carlile, E. Hildred	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Castlereagh, Viscount	Helmsley, Viscount	Remnant, James Farquharson
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.	Hils, J. W.	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Hunt, Rowland	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wor	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Starkey, John R.	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-	Courthope and Mr. Abe
Turnour, Viscount	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George	Smith.
Valentia, Viscount	Younger, George
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Pollard, Dr.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Haworth, Arthur A.	Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Helme, Norval Watson	Radford, G. H.
Barnes, G. N.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Rainy, A. Rolland
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Henry, Charles S.	Raphael, Herbert H.
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Higham, John Sharp	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Beale, W. P.	Hobart, Sir Robert	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')
Beaumont, Hn. H. (Eastbourne)	Hodge, John	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (H'x'm)	Hogan, Michael	Redmond, William (Clare)
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp't)	Horniman, Emslie John	Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)
Benn, W. (T'w'r H'ml's, S. Geo.)	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)
Bennett, E. N.	Hudson, Walter	Rickett, J. Compton
Bertram, Julius	Idris, T. H. W.	Ridsdale, E. A.
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, R'mf'd)	Jenkins, J.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Robinson, S.
Billson, Alfred	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Brace, William	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Bramsdon, T. A.	Kekewich Sir George	Rowlands, J.
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Brodie, H. C.	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Brooke, Stopford	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Lambert, George	Seddon, J.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Lehmann, R. C.	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Byles, William Pollard	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Levy, Maurice	Simon, John Allsebrook
Clarke, C. Goddard	Lundon, W.	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S)
Cleland, J. W.	Lupton, Arnold	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Clough, William	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Stanger, H. Y.
Cooper, G. J.	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd)	M'Crae, George	Strachey, Sir Edward
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	M'Killop, W.	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Maddison, Frederick	Sullivan, Donal
Crossley, William J.	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Dalziel, James Henry	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Delany, William	Markham, Arthur Basil	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E)
Dickinson,W. H. (St. Pancras, N)	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Thorne, William
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Meagher, Mighael	Tomkinson, James
Dunn, A. Edward (Cambrone)	Mond, A.	Ward, W. Dudley (Southamp'n)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Montagu, E. S.	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Montgomery, H. G.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Everett, R. Lacey	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Fenwick, Charles	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Whithead, Howard
Ferens, Charles	Murphy, John	White, George (Norfolk)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Murray, James	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Ffrench, Peter	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Findlay, Alexander	Nicholls, George	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Nicholson, Charles N.(Donc'r)	Whitebread, Rowland
Fuller, John Michael F.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Nuttall, Harry	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Ginnell, L.	O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid)	Williamson, A.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.,	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Glendinning, R. G.	O'Dowd, John	Winfrey, R.
Goddard, Daniel Ford	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid
Grant, Corrie	O'Shee, James John
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Parker, James (Halifax)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Paul, Herbert	Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Pease.

MR. LAMBTON

said the Amendment standing in his name was a long and an important one, but it was quite impossible to do justice to it at that hour of the morning. He understood, however, that the Government were prepared to accept it, and that being so he would confine himself to pointing out that it carried out the professed object of the fourth clause, while its drafting was superior to that of the fourth clause. It was in that spirit and that spirit only that he now begged to move.

The Amendment was formally seconded.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 31, to leave out all the words from the word 'the,' to the end of sub-section (1) of Clause 4, and insert the words, ' method of cropping of arable lands, or the disposal of crops produced upon the holding, a tenant shall have full right to practise any system of cropping of the arable land and to dispose of the produce of his holding without incurring any penalty, forfeiture, or liability contained in any such contract of tenancy or agreement, provided that he shall previously have male, or, as soon as may be, shall make suitable and adequate provision to protect the holding from injury or deterioration, and provided also that he shall return to the holding, as soon as may be, the full manurial value of all crops sold off or removed from the holding."—(Mr. Lambton.)

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

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

said he had indicated at an earlier period of the debate that he was quite willing to He would have been glad to go into the facts fully, but for reasons which would be well understood without their being mentioned, he would not go into them now. He quite agreed that some drafting Amendments were required in the clause in order to carry out its object. He further agreed that it was the object to confine the proposal to arable land, and he was glad to give the assurance that the Government would incorporate this Amendment in the Bill.

Question put, and negatived.

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

*MR. CARLILE

asked whether an Amendment which he had drafted would be ruled out if this Amendment were accepted.

*MR. SPEAKER

said if the hon. Member referred to an Amendment on page 34 that Amendment would be cut out.

*MR. CARLILE

said that no reference was made in the Bill or in the Amendment to the question of water rights. Perhaps this was an omission on the part of those who drafted the Bill and the Amendments, and he wished to move that the tenant should not have the right to divert the water supply.

*MR. SPEAKER

I think the hon. Member can hardly make that relevant at this stage.

MR. LAMBERT

thought the most convenient place to introduce such words would be on Clause 7, which dealt with water rights.

MR. WALTER LONG

said this Amendment would entirely change this clause, which proposed to give the tenant freedom of cropping and other things. By charging the clause in the manner proposed a risk was run that permanent pastures would be indirectly included, and there would be a risk in connection with the rights of timber on arable land.

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

said there was certainly no intention of giving power to cut down trees on arable land. If that intention was not fully carried out he was quite willing to introduce a safeguard to that effect in another place.

MR. FAUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

called attention an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Somerset, by which it was proposed to include in Clause 4 the words "fruit or other trees or plantations of hops," and said that the Amendment which he wished to move was quite distinct. Attention had already been called to the fact that they were giving power to the tenant to lay down arable land in permanent pasture notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary. He thought that to give the tenant this power would have the effect of driving men off the land. It was essential to put in words to limit the right of the tenant in that respect. The tenant was often a stranger to the district and a mere bird of passage. On the other hand the labourer was generally a man who had lived all his life on that particular plot of land. No one had a stronger claim to their protection than the labourer under such circumstances. He could not conceive that it was the intention of the Government that a farmer should be allowed to lay down arable land as permanent pasture, thus robbing a number of labourers of their means of subsistence. He would like to add in line 6 of the Amendment the words "nothing in this sentence shall give the tenant a right to lay down arable land as permanent pasture."

