HL Deb 22 August 1883 vol 283 cc1610-40

Commons' reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' amendments, and Commons' amendments to Lords' amendments considered (according to order).

LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)

said, that, before he asked their Lordships not to insist on their Amendments with which the Commons had disagreed, he should like to say a few words as to the view taken by Her Majesty's Government of the present position of the Bill. The Government had submitted the measure to Parliament in order to meet the reasonable requirements of the tenant farmers of this country, without, in their opinion, going beyond those reasonable requirements, and without prejudice to the rights and interests of the landlords. In the belief of the Government, and, as he (Lord Carlingford) believed, by almost universal admission, the measure was of a most moderate character when introduced into the other House. Their Lordships, however, had thought fit to make several changes in the Bill, all of them more or less restrictive of the benefits intended to be conferred upon the tenant farmers. Two of the Amendments made by their Lordships relating to the first two clauses of the Bill—the first being by far the most important—had been accepted by the other House on the recommendation of Her Majesty's Government. That Amendment was one to which many of their Lordships attached great importance. With regard to the remaining Amendments, upon which the other House had differed from their Lordships, he had this to say on the part of the Government—that they believed that every one of those Amendments was quite unnecessary for the protection of the landlord. They believed that the Bill as it stood, without those Amendments, would not in any way cause injustice to the landlord, or any serious inconvenience. On the other hand, the Government felt convinced that the introduction into the Bill of these charges might have a very prejudicial effect on the success of the measure—a success which he believed noble Lords on both sides of that House equally desired. These Amendments would have a bad effect, in some cases, in the interest of the landlords; and, certainly, in many cases, more or less, in the interest of the tenants, who would attach exaggerated importance to the changes made, and in whose eyes the measure was likely to be very seriously damaged by them. Any such effect would, in his opinion, be most disadvantageous to both parties. The Amendments, in fact, were likely to interfere with that reasonable settlement between landlord and tenant which it was hoped would have prevented the necessity of re-opening the question for many years to come. If their Lordships insisted on their Amendments, the impression would be produced that they were dealing with the measure in a jealous and grudging spirit, and that they desired to cut down and weaken all the provisions of the Bill which were favourable to the tenant—which to some extent, though not to so great an extent as the tenant farmers believed, would undoubtedly be the case. The first of these Amendments with which he would deal, and to which he considered the observations he had made would apply, was that which was moved by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) upon the 2nd clause, by which the following words were inserted:— Provided that no compensation shall he claimed under this section in contravention of any specific agreement existing at the time of the passing of this Act between the parties in reference thereto. That Amendment was really of narrow scope, and dealt entirely with improvements already executed before the commencement of the Act. Now, the case stood thus. If any kind of agreement for compensation were now in existence with respect to an improvement already made, such an agreement was good under the earlier words of the clause. Again, if any valuable consideration of any kind had been given by a landlord on account of an improvement—any benefit given or allowed—that consideration would, under Clause 6, take the place of the compensation given under the Bill. The only agreement which under Clause 2, with relation to improvements already effected, would not be good, was an agreement absolutely excluding the tenant from any compensation. Such an Amendment was scarcely worthy of the noble Marquess. Under Clause 5, any existing agreement under an existing contract of tenancy which debarred the tenant from compensation, without any consideration being given, would still, under the Bill as it stood, and in spite of the Amendment of the noble Marquess remain null and void. He begged their Lordships, therefore, to consider what amount of benefit such a provision as this would confer upon the landlords of this country. If the Amendment were worthless, as he was convinced it was, why should they spoil by such an addition the very appearance of the Bill? Such jealous care in guarding the fancied interests of the landlords in regard to agreements which were in themselves, if they really existed, contrary to public policy, could do no good to their Lordships or to the landlords throughout the country, and could do nothing but prejudice the success and the hearty acceptance of this Bill.

Page 2, line 11, after ("improvement,") insert— ("Provided that no compensation shall be claimed under this section in contravention of any specific agreement existing at the time of the passing of this Act between the parties in reference thereto.")

The Commons disagree to the amendment in page 2, line 11, for the following reason:— Because it is inconsistent with the principle of the Bill which provides that in the case of existing tenancies, where the tenant has no right to compensation under the terms of his tenancy, he shall, nevertheless, be entitled to compensation under this Act, and there is no reason for making a distinction in the case where compensation is excluded by the terms of the contract from the case where it is excluded by implication of law, unless where the compensation is excluded for valuable consideration, which case is provided for by clause 6.

