HL Deb 27 July 1900 vol 86 cc1479-95

House in Committee (according to Order).

Clause 1:—


said the object of the Amendment he rose to move was to restore a proviso which was deliberately inserted, after full consideration by both Houses of Parliament, in the Act of 1883, and which made it compulsory upon every valuer and referee appointed under that Act to have regard, in making the valuation of any agricultural improvement, to what was justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil. He understood that there was no difference whatever between the Parliament of 1883 and the Government which was responsible for the introduction of this Bill so far as the point of principle was concerned. He did not understand that any member of the Government denied that a valuer ought to take into account what was justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil. While in 1883 it was held to be absolutely necessary, as a precaution against possible confiscation and injustice, that every valuer should have regard to the inherent capabilities of the soil, and that he should be instructed by statute to have such regard, the Government now proposed that no statutory instructions should be given to the valuers, as they believed that every valuer would naturally have regard to what was justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil. That was a very unsatisfactory position to be in. He understood the proviso was dropped out of the present Bill on the recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1887, who thought it was obnoxious to many and unnecessary, and that referees, in estimating the tenant's interest in the value of an improvement, would take into consideration the character of the soil, its natural fertility and capabilities, without any instruction by statute. Every fair valuer would do so, but legislation was introduced not to guide the conduct of fair men, but to make unfair men carry out their duty. He was apprehensive that there were valuers who would not act in the way suggested. The President of the Board of Agriculture, speaking in the House of Commons, repudiated the possibility of valuers considering the effect of agricultural operations without considering the capacity of the soil. But if it was right for a valuer to have regard to the inherent capabilities of the soil, why was that not stated honestly and straightforwardly in the Bill, so that all the world could understand it? How was it likely the valuers would construe their duties? They were hard-working, absolutely fearless and honest men, who would go to the statute, and the statute only, for their instructions. They would see that they were required to determine that as compensation such a sum should be given as fairly represented the value of the improvement to the incoming tenant. If his sense of justice suggested to a valuer that some deduction should be made in respect of the inherent capabilities of the soil, he would compare the Act of 1883 with that of 1900, and, he would see that Parliament had thought it right to eliminate the instruction as to taking the inherent capabilities of the soil into account from the latter Act. The valuer would conclude that, however much he wished to, he was not entitled by his statutory instructions to have any regard for the inherent capabilities of the soil. This would injuriously affect the interests of landowners, and would cause grave injustice. In Northumberland there was an experimental farm managed by the county council, which had the great advantage of being directed and supervised by Professor Somerville. The result of the scientific teaching of this experimental farm showed that the application of half a ton of basic slag, which had cost the occupier 22s. per acre in the first three years, had given a live-weight increase per acre in the three years of 321 lb. of mutton, which, valued at 3¾d. per lb., was equivalent to an increase in value of £5. This was obtained at a total cost of 22s. If the valuer in this case did not consider himself obliged to have regard to the inherent capabilities of the soil, injustice and confiscation would be the result. Did they not suppose that the newspapers which represented the views of the extreme advocates of tenant right would point out that this proviso had been deliberately struck out by Parliament in order that the tenant might get the full value of the improvements without any deduction being made? There was every reason to believe that pressure would be brought to bear on the valuers not to have regard to the inherent capabilities of the soil. Not one Minister had expressed himself in favour of the policy that the valuer should not have regard to the inherent capabilities of the soil. Why, therefore, eliminate this provision which was in the Act of 1883? If it tended to preclude valuers from taking into consideration the inherent capabilities of the soil, Parliament would be making itself responsible for a policy of confiscation and injustice, and would be putting upon the Statute-book a germ of great future trouble.

Moved— In page 1, line 12, to add the following proviso:—'Provided always, that in estimating the value of any improvement in Schedule I., 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.'"—(Earl Grey.)