THE CIVIL LOED OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LAMBERT, Devonshire, South Molton)

said the right hon. Gentleman proposed to provide that a tenant should not be allowed, without the consent of his landlord, to lay down land as permanent pasture. That Amendment would be more appropriate on subsection (1) of Clause 7 which dealt specifically with permanent pasture.

*MR. SPEAKER

I think the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make his objection on Clause 7.

MR. WHITBREAD

said it seemed to him that the insertion of this Amendment would have the effect of confining the liberty of cropping arable land.

MR. WALTER LONG

said that in the original contract of tenancy land was described as arable and pasture land. He thought that when the land was given up it should be in the condition in which it was when was originally taken.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said he did not see anything in the clause that would prevent a tenant turning arable land into permanent pasture. They were now conferring upon the tenant the right to crop his arable land as he pleased, subject only to the obligation not to deteriorate his holding and to return certain manurial values. He hoped it would be made perfectly clear that arable land was not to be laid down as permanent pasture under this section.

*MR. SPEAKER

I think the right hon. Gentleman should raise this point on Clause 7.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

asked whether the words "as soon as may be" were satisfactory. He thought the words were very indefinite and ought to be replaced by the words "forthwith." In the second case the tenant was to return to the holding the full manurial value of all the crops he had sold off. If he had done that there was no reason why he should not at once make up the full manurial value which he had allowed to lapse. The Amendment proposed by his hon. friend would not by any means make the complete alteration of the clause which they wished.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

moved to omit the words "as soon as may be." His object was to avoid the uncertainty which might arise from the interpretation of these words. They might mean three or four months or a year. If the words were left out the clause would be very much simples, and it would give less opportunity to lawyers to take the little that would remain for the tenant after the legislation offered by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— To leave out the words" as soon as may be."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)

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

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

said he agreed that the words "as soon as may be" were vague, but the effect of leaving them out would be to leave the matter uncertain because there would then be no time indicated, and the omission might be taken as removing the binding obligations.

SIR A. ACLAND-H00D

said the word "previously" was really of no use in the case of a tenant who had not farmed in the way agreed upon. If a man grew the same crop three times running and had three bad harvests he lost money, and he would not have money to restore the fertility of the land. It was a proposal to give a man power to gamble in the cultivation of the land. If the gamble succeeded it was all right, but if it did not the land suffered. They wanted something in the Amendment to prevent the deterioration of the land by the action of a man who made a gamble and was not successful.

MR. TOMKINSON

said the tenant was not a permanent fixture, and if he did not work the farm properly the landlord could exercise his power over him. If a farmer grew three corn crops running, the landord could say to him that if he farmed like that he would be turned off.

Mr. WALTER LONG

said they were surely getting a little fogged. The hon. Member for Crewe came forward with the astounding explanation that after the passing of the Bill the wicked landlord was to continue to do whatever the Bill was intended to prevent his doing; that if the tenant had ceased to farm in a proper manner, the landlord had his redress—he could turn the tenant out. The very object of the clause was to get rid of that redress, and to give the tenant absolute freedom as to how he should crop his farm. He himself thought that great importance attached to the way in which restitution was to be made to the land.

MR. TOMKINSON

said that his object in supporting the Amendment was to encourage the good tenant.

COLONEL LOCKW00D

said he knew a gentleman who grew wheat on the same land for thirty years running, but as he returned the full manurial value to the soil the land was in no way deteriorated.

Amendment to the prodosed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

MR. WALTER LONG

said he had handed in an Amendment at the Table which he asked the Government to accept. From what the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had said he did not think they could object to it. Obviously the House was in some difficulty. If the Government had adopted the ordinary course of placing in their own names on the Paper the Amendments they thought were necessary to put the Bill in a proper shape, the House would have had before them the scheme of the Government. But, until they met that night, they had no knowledge that the Government meant to adopt the Amendment of his hon. friend. The point he wished to raise was whether the Government were quite, certain that by accepting his hon. friend's Amendment, and thereby making an entire change in the plan of the Bill, they did not run the risk of giving to the tenant the power of dealing with timber on agricultural lands. It was to meet that difficulty that he desired to move the following Amendment:— In page 2, line 39, to insert these words, provided also that nothing in this section shall give the tenant any power to fell, cut, lop, or injure any trees on arable land, or in plantations. He thought surely there could be no objection to its adoption, because it would make it perfectly clear that the freedom of cropping proposed to be given under this clause should apply only to arable land, and the crops on arable land.

*MR. SPEAKER

thought that the Amendment had better come as a new clause and not as a proviso.

VISCOUNT TURNOUR

moved to omit the word "off" from the proposed Amendment. The Amendment provided that the tenant should return to the holding the manurial value of all crops "sold off" full or removed from the holding. The word "oft" did not seem to him to be necessary, and his object in moving its omission was that the Amendment should be made as simple as possible in order that everybody who would be affected by it when it became law should know what it meant. He did not think that "sold off" was a very grammatical term.

CAPTAIN CRAIG

seconded the amendment to the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill— In line 9, to leave out the word "off"— (Viscount Tournour.)

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

MR. LAMBERT

asked the noble Lord not to persist in this Amendment. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Durham had been very carefully considered by the Government draughtsman, and he would prefer not to alter it at the present time.

VISCOUNT TURNOUR

said he would not press the Amendment after the courteous reply of the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

said there were certain provisions which he was glad to see in the Amendment just adopted, but it did not take any cognisance certain other things, of which imperilled the interests of the incoming tenant. It was of absolutely first class importance to the incoming tenant that he should find on the farm the necessaries for feeding his stock, and but for the Amendment about to be proposed, he might come in and find the holding stripped of all food whatever. Then, again, he thought his hon. friend would agree that there were few things more important than that the manure made during the last year of the tenancy should be left for the purposes of the incoming tenant. There was nothing in the clause at present which safeguarded those two things, and therefore he moved the Amendment of which he had given notice.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 37, to insert the words 'notwithstanding anything in this section, the tenant shall leave the unconsumed hay, straw, roots, and manure grown or produced dining the last year of the tenancy for the incoming tenant as required by agreement or custom, and shall leave his holding in the rotation of cropping provided by his contract of tenancy, or, in default of such provision, by the custom of the country.'"—(Col. Kenyon-Slaney.)