Moved, "That this House do not insist on the amendment in page 2, line 11, to which the Commons have disagreed."—(The Lord President.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that with regard to the general arguments of the noble Lord opposite (the Lord President of the Council), he wished, in the first place, to observe that the House was placed in a position of considerable difficulty by the course which the Government had thought fit to adopt. With regard to the Bill, their Lordships had been willing to yield, to a large extent, a principle to which they certainly attached great importance. He referred to the principle of freedom of contract between landlord and tenant; as to which they were willing that in future it should be modified, and as to which he understood that the provisions relating to freedom of contract constituted the main feature of the Bill. That was a great concession on the part of those Members of their Lordships' House who had been brought up to believe in freedom of contract. But that was not all. They had also assented to the strange and almost monstrous principle that the tenant should be allowed, in spite of his landlord, and against his wish, to place drains where he pleased, and even where they would be positively injurious, and that the landlord should have no redress whatever against such undesirable drainage. These, for the sake of carrying a Bill to which he would admit that a certain number of tenant farmers appeared to attach importance, they had been willing to adopt, and these their Lordships had considered to be the main principles of the Bill. But, besides these main provisions, there were, here and there, scattered throughout the Bill, provisions of a much stronger character—provisions bearing the mark of that confiscatory policy with which they had all been made familiar in regard to another of the Three Countries. Their Lordships had objected to, and had been eager to divest the Bill of, these excrescences, and to allow the principles to which he had referred to pass, in the hope that they might produce for the tenant farmers the advantage which Her Majesty's Government anticipated. No doubt, in order to have effected these changes in a more efficient manner, it would have been much more satisfactory if they could have devoted more time and care to the examination of the Bill. But why had they not been able to devote more time and care to it? Why had the Bill come to them at so late a period of the Session that questions of great interest had practically to be decided "Aye" or "No" within two days of the Prorogation? Was that the fault of any accident in the other House? Was it simply the result of that exuberance of debate of which they had lately heard so much? No; that might account for the delay in regard to other Bills that had come to them late in the Session, but in regard to this particular measure the delay which had embarrassed them so much was due to the deliberate premeditation of the Government themselves. The state of the case was this. At the end of May two Bills had passed their second reading in the House of Commons—the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill and the Agricultural Holdings Bill. The former was a Bill primarily concerning the other House, and it was well known that it was not a Bill to which their Lordships would think it necessary to devote much attention. In regard to the other Bill, it was known that the subject was one with which their Lordships were familiar and in which they were likely to take a good deal of interest and deal with carefully. The Government had their choice which they would take first, and which they would send up to the House of Lords first; and not only had they their choice, but they had a distinct warning—the warning which he (the Marquess of Salisbury) had the honour to give the noble Earl opposite, the Leader of the House (Earl Granville) on the 8th of June—as to the danger of putting the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill first through Committee, and leaving the Agricultural Holdings Bill behind. But the Government refused to receive that warning. They insisted on taking the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill first, and left the Agricultural Holdings Bill on the shelf for five or six weeks. But did they hasten the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill by so doing? Did they bring it to an issue at an earlier date? Not a bit; because the moment they had passed it through Committee they pushed the Agricultural Holdings Bill through all its stages, and sent it up to their Lordships; so that the action of the Government had led to no benefit whatever, and the Agricultural Holdings Bill had been sent up six weeks later than it might have been if the Government had chosen to attend to the warnings addressed to them at the time. The result was so obvious, that it was impossible not to believe that the Government had some ulterior reason for what they had done; and now, if they were embarrassed and had to come to decisions with so little time for considering, the blame lay, not with their Lordships, but with the Government. With regard to the Amendment now under consideration, it was rather hard that he should be reproached with the fact that his Amendment did so little. If they proposed large Amendments, it was objected that they would interfere with the principle of the Bill. If they proposed small Amendments, they were told that it was not worth while insisting upon them. Whether their Amendments were small or large, the Government, for one reason or another, were sure to object to them. His objection to the Bill, as the House of Commons had sent it back to them, was that it violated a great principle. That violation of principle was not necessary to the success of the Bill. It stood altogether apart from the Bill; but, if they left it as it was, it would remain as a precedent to sanctify and support future inroads on the sanctity of private rights. This Amendment had been discussed out-of-doors as if it concerned future improvements under existing contracts. It did nothing of the kind. It referred only to past improvements under the existing agreements. The practical evil and injustice he apprehended might be illustrated by referring to two instances. There were very often put into leases specific provisions that certain courses of cultivation should be followed, which, according to the general custom of the country and district, involved some expenditure of the kind mentioned in the 3rd Part of the Schedule of the Bill. The leases were given on the faith that that amount and kind of expenditure should be incurred, and perhaps such expenditure had been incurred—the thing was past and gone, and the owner of the land imagined that his position was quite clear and that an agreement had been made. But, now, if this Bill passed, the tenant, having been already paid by the fact of his having received his lease on the faith of the undertaking to incur that expenditure, would acquire a claim against his landlord to which he had no right, and would have to be paid over again in the shape of compensation under the Bill. He would give another instance—that of the hay farmers in Middlesex. Their practice was universal, under agreement, of not taking the manure from the farm, but of buying it and laying it out on the farm; and that was done in accordance with a distinct agreement. And the manure might be placed upon the land two, three, or four years, according to the character of the soil and the peculiarities of the agreement; but now, under this Bill, the tenant would have a right to come for compensation for that improvement he had undertaken to make, and to be paid for doing that which, at the time the agreement was made, it was perfectly well understood that he should be bound to do. That contract of his was torn up by the Bill as it now stood, and the tenant would have a right to claim compensation. If he advocated the adoption of his Amendment simply on the ground of the injustice that would be caused by the clause as it stood, he would have a strong case. But he entirely demurred to the idea that ran through all the remarks of the noble Lord opposite, that this Bill was to be something in the nature of liberality to the tenants. They were there simply to do justice between the two classes, without any favour on one side or the other; and it was not to be assumed that all landlords were rich men, or that all tenants were poor men. They had no right, because there were a certain number of landlords in that House who were men of large fortunes, and who, probably, could submit to any inconvenience the Bill might subject them to, to play away the rights, the absolute rights, of a vast number of smaller landlords, who might by this Bill be overwhelmed. The old theory long entertained by Mr. Bright, and of which that right hon. Gentleman used to be so fond of preaching, that there were only 30,000 landlords in this country, must be now held to be exploded, for it was well known that there were hundreds of thousands of them, many of whom were poor men upon whom the Bill would press very heavily. The rights and interests of these poor landlords were as dear in the eyes of the law as the claims of the tenants. He asked their Lordships to view with suspicion this extreme anxiety on the part of the Government for a provision which, by their own admission, could have no very great effect. Was it not intended that there should be furnished in this Bill a precedent, a germ, which, he was afraid, might be dangerously developed hereafter, and found useful at some future occasion? Had they not heard that the question of leases in Ireland was likely to come up? And would it not be very useful to have on the Statute Book an instance of past agreements having been torn up by Parliament? For that reason, and on the grounds he had stated, he thought it desirable to insert some Amendment on the clause which would remove all doubts and ambiguity. He imagined the question of improvements in town property, too, was one quite as likely to occupy the public mind as any relating to property. If the noble Lord said that his Amendment, as it stood now, would not do enough, he would propose some variation of language—he would propose that the clause should run— Provided that no compensation shall he claimed under this section for any improvement where the agreement fixing the rent was made on the express or implied condition that such improvement should be executed by the tenant. He imagined that was elementary justice to which even Her Majesty's Government could not object. They would tell him that all that was provided for by the 6th clause; but, in his opinion, that 6th clause was one of the most ingenious specimens of Parliamentary drafting he had ever come across. The word "benefit" in that clause might be interpreted as he wished it; but it was quite possible that a Court of Law might say—"We cannot take the mere fact of a lease being granted as a benefit under this Act." Of course, Her Majesty's Government were entitled to their own interpretation of their own Act; but they (the Opposition) must be pardoned if they looked with some jealousy upon the language of that clause; and he would press upon them to accept an Amendment which would make clear the doctrine which they professed to value, which would give the Act the effect which they professed to think necessary, and which would not be exposed to any possible doubts or ambiguity in its interpretation before a Court of Law.

