Lords Sitting of 13 August 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) * (189); Isle of Wight Highways * (191).
Second Reading—Diseases Prevention (Metropolis) (181).
Committee—Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) (178–190).
Committee—Report—Public Health Act, 1875, (Support of Sewers) Amendment* (172).
Report—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) * (151); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3)* (152); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) * (158); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 9) * (161); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 10) * (162); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 11) * (163); Parochial Charities (London)* (187); Patents for Inventions* (179).
Third Reading—Trial of Lunatics* (169); Statute Law Revision* (176), and passed.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (NEW RULES).

  PETITION PRESENTED.
  LORD BRAMWELL,in presenting a Petition from the Bar Committee asking their Lordships to present an humble Address to Her Majesty, praying that the New Rules regulating the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court of Judicature might be annulled, said, the object of the Petitioners was by no means hostile to the New Rules; but they thought that if the Rules were published and discussed they might be improved, and this could be done by such an Address as prayed, and by a second issuing of the Rules. He could not agree in the prayer of the Petition. He thought they were excellent, and

  211
  the sooner they were adopted the better. They could be amended if, in the working, faults were discovered. He should be glad to see the Long Vacation shortened—not the long Vacation of the Judges, but of the Courts. The Judges required a very long Vacation. They now did five weeks' more work every year than before the Judicature Act. He would like to see a rota formed, or some other arrangement made, by which the Judges might sit in turn. He thought that might have been done; but he begged to say again that they ought to be very much obliged to those who had drawn the Rules.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was very much gratified at hearing what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend. With regard to the single point upon which he had objected to the Rules, about the length of the Long Vacation remaining unaltered, he did not at all differ from him; but it was not in the power of the Rule Committee of the Judges to deal with that matter—it could only be dealt with by an Order in Council, upon the advice of a Council of the whole body of Judges. He thought he might bear his testimony to the very great assiduity and zeal for the Public Service with which his Colleagues had laboured for about two years in the preparation of the New Code of Rules. He thought no public servants ever took more pains about any work, or brought to it a greater amount of knowledge and intelligence; and among those who assisted him he could not help specially mentioning the late Master of the Rolls (Sir George Jessel), who, he knew, approved of all the alterations, which had been decided upon before his lamented death, including most of those which were of any great importance. As to the applications said to have been made by the Bar Committee and the Inns of Court to the Rule Committee, neither from the Incorporated Law Society, nor from any Society or Body of persons in any sense representing the Bar, was any application made for any communication of the Rules to them during the time while those Rules were still under consideration. What applications were actually made were made when the Rules were in the course of signature by the Judges; and if those applications had been granted the Rules could not have been laid before Parliament during
  212
  the present Session. The Rule Committee made no secret of the work on which they were engaged during the whole progress of it; it had its commencement in the Report of a preliminary Departmental Committee, on which the Judges, the Bar, and the solicitors were well represented; and the Rule Committee, from time to time, communicated freely with Judges, officers of the Court, and barristers and solicitors of experience, on many of the questions which they had to consider. Under those circumstances, no one, he was sure, could suppose that any other course could have been taken than was actually taken.

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS—PUBLIC OFFICES.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  LORD LAMINGTON,in rising to ask whether the Government would delay the erection of any building in Parliament Street until the plan of the whole proposed improvements from Whitehall to the Houses of Parliament had been submitted to Parliament, and to move for a Return of the rents paid for the hire of public offices other than the War Office and the Admiralty, said, that he had taken an interest in this matter for over 30 years. There had been many Committees to inquire into it, and the last appointed in 1877, of which he was Chairman, reported that the Government Offices should be concentrated. He was most anxious that the Government should avoid committing the grievous error which he thought they were about to fall into. He understood, as far as he could judge from what appeared in the newspapers, that it was now intended to take down the present buildings in Parliament Street, and widen that thoroughfare; but to his great regret he saw it was not intended to use the ground so gained, for the concentration of Public Offices, but to let it on building leases. If that were done, it would be the greatest blunder possible; whereas, if Government Offices were erected on the land, not only would the appearance of the neighbourhood be improved, and the convenience of Public Departments consulted, but there would also be a saving of £35,000 annually, and the buildings could be erected for about £800,000,
  Moved, "That there he laid before this House, Return of the rents paid for the hire of public offices other than the War Office and Admiralty."—(The Lord Lamington.)
  LORD THURLOWsaid, that, in reply to the first portion of the Question, he was directed to say that it would be necessary to apply to Parliament for further powers before proceeding with the erection of Public Offices in Parliament Street; and when that application was made, it would be accompanied by a complete plan of what it was proposed to build, and Members of both Houses of Parliament would have a full opportunity of expressing their opinions as to the merits of the scheme. With regard to the second portion of the Question, his noble Friend would find the information he desired in the Estimates presented annually to Parliament, in Class I. of the Revenue Departments and Customs, as regarded most of the Public Offices that were hired, and as regarded the Post Office and Telegraph Offices in Estimates 3 and 5 of the Revenue Department expenses.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, the noble Lord had not answered the Question of his noble Friend. He thought the Question was, whether it was intended to let the ground in Parliament Street on building leases? He would, therefore, ask the noble Lord whether it was a fact that Parliament Street was going to be pulled down for the purpose of letting the ground on building leases?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the Questions on the Paper had been replied to; but if there were any other Questions on the subject, Notice should be given of them.
  LORD LAMINGTONsaid, he would give Notice to ask other Questions on a future day.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.

POST OFFICE-UNDERGROUND TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE WIRES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether, in the extension of the telegraph system which was now contemplated, they intended to consider the feasibility of carrying the wires underground, as was done in some other countries, instead of upon
  214
  poles according to the present universal practice of Great Britain to the detriment of the landscape? It had been stated that the expense of carrying wires underground was considerably more than carrying them overground, and that it was as much as 100 to 30; but he had lately received information from America to the effect that, in consequence of recent inventions, the expense, so far from being greater, was less than the overhead method. If it were impossible to adopt a general system of underground wires throughout the country, he hoped the beauty of some of the valleys and mountains in Scotland and elsewhere would be spared by having unsightly telegraph poles erected on them.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he concurred in the view taken by the noble Viscount, though more on account of practical than of picturesque considerations. Apart from the disfiguration of scenery, there was great public danger from the present system of suspending telegraph wires from poles along the public roads. In the North, when there was a heavy snowstorm the wires and poles occasionally gave way, interrupting and causing great danger to traffic. This risk would be wholly removed by a system of underground wires.
  LORD THURLOWsaid, he had been in communication with the Postmaster General upon this subject; and, while he had every desire to carry out the system of underground wires as far as possible, the additional expense, as compared with carrying wires on poles, was very large, so that it would be impossible to adopt the system generally; but, as regarded large towns, care would be taken to adopt the underground system in as many cases as possible. That was all the Postmaster General could undertake at present. He would, however, take care that the remarks of the noble Viscount were brought before the Postmaster General, who would consider them with attention.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS—THE COMPULSORY CLAUSES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether, having regard to the fearful increase of juvenile prostitution, the strong feeling of the country on the subject, and the