My Lords, I think it is necessary that your Lordships should know how these words were omitted when the Bill was drawn. This matter has been under the consideration of a, great number of official bodies for some time past. The Central Chamber of Agriculture, as long ago as 1894, passed a, resolution recommending the omission of this particular proviso from any Bill that was brought forward in the future. Then came the Royal Commission, which reported in 1898. The matter was discussed very fully before them, a considerable amount of evidence was taken, and they came to the unanimous conclusion that the proviso ought to be struck out. Although the Commission was formed of men of both parties, upon this particular question they were absolutely unanimous in their recommendation, and the proviso was struck out at the desire not only of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, but, I believe, of most of the chambers of agriculture throughout the country, backed up by the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission. Of course, your Lordships' action must be independent of what took place in the House of Commons; but it is worth while calling your attention to the fact that when this matter was discussed in the other House the majority in favour of leaving out the proviso, both in the Standing Committee and in the House itself, was of considerable dimensions. I do not think this ought to be argued as if the Bill in its present form would really take away from the landlord anything that he possesses or would be likely to get under a valuation, for Clause 1 of the Bill clearly states that— Where a tenant has made on his holding any improvement comprised in the First Schedule to this Act he shall, subject as in the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1883 (in this Act referred to as the principal Act) and in this Act mentioned, be entitled, at the determination of a tenancy, on quitting his holding to obtain from the landlord as compensation under the said Acts for the improvement such sum as fairly represents the value of the improvement to an incoming tenant. I do not suppose anyone would say that the inherent capabilities of the soil constituted an improvement made by the outgoing tenant. It is quite true that the words were inserted in the present Act; but if they are inoperative they are surplusage, and everything that is surplusage is bad. The "inherent capabilities of the soil" may mean anything or nothing. The proviso is spoken of in the evidences given before the Royal Commission as one which nobody could understand. I do not say it is so myself, because I thoroughly understand what it means; but evidence was given as to the difficulty of interpreting the words "inherent capabilities of the soil." I leave it, of course, to your Lordships to decide whether the proviso should be inserted or not. There is no intention on the part of the Government of altering the law with regard to this matter. The words I have read seem to be absolutely conclusive.


My Lords, I am glad to hear from the noble Viscount that the Board of Agriculture merely consider these words as surplusage, and that that is the reason why it is proposed to omit them from the Bill. But let me put the matter the other way. Admitting that these words are surplusage, why not leave them where they are? On the other hand, if they are any more than surplusage, and if the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture is right in his opinion, then the difference which will be made in the law will be a very serious one indeed. It must be borne in mind that the opinion of the gentleman who wrote the text-book that has been referred to, or the opinion of Mr. Long, is really of no importance whatever. What is of importance is the opinion of the arbitrators who are to interpret this Act. They will be guided by this first section, which is drawn in the widest possible terms, providing that the value of the improvement is "the value of the improvement to the incoming tenant." There could be nothing wider than that, and there is no limitation. When they look back to the present law they will find that there was a limitation, and that limitation Parliament has struck out. They will say to themselves, "Surely Parliament was not so foolish as to strike out this limitation if that striking out was to have no meaning whatever." I should like in one sentence just to explain to your Lordships clearly what they would be doing if they were to adjudge what was due to the tenant having regard to the "inherent capabilities of the soil." It has been said that when a man hires a farm he hires the farm with the inherent capabilities of the soil. Perfectly true; but for how long does he hire it? For the time during which he is to hold it; and when his tenancy of the land ceases, his tenancy of the "inherent capabilities of the soil'' ceases. But what the valuer would do would be this: the tenant having enjoyed during the whole of his tenancy all that was due to the inherent capabilities of the soil, the valuer by his decision would adjudge him what proceeded from the inherent capabilities of the soil for, say—as in the case just mentioned—ten years after the tenancy ceased, a time during which the tenant has no right in the soil, and therefore no right to be paid for anything that accrues from it. In this way a great injustice would be done against the owner of the soil and in favour of the tenant. I very strongly hope that your Lordships will retain the words which are at present in the Act.


I may be pardoned, perhaps, for saying a word on this question, because it happens that I was in office at the time the original Act was passed. I have not had time to go into the matter, but I believe I am right in saying that in our original Bill these words do not occur; they were introduced by an Amendment in the House of Commons.