Amendment moved, to leave out all the words after ("House,") and insert ("do amend their Amendment in page 2, line 11.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, for himself, he was very much disappointed to see the manner in which the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) treated the spirit of the Bill. When Her Majesty's Government brought before Parliament a measure of this kind, a strong Bill containing provisions acceptable to many of their supporters—a measure which, adopting the language of the noble Marquess, was, in their opinion, a Bill seeking to do simple justice, without fear or favour, between landlord and tenant—it was very disappointing to hear the noble Marquess talk of confiscatory provisions. He was astonished to hear it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I simply stated that there were scattered about in the Bill confiscatory provisions.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he would ask their Lordships to conceive the frame of mind of anyone who, looking at a Bill of this kind, thought there were in it confiscatory provisions. When a measure of the kind was viewed in a spirit of that sort, it was extremely difficult to imagine where the noble Lords who held those opinions could live, with whom they associated, and whether they had the slightest knowledge of the feeling which existed in this country among tenant farmers. He would not say that they seemed to have lived in a balloon, but that they seemed to have lived in some other sphere altogether. They could never have had any conversation with the tenant farmers of England on the subject. He thought this was a very serious matter. The relations of landlord and tenant, and the maintenance of harmony between the two classes, were matters of very great importance, and certainly not of little importance to those whom he addressed. When there existed a considerable feeling, which undoubtedly did exist—and it was a growing feeling—of dissatisfaction with the present law as regards the relations of landlords and tenants, and when an attempt was made by the Government to deal with the subject in a fair and just spirit, it was, in his opinion, extremely disappointing that the Leader of the Opposition in that House should talk of parts of the Bill as containing confiscatory provisions. He (the Earl of Kimberley) viewed, with very serious suspicion any Amendment which came from a noble Lord who entertained that opinion. That suspicion would be shared not merely by Members of the Government in that House, and by Members of the other House, but by a great many men throughout the country, whose good-will and good opinion they all valued, as in the interest of all concerned. It was their opinion that the relations between landlords and tenants would be very much improved by the Bill. The noble Marquess had, in his extreme anxiety not to assist in passing a Bill of the kind, endeavoured in every possible way to turn the Bill into a Party question, and to bring Party prejudice to bear against it. He even accused the Government of some Machiavellian design in bringing up the Bill late in the Session, and, assuming that he knew much better than they did themselves how to manage their Business, he complained that they had not accelerated its progress by a single day, and had postponed it to the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill. But, in the first place, he (the Earl of Kimberley) claimed for the Government at least as good a knowledge of the manner in which they should conduct their own Business as the noble Marquess; and he could assure their Lordships, while he emphatically denied that any Member of the Government had conceived the notion of delaying the Bill, which the noble Marquess had attributed to them, that the measure had been introduced into that House at the earliest possible moment. The matter was the subject of discussion, and regret was felt by the Government that they could not at an earlier period send the Bill to their Lordships' House. With regard to the Amendment itself, he thought the noble Marquess, in harping so much as he had upon the danger of admitting a wrong principle, had altogether lost sight of the fact that the principle, whether right or wrong, was already, to a very great extent, admitted in the Bill. He drew a picture of some landlord who, conceiving he had discharged all his obligations, suddenly found himself called upon to pay a sum of money by way of compensation. As the Bill now stood, many landlords might find themselves in the position described by the noble Marquess, because, where there was no reference whatever made to compensation in the lease, the landlord would be liable to pay, unless, that was to say, there was some specific agreement upon the subject providing for the case. The principle, therefore, was already in the Bill, and claims might be made to a large extent, since all improvements not subject to the agreement between landlord and tenant would be the subject of compensation. If, however, there was a definite understanding, which could be produced and proved, that certain things were to be done in return for any consideration whatsoever, that case was provided for by the 6th clause; and the only conceivable case in which the proposed Amendment of the noble Marquess could apply, and which was not covered by the Bill, was a case in which the landlord had absoluely prohibited operations of agriculture necessary for the improvement of the farm, and where, therefore, the admission of such a provision would be distinctly in contravention of the principles of the Bill. He hoped their Lordships would not think it necessary to persevere with an Amendment which he really thought was unnecessary, and which would not have the effect of establishing the principle on which the noble Marquess laid so much stress, and which could not fail to prejudice the Bill.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, he could assure their Lordships that it had always been a matter of the greatest grief for him to find himself unable to support his noble Friend who sat behind him (the Marquess of Salisbury); but, having for three years presided over the Royal Commission on Agriculture, and having devoted a considerable portion of his life to the consideration of all matters connected with agriculture, he did not think he should be justified, or worthy of holding a seat in their Lordships' House, if he did not get up on the present occasion and state that he could not assent to the proposal of his noble Friend. It was perfectly true that, when the clause was previously considered, he thought there was a great deal of justice in the Amendment originally brought forward by his noble Friend; but since then he had had time to consider the matter further, and having now obtained a much wider and more comprehensive view of the subject, he had come to the conclusion that it would not be wise to insist on the Amendment. As to the minor details, he thought there was considerable force in the remarks of the noble Earl who had just sat down (the Earl of Kimberley), that to a very great extent, although not altogether to the full extent, the desire of his noble Friend in an Amendment which he proposed on the former occasion was covered by words which were now in the Bill. He (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) was not one of those who thought this a small measure, or a measure of no importance. He believed it to be a measure which was looked forward to with great anxieties—widely looked forward to with great anxiety and great interest by the vast majority of the tenant farmers of the country. He believed that if, in that House, they did anything in any way to jeopardize the passing of the Bill, they would be doing that which would be repugnant to the feelings of the whole of the tenant