  215
  fact that Mr. Gladstone had announced his intention to abandon the Bill wdich had recently passed that House, which had for its alleged object the mitigation of this crying evil, they would reconsider their policy of practically repealing the Contagious Diseases Acts, which had been proved by the evidence given before the Select Committee of that House to be doing an immensity of good work in this very direction? What the Government ought to have done after the scratch vote, passed by a majority consisting of considerably less than a third of the Members of the House of Commons, was to have seen whether Parliament would refuse the money to carry on the Acts. He had evidence to prove that the operation of these Acts had been most beneficial at Portsmouth, and had been the means of rescuing many young girls from a life of misery and vice. The Government did not invariably show the respect for Resolutions of the House of Commons which they had professed in the matter of these Acts. When asked why the Government had taken no action in pursuance of Mr. Chaplin's Resolution with regard to restricting the importation of foreign cattle, Mr. Gladstone had recently replied that they were very desirous of giving effect to Resolutions of the House of Commons "compatible with that which was of higher importance, obedience to the law of the land." But in this case they had given an effect to a Resolution of that House which completely set aside the law of the land. The recent Resolution passed in the House of Commons was due to the opposition raised by fanatics of both sexes, extreme Radicals, and loose women, with whose avocations these most salutary Acts seriously interfered.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKwas understood to reply that, after what had happened in the other House on that subject, the Government had adopted the only course in regard to it which, under the circumstances, was left open to them.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 178.)
(The Lord President.)
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 178.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, "That the House do resolve itself into Committee on the Bill."—(The Lord Carlingford.)
  LORD FORBESsaid, he was of opinion that their Lordships were entering with too light a heart upon that legislation. He was surprised at the great rapidity with which the second reading of the Bill had been taken. Legislation of this kind affected Scotland a great deal more than it affected England. The measure dealing with the same subject for England, in his opinion, would not do half so much harm, or lead to half the litigation, which the present Bill would do for Scotland. It would cause much heartburning and irritation between landlord and tenant, while to the small proprietor it was likely to prove disastrous. The Scottish farmers were in a different condition from the English farmers in respect to leases; and he hoped the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) would give the same attention to the Scotch Bill that he had done to the English, and that the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) would forget his own position, and legislate for the smaller proprietors.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Compensation for Improvements.
  Clause 1 (General right of tenant to compensation).
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL THE DUKE OF ARGYLL moved to add the following Proviso corresponding to that in the English Bill:—namely—
  "Provided always, that, in estimating the value of any improvement in the Schedule hereto, there shall not be taken into account as part of the improvement made by the tenant what is justly due to inherent capabilities of the soil."
  His Amendment, as it originally stood on the Paper, comprised only "Parts I. and II." of the Schedule; but he would accept the proposal contained in an Amendment of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) that the Proviso should extend to the whole Schedule.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 1, line 12, after ("tenant,") add (" Provided always, that, in estimating the value of any improvement in the Schedule hereto, there shall not be taken into account as part of the improvement made by the tenant what is justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil.")—(The Duke of Argyll.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he was quite prepared to accept the Amendment as it stood upon the Paper, as it was similar to the one that had been accepted by the Government in the House of Commons upon the English Bill; but he objected to its extension to the 3rd Part of the Schedule. It was true that it had been extended in this way in the English Bill; but it was done against the wishes of those who were in charge of the Bill, and even the authors of it did not express any desire to have it so extended.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the noble Lord had made a statement which showed that he must have been misinformed—namely, that those who were the authors of the Amendment expressed no desire that it should be extended to the 3rd Schedule. At that time the Amendment, which was that of Mr. Balfour, covered the whole ground of the Schedule, and was in the English Bill. After the Committee stage, however, had been gone through, the Government procured a reversal of the decision that the Committee had come to upon Mr. Balfour's Amendment. Time passed by, and he believed a Motion was made at the instance of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach that the Proviso should extend to the 3rd Part of the Schedule; therefore, he hoped the noble Lord would not take up the position that there was no desire on the part of the authors of the Amendment to extend it to the 3rd Part of the Schedule.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that the statement of the noble Lord (Lord Carlingford) was correct, in so far that no such extension was proposed by any Member from Scotland.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was of opinion that the extension of the Proviso to Part III. was, in some respects, more important than its extension to Parts I. and II.; because, as regards Parts I. and II, the landlord could protect himself by agreement.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he could not admit the force of the noble Duke's argument.
  Amendment agreed to,
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS THE EARL OF WEMYSS moved to add to the clause the following Proviso:—
  "Provided that this Act shall not apply to any holding under a contract of lease current
  218
  at the commencement of this Act, unless the landlord and tenant agree in writing that the Act, or any part thereof, shall apply to the holding."
  The purpose of the Amendment was to do with regard to Scotland what had been done in the English Bill. He regretted that this Proviso had not been inserted when the Bill was in the House of Commons. It was a more important Proviso as regarded Scotland than as regarded England, because, as the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) knew, the whole tenure in Scotland was under lease.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 1, line 13, at end of clause, add—" Provided that this Act shall not apply to any holding under a contract of lease current at the commencement of this Act, unless the landlord and tenant agree in writing that the Act, or any part thereof, shall apply to the holding."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he sincerely hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment. He would pass by the remarks which the noble Earl had been good enough to address to him personally, and also his remarks with regard to the House of Commons. The noble Earl was in a peculiarly unfortunate position in his reference to the House of Commons, because, if there had been any wish to extend this principle in the House of Commons, the noble Earl had not only a county Member to represent him, but a county Member who stood in the interesting relation of a son. Therefore, the noble Earl had an advantage over some of their Lordships in having direct representation in the House of Commons. Whether it was necessary or not for legislation to be initiated in that House which had never been mentioned in the House of Commons, he would merely mention the fact that the Members representing Scotch constituencies had not thought it necessary to moot this point in the House of Commons. The Amendment, if agreed to, would render the Bill absolutely null and void in Scotland. The Bill would become practically no boon to the farmers, but, on the contrary, a constant source of irritation.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he might remind their Lordships that there was an enormous difference between the English and Scotch farmers, in consequence of which what would apply to the one would not necessarily