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

*MR. LAMBERT

said he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having abbreviated his observations. He would endeavour to follow the right hon. Gentleman's example. He desired to point out that sub-section (3) of Clause 4 covered this point. That sub-section, hon. j Members would recollect, was inserted in the Committee upstairs at the direct instigation of the Central Chamber of Agriculture. It provided also that this clause should not apply to the last year of a tenancy. It was not the wish or the intention of the Government to allow a farmer to rack out a holding and leave it impoverished for the incoming tenant. They wanted him to improve the holding and to allow him every freedom in developing it to the utmost possible extent.

MR. WALTER LONG

said the courteous spirit and manner in which the hon. Member had approached the Opposition was a delightful change. The hon. Member had reminded the House that the sub-section limiting the operation of the clause was put in at the instigation of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, but that sub-section did not do what the hon. Gentleman himself had just stated did not make it quite clear that the tenants should leave a condition of things which was indispensable to the in- coming tenant if he was to meet with success. After the courteous reply of the hon. Gentleman he did not wish to press him on the matter, but he thought the words of his hon. friend were an improvement, and if a division was taken he should support the Amendment.

MR. ABEL SMITH

pointed out that in the words of the sub-section there was nothing to correspond with the words of the Amendment, as to the unconsumed hay, straw, roots and manures grown or produced during the last year of tenancy. That was a most important point, because it was absolutely impossible for an incoming tenant to carry on a farm unless these things were left on the farm. It was the universal custom of the country that certain food for cattle should be left on the farm so that the incoming tenant should find enough to feed his cattle for at least two months. He could see no reason why this Amendment should not be accepted. The last part of the Amendment in regard to the rotation of cropping provided by the contract of tenancy was another point that was not mentioned in the clause.

*MR. LAMBERT

contended that the Amendment on the Paper was covered by sub-section (3), and that therefore these words were unnecessary.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD

said the hon. Gentleman, however anxious he might be to accept the Amendment, had not the power, because he had not the assistance of any of the law officers of the Crown, and he not being a lawyer could not; undertake on his own responsibility to accept words which might have the effect of entirely altering the clause. He thought the law officers of the Crown were leaving the hon. Gentleman too much to take care of himself, and as a protest against their absence he begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.

*MR. SPEAKER

said the House had decided less than two hours ago that they would go on, and he could not accept the Motion.

SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD

called the attention of the hon. Gentleman, who was familiar with such questions, to the great difficulty the arbitrator would have in deciding these matters if he had nothing to go upon. If this Amendment were accepted they would have a definite case to put before the arbitrator which he could then decide. There would, he thought, be some difficulty in dealing with cases under sub-section (3). He hoped the hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, as he understood the Army, the Navy, and the Reserve Forces were to arrive at the House at 8 o'clock.

MR. CORRIE GRANT (Rugby)

said the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member would not carry out what hon. Gentlemen opposite desired. Sub- section (3) provided that this clause was not to apply to the last year of the tenancy. The Amendment specified certain things which were to be dealt with, and the arbitrator instead of having a free hand would find his hands tied. Therefore the aim of hon. Gentlemen opposite would not be attained. He thought sub-section (3) was the right way of dealing with the matter; they ought to leave the arbitrator's hands perfectly free.

MR. COCHRANE

wished to know whether when the new tenant came in he would find on the farm a supply of

turnips which were absolutely necessary for him to carry on during the in-coming year. The Amendment of his right hon. friend provided that that should be the practice in the future as in the past, as his words were "as required by agreement or custom." He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would press his Amendment to a division. He could not see any reason why the Government should not accept those words, because if they were superfluous they could do no harm, and they would only make security doubly secure.

MR. LAMBERT

said that this matter had been considered by the Board of Agriculture, and they distinctly stated that the words of the right hon. Gentleman were not necessary in view of sub-section (3) of this clause. That was a very clear opinion, and if anyone even without legal knowledge looked at the matter they would see that the wishes of the right hon. Member for Shropshire were carried out in sub-section (3) which was put in at the instance of the Central Chamber of Agriculture.