farmers of the country. [Cries of "No, no!"] Those were his own opinions, and he had as much right to hold his own opinions as any other noble Lord in the House, and he thought it would be an act of cowardice on his part if, holding these opinions, he shrank from expressing them to their Lordships. If noble Lords had read the very voluminous Papers which were the result of the Royal Commission, they would have seen that a great deal that was embodied in the Bill was greatly sought for by the tenantry of the country. Those noble Lords who had not read those Papers he must leave to their own cogitations, and he hoped that, after Parliament was up, they would devote some of; their leisure to a perusal of the evidence on which the Bill was based. He could not forget that one of the special recommendations of the Report of the Royal Commission was to be found in the 1st clause of the Bill—that the tenant was entitled to be recouped the moneys which he had expended upon the soil, if, upon going out of the farm, he had not received back that money he had put into it, and which would be of value to the incoming tenant. He was unwilling further to trespass upon their Lordships' attention; but he was anxious to take an early opportunity of stating that it was not possible, with the views he now held, to support his noble Friend, because he thought there would be nothing so disastrous as for their Lordships to be guilty of any conduct which would jeopardize the passing of the Bill.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, that, perhaps, the House would allow him to explain, in a few words, the view which would govern his vote, and he desired to do so the more especially as he was the author of an Amendment on the Scotch Bill, which ran nearly on all fours with the Amendment of his noble Friend opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury). They were now, he thought, in a similar position to that in which they were on the second reading of the Bill. They had to look not merely to the details, but to the general aspect of the measure, and to the result of their proceedings to-night. There were many observations in the speech of the noble Marquess with which he had a very large amount of sympathy. In particular, he thought that the Government committed a mistake in postponing the bringing of this Bill to their Lordships' House. He quite admitted that the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill was one of very great importance; but he thought it ought to have been more present to the minds of Her Majesty's Government that it dealt with a matter in which that House had comparatively little interest. In regard to the present Bill, however, he thought it was the duty of their Lordships to ask, after the alterations that had been made in that House, and after the Amendments to which the House of Commons had agreed, whether the Bill, as a whole, was not a fair settlement of a very difficult question. He was bound to say, looking at the subject from that point of view, that the arguments in favour of their not obstructing the Bill, and of their allowing it to pass with the Amendments which had been made, were incomparably greater than those in support of the particular Amendment under discussion. In regard to the Amendment for which he was responsible in the Scotch Bill, it really would refer to only a very few cases. He knew of certain cases in Scotland where agreements had been made between landlord and tenant to this effect—that certain improvements should be done by the landlord up to a certain sum, and that beyond that the improvements should be done by the landlord or the tenant, at the will of either party, for no compensation, unless by separate agreement, and beyond that the tenant was to accept the lease as valuable compensation for any extra improvements he might make. As he read the Bill, that was provided for by Clause 3. At all events, it was clearly the intention of the Government that it should be so considered, and he could not doubt for himself that any Judge would so decide it. They must remember that this was a matter which would not be decided by valuers, but was a question of law, and there would be an appeal to the Judges of the land. He placed implicit confidence in the Judges; he placed no confidence in Commissioners or Sub-Commissioners, who were not lawyers, nor supported by the authority of the law, and who were not giving decisions according to law, and were not protected from popular impulse and passion. But in regard to all the questions referred to the Judges of England, he had absolute confidence that justice and law would be administered rightly; and he had no doubt whatever that, if there was any existing contract by which the landlord and tenant had agreed that the tenant should accept the terms of the lease as valuable compensation for anything he did, that contract would not be overridden. He next invited attention to the clause relating to drainage. He hoped that the Members of the Government would not think that he was using language of irritation when he said that there never was a clause which came up from one House of Parliament to the other that was more slovenly drawn than that one was. He was bound to say that the Government had admitted its faults, and had indeed confessed that many of those faults were due to an Amendment which was introduced in the House of Commons, and that the clause was not at first constructed with a view to that Amendment. The Government had, however, agreed to a most important alteration of the clause—namely, that the landlord should be bound, not by the specification of the tenant, but that he might execute the work himself, as he chose, and might charge the tenant interest upon the cost. That made the whole difference. But when he came down to the House that night, he was much surprised to find that the words "in a lease or otherwise," which were accepted by the noble Lord the Lord President of the Council and the noble Earl the Secretary of State for India, and which he thought the Government had conceded, were struck out by the House of Commons. It was impossible to conceive that those noble Lords would be guilty of any thing approaching to a breach of faith in that House. The moment he read the reasons given by the House of Commons, he went first of all to other Members of the Government and then to his noble Friend the President of the Council, and his noble Friend at once assured him that there had been a mistake—that the House of Commons had struck out the words to which they had agreed in the House of Lords, and that the words should be restored; so that, on that matter, the ground of his objection had been removed. For himself, he looked upon the clause with reference to drainage as one of the most important in principle which was in the Bill. He still objected to the limitation of interest; but the mere limiting of interest was a matter of comparatively small importance, and if the words he had alluded to were to be restored, it would remove a great objection. The Government had also agreed to the important Proviso moved by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) with regard to manureal improvements; and being satisfied with that, as well as with the alterations made on the drainage clause, he should vote to-night against insisting upon the Amendments on the Paper, solely on the ground that he thought it would be unwise for that House—unwise in reference to the agricultural interests of the country, and unwise in the interests of their own tenants—to run any serious risk of the loss of the Bill for the sake of any one of those Amendments. They must look all round—they must look to the position of affairs—and he said it would be a serious matter to lose the Bill on account of any of the Amendments which were still insisted upon by the Government.