  219
  apply to the other. In England the system was for a farmer to take his farm upon a year-to-year tenancy, whereas in Scotland they were almost all 19 years' tenancies; and it seemed to him only fair and reasonable that the operation of the Bill should apply to the remainder of the term of existing leases having still to run.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was quite willing that the Bill should apply to all leases except those which contained specific provisions. As almost the whole area of Scotland, except the crofters, was under lease, the operation of the Bill as regarded the 3rd Schedule would be, by the Amendment, practically postponed for various terms of years—from two or three up to 19 years. That would create such dissatisfaction in Scotland that it would be very unwise for their Lordships to adopt it. He thought it would be unfair and invidious and not worth while to exempt existing leases.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, that there might be cases in which leases were renewed with certain understandings not embodied in writing; and if they were to be included in the Act, while others who had taken care to have specific agreements were excluded, the dissatisfaction would be greater than if they were both excluded. He could not help hoping the Amendment would be accepted.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (Lord PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that the noble Earl who had moved this Amendment, having on a former occasion asked their Lordships to make the sacrifice of the whole Bill to the principle of freedom of contract, which he had made into an idol which he worshipped with somewhat of unreasoning reverence, now asked their Lordships to make a lesser sacrifice to his shibboleth by postponing the operation of the Bill in certain cases for a number of years. He, however, thought it was impossible, with the two Agricultural Bills now before Parliament, to treat the argument at the high level which his noble Friend desired. They must come down to a lower level. The effect of the adoption of the Amendment of the noble Earl would be to put the Scotch tenant—for many years to come, at least, if not for the lifetime of many of them—upon an unequal footing with his English brethren in respect of tenant's improvements. The position would
  220
  be this. In some instances they would have Scotch tenants who had made valuable improvements upon their farms—and that was what they desired to encourage and promote—compelled to leave those improvements for the benefit of their landlords or their successors; and in other instances they would have the same class of tenants obtaining rights under this Bill. Under those circumstances, whatever might be the abstract merits of the question, the rights of the tenants would be so uuequal, and of such a character, that it was impossible for the House to contemplate such a result; therefore, he trusted that their Lordships would reject the Amendment, as they had done an Amendment framed in a similar spirit by the noble Marquess opposite.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that while he should decline to record his vote in favour of the Amendment, which would be equivalent in many cases to a rejection of the Bill for a number of years, he desired to point out that his Amendment merely proposed to postpone the operation of a particular clause for a time; whereas the noble Earl's Amendment proposed to postpone the operation of the whole Bill in certain cases for a number of years.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that the effect of the noble Earl's Amendment would be to prevent the Bill coming into operation in many cases until after the year 1900. If the noble Earl's tenants were satisfied with the conditions of agriculture which were in their leases, then the tenants would remain as they were now. If they thought that the conditions were insufficient protection, then they would come under the Act. If the noble Earl and his tenants were on happy terms, and his agreements were right and proper, then he might rest perfectly quiet.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, it was with something more than astonishment that he had heard from the Lord President (Lord Carlingford) language almost denunciatory of those who endeavoured in their Lordships' House to maintain the principles of freedom of agreement between full-grown men which had been, from time immemorial until the most recent date, the faith of Her Majesty's Government. The 19 years' lease was entered into by the two parties with a full

  221
  knowledge of what they were doing. The agreements proposed under this Bill were unnecessary, as the 19 years' lease had been supposed to give a farmer all that was required to recoup him for his outlay. The noble Lord sneered, as usual, at anyone who differed from him as to freedom of contract; but what he wished to point out, not only to the House, but also to the public out-of-doors, was this—that apparently both sides of the House were agreed that contracts so entered into were to be broken by the State. He thought that any Legislature or Ministry which rested on such principles as those was resting on entirely false ground. What was now to be done was, when proposed in the matter of hares and rabbits a few years ago, viewed by the Members of the Cabinet as an insult. What was being done would not only break contract, but shatter the foundations of commercial transactions in this country. The commercial classes would be horrified, and they would petition their Lordships' House, but for the fact that they saw that both sides of the House were prepared to give this great question of principle the go-by. He felt most strongly the position which he had taken up, and on which he stood. The noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) spoke of giving a boon to the tenant. The question seemed to be not whether they were doing what was right and was beneficial to agriculture, but simply whether they were giving a boon to the tenant at the expense of the landlord.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he must congratulate the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss) on his remarkable powers of seeing and hearing. He was the only Member of their Lordships' House who had ever heard denunciatory language from the Lord President, or had ever seen him sneer. The noble Earl had said that a 19 years' lease had always been considered a sufficient safeguard for the tenant in Scotland; but the Commission over which the noble Duke opposite had presided had come to a different conclusion, and was of opinion that a tenant ought to have compensation for his improvements at the end of his lease, and the Bill proceeded on that assumption. He regretted that the noble Earl, after all he had seen and heard, should not be able to see the necessity for the change.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:— Contents 26; Not-Contents 45: Majority 19.

  CONTENTS.

  Northumberland, D,

  Blantyre, L. [Teller.]

  Forbes, L.

  Winchester, M.

  Gerard, L.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Clonmell, E.

  Lamington, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Lyvedon, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens berry.)

  Norton, L.

  Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

  Fortescue, E.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Haddington, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.) [Teller.]

  Melville, V.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Wynford, L.

  Zouche of Haryng-worth, L.

  Bateman, L.

  Beaumont, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Crewe, L.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Emly, L.

  Richmond, D.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Westminster, D.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Derby, E.

  Lovat, L.

  Devon, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Moncreiff, L.

  Morley, E.

  Monson, E.[Teller.]

  Northbrook, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Sydney, E.

  Reay, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  Aberdare, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Alington, L.

  Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Carlingford, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Resolved in the negative.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  As to Improvements executed before the Commencement of Act.
  Clause 2 (Restriction as to improvements before Act).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he proposed to insert 10 years as the time before the commencement of the Act within which a tenant might claim for compensation.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 17, after ("has") insert ("within ten years.")—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, the Government could be no parties to the Amendment being accepted.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  As to Improvements executed after the Commencement of Act.
  Clause 3 (Consent of landlord as to improvements in the first part of schedule) agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Notice to landlord as to improvements in second part of shcedule).
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he thought the substitution of the word "drainage" for "improvement" throughout the clause would be an advantage.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he would consider the matter before the Report stage.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he had an Amendment to propose, the effect of which was to relieve the landlord from the limit of 5 per cent imposed by the Bill, in cases where he undertook the drainage, and to permit the rate of interest to be a matter of agreement between the parties.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 30, leave out from (" with ") to (" improvement") in line 32, and insert ("with interest thereon at such percentage as may be agreed on.")—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he thought the clause left it open to the landlord and tenant to agree to terms.
  LORD WATSONthought it unfortunate that the clause was not more clearly expressed, as it appeared the landlord and tenant could only agree for one purpose that the tenant should drain, whereas he thought the intention of the framer of the clause was that the landlord and tenant might agree upon that subject.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he would suggest that, as the Government were preparing an amended clause on this subject for the English Bill,
  224
  they ought to see it, as it might obviate all the difficulties in the present case.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was of opinion that some such words as "proper and reasonable" might meet the difficulty.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he thought the clause required re-drafting. The words "proper and reasonable" would very likely lead to litigation, as the Courts would be asked to decide what was meant by those words. He did not see why a landlord should not be allowed to execute the drainage according to his own judgment, and charge the tenant interest upon the outlay.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he thought that would be undesirable, as the landlord might go in for unnecessarily expensive drainage, and in such a case the words "proper and reasonable" would have application.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he would suggest that it might be convenient to reserve the revision of the clause till the Report, because they would have to deal with the corresponding clause in the English Bill on the Report, and he had already placed Amendments on the Paper on the part of the Government.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, there was a danger of a tenant draining in such an insufficient way that in a few years the whole work was worse than useless, and that was a thing which ought to be prevented.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he begged to move, as an Amendment, to substitute "four" for "three" as the rate of interest chargeable by a landlord to a tenant on outlay on improvements, when the repayment of the amount of such outlay was spread over a period of 25 years.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 34, leave out (" three ") and insert ("four.")—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he could not accept the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLasked whether the President of the Council really, on the part of the Government, objected to a landlord being able to charge a ten

