Sitting of 23 July 1883

MINUTES.
— PUBLIC: BILLS — Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Revenue and Friendly Societies* [269].
Ordered—First Reading—Isle of Wight Highways* [268].
First Reading—Suprema Court of Judicature (Funds, &c.) * [270]; Pawnbrokers* [271].
Second Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 4) *; Post Office (Protection) [266].
Committee—Agricultural Holdings (England)* [186] [Fifth Night]—R.P.; Greenwich Hospital [253]—R.P.
Considered as amended — Statute of Frauds Amendment * [204].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Act (1874) Amendment [39], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS—TORY ISLAND LIGHTHOUSE.
  MR. BERESFORD (for Colonel KING-HARMAN)asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the improvements of Tory Island Lighthouse, for which the Commissioners of Irish Lights obtained the statutory sanction of the Board of Trade, and which were postponed pending the result of the investigations of the Illuminants Committee, may now be proceeded with, inasmuch as the Illuminants Committee has been dissolved?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The Board of Trade have not yet given their statu-

  127
  tory sanction to the proposed alterations at Tory Island Lighthouse, the consideration of the subject having been postponed at the beginning of the year pending the result of the then projected inquiry. On January 25 last the Commissioners of Irish Lights were asked for a Report on certain points connected with their proposed alterations. This Report has not yet been received; but as soon as I receive it I will take care that it shall have prompt and careful consideration.

  TRAMWAYS (IRELAND)—INTEREST ON LOANS-THE TREASURY MINUTE.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the recent Treasury Minute changing the rate of interest for loans to Railway Companies in Ireland applies to loans for steam tramways or electric tramways in that country; and, if not, whether steps will be taken to extend it to those cases?
  MR. COURTNEY: I have already informed the House that the two tramway loans already made will be treated in the same way as existing tramway loans.

  INCOME AND EXPENDITURE—FINANCE ACCOUNTS FOR 1882–3.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, When the Finance Accounts for 1882–3 will be published; when the three Returns of Public Income Expenditure Analyzed, of the National Debt on 31st March last, and of National Debt Reduction in 1882–3, ordered on 4th May, will be published; and, whether the Analyzed Account of Public Revenue and Expenditure, now to be issued for the seventh time, could not advantageously appear in the annual volume of Finance Accounts?
  MR. COURTNEY: The Finance Accounts are complete in type, and are undergoing the final revision. They will be ready for issue in a few days. The two Returns relating to the National Debt will be ready early in the week. That relating to Income and Expenditure depends upon the Finance Accounts, and will be completed as soon as the revision of them is finished. The "Analyzed Account of Income and Expenditure" is a Return for the form of
  128
  which the Government is not responsible, and I see no sufficient reason for adding it to the Government Accounts.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—EXTRA ALLOWANCES TO PRISON SURGEONS.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has yet inquired into the particulars of the interview between Dr. Carte, and the Right honourable member for Bradford (when Chief Secretary), and the late T. H. Burke, relative to compensating the Irish prison surgeons for extra duties actually cast upon them under the Protection of Person and Property Act (Ireland); and, if so, what has been the result?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have made inquiry of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who informs me that he does not recollect any special interview with Dr. Carte in the presence of the late Mr. Burke. he states, however, that he thinks it likely that he said that if any such claim were sent to him he would press it upon the favourable consideration of the Treasury.
  MR. GIBSONasked whether Dr. Carte's account of the interview would be accepted if the right lion. Member for Bradford had doubts upon the subject?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that the admission of any special claim by Dr. Carte would be made upon a principle which would open up a very large number of cases; and he should require a very specific assurance from his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford before he could assent to such a claim.

  THE SUEZ CANAL.
  MR. SPEAKERhaving called upon Mr. OARBUTT, who had given Notice to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can state the number of British ships or British tonnage going through the Suez Canal in ballast; and, whether the reduction of 21- francs per ton on ships in ballast will apply to ships carrying coal, that is to say, will the Suez Canal Company allow ships, under the new arrangement, to ballast with coal?
  MR. GLADSTONE said: I would suggest to hon. Members who have Questions on the Paper relating to the details of the Suez Canal arrangements

  129
  that it would probably be to their convenience, and to the convenience of the House, if they postponed all these Questions until I have had an opportunity of making the statement which I wish to make to the House.

  EMIGRATION—EMIGRANTS AT QUEENSTOWN.
  MR. MOOREasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the absence of proper shelter or accommodation for emigrants at Queenstown whilst undergoing medical inspection, and the hardships to which they are exposed from. the severity of the weather, being sometimes compelled to stand the whole time exposed to rain and cold, and being often wet through, particularly in the winter mouths, before embarking; and, whether he can take any steps to remedy this state of things?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I have communicated with the Board of Trade officials at Queenstown, and have received the following particulars with respect to the accommodation provided by the Shipping Companies at Queenstown for the convenience of emigrants. I am told that the representatives of the White Star, Guion, and Allan lines have well-sheltered accommodation for over 1,000 persons, with good sanitary arrangements, the distance from the place where the emigrants are medically inspected to the tender being but a few yards. The Inman Company's premises are also commodious, sheltered, and provided with all necessary sanitary appliances; and I am further told that the same remarks apply in all respects to the accommodation provided by the other Shipping Companies at Queenstown.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT, 1878—VETERINARY INSPECTION (IRELAND).
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What qualification does Commander Stratford Turtle, R.N., possess entitling him to act as travelling veterinary inspector for the Irish Privy Council, under "The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878?"
  MR. TREVELYAN: I presume the hon. Member intends his Question to refer to Captain Tuke, R.N., as there is
  130
  no officer named Turtle employed under the Irish Privy Council. Captain Tuke is not a Veterinary Inspector, but a Travelling Inspector, whose principal duties are to visit cattle-exporting ports and railway stations and inspect cattle-carrying ships, trucks, &c., for the purpose of seeing that the requirements of the Act and Orders in Council as to cleansing and disinfection are carried out. These duties do not require special veterinary knowledge, and they are performed very satisfactorily by Captain Tuke. Similar appointments are held in England by naval officers.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—COLONEL CONNELLY, V.C., A RESIDENT MAGISTRATE.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Colonel Connelly, V.C. who has been appointed resident magistrate for Derryberough, is the same official who was recently retired from the Dublin Metropolitan Police; if so, what his salary will be as resident magistrate; whether he will still be paid the full amount of his Police pension; if so, will lie state whether there is a Civil Service rule prohibiting such an arrangement; and, can lie give the entire emoluments which Colonel Connelly will now draw?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Colonel Connelly lately held the office of Assistant Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, which office has been abelished. He has now been appointed a Resident Magistrate, and stationed at Derry. His salary as such will be that provided by Parliament for a newly-appointed magistrate—namely, £425, with allowances amounting to £108 per annum. He will be paid a pension for his police service. There is no Civil Service rule prohibiting such an arrangement, provided that the pension and the salary of the new office do not together exceed the salary of the old office. Colonel Connelly's present emoluments are his salary, as abeve stated, and his police pension of £175 per annum.
  MR. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why Colonel Connelly was obliged to retire; whether it was not because he was considered unfit for the post; and, if so, why it is thought necessary to give this gentleman further

  131
  employment when he was unfitted for his former office?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The office was abolished.
  MR. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it was abelished in order to get rid of Colonel Connelly?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Such thingshave been done; but it certainly was not done in this case. The number of Dublin Police is such that they can be quite adequately commanded by one Commissioner.

  IRELAND—DESTITUTION IN DONEGAL.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a communication from Mr. Patrick Ward, of Burtonport, in the "Derry Journal" of July 13th, describing the destitution in the parish of Lower Templecrona, county Donegal, as so widespread that, in the distribution of 325 dollars of American charity confided to him, he was obliged to give orders for meal secretly to tbese nearest to starvation in order not to rouse the hunger of hundreds of other destitute persons to whom he had nothing to give; whether his attention has nothing; called to Mr. Ward's statement that—
  "Notwithstanding every precaution I took to prevent the destitute, for whom there was nothing, from disappointment and fatigue in running after me looking for relief, my house was literally besieged the next morning by four o'clook, principally by widows and wives whose husbands had gone to Scotland a few days before" (in search of employment);
  whether he is aware that the "Derry Journal" adds—
  "We have within our own knowledge one well-authenticated case of a poor woman feeding her starvelings for two days on beiled nettles, other food not being procurable;"
  what amount of outdoor relief (if any) has been administered by the poor law authorities to the 400 families in this parish, whom the "Derry Journal "describes as—
  "Eking out a miserable subsistence by the aid of charity since Christmas last;"
  and, whether, in view of the repeated impeachments of the official representations with respect to the distress in Donegal, he will direct an independent inquiry to be held into the character and treatment of the distress?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have received Reports which leave no doubt that, although the parish referred to is a very poor one, these statements are greatly exaggerated. Most of the men of the parish have sought work elsewhere, and are earning wages. Some charitable relief was given by the priest; but there never was any appeal to the public, except for seed. Mr. Ward obtained some money from America, and distributed it in meal, and the Inspector of the Local Government Board states that he is quite sure that any distribution would bring applicants. He has heard of no authentic case of nettle-eating. Within the last three or four days he has been in conversation with those most likely to be well informed—the Medical and Relieving Officers, Poor Law Guardians resident in, or having business premises in, the parish, and the parish priest—and none of them now feel uneasy about the people. The out-door relief given in the parish is at about the rate of £2 5s. a-week. I see no sufficient reason to order any special inquiry.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—MILITIA SURGEON E. R. CORBIN.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will state under what circumstances Surgeon E. R. Corbin was removed from the Militia force in the island of Guernsey on the 24th May last; whether his resignation, dated 21st May, was received by the Lieutenant Governor previous to the order being made for his removal; and, whether it is competent for the Lieutenant Governor of Guernsey to dismiss an officer summarily from the Militia without a Court Martial or the previous approval of the Secretary of State?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONSurgeon Corbin was removed from the Guernsey Militia by the Lieutenant Governor for an act of insuberdination committed on the 18th of May. The Lieutenant Governor did not receive Mr. Corbin's resignation, and he appears to have acted within his powers.

  TREASURY—THE "CROWN'S NOMINEE ACCOUNT."
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will direct that in future

  133
  the Parliamentary Paper styled the "Crown's Nominee Account," shall give, in an Appendix, the names, the addresses, and descriptions of the intestates; the amount of each estate; the particulars of estates finally disposed of since the passing of "The Treasury Solicitor Act, 1876;" and a list of estates awaiting distribution, with the amount in each case awaiting an unknown next of kin?
  MR. COURTNEY: The hon. and gallant Barenet put a similar Question to my noble Predecessor (Lord Frederick Cavendish) in the spring of last year. I have looked into the subject again; and I entirely agree in the answer then given him, that it is unnecessary and inexpedient to publish the details which he seeks.

  FOREIGN OFFICE—ACTION OF WITH REGARD TO PARCELS FROM THE UNITED STATES FOR MR. JAMES LINDSAY, GLASGOW.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Is it the case that the representatives of the British Foreign Office in America influenced the Express Company to refuse to forward parcels to Mr. James Lindsay, newsagent, Glasgow; and, if so, what was their reason for doing so?
  LORD EDMOND FITZ MAURICE: No, Sir; I am not aware that such is the case, and the Foreign Office has neither received any information nor issued any instructions upon the subject.

  INDIA—THE MAHARAJAH DHULEEP SINGH.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR, asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that Maharajah Dhuleep Singh is selling jewels for the purpose of raising £20,000 for the expenses of a proposed visit to India; and, whether the Government intend to interfere, or will leave the Maharajah to act on his own responsibility?
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: I should like to ask a Question on this subject. It is, Whether the Maharajah and his family have ever received the £45,000 a-year guaranteed to them by the Treaty of Lahore of 1840; or, whether the income of the Maharajah has been
  134
  so diminished by the action of the British Government for many years past that he has not had a larger sum than £13,000 available, rendering it impossible for him to live in this country in a manner to which his position entitles him; and, whether the Government will give a debtor and creditor account of their financial dealings with the Maharajah under the Treaty of 1849?
  MR. ONSLOW: I would also ask, Whetherthe Maharajah has given us any reasons for his visiting India at all; and under what stipulations the Government of India have placed him in regard to his journey?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Perhaps the two hon. Members will give the usual Notice of their Questions. In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend whose Question is on the Paper, I may say that I understand that the Maharajah is selling his jewels with the intention of proceeding to India. The matter is not one in which the Government can interfere; but it was intimated to the Maharajah last October by the Secretary of State that, in the event of his proceeding to India, it would be necessary for him to regulate his movements in conformity with the instructions he might receive from the Viceroy.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—THE GABOON COLONY.
  MR. WHITLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that Mr. Cohen, the British Consul for Angola and the South-West Coast of Africa, has not visited the Gabeen Colony for several years; if any report of the treatment which British commerce and British subjects are experiencing in the Colony has been rendered by that officer; and, whether Her Majesty's Government, in the present critical state of British interests on the Congo and in the Gabeen Colony, will provide the means and instruct Consul Cohen to periodically visit and report upon the condition of British interests and trade within the limits of his Consulate, in a manner similar to that adopted by Consul Hewett in the Bights of Benin and Biafra?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The French Settlement of Gabeen is not within Mr. Cohen's district, and he has sent no Report on it. Mr. Cohen is Consul for Angola, and receives his exequatur from the Portuguese Govern-

  135
  ment. The Native territory up to and comprising the mouths of the Congo, for which no exequatur is required, are in his district. A man-of-war is regularly stationed at Loanda, and is at Mr. Cohen's disposal to convey him periodically to places on the coast which he may wish to visit. He visited the Congo in April last.

  POST OFFICE (CONTRACTS)—POSTAL SERVICE TO THE WEST INDIES.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked the Postmaster General, When he intended calling for a continuance of the Postal Service to the West Indies, &c. at present conducted by the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, whose contract expires on the 1st January 1885; and, whether ample time would be given to enable the Steamship Companies desirous of undertaking the service to make the necessary arrangements?
  MR. FAWCETT: I can assure the noble Lord that the importance of giving time to tender for the West India Mail Service is fully recognized by the Government, and we hope to be in a position almost immediately to advertise for fresh tenders.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY THE ARMY RESERVE MEN.
  MR. BERESFORD (for Colonel KINGHARMAN)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that an order has been issued stating that, although men belonging to the Army Reserve, who have been serving in the Auxiliary Constabulary Force, are eligible for re-engagement in the Royal Irish Constabulary, such men are not to be re-engaged as long as there are other candidates for vacancies in the Force; and, whether, as there are now a large number of candidates for admission into the Constabulary, this order is not tantamount to a dismissal of the men who joined the Force and rendered good service in difficult and dangerous times?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Inspector General is of opinion that, so long as there are plenty of other candidates, it is for the interest of the Constabulary Force as a general rule not to accept Army Reserve men for permanent service in it; but that in individual cases circumstances may justify exceptions being made. The officer who is respon-
  136
  sible for recruiting has been so informed, and he is allowed to exercise his discretion in the cases which come before him. As to the latter part of the Question, it is certainly neither tantamount to dismissal nor the least injustice to discharge any of the temporary Auxiliary Force who are not further required. They were engaged upon the distinct understanding that they might at any time be discharged upon six months' notice. The limit of hge for Constabulary recruits is 18 to 27 years.

  IRELAND—INFLAMMATORY SPEECHES—MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON, INSPECTOR OF FISHERIES.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the speech of Mr. William Johnston, on July 12th, at Lambeg, in which he is reported to have said—
  "Rather than see Home Rule and a Parnellite Parliament, we would line with our rifles every ditch from the Boyne to Belfast, and dare them to come on;"
  whether this Mr. Johnston is an Inspector of Fisheries; and, in this position, drawing a salary from the Government; and, whether, if so, it is intended to call upon him to abstain from using such language, on pain of a dismissal from the Public Service?
  MR. TREVELYAN: My attention has been called to the speech. I am quite clear that Mr. Johnston, who is an Inspector of Fisheries, and does receive a salary from the Government, ought not to have attended the demonstration. I have communicated with him on the subject, and have told him the view of the Government.

  ARMY—THE ARMY HOSPITAL CORPS.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact that when a man of the Army Hospital Corps contracts an infectious or contagious disease, in consequence of his nursing patients suffering from such disease, he is deprived of his extra pay, and is made subject to hospital stoppages while he is being treated in hospital, theugh the disease has been contracted in the execution of his duty?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Men of the Army Hospital Corps are liable to stoppages under the circum-

  137
  stances named, on the general principles that special pay for duty cannot be issued except for the performance of the duty, and that all soldiers are liable to hospital stoppages unless in hospital on account of wounds received in action, or of illness contracted on a service with an. Army in the field. The question of relieving men of the Army Hospital Corps from these stoppages in the case of illness contracted in the discharge of their duty has frequently been considered; but a difficulty has hitherto been felt in treating them differently from other corps in receipt of Departmental pay. I will undertake, however, to look further into the matter.

  THE MERCANTILE MARINE FUND—ACCOUNTS FOR 1881–2.
  MR. JAMES STEWARTasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is aware that the account of the Mercantile Marine Find has not been laid before Parliament of a later date than 31st March 1881; and, whether it is not practicable to have this account rendered within three or four months of the end of each financial year?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The accounts for the year ending March 31, 1882, are in print, and will be laid before Parliament at once. Some questions were raised by the Controller and Auditor General, to whom these accounts have to be submitted, and these questions had to be settled before the accounts could be presented. I will make inquiry, and see whether steps cannot be taken to insure those accounts in future being laid upon the Table at an earlier date.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—APPEALS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the appeals of three tenants (Patrick Hodnett, John Driscoll, and William Hodnett), which were heard by the County Court Judge at Bantry, county Cork, on the 9th of July, whose applications for the benefit of the Arrears' Act had been dismissed by the Investigator; whether this dismissal was because of the non-payment of the required year's rent before 30th November; whether, notwithstanding this, the tenants produced in the Appeal Court three re-
  138
  ceipts for the statutory year's rent, which made it appear under the hand of the landlord that such rent had been paid on the 30th November; whether, on being questioned by the judge as to the real date of such payment, the tenants declared that it had in fact been made within the past two months; whether the judge thereupon ordered the receipts to be impounded with a view to the landlord being prosecuted; whether the landlord in question is the collector of general rates for the city of Dublin; whether the offence of antedating receipts to defraud the State under the Arrears' Act subjects the landlord to imprisonment and fine; whether the Government will cause a prosecution to be instituted against the landlord; and, whether, if the offender be a Government official, he will any longer be continued in the service of the Crown?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I believe that the facts in reference to this matter are stated with substantial accuracy in the Question, except as to the fifth paragraph. The Judge did not refer to a prosecution; but he directed the Clerk of the Peace to send the receipts to the Land Commissioners, which he has done. The Land Commission is at present engaged in investigating the case, and the Government await the result of their inquiry. Meanwhile, it would be obviously improper to prejudge a matter which possibly may become the subject of legal investigation hereafter.
  MR. HEALYasked whether the right lion. Gentleman's attention had been drawn to a letter of a somewhat peculiar character in The Freeman's Journal apparently impugning the accuracy of his statement?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Yes. I saw the letter. It was rather difficult to understand; but, undoubtedly, in so far as it impugned the accuracy of the hon. Member's Question, it was inaccurate.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—ALLEGED OUTRAGE AT LONDONDERRY.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether within the past few weeks in Londonderry, at the eviction by the Irish Society of a tenant named Davis, the latter, in the presence of a member of the Constabulary force then on duty, and of a number of the

  139
  citizens then assembled, charged an official of the Irish Society who was present with complicity in the outrage which took place on 17th March 1879, namely, the throwing through a glass roof into a crowded room an infernal machine which exploded, injuring seriously ono girl, and less seriously several other persons; if he will state what stops, if any, the police have taken in reference to this accusation; whether any one has been arrested; and, whether inquiry under the Prevention of Crime Act, or otherwise, has been entered upon by the authorities; and, if not, whether, in consideration of the local excitement occasioned, an investigation will be directed?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am imformed that while a man named John Davis was being evicted from a house in Londonderry, the property of the Irish Society, he said to a man present, clerk to the Society's agent, that he was "the cause of the affair at Davis's Rooms and ought to be transported." When making those statements he was drunk and very much excited. On the following day he was visited by the police and questioned, when he stated that he had no recollection of what he had said, that lie was sorry for it, and was ready to go before a magistrate and swear that he knew nothing whatever of the affair. An exhaustive inquiry was held shortly after the outrage occurred. Every witness who could throw light on the circumstances was examined; and it is not considered that any good would result from holding a further inquiry now.

  INDIA (MYSORE)—GOLD MINING COMPANIES—CONCESSIONS TO BRITISH OFFICIALS, &c.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Report of the Government of India on the connection of Madras officials with the promotion of Gold Mining Companies, promised by the Secretary of State for India early in April last, has yet been received; and, if not, whether he can state when the Report may be expected?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: On the 9th of April last I informed the hon. Gentleman that the Government of India would be directed to furnish a Report on the
  140
  "Whole question of the concessions granted in Mysore during the minority of the Maharajah, and of the connection of British officials therewith."
  A despatch on the subject was sent on April 19; but no reply has yet been received, nor can I say when it may be expected.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (NEW RULES).
  MR. WARTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will appoint a day for the discussion of the Rules of the Supreme Court, which were laid upon the Table of this House on the 10th instant, and which will come into force on the 24th of October next, unless within forty days from their being laid upon the Table they are disapproved of by either House of Parliament?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think I have already answered a similar Question, put to me by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport. What I have to say is this. I have no intention of proposing any particular day for the discussion of these Rules; but we are quite aware of the position in which they stand—namely, that they will become law within a certain time unless they are annulled by an Address from one or both Houses of Parliament. If Notice of a Motion to that effect be given we shall think it our duty to afford facilities for its discussion.
  MR. HEALY: Is it not a fact that on an exactly similar occasion in this very Session, not many months ago, the Chief Secretary refused in the case of the Prison Rules to give even the smallest facilities for discussion?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not at once struck with the resemblance between the two cases, nor am I perfectly aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member alludes.
  MR. HEALY: Then I will ask the Chief Secretary whether it is not a fact that the Prison Rules laid on the Table by the Lord Lieutenant involving most important principles as to visits to prisoners became law in the same way, and that the Chief Secretary refused to give any facilities for discussion?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Without entering into the question of the relative importance of the two subjects, as to which there may be a difference of

  141
  opinion, I may say that the proceedings to which the lion. Member alludes took place at a time of the year when private Members had a great many opportunities of bringing matters before the House. I am not certain as to the exact number of days; but certainly the time during which they were to remain before the House had very nearly expired when the Question was put to me, and no Members had attempted to call the Rules in question.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to the course of Business I think that it will be expedient and, indeed, necessary, that we should devote Thursday next to the further consideration of the Civil Service Estimates, and probably the Irish Votes will be taken. Of course, due Notice will be given on the point before Thursday arrives. It may also be necessary to take Supply again on Monday, when the Education Vote may be discussed. With regard to the engagement of the Government to give a day for the discussion of the Indian contribution to the War Expenses in Egypt, I hope that the discussion may take place on Friday next at 2 o'clock.
  SUEZ (SECOND) CANAL—THE PROVISIONAL AGREEMENT WITH M. DE LESSEPS.

    MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, on the subject of the Suez Canal the House will expect from me more than a dry statement of intentions on the present occasion, particularly as there has been nothing, down to the present time, said by the Government in this House, except—I believe I am strictly accurate in saying — within the scope and limits of Questions which have been addressed to us. I have now to state the course which the Government intend to take with regard to the Suez Canal Provisional Agreement; and it will be expected from me, almost as a matter of course, that I should state the main considerations which have guided the Government in arriving at their conclusion. In the first place, I should wish to remind the House of the origin of this transaction. The great success of the Suez Canal had naturally brought about
    142
    a state of things in which, for a very considerable time, there has been pressure for an increase of accommodation and of facilities for traffic; and the Government. being regularly represented in the bedy of the Directors of the Suez Canal, have been in the habit, from time to time, of instructing their Directors on the subject of points which were to be raised in the meetings which took place in Paris. But these instructions for a considerable time, although they touched upon matters of importance, were instructions given to our Directors. It was in the course of the present spring that the matter took a larger form; and, upon what I may call urgent and pressing applications from bedies of very great importance in this country, the Government was led to take into consideration the question of associating itself more directly in these proceedings, and, in fact, of entering upon negotiations with a view to a distinct Agreement between themselves and M. do Lesseps. The turning point in this matter may be said to have been upon the 26th of April. Reported in the newspapers on the 27th are the proceedings of two deputations, or at least of a double deputation, which had an interview with Lord Granville at the Foreign Office. Ono of the deputations was headed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), on the part of the Associated Chambers of Commerce of the country. The other deputation represented the Chambers of Shipping, and was headed by Mr. Laing. The deputation headed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester summed up the form of its requests in an application for negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the present Suez Canal Company. After describing the other movements which were of a more extensive character, my hon. Friend is reported to have said—
    "The Chambers of Commerce do not go so far as that; but they urge that endeavours should be made to see whether something could not be done through the Canal Company, who at present almost ignore the position which British influence should hold."
    The other deputation did go beyond the scope of the deputation from the Chambers of Commerce, and Mr. Laing did two things on the part of the shipping interest. In the first place, he repeated what my hon. Friend had said in urging the Government to consider

    143
    the necessity of taking measures to increase the facilities of transit through Egypt; and then he separately and distinctly called the attention of the Government to the advantages attending an alternative route from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, not speaking of the Isthmus of Suez in particular, but of the necessity of communication between the two seas. Now, Sir, that deputation consisted a serious event, and gave a remarked expression to the wishes of the commercial community in this country. In fact, the account of its proceedings was no sooner published than it attracted the attention of the heads of the administration of the Canal in Paris. This report appeared on the 27th of April, and so early as the 30th of April overtures from M. de Lesseps were made known to the Government, tending to open those negotiations which had been suggested by my lion. Friend. It was not long after receiving those overtures — I am not sure whether we know of the exact date, but on the 10th or 12th of May, about 10 days afterwards—that the Government came distinctly into the field, and contemplated those negotiations which terminated in the present Agreement. Sir, it was not without a sense that we were undertaking a serious matter, and I may say a matter lying, perhaps, outside the ordinary attributions of a Government. It is obvious that various objections may be taken at the outset to the conducting of transactions of this kind through the hands of a Government. The immediate commercial considerations belonging to a very complicated and difficult question are apt, when they come into the hands of a Government—necessarily apt, and from no blame to anyone, but almost as a matter of course—to become mixed up with considerations of political Party, and these considerations may increase considerably and materially the difficulties of handling such subjects in a satisfactory manner. Further than this, in many instances—and in the present instance in a very peculiar degree—undoubtedly the handling of subjects of this kind in association with the political character which attaches to an Administration, was a matter of great importance, and requiring the utmost delicacy in the forms of proceeding, on account of international interests, and,
    144
    possibly, even the international irritation which any miscarriage in such proceedings might tend to bring about. However, Sir, looking at the matter as carefully as we could, we thought it our duty to become, as far as we could, the organs and agents of what we felt to be a legitimate desire and demand on the part of the commercial community of this country; but satisfying them, and, I may likewise say, covering ourselves with the condition under which we prosecuted this business—namely, the condition that we should not attempt to close any question on our own authority, or to commit either Parliament or the country to more than receiving an account of what we might propose and might be inclined to recommend after our communications with the Suez Canal Company had been brought to a completion. Under these circumstances, and with that intention to take counsel of Parliament and of the country—an intention which was declared, I think by myself, at a very early date, in answer to Questions put to me from this (the Ministerial) side of the House—we felt that we could take no other course than to frame a Provisional Agreement, embedying our views in that Agreement, and thereupon inviting the judgment which Parliament and the country might be disposed to pronounce. So an Agreement was framed. It was, of course, an Agreement in which on the one side we gave and on the other side we obtained. I think that both what was given and what was obtained were very considerable; and in endeavouring to state briefly and roughly what was done both on the one side and on the other, I shall speak, as far as my intention is to speak, with an absolue impartiality, and with an entire absence on the present occasion of any expression which could give to the statement I am now making anything of a polemical character. What was obtained by the Agreement was, on the one hand, a very large increase of accommodation through a double Canal—presuming the proper assents to the plan to be obtained; and that to be brought about in the shortest possible period. On the other hand, a great reduction of rates, coincident with a corresponding and large increase in the dividends of the Company. Both these events—the augmentation of tonnage, so as to produce, in the first place, an

    145
    augmentation of dividend; and, in the second place, the diminution of rates—being events which—such has been the prosperity of the Canal—were really, tbeugh not within the immediate prospect, to be contemplated as separated from us by no great distance of time. The House will not understand that I can pretend to give them anything more than a rough estimate on this subject. But what we compute is that, in a limited number of years, the tonnage of the Canal, which is now about 6,000,000, will reach 12,000,000; and when it has reached 12,000,000 tons, then the dividends of the Company will have been raised by that amount of traffic to such a point that the reduction of rates will amount to a removal of the burden on the shipping passing through the Canal exceeding £1,000,000 annually; and evidently that is a very considerable matter. I should say, also, that although we have not made it a capital object in our negotiations to attempt to give a great numerical force on the Board of Direction to English Directors, yet we think arrangements were made which would have led to a very considerable increase in the practical influence of Englishmen over the government and the administration of the Canal. Now, Sir, these are the three points, of which the first two are great ones, and the third is secondary. On the other hand, what was given by us is tolerably well known to the House. It consists, in our view, mainly of two points—first, that a large sum of money was to be lent at the lowest rate at which we could give it, so as to be in a position of covering ourselves, and a loan such as that was to be considered as a great pecuniary gift to the Canal Company. It was nothing else. It was not a case of dealing with a Company which could not berrow for itself. We had a Company with its Shares at several hundreds per cent premium, and which does not require absolutely the assistance of anybedy in order to enable it to berrow money; but, on the other hand, it would not be in the power of the Company to berrow at the low rate of interest at which we offer the money. Besides that which we have given to the Company—and I am bound to say I am cognizant of the fact that there has been a feeling in some quarters in the country and in the House that objection to some extent lies to this large exten-
    146
    sion of pecuniary relations with the Canal Company, and I put that clown, wishing to state fairly as far as I can what lies for and what against the Agreement now beforo the House—the other very important consideration, which I do not at all disguise the weight of, is the prolongation of whatever exclusive right was conferred upon M. de Lesseps by the original Concession. That is certainly a considerable portion of the price, and is in itself a considerable price for the large advantages, both in accommodation and in rates of passage, which this Agreement would have secured to this country. Well, Sir, of course, the question which the House and the country had to consider, and which the country had to consider before the House, upon the bare skeleton form of that Agreement, was whether the equivalents obtained for what we gave were sufficient. It was a case of quid pro quo, and the question was, whether the quo was werth the quid, and fairly balanced the case. I do not pretend to argue the matter as if it were a thing capable of demonstration. In the view of every candid man it is a question of probable opinion. It does not admit of high, and beld, and sweeping statements; or, at least, if it does, that is not the way in which we think ourselves at all justified in dealing with it. We have admitted, and felt these to be questions fairly arguable from the first. We have done the best we could. We think that the advantages which we have gained by the Agreement are large advantages. On the other hand, it is for the House to consider whether they are themselves worth what we propose should be paid for them. Well, then, Sir, comes the question, which I must now briefly describe, of the actual position in which we stand towards M. de Lesseps and the Company, and I may almost say towards the French nation; because the House is well aware — bearing in mind the previous history of this question, on which it is needless for me to go back in detail—how much this is not merely a question between certain trading interests on the one side, and a Company in possession of certain privileges on the other; it is likewise a grave question between the English nation and the French nation. These two great nations have, happily, been allied for long time, and I trust we shall never

    147
    do anything to weaken or endanger that alliance. It has been our duty to ascertain on what ground we stood in Paris with respect to this Agreement. There has been no bend to submit between the parties, but the Agreement was drawn in contemplation of its being submitted to Parliament; and in order that there might be no misapprehension on the one side or the other we instructed Sir Rivers Wilson, on Thursday, to go over to Paris, not for the purpose, as has been supposed —not unnaturally—of re-opening this and that point of the negotiations, but in order to ascertain whether the field was perfectly clear and free before us—the Government—there was no question at all about the freedom of Parliament and the country—so that we might give an entirely unbiassed consideration to the grave question now presented to us. I held in my hand a letter from Sir Rivers -Wilson, in which he recounts to us the experience that he had in Paris, and the nature of his communications with the Canal Company. I should say, besides the letter addressed to us, there is also an important letter from M. do Lesseps, addressed to myself, He has done me the honour of writing me a letter, conceived, as might be expected from him, with very great sagacity, and, at the same time, in terms of the utmost frankness and friendliness as regards the present negotiations, and, in effect, coming, I think, to the same purpose as the letter of Sir Rivers Wilson, which I am now about to quote. Both the letter of Sir Rivers Wilson and the letter of M. de Lesseps will at once be laid on the Table of the House, together with some other Papers, which will give the House a full, and, I hope, a satisfactory and sufficient view of this case. I do not think I can describe the present situation more accurately than by reading to the House the substance of Sir Rivers Wilson's letter. It is dated the 21st of July—
    "Upon communication to the MM. de Lesseps of the object of my coming to Paris, they stated in the most friendly terms that they thoroughly understood the situation, and that, so far as they were concerned, they regarded us as in no way bound, under the existing circumstances, to press the Agreement on Parliament. There were, however, two parts of it."
    This introduces a new but interesting question, to which I invite the particular attention of the House—
    148
    "The spontaneous adoption of which, not. withstanding the abandonment of the Agreement—if such should be decided upon—they announced their determination to propose to their shareholders. In the first place, immediate measures would be taken so that a second Canal during the greater part of its length might be rapidly constructed within the limits of the land already conceded, although they might at the proper time have to apply to the Egyptian Government for additional ground where the present width was insufficient. Secondly, the proposed. reduction of dues pari passu with the increased profits would be maintained."
    But I must tell the House that, although this is perfectly accurate, yet too broad a conclusion might be drawn from it—
    "As to all the other arrangements contemplated in the Agreement, both sides would be free. Her Majesty's Government would be thus under no obligation to use their good offices to obtain for the Company the extension of the Concession beyond 1968, or any other privileges. The capital required for the Second Canal would be raised as the Company might determine, either by the issue pro ratâ of more shares, in which operation England would have the option of subscribing in respect of her 176,602 shares, or by way of debentures, with the like option."
    Then comes the qualification to which I referred—
    "It is my duty to observe that the former course,"—that is, the issue of shares—"would have the obvious effect of retarding the fall in the rate of dues."
    Well, Sir, I think that exactly explains to the House, first, the position in which the Government are placed—the position of undoubted freedom in which they are placed—to consider the question without prejudice; and, secondly, the intentions of the heads of the Canal Company, which, according to all experience, we may safely say means the Canal Company itself', for every practical purpose, in ease the Agreement is not persevered with. Well, Sir, that being so, we have to consider what our position is with regard to this Agreement. It is obviously an Agreement which, in order to be satisfactory, must meet with general acceptance. I do not mean unanimous acceptance — that could hardly be expected—but it must meet with general acceptance. To force an Agreement of that kind, and to make an appeal to the confidence of a generous Parliament, and, on political grounds, to obtain the acceptance of a commercial arrangement, not in itself wholly satisfactory to those who were adopting it, would have been, I think, a course in which we should have

    149
    abused the patience and indulgence of the House, and would have departed from our public duty. Now, the first reception of this Agreement by the trading interests of the country—short as the time is since it was produced, it has already gone through two distinct stages—was undoubtedly of a very condemnatory kind. I may say the language held was that of vehement condemnation on the part of a very large portion of those organs of opinion which at once expressed themselves. There has been a material change, as everyone will see, within the second stage. ["No, no!"] I will keep my word to hon. Gentleman and the House, and I will not intentionally make any partial or one-sided statement. But nobedy can deny that there has been a change when it is found that within the last week a large number of representations have reached us from very important centres indeed—from London, Newcastle, Hartlepool—I think—and from Liverpool, and from a variety of other quarters; and I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Monk), who represents the Associated Chambers of Commerce, has himself substantially joined on their part in similar representations, which do not hold the language of condemnation, but in which they think that probably something better might be done, and which, therefore, recommend that more time be taken in order to see what may be done. Now that is the only distinction I mean to draw; and I entirely feel that both those who condemn and those who ask for time are alike in the position of ono requiring and the other advising us not to persevere with this Agreement under the circumstances now existing. We intend, then, not to ask Parliament to give its sanction to this Agreement; for the reasons at some of which I have already glanced. The first of them is, undoubtedly, that there is not that general and harmonious concurrence which, as we think, in a case of this kind—international as well as commercial—was requisite in order to justify its acceptance. the second is the demand for time, to which I have already referred, and with respect to which I may as well explain that there has been a general demand for time, with a general view that more time might lead to an improved arrangement. Sometimes a general demand for time is accompanied with a specific recommendation, and in many
    150
    cases with a recommendation that a Royal Commission should be issued to examine into the question; a proposition upon which, although I might, perhaps, quote some precedents, I do not intend to give any opinion at all at the present moment; I merely mention it as an indication of the present state of things. A still belder suggestion is made by some—yet not a novel suggestion, though undoubtedly one of a very wide scope, involving a great variety of points for consideration—that is, that the proper and ultimate arrangement of this great sea passage between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea can only be found when the Canal, instead of being the property of any private Company whatever, or belonging to any nation whatever, shall be placed under the management of an International Commission. ["Oh, oh!"] I shall not enter into that. I do not presume to give any opinion. There is a great deal that has to be said upon it, both in regard to its difficulties and importance. These are the topics which have been brought beforo us by that portion of the expressions of commercial opinion which have, in general terms, or in more specific terms, pleaded for more time. There is another consideration which I think has weighed with us more conclusively, if possible, even than those to which I have already referred. Viewing the actual state of things—viewing the language which has been held, the claims which have been made, the arguments put forward, and, in fact, those views to which the case naturally of itself must incline on the ono side and the other, we are advisedly of opinion that upon interests and grounds much higher than those which relate to matters decided within these walls—much higher than the interests of any Party or any Government—a hostile issue, founded upon an Agreement of this kind, standing in the relation to international policy which it occupies, could not possibly take place without the production of very serious mischief. I hope I am not partial in this statement, for my opinion is, that the contentions on both sides might probably be found mischievous to the interests of this country. I think that, on the one side, claims would be made which unquestionably would be thought to be, and felt to be—whether right or not—of an irritating character; and which would tend to the

    151
    raising of questions in foreign countries—not only in one foreign country, although in one foreign country especially—that would not be conducive to the maintenance of those cordial relations of goodwill and amity which it is one of our main duties to uphold. Those claims have been made on the parr of those who are the opponents of the Agreement; but when I ask what contentions the supporters of the Agreement would make in answer to these claims, I feel that the tendency of our arguments on a hostile issue thus raised would rather weaken than strengthen the position of this country in any future communications on the subject—and that not with reference to this or that argument in particular, but on the broad consideration of the nature of the issue. Without going further into the details—I will not attempt to go into details—I could easily explain more fully to the House what I mean. They know what has been said and what has been contended for in this country within the last fortnight. They know, perhaps, the effect that has been produced elsewhere. I need not touch upon any of the particulars of the case. I only refer to them to lead the House to believe that we are very serious in our conviction that the probable effect of a discussion taken in connection with a hostile issue raised on the present Agreement would not be favourable to good international relations. I think I have stated to the House in outline the general grounds upon which we have acted; but I should not have fulfilled my duty without saying a few more words with respect to the position of the Government itself. They bind nobedy but the Government; but I do not think that the Government, after the frank and cordial treatment which all along it has experienced in these negotiations, would be warranted in dismissing this subject without a few words on the point I am about to mention. We think it our duty to do justice, as far as lies in our power, to this great Canal Company, and to its eminent, sagacious, and energetic projectors. We do not conceal from ourselves, and we will endeavour, if we can, to make it known and felt in the English world, that they have claims upon us—not claims to the sacrifice of a valuable interest, but claims to respect and honour; that they have conferred a vast benefit upon mankind; that they have conferred
    152
    it by immense labours, in the midst of great dangers, amid unparalleled difficulties—and these unparalleled difficulties, unhappily, in some respects, due to the unfortunate action of this country in former times. We must also disclaim, on our own part, all community of sentiment with those who seem to us virtually to assert a sort of English dominion over the waterway of the Isthmus; and we must make it known that we, at least, will not be parties to employing influence which may attach, and justly attach, to our temporary and exceptional position in Egypt, for the purpose of procuring any invasion or any abatement of any right lawfully enjoyed. And lastly, Sir, still recollecting, still taking it to be berne in mind that I am speaking for ourselves, and not presuming to bind any but ourselves, I wish to announce that we cannot undertake to do any act inconsistent with the acknowledgment, indubitable and sacred in our eyes, that the Canal has been made for the benefit of all nations at large, and that the rights connected with it are matters of common European interest. I will not trouble the House with any further statement. I will only say this—that, as I have already stated, Papers will be at once presented. I close this statement, although it has been of some length, without making any Motion. I have no idea whether there will be a disposition to raise at the present moment any discussion or not. I can conceive it possible; but, on the other hand, I can conceive that, as important matters which are new have been laid before the House in some portions of my explanation, there may be a desire to take time, and to see the documents to which I have referred, and I have only to add in that case that if and when the disposition to discuss this matter or to discuss the conduct of the Government arises, we shall give every facility in our power for such a discussion.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I cannot help taking notice, in the first instance, of the words with which the Prime Minister has closed his observations. He said that if it should be the desire of the House to bring about a more formal discussion of this proposal, the Government will consider themselves bound to provide a proper and convenient day for the purpose. I

    153
    think it absolutely essential that, in some form or other, the House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on this very important question. We had it brought before us not very long ago, but in a form which appeared to render it certain that the proposal and the Provisional Agreement to which the Government have become parties would be laid before this House for its consideration, and that the verdict of the House would be taken upon it. When Notice of the proposal was given to the House, and when we had a day or two to think about it, I gave Notice of my own intention to move the rejection of the proposal; and I should have been prepared, if it had been submitted to us in the regular way, upon several grounds, to contend that the proposal was one which it was not the duty of this House to accept. That, of course, has become unnecessary now; because the Government, exercising, as I think, a very wise discretion, have determined, at all events for the present, to withdraw that Agreement from the action and supervision of Parliament, and, as I understand, for the present, have no intention of taking any further steps with respect to the matter to which it relates. At the same time, there have been several indications in passages of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which make me feel somewhat uneasy as to what the action of the Government may hereafter be in this matter; and I am decidedly of opinion that we ought not to allow an opportunity which might be taken now in an informal manner, or in a more formal manner when we have the Papers before us, and when a formulated Motion can be submitted, to escape from discussing the very grave questions which have been raised by the Agreement to which we are referring. I cannot myself, even now, thoroughly understand what are those very grave circumstances to which reference has been rather mysteriously made this evening. We have heard much from time to time of matters in the background of an alarming national character, which, undoubtedly, are very serious if they mean anything. But if we look at this Agreement, and the circumstances before us, and the course of proceedings, I confess I cannot understand how, unless by some extraordinary mismanagement, the matter can have been brought into such a shape as to raise
    154
    consequences and issues of any serious moment. It seems to me that the matter, though of a large and important character, was of an exceeding simple character. Representations have been made to Her Majesty's Government to use their influence to see what could be done towards the improvement of our communications with the East and the Suez Canal; and the Government, as the right hon. Gentleman tells us, were dealing as Directors, so to speak, with their co-Directors, the Directors of the Canal Company. They were dealing with them to see if they could arrive at any arrangement by which those facilities could be given. So far as I can understand, there is nothing of an international character about it—nothing between one Government and another. It has been an arrangement—an attempted arrangement—between the various parties interested in the direction of the Canal. We ourselves have an interest in the Canal as large shareholders, and these transactions may be considered as a sort of arrangement or discussion taking place in camerâ as it were a sort of Board meeting. The arrangement was made, and when submitted to the public here it was certainly not received as an entirely satisfactory arrangement. On the other hand, we were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when speaking to a deputation, that this was a matter on which there was no pressure on the other side, and that we were prej ud ging M. de Lesseps; and, therefore, if the arrangement was one such as that, it does not appear to me that there is anything which need raise these monstrous consequences. I certainly should be ex tremely sorry if anything should occur which could possibly give umbrage or cause any ill-feeling—and at present I cannot understand how it could be—between the two countries. I should be extremely sorry if any offence is unnecessarily given to M. de Lesseps and the promoters of that great undertaking. No one can go beyond myself in admiration of the character and energy and werk of M. de Lesseps. he is a gentleman whose friendship I have enjoyed for many years, for whom I have the highest respect, and to whom, I am satisfied, every respect is due. But that is no reason why we should give in to exorbitant demands. There is one point which was not very prominent in the speech of the Prime Mi-

    155
    nister, but which was the real core of the whole matter, on which it is essential we should have a complete understanding, at some period by-and-bye—I mean, of course, the question of the limit of the Concession to M. do Lesseps. I do not wish, at the present moment, to enter into that question. It is one of a very delicate character, which requires careful discussion, and which I do not think could be discussed upon a question like the adjournment of the debate or anything of that kind. I only note it as being a particular point to which attention must be given. All the other advantages, either given on the one side or the other, are advantages that may be discussed, and weighed, and considered; but I do hold that it is our duty to take care that we do not, and that the Government, acting for us, don ot, commit the country to any admission which the country is not prepared to commend. If the argument is conducted properly, temperately, and in a manner which will show that we have no desire, except that of securing our own just rights, and not only our own rights, but the rights of all nations who are interested, I think if the discussion is conducted in the spirit in which it ought to be discussed, it cannot be productive of harm, it ought not to be productive of offence, and it can and may be productive of great good. I wish to point out that though England has an enormous stake and interest in the Canal, because of her large shipping and great use of the Canal, yet that the question is one which affects all other nations also, and that we have no right, by any action of ours, to give colour to any claim which claim we might not be prepared to admit, but which might have our support against other nations. I glance at that in order to show that the privileges of M. de Lesseps and the Company are a question between England and the Company, and a question that ought to be considered, and a question affecting the commerce of all maritime nations. Just on the same principle as that on which Lord Granville, in 1872, when we had disputes with the Company on another matter, laid down the principle that we could not agree that the Company should be the judges or interpreters of their own Concession; so we say here the Company ought not to be the sole judges. And we should be extremely careful not to give colour to those claims beyond what
    156
    the claims can be proved to be. I throw out those matters for consideration. My own impression is, that the proper time for a fair discussion will be when we have the Papers before us, and when we are in a position to formulate some Motion or to raise a question which could be raised upon them. I hope we will not be led into an irregular discussion at this moment. But I, myself, am of opinion that the matter cannot rest here; that there must be a discussion; and I am most anxious that, for the convenience of all parties, it should be of a most formal and regular character.
    MR. CHARLES PALMER: I do not wish to prolong the discussion; I merely wish to ask—["Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member confines himself to the Question he is in Order.
    MR. CHARLES PALMER: I merely wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether we are to understand, now that this proposal is being withdrawn from the consideration of the House, that Her Majesty's Government propose to continue negotiations with the President of the Canal Company, and to take into consideration the various questions of international interests?
    MR. GLADSTONE: We certainly do not contemplate any immediate action of any kind upon the instant when we are retiring from this Agreement. It would be our duty, and I think my lion. Friend will feel with me, to inform ourselves as fully as we can of the views entertained by those who are mainly interested, and who are competent to judge the matter, before we go further into the question.
    MR. MAGNIAC: I shall confine myself to a Question to the Prime Minister. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he will call the attention of Sir Rivers Wilson and of the Directors nominated by the British Government to the Agreement of 1866, by which the Canal Company is precluded, on physical grounds, from making a second Canal; and, that being the case, whether it is not necessary at once to enter into the discussion proposed in this House, so that the English Directors may be at once directed as to what course they are to take?
    MR. ONSLOW: The tone of public feeling having now subsided with regard to the Agreement made by the Govern-

    157
    ment, I would ask the Prime Minister this Question—Whether he has received communication from nay Chamber of Commerce in India, or in the Colonies, expressing satisfaction with that Agreement?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I think I may say that Sir Rivers Wilson and the English Directors are perfectly cognizant of all the matters on which my hon. Friend wishes us to communicate to them. But, of course, it will be the duty of the English Government, when such questions as have been referred to are brought by the Governors of the Canal Company before that Company for consideration, to instruct our Directors as to the course they are to take. In regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), I cannot recollect the contents of all the communications I have received on the subject. Some of them have been favourable, and many of them have been unfavourable; and I think Notice should be given of a Question.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: I wish to ask the Prime Minister, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that very grave complaints have for a long time past been made by those engaged in the use of the Canal as to the difficulties alleged to be placed in the way of British commerce by the action of the Company; and, whether demands have not been made for a more effectual representation of British interests upon the Board of Directors, which it is contended as at present constituted does not afford adequate protection to the interests of British commerce?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; I am perfectly aware that there has been complaints as to the management of the Canal and as to difficulties experienced in the transaction of business; but not, so far as I know, has any one-sided partiality been exhibited against British commerce. I know nothing of that; but the methods of management, we think, should be improved. I may say I think that is probably quite true, and that it is by no means confined to the Suez Canal, because our methods of managing business are not quite the same as on the Continent; and wherever we go we are apt to think that we can just a little improve the arrangements. Undoubtedly it is quite true that an important part of the desires of the shipping interest of this country has been
    158
    the increase of the British weight o r numbers on the Directorate.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: I ought to explain that I did not refer to any suggestion respecting an increase in the number of British Directors, but to the demand for a more efficient representation of British interests upon the part of those intrusted with that duty.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: May I ask when the Papers to which the right hon. Gentleman referred will be circulated? What is the earliest possible day that they will be put in the possession of this House?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The Papers will be pressed forward with the utmost possible expedition. The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps put a Question to my noble Friend (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice); and I have no doubt he will make inquiry and put himself in a condition to answer.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I would ask the right ben. Gentleman whether we may distinctly understand that no steps will be taken by the Canal Company with reference to the commencement of a second Canal until the English Directors have an opportunity of ascertaining the views of Her Majesty's Government upon the subject?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I apprehend, Sir, that that is absolutely involved in the nature of the constitution of the Canal Company.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I presume these Papers may be laid on the Table to-night.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The two Papers to which I have already referred are quite ready to be presented. I know Lord Granville desires to produce other Papers; but I will not pledge myself with regard to the latter.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: It is material to the issue that we should have the Papers, and at this late period of the Session there should be no delay.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I will make every effort to push the Papers on.
    MR. GIBSON: What are the Papers?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Due notice will be taken of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford North-cote), and of his desire that despatch should be considered. If he waives some portion of detailed information, despatch will be facilitated.
    MR. BOURKE: I hope the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will be able to tell the House now what are the Papers, in addition to those mentioned by the First Lord of the Treasury, that we are to expect. The noble Lord must know what these Papers are, and I think the House should know what they are, in order that we may see whether it is desirable to raise a discussion on this question, and that we should have it as soon as possible.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The Papers consist of certain correspondence. I do not think it is at all usual to be asked to state beforehand the details of the Papers which are about to be immediately presented; and I think the House will see that I am showing proper respect to the House when I once more assure it that every effort will be made to lay these Papers and circulate them within the shortest possible time.
    MR. BOURKE: Can the noble Lord inform us whether these Papers have any relation whatever to negotiations that have been going on in Paris for the last three months?
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: That question has already been answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who stated that they were the material for those negotiations.
    MR. BOURKE: Has it not been stated by the Government, over and over again, that all the information that the House would require on this subject has already been put before it? And I would like to know in that case what use there can be in delaying these Papers now?
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I am not aware, Sir, that any such assertion has been made.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I hope the noble Lord does not share the saying of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies as to being "all in the dark" with respect to the Suez Canal. We really want information, and if there is further information to come, I think it would be quite possible to state the general character of the Papers that are to be presented. Our object is to bring this matter as soon as possible to an issue; and I am sure the Prime Minister must feel that it cannot be desirable to keep the matter dragging on. The right hon. Gentleman told us the other day that he would not bring for-
    160
    ward any Motion in regard to the matter later than the last day of this month, and I wish to ask whether that agreement holds with regard to the altered state of things?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have given an indication of my desire to facilitate the bringing forward of any Motion that it might be desired to bring forward. It is very difficult for me now to bind the discretion of hon. Members of this House as to the time when they may desire to do it. If it is desired, there can be no difficulty in laying on the Table at once this Paper and the Paper of Sir Rivers Wilson, the main portion of which I read. I know that Lord Granville has a desire to add some Papers, and it is not for me in his absence to make' a covenant that that should be done.

  THE SUEZ CANAL—PRINTING OF THE STATUTES IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES UNDER ARTICLE 12.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in accordance with Article 12, the Statutes of the Suez Canal are drawn up in the Turkish, German, English, French, and Italian languages; and, whether, in accordance with Article 24, the Council is coin-posed of members "representing the principal nationalities interested in the enterprise;" and, if so, what is the proportion in which such nationalities are represented on the Council?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The hon. Member probably refers to Article 7, which lays down that the shares should be drawn up in the languages mentioned. This was done in the case of the original shares. It was not done in the case of the Loan of 1867, as there did not seem to be the same necessity for it. Article 24 was drafted under the impression that the various European nations would take part in the subscription, and that it would be right that they should be proportionately represented. The Council originally consisted of 32 members, of whom about six or seven were foreigners. England having refused to subscribe was not represented. At the time of the Franco-German War, the foreign members had dropped off, and the number of the Council was much reduced. There was a difficulty in filling up the vacancies, and it was decided that the

  161
  Council should be fixed at 21 members. The change was approved by tbe Khedive. When the Khedive's shares were purchased by Her Majesty's Government, M. de Lesseps at once proposed that the number of Directors should be increased to 24, giving Her Majesty's Government three places, and allowing the Directors to be nominees of the Government, instead of the Council. France and England are now the only nationalities represented.