LORD BRAMWELL

said, he thought the reason given by the Commons for rejecting the Amendment was a fallacious one; and he was satisfied that it was drawn up by a lawyer, and not by a farmer, or a Representative of the tenant farmers. If the Amendment now proposed should be rejected, claims might, on occasion, be made in contradiction of agreements. The reason given by the Commons was wholly untenable; and, speaking in the interest of common fairness, and common honesty, unless they wore to say that a man might enter into an express agreement, and then deliberately violate it, their Lordships ought to insist on their Amendment. For himself, he could not understand why solemn agreements should not be carried out.

LORD BALFOUR

said, they were placed in a position of considerable disadvantage, in having a discussion which was partly mixed up with general principles and the general position, and partly with the merits of a particular Amendment. He sympathized very much with the view taken by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) as to the position in which they were placed, and as to the reasons which had brought them into that position; but he was unable to vote with him on the merits of the particular Amendment before the House. He agreed almost entirely with the remarks of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll). Was it not the fact that, in the Amendment, they were contending for a point which, in fact, was a very small one? In practice, he believed the clause would hardly come into operation. Therefore, he put it to their Lordships, whether they were not, for the sake of a bare principle, contending for the protection of those landlords who had not given what public policy required that they should give? Would they not appear to be standing exclusively on their own particular rights in regard to a case which would hardly ever be found to exist in practice? If they were to insist upon these Amendments, would they not be giving too much force to the idea that they were desiring things which would protect the rights of a minority of their own number, and that the minority which, in this matter, was least entitled to consideration? ["Oh, oh!"] He felt the unpopularity evinced on that side of the House at anyone expressing from it such views, and he might also say he never separated himself from those with whom he was proud to act without a great misgiving that he must be wrong; but he did think that the point involved was not worth the risk they would incur by insisting upon it, and he should vote, as regarded the Amendment—and his remarks applied to this Amendment only—that they did not insist upon it.

THE EARL OF DERBY

said, he did not wish to enter again upon the discussion which they had upon the second reading; but he desired to suggest to some noble Lords opposite, who might be in doubt as to what their course ought to be on this Amendment, that it would not be for their interest, either politically, or as landlords, to insist on this Amendment. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had said that very large concessions had been made by him and by his Friends when they accepted the violation of the principle of freedom of contract; but, on the other hand, certain Amendments had been accepted in "another place," and if they would consider the probabilities of the case, they would, he thought, see that it was exceedingly likely that, in that "other place," if their Lordships insisted upon the acceptance of the Amendment now proposed, the consequence of a persistence in the difference between the two Houses would be that the Bill would be lost. What would be the result of that? Surely it could not be the desire of noble Lords opposite to leave this question open to renewed agitation throughout the country—a question which had done more than any other to separate the landlords from the tenant farmers. It would surely not be to the interest, politically speaking, of those who posed before the country as the friends of the tenant farmers, to be placed in the invidious position of being their opponents. But their Lordships must consider, further, how the rejection of the measure would affect the interests of the landowning classes. If the Bill were rejected, and an appeal were made to the constituencies, they might be certain that a Parliament would be returned holding views on this question similar to those of the present Parliament. Nor was that all. Whatever might be their own personal feelings or wishes, they all knew that there was a great probability that before long the constitution of the House of Commons would be considerably modified, and that, in future, it would be returned by a much more popular constituency. He therefore asked their Lordships whether it was in the interest of the landowners, as a class, to leave a burning question of this kind—a question which there was every desire at present to settle in a fair and moderate temper, and which, unless dealt with soon, would become a very dangerous one—to be dealt with by a Parliament which would, in all probability, have far less sympathy with the landlords, and far more sympathy with the tenants, than the present House of Commons had? He did not now propose to discuss the question in detail, although he thought that some of the arguments of the noble Marquess were not applicable to the actual state of things. The noble Marquess said he was afraid to accept the principle of the clause as amended, because it might, and probably would, be used as a precedent in subsequent legislation, as had occurred in the case of the Irish Land Acts. His (the Earl of Derby's) reply to that was extremely simple. It was that Irish and English legislation upon this tenant right question had always proceeded upon entirely different grounds. If this Bill followed on the lines of the Irish Act, it would be of a very different character; and, as the Government had not in any way taken that measure as a precedent, it seemed rather a far-fetched assumption to say that the principle of such legislation would necessarily be applied to other cases. He did not think any one had described what was proposed to be given to the tenant farmers as a loan or a gift; what was to be given them was their right; the intention being only to place them in a position of equality with their landlords which it was assumed did not at present exist. Then the noble Marquess said that the principle of this Bill would be applied to tenants of town property. His (the Earl of Derby's), answer was that he was perfectly ready, if it could be shown that there was any injustice in the system under which property in towns was held, to take that question into consideration; but, in his opinion, there was no clear analogy between the mode of tenure of town property and agricultural land. Much town property was held on leases for 999 years; and even where the term was only 99 years, it could hardly be contended that the tenant had not enjoyed the benefit of his improvements. He did not think, therefore, that considerations founded on any such analogy ought to possess any weight with their Lordships. He hoped their Lordships would reject the proposed Amendment.

LORD ELLENBOROUGH

said, he would support the Amendment, because he believed the cases were not covered sufficiently by the provisions contained in the classes or sections; similar statements having on many previous occasions been alleged, but subsequently found to be futile.

EARL MANVERS

said, he did not believe the tenant farmers wished for this Bill. He had recently heard the opinion expressed by tenant farmers that this was not the time for such a Bill, for they could always get farms when they wanted them, and landlords were always very glad to let them; that what they disliked principally about the Bill was its interference with freedom of contract, and that it was treating them like children to suppose they were incapable of making their own arrangements. Under these circumstances he should support the Amendment.

On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion?"

Their Lordships divided:—Contents 48; Not-Contents 48.