  225
  ant the same rate of interest which he himself was compelled to pay? He said that no landlord could borrow money for drainage at a lower rate than 4 per cent just now; and was it decent, was it reasonable, that the law should compel the landlord to drain his land for the tenant on such terms that he could not possibly gain anything, and must lose a good deal, while the tenant had all the advantage? The proposal seemed to him so preposterous that he could not believe the Government would adhere to it.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that it was a concession made by the Government in the other House. The Bill, as it originally stood, provided only for a charge of 5 per cent, and it was altered on the proposal of an independent Member, the Amendment being accepted by the Government and by all parties who took part in the discussion. When he was told that this was a monstrous thing, he was bound to repeat what he had said the other evening, that the landlord at the end of 25 years would find himself in the position of having laid out a sum of money on his own estate, and would get back his capital, having meantime enjoyed as high a rate of interest as he could have got if he had bought a piece of additional land. The object of the landlord in carrying out drainage works was either to get or to keep a good tenant; and the indirect advantages which he obtained were very great indeed. He thought the landlord might be very well content, supposing he refused to allow the tenant to carry out these improvements himself, to be subject to the trifling loss of interest which might arise under the provisions of the clause. The indirect and most real advantages which he would in most cases obtain appeared to him ample compensation for any such trifling loss as that.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, their Lordships had nothing to do with what was done in the other House. He wished to point out that the landlord would have to borrow at 4 per cent interest while he would only get 3, so that the outlay would be a dead loss to him. A drain would not last beyond eight, 10, or 12 years, and was certainly not a permanent improvement. The noble Lord told them that the reason a landlord made this outlay was either to get
  226
  or to keep a good tenant. But was he not forced by this Bill to carry out these works? What they complained of was, that in cases where the landlord, under the stress of a Parliamentary enactment, had to make a drain which he considered undesirable, and would not otherwise make, he should be compelled to borrow money for the purpose at 4 per cent, and only get back 3 per cent.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he must deny that the landlord would be compelled to borrow money and execute the work at a loss. The Bill provided the alternative of allowing the tenant to do it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: He exposes himself then to compensation.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was only pointing out that the argument of the noble Marquess did not apply where the tenant was allowed to do the work himself.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he considered that the landlord was forced under the strongest possible penalties to expend money for this purpose. He might know that the tenant would not drain the land efficiently, and that the duration of drains, instead of being 25 years, would very likely be 15 years. The landlord was to be compelled under severe risks to raise this money; and surely it was a most unjust thing to make him borrow at 4 per cent, and then lose the interest of his capital. But he wished to call attention to a larger question which was involved. There were Members of this House, even Members of the Conservative Party—the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) amongst them—who for years had laid down the great doctrine that the number of landed proprietors should be increased. That had been a favourite doctrine of the Liberal Party. Now, look at the tendency of this restrictive legislation. It would make it almost impossible for a man to buy a small portion of land, because, unless he cultivated it himself as a farmer, he knew that, should circumstances arise to compel him to let it, he would not get even fair interest for his money, and he would be placed at a grievous disadvantage as compared with every form of industry and investment of capital. Every one of those provisions that went beyond the strict necessities of the case was not only uncalled for by the public

  227
  policy, but was against the public policy in the very highest degree.
  Amendment agreed, to.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he had the following Amendment on the Paper—namely, to add to the end of the Clause:—
  "Provided that in this case it shall he lawful for the landlord to require that the improvement executed by the tenant shall be so executed under the inspection and direction of a person to he appointed by the sheriff, or by the Land Commissioners for England.
  "Where the landlord shall object to any drainage specified by the tenant as not being an improvement, or as injurious to his interests, or to the interests of other tenants, it shall be lawful for the landlord to object to such drainage; and in the event of such objection being intimated in writing to the tenant, the tenant shall not be entitled to execute such drainage; but it shall be lawful to the tenant to appeal to the sheriff, who shall appoint an impartial and competent person to inspect the lands to be drained, or to be affected by such drainage, and upon the report of such person the decision of the sheriff shall be final.
  "Where in the case of a tenancy under a lease current at the commencement of this Act, there is in such lease, or in any relative writing made prior to the passing hereof, an express stipulation limiting the outlay on any improvement specified in the second part of the Schedule hereto, the tenant shall have no claim to compensation under this Act for any such improvement in excess of the sum provided for in such stipulation."
  He would withdraw the first paragraph of the Amendment, the object of which he expected would be met by other Amendments. With regard to the second paragraph, he might explain that it was intended to refer to moorland, and not to apply to arable land. With reference to the last paragraph, it was proposed for the purpose of providing a maximum in regard to existing contracts. It was not uncommon in Scotland for a tenant to bargain with his landlord that the latter should lay out so much on houses and on drainage. He had known cases on his own estate where the outlay asked by the tenant, and allowed by the landlord to be necessary, amounted to five or six years' rental of the farm. It was not uncommon in these cases to say that if the landlord expended, say £300 on buildings and £300 on drainage during the term of the lease, the tenant should not ask for more. He thought that was a perfectly fair arrangement; and he wished to insert a Proviso that where such stipulations were made they should not be overridden by the Bill. That
  228
  would only be exempting certain leases in which there were certain specific clauses.
  Amendment moved, to add at the end of the Clause—
  "Where the landlord shall object to any drainage specified by the tenant as not being an improvement or as injurious to his interests or the interests of other tenants, it shall be lawful for the landlord to object to such drainage; and in the event of such objection being intimated in writing to the tenant, the tenant shall not be entitled to execute such drainage; but it shall be lawful to the tenant to appeal to the sheriff, who shall appoint an impartial and competent person to inspect the lands to be drained or to be affected by such drainage, and upon the report of such person the decision of the sheriff shall he final.
  "Where in the case of a tenancy under a lease current at the commencement of this Act, there is in such lease, or in any relative writing made prior to the passing hereof, an express stipulation limiting the outlay on an improvement specified in the second part of the Schedule hereto, the tenant shall have no claim to compensation under this Act for any such improvement in excess of the sum provided for in such stipulation."—(The Duke of Argyll.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Lord President to the necessity of obtaining, if possible, some record of the cost of carrying out the drainage work. Twenty years after an improvement of this kind was done, it would be almost impossible for a valuer to decide what was the value of it.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he should have preferred if the second paragraph of the noble Duke's Amendment were made to apply to all lands, instead of to moorlands only.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEasked their Lordships to remember that the principle of the Bill in regard to drainage was this—that the tenant should have power to force the landlord to drain, or that he should himself be free to drain. If the tenant thought that drainage was so necessary that he was willing to pay 5 per cent on the outlay, or do the work himself, the Bill gave no power to the landland to prevent the work being done; and, therefore, be did not think that the Lord President could possibly accept the third paragraph of the Amendment of the noble Duke.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (Lord PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL), in reference to the suggestion that a record should be kept of the cost of improvements effected