  THE SUEZ CANAL—TRAFFIC RETURNS.
  MR. CARBUTTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can state the number of British ships or British tonnage going through the Suez Canal in ballast; and, whether the reduction of 2½ francs per ton on ships in ballast will apply to ships carrying coal, that is to say, will the Suez Canal Company allow ships, under the new arrangement, to ballast with coal?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCEXCHE-QUER. (Mr. CHILDRENS): In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that in the Returns prepared by the Suez Canal Company of the number of ships in ballast passing each year through the Canal British ships are not separately shown. I am informed, however, that the English proportion of the total tonnage of ships in ballast may safely be taken as from 85 to 90 per cont. The number and tonnage of vessels of all nations passing in ballast through the Canal during the last three years were in 1880, 24 vessels, 27,055 tons; in 1881, 143 vessels, 186,639 tons; and in 1882, 124 vessels, 171,935 tons.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Are ships of war counted in the Return?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I believe not. The Question, in the exact words as given, was sent to Paris, and I have given the reply as received.

  EGYPT—THE CHOLERA.
  MR. ONSLOWasked whether there was any truth in the report that a British soldier had died of cholera near Cairo; and what steps the Government were taking to send out more doctors to Egypt?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for
  162
  Foreign Affairs, Whether the alarming accounts in The Times as to the ignorance, apathy, neglect of sanitary precautions, and hostility of the Egyptian authorities are correct; whether the administrative anarchy reported from the interior is beyond credence; and, what further steps the Foreign Office are taking to force the Egyptian Government to take more active steps in putting a stop to a state of things at once dangerous and discreditable?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEWith regard to the Question of the noble Lord, I answered a similar one put by another noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox) on Friday. I informed the noble Lord that a telegram was sent stating the painful impression which had been produced in this country by accounts alluded to by the noble Lord. I also added that Sir Edward Malet had received, from the time the cholera broke out, instructions to lose no opportunity in pressing upon the Egyptian Government the necessity of taking proper precautions, especially proper sanitary precautions. I have now to state that Sir Edward Malet, in consequence of the gravity of the condition of affairs, especially in Cairo, has requested the Egyptian Ministers at Cairo to associate with the Board of Health General Stephenson, Sir Evelyn Wood, and Baker Pasha, to form together a Commission, with full power to order and execute measures to be taken against cholera. Twelve English medical officers are being selected for service in Egypt, and will proceed this week to Cairo. The Viceroy of India has also been asked to despatch, if the Egyptian Government require them, 40 experienced Mohammedan hospital assistants for general cholera duty. I may add that the deaths from cholera reported to have taken place at Cairo during the 24 hours ending at 8 a.m. yesterday amount to 381.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have received a telegram, dated the 23rd instant, from the General Officer Commanding at Cairo, in which he states—
  "Black Watch moved to camp near Suez 20th. One fatal case cholera 18 hours after arrival; a second case just reported doing well. General health of troops as last telegram."
  I may state that an additional number of doctors have been sent out, and that more are under orders to go.
  MR. ONSLOWwished to know whether all the doctors who had been, and were going to be, sent to Egypt had practical experience of cholera in the East?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEThe advice of Sir Joseph Fayrer has been taken in these appointments. No appoimement has been made without his approval. Sir Joseph Fayrer has had the very greatest Indian experience; and I believe I am right in saying that nearly all the doctors engaged have had not only Indian experience, but extensive Indian experience.

  PARLIAMENT—THE "COUNT-OUT" ON FRIDAY.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Richard Grosvenor) whether any effort was made to keep a House on Friday evening when the Local Government Board (Scotland) Bill was to come on—when there was, at all events, a chance of that Bill coming on; and whether, seeing that an Irish Bill was put on the Paper to-day before the Scotch Bill, it was intended to give the Irish Bill precedence?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member is under a great misapprehension. There was not the slightest chance of the Local Government Board (Scotland) Bill coming on on Friday night. The "Count-out" which took place was of a very innocent description. It took place at midnight—a time at which all rational men would wish to go home to bed.

  SUEZ (SECOND) CANAL—THE PROVISIONAL AGREEMENT WITH M. DE LESSEPS.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, besides the regular Law Officers of the Crown, there are any departmental legal officials specially conversant with questions relating to international obligations and law, and whose competence on such subjects is generally recognised; whether such officials have been consulted as to the alleged exclusive privileges of the Suez Canal Company; and, if so, what opinion they have given; and, if he will ascertain whether this point was considered; and, if so, what opinion respecting it was formed by those officials at the time of the purchase by this country of the Khedive's shares in 1875?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes, Sir; there are Departmental officials specially conversant with International Law; but the Parliamentary Advisers of the Crown are alone responsible.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.—BILL 186.
  (Mr. Dodson, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Solicitor General)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 20 th July.]
  [FIFTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  PART I.

    IMPROVEMENTS.
    As to Improvements executed before the Commencement of Act.
    Clause 5 (Reservation as to existing and future contracts of tenancy).
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the Clause, to add the words—"Provided, That a landlord and tenant may, before executing any such particular agreement, concur in referring the terms thereof to an umpire, to be appointed in manner provided by section twenty-three of 'The Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875;' and an agreement which has been found by such umpire to secure such fair and reasonable compensation as aforesaid, and has been signed by the landlord and tenant, and countersigned by the umpire, shall be deemed to secure fair and reasonable compensation to the tennnt."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, the Committee would remember that just before the close of the last Sitting he ventured to propose this Amendment; and he did so because, as the Bill now stood, it was open to the landlord and tenant, in any case in which they might desire to do so, to make between themselves an agreement for fair and reasonable compensation; and, on that agreement being made, they would be excluded from the Bill. But what might then happen under the Bill as it stood at present? Why, after having made such an agreement, no landlord or tenant would be able to tell whether, at

    165
    the determination of the tenancy, the agreement would be held by those who would have to settle the matter to be an agreement which was valid between the parties; and they were thus reduced to this absurd position — that two persons would be permitted by law to make an agreement between themselves; but they would be left absolutely in the dark as to the effect of that agreement, and how far it would bind themselves, or their successors, when it came to be interpreted. He did not think that was a position which could be considered at all satisfactory by the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill; and, therefore, he proposed that the machinery which the right hon. Gentleman sought to bring into operation at the determination of the tenancy should be brought into operation by the two parties, if they so desired it, at the commencement; or, in other words, that the section of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875 which dealt with the appointment of an umpire should, if the landlord and tenant so chose, apply at once, and that some impartial person of recognized standing and experience in the neighbourhood should be selected, to whom the agreement which it was desired to make should be submitted, and that person should pronounce whether, according to the light of his experience and knowledge, the agreement was in accordance with the agricultural re- quirements of the district, and provided fair and reasonable compensation as intended by the Bill. he believed that such a provision as this would relieve persons who desired to enter into these agreements from the apprehensions to which he had alluded as to the future validity of such documents; and he was convinced that it would save a very largo amount of expensive and objectionable litigation between the parties. He had, therefore, proposed this Proviso; and if the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could not accept it precisely as it stood, he trusted that some change might be made in the Bill, which, at all events, would have the same general effect.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would be able to see their way to accept either this Amendment, or something of the same kind, because it was framed as much in the interests of the tenant as of
    166
    the landlord. No one could accuse him (Sir Alexander Gordon) of moving in any direction against the interests of the tenant, and the present agreement was so reasonable that he could not understand why the Government should oppose it. Its object was only to prevent such an absurdity as this—that an agreement might be made in 1880 which might be deemed a perfectly fair and reasonable agreement; but in 1890 or 1920 that same agreement might be held to be unreasonable. The present Amendment was more in favour of the tenant than of the landlord; because the landlord's wealth, and consequent ability to employ clever lawyers, would give him a great advantage over the tenant in endeavouring, to establish the unreasonableness of a particular agreement; and the landlord, too, might be able to carry his point by the production of documents drawn up in former years, to which the tenant might not have access, and which lie might be altogether unable to meet. Under these circumstances, he earnestly hoped that the Government would accept the principle of the Amendment.
    MR. JAMES HOWARDventured to express quite a different hope. What was the object of the Amendment? It was simply to set aside the provisions of the Bill. If the Bill was a just one, and adapted to the circumstances of the country, why should it not apply universally? The Amendment was objectionable, and its purpose was simply to keep the tenant in the grasp of the landlord. he hoped that the whole of the 2nd Schedule would be rejected. The Government had brought all this upon themselves by introducing this permissive, or semi-permissive, clause. The Bill ought to be passed without any such permissive provisions, for which there could be no necessity at all if the measure were framed on just lines.
    COLONEL DAWNAYsaid, he hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment, which seemed to him to be the natural, and necessary, and logical consequence of the clause as it already stood. They had deliberately abandoned the old principle of the safe simplicity of contract—a good old-fashioned principle, as the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had called it; but though they had rejected that principle in favour of an exceedingly doubt-

    167
    ful theory, and had deprived the two interested parties, the owner and the occupier, of the opportunity of binding themselves according to their own free will, and of making any valid agreement, they had yet admitted that a valid agreement might be made., if it were subject to the assent of third parties—to the approval of some Court of Arbitration. But as the Bill stood, however generous might be the stipulations which the landlord might make with his tenant as to compensation, that landlord could never be entirely sure, until the determination of the tenancy, that those stipulations would not be protested against as unreasonable by some cantankerous and grasping tenant, and that the agreement might not have to be revised and settled according to the progressive views or Procrustean theories of some future agitator or some future Land League. They had not only abelished freedom of contract—they had emasculated the very meaning of contract. This Amendment, in a great measure, removed that blot, for it enabled the contracting parties to refer the matter to a properly-appointed arbitrator; and, if he approved, the agreement would become a binding legal document beyond the power of appeal. He hoped very much that the Committee would agree to the Amendment, and would thus make the Bill a beneficent measure, and by minimizing the opportunities of litigation, would help to make it a measure acceptable to the tenant farmers.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he beped his right hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson) would not listen to the counsels which had been given to him, for he looked with great suspicion, indeed, upon any power given under this clause to allow landlords and tenants to contract themselves out of the Bill. The measure proposed to enact certain provisions; but the object of this Amendment was to give an opportunity to landlords and tenants to make agreements outside the Bill, and, in fact, to render the Bill, so far as those agreements were concerned, void. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had urged some arguments in favour of the right of individual contract; and, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman considered that freedom of contract was a matter between landlord and tenant which ought not to be interfered with.
    168
    No doubt, that was the opinion of many hon. Gentlemen opposite; but it was not the intention of this Bill. There would have been no necessity for any such Bill if there had been any actual freedom of contract between landlord and tenant; and the reason why they were legislating at all in this matter was that it had been practically found that the tenants were not able to make free contracts, but were compelled to accept disadvantageous terms. That was the justification for this Bill—if they were not to get rid of what was wrongly called freedom of contract they might just as well tear the Bill up. They should try to make the Bill a strong Bill, or else they should waste no more time over it. The fact was that the Bill was a very weak one—so weak that it would give no satisfaction, and yet hon. Gentlemen were persistently trying to make it still weaker than it was at present. They had succeeded in watering it down to some extent; but, still, they were anxious to put in this Proviso. Under the arrangement contemplated by the Bill, when landlord and tenant came together they could only agree to terms under which a certain compensation should be paid for improvements; but it was expressly provided that the terms should. be fair and reasonable terms. Now lion. Gentlemen wanted to get out of that. At the last Sitting of the Committee various expedients were suggested with that object, and this was another of them. It was proposed that the landlord, or the landlord's agent, and tenant should come to au agreement, under which the tenant was to do certain things for a certain compensation, and then they were to go before an umpire to get his seal to that arrangement. Was it to be supposed. that the umpire would trouble himself in the matter? No. He would put his seal to the agreement as a matter of course, because the tenant would be a consenting party, for the tenant could not be other than a consenting party. Hon. Gentlemen might say—"Oh! but in the present state of agriculture the tenant can hold his own." He (Mr. Rylands) had known numbers of instances in his own neighbourhood where the tenant had been obliged to accept terms which, if he had had any independence of action, he would certainly have refused. The Amendment gave an opportunity for

    169
    arrangements to be made which would entirely defeat the clause.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had not paid much attention either to the Bill or to the Amendment, or he would not have made one statement, that an agent would probably be appointed as umpire.
    MR. RYLANDSexplained that he had said nothing of the sort. What he had said was that the agent and the tenant would come to terms, and then they would submit those terms for confirmation to the umpire.
    MR. CHAPLIN: To an agent?
    MR. RYLANDS: No; to au umpire.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was quite ready to accept that explanation; but he had understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the umpire would probably be an agent.
    MR. RYLANDS: No; I did not say so.
    MR. CHAPLINobserved, that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard) had told them that the Amendment would set the Bill aside. He (Mr. Chaplin) entirely disputed that assertion. That was not the object of the Amendment. How could it set the Bill aside? It was merely an Amendment under which, at the beginning of the tenancy, when an agreement was entered upon, that agreement might be submitted to arbitration, so that, at the end of the tenancy, there should be no possible dispute about it. If agreements were to be permitted at all, it was desirable that they should be bonâ fide and valid agreements. What was the use of entering into an agreement if, at the end of 10 years, it was to be upset altogether as an unreasonable bargain? And how was the matter to be remedied except by some such provision as this? It was all very well for the hon. Member for Bedfordshire to talk about the Amendment upsetting the Bill; but he did not produce one word or shred of argument in support of that view. The Amendment proposed that any agreement that might be entered into should be submitted to an umpire under the procedure of the Act of 1875. Did the hon. Member recollect what that was; because if he would take the trouble to study the clauses relating to procedure in that Act he would not entertain the opinion he had now expressed. As to the agree-
    170
    ments which were proposed under the present Bill, he (Mr. Chaplin) was bound to say that he hailed that part of the Bill with great satisfaction; and when they had gone so far as to bring landlord and tenant together, and had got them to sit down at a table in order to discuss the terms of an agreement, the tenant would only have himself to blame if he were unable to make terms which were satisfactory to himself, when it was remembered that the great difficulty of the present day was for a landlord to get a tenant, and not for a tenant to get a farm. It was ridiculous, under such circumstances, to say that tenants were forced into bargains which were unfair. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had said that this was an attempt to weaken the Bill. It was nothing of the kind, nor was any such attempt made at the last Sitting of the Committee. What occurred then was this—that an Amendment was moved by his hon. Friend and Colleague the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope), with the view of positively strengthening the Bill in the interests of the tenant; and so much was that the case that the words which his hon. Friend moved to insert were positively words taken out of the draft of the Bill prepared by the Farmers' Alliance. What, then, became of the statements that they were attempting to weaken and set aside the Bill? There was not a shadow of justification for such language. All that was desired by this Amendment was that when agreements were entered into and were sanctioned under the Bill they should be valid agreements; that both parties should know exactly how they stood; and that the agreements should, under all circumstances, be binding.
    MR. DODSONsaid, that if they were to accept the views of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down there was no necessity for the Bill at all, for the tenants were entirely able to protect themselves in all contracts with their landlords. If that were so, there was no need for legislation at all. But he (Mr. Dodson) wished to call the hon. Gentleman's attention to one circumstance; and, no doubt, if he were wrong, the hon. Gentleman would correct him. He believed the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) himself brought in a Bill on this subject last year—a Bill in which there was a pro-

    171
    vision similar to the one now before them—namely, that when landlord and tenant entered into an agreement they should be able to obtain an anticipatory decision as to its validity. But, unless he (Mr. Dodson) were much mistaken, the hon. Member omitted that Proviso from the Bill he had introduced this year, and he presumed that he had good reason for doing so; and, that being the case, he trusted that the lion. Gentleman would now support him in resisting the present Amendment. This was a Bill to provide that, for certain improvements, the tenant should be entitled to compensation; and there had been further introduced into it a provision which gave power to landlord and tenant to make an agreement, on fair and reasonable terms, for compensation; but the condition for admitting that substituted compensation was that the compensation was bonâ fide and adequate. It was to be reasonable, and its reasonableness was to be decided by an independent authority at the close of the tenancy. But if they put in this anticipatory decision before the contract of tenancy was entered into, what would be the effect of it? Why, it would simply be a transparent way of contracting out of the Act altogether. If the matter was to be settled by a third party, who would not necessarily have all the facts before him—for, of course, all the questions of fact would not be raised—and this third party's sanction was to be held to make it a good bargain, there would be no security whatever against a merely nominal or nugatory compensation being substituted for that contained in the Bill. He would say nothing of the fact that he believed there was no precedent whatever for taking an anticipatory decision of this kind upon a document; he would only observe that, however that might be, he could not accept this Amendment, which would merely have the effect of loosening that which it was the object of the Bill to bind.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had just observed that there was no precedent for this Amendment. The fact was that the Bill itself was without precedent—the whole measure introduced entirely novel principles into their English legislation; and it was not surprising, therefore, that some attempt should be made to add machinery to meet the new state of
    172
    the case. But he wished to say a word or two in answer to an observation which had been made by his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Rylands). His hon. Friend had said—"You must have one fixed contract of law in these transactions, or else you will defeat the object of the Bill." If his hon. Friend had been arguing against the 6th clause altogether, he (Mr. Balfour) would have understood the relevancy of the observation, because the 6th clause, whether passed in the form in which it was introduced by the Government, or in the form into which it was sought to be amended, was a clause which admitted agreements other than those contemplated by the rest of the Bill, so that the right hon. Gentleman should have restrained himself, and refrained from giving vent to those remarks which he had just made. The right hon. Gentleman who bad charge of the Bill had said—"You cannot trust to the umpire for seeing that the contract would be made a fair contract." But the whole Bill depended for its operation upon umpires. The right hon. Gentleman said—"You cannot trust to an umpire giving a fair decision; you must leave it to the Courts of Law." But everything in the Bill was to be decided by an umpire—all the compensation which the tenant was to get from the landlord, and, in fact, everything in the Bill, rested with umpires; and he (Mr. Balfour) was quite unable to understand why an umpire should be competent to say exactly what was the value of an improvement, but should not be competent to say whether an agreement was fair or unfair. If that was the view of the Government, why did not the right hon. Gentleman cut out umpires altogether, and leave the independent Courts of Law to be the sole tribunal before which questions arising under the Bill were. to be decided? If he did not do that, there was no force whatever in his contention. He (Mr. Balfour) hoped his right ben. Friend would press this Amendment to a Division, and he could not help thinking that it would obtain the support of many hon. Members.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that the observations of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken rested on a misapprehension. There was no discredit to an umpire in saying that it was unsafe to

    173
    leave this matter to him, because other important matters were left to him; but it was one thing for a man to decide a question when two parties were before him having a difference to settle, and each was interested in putting before him all the facts, so that his view of the matter might be properly presented in all its strength; but it was quite a different thing for two parties who had no difference to put in an agreement made between them, and to give only imperfect information, or no information at all, in regard to it. In the latter case, it was quite beside the mark to say that the umpire would be a competent judge. That was one strong objection to the Amendment, which, if passed, would afford the simplest possible means to enable people to contract themselves out of the Bill.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he was entirely unable to agree with the reasons which had been given against the Amendment. There was no reason for supposing for an instant that the Amendment was moved with the view of enabling people to contract themselves out of the Bill by entering into individual agreements. He did not believe there was any such intention. The real intention of the Amendment was to prevent landlord and tenant from living in a fool's paradise for 20 years or more, believing that an agreement between them was valid, when at the end of the time it might possibly be held by a Court of Law not to be a fair and reasonable one. But, despite that expression of his feeling, and the fact that he supported an Amendment of this nature in previous Sessions, he had come to the conclusion that he was unable to support the present Amendment, though for reasons of a very different and distinct nature from those which had been put forward on the Ministerial side of the House. His reason for being unable to concur in the Amendment was that, after due deliberation, he had come to the conclusion that it contained what was no slight element of danger which had not been entirely foreseen. What was it that it proposed? Why, that the terms of the agreement were to be referred for the decision of an umpire. As that umpire was to have clearly before him the whole of the agreement, it would be impossible to withdraw from him any one item which formed any part of it. Every
    174
    clause must be before him; and, as one of the essential facts of the agreement, the question of rent must be before him. The question of rent could not he absolutely withdrawn. It was an integral portion of the agreement. The umpire might not be called on to say whether it was a fair rent or not; but it was not inconceivable that he might take the matter of rent into consideration; and though there might be no intention whatever on the part of either landlord or tenant to introduce that question, it might be brought in by a side wind. The umpire had it before him, and—if not in the first instance—it might gradually lead to decisions in matters of rent, as well as in other matters that were not now contemplated. It was for that reason that—while he was quite alive to the difficulty in which the Bill would land them, especially as leaving in doubt every written agreement entered into by mutual consent—he was unable to give his support to the Amendment.
    MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he had certainly hoped that the second paragraph of this clause would have been eliminated from the Bill, and he yet trusted that it might be possible to get rid of it on Report. As to the Amendment which was before the Committee, he thought it would be wrong indeed if the Government yielded in their opposition to it, because the Bill provided for a fair and equitable arbitration, and that, he thought, was quite sufficient. It was well known by the farmers in England, and by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that the Bill was necessary to improve the relations between landlord and tenant, and to promote good husbandry; and now they were told practically that there was no necessity for the Bill, and that the farmers were able to make their own bargains. He said possibly they might in these times of severe depression; but let a change of seasons come, and then he maintained that there would be quite as much need for the measure as there had been before. The provision of the Act of 1875 which enabled landlords and tenants to contract themselves out of the Act had been the means of setting aside the object of that measure pretty generally throughout the Kingdom. Hon. Members were well aware of that fact; and he trusted that the experience gained from the manner in which the

    175
    Act of 1875 had operated would have the effect of producing a measure that would be universally adopted.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the hon. Member was addressing himself to the principle of the Bill.
    MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he was making these observations for the purpose of showing that the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet was subversive of the principle of the Bill, and it was upon that ground that he strongly opposed it.
    MR. BIDDELLrepudiated altogether the assumption of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) that the tenants could never make a fair agreement between the landlords and themselves. As he believed the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet would meet with the approval of the tenant farmers and their Representative Association, he should give it his support.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREpointed out that all the subjects of the agreement might not be of a non-contentious character; and it would be impossible, under those circumstances, that they could all be pronounced upon by the umpire. It appeared to him that an Amendment of this kind would render the position of the Bill on which they were engaged nugatory, inasmuch as it would restore freedom of contract, where the intention was that it should be compulsory. For these reasons, he felt it his duty to oppose the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet.
    MR. BULWERsaid, it appeared to him that Gentlemen on the Front Bench first put arguments into the mouths of their opponents which they had never used, and then proceeded to knock them down. The desire of those who supported the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet was to save both landlord and tenant from litigation. The clause, as it stood, allowed them to make agreements; but it required that those agreements should afford the tenant fair and reasonable compensation; but whether any agreement fulfilled that condition or not could only be determined at the end of the tenancy. But what was the object of the right hon. Baronet? It was that, in view of the expensive and objectionable litigation which might then arise, the landlord and tenant should be enabled to keep out of such matters by making an agreement beforehand that provided for fair and reasonable com-
    176
    pensation within the meaning of the clause. The argument of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard), in which he spoke of the tenants being in the grip of the landlords, had it been uttered by any other person, and in any other place than that House, he should have characterized as rubbish. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Bidden) laughed at the idea; and he was quite sure his hon. Friend had never been in the grip of a landlord, and never would be. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire said that neither the landlord nor the tenant would have any interest in having these matters settled by independent authority; but to that he replied that they would have a very great interest in it, if they wanted to keep out of the Law Courts and avoid the litigation which the clause, in its unamended form, would be likely to give rise to. The hon. Gentleman then said the landlord would be able to go to the umpire with a cut-and-dried agreement, and ask him to give it his imprimatur, and so bind the tenant. But he would not be able to do anything of the kind; for the person most interested in placing all the facts before the umpire would be the tenant, who had to look not to the landlord's interest, but to his own; and it was not to be supposed that he would be desirous of limiting his claims for compensation at the expiration of his tenancy. The tenant, as well as the landlord, therefore, in order to be safe, would place before the umpire all the facts of the case, so as to enable him to say whether the agreement provided for fair and reasonable compensation at the expiration of the tenancy. It would be in the interest of both parties, à fortiori in the interest of the tenant, to do so. He was not altogether able to appreciate the objection of the hon. Member for Mid Somerset (Mr. R. H. Paget), because this clause already provided for agreements being made so long as they gave fair and reasonable compensation to the tenant; and agreements made in the way now proposed, with a reference to an umpire, would stand in the same position, only their fairness would be determined before the tenancy bad commenced, instead of after it had come to an end. For his own part, he did not see how the amount of the rent would come in question more in the one case than in the other. For

    177
    these reasons, he should give his support to the Proviso of the right hon. Baronet.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEheld that the Proviso was a necessary complement to the Bill, which could not work unless liberty was given to the landlord and tenant to come to an agreement that was fair and reasonable. He considered the Amendment to be much more in the interest of the tenant than the landlord, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adopt it.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEwished to say a few words, not upon the merits of the question, but upon the view which the Solicitor General had taken of the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman had first described the Amendment as a complete sham; secondly, he assumed that the umpire would not be impartial; and, thirdly, that the tenant must be a fool. The object of the Amendment was to prevent a sham, not to create it; it was to prevent a tenant making an agreement with the landlord, which, at the end of his tenancy, he would declare to be unfair and unreasonable, and for that reason he should give it his support.
    MR. STORY-MASKELYNEsaid, the object of the Bill was that when the tenant went out of his farm he should have just compensation secured to him. The question they had to consider was, whether, by any agreement which the landlord and the tenant could make today, that just compensation would be insured hereafter to the tenant? He thought the right hon. Baronet, on reconsideration, would see that his Amendment would do nothing of the sort. The Amendment spoke simply of a friendly reference to an umpire. But there was nothing to prevent a landlord saying he would let a farm on such-and-such conditions; further, that the agreement should go before an umpire, because, unless that was done, it could not be made a permanent contract, and compensation might afterwards be claimed; and, finally, that if the tenant could get the umpire to agree to the landlord's conditions, the tenant should have the farm; but that if he could not, the landlord would have to look after someone else. He believed that this sort of thing would be the rule, and that the proposal of the right ben. Baronet, if adopted, would end in being a sort of
    178
    form to be gone through, with a view to give validity to contracts entered into to-day, that 20 years hence might be inadequate, in the then state of the farm and of agriculture, to secure to the tenant the benefit of this Bill, even where such was the object of the contracting parties. For these reasons, he did not think it would be wise, on the part of the Committee, to accept the Proviso.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he would ask the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke), and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, whether the rent would be taken into account in a matter of this kind? They were all agreed that the tenant should have fair and reasonable compensation; but the great question was, how the tenant was to get it? He had lately been reading a treatise of Sir John Lawes, and if the hon. Gentleman opposite would refer to it, he would see that there would be the utmost difficulty in any valuer coming to an agreement with regard to this clause. It was ono of the most difficult things for any person to arrive at a fair and just appraisement of the unexhausted value of improvements. The object was to have an agreement that would not have to go into a Court of Law. There should be something definite to guide the valuer in giving to the tenant that fair and reasonable compensation which they were all anxious he should have.
    COLONEL KINGSCOTEsaid, there was one thing which, in his opinion, made this Proviso necessary to the tenant, and that was its bearing upon the question of leases. He should be sorry to take any farm witbeut a lease, because he regarded a lease as a very valuable instrument for the tenant; but if the Proviso were not put into the Bill, he failed to see how any landlord could henceforward grant a lease, because at the end of the term some claim upon him might crop up on the part of the tenant. His hon. Friend below him (Mr. Rylands) said that the tenant, if the Proviso were adopted, would be at the mercy of the landlord, because the landlord would have an umpire of his own, so to speak; but he did not think that the tenants were so foolish as to make an agreement that was unfair to themselves. Again, he had known cases of tenants going to their landlords and saying