CONTENTS.
Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.) Morley, E.
Northbrook, E.
Suffolk and Berkshire, E.
Grafton, D.
Richmond, D. Sydney, E.
Westminster, D.
Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)
Ailesbury, M.
Sherbrooke, V.
Camperdown, E.
Chichester, E. Exeter, L. Bp.
Derby, E.
Granville, E. Abercromby, L.
Kimberley, E. Alcester, L.
Bagot, L. Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)
Balfour of Burley, L.
Belper, L. Lyttelton, L.
Methuen, L.
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.] Monson, L. [Teller.]
Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)
Braye, L.
Carlingford, L. Reay, L.
Chesham, L. Ribblesdale, L.
Clermont, L. Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
Sandhurst, L.
Crewe, L. Sherborne, L.
De Mauley, L. Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)
Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)
Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)
Fitzgerald, L.
Hothfield, L. Thurlow, L.
Houghton, L. Wrottesley, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Buckingham and Chandos, D. Ashford, L.(V. Bury.)
Bateman, L.
Manchester, D. Beaumont, L.
Northumberland, D. Bramwell, L. [Teller.]
De L'Isle and Dudley, L.
Bristol, M.
Exeter, M. Denman, L.
Salisbury, M. Douglas, L. (E. Home.)
Egerton, L.
Beauchamp, E. Ellenborough, L.
Denbigh, E. Forbes, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Harlech, L.
Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.) [Teller.]
Feversham, E. Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)
Fortescue, E. Lyveden, L.
Harrington, E. Rowton, L.
Lucan, E. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Lytton, E. Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Manvers, E.
Milltown, E. Stratheden and Campbell, L.
Redesdale, E.
Romney, E. Strathnairn, L.
Sandwich, E. Ventry, L.
Stanhope, E. Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Tankerville, E.
Westbury, L.
Bolingbroke and St. John, V. Wynford, L.
Zouche of Haryng-worth, L.
Melville, V.
Sidmouth, V.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The numbers being equal, according to the ancient Rule of the House, the Not-Contents have it, and the Question is therefore resolved in the negative. Before putting the next Question, that of the amended Amendment, I have to observe to your Lordships that, if the votes should also be equal upon the next Division, the same result will follow in an opposite direction.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I do not understand the reason of that statement.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I shall be very glad to explain. Assuming that the same thing happens again, and that the numbers are equal, the ancient Rule of this House is "semper presumitur pronegante"—that is to say, that it passes in the negative. Consequently, as I am about to put the amended Motion, if the numbers should be equal, that Motion will be negatived.

Previous to putting the Question,

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have inquired of the Clerk at the Table as to what would be the course of proceeding in the event—of course, only the possible event—of there being an equality of numbers on this Motion. If there should be an equality of numbers, of course the Not-Contents will have it, and then it will be my duty to put the Question—"That this House do insist on the Amendment."

On Question, "That the words ('do amend their amendment, in page 2, line 11') be inserted in the original Motion?"

Their Lordships divided:—Contents 49; Not-Contents 48: Majority 1.

CONTENTS.
Buckingham and Chandos, D. Ashford, L.
Bateman, L.
Manchester, D. Beaumont, L.
Northumberland, D. Bramwell, L. [Teller.]
De L'Isle and Dudley, L.
Bristol, M.
Exeter, M. Denman, L.
Salisbury, M. Douglas, L. (E. Home.)
Egerton, L.
Beauchamp, E. Ellenborough, L.
Denbigh, E Forbes, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Gerard, L.
Harlech, L.
Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.) [Teller.]
Feversham, E.
Fortescue, E. Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)
Harrington, E. Lyveden, L.
Lucan, E. Rowton, L.
Lytton, L. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Manvers, E. Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Milltown, E.
Redesdale, E. Stratheden and Campbell, L.
Romney, E.
Sandwich, E. Strathnairn, L.
Stanhope, E. Ventry, L.
Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Tankerville, E.
Bolingbroke and St. John, V. Westbury, L.
Wynford, L.
Melville, V. Zouche of Haryng-worth, L.
Sidmouth, V.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.) Grafton, D.
Richmond, D.
Westminster, D. Chesham, L.
Clermont, L.
Ailesbury, M. Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
Camperdown, E. Crewe, L.
Chichester, E. De Mauley, L.
Derby, E. Fingall, L.(E. Fingall.)
Granville, E. Fitzgerald, L.
Kimberley, E. Hothfield, L.
Morley, E. Houghton, L.
Northbrook, E. Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)
Suffolk and Berkshire, E.
Lyttelton, L.
Sydney, E. Methuen, L.
Monson, L. [Teller.]
Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.) Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)
Sherbrooke, V. Reay, L.
Ribblesdale, L.
Exeter, L. Bp. Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)
Abercromby, L. Sandhurst, L.
Alcester, L. Sherborne, L.
Bagot, L. Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)
Balfour of Burley, L.
Belper, L. Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]
Thurlow, L.
Braye, L. Wrottesley, L.
Carlingford, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and said amendment amended, accordingly.

Page 2, line 40, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").

The Commons disagree to the amendment in page 2, line 40, for the following reason: Because the landlord is free to enter into any terms upon which he can agree with the tenant, or may leave the tenant to carry out the drainage at his own expense; and it does not appear desirable to enable him to charge the tenant with a higher rate of interest than that provided in the Bill as passed by the Commons.

LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)

said, that the next Amendment he had to move that their Lordships should not insist upon was in Clause 4, which substituted 4 per cent for 3 per cent as the figure of the amount of interest which might be charged on the tenant for drainage work done by the landlord. The reason of the opposition of the Government to the proposal was, that the landlord might, under the clause as it now stood, elect to do the work himself, and he might do it in his own way, independently of the notice of the tenant. He was then to be at liberty to charge the tenant in one of two ways—either with a certain rate of interest, or with an annual sum, including principal and interest together; or he might leave the tenant to carry it out at his own expense. He would ask their Lordships to consider the matter from the tenant's point of view, and take a fair account of both sides of the question. The Government believed that the present state of things was a reason, at all events, for keeping the amount of interest in these cases at a very moderate figure, and that if they went beyond that and enabled the landlord to impose a heavier charge than that provided in the Bill, as passed by the Commons, the result would be that the tenant would say—"My farm shall remain undrained, and I will not submit to this charge;" and in many cases the land would not be drained at all. The very worst that could happen to a landlord, if he did not choose to undertake the work on the terms provided in the Bill, was that the tenant would do it himself. He was not prepared to admit that drainage done by the tenant must of necessity be badly done, and under an agreement there was no reason to suppose that he would not execute the work in a reasonable and sufficient manner; and, as he bad pointed out, if the charge were made too heavy, the Government were convinced it would defeat the very object of the clause.