VISCOUNT HELMSLEY

said that this Amendment showed the necessity of having a reliable law officer of the Crown present to give an authoritative interpretation of the Bill and the effect of the Amendment. They had had interpretations given by the hon. and learned Gentleman behind the Government Bench and the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, and a different interpretation had been placed upon it by another hon. Member on the front Opposition Bench. They had come to a deadlock now for want of a law officer to explain this matter. He thought it was treating the Opposition with rather scant consideration when the law officers of the Crown did not take the trouble to attend in order to explain important points in the clause under consideration.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 54; Noes 170. (Division List No. 404.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir. Alex. F.	Banner, John S. Harmwood-	Bull, Sir William James
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.	Carlile, E. Hildred
Ashley, W. W.	Beach, Hn. Hicheal High Hicks	Castlereagh, Viscount
Balcarres, Lord	Beckett, HON. Gervase	Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Bignold, Sir Arthur	Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Wor.)	Hunt, Rowland	Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, Eas)
Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Starkey, John R.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R.	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S.)	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Courthope, G. Lloyd	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Valentia, Viscount
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Marks, H. H. (Kent)	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E)	Morpeth, Viscount	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Dalrymple, Viscount	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Fell, Arthur	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)	Younger, George
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Percy, Earl
Forster, Henry William	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Gibbs. G. A. (Bristol, West)	Remnant, James Farquharson	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Hamilton, Marquess of	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)	Colonel Kenyon-Slaney and
Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Salter, Arthur Clavell	Viscount Turnour.
Helmsley, Viscount	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Grant, Corrie	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	O'Dowd, John
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	O'Shee, James John
Barnes, G. N.	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Parker, James (Halifax)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Haworth, Arthur A.	Paul, Herbert
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Helme, Norval Watson	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Beauchamp, E.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)
Beaumont, Hon. H. (Eastb'rne)	Higham, John Sharp	Pollard, Dr.
Beaumont, Hn. W.C.B. (H'x'm	Hills, J. W.	Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)
Benn, Sir J. Williams (D'v'np't)	Hobart, Sir Robert	Rainy, A. Rolland
Been, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo)	Hodge, John	Raphael, Herbert H.
Bennett, E. N.	Hogan, Michael	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Bertram, Julius	Horniman, Emslie John	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')
Bethell, Sir J.H. (Essex, R'mf'd)	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Hudson, Walter	Redmond, William (Clare)
Billson, Alfred	Idris, T. H. W.	Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)
Brace, William	Jenkins, J.	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)
Bramsdon, T. A.	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Rickett, J. Compton
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Ridsdale, E. A.
Brooke, Stopford	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Brunner, J.F.L.(Lanes., Leigh)	Kekewich, Sir George	Robinson, S.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	King, A'fred John (Knutsford)	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Rogers, F. K. Newman
Byles, William Pollard	Lambert, George	Rowlands, J.
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Clarke, C. Goddard	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Scott, A.H. (Ashton under Lyne
Cleland, J. W.	Lehmann, R. C.	Seddon, J.
Clough, William	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Cooper, G. J.	Levy, Maurice	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, EGrinst'd)	Lundon, W.	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Lupton, Arnold	Simon, John Allsebrook
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Crossley, Wm. J.	M'Crae, George	Stanger, H. Y.
Dalziel, James Henry	M'Killop, W.	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Delany, William	Maddison, Frederick	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N)	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Manstield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)	Sullivan, Donal
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Markham, Arthur Basil	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)
Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Meagher, Michael	Thompson, J.W.H. (Somerset, E.)
Everett, R. Lacey	Mond, A.	Thorne, William
Fenwick, Charles	Montagu, E. S.	Tomkinson, James
Ferens, T. R.	Montgomery, H. G.	Ward, W. Dudley (South'mpt'n)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Wason Eugene (Clackmannan)
Ffrench, Peter	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Findlay, Alexander	Murphy, John	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Murray, James	Whit bread, Howard
Fuller, John Michael F.	Newness, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	White, George (Norfolk)
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Nicholls, George	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Ginnell, L.	Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'r)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Norton, Capt, Cecil William	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Glendinning, R. G.	Nuttall, Harry	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid)	Whitehead, Rowland

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Williams, J. (Glamorgan)	Winfrey, R.	Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Williamson, A.	Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid	Pease.

MR. HICKS BEACH

moved to add, after the last Amendment, words providing that the tenant should supply the landlord, when called upon to do so, with a full and accurate statement of all the crops sold off and removed from the holding and of the holding and of the manures he had applied to the land. He said he would like to have the opinion of one of the law officers of the Crown upon the words proposed. The tenant had to provide that the necessary amount of manure was returned to the holding in order to make up for the deficiency in the fertility of the soil. It would be impossible for the landlord to prove that his tenant had taken the necessary steps to do this unless the tenant was able to prove that he had put the necessary amount of manure in the holding. It appeared to him that some words of this kind were necessary. The words of the Amendment he suggested were "and shall supply the landlord when called upon to do so with a full and accurate statement of all crops on or removed from the holding and all manures necessary for such crops."

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 31, after the words last inserted, to insert the words ' and shall supply to the landlord when called upon to do so a fall and accurate statement of all crops sold off or removed from the holding, and of all manures applied thereto in respect of such crops.' "—(Mr. Kicks Beach.)

Question proposed "That the words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. LAMBERT

said he had not seen the words on the Paper, but he was inclined to think that they were superfluous, because if the tenant did anything to injure or deteriorate the holding the landlord could restrain him, and naturally the tenant would have to supply the information which the hon. Gentleman desired should be furnished. He was sure the hon. Member in the interests of the tenant farmers would not wish to place upon them the obligation of supplying the landlord with a detailed list of these matters. He thought his hon. friend might rest assured that it was not necessary, because it was never laid down in a lease that the tenant should be called upon to present to the landlord a full and accurate statement of the crops he had sold and the manures he had applied to the land.

MR. LYTTELTON (St. George's, Hanover Square)

said he was glad to see lawyers on the Treasury Bench, for he had sat for some hours waiting to get an explanation from them. The Civil Lord had given it as his opinion that the injuction clause would meet the requirements set forth by his hon. friend behind him. He would point out that the particulars to which his hon. friend referred would be the particulars under the Amendment which had just been accepted that the tenant "shall make suitable and adequate provision to protect the holding from injury or deterioration." He thought the landlord ought to be entitled to these particulars in order that he might see whether this proviso was being fulfilled. The Civil Lord's view was that that particular requirement would be superfluous by reason of sub-section (2) which prescribed: If the tenant exercises his rights under this section in such a manner as to injure or deteriorate the holding, or to be likely to injure or deteriorate the holding, the landlord shall be entitled to recover damages in respect of such injury or deterioration, or, as the case may requite, to obtain an injunction restraining the exercise of the rights under this section in that manner, and the amount of such damages may in default of agreement be determined by arbitration. His own view was that the landlord could not go for an injunction. It would be a good answer to an action for injunction if the tenant could say that under this clause he had provided, or was about to provide, "as soon as may be" adequate provision to protect the holding, and the action for injunction would accordingly be dismissed. The landlord, having seen these particulars, could satisfy himself whether they were sufficient and adequate, and if they were he could refrain from any legal proceedings. It was far better that he should do that than that he should go through an expensive process which might be quite unnecessary. His hon. friend's Amendment was a very reasonable one.