    179
    that owing to the bad times they could not pay, where the landlord had given them not a reduction of rent, but so much feeding stuff, and other matters to help them along. But who would be likely to do that if the Bill passed in its present form, seeing that a man could afterwards come forward and claim compensation in the absence of a binding agreement? For these reasons, lie should support the Amendment of the right lion. Baronet.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked whether the umpire would have power to amend the terms of the agreement? because, if not, it would be a mere waste of time to submit it to him.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, the intention was that the landlord and tenant should take the agreement to the umpire, who, if he saw nothing unfair in it, would give it his sanction. All he proposed was that the landlord and tenant should be able to do precisely what they might do at the present moment, in arranging any other matter between them by voluntary agreement. A compulsory reference to arbitration would be altogether a different mater; but there was nothing compulsory in his proposal. He could not understand the position taken up by the Government in this matter. The clause provided that a voluntary agreement between the landlord and tenant might be entered into, and yet they objected to anything which would enable that voluntary agreement to be carried out. If two people went to au umpire, who, after having considered the facts of the case, came to the conclusion that the proposed agreement between them was fair, he ventured to say that that agreement ought to stand. If not, did the Government really mean that when two men had agreed to an agreement which gave compensation, one of the men or his representative, some 25 or 30 years hence, might dishonestly seek to set aside the agreement, and get some better terms?
    MR. C. SEELYsaid, he did not understand the arguments of the Treasury Bench. There were no conflicting facts in the case as he understood it, and he could not conceive what valid objection there could be to this proposal. The question was simply whether the scale of compensation was a fair and reasonable one or not; and the occupier, being a man acquainted
    180
    with the agriculture of the district, knew perfectly whether the scale was reasonable or not. It was most desirable that they should endeavour, in every possible way, to avoid litigation; and in the belief that the Amendment would tend to decrease the possibilities of litigation he should support it.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 139: Majority 42.—(Div. List, No. 221.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Regulations as to Estimates of Improvements.
    Clause 6 (Set-off of benefit to tenant).
    MR. BORLASE, who had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out Subsection (a), said, he had no intention whatever of proposing this Amendment. It was originally his intention to propose to introduce a clause elsewhere; but he would not now do so. He considered the sub-section was fair as it stood; and he availed himself of the opportunity of saying that, as far as he was concerned, he meant to withdraw any opposition to the further progress of the Bill. He did so because the evident sense of the large majority of the Committee was against the views which he held, and he did not wish to take up the time of the Committee further by advocating his views.
    MR. JAMES HOWARDbegged to move to insert, after "has," in line 16, the words "by any particular agreement in writing." The 2nd section of Clause 5 provided that the Act should be set aside if a particular agreement be entered into. The object of the clause under discussion was that an umpire should be bound to take into consideration, in ascertaining the amount of compensation—
    "Any benefit which the landlord has given or allowed to the tenant in consideration of the tenant executing the improvement."
    To remedy the difficulties which the referees might have to encounter, he proposed to insert those words.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 16, after the word "has," to insert the words "by any particular agreement in writing."—(Mr. James Howard.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. DODSONsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment. If the benefit which the landlord had given or allowed consisted. of something done, the benefit would admit of being proved, and it would not be necessary that there should be an agreement in writing. This sub-section, moreover, was in the Agricultural Holdings Act, and he was not aware that any difficulty had arisen in consequence.
    MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, that the benefit must be either conferred by word of mouth, or by agreement. If it was by word of mouth, the referees would have to hear both sides of the question. The insertion of his words would clear up all ambiguity which might exist. He could not consent to withdraw his Amendment, because he foresaw difficulties which would have to be encountered. If it were necessary to introduce similar words in a former clause, surely it was just as necessary they should be inserted here.
    Question put, and negatived.
    SIR JOSEPH PEASEproposed, in page 3, line 18, at end of Sub-section (a), to insert—
    "Any improvement agreed upon between the landlord and tenant to be carried out during the tenancy by the tenant and."
    His Amendment was not provided for in the Bill. It was to meet the case where a landlord had covenanted with his tenant that, in consideration of certain rent, he should lay on the ground a certain quantity of manure, or do a certain amount of werk. Ono or twe agreements had been sent to him which appeared to him very fair; and he had put this Amendment down on the Paper, because he did not think it was provided for by the words—
    "In respect of any improvement there shall be taken into account in reduction thereof."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 18, at end of Sub-section (a), insert "any improvement agreed upon between the landlord and tenant to be carried out during the tenancy by the tenant and."—(Sir Joseph. Pease.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he thought his hon. Friend would see that his words would hardly meet the object he
    182
    had in view. A landlord had only to agree with the tenant to carry out the improvement without any consideration. If there was no consideration for it, the tenant was to be deprived of his compensation for improvements. If, by an arrangement between the landlord and tenant, the landlord had given or allowed the tenant any consideration in respect of his executing an improvement, then that was to be taken into account by the provision as it stood. What his hon. Friend proposed was that, though there was no benefit at all, the tenant was to get compensation.
    SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General had entirely misapprehended the Amendment. If a landlord said to a man—"You shall have the farm for £250, instead of £300, if you lay on a certain amount of manure," this was not provided for in the previous clauses.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he should say that this was distinctly met by Subsection (a) of the clause.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he hoped that after the clear statement of the Solicitor General his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, his Amendment was a little different, but proceeded precisely upon the same principle. It was adapted, however, to the circumstances of particular localities. In the neighbourhood where he happened to reside, and in a great many other parts of the country, farming operations nowadays were materially different to what they were a few years back; and in many dairy farms the milk, instead of being converted into cheese, was sent to London and elsewhere. Unless a certain amount of artificial manure was brought on a farm, unless a certain quantity of feeding stuff was expended on the land, it was found land, where this sale of milk on, returned very quickly to its normal state. The consequence had been that in nearly every case an arrangement had been entered into between the landlord and the tenant, that in consideration of a certain quantity either of manure or feeding stuff, and generally of beth, being brought on the farm in order to keep the land in a fit state to produce

    183
    goods for the general benefit of the community, the tenant should receive the benefit of such permission, and be at liberty to sell off certain classes of produce usually consumed or converted on the farm. If a man entered into an agreement or contract to bring on the farm a certain amount of feeding stuff, and he did not carry it out, the landlord would have a right of action against him, and would be able to recover damages. He (Sir Gabriel Goldney) wanted it to be laid down that a valuer, in assessing the amount of compensation that a tenant was entitled to receive, should take into account any such agreement or covenant entered into between landlord and tenant. In justice and fairness that ought to be done, and he begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 18, at end, to add—"Any agreement or covenant by the tenant for application of artificial manure, or for consumption on the holding of cake or other artificial feeding stuff, in consideration of the sale or removal by the tenant of the milk produced on the holding, and."—(Sir Gabriel Goldney.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREconsidered that the Amendment would weaken the force of the sub-section. It was unwise to specially mention an agreement or covenant of the nature described in the Amendment, to the exclusion of other agreements or covenants.
    SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper, to leave out, in page 3, line 21, "hay, straw, roots, or green." He thought there was a great risk of injustice being done to the tenant if the clause stood as it did at present. He would not move his Amendment now; but he intended to suggest a similar Amendment to the Scotch Bill.
    MR. JAMES HOWARDmoved to leave out, in page 3, line 21, "sold off," and insert "removed from."
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 21, to leave out the words "sold off," and insert the words "removed from."—(Mr. James Howard.)
    184
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. DODSONsaid, he saw no objection to the proposal; but he thought it would be better to leave in the words "sold off," and add the words "removed from."
    MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he did not think it was necessary to leave the words in the clause; but, still, he had no objection to their retention.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, it appeared to him that the clause called upon the tenant to prove this against himself. How could evidence that any hay, straw, roots, or green crops were sold off the holding within the last two years of the tenancy, or other less time, for which the tenancy had endured, be obtained unless the farmer supplied the information himself? Such information would be used as a set-off against the farmer; therefore, he did not see how the clause would work in practice.
    MR. DODSONsaid, it worked every day on many farms in England.
    MR. STORERsaid, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard) had stolen his Amendment. He was, however, very glad to support the hon. Member in the proposition he had now made.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. DODSONmoved to add,after the word "off," the words "or removed from."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. JAMES HOWARDproposed to insert the same words in line 25. The clause would then read—
    "Except as far as a proper return of manure to the holding has been made in respect of such produce sold or removed from."
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 25, after the words "sold off," to insert the words "or removed from."—(Mr. James Howard.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. WARTONsaid, in the absence of the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Loder), who had an Amendment on the Paper, be would move it. He wished to insert, after the word "off," in page 3, line 25—
    "Provided always, That no claim for compensation in respect of artificial manure; as between the outgoing and incoming tenant, or

    185
    as between the outgoing tenant and the landlord, shall be sustainable unless the outgoing tenant shall produce and show to the valuators vouchers relating thereto, and also a certificate of analysis of such artificial manure made by a competent analyst, indicating its composition and value."
    He regretted the absence of the hon. Member for Shoreham, as he was very experienced in farming. The hon. Member had been a very successful farmer, and he would, no doubt, have been able to give them some very valuable information on the subject of manuring land if he had been present. No doubt, importance was attached to this Amendment, otherwise it would not have been put on the Paper. Its object was to protect the incoming tenant and the landlord from fraud; it would also protect sitting tenants, inasmuch as the necessity of submitting manure to the test of analysis would deter fraudulent vendors of manures from offering spurious articles for sale. He was sorry to say there were many manures sold at a high price which were hardly werth the cost of carriage. The Amendment would prevent an incoming tenant from being the victim of a fraud perpetrated on an outgoing tenant, and would protect him from neglect on the part of the outgoing tenant to have the manures properly analyzed. Some kinds of manures were much more permanent than others. Some of them might be very good at the time; but no trace of them might remain in the soil after the lapse of a year or two years. Take benes, for instance. They would last but a season or twe, and the effect they would have upon the land would depend upon the kind of benes from which the dust had been made. Many manures of this kind produced different results, a greater result being produced by benes in a crude state than by old and dry benes. The effect of the Amendment would be that the incoming tenant would not pay for manures until, in addition to the vouchers, he had an analysis from a competent analyst, showing the strength and value of that for which he was to pay. He hoped the Government would not scrutinize this Amendment in the same captious spirit as they had scrutinized so many others which had come from that side of the House.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 25, after the word "off," to insert—"Provided always, That no claim for com-
    186
    pensation in respect of artificial manure, as between the outgoing and incoming tenant, or as between the outgoing tenant and the landlord, shall be sustainable unless the outgoing tenant shall produce and show to the valuators vouchers relating thereto, and also a certificate of analysis of such artificial manure made by a competent analyst, indicating its composition and value."—(Mr. Werton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. DODSONsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, because its effect was that the outgoing tenant was not to receive compensation for manures until he had proved their composition and value. It seemed devised for the special benefit of chemical analysts. Disputes would arise on this point, in which the landlord might, owing to his superior wealth, be in a better position than the tenant. The Amendment would work very hardly in the case of a tenant who had mislaid his vouchers, and it might have the effect of depriving him of the value of his improvements.
    MR. STORERsaid, he thought the object the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Warton) had in view would be better met by an Amendment which he (Mr. Storer) had on the Paper to the Schedule—namely, in page 12, line 31, after "manure," to insert "of fully and generally recognized value." These words would be thoroughly well understood by valuers.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he would not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he had an Amendment to move here which was not on the Paper, and which related to a matter the Committee were very well acquainted with, inasmuch as a provision to this effect was contained in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875. This Proviso of Clause 6, Sub-section (b), dealt with rules for the guidance of the valuers in estimating the amount of compensation which should be given to an outgoing tenant for the manures used by him on his holding. Well, there was a section in the Act of 1875 which ran as follows:—
    "The tenant shall not be entitled to compensation in respect of improvements of the third class, where after the execution thereof them has been taken from the portion of the holding on which the same was executed a crop of corn, potatoes, hay, or seed, or other exhausting crop."

    187
    That might be too stringent; but it would not be contended that compensation should be given after these crops to the same extent as it would be in the case where no such crops bad been grown. What he proposed to move on the lines of this Proviso in the Act of 1875 was to insert—
    "In the case of compensation for manures or feeding stuffs"—
    which would be governed by the previous words—
    "there shall be taken into account in reduction thereof any crop of corn, potatoes, hay, seed, or other exhausting crop taken since the execution thereof from that portion of the holding on which the same has been executed."
    He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not object to this as being unfair to either party. It seemed to him (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) perfectly fair to the outgoing tenant and the incoming tenant alike that this matter should be considered by the valuer. No doubt, in the majority of cases, it would be so considered; but he desired to make it clear that it must be considered, by inserting these words in the Bill. They should not leave the valuer to suppose that they thought the tenant ought to be compensated for the whole value of manures he might have used upon his land, when he had done his best to avail himself of the benefit of those manures by growing exhausting crops.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 26, insert new sub-section—"In the case of compensation for manures or feeding stuffs, any crop of corn, potatoes, hay, seed, or other exhausting crop taken since the execution thereof from that portion of the holding on which the same has been executed."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
    Question proposed, "That the new sub-section be there inserted."
    MR. DODSONsaid, that, in framing the Bill, they had carefully considered the directions which were given to the valuers under the rules laid down in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875, and they had deliberately decided upon leaving them out, this rule being amongst the number. They had laid down the principle that these improvements were to be paid for according to their value; and, having done that, they preferred to leave it to the common sense and practical experience of a competent valuer
    188
    to say what the value was. No doubt, as had been pointed out, it was very often the case, at all events with many manures, that their value was fully realized or taken out by the growing of what was called an exhausting crop, such as hay, potatoes, or seed. These crops were generally supposed to exhaust whatever manures might be put on the land, altheugh he should be sorry to say that such was invariably the case. He would rather leave this matter to be decided by the practical experience of a valuer.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, he merely proposed that exhausting crops should be taken into account in this matter.
    MR. DODSONsaid, that it was not necessary to put it into the Bill, for a valuer, if he were a competent man, would not fail to take it into account in arriving at the true value of the improvements. They would only be encumbering the Act of Parliament with unnecessary minutiœ by inserting this Amendment. It would simply be a piece of advice to the valuer as to how he was to carry out what was an obvious part of his duty.
    MR. J W.BARCLAYsaid, he thought it was a mistake to insert Sub-section (b) in this Bill, as it instructed the valuer how to carry out the principle in the 1st clause. He thought it would have been better to leave the valuer to take his own view of the matter—it would. have been better for both parties. The sub-section had evidently been introduced with the intention of giving the valuer a bias against the outgoing tenant — that was to say, it was introduced as an instruction to the valuer to take care that lie did not give to the way-going tenant any more than he could possibly help. The present proposal was conceived in the same spirit. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) laid particular stress upon these matters, which went in reduction of the way-going tenant's proper compensation. If instructions of this kind were given to the valuer, surely it would only be right to give special instructions to the referees on the other side. If they were to take into account these exhausting crops, they should also be instructed to take into account special manures or things of that kind on the other side.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he thought a great deal was to be said in favour of the words of the Amendment, especially as the highest scientific authorities on farming in the country were agreed that the wisest thing for a tenant to do was only to put into his land as much manure as he could take out in his crop. These authorities were also quite agreed on this—that if there was one thing more difficult to ascertain and appraise the value of than another, it was the unexhausted value of manures. It was all very well to say that the valuers should exercise their judgment; but, to his mind, it was much more reasonable to say that experience and judgment should be used in pointing out that the value of manures was reduced by crops of an exhausting nature.
    MR. PUGHsaid, the reason for the introduction of this Proviso in the Act of 1875 did not apply to the present Bill, because, in the previous Act as to third-class improvements, the outgoing tenant was entitled to be paid for them if they had not been laid down more than two years previously. The present section committed the tenant to one year. The first thing the valuer would do in this matter would be to see what benefit the tenant had had, and what crops he had grown with the manures he had laid down.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, the principle of the Amendment was, no doubt, sound; but what the operation of it would be was, to his mind, at any rate, very doubtful. In most cases the value of the manures, after these crops had been taken from the land, would, to the incoming tenant, be simply nil. He could not help thinking that if these words were introduced it would be a sort of indication to the valuer that there was to be a value attached to the manures after exhausting crops had been taken from the land, and that the valuer would be bound to imply that there was, at any rate, some value attaching to the improvement. As the Bill stood, in many cases they would know nothing at all about these manures as being of value to an incoming tenant; but if the Amendment were introduced, it would be taken by the valuer that value was contemplated as coming from these manures, but from which value some deduction on account of the exhausting crop had to be made.
    MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, the provision proposed would be quite fair in respect of tenants such as those described by the hon. Member for Mid Somersetshire (Mr. R. H. Paget), who farmed from hand to mouth; but it would be most unfair to tenants who maintained their holdings in the highest possible state of cultivation, and the manurial elements upon whose farms were not exhausted by one or twe crops. No one had shown more conclusively than Sir J. Bennet Lawes, who was one of the highest authorities in the world upon agricultural affairs, how the manurial elements were by a liberal application year after year stored up for many years. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] The hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon said "No!"
    SIR THOMAS ACLAND: I did not say anything of the kind.
    MR. JAMES HOWARDbegged the hon. Baronet's pardon; but some ben. Member said "No." It was a fact, however, that Sir J. Bonnet Lewes had shown that manurial elements were stored up by liberal applications through many succeeding years. This proposal would operate against the very class of tenants it was the object of the Bill to benefit.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the next sub-section was in these words—
    "Any sums due to the landlord in respect of rent or in respect of any waste committed or permitted by the tenant, or in respect of any breach of covenant or other agreement connected with the contract of tenancy committed by the tenant, also any taxes, rates, and tithe rentcharge due or becoming due in respect of the holding to which the tenant is liable as between him and the landlord."
    He did not think this provision should be allowed to remain in the clause at all. As the Committee would see, the introduction of this section was an instruction to the referees to take those matters into consideration.
    "In the ascertainment of the amount of the compensation under this Act payable to the tenant in respect of any improvement"
    —that was to say, to take the matter contained in the sub-sections into account in reduction of the amount of compensation. Sub-section (c), however, dealt with the question of rent, taxes, rates, and tithe rentcharge, or waste committed by the tenant. He did not

    191
    find in the Bill any power dealing with waste. The sub-section seemed to be a set-off against a tenant's claim for compensation; but the instruction at the beginning of the section was to the valuators to take into consideration certain matters under Sub-sections (a and b), such as liming and manuring. How were the valuators to take into account, in estimating the value of an improvement to an incoming tenant, the rent due to the landlord? In the Agricultural Holdings Act, according to which this Bill was drawn, Clause 18 gave the tenant a claim against the landlord for compensation, and there was also a section giving the landlord a claim against the tenant; but those sections were left out in the present Bill. Those sections of the Agricultural Holdings Act were intended to be repealed by this measure; and he would therefore suggest that this section (c) should be omitted. If the sub-section were left in it would be entirely confusing to the referees. He would therefore move its omission. If the referees were to act upon the subsection, they would not be able to give an award until they had decided what was the amount duo to the landlord, and what was the amount of waste in respect of breach of covenant or other agreement between the landlord and tenant, together with the other matters mentioned in the provision. The object of the clause was to give the landlords a set-off against tenants' claims; but the referees would have no power to deal with the questions referred to in the sub-section.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 26, to leave out Sub-section (c).—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
    Question proposed, "That Sub-section (c) stand part of the Clause."
    MR. DODSONsaid, the objection taken by the hon. Member to this subsection was not, as he understood it, to the provision itself, but to placing these words in their present position in the clause. He was not sure that the hon. Member was not right in this respect; and he would undertake to consider the point, and if he found it desirable to divide the clause into two he would do so.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he wished to point out that Section 15 of the Agricultural Holdings Act provided that certain things were to be taken into
    192
    account which were enumerated in this Bill in Sub-sections (a and b) of the present clause. Then Section 16 of the Agricultural Holdings Act went on to say that the compensation should be subjected to certain deductions; and then came in this Sub-section (c). Section 18 gave the tenant a right to make a demand against the landlord for any breach of covenant which was not covered by the Act. But the tenant, under this Bill, would have no power, except at Common Law, to claim such compensation. Section (d) of the present Bill said that in augmentation of the tenant's compensation should be considered sums due—
    "In respect of a breach of covenant or other agreement connected with a contract of tenancy and committed by the landlord;"
    but the measure did not give the referees power to say what the compensation should be; and that question, if the Bill stood as at present framed, would have to be decided by a Court of Law before the referees could add anything in respect of it to the compensation. There was no power in this Bill for a tenant to get compensation for a breach of covenant on the part of the landlord. [An hon. MEMBER: Yes; Sub-section (d).) Sub-section (d) only applied after the sum due was ascertained; but there was no power in time Bill to enable the tenant to ascertain the amount duo for breach of covenant on the part of the landlord, or to enable the landlord to ascertain the amount duo for breach of covenant on the part of the tenant. There was no power given for the referees to decide any claim.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, it appeared to him that the objection taken by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) partook of a hyper-criticism. To his mind, the clause was quite intelligible, and would be perfectly werkable. The clause was that—
    "In the ascertainment of the amount of the compensation under this Act payable to the tenant in respect of any improvement there shall be taken into account in reduction thereof," &c.
    The clause did not say that there should only be taken into consideration matters reducing the compensation. Benefits allowed to the tenant and other reductions were considered, and matters were to be taken into account in augmentation

    193
    of the tenant's compensation. The clause provided a double set-off, both as against the tenant's compensation and as against the landlord's claim to a set-off in respect of breach of covenant or other agreement connected with a contract of tenancy. Under the Agricultural Holdings Act there was a reference to two valuers, one to be chosen by either party, who might appoint an umpire. If they did not appoint an umpire, one could be appointed by the Land Commission on the application of either party, who would have full power to assess the sum. He (Mr. Gregory) did not see any difficulty in this matter; or, if difficulty there was, it was only in the matter of drafting the award. The referees would have full power to take all these matters into consideration; and he therefore could not see any possible ground for altering the clause, which seemed to him to be properly drawn. he had no doubt it would be found to werk satisfactorily.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, ha did not think the hon. Gentleman thoroughly understood the point in the next clause. It was provided that the award should take certain things into account in dealing with the compensation, and should specify the improvements in respect of which it was awarded, the time at which they were executed, and the sum awarded in respect of each thing. It was clear that there could be no connection between these matters and the matters contained in this sub-section (c). The chalking of land, for instance, had to be taken into account. In ascertaining the compensation to be given in regard to chalking, were they to take into account breaches of contract, rent, taxes, rates, tithe rent-charge, and so on? Surely it was perfectly clear that these things could have nothing to do with the value of an improvement.
    MR. PELLconsidered the clause very well drawn, and that it covered all that was likely to arise.
    MR. DODSONsaid, he thought it would be a pity to go on discussing the matter. He believed he saw what the hon. Member for Forfarshire was aiming at—namely, that in ascertaining the amount to be paid under this Act such and such things should be taken into account in fixing compensation. He had undertaken to consider the clause again.
    MR. GREGORYunderstood that this clause was to be a settlement between landlord and tenant; and, therefore, the award should be made upon the footing of certain things being taken into account.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he did not see anything in this Bill giving the referees power to ascertain the amount claimed for waste by the landlord on the one hand, or, on the other hand, by the tenant.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, it was intended to retain these powers, and that point would be dealt with hereafter.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that, so far as he could see, there was no question of compensation to the landlord by the tenant.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he should be sorry to see an Act passed through the House which would enable a landlord to recover the full amount of rent due, without the tenant being enabled to claim as a legal set-off the compensation provided by the Bill. It was no use giving compensation, and no power to recover but by action at law. He therefore proposed to insert words to meet that point.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 32, after the word "landlord," to insert the words "any sum due to the tenant as compensation under this Act shall be taken into account in reduction from the rent due."—(Mr. Duckham.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. DODSONsaid, that no power was given to the landlord to recover for breach of covenant, or in regard to waste; but he was left entirely to his action at law, although it was provided that, where a tenant claimed compensation, there should be a set-off against it any sum due to the owner for waste within the last four years.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, the hon. Member had brought this question up before the Committee on Distress; and the point of the hon. Member, if he understood him rightly, was that while compensation might be due to a tenant by a landlord, nevertheless a landlord might distrain for the rent. The object of the hon. Member was to avoid the landlord being able by one process to recover rent the moment there was any

    195
    money due; while the tenant, at the same time, had an item to set off, but which would not prevent the distress. He did not know what objections there were to the proposal; but he thought it was a clear way of putting the issue.
    MR. DODSONsaid, he thought that if that was the issue the question had better be reserved until the clauses on distress were reached.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. DONALDSON-HUDSONsaid, the Amendment he had intended to move appeared to be covered by Sub-section (a) of this clause; but, before he withdrew it, he should like to have an explicit statement from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) as to whether that was so or not. The case he wished to draw attention to was that of a farm which had been let before the Act came into operation, on the distinct understanding that the farm should be worked up to an efficient state. Suppose a farm which, if in good condition, would have been worth £100 a-year, being in a wretched condition, was let at £70, on the condition that the tenant put it into good condition, and that he should then have no claim against the landlord, the tenant might yet claim compensation for his improvements, although he had already been paid for them by the reduced rent. Upon that point he should be glad to have some information; and another point was where, subsequently to the passing of the Act, a similar contract had been made in writing. Of course, if after such an agreement had been come to, the tenant should claim compensation for the whole of the improvements, he would be in the enviable position of performing the unparalleled feat of eating his cake and yet having it. If these points were covered by Sub-section (a) he would not move his Amendment.
    MR. DODSONsaid, that those points were covered by Sub-section (a).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, after line 32, to insert — "There shall not be taken into account any larger outlay during the last year of the tenancy than the average amount of the tenant's outlay for the like purposes during the three next preceding years of the tenancy, or other less number of years for which the tenancy has endured."—(Mr. Duckham.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, he hoped the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would be able to favourably consider this proposal. He had known a case in which a tenant, dying, left a flock of valuable sheep. The executors were naturally desirous of making as much money from the sheep as they could, and had spent large sums of money in artificial feeding-stuffs for them; while, on the other hand, they had so neglected the cultivation of the farm as to have left it in a very bad condition. That had been done without any desire to defraud the incoming tenant; but simply to realize the largest possible sum for the stock on the farm. lie thought there should be some safeguard, as was here proposed, for the incoming tenant and the landlord, so that the outgoing tenant should not be able to charge for expenditure far beyond the average, from which the incoming tenant or the landlord would receive no proportionate benefit.
    MR. GREGORYthought the Amendment very reasonable.
    MR. DODSONsaid, he was very much surprised that the ben. Member had moved this Amendment. It was essentially a landlord's provision; and it appeared to him to be inconsistent with the objects now in view in laying down value as the measure of compensation. This proposal would strengthen the landlord's contention that compensation for improvements was to be limited by outlay. Another reason why he considered the proposal unfortunate was that they had already decided not to hamper the valuers by laying down rules and restrictions in an Aot of Parliament. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, for the Government could not assent to it.
    MR. CHAPLINregarded this as a very valuable proposal. Undoubtedly it was fair; and he thought the objections of the right hon. Gentleman were greatly modified by the fact that an Amendment had been carried limiting compensation to outlay. He was bound to say, however, that he was very much surprised to see this Amendment in the name of the hon. Member; for he recollected that when that Amendment was carried the hon. Member was so overcome that he preached a sermon, in the most melancholy tones, on the injustice and wrong done to farmers. He was