Moved, "That this House do not insist on the Amendment in page 2, line 40, to which the Commons have disagreed."—(The Lord President.)

THE DUEK OF BUCKINGHAM AND CHANDOS

said, it was he who originally proposed this Amendment; and, in doing so, he did not do it in any sense to excuse the landlord from bearing a fair portion of any charge incurred for the drainage of his land; but he moved it because it seemed to him necessary both for the advantage and convenience of the tenant and the landlord, and of the public at large. The theory that had been accepted years ago was that the cost of drainage should be repayable in from 20 to 25 years. But, judging from experience he had gathered by observation of drainage works, there was no doubt that, after 20 or 25 years, drainage work was practically wearing out. Therefore, it could hardly be justly contended that the tenant left the benefit of the drainage on the land when he left the farm, as well as repaid the capital to the landlord. A tenant who had paid interest for 10 or 12 years had repaid a portion of the capital, no doubt; but then a corresponding portion of the improvement had become worn out. He feared that if the Amendment was disallowed, the effect would be to prevent either farmers or landlords from borrowing money for drainage purposes.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, that while supporting the view of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) that 4 per cent ought to be substituted for 3, he agreed in thinking that it was not worth pressing the Amendment, as, in 99 cases out of 100, an agreement would be come to between a landlord and tenant, as to what would be a reasonable price to pay as interest. He did not agree with the view of the noble Lord the President of the Council. His argument was the same as that adduced by the crofters before the Royal Commission, who said that as they had paid rent for 30 years, the lend was, therefore, theirs. He (the Duke of Argyll) thought the tenant had nothing to do with the repayment of capital; all he would have to do was to provide the interest for the money the landlord laid out.

LORD ELLENBOROUGH

said, he would point out that no money could be borrowed in the market at less than 4 per cent on land generally, and the prospect of doing so would not be improved under the Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Page 3, line 5, after ("agreement") insert ("in a lease or otherwise"),

The Commons disagree to the amendment in page 3, line 5, for the following reason:— Because these words are superfluous, as the word 'agreement' includes a lease.

On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT, this Amendment insisted on.

Page 4, line 16, leave out ("four") and insert ("seven").

The Commons disagree to the amendment in page 4, line 16, for the following reason:— Because four years is the period provided by the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875, and there appears to be no sufficient reason for extending the term.

On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT, this Amendment not insisted on.

Page 4, line 17, after ("tenancy") insert— ("In the ascertainment of the amount of compensation payable to the tenant in respect of manures 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 Commons disagree to the amendment in page 4, line 17, for the following reason:— Because it is out of harmony with the scheme of the Bill, which provides that the compensation shall depend upon the value of the improvement to the incoming tenant, to measure such compensation by an artificial standard of outlay.

Moved, "That this House do not insist on the Amendment in page 4, line 17, to which the Commons have disagreed."—(The Lord President.)

THE DUEK OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, he had to complain that the noble Lord opposite (the Lord President of the Council) had practically accepted the Amendment already, and that it should, therefore, have been accepted, and not rejected by the Commons.

LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)

said, he greatly regretted that there should be any misconception between himself and the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon). He should be very sorry to go back upon anything on which he had pledged himself to the House; but he distinctly recollected that he never intended to pledge the Government to the Amendment. He had only said, or intended to say, that if the Amendment were to stand at all, it should stand with a certain alteration that he had suggested. He had certainly never meant to pledge the Government to the Amendment itself.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he was somewhat surprised that any misunderstanding should have arisen in regard to what had been done. The Government had only assisted to put into the best possible form before it went, down to the other House, an adverse Amendment.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

hoped their Lordships would insist on their Amendment.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, he quite accepted the explanation given by his noble Friend the Lord President of the Council, and would not insist on the Amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Page 5, line 32, after ("commissioners") insert— ("But if either party shall in writing object to such appointment, then the umpire, or any successor to him, shall he appointed by the President and Council of the Institute of Surveyors.")

The Commons disagree to the amendment in page 5, line 32, for the following reason:— Because it is unnecessary and inconvenient to introduce a third authority for the appointment of an umpire.

LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)

said, that the next question related to the additional appeal provided for by an Amendment made in that House—namely, to the President and Council of the Institute of Surveyors. The Commons' Reason for disagreeing with that Amendment was a very cogent one—namely, that it would be inconvenient and unnecessary to introduce a third authority for the appointment of an umpire. A private body like the Institute of Surveyors was not fitted to exercise such a function. He, therefore, moved that their Lordships should not insist on their Amendment.

Moved, "That this House do not insist on the Amendment, in page 5, line 32, to which the Commons have disagreed."—(The Lord President.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that, in his opinion, it was not very creditable to the Government that they should persist in establishing an authority which was not unbiassed, for the purpose of determining those questions. It was not, however, a question upon which it was worth while making a decided stand.

Motion agreed to.

Amendment made by the Commons to a certain Amendment made by the Lords agreed to.

The next Amendment not insisted on.

Amendment made by the Commons to a certain Amendment made by the Lords agreed to.

Page 16, line 2, leave out ("one year") and insert ("two years") and after ("distress") insert— ("Except in the case of arrears of rent in respect of a holding to which this Act applies existing at the time of the passing of this Act, which arrears shall he recoverable by distress up to the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five to the same extent as if this Act had not passed.")

The Commons disagree to the amendment in page 16, line 2, for the following reason:— Because it is undesirable that the power of distress should extend over more than one year.

LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)

said, the next point was that of the landlord's right of distress, and the question lay between one year and two years. Their Lordships would not be surprised that the House of Commons had adhered to one year, that being the period recommended by the last, and certainly the most thorough, inquiry which had ever been made into that subject by any Committee or Commission. The very able Committee presided over by Mr. Goschen had unanimously recommended that distress should be limited to one year's rent. He would, therefore, move that their Lordships should not insist on their Amendment fixing it at two years.

Moved, "That this House do not insist on the Amendment in page 16, line 2, to which the Commons have disagreed."—(The Lord President.)

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

said, that, in his opinion, two years was in favour of the landlord, and one year in favour of the tenant.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said, that the Royal Agricultural Commission had recommended two years. The reduction of the time allowed to one year would be all against the small farmers in bad seasons, as it would not be possible to give them more time; and the present state of the law was in favour of their credit, since as long as the landlord had patience with them, the shopkeepers would give them credit.

EARL FORTESCUE

suggested that two years should continue for a short time, say, three years; after which one year should be the limit. He always thought one year a better permanent limit; but the sudden change from four years to one year, just after a succession of very bad seasons, would press hardly upon many tenants, who, after a good season or two, if they were allowed a little longer time, would probably be able to go on satisfactorily in their farms.

Motion agreed to.

The next Amendment not insisted on.

Page 18, line 38, after ("that") insert ("(not being a market garden) is less than two acres in extent or").

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 18, line 38, for the following reason:— Because there appears to be no sufficient reason for excluding from the benefit of the Act tenants otherwise entitled to it, on account of the smallness of their holdings.

LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)

, in moving that the Amendment excluding from the operation of the Bill holdings of less than two acres should not be insisted on, said, there was a very strong feeling among the friends both of the tenants and labourers that these small holdings should not be excluded. If, in such a holding, the occupant should make improvements, he ought not to be debarred from receiving the small amount of compensation that could accrue to him under the Bill.

Moved, "That this House do not insist on the Amendment in page 18, line 38, to which the Commons have disagreed."—(The Lord President.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said, that it was at his instance the Amendment had been adopted; and he hoped their Lordships would, therefore, insist on it, for it was absolutely necessary. To include these small holdings would be contrary to the principle of the Bill, and to the explanation given of it by his noble Friend the Lord President on the night of its introduction into that House. Moreover, to bring these small holdings within the Bill would destroy, in a great measure, the valuable system of allotments. These allotments, valuable as they were to small holders, were a kind of property by no means profitable to landlords, and very objectionable indeed to agents, on account of the trouble it gave them. The rent of a great many of these holdings did not exceed 10s. a-year, and any measure which would have the effect of destroying them would militate against the interests of the poor. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) had suggested that many of these holdings might be made weekly holdings and in that case they would not come within the Bill; but these poor tenants would infinitely more object to having their holdings continued on weekly tenancies, than rely on any advantage that might result from their being placed under the provisions of this Bill. The present system had operated extremely well, and from the landlord's point of view it could not be of any advantage to include these holdings in the Bill, for the great expense of valuation under the Bill would render these allotments not worth retaining, and would inevitably lead to their abolition. He attached the greatest importance to the allotment system in the interest of the poor; and it was for that reason that he hoped the Amendment would be insisted on.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he agreed with the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Camperdown) in thinking that if the Bill were retained in the form in which it had left the Commons the allotment system was doomed, for the landlord would be under the strongest motive to escape the law expenses which would be incurred under it. To the landlord, it would possibly be a gain to abolish the allotment system; but it would result in serious injury to the interest of the poor, and ho, therefore, also hoped their Lordships would insist on the Amendment.

EARL STANHOPE

said, he would suggest, by way of compromise, the acceptance of the proposal made by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) the other night, that holdings of one acre only should be excepted from the Bill.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said, he was prepared to accept the Amendment in the modified form proposed.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said, that, as he understood, if nut amended, the Bill would be made to apply to cottage gardens, which it was not intended to touch.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he was assured that that would not be the case. He held that the fact of market gardens being specifically mentioned showed that the Bill was not intended to affect cottage gardens, and that nothing in the nature of gardens was to be included in it. He certainly had, as the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) had said, referred the other night to a limit of one acre; but he had not proposed it as a compromise. There was, undoubtedly, a stronger feeling than the Government had been aware of in the House of Commons and the country in favour of the retention of the two acres' limit—a feeling so strong that this Amendment, if insisted on, would defeat one of the most important objects of the Bill.

EARL FORTESCUE

said, the term "market garden" might be interpreted to exclude the cottage garden.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he did not think that there was any difficulty which was not sufficiently obviated in the Bill.

THE DUEK OF ARGYLL

said, he thought that it would be invidious to make a distinction between one kind of holding and another, and so to exclude small holders from the benefits of the Bill. It was not possible to predict the new motions of action on the part of a landlord which such a measure as that would create.

THE DUEK OF BUCKINGHAM AND CHANDOS

said, he should be quite willing and glad to do all he could for the benefit of allotment holders; but he was not sure that the Bill would do them any good.

THE DUEK OF BUCCLEUCH

said, that, in his opinion, it would be the reverse of a benefit, if not positively injurious, to the holders of these allotments, if they were brought under the provisions of the Bill. If there was one class of persons who required protection more than another, it was the labourers who held small allotments of land.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said, he was sorry the Government could not accept his Amendment. In the course they were taking upon it, he thought they were proceeding upon a mistaken view of the interests of the poor; but he would not divide the House upon it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, that there was not unanimity of opinion in the other House of Parliament as to the desirability of bringing allotments within the Bill; but some of those Members who were most desirous of seeing the allotment system extended had thought it desirable to do so.

Motion agreed to.

A Committee appointed to prepare a reason to be offered to the Commons for the Lords insisting on one of their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed: The Committee to meet forthwith: Report from the Committee of the reason to be offered to the Commons; read, and agreed to: And a message sent to the Commons to return the said Bill, with an amendment and reason.