That is so.


I remember the discussion perfectly well, and I paid a great deal of attention to it. I suppose I am duller of apprehension than other people, but for the life of me I cannot, and never could, understand what the effect of these words could be, or what possible object they could serve. I have always thought that they are mere surplusage. They were assented to in order to avert possible opposition to the Bill which might have been dangerous, but in the opinion—I know—of those with whom I acted, the words were of no value whatever; and my opinion is that the sooner they go out of the Statute-book the better. There is only one use to which they can possibly be placed, and I do not see that that would benefit either the landlord or the tenant—that some unwary person may go to law in order to find out what they mean. I cannot conceive a prettier wrangle than would arise in such a case, but I pity the man who has to pay the costs. Speaking not only as a landlord, but as one keenly interested in the welfare of both landlord and tenant, I heartily concur in the view that these words should not be retained.


I would like to point out to the noble Earl opposite that the important point is, not whether these words are surplusage, or whether they are necessary, or, indeed, whether they are intelligible. They appear to be perfectly intelligible to the Lord Privy Seal, and we have no reason to think that they are not intelligible to the valuers. The argument the noble Earl has just used might be perfectly sound if the words had not been in the original Act; but it is a very different thing when you take words like these out of the Act and leave the valuers to draw their own inferences from the omission. I am not here to contest what the Lord Privy Seal has said with regard to the interpretation of Clause 1. I dare say Clause 1, as it stands, in effect does embody all that these words include, but I am not so certain that the valuers, who have understood this Act, who have so far had no difficulty in administering the Act, will be as clear in drawing inferences as the noble Lord's long experience enables him to be. I hope the words will be reinserted, in order to leave no room for doubt as to what the intention of Parliament is.


I think the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal made it quite clear that Her Majesty's Government propose to leave it to the Committee to decide whether these words should remain or not. Personally, I am very much inclined to agree with the view taken by the noble Earl opposite, and although I quite admit that a great number of your Lordships are very well acquainted with these subjects and very competent to express an opinion upon them, still, I am not alto-

gether inclined to ignore the authority of the unanimous opinion of the Royal Commission as well as that of the experts of the Board of Agriculture. It is stated in the Report of the Royal Commission that these words are unnecessary, and that they have given rise to misconception and misrepresentation on the part of some of the friends of the tenants; and I think it, is probable that the Act would be improved if the words were omitted. However, as it is almost impossible to mistake what is the prevailing opinion upon this subject of the Committee as at present constituted, I scarcely think that it will be necessary to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing, as opinion appears to be so entirely in the opposite direction. Personally, as I have said, I should prefer that the words should have gone out, because I believe that it is important in the interests not only of the tenant, but of the landlord, that the tenant should not only possess, but know and feel confident that he possesses, full security for compensation for any outlay which he may embark upon in the performance of what are real improvements; and the insertion in the Act of any words which he cannot understand and nobody can explain to him is calculated to impair that confidence, and, therefore, to make him less willing to undertake improvements, and less anxious to do the best by the land either in his own interest or that of the landlord. For these reasons I regret that the Committee should take a view opposed to that of the Royal Commission and the experts of the Board, but, as it is clear that the great majority of your Lordships do not share in that regret, the Government, at any rate, do not propose to divide upon the question.

On Question, "That those words be there inserted," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 5.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) Dartrey, E. Falkland, V.
Devonshire, D. (L. President.) Denbigh, E. Falmouth, V.
Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.) Feversham, E. Frankfort de Montmorency, V.
Grey, E. [Teller.] Portman, V.
Argyll, D. Harewood, E.
Northumberland, D. Ilchester, E. Balfour, L.
Morley, E. Belper, L.
Bath, M. Onslow, E. Brougham and Vaux, L.
Lansdowne, M. Powis, E. Calthorpe, L.
Camperdown, E. [Teller.] Waldegrave, E. Churchill, L.
Clarendon, E. Yarborough, E. Colchester, L.
Cottesloe, L. Heneage, L. Rowton, L.
De Mauley, L. Kinnear, L. Sherborne, L.
De Ramsey, L. Lawrence, L. Sudley, L. (E. Arran)
Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.) Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.) Ventry, L.
Glenesk, L. Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Harlech, L. Penrhyn. L. Wenlock, L.
Harris, L. Raglan, L. Windsor, L.
Kimberley, E. Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.] Cranworth, L.
Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.) Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

On Question, "That those words be there inserted," agreed to.