    197
    more delighted than he could express to find that the hon. Member had thought better of the matter. There ought to be some restriction of this kind; and he hoped the Government would agree to the proposal.
    MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he would not press the Amendment.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that by the Agricultural Holdings Act a hardand-fast line was laid down that the compensation should be for a certain amount of manure consumed on the holding during the last year. It was evident that, if a large quantity was consumed, or more than was required, there was nothing to determine the amount except the outlay; and to meet that case a certain limitation was put into the Act. But here the case was quite different. The outgoing tenant was not to be compensated according to what he had consumed; but to the residue left to his successor. If he were under such a lease as was contemplated, he should charge the outgoing tenant with deterioration, because there would be a larger quantity of manure ou the ground than was good for the stock. He thought the position of the Government was thoroughly sound, and that there was no reason for such a restriction in the Bill.
    MR. BIDDELLsaid, he thought this a proper Amendment, which would commend itself to the outgoing tenant.
    MR. PICKERING PHIPPSsaid, the effect of the Amendment would be that, if a tenant had not been in the habit of consuming oil-cake on the farm, it would prevent him using it after he had given or received notice to quit, even though it might be to his advantage and that of the incoming tenant. The outgoing tenant would not necessarily be compensated in proportion to the quantity of cake used; but only for such as left a residue for the benefit of the incoming tenant. The real purport of the Bill was, that a tenant farmer should find it to his advantage to keep the farm in good condition; and he hoped the principle would be maintained that whatever was done for the benefit of the incoming tenant should be paid for by valuation.
    SIR THOMAS ACLANDpointed out that the Amendment was opposed to the broad principle of the Bill, that the tenant should receive compensation for
    198
    the unexhausted value of the manures to the new tenant.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsuggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and moved in an altered form, as, in its present form, it would affect all improvements in Schedule 3, which could not possibly be the intention of the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham).
    MR. STORERsaid, the Amendment would have the effect of preventing a man beginning to farm better than he had done in the earlier part of the tenancy.
    MR. HICKSdrew attention to the fact that the Amendment only applied to the last year of the tenancy, and that under the Act the tenant was to have a year's notice to quit. He put it to the Committee whether it was reasonable or right that a tenant under notice to quit should have the opportunity of building up a heavy charge against the incoming tenant? This was no question as between landlord and tenant; it was a question that had to do with the incoming tenants; and he said it was in the interest of those who took farms hereafter that the Committee should take care that the charges arising under the Bill were not unjust to them.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, it was perfectly impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment as it stood, and he hoped the Committee would allow it to be withdrawn.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, while he agreed with the object the hon. Member opposite had in view, he concurred in the suggestion that it should be withdrawn.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. BIGGARproposed to move the omission of Sub-section 3, in order to insert the Amendment standing in his name.
    MR. WARTONrose to Order. He pointed out that the subject-matter of the Amendment was compensation for disturbance, and asked whether the hon. Member was in Order in moving it?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had considered the Amendment of the Member for Cavan, and arrived at the conclusion that it was not beyond the scope of the Bill.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the Amendment he was about to move embedied a principle contained in the Act which amended

    199
    the law relating to Agricultural Holdings in Ireland. He submitted that its merit lay in the fact that it placed the tenant farmer in possession of a holding in a sounder position to deal with the landlord than that which he occupied in the present state of things. They had heard a great deal about freedom of contract in relation to the Agricultural Question; but he held that freedom of contract between the tenant farmer and the landlord was a thing that could not possibly exist. The usual time at which the landlords were likely to raise the rent was when farming was prosperous. They would certainly not be likely to raise it after a series of bad years, because then the rents would be tending to fall generally, and the landlords would be very anxious to keep the tenants on at the former rents; but in good years there was a tendency to believe that a prosperous state of things would continue for a considerable time, and it was under those circumstances that the landlords insisted on an increase of rent being paid to them. The position of the tenant, then, was that he must submit to an advance that might be fair so far as a single good year was concerned, but which would be more than was fair on an average of 10 years, because if he did not agree he would be obliged to sell his stock and implements at a loss. Thus it was that the tenant agreed to pay more than a fair average rent in good times, at, d when the bad times came he found himself embarrassed; and although in some cases landlords gave a reduction of rent, there were many cases in which no such reduction was given, and the consequence was that the tenant was ruined through having made an imprudent bargain with his landlord under pressure. He would remind the Committee that 30 years ago there was a considerable agitation in Ireland in relation to the land, and that the landlords at the time would not listen to the proposal that the tenant should be compensated for the visible improvements on the holding. But, although those landlords would not consent, their successors many years afterwards were forced to agree to larger terms; and he thought it no harm to say to the English landlords that the passing of a Bill like the present, which gave no substantial relief to the tenant farmer, would, in his opinion, only be an encouragement to agitation in Eng-
    200
    land, and that, too, at no very remote day. He believed that the Amendment which he now begged to move would improve the Bill, and make it snore acceptable to the tenant farmers.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, after line 37, after the word "landlord," to insert the words—"(e.) When the tenant of any holding held by him under a yearly tenancy or on the expiration of a lease is disturbed in his holding by the act of his landlord, he shall be entitled to such compensation as the county court, judge of his district, in view of all the circumstances of the case, shall think just, subject to the scale of compensation hereinafter mentioned; when the rent is thirty pounds or under, a sum not exceeding seven years' rent; when the rent is abeve thirty pounds and not exceeding fifty pounds, a sum not exceeding five years' rent; when the sum is abeve fifty pounds and not exceeding one hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding four years' rent; when the sum is abeve one hundred pounds and not exceeding three hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding three years' rent; when the rent is above three hundred pounds and not exceeding five hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding two years' rent; when the rent is abeve five hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding one year's rent."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. STORERsaid, it was exceedingly thoughtful of the hon. Member for Cavan to endeavour to bring the English Laud Law up to the Irish standard; but the alteration was ono for which the English landlords were not prepared.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he could not support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan; but he thought the present a convenient opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to explain the difference between English and Irish tenants in relation to this question.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREthought, on the other hand, it was quite unnecessary to enter into the explanation suggested by the hon. Member for Forfarshire. The Government would oppose the Amendment.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that his Amendment was taken in substance from an Act passed by the present Government; and if they gave no reasons for not accepting it, the tenant farmers would naturally conclude that they had no reasons to give, and in that way they would simply be playing into the hands of their political opponents. he should certainly divide the Committee on the

    201
    Amendment, whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite supported it or not.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: — Ayes 6; Noes 80: Majority 74. — (Div. List, No. 222.)
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, he had been told that the Amendment he was about to move was not within the purview of the Bill; but he trusted that in a very few words he should be able to convince the Committee that that was not the case. The Amendment had reference to the landlord having an original claim for waste committed, or permitted, by the tenant. He was aware there was no such provision in the Act of 1875; and yet in that Act there was a clause which went a long way in the same direction. It contained a provision by which the landlord, having a claim for waste on the part of the tenant, might put it against the tenant's claim for compensation. he understood that the present Bill was to be carried in the interest of good husbandry; it was said that it was in the interest of good husbandry that the tenant should be able to claim compensation for the improvements carried out on the holding. But was it not also in the interest of good husbandry, and in the interest of the country, that a clause should he introduced into the Bill which would be a check upon the tenant committing waste? They knew it was not likely that the landlord would get any actual payment by means of the clause which he proposed to introduce. The landlord had now power to sue the tenant for rent due in the Courts of Law; the result of the exercise of that power being almost invariably that even where the landlord obtained judgment for the amount of rent due to him with costs—the tenant generally being a man of straw—he got no money whatever, and had to pay the costs himself. It appeared to him that as the tenant was to I be entitled to compensation for improvements, the landlord also should be en-, titled to compensation for waste which took place by the default of the tenant. In 99 cases out of 100 he felt satisfied' that the landlord would get nothing out of the tenant if his Amendment were accepted by the Government; but, at the same time, he believed that it would have a material effect in preventing a tenant going in to commit that waste
    202
    which it was the object of his Amendment to prevent. When they were considering a Bill of this kind, he thought they should have regard to the opinion of those whose interests they were there to represent and uphold; and he know no better way of making that opinion known than by referring to a Motion made by a tenant farmer sent up as the representative of his district in the Central Chamber of Agriculture. He moved to add to Clause 6 of the Bill the words—
    "Provided, That the landlord shall have power to proceed by original claim, and not merely by way of counter claim."
    That proposal, having been put before the representatives of the farming interestthroughout the country, was carried without any discussion, a fact which ' showed, whatever might be the idea of the Government concerning his proposal, that it was not in opposition to the wishes or ideas of justice entertained by the agriculturists of the country. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 38, to insert "where a tenant commits or permits waste, or commits a breach of a covenant, or other agreement connected with the contract of tenancy, the landlord shall be entitled to obtain, on the determination of the tenancy, compensation in respect of the breach or waste, provided that."—(Viscount Folkestone.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the Government could not accept the proposal of the noble Viscount, which was superfluous, if the intention was not to alter the existing law; because the landlord was, undoubtedly, already entitled to compensation from the tenant if he committed waste, or a breach of covenant or agreement, in connection with his contract of tenancy. The words of the Amendment were—"Where a tenant commits or permits waste." What was called permissive waste was not considered to apply to an ordinary tenancy from year to year. The effect, therefore, that he could see of the noble Viscount's Amendment would be in this respect to change the law, and change it in a serious manner by making a tenant from year to year liable for permissive waste. That would be a matter

    203
    of far too wide a scope to deal with in an Amendment of this kind. The noble Viscount would see that, in reality, he gave the landlords nothing; but merely said that a landlord sbeuld have that which he had now. The noble Viscount would see, on reflection, that nothing would be gained to the landlord by the adoption of this Amendment.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, that after what had been stated by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General he should ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, more especially as he saw further down on the Paper an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard), which contained the essence of what he wished to do by this clause. Perhaps the Government might be able to accept the principle of the Amendment of that hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. BORLASEmoved, in page 3, line 41, to leave out "four," and insert "two." He knew there was a great deal to be said on both sides with regard to this question; but he thought that, considering the clause as it stood, and considering also some of the Amendments which were to follow, it would be as well if the word "four" were replaced by the word "two." He thought that two years were amply sufficient; and he trusted Her Majesty's Government would be able to accept his proposition.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 41, to leave out the word "four," and insert the word "two."—(Mr. Borlase.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'four' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that the provision of the Bill in this respect was similar to that of the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act of 1875. It appeared that this principle was accepted in 1875 witheut a discussion. He had no doubt that the main reason for adopting four years was that that covered the usual period of the rotation of crops. They were giving compensation to tenants in respect of improvements which might have happened seven, or eight, or 10 years ago. It was, therefore, not unreasonable to enable a landlord to make a counter claim for waste which had occurred within a reasonable time. Looking to all the circumstances of the
    204
    case, he could not think that four years was an unreasonable time.
    MR. STORERsaid, he had an Amendment to the same effect as the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Borlase). He knew very well that four years was the term put in the Agricultural Holdings Act. That term was adopted in consequence of an Amendment of his own. Previous to that the period was unlimited during which a landlord could claim compensation; but in consequence of an arrangement with the late Mr. Ward Hunt four years was made the time. At that time he (Mr. Storer) thought that four years was too long; and now he considered the circumstances of the present day were so totally different from those of the time when the Agricultural Holdings Act was passed, that he hoped the Government would reconsider their determination, and consent to the substitution of two years for four. Four years was rather a long time to go back to. They could conceive cases where the tenant had not intended any waste. The waste might have occurred quite accidentally, and the land agent might have taken no notice of it. He (Mr. Storer) thought that if waste was allowed to go on by the land agent it might be said that the land agent had condoned the matter.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that the clause was illusory. It was not an enacting clause, and there was nothing in it to limit the landlord's power. A landlord had power at Common Law, irrespective of this Bill, to claim for waste. As the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said a little time ago, there was nothing in the Bill which enabled a landlord to claim compensation for deterioration. In fact, this clause was altogether illusory. If they made the term one year it would not limit the landlord's power; he would still have the right at Common Law to claim compensation for deterioration. He hoped the Government would reconsider the advisability of retaining this clause in the Bill.
    SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, he hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment. It had been well determined that the four years' system was a very good system, and one for which the Committee ought to hold out most strongly. There was no doubt that

    205
    the landlords and tenants could make any private arrangements they liked between themselves; still, he hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.
    COLONEL KINGSCOTEsaid, he hoped the Government would adhere to the clause as now framed. Waste came on gradually, and a tenant might make great havoc in a holding in the course of four years.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, that this was no new right a landlord had; but the Amendment would rather restrict a landlord's Common Law rights. he took it that at Common Law a landlord would have a right to claim for waste for six years.
    MR. ACLANDdesired to say a word or two upon this Amendment, because he had an Amendment on the Paper which he would have to move if this Amendment were not passed. His object in his Amendment was this—that if a landlord noticed any waste going on on the farm he should give notice to the tenant to discontinue the waste; and that if after that notice the tenant wilfully or negligently persisted in such waste, the landlord should be allowed, for any time after that, to set up a counter claim against the claim for compensation. Although not now moving his Amendment to line 42, he wished, at the proper time, to add, after the word "to," in the fourth line of his Amendment, "a counter claim for." If this Amendment should be carried, then he thought that for unobserved and very casual waste two years were sufficient. He wished to give encouragement to landlords to keep a strict eye over their estates. If they did their duty in this way it was only proper they should reap the fruits by being able to set up a counter claim. He hoped the Government would be prepared to look favourably upon the Amendment he had upon the Paper to line 42. He intended to support the Amendment now before the Committee.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked what part of the clause gave the landlord right to claim for deterioration against his tenant? If there was no such power this clause was altogether illusory. He wished also to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the landlord's rights at Common Law would be affected by this clause?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, there was no power in this Bill to enable a landlord to claim for compensation which he had not at present under the Common Law. All that the provision did was to enable a landlord to set off any claim he might have for waste for four years past against, or in reduction of, a tenant's claim for compensation. The clause did not weaken or diminish a landlord's Common Law right.
    MR. BORLASEsaid, it would therefore seem that this clause was altogether out of place; it was, in fact, entirely illusory. It was well to point out that this Amendment did not come from the Liberal side of the House alone; but a similar Amendment had been placed upon the Paper by the hon. Gentleman sitting opposite (Mr. Storer), and by his (Mr. Borlase's) own Colleague (Mr. Acland). He hoped the Government would see fit to adopt the Amendment he had proposed.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSOHELL)said, that the Amendment, if adopted, would not take away the landlord's right to claim. Supposing they were to say that a landlord should only be able to claim for two years past, they would not limit his rights; but they would render it extremely probable that there would be increased litigation between landlord and tenant. He (the Solicitor General) did not think the tenant would gain by the adoption of the Amendment.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked whether it would prevent a landlord at Common Law setting up a claim for six years against a tenant's compensation, if the claim for deterioration was limited to four years? ["No!"] Then the clause was altogether illusory.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. ACLANDproposed, in page 3, line 42, to add—
    "Unless notice shall have been given of the intention of the landlord to claim such compensation, and specifying the character of the waste or breach complained of, and in that case the landlord shall be entitled to compensation for any such waste or breach committed or continued after the date of such notice."
    In moving this Amendment, he wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the fact that there were Amendments on the Paper in the names

    207
    of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), and the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard), to a similar effect. He (Mr. Acland) ventured to think that the Amendment he had to propose hero was a very much simpler and a less complicated way of attaining the object he and his hon. Friends had in view. It was certainly a much simpler Amendment than that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby; and, in respect of net rendering it necessary to have recourse to a Court, it was very much better than the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire. His (Mr. Acland's) object was simply this—that where a definite notice was given to a tenant of waste, he should have to pay for it if he allowed the waste to continue. He wished this to be enacted specially in the interest of the incoming tenant, for nothing was more detrimental to a farm than a negligent treatment of the land.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 42, at end, add—"Unless notice shall have been given of the intention of the landlord to claim such compensation, and specifying the character of the waste or breach complained of, and in that case the landlord shall be entitled to compensation for any such waste or breach committed or continued after the date of such notice."—(Mr. Acland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, the difference between the Amendment of his hon. Friend and the Amendment he (Mr. Heneage) proposed to move as a now clause was, that a landlord at any time should be able to make a claim for any dilapidations or waste he might see going on, and that then the arbitrator or referee who was called in might be able to state that, unless the tenant put the farm in proper order, he would be fined so much at the end of his agreement; but if he put it in proper order, the landlord would not then have any claim for compensation. He (Mr. Heneage) wished to prevent litigation. He wished the tenant's attention to be called to any waste, so that if he chose to put it right there sbeuld be no claim against him at the end of his agreement. If the Government would accept the principle of the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Acland), he (Mr. Heneage) sbeuld be perfectly willing to move his clause at the end of the Bill. He
    208
    thought that something ought to be done to give a landlord an original claim for dilapidation witbeut having to use a counter claim, where there might be nothing to counter claim against.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he thought the Amendment would have been a reasonable one if the Committee had agreed to substitute two years for four years. Under the circumstances, it seemed a little unreasonable. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that, upon the whole, he thought he should prefer a separate clause similar to that suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Hone-age). Indeed, he would suggest that the hon. Member should withdraw his Amendment, and that he should reconsider the matter in conjunction with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Heneage). he (Mr. Barclay) thought it would be only fair to the tenant that a landlord should not be able to claim both under this Act and under Common Law.
    MR. ACLANDsaid, he would be glad to withdraw the Amendment if the Government would give some assurance that they were prepared to consider the question of giving landlords who attended to their property some power of preventing waste.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he thought the Government ought to be careful not to make the Bill more severe than the Act of 1875. It would appear from their remarks that some hon. Gentlemen desired to make the claim for waste an original claim. Now, the Act of 1875 distinctly laid down that the landlord could only make a counter claim if the tenant made a claim, but not otherwise.
    SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, the object of this Amendment was to encourage landlords to look after their property, and to give notice to the tenant when they perceived any waste going on. In his (Sir Themas Acland's) opinion, the Amendment would tend very much to diminish litigation; and lie hoped the Government, if they did not accept the Amendment in the form in which it was proposed, would do something in the direction it indicated. Nothing could be more detrimental to a farm than broken down gates and neglected hedges, and it was very difficult to get valuers to

    209
    look those things fairly in the face. Oftentimes very heavy claims were made, and injustice was committed. As a rule, the incoming tenant was the greatest sufferer.
    MR. GREGORYtrusted the Government would not give any pledge that they would accept the principle of this Amendment. They ought not to do anything which would prejudice the consideration of this matter hereafter. He regarded the Amendment as open to very great objection, and thought that instead of diminishing litigation nothing could be more calculated to encourage it. It would put landlords and tenants at arms' length, and it would make landlords far more particular in checking dilapidations than they were at present. A landlord would feel that unless he noticed any little bit of waste, any building out of repair, or any gate broken down, and warned his tenant immediately, he would lose his claim to compensation, or his set-off in respect of any compensation for improvements. He (Mr. Gregory) could not think that this Amendment was expedient, either in the interest of the landlord or the tenant.
    MR. ACLANDsaid, he was ready to withdraw the Amendment, and he would do so at once. He wished, however, to say that this was a very important subject, indeed, in the interest of the incoming tenant, and in the interest of agriculturists generally. They wanted to simplify, as far as possible, every occasion of dispute between landlord and tenant. If a clear notice was given, as was proposed in this Amendment, he believed a great deal would be gained in that way. He only hoped that when the subject came on again the Government would extend to it more favourable consideration.
    MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he saw no objection to the terms of the Amendment of his hon. Friend, except that it did not deal with the question of dilapidations and deterioration in as comprehensive a manner as was desirable. On page 4 of the Paper there would be found an Amendment in his (Mr. J. Howard's) name, and he rose now for the purpose of commending that Amendment to the attention of the Government before they passed this clause. In his opinion, cases of dilapidation and deterioration should not be allowed to go on to the end of the tenancy; but that a tenant who
    210
    committed waste or dilapidation should be pulled up at once in order to prevent any further injury to the holding accruing.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. ALBERT GREYasked whether it would not be better to strike out the words "before the determination of the tenancy," in order to meet the case of long tenancies of 19 to 21 years?
    MR. DODSONcould not accept the suggestion.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Procedure.
    Clause 7 (Procedure).
    THE CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard); and it proposes, in page 4, line 3, after "Act," to insert—
    "Or where notice is given by a landlord to his tenant of his intention to raise the rent of the holding or to determine the tenancy?"
    That question has already been determined, and it therefore appears to me that the Amendment cannot be put.
    MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, that perhaps the Committee would allow him to point out the object of the Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear me. I stated that the first Amendment could not be put, as its principle has already been negatived by the Division taken upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Borlase).
    MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, the next Amendment in his name was to insert, in page 4, line 4, after the word "tenant,' the words—
    "In respect of any such matter or thing, and any difference arising between them in respect of any such matter or thing."
    That Amendment, however, was consequential upon the first; but as the Chairman had ruled that he might move this Amendment, he would proceed to address a few observations to the Committee upon it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not address any observations to the first Amendment, which I am of opinion cannot be put.
    MR. JAMES HOWARD: Then I will not move the second Amendment, which is consequential upon the first.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he begged to move an Amendment of some importance as to the structure and formation of the Bill—not one at all affecting the principle of the measure, or any of the points which had already been under discussion; but one for the purpose of improving its drafting. It was an Amendment for the purpose of making the Bill self-contained and intelligible. It would be seen that the clause, as it at present stood, proposed to incorporate certain provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875—in fact, all the provisions of that Act which related to the appointment of arbitrators, and valuers, and umpires, and which dealt with proceedings in regard to those authorities. The effect of passing this clause would be that anyone desirous of interpreting the measure would have first to go to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875, and find out what sections were incorporated in this measure; but this was by no means all. The person wishing to find out the law would find that certain sections of the Act of 1875 were incorporated in this measure, and that certain other sections were exempted; and he would have to render his mind clear upon this point before he would be able to understand what the law was. But he would further find that certain modifications had been introduced into the Act of 1875 by the present measure, and he would have to dovetail the one into the other before he could ascertain what the Bill meant. Let them take the case of a country surveyor endeavouring to frame an award under the provisions of this Act. First of all, he would have this difficulty to contend with — he would have to go back to the Act of 1875 and pick out the sections of that Act which would have an effect upon his award; and when he had settled that point he would have to take into consideration the exceptions made in those provisions by the clauses of the present measure, and certain modifications of other provisions made by this Bill. The modifications of the sections of the Act of 1875 made in this Bill he (Mr. Gregory) entirely agreed with. But what he did not assent to was this slipshod sort of legislation, by which a person endeavouring to werk under one Act would have to go back to another, and then have to revert to the first to see how the provisions of the second
    212
    were modified by the first before he could properly carry out his functions. It would be almost impossible for an unlearned man to find out what the law was; and even to a professional gentleman it would be extremely difficult. They ought to endeavour, to the best of their ability, to render the Act workable and intelligible. He should not like to part with this Bill until they had made it as clear as possible; indeed, he should look upon it as a reflection upon the House of Commons if they sent it out in its present form. he sincerely trusted that they would hear from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) that these reasons would prevail with him, and that he would make an effort to send out the measure in a form in which it could be readily understood, and in a way that an award could be arrived at satisfactorily to both parties. In matters of this kind it was very difficult to satisfy both parties; indeed, whenever an award was given, it was very likely that only one of the parties would be satisfied; and the other, therefore, would be ready to take any advantage offered to him for the purpose of upsetting the decision. The facilities for such a course would be greatly increased if the Act was complicated, and if it was necessary to go from one Act to another. It would be much more easy to dispose of any dispute as to the soundness of an award if the whole law on the subject was contained in one measure. The scheme he had werked out with some trouble was a workable and feasible one, and would only enact that which, he believed, was the real intention of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the measure was willing to adopt the Amendment, he would much rather the responsibility for this proposal rested on the right ben. Gentleman's shoulders than upon his own, and he would willingly make the right hon. Gentleman a present of it. If the right hon. Gentleman was willing to move the Amendment he (Mr. Gregory) would not trouble himself further with it. In order to insert the words he proposed, it would be necessary, in the first place, to strike out the following:—
    "(2.) The award shall not award a sum generally for compensation, but shall, so far as reasonably may be, specify—(a.) The several improvements, acts, and things, in respect whereof compensation is awarded; (b.) The time at which such improvement, act, or thing