  229
  by the tenant, observed that such a record would be most misleading, inasmuch as the improvement might have been effected at an extravagant cost. The principle of the Bill was based not upon the cost of improvements, but upon the value of the result. He regretted that he could not accept the very carefully considered Amendment of the noble Duke. He did not consider that such unlimited power of objection should be given to the landlord. If they put the tenant absolutely at the mercy of the landlord, he believed they would paralyze the action of the Bill. The only chance of the Bill having any effect was that it should be simple, and that the tenant should not be encumbered by complicated precautions. As regarded the proposal of the noble Duke, he would say that in a case he put of an ample and adequate provision in the lease, it was, in his belief, provided for already by the Bill; but his noble Friend's words would equally apply to the case of a totally inadequate provision, and so the Bill would have no effect at all. They contended that the tenant should be allowed to do the drainage at his own risk in the last resort. The Amendment really involved an attack on the principle of the Bill; and the noble Duke, if he intended to press his proposal, ought to have voted against the second reading.
  LORD LOVATsaid he should support the Amendment. Great damage might be occasioned by the drainage of sheep land; and the tenant ought not to be vested with the power of expending an unlimited sum of money only to claim compensation for it afterwards.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he must protest against an expression which had been made use of by the President of the Council in his speech, that he was attempting to "encumber" the Bill in any way. He objected to the use of the word "encumber." He did not think the noble Lord intended to use the expression offensively; but, at the same time, he had used it in a sense against which he (the Duke of Argyll) felt bound to protest. His own opinion was that the Government had steered, on the whole, with ingenuity and success between the total rejection of the principle of compulsion and the use of a fair amount of that principle. And, therefore, he had not opposed the
  230
  second reading of the Bill; but, in the course of the discussion, objections had been raised on points of detail, the force of which the Government had not fairly met. The fact was, his noble Friend the Lord President had not agreed to anyone Amendment proposed by a Member of the House, though he had made several Amendments himself. He thought it was a very reasonable proposal that when a landlord, as he very often did, laid out as much as six years' rental of the farm on improvements, upon the distinct understanding that the tenant should ask for no more during that lease, that that arrangement should be made. There might be, as his noble Friend had said, unreasonable landlords in Scotland, though he himself did not know of any; and there might be also very sharp fellows among the tenant farmers, who would take advantage of any loopholes in the Act. The noble Lord who had spoken for the Government had not answered the arguments he (the Duke of Argyll) had made use of, respecting the danger which was likely to be occasioned by the drainage of moors, and the consequent flooding of the valleys below. It was enough for the noble Lord to make appeals to popular passions and popular prejudice. It was quite true that he only desired his Amendment with respect to drainage to apply to moorland; but as it had been pointed out that it would operate indiscriminately, he would withdraw it for the present. The object of the third part of his Amendment was to save existing contracts, where they were specific and definite in character; and that was a question of so much importance that, if the Government could not see their way to accept it, he would go to a Division.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was at a loss to understand what was the object of the agreements to which the noble Duke referred. What object could a landlord have in limiting the improvements on his estate? If the money was to be spent for the improvement of the farm, what object could a landlord, from the point of public or private policy, have in preventing his land being improved? He could quite understand him limiting the amount he himself would spend. What he rather expected was at the bottom of the matter was the incurable dislike of the

  231
  noble Duke to the work of valuers. If the noble Duke's object were to be carried the Bill ought to have been thrown out on the second reading. The Bill proceeded upon the principle that the landlord should only pay such sums as had really been spent upon improvements, and that he would receive the value of them; it was also a principle that the expenditure should be advantageous to the outgoing and incoming tenant, as well as the landlord; and the cardinal hinge was that valuers should be honest, and do their duty. The possibility of drainage being badly done he could understand; but he really did not understand why the noble Duke should be so unwilling to part with the singular notion that it was a matter of extreme importance to preserve agreements which limited the outlay on the land. It seemed as if the noble Duke, in dealing with this Bill, had parted with his usual clearness of perception. The noble Duke had said that he accepted the Bill with cordial reluctance. ["No, no!"] He had said that he accepted it with reluctance, but cordially——
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: To the best of my recollection I never used any expression so absurd.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The noble Duke said he viewed the Bill with cordiality, and he at the same time said he regarded it with reluctance. If that was not cordial reluctance on the other side of the Tweed, it certainly was on this.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, the policy of the Bill was, that all arable land should be drainable, either by the landlord or tenant. The case put by the noble Duke was not uncommon in Scotland; but he did not think the fact that such an agreement had been come to, limiting the drainage, could be accepted in view of the principles of the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Carlingford) was fond of saying that when they proposed Amendments they were attacking the principle of the Bill. If the arrangement of clauses on any point of detail were objected to, it was, according to the noble Lord, still the central idea of the Bill that was attacked. If this idea respecting the valuers was really the principle of the Bill, it ought to have been definitely
  232
  expressed in the Preamble in some such form as this—"Whereas valuers both in England and Scotland are infallible and impeccable," and so on. But valuers were not infallible. There was a certain amount of risk that they would go wrong, and this was a risk which made it exceedingly unpalatable to noble Lords to allow a great amount of money to be submitted to their judgment. Even if they were infallible, as the noble Lord opposite suggested, it was quite possible that a landlord might object to have more than a certain amount of money spent upon his land for fear of being involved in difficulties if that amount were exceeded. Surely this was a very reasonable proposition. All the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) asked was that when a landlord by an agreement had guarded himself against having an excessive burden imposed upon himself such agreement should be respected. If they did not respect distinct and solemn agreements, it was to be remembered that the principle would be extended very far beyond that Bill, and very far beyond land. All our public and private prosperity depended on the respect of agreements when they had been once executed. He did not see on what principles the Government could continue the payment of interest on the National Debt if they showed such a disregard of the principle of respect for solemn agreements. If the noble Duke Divided, he should support him.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY,in the name of one or two bewildered Peers below the Gangway, who had followed, as far as understanding was allowed them, the bent of the discussion, asked to be allowed to put a question to the noble Duke, and also to the Government. He understood, more than a hour ago, that this clause was to be brought forward in a re-modelled form, and that in the meantime they should pass on to the next clause. Was such a clause to be brought forward, and was the noble Duke to Divide or wait to the Report stage?
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he agreed with the noble Earl that the course taken had been rather puzzling. He himself had understood that the Government intended to bring forward an amended clause; but he had since been told that they did not pledge themselves to do so. Under these circumstances, he

  233
  felt bound to press the present Amendment, although he had decided to postpone those Amendments which did not seem to be applicable since the discussion on the English Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the Government had undertaken to amend this clause on Report; but they had not said they could agree to all the Amendments of the noble Duke.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 47; Not-Contents 26: Majority 21.