The Amendment I now move is submitted in pursuance of an undertaking given by Mr. Long in the House of Commons to introduce words which should prevent the possibility of an unreasonable and excessive quantity of manure being required to be returned to the holding in respect of crops allowed to be sold off during the concluding years of the tenancy. It was suggested that the clause, which is admittedly required in favour of the landlord, might be utilised in that way, and it was considered proper to provide this safeguard.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 27, after 'endured' insert' not exceeding the value of the manure which would have been produced by the consumption on the holding of the crops so sold off or removed.' "—(The Lord Privy Seal.)


said this was a very peculiar Amendment, and its meaning was not very clear at first sight. Sub-section 4 as it stood provided that— In the ascertainment of the amount of the compensation payable to a tenant in respect of manures as denned by this Act, there shall be taken into account the value of the manure required by the contract of tenancy or by custom to be returned to the holding in respect 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 has endured. That was a very ordinary contract in the case of any farm near 'a town, and, apart from contract, was an arrangement imposed by custom. But if the words proposed by this Amendment were inserted it would be necessary to enter into two calculations—(1) how much crop had been sold off the land, and (2) how much manure that crop would have produced; and, if that amount of manure exceeded by one cow-pat the proper amount, the difference was to be taken into account in calculating the compensation. This interference with the arrangement come to under contract or existing by custom was quite unreasonable; it would be much better to cut out all reference to custom and contract altogether than to limit it in this absurd way.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:—

Drafting Amendments made.


said that the object of the new sub-section he rose to move was very simple—namely, that the present practice with regard to notices of claim should be continued. It might be asked how it was that the provisions he now proposed, which were in the original Act, had come to be dropped out. It happened that the Bill omitted Sections 6 to 16 of the principal Act, and these provisions were contained in one of the sub-sections omitted. As the Bill stood, it would not be necessary for the tenant to give any details of any kind in making his claim, or for the landlord to give particulars of the deductions he claimed under Sub-section 3. It was surely for the general convenience that the old practice should continue of requiring detailed particulars to be given.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 40, after 'claim' to insert a new sub-section: 'Every claim and written notice under this section shall state, as far as reasonably may be, the particulars and amount of the intended claim.' "— (The Earl of Camperdown.)


explained that the unanimous opinion of the Royal Commission was that notices of claim should be done away with, it having been found that they were inconvenient, and led to-trouble and expense. The noble Earl need not be afraid of particulars not being given, because, under the Bill as it stood, if anyone unreasonably refused to give particulars he would be subject to costs at the discretion of the valuer.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 3, 4, and 5 agreed to.

Clause 6:—


, in moving the rejection of this clause, said he would find it easier to give reasons for its rejection if he had heard any reasons for its being in the Bill at all. This legislation, their Lordships were aware, was an interference with freedom of conduct; that was the avowed object; but in addition to that it was also giving the tenant by a sidewind a great amount of fixity of tenure. As the law stood, landlords were necessarily very cautious of doing anything which would induce the tenant to leave his holding, because of the trouble and expense involved; but why should the Legislature do away with any protection which the landlord now had against any act of the tenant which might be detrimental to the holding, without taking the extreme measure of determining the tenancy? It was very questionable whether penal rents were really legal. The law as it stood gave ample protection to the tenant against anything unfair in the way of penal rents. Why should there be a still further limitation of the right of the landlord to prevent improper cropping or other bad treatment of his land, when the Bill already went far enough in restricting the landlord's enjoyment of his property? True, it was provided that this section should not apply to any covenant or condition against breaking up permanent pasture and other matters, but there were other matters besides those enumerated in that proviso which were properly the subject of penalties in case the tenant transgressed the terms of his lease.