    213
    was executed, done, or permitted; (a.) The sum awarded in respect of each improvement, act, and thing."
    When these words were left out, his proposal was to insert in their place—
    "But a tenant shall not be entitled to compensation under this Act unless two months at least before the determination of the tenancy he gives notice in writing to the landlord of his intention to make a claim for compensation under this Act. Where a tenant gives such a notice, the landlord may, before the determination of the tenancy, or within fourteen days thereof, give a counter notice in writing to the tenant of his intention to make a claim for compensation under this Act. Every such notice and counter notice shall state, as far as reasonably may be, the particulars of the intended claim."
    This proposal, if adopted, would render the Bill more intelligible. There were other Amendments to the same part of the Bill to be moved by other hon. Members; but these he would not go into; and he would now move the omission of the words to which he had drawn attention.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 4, line 8, to leave out from "and," to "and," in line 17, inclusive, and insert—"But a tenant shall not be entitled to compensation under this Act unless two months at least before the determination of the tenancy he gives notice in writing to the landlord of his intention to make a claim for compensation under this Act. Where a tenant gives such a notice, the landlord may, before the determination of the tenancy or within fourteen days thereafter, give a counter-notice in writing to the tenant of his intention to make a claim for compensation under this Act. Every such notice and counter-notice shall state, as far as reasonably may be, the particulars of the intended claim."—(Mr.Gregory.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. DODSONsaid, he rose to make a proposal to the Committee, which he earnestly hoped ben. Members would accept, as it would have the effect of very considerably abridging their labours. In answer to questions which had been put to him by various Members of the Committee at various times, he had stated that the Government would look favourably upon a proposal to set out in the Bill the clauses of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875 which were to remain in operation. Undoubtedly, he was in favour of embedying the whole law on the subject of tenants' improvements in one Act. The Amendment
    214
    which his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory) had moved was to this effect—it accepted the modification of the Procedure Clauses contained in Clause 7, but sought to set out the clauses of the Act of 1875 at length with those modifications. Well, the course he (Mr. Dodson) would propose would be this—that they should pass Clause 7 as it stood—that was the clause incorporating the Procedure Clauses, subject to minor modifications—and that they should proceed with the rest of the Bill, with one exception, to which he would directly advert. Having made certain Amendments in the Bill, it would in any case be proper that it sbeuld be reprinted for consideration on Report; and he would further make this proposal—that after the Bill had passed through Committee, it should be re-committed, pro formâ, to receive Amendments, and that those Amendments should consist of the Procedure Clauses set out in the Bill as modified by Clause 7, and Clause 7 would then disappear. This was, in effect, what the hon. Member proposed, although his (Mr. Dodson's) method would be a shorter ono.
    MR. PELLwanted to know whatwould be the Procedure Clauses which would be set out at length?
    MR. DODSONsaid, all those clauses which would be incorporated in this Bill.
    MR. PELL: Not those struck out?
    MR. DODSON: Certainly not; but only those which had been accepted. He would then propose to adopt the same course with regard to Section 13 of the Bill, which proposed to incorporate the clauses from 45 to 50, inclusive of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875, and also Clauses 52 to 60. He should propose, in the same way, to pass that clause, and, when the Bill was re-commated pro formâ, to strike it out and insert the clauses to be incorporated. [An hon. MEMBER: And how about Clause 29?] He would come to that directly. What he intended to do was to give effect to Clause 7, subject to setting out the clauses it incorporated. Clause 29 was the clause repealing the Agricultural Holdings Act, and that would stand; although, of course, when the clauses of that Act, which were to be continued, were inserted in this Bill, the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875 would be repealed entirely instead of partially. He trusted the Committee would be

    215
    prepared to accept this proposal, which was virtually the same as that of the lion. Member opposite (Mr. Gregory). The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, a short time ago, in answer to a question put by the lion. Member for South Devonshire (Sir Massey Lopes), had stated that it would be a proper course to pass the Bill through Committee, and then, on Report, to incorporate at length the clauses of the Act of 1875 which were to be continued.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he was glad to hear what the right lion. Gentleman proposed, the effect of which he understood would be this—that all the provisions of the Act of 1875 which were to be retained would be set out at length in this Bill. If that were so it would be extremely satisfactory, and the Committee need spend no further time upon this clause. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had ventured to suggest on the second reading that the Bill should be committed pro formâ, in order to have these clauses inserted; but lie was quite content that it should be done in the way proposed.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he had some suggestion to make with regard to the modification of the 1st sub-section in the Procedure Clauses; but he did not know whether it would be proper to proceed with that suggestion now, or to wait until the right hon. Gentleman opposite moved the insertion of the proposed clauses. He suspected that the present time would be fitting for his Amendment.
    MR. DODSONsaid, the course he had ventured to recommend to the Committee was that they should first agree to Clause 7—which would, in fact, be agreeing to what was proposed by his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Gregory). He proposed to introduce the Procedure Clauses with modifications when the Bill was re-committed. On Report the House would have these clauses before it at length, and any alterations which any hon. Member thought should be made in them could then be proposed and discussed.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, that that did not give hon. Members the same opportunity of moving Amendments as that which they enjoyed in Committee. Probably he might be allowed to explain the alterations he desired to make, and
    216
    the Committee might accede to them. For instance, he objected altogether to the proposition that a tenant should give two months' notice in writing to his landlord of his intention to make a claim for compensation under the Act.
    SIR JOSEPH PEASErose to Order. He had au Amendment on Clause 7, in line 12, which would come on before that of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin).
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the lion. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) is going to discuss his Amendment, it will be necessary for me, in the first place, to call upon all those hon. Members who have Amendments down before the hon. Member.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was most anxious to agree to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson), so as to facilitate in every way the progress of the Bill; but, at the same time, there was a point in these modifications of the provisions of the Act of 1875 to which he attached great importance, and which lie should be bound to raise in the interest of the tenants in a way which was best calculated to effect the object he had in view. He was afraid that by postponing his proposal to the Report stage he would not have advantages similar to those lie possessed at the present moment. He would, therefore, with the permission of the Committee, explain the suggestion he had to make, and probably it would be found that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to accept it. If he was in Order in taking this course he should be very glad of the opportunity.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. Member that the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) is before the Committee.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, it would simplify matters if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) would state which of the Amendments, if any, he accepted or rejected at the present moment, instead of waiting until the Report stage. He (Mr. Heneage) had an Amendment to the clause with the view of omitting altogether the County Court and substituting the Inclosure Commissioners, which most agriculturists in the North of England were very much in favour of. If that point were settled now they

    217
    would not have to trouble themselves with it on Report.
    MR. DODSONsaid, he was in the hands of the Committee in this matter. If hon. Members who wished to propose Amendments to the modifications in the clause were anxious to do so now he had no desire to prevent them; and the suggestion he would therefore make to the hon. Member (Mr.Greory), whose Amendment was before thebCommittee, would be that he should withdraw his proposal, on the understanding he (Mr. Dodson) had already explained. This would allow the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Heneage), and the hon. Member for Mid. Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), who wished to propose modifications, to move their Amendments.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, his only object was to facilitate the progress of the Bill. He would, therefore, adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman and withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that before the Amendment was withdrawn, he should like to ask whether he correctly understood that Clause 7, on re-commitment, was to be struck out? [Mr. Dodson: Yes.] With a view to the introduction of the sections of the Act of 1875 in its place? If that were so, the Committee would only be wasting its time if it set to werk to amend the clause which it was intended to strike Out. [Sir THOMAS ACLAND: No, no!] The hon. Barenet, with great emphasis, said "No, no!" But he (Mr. Lowther), with equal emphasis, maintained the affirmative. They would be wasting their time if they went into these Amendments now. They should allow the clause to stand now without further discussion, so that on Report it might be struck out, and the provisions of the Act of 1875 inserted in its place.
    SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, he did not say "No, no!" at all. If they were to adopt the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875, it was better to settle what the clauses of that Act they intended to retain should be.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the clause was not to be struck out in the ordinary sense of getting rid of it. It was to be incorporated in the Bill with other clauses when they had settled what those clauses were to be.
    SIR THOMAS ACLANDremarked, that that had not been previously stated.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, at any rate that was what was to be done.
    MR. PUGHsaid, he did not even yet understand what course was to be pursued as to the clauses of the Act of 1875. Take Clause 33, for instance. Were they to discuss the modifications proposed in that clause now, or on Report? That clause had reference to costs, which were to be at the discretion of the referees. No doubt, it would be the desire of the Committee to keep down the costs; and he intended to propose that the expense of employing a referee, as well as the costs of employing an umpire, should be divided between the parties. Would he be able to move that modification now?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that anything could be moved which did not deal with the provisions of the Act of 1875, to be incorporated in this section; but anything which had reference to this clause should be dealt with now.
    MR. GREGORYrepeated his desire to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, he had an Amendment to propose to line 11, the settlement of which would dispose of several proposals on the Paper.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he had an Amendment which would come on before that of the hon. Member in line 11.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, his Amendment was to add, after the words "twenty-one," the words "twenty-four."
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, his Amendment was to insert before the words "twenty-one" the word "twenty." That word would represent the 20th section of the Act of 1875, which provided that a tenant must give a month's notice of his intention to claim compensation. He held the opinion that it was not necessary to require notice from a tenant of his claim for compensation either under this Act or under the Act of 1875. As a matter of course, in every case a tenant would claim compensation. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] An hon. Member said "No!" but all he (Mr. Chaplin) could say was that a man would be a very remarkable farmer indeed if,

    219
    during the course of his tenancy, he had done nothing in regard to which he would be entitled to claim compensation under one or other of the numerous operations specified in the Schedule. That being the case, he thought it would be exceedingly hard on the tenant farmer that because he might have forgotten, by a certain day or a certain week, to specify the improvements he had effected, he should be deprived altogether of compensation. He could not conceive anything harder or unfairer than that. He did not think it necessary, in the interest of the landlord, that this notice should be required. If this Amendment were agreed to, he should afterwards move to omit Sub-section 1, which ran as follows:—
    "The tenant shall give two months' notice instead of ono month's notice in writing to his landlord of his intention to make a claim for compensation under this Act, and Section twenty shall be construed accordingly with the substitution of 'two months' for 'one month.'"
    Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 11, after the word "Sections," insert the word "twenty."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'twenty' be there inserted."
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he did not altogether agree with the lion. Gentleman that in all cases tenants under this Bill would have a claim to compensation. There would be no harm in the proposal in the Bill—in fact, he did not think there would be any harm in allowing the tenant to give six or even 12 months' notice.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that notice would be necessary to enable the landlord to inspect the premises if he required to do so.
    SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, that notice should be given in order to enable the incoming tenant to know what lie would have to pay before he accepted the tenancy. The landlord, on making terms with an incoming tenant, might want to say—"Such and such improvements have been made. I will take these, and you take the remainder." But if the outgoing tenant was not required to give any notice, it might be impossible for the landlord and the incoming tenant to make such an arrangement, because they might not know what improvements were to be claimed, or what improvements had been made.
    MR. DUCKHAMsaid, an outgoing tenant should be given at least four months' notice. He thought it most desirable that the compensation should be awarded before the termination of the tenancy.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONagreed that the time should be extended, as he did not know that there would not be great inconvenience to the incoming tenant if the time was limited. Instead of reducing the period it should be extended. Under the Lincolnshire custom the parties know what was to be paid; but the Lincolnshire custom did not apply to every part of the country. He would ask Her Majesty's Government to consider the propriety of extending the time as a matter of convenience.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, a tenant should give notice of the improvements he intended to claim within two months after receiving or giving notice to quit.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he thought it was desirable that as long a time should be given as possible. A tenant, for instance, might not know how much cake he was going to use during the three months before he quitted his holding.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, the farmer would know what cattle he had on his farm; and, therefore, he would have some idea of the amount of cake he was likely to consume.
    VISCOUNT EMLYNsaid, he thought it necessary that some notice should be given, although whether the period contained in the Act of 1875 should be extended or not he could not say. It did not appear to him that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had had much to say in support of the extension under the clause which was to modify the Act of 1875, so as to extend the period from one month to two months. The proposals made to the Committee seemed to range from four months to one month. Whatever was the custom in Lincolnshire or other counties, it was clear that there should be some notice, and some limitation to that notice.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, it was contended that there were some parts of England where no claim for compensation would arise; and, even if that were so, there could be no objection to dispensing with the notice. If there was to be no claim

    221
    for compensation, all the less necessity was there for demanding a notice. He did not dispute that in instances pointed out by hon. Members, or where no claim for compensation at all would arise, that a notice to quit was in itself ample notice with regard to compensation. A tenant having given or received notice to quit, in the majority of cases, his claim for compensation would be sure to follow; but what he (Mr. Chaplin) said was this—that, with the exception of those cases to which he referred, and with which he was not acquainted, it would be very hard, indeed, on a man who might have spent a great deal in improving his holding, and might have to make a claim of £1,500 or £2,000 for compensation, that he should lose all that compensation, because he might have omitted, by a day or a week, to give notice of his claim. That would be a great hardship, and to him (Mr. Chaplin) would be altogether unnecessary. Hon. Members talked about the Lincolnshire custom. That custom was by no means limited to Lincolnshire. They might go through the whole of the counties of England, and they would find that nowhere was a man deprived of his right to make a claim because he had not given notice of his intention to do so.
    SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, they must have some fixed period, otherwise a farmer might come at any time and say—"Oh, I am entitled to compensation for something or other I did such a time back." As to a tenant being entitled to £1,500 or £2,000 for compensation, it would be a very strange thing, where such an amount as that was involved, if the man, when his tenancy expired, was not in a position to give notice of his claim.
    MR. PUGHsaid, he objected altogether to these notices, because he was satisfied they would simply be so many pitfalls for the unwary. He was surprised that the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham) should have advocated a four mouths' notice.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, it appeared to him that this matter had been argued, to some extent, upon wrong premisses. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) had hardly himself cleared the matter up entirely. It had been assumed that the claim of the tenant was to be of a specific character; but much of the argument had proceeded upon the as-
    222
    sumption that the claim was to be of a most general character. The claim contemplated by the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875, and by this Bill, was to be a general claim that a pecuniary compensation of some sort or other was to be paid. Well, it seemed to him that for that purpose, whether the time allowed for notice was one month or two months—the longer period he was disposed to agree with—the objection of the hon. Member must be the same. The hon. Member said a man might forget a debt, and fail to make a claim within a specified period; but that difficulty was the same with one as with two or four months. There seemed to be some confusion upon this subject; and perhaps it would be better for the hon. Member to avail himself of the opportunity that would be presented of considering the matter at a later stage. He would, therefore, suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn.
    MR. ACLANDsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down would read the clause, of which this sub-section was a modification, he would find that there was a sub-section contained in it to the effect that every notice or counter notice should contain particulars of the intended claim. It appeared to him that it was desirable that the incoming tenant should know, as far as possible, what he would be called upon to pay for.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, the notice given either by the tenant or the landlord for a farmer to quit the holding would be a sufficient notice with regard to claiming compensation.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, the observations of the hon. Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Aclaud) provided him with an additional argument in favour of his proposal, and against an extension of the notice. How was it possible for a tenant to put in a claim for the use of articles which might not be consumed for six mouths after that claim was made? However, he (Mr. Chaplin) had gained such little support for his proposal that he considered he would have a better chance of carrying the Committee with him at a later stage. Therefore, he would now withdraw the proposal.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, he wished to propose, in line 11, after "twenty-one," to insert "twenty - four," and after "thirty-one," to omit "and," and after "thirty-two," to insert "and thirty-six." His object was to prevent any appeal to a Court of Law; the tenant farmers of England objecting to litigation. What the tenant farmers wanted was to have these matters decided at once; and he believed the proper mode of settling these matters was by really good men, such as the Inspectors of the Land Commission, who wore to be found throughout the whole of England, and who would give decisions between an incoming tenant and an outgoing tenant, which both of them would be willing to accept. he was sorry to have to allude to the Lincolnshire custom; but that which he wished to provide for had been going on for a great number of years, and had given satisfaction. If the two valuers did not agree one would give in three names, and the other would be bound to accept ono of the three, and the decision of that one would be final. In this way nothing was allowed to go to the County Court, or a Court of Law. The Chambers of Agriculture had discussed this clause for a long time; and although, perhaps, they were not judges of drafting, according to the Government, they might be allowed to have a voice in this matter. Their opinion was that no appeal should be allowed from the decision of the arbitrators to a Court of Law. He would, therefore, provide in the Bill that the valuers should decide the case once for all; and he trusted that the Government would see their way to accept this Amendment. There was a very strong feeling in favour of it throughout the country, particularly on the part of some of the Commissioners who had served under the Royal Commission. When he had been drawing up the Bill on this subject during the winter there had been nothing which had been pressed upon him more strongly than this point. Fie would not detain the Committee longer, but would simply move the Amendment standing in his name.
    Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 11, after "twenty-one" insert "twenty-four," after "thirty-one" leave out "and," after "thirty-two" insert "and thirty-six."—(Mr. Heneage.)
    224
    Question proposed, "That the word and' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. DUCKHAMsupported the Amendment. There was, he said, a general feeling throughout England that the Bill should be made clear and precise, and that nothing should be referred to the County Courts. Two good practical men should be left to decide the point at issue between landlord and tenant, or outgoing and incoming tenant; and if it was necessary to employ his services, an umpire should be obtained, whose decision should be final. He trusted the Government would accept the alteration proposed.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he thought there must be some mistake in the minds of hon. Members on the subject of the Amendment.
    MR. DODSONsaid, he did not think it was desirable to accept the Amendment. Surely it would be desirable to leave a power of appeal, in certain cases, to a Court of Law, as there might be questions arising of law, and mixed law and fact, which would have to be decided. They might not be of frequent occurrence, still they would occasionally arise; and it was desirable that a Court should have power to go into them. Some of the appeals in minor matters which were allowed under the Act of 1875 had been taken away by this Bill. They had said, for instance, that there should be no appeal to the County Court unless the sum in dispute exceeded £100. In important cases it would be most desirable for all parties that an appeal should be allowed to a Court of Law.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, the appeal would be on a question of valuation, and not a point of law.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, that was so.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Committee seemed to be in a state of hopeless confusion on the subject of the provisions of the Act of 1375, with which hon. Members were proposing to deal in these Amendments. They were asked to strike out provisions of an Act of Parliament which they had not before them at the present moment. Some hon. Members had a copy to refer to by them, and some had not. Surely this was a most unfortunate way to do business. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) had realized the inconvenience of this proceeding, and had accordingly

    225
    undertaken to incorporate the sections of the Act of 1875, which were to be inserted bedily in this measure at a later stage. It would be well, therefore, to pass by the present clause, and to await the introduction of those provisions.
    MR. CARTWRIGHTsaid, the point under discussion was not as to questions of law, but as to questions of valuation; and he was perfectly convinced that when they came to such matters as that, all who had had anything to do with agriculture must know that it would be better to adhere to the decision of a skilled and practical man, rather than to trust to the decision of unpractical persons, who might, moreover, be closely connected with the interests of the localities.
    MR. ALBERT GREYsaid, he thought they should postpone the consideration of this matter until they had the clause in question before them, as it was almost impossible to follow the arguments and Amendments moved by lion. Gentlemen by such references as No. 21, No. 22, No. 23, and so on.
    MR. DODSONasked if he might be permitted to give the Committee an illustration of the inconvenience of the course they were pursuing of discussing clauses which were not before them? Hon. Members had spoken in favour of leaving out an appeal to the County Court, on the ground that Clause 36 had nothing to do with questions of law, but would only refer to valuation. But, as a matter of fact, the 36th section of the Act of 1875 dealt with the decision of the question as to the validity of the award of a valuer. Surely that was not a question of valuation. The section also dealt with the question of whether the award was given in respect of compensation to which the tenant was entitled, and with questions as to the award having been refused or reduced in regard to claims on the part of the landlord to which the landlord had no right. None of these could be called questions of valuation, but were questions of law, or of mixed law and fact. He thought the Committee would have been very wise if they had agreed to give effect to the proposal of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) in the manner he (Mr. Dodson) had proposed, and had accepted Clause 7 as it stood.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked whether they were going to retain or repeal the clause referred to by the hon. Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Ac-land)?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARBER HERSCHELL)said, it was retained because it was in Clause 20 of the Act of 1875, which was only to be slightly modified.
    MR. ALBERT GREYsaid, that a great many people in the North of England were in favour of the substitution of the Inclosure Commissioners for the County Court.
    MR. DODSONurged the hon. Member (Mr. Heneage) to withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, he was ready to withdraw the proposal, on the understanding that a discussion would be taken upon it on Report.
    SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, it had been fully explained that on Report they would have an opportunity of going into these matters; otherwise, he himself should have brought forward Amendments at this stage.
    MR. DUCKHAMsaid, that before the Committee adopted the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) he would suggest a new sub-section to the clause. The section, as it stood, required the valuator to give particulars of all claims made by the tenant; but there was no similar provision made for any claim as to waste or deterioration. He thought the particulars of that matter sbeuld be furnished, as well as particulars of other matters.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Charge of Tenant's Compensation.
    Clause 8 (Power for landlord on paying compensation to obtain charge).
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he had the following Amendment to propose:—Page 5, line 6, after "fit," insert,—
    "Provided, That the whole repayment shall be made, and the charge on the holding removed, within twenty-five years from the date of the order, and that such charge by the County Court shall be a first charge on the holding, having priority over every other then existing and future charge and incumbrance affecting such holding, except any previous charge under this Act."
    By Clause 4 they had enacted that the

    227
    landlord might execute the works himself; but this clause did not provide for that contingency when the landlord executed the works out of his own pocket.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. DODSONsaid, it appeared to him that it was not desirable to accept this amendment. It would be, in fact, going out of this Bill, because it amounted to an amendment of the Land Improvement Act and the Settled Lands Act. Under these Statutes, the landlord could apply capital for improvements, but could not charge the estate except subject to certain specified conditions and safeguards. They would be introducing an entirely different matter into this Bill if they were to proceed to amend these Acts, and give a charge under this Bill priority over every other existing and future charge and incumbrance affecting the holding. He thought it better not to mix up these questions, and hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, the result would be that the landlord would have to proceed in two ways—under the Settled Estates Act as well as under this Act.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYapprehended that this Amendment would apply in a case of drainage where the landlord executed the improvement and charged the tenant. When a tenant made an improvement, the landlord paid him compensation; and what the hon. Member wanted to do was to provide that, in like manner, the landlord should be entitled to charge the estate with an improvement, if he preferred doing that to charging the tenant. In that case, the tenant's payment of interest to the landlord would come in payment of the interest upon the cost of the improvement.
    MR. DODSONsaid, there was a difference between these two kinds of expenditure. By this Act, a compulsory obligation was placed upon the landlord to pay compensation, and, therefore, power was given to him to charge the estate; but it was quite a different thing to give him power to charge the estate for what he did voluntarily.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONproposed, on behalf of the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. H. T. Davenport), to insert, after "holding," "or such part thereof as is benefited by the outlay which is the subject of compensation." As the Bill stood, the whole holding would be subject to a charge, and that would make the person in whose favour the charge was given—that was the mortgagor—a necessary party to any dealings with that land as long as the charge remained. If there was a farm of 1,000 acres upon which £1,000 had been berrowed, the whole of those acres would be held by the mortgagor until the money was paid, and no dealing with that land could take place with regard to sale unless the mortgagor was willing, as he must be a necessary party to any such dealing. There was this further reason for only fixing the compensation on the land benefited. Supposing a farm was divided into two parts, and the charge was on the whole, it would be difficult to say how much of the increased rent should be thrown on the portion which was not benefited, whereas that portion of the farm would still bear the charge.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 4, line 40, after the word "holding," to insert the words "or such part thereof as is benefited by the outlay which is the subject of the compensation."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he thought this Amendment would be inexpedient, and almost impossible to carry out. If a tenant drained, say, 50 out of 1,000 acres, and then claimed compensation under the Bill, the landlord would be able to charge the property with the amount.
    MR. DONALDSON-HUDSONsaid, there might be a farm containing halfa-dozen fields, an improvement might be executed only on one field, and the owner might wish to sell the farm in six different lots. It was only fair that an improvement which had been executed upon one field should be charged on that alone, and the other fields not be burdened with the expense of the improvement. He thought there was a great deal of reason in this Amendment, and that it was quite worthy of consideration.
    MR. R. H. PAGETwished to ask the Solicitor General whether "holding" would come within the definition of the clause, and be held to mean any parcel of land occupied by a tenant? In the case of a landlord entering as an incoming tenant himself, would it not be a question whether there was a holding within the meaning of the Definition Clause, "holding" meaning, as stated by this Bill, a parcel of land held by the tenant? He thought that might give rise to differences.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRIER HERSCHELL)replied, that the clause dealt with this matter because it was the holding of that tenant by whom the holding was held.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, a landlord might not wish to charge the entire holding, and it might be quite unnecessary for him to do so for the purpose of raising the money required; and he suggested that the County Court might decide upon what portion the charge should be made.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, there would be no objection to that.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 90, after the word "holding," to insert the words "or any part thereof."—(Mr. Gregory.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he wished to propose that the charges on the holding for improvements under this Act should be placed on the same footing as the charges under the Lands Improvement Act, 1864. That Act provided that the whole charge should be paid off in 25 years, and he thought it was most desirable to adhere to that principle, for it was very objectionable to have charges hanging over an estate for half-a-century or more. But the chief part of the Amendment was that the charge should have priority over preexisting charges. If a landlord had an unencumbered estate, he would prefer raising money himself for improvements, and would not require to make use of the County Court at all. If the estate was encumbered to the full value of the property, the charge by the County Court on the holding would be very little indeed. No man would advance money upon a second or third
    230
    mortgage; and, therefore, though there might be an appearance of security by giving a charge on the belding, unless the holding was unencumbered there was really no value at all. He wished some of the learned Members of the Committee to consider whether it would not be desirable to place improvements under this Act on the same footing as under the Act of 1864?
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 5, line 6, after the word "fit," to insert the words "except any previous charge under this Act, or under the Improvements of Land Act, 1864."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)
    Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. DODSONsaid, he did not see any reason for this Amendment. The hon. Member said an estate might be encumbered, and then the charge would not be worth much; but where was the justice, if an estate was unencumbered, in allowing the last charge to have priority over others? He hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.
    SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, the Judge, under this clause, had full power to ascertain what the interest of the landlord was, and how long it would take to pay off.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, the words were taken identically from the Act of 1864, which the Government employed when they had Government money to advance. He would, however, withdraw them.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 9 (Incidence of charge).
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 19, after the word "holding," to insert the words "or the part thereof charged."—(Mr. Solicitor General.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 10 (Advance made by a company) agreed to.
    Notice to quit.
    Clause 11 (Time of notice to quit).
    MR. R. H. PAGETasked the Solicitor General to explain the meaning of "is by law necessary." So far as he was aware, the only case where it was

    231
    by law necessary was where people had contracted themselves out of the Act under the Act of 1875.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)replied, that the ordinary rule of law was that with a tenancy from year to year, six months' notice was necessary.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he understood that the Act of 1875 had overruled that, and only allowed it to come into force when the people interested had deliberately contracted themselves by notice out of the provisions of the Act.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that was so. In the case of an agricultural holding where the Act of 1875 came into operation it extended the time.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, it only operated when two persons had deliberately contracted themselves out of the Act.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)asked whether the hon. Member meant that, apart from this Bill, six months' notice was the ordinary Common Law time, subject to the alteration made as to an agricultural holding by the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875? Where it did not apply, six months' notice were required.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, that to raise this point he would move the omission of the words "by law." He did not think these words were applicable. Whatever was the law previous to the Act of 1875, that Act altered it, and all tenants brought under its operation were parties deliberately contracting themselves out of it, and it could and did only apply to cases in which they could be held to be out of the Act by law.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 33, to leave out the words "by law."—(Mr. R. H. Paget.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYthought it was absolutely necessary to have this clause.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, that if this clause remained there would be a certain amount of uncertainty, and tenants would find that by no fault of their own the six months' notice would
    232
    become 12 months. He would suggest that the Government should put in certain words which would not require au agreement in writing, so that where a tenant had been going on from year to year with six months' notice he might continue without special notice.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he (lid not desire to detain the Committee on this point. If there was anything in it he was satisfied that the Solicitor General would attend to it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, he wished to propose an Amendment with a view to prevent tenants being turned out of their holdings and also the sale of their property.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 5, line 37, after "the same," insert "and, in case of any landlord entitled for his life, or for any other uncertain interest, the tenant of such holding shall be entitled to continue to hold and occupy such holding until the expiration of such notice, upon the terms of his contract of tenancy, anything in section ono of the Act of the fourteenth and fifteenth Victoria, chapter twenty-five, to the contrary notwithstanding."—(Mr. Honeage.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. DODSONsaid, the proposal appeared to be reasonable, and one that should be adopted; and if the hon. Member would bring it up as a new clause, he would consider it, and he thought he should be able to accept it.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, he would adopt that course.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the time had now arrived to move an Amendment of great importance. The object was to make the notice compulsory. The effect of the omission he was about to propose would be to bring the clause into exactly the shape of the clause in the Act of 1875. The policy which the Liberal Party had recommended, up and down the country, of making the Act of 1875 compulsory would be enforced by the acceptance of this Amendment. The Committee need not discuss the question whether or not the time of notice should be fixed, for that was already determined by law. The question for the Committee to consider was only what that time should be. Everyone acquainted with agriculture in