SIR W. ROBSON

said he was in a little difficulty to know where the occasion for a lawyer came in. It was said sometimes that a little too much was seen of lawyers; but if they happened to be absent they were reproached for their absence. It was proposed by the Amendment to put on the tenant the somewhat novel requirement that he must keep accounts rather more elaborate than those which he was accustomed to keep. They ought not to impose such a requirement on the tenant unless there was some practical necessity for it. Why should it be imposed in this case? He saw nothing in the Bill to prevent agreements with regard to the supply of such particulars as the parties might think fair. Of course that would not apply to existing contracts, and to that extent there was some force in the suggestion of the hon. Member that some provision should be made for supplying particulars; but those who were engaged in agriculture could say whether it was not fairly easy for a practical man to see whether a holding had been deteriorated. He understood that the deterioration of a holding was not a matter dependent entirely, or at all, upon documentary evidence, but that it could be ascertained by an inspection of the holding as it stood. That appeared to him a simpler and better remedy than to put on the tenant this obligation of keeping books and of sending details to the landlord. Supposing the landlord had reason to believe that there had been unfair dealing with the land he would probably ask the tenant for the particulars here suggested. If the tenant refused, the landlord would then have his legal remedy. The landlord not being without a remedy, it was hotter that he should be left to take the course which he had indicated than that they should put on every tenant this novel and somewhat burdensome obligation.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD

agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that this would be an onerous obligation to impose on every tenant, but he was impressed by what his right hon. and learned friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, had said about an injunction. The only remedy they were leaving the landlords was by injunction. How long did it take to get an injunction? Must injunctions be taken out one by one, or could they take out a gross at a time? It was rather a serious thing for a landlord if one or two of his tenants were proceeding to ruin his land. Not a word had been said in the debate as to the cost of obtaining an injunction. What did an injunction cost?

SIR W. ROBSON

said that that would depend on the kind of lawyer the right hon. and gallant Gentleman employed.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

said that on this point he thought that the Solicitor-General had given his case away because he was not a practical agriculturist. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that anyone could estimate the amount of deterioration on the land by a casual inspection of it. He could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was impossible to give an award as to the amount of deterioration without long observation and more than one year's inspection. The landlord might be under the impression that deterioration was going on because of the crops being sold off the farm, but he could not be assured of this unless he had the information as to the amount of crops sold off. It was in order to avoid difficulties with the tenant and the taking of legal proceedings that the Amendment was proposed.

MR. LUPTON

said it might be a very good thing for the landlord to know the exact value of the crops sold off the farm by his tenant, but if the Government were to accept the Amendment proposed they would not be a Government at the next general election.

VISCOUNT HELMSLEY

did not think it would be a hardship on a tenant to require him to keep a record of the crops sold off the farm and the manures bought, and to give that information to the landlord. It was information which would have to be given at any rate to the arbitrator. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said that the object of the Amendment was to give information to one party which was in possession of the other party without having to have recourse to litigation.

MR. COREIE GRANT

Suppose the tenant does not give the information?

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said that that was the reason for his Amendment: the tenant would have to make a disclosure of the information wanted by process of law which was very expensive, and the landlord might be involved in very considerable cost. The hon. Member for Sleaford said that the tenant was not in the habit of keeping accounts.

MR. LUPTOX

declared he had said nothing of the sort. What he had said was that the tenant would object to be compelled to show his accounts to his landlord.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said nobody asked the tenant to show his accounts to his landlord. It was essential that he should have these accounts. They would be necessary when the matter came before an arbitrator or when the landlord took out the injunction advised by the hon. and learned Soliciter-General advised him to take out against his tenant as a sort of method of genial persuasion.

SIR W. ROBSON

said he really must ask the right hon. Gentleman to try to repeat his remarks correctly.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said the hon. and learned Solicitor-General had

advised that when a landlord considered that a holding was being deteriorated he should have recourse to an injunction. For himself he really did not think that that was the way to promote good feeling between landlord and tenant.

SIR W. ROBSON

I never said anything of the kind.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said he did not understand what the hon. and learned Solicitor-General meant, but of course he at once accepted his statement if he said that he did not use words to that effect. It appeared to him, however, that ill-feeling would be the inevitable result of this Bill. He was sure that it was the duty of the tenant to supply the information which the landlord required. and that if it were made a legal obligation the tenant would supply it at once and would not wait for the law to be put into operation against him.

MR. HUNT

thought that, as the contract was going to be broken in favour of the tenant and the tenant was to be given extra privileges, he might go so far as to keep the accounts to show whether he had put back into the land what he had take in out.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 164. (Division List. No. 405.)

AYES
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F	Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim. S.	Percy, Earl
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Craig, Captain James (Down, E.	Bandies, Sir John Scurrah
Ashley, W. W.	Dairymple, Viscount	Remnant, James Farquharson
Balcarres, Lord	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclealls
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lon.)	Forster, Henry William	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Smith, Abel H(Hertford, East)
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Hamilton, Marquess of	Starkey, John R.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Helmsley, Viscount	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Bull, Sir William James	Hills, J. W.	Turnour, Viscount
Carlile, E. Hildred	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W	Valentia, Viscount
Castlereagh, Viscount	Lambton, Hon, Frederick Wm.	Wilson. A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A. (Wor.	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Younger, George
Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham	Morpeth, Viscount
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Courthope, G. Luyd	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n )	Hieks Beach and Mr. Hunt.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Pollard, Dr.
Alien, A Acland (Christchurch)	Haworth, Arthur A.	Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Holme, Norval Watson	Rainy, A. Rolland
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Raphael, Herbert H.
Barnes, G. N.	Higham, John Sharp	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Hobart, Sir Robert	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Hodge, John	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Beauchamp, E.	Hogan, Michael	Redmond, William (Clare)
Beaumont, Hon. H. (Eastb'rne)	Horniman, Emslie John	Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'h)
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (H'x'm)	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)
Benn, Sir J. Williams (D'v'np'rt)	Hudson, Walter	Rickett, J. Compton
Benn, W.(T'w'r H'ml'ts, S. Geo.	Idris, T. H. W.	Ridsdale, E. A.
Bennett, E. N.	Jenkins, J.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Bertram, Julius	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Robinson, S.
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, R'mf'd)	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Billson, Alfred	Kekewich, Sir George	Rowlands, J.
Brace, William	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Bramsdon, T. A.	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Scott, A. H.(Ashton-under-Lyne)
Brocklehurst, W. D.	Lambert, George	Seddon, J.
Brooke, Stopford	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Levy, Maurice	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Lundon, W.	Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim S.)
Byles, William Pollard	Lupton, Arnold	Soames, Arthur Wellsley
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Stanger, H. Y.
Clarke, C. Goddard	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Cleland, J. W.	M'Crae, George	Straus, B. S. (Stile End)
Clough, William	M'Killop, W.	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Cooper, G. J.	Maddison, Frederick	Sullivan, Donal
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd)	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Markham, Arthur Basil	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset E)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Thorne, William
Crossley, William J.	Meagher, Michael	Tomkinson, James
Dalziel, James Henry	Mond, A.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Delany, William	Montagu, E. S.	Ure, Alexander
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Montgomery, H. G.	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Murphy, John	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Everett, R. Lacey	Murray, James	Whitbread, Howard
Fenwick, Charles	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	White, George (Norfolk)
Ferens, T. R.	Nicholls, George	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Nieholson, Charles N. (Donc'r)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Ffrench, Peter	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Findlay, Alexander	Nuttall, Harry	Whitehead, Row land
Flavin, Michael Joseph	O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Fuller, John Michael F.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Gibb, James (Harrow)	O'Dowd, John	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Ginnell, L.	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Winfrey, R.
Glendinning, R. G.	O'Shee, James John	Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Parker, James (Halifax)
Grant, Corrie	Paul, Herbert	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Hardie, J. Keir (Morthyr Tydvil)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)	Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Hardy, George. A (Suffolk)	Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)	Pease.

Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn"—(Mr. Whiteley)— put, and agreed to.

MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON

moved to insert after the words last inserted, the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey, by which it was provided that an intimation should be given by the tenant to the landlord, before he made any change, of his intention to make a change in the mode of cultivation. No one would suggest that such an intimation was not justly and fairly due. The second point was far more important. It dealt with the making of adequate provision. The words of the Bill were ''suitable and adequate." He supposed no words had been so fruitful a source of emolument to the learned gentlemen of the long robe as the words "suitable and reasonable" for many years past, and the words of the Bill would be just as fruitful. He submitted that they should set out exactly what they meant by the words "suitable and adequate." The Amendment provided for that, and also for the adjustment of any difficulty that might arise between the landlord and the tenant as to what was adequate. He submitted that if this clause were retained, it would be necessary to put in some words to define the meaning of "suitable and adequate," or some machinery of this kind. He begged to move.

MR STANLEY WILSON

formally seconded.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line37, after the last inserted, to insert the words proved 'that before departing from the mode of such cultivation, cropping, of disposal of product proscribed in the contract of tenancy he shall have made written intimation to the landlord of his intention to do so and in what manner, and, if required by the landlord, shall have made adequate provision, to the satisfaction of a single arbitrator, appointed by the Board of Agriculture, to protect the holding from injury or deterioration; the lee and expenses of such arbitrator to be borne equally by the landlord and the tenant. "—[Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.)

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

MR. LAMBERT

said it semed that. hon. Gentlemen opposite had suddenly developed a love for what before they had termed gentleman of the long robe, be- cause if anything would assist them this clause must do so. In any ordinary case, if a man took a crop off the land and put on a second crop but manured the land properly the landlord was uninjured but the tenant was benefited. He also saw that the arbitrator was to be appointed by the Board of Agriculture, but one of the arguments adduced by hon. Members on Clause 1 was that the tenants were to have a voice in the selection of the arbitrators. This Amendment was contrary to all those arguments. He further noticed that it proposed to upset the Act of 1900 by saying that the fees of the arbitrator were to be borne equally by landlord and tenant, whereas by Act of 1900 the arbitrator had power to award the costs in his discretion. He wished to point out that the hon. Member's object was really covered by sub-section (2) of Clause 2 which gave the landlord ample right to protect himself. He was sorry that he| could not accept the Amendment.

VISCOUNT TURNOUR

said they had had a great many hon. Members in charge of this Bill, but the hon. Member i now in charge had shown himself to be the most capable of them all. [Cries of "Oh, oh." Those interruptions were as meaningless as they were discourteous, and he appealed to the Deputy Chairman for protection against the interruptions of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. It seemed that no hardship would be done to the tenants by the acceptance of this Amendment, and the landlord would enjoy more freedom when the Bill became law under this Amendment than under the clause as it now stood.

COLONEL ENYON-SLANEY

did not think the hon. Member in charge of the Bill saw both sides of the question. Suppose a landlord had lot his farm to a tenant under a contract, and he was going to crop the farm according to the custom of the country. Believing in the man he would not attempt to follow ' him about or to spy upon his system of farming. The farmer in the natural exercise of his right thought perhaps he could improve upon the system. Before he did it, he would give notice to his landlord of the fact and probably he would find his landlord ready to help him to carry out his improvement.

*MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS (Denbigh District)

The same as you did with Mr. Horne.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

asked if the hon. Member who made that interruption would stand up in his place so that he might see him, and so that he might know in what corner of the House there sat a slanderer.

*MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS

Certainly. It, was I, the Member for Denbigh Boroughs.

*THE DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I did not hear the remark of the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway o n the Government side, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must know that his phrase is entirely unparliamentary.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I want to make my point clear. I have been subjected seven or eight times in the course of this particular debate to a personal allusion which is most uncourteous, most unfair, and which, in my opinion is decidedly slanderous, because it is untrue. [Cries of "What is it?"]

*THE DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The right hon. Gentleman has used the word "slanderer," and I must ask him to withdraw it. I am very sorry that these taunts which hurt the right hon. Gentleman so much are made from time to time. I really did not hear what was said, but I would appeal to hon. Members not to make these interruptions.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

I immediately withdraw any words you, Sir, think unparliamentary, but I am equally certain that if you knew what was meant by the words, you would hardly have thought my retort too strong. And in that I shall be fortified by the opinion of many hon. Members on the other side of the House.

MR. LYTTELTON

said he could not add anything to the words which his right hon. and gallant friend had used when he was so discourteously interrupted. When a tenant was going to make an experiment upon his land his natural good feeling towards his landlord would cause him to make an intimation of the sort suggested, and they could talk it out together and gain the value of each other's experience. He agreed with the Civil Lord that the last four lines of the Amendment after the word "manner" were superfluous because the landlord was already adequately protected under subsection (3). He pressed the Government most earnestly to accept this Amendment down to the word "manner."