  CONTENTS.

  Northumberland, D.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Richmond, D.

  Forbes, L.

  Gerard, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.) [Teller.]

  Salisbury, M.

  Winchester, M.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Lovat, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Norton, L.

  O'Neill, L.

  Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

  Dundonald, E.

  Feversham, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Rowton, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Harrington, E.

  Milltown, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Minto, E.

  Redesdale, E.

  Stewart of Garlies, L.(E. Galloway.)

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Melville, V.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.) [Teller.]

  Bagot, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Bateman, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Beaumont, L.

  Watson, L.

  Blantyre, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Crewe, L.

  Westminster, D.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Derby, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Granville, E.

  Moncrieff, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Morley, E.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Northbrook, E.

  Sydney, E,

  Reay, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Sandhurst, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  Thurlow, L.

  Carlingford, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Reservation as to existing and future leases) agreed to.
  Regulations as to Estimates of Improvements.
  Clause 6 (Set-off of benefit to tenant).
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLproposed, at page 3, line 24, after "according to the rules of good husbandry," to insert "or according to the terms of any written contract specifying such rules." The sub-section in which he moved this Amendment provided that there should be taken into account, in reduction of the amount of compensation payable to the tenant for manures, the value of the manure that would have been produced by the consumption on the holding, according to the rules of good husbandry, of any crops sold off or removed from the holding within the last two years of the tenancy, or other less time for which, the tenancy had endured, except in so far as a proper return of manure to the holding had been made in respect of such produce so sold off or removed.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 3, line 24, after (" husbandry ") insert (" or according to the terms of any written contract specifying such rules. ")—(The Duke of Argyll.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he was glad to have the opportunity of accepting an Amendment from the noble Duke.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LOVAT LORD LOVAT moved that the last paragraph of the clause, providing that nothing contained in that section should enable a landlord to obtain under the Bill compensation in respect of deterioration by the tenant, or of breach of stipulations by the tenant, committed or permitted in relation to cultivation or management more than four years before the determination of the tenancy, should be amended by the addition of the words of his Amendment.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 4, line 5, after (" tenancy ") add ("but this exception of four years shall not affect undue deterioration or breach of stipulations in regard to buildings and fences.")—(The Lord Lovat.)
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he had on the Paper a Notice of Amendment to

  235
  leave out the whole of the last paragraph of the clause.
  LORD LOVATsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the noble Duke.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL THE DUKE OF ARGYLL moved to omit the Proviso at the end of the clause. He thought the Government should be able to trust the valuers to decide what was fair and equitable in such cases.
  Amendment moved, in page 4, leave out lines 1 to 5.—(The Duke of Argyll.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he could not accept the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, there appeared to be some ambiguity in the terms of the clause.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he admitted that the words differed from those in the corresponding clause in the English Bill; and the Government would consider against the next stage of the Bill whether the words should not be the same. With reference to the effect of the clause, there was this difference between the landlord's right and the tenant's right—that the tenant's right to compensation arose on quitting his farm, and then only; whereas if a tenant made a breach of a condition of his lease, the landlord had his remedy at once.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked whether the expression "cultivation and management" would include houses, buildings, and fences?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not think the words quoted by the noble Earl would include buildings at all. This Proviso had nothing to do with the question of confidence or want of confidence in the valuers. If any deterioration in breach of any stipulation were passed over for four years, and the landlord received his rent, it seemed clear that the landlord should be bound by it.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he would not press his Amendment; but he would move an Amendment to insert seven years in the clause instead of four.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  On the Motion of The Duke of ARGYLL, Amendment made, in page 4,
  236
  line 4, by leaving out ("four") and inserting ("seven").
  On the Motion of The Duke of RICHMOND and GORDON, the following Proviso was inserted as a separate Clause:—
  "Provided always, as regards 22 and 23 of Part III. of First Schedule, there shall not he taken into account any larger outlay during the last year of the tenancy than the average amount of the tenant's outlay for like purposes during the three next preceding years of the tenancy, or other less number of years for which the tenancy has endured."
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY THE EARL OF GALLOWAY moved to add the following Clause after Clause 6:—
  "No claim for compensation in respect of artificial manure shall be sustainable unless the outgoing tenant shall produce and show to the referee an analysis of such artificial manure, indicating its composision and value, certified by an analytical chemist."
  The object of the Amendment was to prevent fraud.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he thought the words of the clause were so wide that it would be quite impossible for a tenant to comply with them.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that, in speaking upon this point the other evening, he was misunderstood by several noble Lords. Therefore, he wished to explain that agreements come to between landlord and tenants, if they were fair and reasonable, were not excluded by this Bill, but agreements which, in the opinion of the valuer or the Court which might have to decide the question, were unreasonable, would be of no effect.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSasked how the value of the artificial manure used was 'to be ascertained? It might be adulterated.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)remarked, that the object of the Bill was not to ascertain the value of the artificial manure used, but the improved value of the land through its application. If the manure was adulterated, the land would not have been improved, and the tenant would receive nothing in respect of it.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYwished that the noble Lord had gone into more detail on that point.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he had no desire to take up the time of the Committee unnecessarily; but he must