Amendment proposed— To leave out Clause 6."—(The Duke of Northumberland.)


said that in a limited number of cases provisions were Inserted in the lease requiring the payment of penalties or liquidated damages for acts which were not all likely to result in an equivalent amount of loss to the landlord. These penal clauses were certainly not looked upon with favour by the courts, and there was often great difficulty in enforcing them. It was considered that a better feeling would be brought about between landlord and tenant if these penal clauses were done away with, except in those very special cases where the injury to the landlord might be a very serious matter.


pointed out that at present the landlord had a legal and an equitable remedy; he might take his complaint against the tenant before a court of law or before an arbitrator. If it were true that the courts "did not look with favour" on these clauses, there was still less reason for depriving the landlord of his legal rights.


expressed the opinion that these penal clauses were extremely disadvantageous in a lease, and, in his experience (not now a very short one), they were very rarely enforced. He believed the chief result of piling up clauses providing large damages for the landlord was only to produce irritation and ill-feeling, and in estates under enlightened management they were now being generally dropped. With the power of making a counterclaim provided for in this Bill, the landlord had ample opportunity of protecting himself. This clause would only put into general application the practice which was already adopted in the great majority of instances.

Amendment negatived.

Clauses 6, 7, 8, and 9 agreed to.

Clause 10:—


moved the insertion of a new sub-section, proposed at the instance of the Scottish Office, and accepted by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, the object of which was to clear up a doubt that had been expressed as to the competency of an appeal in certain cases from the decision of a sheriff-substitute to a sheriff. In the cases with which this clause dealt, the sheriff-substitute was really acting instead of the sheriff, and clearly, if an appeal should lie at all, it should be not to the sheriff', but to a higher court. The sub-section he now moved would avoid any risk of additional and unnecessary legal procedure being introduced.

Amendment moved— In page 5, at end of clause to insert: '(5) Where any jurisdiction committed by the principal Act or this Act to the sheriff is exercised by the sheriff-substitute there shall be no appeal to the sheriff.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

First Schedule:—


moved the first of three Amendments applying to items (4) (6) and (11) of Part I. of this schedule. This part enumerated among the improvements to which the consent of the landlord was required— (4) Making and planting of osier beds (exceeding one acre). (6) Making of gardens (exceeding one acre). (11) Planting of orchards or fruit-bushes (exceeding one acre). He proposed to omit the words "exceeding one acre" in each instance. As the Bill stood it was not quite clear whether the intentions that a tenant farmer should only be able to deal with one acre of land, and must choose which of the three objects he would devote that one acre to, or whether he was at liberty to devote three acres to these three special objects. As he read the Bill, he saw nothing in the way of the latter course. But, apart from the doubt as to the effect of the provision, he maintained that this was introducing a new and wholly indefensible principle. In the other House a similar Amendment to the present was proposed, and the Government had admitted that, logically, this portion of the schedule could not be defended; but the President of the Board of Agriculture said that farmers fully realised why the distinction of one acre should be drawn. On a large farm no great harm would be done by devoting one or even three acres to these purposes, but in the case of a small farm it might be a very serious matter indeed. Take the case of a twenty-acre farm, with several changes of tenancy within ten years; if each tenant exercised his rights under this schedule, that small farm might in the course of ton years become converted into a chess-board of osier beds and gardens and orchards. And the landlord was not only to be compelled to suffer this, but he was to be liable for compensation as well. There was also this possibility: the present Government thought it right to fix a limit of one acre, but another Government, holding very different views, might extend the principle and allow five or ten acres to be devoted to these purposes. This was no doubt the "thin end of the wedge" argument, and there was generally about that argument the weakness that it relied upon prophecy; but it happened that in the House of Commons, where a similar Amendment had been moved, and opposed by the Government, the wedge had been immediately driven home against them. After the President of the Board of Agriculture had defeated an Amendment, similar to the present one, a Member for a Scottish constituency got up and moved that the tenant farmer should be permitted to redeem not exceeding one acre of waste land. The President of the Board of Agriculture was reduced to using exactly the same argument that had been used against him five minutes before in order to defend himself against this very severe hitting of the wedge which he himself had just inserted. That Amendment was defeated; but it was very difficult to see why, if a. tenant farmer could use an acre for the making of an orchard or a garden, or planting an osier bed, he should not be allowed to reclaim an acre of waste land. He could not see how this provision could be defended, and he did not believe it was supported except by those who desired dual ownership of the land. He appealed to the Government to remove this blot from the Bill.