MR. COCHRANE

said that under the clause as drafted there appeared to him to be no intimation to be made. After all, it would be a very simple thing for the tenant who was going to make the change to send a postcard or letter to his landlord and intimate in writing that he proposed to do so. He could not conceive in that anything hostile to the principle of the Bill. On the contrary, he thought it would strengthen very greatly the position of both landlord and tenant. If this Bill was being promoted not for the benefit of the tenant farmer or of the landlord but to give extra jobs to the members of the legal profession, then they must find what they had been seeking, namely, some adequate reason why a Bill of such a preposterous character had been brought before the House. He moved to leave out of the Amendment all the words after the word "manner."

MR. HUNT

seconded.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment— To leave out all the words after ' manner.' "—(Mr. Cochrane.)

Agreed to.

Question proposed, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. HUNT

expressed the hope that the Government would accept the Amendment. It would do no possible harm and it was very likely to enable matters between landlord and tenant to be more easily arranged. If a tenant went to the landlord and said that he wanted to alter his cropping, it was very likely that the landlord would agree after talking over the matter, and there would be no more trouble about it.

VISCOUNT HELMSLEY

thought the Amendment should be accepted. The clause as it stood at present not only gave freedom to the tenant to depart from the ordinary rotation of crops, but it also gave him the right to farm any crop which he thought might, with advantage, be grown in the district. Suppose a farmer took it into his head that his land was suitable for growing tobacco, there was nothing in the clause to prevent him planting tobacco. The least that could be expected was that the landlord should be informed of the tenant's intention to make a change. Personally, he was against the clause altogether, but if freedom of cropping was to be allowed this Amendment should be accepted, as the landlord had a right to know what was going to take place. If the clause contained this stipulation there would be far less suspicion between landlord and tenant than there would otherwise be.

MR. WYNDHAM

said the Civil Lord's chief objection to the Amendment in its original form was that it would increase litigation. That had now been removed, and he hoped the Government would agree to some form of written intimation being given to the landlord that the tenant intended to make a new experiment.

SIR W. ROBSON

said there was one reason against putting in these words, though it might not be conclusive, but it was one which ought certainly to be taken into account when it was proposed to put on any class a new legal obligation. They were by this clause giving freedom of cropping. He was sure that everybody would see that it was desirable to avoid a man being deprived by some little legal technicality of a right which he had expected and had earned. For that reason it was undesirable that they should multiply the technicalities involved in the Amendment.

MR. WALTER LONG

said that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposed the Amendment on the ground that it interposed a legal technicality between the tenant and his right; but the words of the Amendment were precisely the formula adopted in the Agricultural Holdings. Act. It was surely better in the interests of the tenant himself, and it could not be a hardship, to impose upon him the condition that before embarking on a new ' method of cultivation he should tell his landlord of it. He could not understand the reason for the refusal to accept the Amendment.

MR. CORRIE GRANT

said if the right hon. Gentleman had listened to the speeches of hon. Members behind him— experienced landlords and tenants—he would have known that at present good tenants were permitted by good landlords to crop their land as they pleased. As to the cost of litigation an ex parte injunction against a tenant for a breach of the contract of his tenancy could be got in Chambers within a few hours, and at a small cost, so that the hon. Gentleman's argument fell to the ground.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

said he had not taken much part in the discussions on the Bill, because some of the provisions in it, he thought, were good. He believed the motive of the clause was to give the tenant freedom of cropping as far as that could be done. At present everything was regulated by a good understanding between landlord and tenant, and that worked fairly well, although it was not a business transaction in an industry the magnitude of which was more than equal to all the other industries in the country. He had always avoided the use of the term "bad landlord; "he preferred the term "commercial landlord." It was rather curious that if a man in commercial life made the best of his property he was called a clever fellow, but if a landlord took the best advantage of his property he was called a bad landlord. Therefore he called such a man a commercial landlord as distinguished from a philanthropic landlord. It was impossible to frame a Land Tenure Bill without doing some injury to either landlord or tenant, and the only way of settling it was for the farmer to become owner of his holding. A good understanding was the best possible security under our system of landlord and tenant, was in favour of a good tenant and a good landlord; they always acted well together. But how about the bad farmer We had the finest farmers in the world, out at the same time we had a class—he was afraid it was an increasing class— who took farm after farm and farmed hem as a lodger, and not as the holder of a permanent holding. What about the lodger farmer? Lot them take the latter part of the clause dealing with cases in which the landlord saw, or thought he saw, that his farm had been deteriorated.

MR. MADDISON (Burnley)

rose to a point of order. He asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was now in order in discussing the clause generally, instead of the Amendment which dealt with giving notice to the landlord.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER

said he thought the right hon. Gentleman was discussing much more the general principle of the clause than the Amendment.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

was sorry if he had done so, but it was absolutely impossible to discuss this clause, and especially the Amendment of it, without having regard to the present relations between landlord and tenant, which the present proposals would so vitally alter. If one could not refer to the Bill as it now stood, how could one deal with the Amendment? He supposed that he was in order in referring to the last few lines of the clause. He was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Rugby say that there was such a thing as cheap law. He did not think anybody had ever hoard of it.

MR. CORRIE GRANT

remarked that he had never said anything of the kind. What he said was entirely different He had said that there was a cheap process of getting an injunction. He had said that injunction was a cheap process. [Cries of "How."] By a summons at Chambers and an application on an affidavit.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said he was not a lawyer, but he thought that getting an injunction was a process of law, and law was not cheap. He was astounded to hear the objection which the Solicitor-General brought forward, that it was wrong and inadvisable to introduce purely technical obligations between landlord and tenant. Why, this Bill bristled with technical obligations. It was better to have technical obligations which everyone who ran might read requiring that everything that the tenant was going to do should be told to the landlord. It was better to impose a simple state of things like that rather than to leave it to this cheap process: of law, which if an injunction was obtained would cost money. And, moreover, if the result was in favour of the landlord how was he going to enforce it? Was he going to turn the tenant out? Then he would, he supposed, be sued for compensation for disturbance. If he sued the tenant for damages how could he prove the damages, which might have been going on for two or three years? He knew a farm in the Midland Counties which for many years had been a model farm. The stackyards were full and the understanding between landlord and tenant was perfect. For the last four years that farm had been going down and down. It might he said that the landlord should have applied for an injunction in the first year, but he did not, and now if he turned the tenant out the farm was ruined. The landlord therefore said, "I had better let him go on, as he pays a fair rent." If there was anyone present who was authorised to accept an Amendment on behalf of the Government, it was, he thought, in the interest of the Bill that this Amendment should be accepted. It would enact a common sense thing, and he urged the Solicitor-General to accept it.