  237
  say that he did not think that any proper answer had been given to his Amendment. Unless a safeguard of the kind he proposed were inserted in the Bill, it would be impossible for the valuer to come to any proper opinion as to the value, and all he could do would be to take the word of the tenant.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, that it was possible for a tenant, by the use of all sorts of rubbish, to produce a very heavy crop in the last year of the tenancy, and if the valuer was to judge from that of the value of the land, he might make an award which would mean almost ruin to the landlord.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Procedure.
  Clause 7 (Notice of intended claim).
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL THE DUKE OF ARGYLL moved that the tenant should be required to give notice of his intention to claim compensation six months before the determination of the tenancy, instead of two months' notice as provided in the Bill. The effect of the tenant giving only two months' notice was that it would be practically impossible for the landlord to make his bargain with a new tenant. The outgoing tenant had two years to make up his bill against the landlord, and he did not see why the tenant could not make his claim six months before the termination of the tenancy.
  Amendment moved, in page 4, line 7, leave out ("two") and insert ("six.")—(The Duke of Argyll.)
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he hoped the Government would meet the noble Duke to some extent. Without saying that six months' notice was the right length to give, he thought that, at all events, two months was too short, and that four months would be better than two.
  LORD WATSONsaid, that though there was ample time during the currency of the lease for the tenant to fully prepare an estimate as to the value of his improvements, the landlord, on the other hand, was utterly ignorant of what the tenant had done; therefore, six months was by no means too much time to give in order to enable a landlord to make a fair investigation into the claim of the tenant. Such a
  238
  proposal as that of the noble Duke's would not bear hardly upon any honest tenant, whereas it might defeat the object of a dishonest one; therefore he hoped it would be accepted.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he was not prepared to accept the Amendment at this stage of the Bill without further consideration. He felt that two months was too short a period; but if the noble Duke would accept four months, he would agree to it at once.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he must stand to the terms of his Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of The Earl of CAMPERDOWN, Amendment made, in page 4, line 13, by leaving out ("fourteen days") and inserting (" one month ").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Compensation agreed or settled by reference) agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Appointment of referee or referees and oversman) agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Requisition for appointment of oversman by the sheriff).
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL THE DUKE OF ARGYLL moved that requisition for the appointment of an "oversman" might be made to the Land Commissioners of England as well as to the Sheriff. He might point out that it was extremely difficult to get competent valuers in Scotland, and there had been great complaints of the overvaluing of stock. He questioned whether the Sheriff would always have at his hand competent persons to undertake the work of valuation. He knew there was a feeling against the Land Commissioners; but his own experience was that the Land Commissioners, or, as they were more commonly known in Scotland, the Enclosure Commissioners, had a very competent staff of Inspectors, and he would trust those Commissioners more than any other public body with these appointments. He would remind his noble Friend that he only put this forward as an alternative.
  Amendment moved, in page 5, line 24, after ("sheriff") insert ("or by the Land Commissioners for England.")—(The Duke of Argyll.)
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, that anything would be better than the

  239
  present system of valuers in Scotland. The valuer generally seemed to consider himself bound to do his best for his client. The way stock was valued when transferred was a public scandal in the North of Scotland. What he would like to see done would be that a valuer, when he had made his award, should be put upon his oath with regard to its accuracy and honesty, if it was considered desirable.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he was not sorry that the noble Duke had moved the Amendment, because he entirely agreed with him in his opinion of the Land Commissioners of England. His full belief was that they would be thoroughly efficient and trustworthy in making appointments; but, nevertheless, he was equally convinced that the Sheriff was perfectly competent to do the work without the assistance of the Land Commissioners; and his impression was that a recourse to the Land Commissioners would not be viewed favourably in Scotland.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, a Minister of Agriculture had recently been appointed, and there appeared to be some ambiguity as to what his functions should be. This would be a golden opportunity to utilize that Minister by placing these appointments in his hands.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, his objection in the case of the Minister of Agriculture was at least as strong as in the case of the Land Commissioners.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he thought the alternative proposed by the noble Duke would be of great value to both landlord and tenant.
  LORD LOVATsaid, he hoped that something would be done, whatever it was, to secure greater justice than was obtained under the present system.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 11 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Appeal to sheriff).
  LORD LOVATbegged to move an Amendment to reduce the limit of the amount of compensation in respect of
  240
  which an appeal might be made from £100 to £50.
  Amendment moved, in page 7, lines 14 and 15, leave out ("one hundred pounds") and insert (" fifty.")—(The Lord Lovat.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that when a claim was made for £50, it would probably involve improvements of considerably less value. He therefore should not think the Amendment an advisable one.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Lord CARLINGFORD, Amendment made, in page 7, line 18, by inserting the following Sub-section:—
  "That the award proceeds wholly or in part upon an improper application of, or upon omission properly to apply, the special provisions of section five, or any other part of this Act."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 21 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
  Charge of Tenant's Compensation.
  Clause 24 (Power for landlord on paying compensation to obtain charge).
  On the Motion of Lord CARLINGFORD, the following Proviso was added at end of Clause:—
  "Any charge under this section shall rank after all prior charges and burdens heritably secured upon the holding or estate. Where a holding or estate is charged by the landlord under this section, such charge shall not be deemed to be a contravention of any prohibition against charging or burdening contained in the deed or instrument under which the holding or estate is held by the landlord."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clauses 25 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.
  Notice of Termination of Tenancy.
  Clause 28 (Two years' notice to be given of termination of tenancy).
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL THE DUKE OF ARGYLL moved to reduce the period from two years to one. He proposed one year because it was the unit of agricultural operations everywhere, and must be so.
  Amendment moved, in page 10, line 2, leave out ("two ") and insert ("one.")—(The Duke of Argyll.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (Lord PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he had no

  241
  strong opinion for or against his noble Friend's Amendment; but it did appear to him that the tenant should have ample time to look out for another farm; and, of course, the mere fact of notice being given did not bind the parties, for the notice need not be acted upon.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, one year was practically the usual time in Scotland.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 29 (Mortis causâ assignment of lease).
  On the Motion of Lord CARLINGFORD, the following Amendments were made:—In page 10, line 24, insert as heading:
  Bequest of Lease.
  Page 10, line 25, leave out side-note (" Mortis causâ assignment of lease") and insert ("Tenant may bequeath lease by will"); line 25, leave out ("mortis causâ") and insert ("testamentary"); lines 25 and 26, leave out ("assignor"); line 27, leave out ("assignee") and insert ("legatee"); line 28, leave out ("assignee") and insert ("legatee") and leave out ("assignation or"); line 33, leave out ("assignee") and insert ("legatee"); line 34, leave out ("assignee") and insert ("legatee"); line 36, leave out ("assignee") and insert ("legatee").
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON moved to omit the entire clause. He considered this one of the most objectionable clauses in the whole Bill. It proposed that the tenant might assign his lease to any person whom he might think fit. He considered the clause to be a very great step in the direction of free sale. He thought he might fairly assume that the Lord Advocate, who was a very great authority on these matters, and who, no doubt, had been consulted in the preparation of the Bill, had not thought it necessary that such a clause as this should be inserted. He could not help thinking that the insertion of this clause was intended to render it agreeable to those persons who had very extreme views on this subject, and one or two of whom held the special doctrine that tenants should be allowed to part with their leases and assign them to any persons whom they might think right during their lifetime
  242
  or after their death. The Lord President had said the other day that great inconvenience would arise from having a different state of the law as regarded the stock of a farm and as regarded the lease. With regard to the stock of a farm, the tenant had a perfect right to do with that as he pleased, because it was his property. But with regard to the lease, it was really the property of the landlord, and the tenant had no more right to dispose of it than of any other property of the landlord. He considered that it was very essential for the welfare of an estate that the landlord should have, as far as it was possible to give it, the right of selecting the tenants on his estate. By the operation of this clause, the landlord might find himself saddled with one of the greatest drunkards, one of the most immoral men, or one of the most ill-tempered men in the whole district. He further believed the clause to be wholly unnecessary, because all it sought to do was done now with the consent of the landlord.
  Amendment moved, to omit Clause 29.—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)
  THE EARL OF FIFEsaid, they all knew that under the present state of law the lease devolved upon the next heir, and this clause merely proposed to give the tenant the right of bequeathing his lease to another person in the rare case of their being no next-of-kin, or in the still rarer case of the next-of-kin being excluded. It was a natural and fair assumption that if the tenant excluded his next-of-kin, his only heir, he must have some very strong and good reasons for doing so—that in 99 cases out of 100 the legatee would be a very much better tenant than the next-of-kin who had been excluded. He also reminded their Lordships of the veto of the Sheriff, and pointed out that with regard to the moral qualities of the legatee, they had not, at the present time, any guarantee, nor could they in the nature of things have any such guarantee. He did not see any great harm in the clause, and he had reason to know that a great number of tenant farmers in the North of Scotland held to this clause. He, therefore, hoped it would be allowed to stand.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he failed to understand why the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon)