Amendment moved— In page 6, line 8, to omit the words 'exceeding one acre.' "—(Lord Windsor.)


said that, as he understood the effect of the schedule, only one acre would be liable to be applied to each of these objects. This proposal was embodied in the Report of the Central Chamber of Agriculture so long ago as 1894, and he found that present at the meeting of that body, and agreeing with that Report were Mr. Chaplin, Mr. Jeffreys, Mr. Clare Sewell Read, and others, and that the Committee consisted of members of both political parties. A proposal to give tenant farmers right to compensation in respect of orchards and trees, irrespective of size, was rejected by the Committee, and this limited provision was agreed upon, the object being to encourage small gardens and things of that kind. The proposal was again considered by the Royal Commission of 1893, the members of which were Lord Cobham, Mr. Chaplin, Mr. Long, the late Mr. Little, and Sir John Gilmour, and they unanimously endorsed the proposal. With respect to the argument of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, that in the course of ton years the whole holding might be turned into an orchard or an osier bed, the answer was that the only compensation the tenant could claim was the value of his improvement "to the incoming tenant." That would be in practice sufficient protection against a tenant applying any considerable part of his holding to purposes which would have no value to the tenant who would succeed him. There was no ulterior object whatever in inserting these three lines in this part of the Schedule, and he hoped their Lordships would retain them.


contended that too much attention should not be paid to decisions arrived at by the Central Chamber of Agriculture or any other public bodies; the business of the Legislature was to do justice as between landlord and tenant. The question here was whether this change in the law was fair and just. He held that its immediate effect would be injurious. In the case of small farms

(of which there were many in the north of England) the power of devoting an acre of the holding to an orchard or an osier-bed, or a garden, although it might be an immediate advantage to the tenant, would mean a serious injury to the farm; and with a succession of tenants thinking only of their immediate advantage, the farm might be diverted altogether from its original and proper purpose. He agreed that this was the "thin end of the wedge"—it was a step to wards dual ownership. There had been in the sister isle warning sufficient of the danger of that principle. He cordially supported the Amendment.


pointed out that, as the words stood in the Second Schedule, a tenant could plant "any number" of osier beds, fruit gardens, etc., on a farm, so long as none of them exceeded three-quarters of an acre, or were under an acre. So that it would not require successive tenants to plant a dozen orchards or a dozen osier beds on a farm.


But the consent of the landlord must be given to anything over an acre.


I beg my noble friend's pardon. Under the words of the Bill, as drafted, there is nothing to prevent the tenant, without applying to the landlord at all, planting a dozen osier beds, providing that none of them exceeds one acre. It may be a mistake in the drafting, but that is the effect of the words as they stand.

On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the schedule, their Lordships divided:— Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 25.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.) Onslow, E. Balfour, L.
Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.) Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Belper, L.
Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] Churchill, L. [Teller.]
Clarendon, E. Frankfort deMontmorency, V. Harris, L.
Denbigh, E. Lawrence, L.
Morley, E. Ashbourne, L.
Northumberland, D. Ilchester, E. Calthorpe, L.
Powis, E. Colchester, L.
Camperdown, E. De Mauley, L.
Dartrey, E. Falkland, V. De Ramsey, L.
Feversham, E. Falmoutn, V. Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)
Grey, E. Brougham and Vaux, L. Heneage, L. [Teller.]
Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.) Raglan, L. Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)
Rowton, L. Ventry, L.
Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.) Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Penrhyn, L. Windsor, L. [Teller.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second and third schedules amended and agreed to.

Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee, and to be printed as amended. (No. 211.)

House adjourned during pleasure; and resumed by the Earl of Morley.