At this point SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN entered the House from behind Mr. Speaker's chair.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said perhaps it would be at this hour convenient if he were to move the adjournment of the debate if only for the purpose of informing the right hon. Gentleman of what had happened since he left the House at uestion time yesterday. They commenced the debate on the clause with which they were now engaged about eight o'clock on the previous evening.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said he might save the right hon. Gentleman some time if he said he was in the House until eleven o'clock when the right hon. Gentleman himself was not present.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that from the last interruption of the right hon. Gentleman it would appear that he was in the building but not in the House, for he (Mr. Balfour) made at least one long speech. But the right hon. Gentleman who so faithfully kept the eleven o'clock rule in his own person unfortunately had to leave the House before some of the difficulties in which they were involved became acute. When they had pressed the Government for some consideration the adjournment of the debate was moved, and the Patronage Secretary, who in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman acted as Leader of the House, informed them that unless they could finish the whole Bill by this night it would be impossible to avoid sitting beyond Christmas.

MR. GEORGE WHITELEY

said what he remarked was that the House would not want probably to sit beyond Christmas, and if that discussion was protracted to any great length it might have to.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said the courtesy of the hon. Gentleman was impeccable, but he certainly believed that the hon. Gentleman gave them to understand that unless they could finish the Bill by tonight ["No" and "Yes"] it would not be possible to avoid sitting after Christmas. The sitting went on as these all night sittings usually did, with one or two notable exceptions. The most notable exception occurred a little later on in the early morning, when they again as was customary on such occasions raised the question of how the time of the House was to be used. Again the Patronage Secretary got up and informed the House that he certainly meant to take no steps to relieve them from the labours upon which they were engaged until the right hon. Gentleman opposite came down to the House. He was the last to grudge the right hon. Gentleman his night's repose, but it did seem hard that his repose should be the measure of their exertions, and that the longer he slept the less sleep they were to have. But the moment had come when they were again blessed with the presence of the right hon. Gentleman, and he would seriously ask him whether he did not think a termination might be put to the discussion.. They had not yet finished Clause 4, and the next clause, Clause 5, involved a principle of a very far-reaching character. The right hon. Gentleman knew the Opposition had a rooted objection to that principle, which had its birth in Ireland under very different circum- stances, being transported to England and Scotland, and they would not be' doing their duty if they did not meet it with the most strenuous opposition. He did not think it was fair that they should be asked to proceed with the discussion of that principle immediately after an all-night sitting. He did not think that would be a wise course for the right hon. Gentleman to adopt or a very creditable course for the House to pursue. He therefore ventured to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who came calm and fresh to the heated scene of their labours of the last sixteen hours, and to put it to him that it would be better to have some pause before they dealt with the critical provisions of Clause 5.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."— (Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said the right hon. Gentleman had spoken with perfectly good humour, a spirit which he fully recognised and reciprocated. He had, however, indulged in some rather depreciatory observations in consequence of his absence. Perhaps he might relieve the Leader of the Opposition's mind upon this subject by stating that he could produce a medical certificate which would justify his absence.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

interposed and said that under the circumstances he wished to withdraw all references to the Prime Minister's absence.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

expressed his regret that on other occasions from the same cause he was obliged to be less closely in attendance at the House than he would like to be. However, he thougho he could improve on the well-known lines of Lucretius. From a safe shore he had not had the opportunity of witnessing the periis of the deep encountered by others. But he had even done better, because he had heard a description of them from those who had been present. He understood, and the right hon. Gentleman's speech confirmed the understanding that the proceedings, although protracted and well sustained, had been good humoured throughout. The man in the street, when he saw "All-night Sitting," thought Members had been rushing at each other, and that there had been constant squabbling and almost indecent contests; whereas sometimes there were very long periods, as his experience went in these matters, of apathy and indifference, and the only thing that was consumed was time. They had now arrived at a critical stage of this Bill. He admitted that it was a Bill that j justified a considerable amount of feeling on the part of hon. Members opposite, but his hon. friends behind him believing that they were supported by a strong feeling in the country, naturally they were anxious and determined to proceed with the measure. He thought they had now come to a period when an arrangement might be made, and he proposed that they should not move to suspend the eleven o'clock rule to-night nor to-morrow night; that they should get Clause 4 at this stage, continue the Bill this evening, and that on Wednesday they might expect to get the conclusion of this stage of the Bill before eleven o'clock. Hon. Members might lay it to their credit and glory, if they associated glory with it, that they had got another day for the discussion.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

thought he might say, on behalf of his friends, that they were prepared to accept the suggestion of the Prime Minister. To avoid: some little accident, he thought it would perhaps be better to suspend the eleven o'clock rule on Wednesday.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said it was far from him to insist on that point when the Loader of the Opposition was anxious to have the facility.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

asked leave to withdraw his Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 8, at the end, to insert the words, ' (3) A tenant shall not be entitled to any compensation in respect of manures as defined by The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900, which have been used for the purpose of making adequate provision to protect the holding from injury or deterioration in cases where the tenant has so exercised his rights under this section that the holding would have been injured or deteriorated it such manures had not been used.' "—(Sir Edward Strachey.)

Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted in the Bill."

LORD R. CECIL

moved an Amend-mend to the Amendment that after the word "been" in the third line the following words should be inserted "applied to the holding as required by Section 4."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill, in line 3, after the word "been," to insert the words "applied to the holding in respect of crops sold off or removed therefrom as required by Section 4, or which have been."—(Mr. Lambton.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment to the Bill.

MR. LAMBERT

said his Amendment had been somewhat sprung upon the House and they had not had time to consider it. He hoped the noble Lord would accept his assurance that he would carefully consider the matter, and if it was found necessary words would be inserted in another place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee) to be further considered this day.