  243
  was so afraid of the operation of this clause. The noble Duke had not adverted to an important part of the clause—that, namely, which provided that the landlord should have power of objection to the legatee. He could call in the judgment of the Sheriff if he pleased, and unless the person to whom the lease had been bequeathed proved to the satisfaction of the Sheriff that he was possessed of the means and skill requisite for the necessary stocking and cultivation of the holding, and fulfilling the other obligations incumbent upon a tenant, the Sheriff would set aside the person to whom the tenant had bequeathed his lease. That appeared to him to be a very sufficient safeguard indeed, and one which met all the circumstances of the case. The noble Duke said the landlord might be saddled with a drunkard. Surely that was the case now, and he failed to see that there was any greater choice of persons when the lease went to the heir-at-law absolutely, as at present, than there would be under the system proposed by the Bill. Therefore, as the landlords would gain little or nothing by the refusal of their Lordships to accept the clause, and as the tenants of Scotland attached considerable importance to it, feeling it to be a hardship now not to be able to bequeath their leases, he hoped the clause would be adopted.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he must deny that the Scotch tenants, as a rule, set great store by that clause. If a tenant desired to leave a lease to a particular person, no doubt the landlord would accept him; and, therefore, he could not see what hardships would be inflicted by the omission of this clause.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the existing system under which a tenant might arrange with his landlord was not sufficient security.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he had not heard any valid reason given why they should alter that which had been the law for 400 years. There was, indeed, a certain number of agitators in the North, who were quite as much political as they were agricultural, and who talked a great deal of nonsense on these subjects; but that was no sufficient proof of the necessity of the proposed innovation.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he considered this was a matter for contract, and not for legislation. In all his leases his tenants were allowed to leave their farms to anybody they pleased, provided they left their stock. In his experience he had never had the slightest difficulty; and if his noble Friend divided, he would vote with him.
  On Question, "That the Clause proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill?" Their Lordships divided:—Contents 17; Not-Contents 27: Majority 10.

  CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Crewe, L.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Westminster, D.

  Monson, E. [Teller.]

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Morley, E.

  Reay, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  Thurlow, L.

  Carlingford, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Carrington, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Northumberland, D.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Richmond, D.

  Forbes, L.

  Gerard, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.) [Teller.]

  Winchester, M.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens berry.)

  Lovat, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Stewart of Garlies, L (E. Galloway.)

  Redesdale, E.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Melville, V.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Blantyre, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

  Watson, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Resolved in the negative.
  Clause omitted.
  Clauses 30 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 35 (Application of Act).
  On the Motion of Lord CARLINGFORD, Clause 35 left out, and the following Clause inserted instead:—
  "Nothing in this Act shall apply to a holding of less than two acres in extent, not being a market garden, or to a holding unless it is either wholly agricultural or wholly pastoral, or in part agricultural and as to the residue pastoral, or in whole or in part cultivated as a market garden, or to a holding let to the tenant during his continuance in any office, appointment, or employment held under the landlord."
  Clause 36 (Avoidance of agreement inconsistent with Act).
  On the Motion of Lord CARLINGFORD, Amendment made, by leaving out from "tenant," in line 18, to the end of the clause, and inserting—
  "By virtue of which he is deprived of his right to claim compensation under this Act in respect of any improvement specified in schedule hereto [except an agreement providing such compensation as is by this Act permitted to he substituted for compensation under this Act] shall, so far as it deprives him of such right, be void."
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 190.)

DISEASES PREVENTION (METROPOLIS) BILL.—(No. 181.)
(The Lord Carrington.)
DISEASES PREVENTION (METROPOLIS) BILL.—(No. 181.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CARRINGTON,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was the isolation and treatment in suitable hospitals of persons suffering from cholera, and that the introduction of the Bill had been considered absolutely necessary for the public safety of the Metropolis in the event of a cholera epidemic. England would not be free from this danger for another month, and to avoid, if possible, any opposition to the Bill, it was proposed to limit its duration to September 1, 1884. In 1855 the main Bill for the prevention of cholera was passed, called "The Diseases Prevention Act," which gave powers to certain local authorities amply sufficient for preventing the disease. There had been, however, some difficulty in putting these powers into force on account of the number of Vestries; and with this difficulty the present Bill proposed to deal by falling back on the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum district, whom it was proposed also to make a local authority under the Diseases Prevention Act, and subject to the authority of the Local Government Board. This, the object of the Bill, was contained in the 2nd clause. The next most important clause was the 4th, which related to expense.
  246
  At the present moment the 38 different Vestries, or District Boards, would act for 38 different areas, and their expenses would be a local charge. So that, if the epidemic broke out very badly in any particular parish, the whole cost of dealing with it would be thrown on that parish. This clause provided—
  "That the amount expended by any local authority under the Act of 1855 in providing any building for the reception of patients, together with two-thirds of the salaries of officers and servants, should be repaid from the Metropolitan Poor Fund."
  A deputation of the managers met the President on Thursday last, and expressed themselves willing to do all in their power. They would constitute themselves the first line of defence, and trusted to work in harmony with the Vestries and Boards of Works. Under these circumstances, he moved that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Carrington.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the Bill gave very large powers with reference to other diseases than that of cholera. Though it was very right to take special powers to deal with the cholera, it was scarcely necessary to include other diseases within the scope of the Bill. At all events, he did not think that the Bill ought to be passed into law, under the circumstances of the moment in their Lordships' House, many of their Lordships who took an interest in the matter being absent. The Bill ought to be subjected to a rather more complete discussion than it was likely to have on the present occasion; and he thought that a Schedule should be furnished of the infectious diseases, so that they might know on what grounds the authorities would have the right to spend the public money. Considering that the authority given by the Bill was only to last for one year, very large duties were to be performed—for instance, among other things, wharves or landing places, not exceeding three in number, were to be provided on the River Thames, as well as convenient approaches thereto. This was likely to be a very expensive amusement, whether the wharves were purchased or specially constructed. Though he thought it necessary to make these observations on the Bill, he had no

  247
  intention of opening the second reading.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had the impression that one of the great principles upon which the late Government acted was that of a care for the public health; and he was, therefore, somewhat surprised at the attempt of the noble Marquess to throw discredit on this Bill.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
  House adjourned at half past Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.