    233
    England was aware that the practice of taking leases was declining. In Scotland leases were very common, but in England they were not; and he supposed no one would contest the proposition that probably three-fourths of the agricultural land in England was held on yearly tenancies; and it was because of that state of things that it appeared to him extremely important to make a year's notice compulsory. When the Act of 1875 was debated in that House, Mr. Disraeli, who had charge of the Bill, dwelt very much on this point, and he chiefly recommended that measure on the ground that it would, practically, make a year's notice the law of the land. On that occasion the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan) spoke of six months' notice to quit as a cruel condition. Sir James Caird had published the strongest recommendation possible in favour of a two years' notice. Two years, however, appeared to be very much too long, partly because the operations of Nature—the return of the seasons—seemed to have marked out one year as the proper time when notice to quit should be given. Having regard lo the fact that agriculture was mainly carried on in this country under yearly tenancies, it seemed to him to be the business of the Committee to make the system as good as possible; and he believed that by adopting his Amendment the Committee would be taking a step in that direction. He found that when this question was discussed in 1875, the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) was almost the only one who spoke strongly against the proposal for making it a rule of law that one year's notice should be given. If this Amendment were accepted by the Government, as he hoped it would be, it would constitute a fulfilment of their pledges, given in all parts of the country, that they would amend the Act of 1875.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 37, leave out from the word "same," to the word "but," in line 40.—(Mr. Arthur Arnold.)
    MR. DODSONsaid, he would point out to his hon. Friend who had moved the Amendment then before the Committee that the words which he proposed to leave out were expressly inserted by the Government, in view of the desire which he knew was felt by many tenant
    234
    farmers throughout the country that there should be liberty to quit at short notice. In good times a tenant generally liked a year's notice to quit; but in bad times it was the landlord who would be much more likely to be in favour of the longer period than the tenant. The tenant, in such circumstances, would naturally like to have an opportunity of getting out of the holding at a shorter period. With the knowledge of the circumstances possessed by Her Majesty's Government he would venture to say that the clause, as it stood, was agreeable to the great bulk of the tenant farmers, and that the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend was by no means what they wished.
    SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, he had actual experience of the wishes of the farmers in his district, which entirely confirmed the view of this question as stated by the right ben. Gentleman.
    MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he had never met in the course of his experience, which was by no means small, a single farmer who was in favour of a short notice to quit; on the contrary, they had always expressed their preference for a 12 months' notice. he agreed with the hon. Member for Salford in considering this a desirable Amendment to introduce into the Bill, the words proposed to be struck out being, in his opinion, most objectionable. Surely it did not require an Act of Parliament to tell people what they might do in a matter of this kind. But one effect of the permissive words which his hon. Friend sought to strike out might be to turn a man out of his house and holding, in a district where farms were difficult to obtain, at too short a notice to enable him to get another before the expiration of his tenancy. In 1879 and 1880 there was a great difficulty in getting good farms. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite seemed amused at that statement; but he would say unhesitatingly, and without fear of contradiction by anyone who was acquainted with the subject, that even in those most depressed years he had named there were no good farms to be let. He had at that time tried his best to get a farm in the Midland Counties for a man of large capital without success; and the only farms that were to be had

    235
    were those belonging to owners who had not the best reputation in the world, or inferior ones, which farmers did not in consequence care to occupy. He would remind the Committee that Lord Beaconsfield, in a celebrated speech, declared himself to be in favour of a two years' notice to quit; and he knew that in the Midland Counties the practice was to let at two years' notice. The practice, moreover, he knew was very much upon the increase, and he thought that was a proof that the majority of tenant farmers were in favour of it.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, that, like his hon. Friend who had just sat down, he had met many farmers, and while many of them preferred a six months' notice to quit, be was bound to acknowledge that others were in favour of a notice at 12 months. For that reason he supported the clause as it stood. According to his experience nothing would be more distasteful to the farmers in many parts of the country than to insist on 12 months' notice being compulsory. He could easily understand such a matter as compensation, which might be otherwise open to abuse, being made compulsory. That was a subject on which all parties were united; but even the hon. Gentleman himself had admitted that upon the question of the period of notice there was a great difference of opinion. He did not say that what he advocated represented the unanimous opinion of the farmers. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman as to the difficulty, or impossibility, of obtaining farms in 1879 and 1880, the statement hurt his feelings somewhat, because it brought to his recollection a correspondence which took place between the hon. Gentleman and himself. He remembered the hon. Gentleman saying there were no good farms to be let anywhere at the time, and he immediately offered to let him a good farm on favourable terms, telling him that lie should be glad if he would send him a tenant; but he heard no more from the hon. Gentleman on the subject. All he would say was that the farm in question was the best he possessed, and from the remark of the hon. Gentleman he was afraid his estate must be a very inferior one indeed.
    MR. BULWERsaid, he theught the hon. Member for Salford had somewhat
    236
    misapprehended the effect of the clause, for it would be seen that it required the consent not only of the landlord but of the tenant also that there should be less than 12 months' notice to quit. In order, then, to secure what the lion. Member said was so desirable, nothing more was necessary than that the tenant should insist that there should be 12 months' notice under the clause as it stood.
    MR. DUCKHAMsaid, if there were one part of the Act of 1875 more popular than the others it was that which required 12 months' notice to quit. He had consulted farmers, who were agreed in this opinion—that the clause of the Act of 1875 was sufficient and preferable without the permissive portion of it that was now proposed. he was sure that the Amendment of his hon. Friend was necessary, both in the interest of agriculture and in the interest of the occupiers of land, although he was ready to admit that recently, under severe depression, some men had felt the inconvenience of a long notice to quit. He regarded the clause as retrograde, and should, therefore, support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Salford, when he stated that this clause was exactly the same as that of the Act of 1875, had forgotten that under that Act it was the landlords alone who noticed themselves out the Act; whereas this clause required the concurrence of the landlord and tenant to contract themselves out of the Act. After the Bill became law every tenant would have the advantage of a year's notice, unless he contracted himself out of it. he knew that some tenants were now in favour of a system under which six months' notice would be sufficient, that being probably duo to the depression which had prevailed, and the belief on the part of tenants that if they could quit at half a-year's notice they could more easily obtain a reduction of rent.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, he thought the clause, as it stood, might lead to inconvenience in the case of some tenancies.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 225; Noes 50: Majority 175.—(Div. List, No. 223.)
    MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, the Amendment they had just disposed of had reference to yearly holdings; but the Amendment he load now to move had distinct reference to leases. It was, after the word "sufficient," in page 5, line 40, to insert—
    "And a tenant of a holding under a lease for a term of years made either before or after the commencement of this Act shall by virtue of this Act be entitled to two years' notice from the landlord of his intention not to renew the lease of the holding, and a landlord shall be entitled to two years' notice from the tenant of his intention to quit the holding at the expiration of his lease, and in default of such notice it shall be deemed that the landlord and tenant agree to renew the existing contract of tenancy for the same term at the same rent and on the same conditions as in the existing contract of tenancy."
    The object of the Amendment would be obvious; it was to do away with the uncertainty which would otherwise occur to wards the determination of the tenancy. Another object was to maintain the fertility of a holding to the end of the tenancy. He had no doubt it would be admitted by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) that the Earl of Leicester was an authority on agricultural matters. Now, in the noble Earl's leases it was provided that four years' notice was necessary on either side for the determination of a tenancy. It would be noticed in this Amendment that he (Mr. J. Howard) had made the proposition reciprocal; that it was not only necessary for the landlord to give two years' notice to quit, but that the same obligation should be imposed upon the tenant. It was as much in the interest, if not more, of the landlord than of the tenant that some such proposition as he now made sbeuld be adopted.
    SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYrose to Order. He did not think that this Amendment had anything to do with the clause at all. The Amendment dealt with notice to quit. It might be competent for the hon. Gentleman to bring in a new clause; but he did not think that the Amendment was at all germane to the clause.
    THE CHAIRMANruled that the Amendment, as proposed, was strictly in Order.
    MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he was about to say it was far more in the interest of the landlord than of the tenant
    238
    that such a provision should be contained in the Bill as he proposed; but it was also necessary in the interest of the public. He believed it to be important in the interest of all classes.
    SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYagain rose to Order. He said the clause dealt with the notice to quit that a man was entitled to give or receive under an ordinary tenancy. What the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire was moving had reference exclusively to leases; therefore, the Amendment had no relevancy to the clause.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that the Amendment they had disposed of had reference to what sbeuld be the notice to quit in cases of yearly tenancies. What the lion. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire proposed was that the notice to quit in case of a lease should be two years.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he could not see that the Amendment, as proposed, was out of Order.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 5, line 37, after the word "same," leave out down to "sufficient," inclusive, in line 40, and insert—"And a tenant of a holding under a lease for a term of years made either before or after the commencement of this Act shall by virtue of this Act be entitled to two years' notice from the:landlord of his intention not to renew the lease of the holding, and a landlord shall be entitled to two years' notice from the tenant of his intention to quit the holding at the expiration of his lease, and in default of such notice it shall be deemed that the landlord and tenant agree to renew the existing contract of tenancy for the same term at the same rent and on the same conditions as in the existing contract of tenancy."—(Mr. J. Howard.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, there was no doubt that the condition of farming under yearly tenancies was at a very low ebb; but under the system of leases there was in Scotland, and he had no doubt there were in other places, a much higher system of farming. It was the system of leases he and other hon. Members were desirous of encouraging. He thought it would be a great advantage towards the maintenance of a high standard of cultivation that a tenant should have two years' notice to quit in case he held under a lease. If a tenant had twe years' notice to quit, he would have a much greater chance of looking

    239
    about for a fresh farm than he would have if he only got six or 12 months' notice. Hon. Members opposite who admired the policy and wisdom of the late Lord Beaconsfield ought to support this Amendment, because this was as feasible a solution as had as yet been presented of this question of compensation for agricultural improvements. He thought that two years' notice to quit would be very much better than any compensation that was provided for under the Bill, or under the Agricultural Holdings Act, and he hoped the Government would, at least in the case of leases, take care that the tenant should have good notice before he was required to leave his farm.
    MR. DODSONsaid, the Amendment involved an important principle, and went beyond the question of notice to quit. In the first place, it altered the law, because it said that the tenancy should not be determined at the time people had agreed; in fact, it amounted to saying that it should not determine when it did determine. That was a change of the law which he apprehended the Committee would scarcely be likely to agree to. In the cases of leases which had expired, if rent was accepted the tenant would go on sitting as a year-to-year tenant, and become entitled to a year's notice. The Government were not prepared to accept the Amendment.
    MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, lie would, after that expression of opinion, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. BIDDELLproposed, in page 5, line 42, at end, to add—"All leases shall be continuous until either party has given a year's notice." His object in moving the Amendment was to abelish fresh negotiations as much as possible between the landlord and the tenant. He intended, by this Amendment, that either party should give a year's notice of the course of action he proposed to pursue, whether specified by lease or not specified by lease. If the parties wore satisfied to continue their relations, nothing whatever would be said, and there would be no need for fresh negotiations. He hoped the Government would consent to this Amendment, and that, if they could not assent to a year's
    240
    notice, they would, at least, assent to a six months' notice.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 5, line 42, at end, to add—"All leases shall be continuous until either party has given a year's notice."—(Mr. Biddell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. DODSONsaid, the words of the Amendment were not very clear. When he first saw them he was puzzled to know whether the hon. Member meant that a lease should be renewed, or whether he meant that, unless there was a year's notice, a tenant should continue in his holding as a year-to-year tenant. The latter, he (Mr. Dodson) understood, was the hon. Gentleman's intention. That was not very different from the existing law under which rent was accepted, and the tenant continued in his holding. At present, under such circumstances, a tenant was entitled to a year's notice; and he (Mr. Dodson) confessed it did not appear to him werth while to make the proposed alteration. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
    MR. BIDDELLsaid, if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would consent that a landlord must give a year's notice, he (Mr. Biddell) would be satisfied. As it was, a tenant would be left in doubt as to the course a landlord would pursue in regard to him.
    MR. DODSONstated that a tenant could easily solve that doubt by asking his landlord what his intentions were.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Fixtures.
    Clause 12 (Tenant's property in fixtures, machinery, &c.).
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 2, to leave out "after the commencement of this Act."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. DODSONpointed out that this was a proposal to make the Act retrospective. The Act was not made retrospective with regard to permanent improvements; and there would appear to he no need for any retrospective action

    241
    with regard to fixtures. Under the existing law a tenant, if he obtained the consent of the landlord, would be entitled to move his fixtures.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. JAMES HOWARDindulged a hope that the Amendment he had now to move would receive a more favourable reception at the hands of the Committee than the last Amendment which he proposed had received. At all events, it was one that he cared a very great deal more about. What he had to propose was, in page 6, line 2, after "tenant," to leave out down to "tenant," inclusive, in line 7, and insert—
    "Erects or enlarges any buildings or makes any other removable improvements upon his holding, for which no compensation would be payable under the provisions of this Act, the tenant may before, or within two months after quitting his holding, remove the same, making good all damage caused by their erection, formation, or removal. Provided that if the landlord, not less than three months before the termination of the tenancy, serves notice in writing on the tenant of his election to retain the same, paying compensation therefor, he shall be entitled to do so, and the amount of such compensation, failing agreement, shall be settled by a reference under this Act."
    The clause, as it stood, somewhat limited the right of a tenant to remove his fixtures; but he proposed to give the clause a wider application. About a month ago he met Mr. Huskisson, a former President of the Institute of Surveyors, who said to him—"I hope, whatever you do, you will insert the clause which was in your former Landlord and Tenant Bill, giving the tenant power to remove buildings or erections." That power of removal would be considered a great been by a very large class of improving tenants. It would be seen, at the same time, that there was power given to the landlord to claim the buildings and have them valued under the provisions of this' Act. He hoped the reasonableness of this Amendment would commend itself to the judgment of the Committee and of the Government. He would not waste the time of the Committee longer.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 2, after the word "tenant," to leave out down to "tenant," inclusive, in line 7, and insert "erects or enlarges any buildings or makes any other removable improvements upon his holding, for which no compensation would be payable under the provisions of this Act, the
    242
    tenant may before, or within two months after quitting his holding, remove the same, making good all damage caused by their erection, formation, or removal. Provided that if the landlord, not less than three months before the termination of the tenancy, serves notice in writing on the tenant of his election to retain the same, paying compensation therefor, he shall be entitled to do so, and the amount of such compensation, failing agreement, shall be settled by a reference under this Act."—(Mr. J. Howard.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. DODSONsaid, he was not prepared to accept the Amendment, were it only for this reason—that it proposed not only that the tenant should be at liberty to erect a building, but that he might remove it when he had quitted his holding, the effect of which would be that the landlord would probably be unable to let the holding, because the outgoing tenant was engaged in removing buildings. As regarded the question of allowing a tenant to remove a building in the same manner as he was allowed to move an engine, or machinery, or other fixtures, that was a point which was worthy of consideration; but the question would be best raised and considered on the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Biddell)—namely, in line 3, after "fixture," to insert "or erect any building." The Amendment now before them was one which he certainly could not accept.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire was so reasonable that he had hoped the Government would have accepted it. The right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Dodson's) main objection to it was that the tenant, under this clause, would have power to remove a building after he had quitted his holding. He (Mr. Barclay) would recommend his hon. Friend to amend his clause in that respect, by leaving out, in line 5, the words "or within two months after quitting his holding." Now, the clause provided that the tenant must have erected those buildings at his own cost, and that the landlord should have power to purchase it from the tenant; but that if the landlord did not elect to purchase it, then the tenant sbeuld have a right to remove it, making good any damage which might be done to the holding by the removal.

    243
    He hoped the Government would be able to see their way to accept the Amendment as he proposed to amend it; and, if they could not, he hoped his hon. Friend would go to a Division. There was no time like the present; and the Amendment came in very appropriately at this point.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment to the Amendment would not be in Order. The Question is, whether the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause, and that must be disposed of before the suggestion of the lion. Gentleman can be dealt with.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCUELL)said, it would be very inconvenient to deal with the question in the way the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Barclay) suggested, because the point he desired to dwell upon was that there should be power to remove buildings. That the Government were perfectly ready favourably to consider; but if they were to accept the Amendment in the form in which it was proposed, it would be necessary to altogether change the drafting of the clause. It would be observed that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard) left out the words "fixtures, engines, machinery," and so forth.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that for once he was disposed to agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire; but he also thought there was great force in what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Solicitor General had said, that this was not quite a proper form in which the matter should be introduced. He (Mr. J. Lowther) thought that the practice prevailing generally with regard to the Middlesberough leases, in cases of iron werks, and so forth, might be applicable to agricultural beldings. A very fatal objection to the Amendment was that it would give an outgoing tenant power to pull down buildings after his occupation ceased. He thought that, under all the circumstances, the hon. Gentleman would do well to postpone this matter.
    MR. JAMES HOWARDpointed out that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Biddell) failed to give power to the landlord to make a claim to the
    244
    buildings at a valuation. As to its being inconvenient for a tenant to come to a holding after he had quitted it, he had purposely inserted two months, in order that there should be time for the landlord and the tenant to come to an agreement before the removal of the building. He had, however, no objection to postpone the matter.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 3, after "any," insert "building."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'building' be there inserted."
    MR. DODSONsaid, that, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would withdraw the Amendment, he would propose one which would carry out the object in view.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. PUGHproposed, in page 6, line 3, to insert after the word "machinery" the words "iron or wire fences."
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsuggested that the word "iron" should be left out, so that the Amendment would be confined to "wire fencing."
    MR. PUGHagreed to the alteration.
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 3, after the word "machinery" to insert the words "wire fencing."—(Mr. Pugh.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. BIDDELLsaid, he thought that there was reason why they should do what they could to bring about the erection of suitable buildings. To his mind, there was more evil consequent upon the want of sufficient farm buildings than in anything else the Act was intended to remove.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he wished to point out, before this Amendment was further proceeded with, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) had accepted a word which would make the clause run—"any engine, machinery, fencing, or other fixture." Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to call fencing a fixture—did he deliberately

    245
    intend to suggest that an iron fence was a fixture?
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYcontended that a fence was just as much a fixture as a steam engine.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member (Mr. Paget) rise to a point of Order? If not, I would suggest to him that there is no Question before the Committee.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he wished to point out that the words "other fixture" were inapplicable to iron fencing, because fencing might be stuck into the ground temporarily, and removed at pleasure. He would move to leave out the words "or other fixture."
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 3, after the word "fencing," to leave out the words "or other fixture."—(Mr. R. H. Paget.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that the fencing intended to be covered by the Bill was fencing in the nature of a fixture. That was the only fencing for which they would need the clause.
    MR. HALSEYsaid, he should like, before this Amendment was passed, to ask whether it would not interfere with the Schedule? In Part I. of the Schedule he found that the erection of buildings was provided for, and that the consent of the landlord was required; but if they were going to allow the tenant to erect buildings at his own pleasure, they would be acting in a manner contradictory to the Schedule.
    MR. DODSONsaid, the position of affairs would be this. If a tenant obtained the consent of the landlord to putting up buildings, or making certain other improvements, he would be entitled to compensation on leaving; but if he put up buildings or improvements of that kind without the consent of the landlord, he would only be able to take them away on leaving, The clause said that any improvement of this kind which—
    "Is not so affixed in pursuance of some obligation in that behalf or instead of some fixture belonging to the landlord, then such fixture shall be the property of and be removable by the tenant."
    MR. J. LOWTHERasked whether he understood that the tenant would have a right to take these fixtures away?
    MR. DODSONreplied in the affirmative.
    SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, he did not object to what was proposed in regard to this clause; but he felt that many tenant farmers in his own neighbourhood would object, because they would say it would place the onus of erecting buildings on themselves, and not on the landlords.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 5, after the word "affixed," insert the words "or erected."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 7, after the word "fixture," insert the words "or building."—(Mr. Biddell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    VISCOUNT NEWPORTsaid, it seemed to him that, if these words were accepted, the clause would have a wide interpretation, and the whole sub-section would become useless. It must be remembered that the tenant would put up these fixtures for his own convenience and temporary advantage. When a tenant was leaving a farm he very often did not care as to the way in which he left these things. Therefore, it was necessary that the interest of the landlord should be protected by the Committee.
    MR. DODSONsaid, this Amendment appeared to him to be altogether unnecessary.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he wished to omit the word "it," in Sub-section 4, and to insert the words "such fixture or buildings."
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 20, leave out the word "it," and insert the words "such fixture or buildings."—(Mr. R. H. Paget.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he proposed to omit Sub-section 5, which said—
    "At any time before the expiration of the notice of removal the landlord, by notice in writing given by him to the tenant, may elect to purchase any fixture comprised in the notice of removal; and any fixture thus elected to be purchased shall be left by the tenant, and shall become the property of the landlord, who shall pay the tenant the fair value thereof to an incoming tenant of the holding; and any difference as to the value shall be settled by a reference under this Act, as in case of compensation (but without appeal)."
    He did not see why the tenant should not be allowed to deal with improvements of this kind as he thought proper, seeing that they were his own property. He ought to be allowed to sell them or hand them over to an incoming tenant, or to anybedy else, just as he pleased; and he (Sir Alexander Gordon) did not see why the landlord should have a right of pre-emption. These improvements might be erected on the "hire and purchase" system, and in such a case considerable difficulty would be found to arise if the clause stood as it did at present. In a case where the tenant might desire to take an adjoining farm and to carry his fixtures with him, it might put him to expense and a great deal of inconvenience if the landlord were to have the right of acquiring the improvements.
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 21, leave out Sub-section (5).—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)
    Question proposed, "That the Subsection stand part of the Clause."
    MR. DODSONsaid, he was not prepared to accept this Amendment. If the privilege were granted to a tenant of erecting a building on the property of the landlord without first obtaining the consent of that landlord, the least they could do would be to give to the landlord on his part the privilege of acquiring the improvement when the tenant quitted his occupancy—that was to say, the least they could do would be to give the landlord the right of pre-emption. He (Mr. Dodson) failed to see any hardship whatever in this proposal.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 23. after the word "fixture," to insert the words "or building."—(Mr. Biddell.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    248
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 24, after the word "fixture," to insert the words "or building."—(Mr Biddell.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Crown, Duchy, Ecclesiastical, and Charity Lands.
    Clause 13 (Incorporation of provisions as to Crown and certain other lands and to resumption for improvements).
    MR. DODSONsaid, this clause was ono for incorporating certain sections of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875 relating to Crown and certain other lands and to resumption for improvements. He proposed now, as he had done in regard to other sections of the Bill, to accept the terms of the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) under the same conditions—namely, to accept the clause as it stood, and when the Bill was re-committed to insert all the sections of the Act of 1875 which were incorporated, with whatever modifications might have been agreed to.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 14 (Provision as to limited owners).
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) a question upon this clause which related to limited ownership. A case had been put to him which would possibly be one of hardship—namely, the case of a clergyman, or the representative of a clergyman, farming his own glebe. Supposing such clergyman died, or exchanged into another living, would he or his representatives be entitled to compensation for unexhausted improvements from his successor, or what would be their position?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that would not be a case within the Act at all, because a clergyman, under these circumstances, would be a freeholder, and those who followed him would be subsequent freeholders.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, he thought a clergyman and his representatives ought to be equally entitled to compensation for improvements with ordinary tenants. He failed to see why such a person should not be allowed the benefits of the Bill.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)pointed out that a clergyman was a tenant for life, and that, if he left, presumably he was going to another freehold.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: Supposing he dies?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the Act could not apply in such a case, which would have to be separately dealt with. In a case of this kind they would be dealing with a man who was really farming his own land, and the question was not one between landlord and tenant. He was not at present prepared to say that no words could be introduced extending the provisions of the Act to cases of this kind. The matter would have to be considered; and if it were necessary to make an alteration in the Bill to meet this kind of case, it would have to be done at a later stage.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSwished to know whether this provision would affect minerals and mines?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that if the right hon. Gentleman would turn to the title of the Bill, he would see that it was a Bill "for amending the Law relating to Agricultural Holdings in England." Minerals and mines could hardly be called agricultural holdings.
    Clause, agreed to.

  PART II.

    Distress.
    Clause 15 (Limitation of distress in respect of amount and time).
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, they had now come to a most important part of the Bill, and he beped, seeing the lateness of the hour, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) would agree to report Progress.
    MR. DODSONsaid, that if it were the wish of the Committee that Progress should be reported, he would not oppose the Motion; but he would venture to express a hope that the Committee would be able to dispose of the remaining clauses, the Schedule, and the new clauses to-morrow. He trusted that tomorrow they would be able to dispose of the Bill altogether in Committee.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    250
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  QUESTIONS.

    PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE —PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.
    MR. RAIKESasked, Whether the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) could give any information as to when this Bill would be taken into consideration as amended?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he was afraid it was impossible to say when this Bill would be proceeded with. Supply would be taken on Thursday, and probably also on Monday, and then he hoped the further stages of this Bill would be proceeded with. Subject to the exigencies of Supply, the next Business would be the Bankruptcy Bill and the Patents for Inventions Bill.

    PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—DETENTION IN HOSPITALS (No. 2) BILL.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked, When this Bill was to be takenor what was to be done with it? It was constantly put down; but it seemed to be rather a begus Bill, and not very likely to come on this year. He wished to know whether the noble Marquess would move to discharge the Order?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he did not think he could move the discharge of the Order, although he admitted that the prospects of the Bill were not very hopeful.

    ORDERS OF THE DAY.

      GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL.
      (Sir Thomas Brassey, Mr.Campbell-Bannerman.)
      [BILL 253.] COMMITTEE.
      Order for Committee read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Sir Thomas Brassey.)
      CAPTAIN PRICEasked for some information as to the actual charges thrown on the Greenwich Hospital by

      251
      the payment of pensions to seamen and marines, and as to the amount of that charge which was taken from the Hospital Funds for this purpose?
      SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, there was some fear that these pensions would somewhat interfere with the Greenwich Schools; and he wished to ask whether this Bill would interfere with the number of beys now being educated in Greenwich Hospital for the Navy?
      SIR THOMAS BRASSEYsaid, that Mr. Vaughan, the Actuary of the Admiralty, had been consulted, and his estimate, based on recent experience, showed that the maximum charge was from £18,000 to £20,000 a-year; but that sum, he believed, would not be reached for a lengthened period—some 40 years; and the charge would be fully covered by the accumulation of capital, and by a certain reduction of charges which now fell on the Hospital. In reply to the hon. Baronet, he had to say that there was no intention to reduce the number of beys in the School.
      SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether it would not be possible to place these pensions and allowances for the children of non-commissioned officers and others, on some other fund? There was a groat deal of dissatisfaction felt by many pensioners who thought they were entitled to receive pensions; and although everybedy must be anxious to establish a system of pensions for the widows and orphans of seamen and marines who died in the Service, at the same time this kind of pensions ought, he thought, to be placed on a totally different fund. The constant infringement on the Greenwich Hospital Funds created very great discontent in the Service, and on more than one occasion he had brought before the House the expediency of giving pensions to the widows of seamen and marines; and not only to them, but to men while they were in the Service; and he had pointed out that there were large amounts available to meet these charges other than the Hospital Funds. These funds were for the benefit of the Service; and it would be a very good thing to give pensions to retired seamen and marines, as well as to widows and orphans. He hoped that before the third reading of this Bill the Admiralty would consider whether they could not act a little more generously in this matter.
      SIR THOMAS BRASSEYsaid, there was no intention whatever to take away from the seamen any portion of the benefits they at present enjoyed. The Admiralty had maintained the pensions as they found them on a liberal scale; and accumulations taking place every year, they were able to make a provision which he thought must be accepted as one of the most useful and benevolent applications that could possibly be made of the Greenwich Hospital Funds.
      Motion agreed to.
      Bill considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      Clause 1 agreed to.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

      GREENWICH HOSPITAL (PENSIONS, &c.).

        RESOLUTION.
        Considered in Committee.
        (In the Committee.)
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, in the first instance, of any pensions, allowances, gratuities, and sums, which may become payable under the provisions of any Act of the present Session, for making provision respecting the application of the Revenues of Greenwich Hospital, and for other purposes."
        SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked what the exact meaning of this Resolution was, and whether it bound the Committee to pass the Bill?
        MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, it did not at all bind the Committee. There was a clause in the Bill providing that all the expenditure out of the Greenwich Hospital Funds was to be, in the first place, charged on the Consolidated Fund, and then recouped from the Hospital Funds. That was merely a financial arrangement to bring the whole of the expenditure under the cognizance of Parliament. The most direct plan would be to pay the pensions and all other charges directly from the Hospital Funds; but it was thought desirable, a good many years ago, to adopt this course in order that the matter might be brought under the notice of Parliament, and that made this Bill, in a strict and literal sense,

        253
        a Money Bill, which required Committee to be set up to make it a formal proceeding.
        Resolution agreed to; to be reported To-morrow.

      POST OFFICE (PROTECTION) BILL.
      (Mr. Fawcett, Mr. Courtney.)
      POST OFFICE (PROTECTION) BILL.

        [BILL 266.] SECOND READING.
        Order for Second Reading read.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Fawcett.)
        MR. WARTONconsidered this Bill thoroughly objectionable in principle. It seemed to him that all the crimes included in this Bill were met by the ordinary law; and it was objectionable to have this special set of offences, as if there was something sacred about the Post Office. All these provisions were grotesquely absurd, and all the offences were amply met by the ordinary Police Acts. It was very wrong to make a distinction between the Post Office and any other Department; and he hoped the Postmaster General would continue his useful reforms, and not seek to clothe his Office with mock dignity by having special Acts of Parliament.
        MR. FAWCETTsaid, nothing was further from his intention than to seek to give a fictitious importance to the Post Office; but it had been found that there were a number of offences which, though apparently trivial, were of a serious nature, and there was either no legal provision at all, or no adequate provision, for preventing them. For instance, throwing a lighted match into a pillar bex might cause irretrievable consequences. There was a case of this sort not long ago, and it was extremely doubtful whether it could be punished at all. Another source of annoyance was the sending of fictitious telegrams, and there were no means of preventing that; but this Bill would meet such cases, and he could assure the House that it was introduced in the interest of the public.
        Motion agreed to.
        Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

      IRISH REPRODUCTIVE LOAN FUND ACT (1874) AMENDMENT BILL.
      (Mr. Blake, Mr. O'Kelly, Dr. Commins, Mr. T. P. O' Connor).
      IRISH REPRODUCTIVE LOAN FUND ACT (1874) AMENDMENT BILL.

        [BILL 39.] CONSIDERATION.
        Bill, as amended, considered.
        Clause 3 (Loans to town commissioners from Irish Reproductive Loan Fund).
        COLONEL KING-HARMANmoved, in page 2, line 20, to leave out the words "Town Commissioners of every town," and insert the words "Boards of Guardians of every Union." He said, he did not wish in any way to prevent money being laid out for the benefit of the counties concerned; but he thought it should be used for the benefit of the two counties, and not for sections; and therefore he proposed to leave out "Town Commissioners," as representing sections, and to place the management of the money, subject to the Board of Works, in the hands of the Boards of Guardians. Of Tipperary he could not speak with particular knowledge; but in Roscommon there were few towns to which the Bill would apply. He believed there were only Boyle, Ballinasloe, Roscommon, and Athlone, and he failed to see why money intended for the benefit of the whole county, should be appropriated to the use of these small towns. If rumour was right, the use of the money had been anticipated in some of these towns. Knowing the county as he did, he believed that Boards of Guardians were the proper persons to point out works of public utility in the county, and works that would be for the benefit of the whole county, rather than Town Commissioners, who must, even with the best intentions, have a partiality in favour of the towns they represented. He did not wish to say they would wilfully and designedly appropriate the money in an improper way; but it was obvious the preference would be given to the advantage of the inhabitants of these not very large towns. Why the urban population should have the sole advantage, he could not see. He put forward the Amendment in no factious spirit of opposition to the Bill; and if it could be shown that the town populations were intended to be benefited by the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Act, then he would withdraw all opposition. But his contention was, that the funds

        255
        set apart for the benefit of Roscommon and Tipperary were not by the Bill distributed, so that these two counties should share; it only provided for the benefit of a very small section of the counties. He trusted the House would consider his a fair proposition—that money should be lent out under the supervision of Boards of Guardians, subject, of course, to the authority of the Local Government Board.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 2, line 20, to leave out the words "Town Commissioners of every town," and insert the words "Boards of Guardians of every Union."—(Colonel King-Harman.)
        Question proposed, "That the words 'Town Commissioners of every town,' stand part of the Bill."
        MR. COURTNEYsaid, if this matter were now first under consideration there would be something to be said on behalf of the ben. and gallant Gentleman; but, in fact, if he really desired to carry out his intention, he should have opposed the Bill throughout, and he should have submitted his Amendments in Committee, Amendments which would, in fact, have amounted to an evisceration of the Bill and the construction of a new measure. If he made these two Amendments of which he had given Notice, then every single clause would have to be altered, and it would practically be a new Bill. The Bill was designed for giving this small accumulated fund out in loans to the urban authorities of the two counties, and provided for the terms and conditions of berrowing and lending, the extent, and the rate to be levied for payment; and all these matters would have to be altered to accommodate the view taken by the hon. and gallant Member. Now, if it were being first mentioned, there would be something to be said on behalf of the argument.
        COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he did mention it when the Bill was brought on.
        MR. COURTNEYsaid, then the hon. and gallant Gentleman should have taken definite measures to give effect to his wishes.
        COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the Amendments were on the Paper, but the Biil was brought on in his absence.
        MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. and gallant Member should have renewed his Amendments; there were only two now given Notice of. But, in truth, it
        256
        was impossible to apply these small sums, something like £2,800 in one case and £4,000 in another — it was impossible to apply them with any beneficial effect to the purposes of the whole country; they could only be applied to the improvement of the small towns. The sums had accumulated because, under the former restricted rules, there were no means of applying them in the manner now proposed for the benefit of towns in the county. The House would do well to support the Bill as it stood, which was meant not for the whole of the county but for towns scattered throughout the county, rather than to attempt a reconstruction of the Bill and a distribution that would have no substantial benefit.
        COLONEL KING - HARMANexplained, he had only put down these Amendments because he considered that if one wore carried, that decision would govern all the other clauses of the Bill where the reference to Town Commissioners came in.
        Question put, and ayreed to.
        MR. O'KELLYsaid, with the permission of the House, he would move that the Bill be road a third time.
        MR. SPEAKER: No doubt, if the hon. Member can plead urgency, the House may, if it think fit, allow the Motion.
        COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he must object to this.
        MR. HEALYsaid, was it not according to the practice of the House on the present stage, and when there were no Amendments, to proceed to the third reading as a matter of course? Was it not a constant practice to do so?
        MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that it is not the constant practice of the House; but on occasions when a Bill has not been opposed at any of its stages, and particularly at the end of a Session, that course is sometimes taken, and if the hon. Member can plead urgency, it might be taken in this case, if the House think fit.
        MR. HEALYsaid, it would be valuable to know, as a point of Order, did the Speaker lay it down, that if in such a case an hon. Member objected to the third reading, that was sufficient to block the Bill?
        MR. SPEAKER: No; I have not laid that down.
        MR. O'KELLYsaid, he would appeal to the hon. and gallant Member to allow the third reading to be taken; but if he persisted in opposition he would put it down for to-morrow.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. O' Kelly.)
        Motion agreed to.
        Bill read the third time, and passed.

      MOTIONS.
        ISLE OF WIGHT HIGHWAYS BILL.
        On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to amend the Law relating to Highways in the Isle of Wight; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT, Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, Mr. ASHLEY, and Sir CHARLES DILKE. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 268.]

      REVENUE AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
      Considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the Customs and Inland Revenue, and to reduce the interest payable to investments of Friendly Societies, and to make other provisions respecting charges payable out of the Public Revenue; and for other purposes.
      Resolution reported:— Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. COURTNEY and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 269.]
      House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

Preamble
MINUTES—PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Summary Jurisdiction (Repeal, &c.) * (153).
Committee— Report—Poor Relief (Ireland) * (140).
Third Reading — Factories and Workshops Amendment * (113), and passed.

SUEZ (SECOND) CANAL—THE PROVISIONAL AGREEMENT WITH M. DE LESSEPS.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, seeing the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, I wish to ask him, Whether the Government have come to any decision as to the course which they intend to adopt in respect to the Suez Canal; and, if so, whether it will be convenient to the noble Earl to state it to the House?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in reply to this Question, which I am not at all surprised the noble Marquess has put to me, I may say that I had an opportunity last week of making a short statement in answer to a Question in reference to the proposed arrangement. On reflection, I am not aware that there is anything that I said then, or which was said by my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, which, on my own behalf or on behalf of my Colleagues, I should wish to retract or withdraw from. Indeed, I think I could say a good deal to strengthen some of the arguments I used then, and more especially with regard to the obligation which, it appears to me, falls upon this country to consider, from reasons of justice, policy, and feeling, any claims possessed by the Suez Canal Company, and by the great nation which it represents, and which is a neighbour to ourselves. I believe this
  116
  is the feeling of all your Lordships; and I think it is better that I should merely state the course Her Majesty's Government mean to pursue, instead of going into any unnecessary discussion. Your Lordships will readily understand that Her Majesty's Government were placed in a position of considerable difficulty last week. They proposed and announced a plan, after very long negotiation, which appeared to them the best, under the circumstances, that could be arrived at. That plan was received, I need scarcely tell your Lordships, with very general disapprobation. I think we have somewhat to blame ourselves for not having presented Papers and given fuller explanation at the time the plan was proposed, for it is quite evident to me that very considerable change of opinion has taken place. There is, however, opposition on the part of nearly, but not exclusively, all the great Bodies who represent commerce and navigation; and, besides that, the position has been further complicated by the opposition, not only of the Home Rule and the Fourth Party, but also of the great Conservative Party. Under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government thought it was only courteous to send over one of the English Directors to communicate with M. de Lesseps—not with any view of proposing any fresh negotiations, but to ascertain his views on the subject. The result of this negotiation, as received from Sir C. Rivers Wilson, is to the following effect:—

  London, July 21, 1883.
  "My Lord,—Upon communication to the MM. de Lesseps of the object of my coming to Paris, they stated in the most friendly terms that they thoroughly understood the situation, and that, so far as they were concerned, they regarded us as in no way bound under the existing circumstances to press the Agreement on Parliament.
  "There were, however, two parts of it, the spontaneous adoption of which, notwithstanding the abandonment of the Agreement (if such should be decided upon), they announced their determination to propose to their shareholders.
  "In the first place, immediate measures would be taken so that the second Canal during the greater part of its length might be rapidly constructed within the limits of the land already conceded, although they might at the proper time have to apply to the Egyptian Government for additional ground where the present width was insufficient.
  "Secondly, the proposed reduction of dues pari passu with the increased profits would be maintained.

  117
  "As to all the other arrangements contemplated in the Agreement, both sides would be free.
  "Her Majesty's Government would be thus under no obligation to use their good offices to obtain for the Company the extension of the Concession beyond 1068, or any other privileges.
  "The capital required for the second Canal would be raised as the Company might determine, either by the issue pro rata of more shares, in which operation England would have the option of subscribing in respect of her 176,602 shares, or by way of debentures, with the like option.
  "It is my duty to observe that the former course would have the obvious effect of retarding the fall in the rate of dues.
  "The conversations with the MM. de Lesseps, like those which we had on former occasions, were of a confidential character, and I am, therefore, only able in this despatch to report their result.
  "I conveyed to M. do Lesseps the appreciation by Her Majesty's Government of his straightforward and friendly spirit during the negotiations, an assurance which he cordially reciprocated.
  "I have, &c.,
  (Signed) "C. RIVERS WILSON."
  Now, my Lords, this was the position in which we found ourselves. We considered that, although MM. do Lesseps would have had no right whatever to complain if Parliament had rejected the Agreement we have made, yet that they had claims upon Her Majesty's Government to take Parliamentary opinion before abandoning it; and we would not have consented to waive that application to Parliament if M. de Lesseps had chosen to hold us to our bargain. But your Lordships will see that the position is very different when we are left to take free action. Your Lordships will remember the time of the year in which we find ourselves. You are aware that there are a large number of orthodox Notices on the Paper, and you are aware of the difficulty that would exist in passing this scheme if it were seriously opposed. Your Lordships have also to remember the very great probability, in the long debates on such a question as this, of other irritating topics being introduced and other questions being raised, which I think might be very offensive, not only to France, but to other nations. I think it also clear that on a matter of this sort—a commercial matter of great difficulty, complicated with political elements, as it has been in the manner that I have described—it is very desirable that it should not be attempted to be forced
  118
  through Parliament unless there were a more or less general approval of it. Under these circumstances, I hope your Lordships will admit that the Government have not been ill-advised in coming to this decision, and in stating that it is not their intention to ask Parliament to assent to the Agreement.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I cannot but congratulate the noble Earl on the wisdom of the course lie invites us to pursue. I am sure the news will be received with a feeling of relief, in all centres where the commercial and shipping interest is strong, that this disastrous scheme has been abandoned, and that England has abstained from raising up a barrier to her own commercial progress, which might, under the proposed Agreement, have extended to the term of a century. My Lords, I presume the noble Earl will lay on the Table some Papers with reference to this scheme—[Earl GRANVILLE: Hear, hear!]—and its abandonment. No doubt those Papers, when laid before us, will throw light on many dark places in the negotiations which have passed. Still, there are some things with respect to which I confess I should like to have heard a fuller explanation from the noble Earl. he says that M. do Lesseps proposes to cut a new Canal without the assistance, or, as I understand it, the sanction and countenance of the English Government; but to do that he must take Egyptian soil. He must take some land which has been, conceded to him for other purposes, and which, if I mistake not, he is precluded by the tenour of the existing Instruments from using, except for the purposes named in it. For that object he must obtain the consent of the Egyptian Government, and the consent of the Egyptian Government, in the view of most persons, under existing circumstances, will be held to pro-suppose the consent of the English Government. I shall be glad to know if the noble Earl has formed any conception in his own mind of the terms upon which that consent will be given? Shall we be prepared to give M. de Lesseps another Canal without taking any security that the passage of British commerce will be more free, the administration more impartial, and the facilities offered more complete than they are now? Shall we accept such bad terms as those which have driven the shipping interest to so marked a

  119
  demonstration of dissatisfaction at the present time? Again, I feel it will be necessary for us, after this strange history, to press the noble Earl rather more earnestly to be frank with us as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with respect to Egypt. Now that such doctrines have been advanced with respect to the power of piercing the Canal, such difficulties have been raised up to the future development of British commerce in that direction that the power which England holds on the Isthmus at this moment becomes to us an object of greater interest and significance. And the precise intentions of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the occupation of Egypt will become a matter on which, I think, Parliament will require to be informed before it separates. Those six months which Lord Hartington said would see the end of the British occupation are now nearly expired—we are in the sixth month. I presume that by this time the Government have come to some resolution as to the course they intend to pursue. Again, I should like to know precisely how all this history leaves the alleged and assumed right of monopoly of M. de Lesseps and his Company? I quite agree with the noble Earl that we ought to treat the Company with all good feeling and equity; but I do not agree with him in the reason he gave for that opinion. He spoke as if the Company was in some sort a representative of France. I cannot admit that doctrine for a single moment. It is a private Company, and nothing more—a private Company in which England is nearly as large a shareholder as France. But, of course, it is entitled, like every other Company, to just, equitable, and considerate treatment. But, hitherto, Her Majesty's Government have entertained what has seemed to me a strange idea—namely, that that considerate treatment involved the necessity of a recognition of monopoly, not justified certainly on the surface of the Instruments we possess, not assigned by any unanimity of legal opinion, refused to them by many distinguished authorities, and obviously inconsistent with the first interests of this country. I hope, now that this scheme has been abandoned, all that has happened in connection with the scheme is abandoned too; that we are to take the whole incident as not having occurred;
  120
  that all those gravely imprudent admissions which were made in the House of Commons are to be banished from our recollection as if they were a dream; that nothing which has been said, either hero or elsewhere, implies an admission of a monopoly which this country, by the authorized channels for the expression of its will, has never yet sanctioned; and that the admission of that monopoly shall not be held to have been established by the unfortunate expressions of certain Ministers of the Crown, especially as they themselves have said that those expressions were only drawn from thorn by the exigencies of debate. My Lords, these are important questions. I do not know whether the noble Earl will spontaneously give us any further information as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in this respect. At all events, when we see the Papers, and have fuller means of considering the history and incidents of this almost unexampled diplomatic transaction, we shall be able to judge how far it is our duty to take further measures for ascertaining, it may be, the views of Parliament, or of Her Majesty's Government, in respect to the interests of England, which appear, in this instance, to have been so severely compromised.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION REPEAL BILL.—(No. 153.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
SUMMARY JURISDICTION REPEAL BILL.—(No. 153.)

  SECOND READING.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNcomplained of the rapidity with which this Bill was being hurried through the House. It was only introduced a few days since, and appeared to be a most important measure, as it proposed to repeal no less than 137 modern Acts of Parliament. He hoped the Motion for the second reading would not be persevered with.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, inasmuch as the Bill dealt with such a number of Acts of Parliament, and as the noble Earl desired to look into details, he would not ask their Lordships to go into Committee on it for a week or 10 days. With regard to the principle, the Bill was one of a series, some of which had already been passed, which had for their object the repeal of ob-

  121
  solete Acts of Parliament. The Acts it was now proposed to repeal had been carefully considered by the gentlemen who had drawn the Bill, and the questions raised by them during its preparation had been considered by himself, either alone or with the assistance of other Judges. He hoped their Lordships would assent to the second reading.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole Muse on Thursday the 2nd of August next.

FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 113.)
(The Earl Granville.)
FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 113.)

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  On Question, "That the Bill do pass?"
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSproposed to add to Sub-section 3 of Clause 7, as an Amendment, the following Proviso:—
  "Provided always, that this sub-section shall not apply to adult males employed in white-lead factories."
  The noble Earl remarked, that this Amendment raised a question which caused considerable discussion when the Bill was in Committee—namely, whether the provisions of the Bill should extend to adult labour—and on that occasion an attack was made upon an Association with which he was connected—the Property and Liberty Defence Association. That Association was not of a Party character, and it had been formed because the legislation of the last few years had given rise to the notion that it was necessary that something should be clone to safeguard individual liberty, and protect property from confiscation. This Bill was promoted for a sanitary purpose to render a very noxious trade less hurtful to those who engaged in it. Nothing could be further from the intention of the Association to which he had referred than to countenance the doctrine that the public health was not a proper subject for the State to legislate upon. There were many cases in which the State ought to interfere, such as where a person was carrying on a trade which was a nuisance to the whole neighbourhood. In such cases the State proceeded upon the principle that no man was entitled, in his pursuit of gain, to endanger the lives of
  122
  his fellows. These were legitimate cases for the interference of the State, provided the State could interfere effectively. The recent Mines Regulation Act and Mr. Plimsoll's Merchant Shipping Act were instances in which the State had interfered, though those Acts had not met with the success that had been anticipated. So much for the general question. He would now address himself to the particular point to which he wished to call the attention of their Lordships, and which was altogether an individual matter, involving, not the general subject of the public health, but the conduct of each particular workman. Looking at it in that point of view, he should say it was the first Bill ever introduced into Parliament which proscribed how a man should be dressed, what kind of boots he should wear, how he was to wash and brush himself, and what beverage he should drink. All that was perfectly novel and lay outside the scope of legislation. The noble and learned Lord sitting on the third Bench opposite (Lord Bramwell) justified the proposal, not on the ground of the workman's health, but in order to prevent his coming upon the rates, when the rateyayers would have to pay for his care and nursing. If that argument were to be followed, it would be necessary to have an Inspector to look after the workman night and day to see that he did not do anything which might load to his being thrown upon the rates. In fact, if the Bill passed in its present shape the state of things would be this—that a full-grown English workman would be subject to be examined as to his dress, his habits, and his drink. Nay, more; the Bill provided that the Secretary of State might make special rules, which were to be complied with with the same amount of obedience as were the requirements of the Schedule. Whoever did not act up to these requirements and special rules would at once become a criminal, liable to be called upon to pay a fine of £2, or else be sent to prison. It should be noted that by a disregard of the rules in the Bill a workman could only jeopardize his own health, and could in no way harm that of the community. If the programme shadowed forth by a Cabinet Minister, who hailed from Birmingham, and who appeared to ride roughshod over his Colleagues and everybody else—if that programme

  123
  were realized, and the working men had complete control over the situation, they would certainly never assent to such provisions as were contained in the present measure; and on those grounds he submitted his Amendment for the acceptance of the House.
  Amendment moved,
  At end of Clause 7 to add ("Provided always, that Sub-section (3) shall not apply to adult males employed in white-lead factories.")—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not wish, in the slightest degree, to wring the noble Earl's withers, and he wished him every possible success in establishing on a firmer basis than they had managed to do in this country the principles of liberty and the rights of property. At the same time, there were noble Lords in whose efforts in the cause of liberty he had more confidence than in those of his noble Friend on the Cross Benches. There were clearly cases in which it was within the province of the State to prevent a man from becoming, not only a burden to himself, but a burden to others; and, in his opinion, the case with which the Bill dealt was one of them. That the proposed regulations were necessary was proved in many ways. He had received a copy of the finding of a Coroner's Jury in the case of a woman whose death was ascribed to the result of a neglect of such regulations as the Bill would enforce. The regulations to which the noble Earl objected were observed in all the best white lead factories already; and the Home Office authorities had sent a copy of the Bill to every employer engaged in the particular trade to which it referred, and not one objection had been made to it. It would be a great evil to encourage the burden to the poor rates caused by the persons disabled in white lead factories, owing to the absence of these essential yet simple precautions. The noble Earl's Amendment, he might remark, did not extend to women, who, if they were convicted of failing to observe the provisions of the Act, would still be liable to a penalty. He trusted their Lordships would not sanction the Amendment.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 11; Non-Contents 36: Majority 25.
  Resolved in the negative.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved an Amendment which, he said, would be of some importance in its bearing upon Scotland as regarded the employment of children. Under the Act of 1878 children were employed ill the morning or the afternoon set, and the time was regulated by the dinner hour, which in England practically came to 1 o'clock. Now, in Scotland, there were certain factories where the dinner hour was 2. or 3 o'clock; therefore, the compulsory division of the day in the manner now prescribed had been found to be attended with some inconvenience, He proposed that the division in the eases he had alluded to should be made at 1 o'clock.
  Moved, in page 4, after Clause 14, to insert as a new clause—
  (Amendment as to period of employment of children in certain cases.)
  "Notwithstanding anything in section twelve or section fourteen of The Factory and Workshop Act, 1878, the period of employment for a child in an afternoon set in a factory or workshop, where the dinner-time does not begin before two o'clock in the afternoon, may begin at noon; provided that in such case the period of employment in the morning set shall end at noon."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  Clause agreed to.
  THE EARL OF PEMBROKEmoved, in Clause 15, to insert words which would enable the local authorities or au Inspector, by express permission, to license a werkshop underground. He said that a well-ventilated place underground might be better than a stuffy little shop abeve ground. The Amendment was perfectly harmless, because there was nothing in the Bill to compel either the local authorities or the Inspector to grant a licence.
  Amendment moved, Clause 15, page 4, line 21, after ("lawful") insert ("without the express permission of the local authority of the district or an inspector.")—(The Earl of Pembroke.)
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the Government could not agree to the Amendment. He thought that the matter ought to be decided in ono way. It was not desirable to leave it to the local authorities, who might give different decisions.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsupported the Amendment.
  EARL FORTESCUEobserved, that when they found so much inconsistency in high quarters on the subject of the Contagious Diseases Acts, they need not be very much alarmed at the notion of a few local authorities coming to different decisions as to the exact description of places to be sanctioned.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that no answer had been given to the argument of his noble Friend that a well-ventilated place below ground might be better than a stuffy little shop abeve ground.
  THE EARL OF PEMBROKEsaid, that he was willing to strike out "the local authority" from his Amendment, and to confine the power of sanctioning the places in question to the Inspector.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 18; Not-Contents 28: Majority 10.

  CONTENTS.

  Cowper, E.

  Bramwell, L.

  Devon, E.

  Forester, L.

  Fortescue, E.

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

  Milltown, E.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. [Teller.]

  Leconfield, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Radnor, E.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Redesdale, E.

  Sandwich, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Lifford, V.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Selberne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Aberdare, L.

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

  Bedford, D.

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Grafton, D.

  Westminster, D.

  Carlingford, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Derby, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Hothfield, L.

  Granville, E.

  Howth, L. (E. Howth.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Morley, E.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Northbrook, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Robartes, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Resolved in the negative.

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Lord President.)
POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.

  (NO. 140.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNasked what the objects of the Bill were? He could not understand it.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)explained that some Unions in the West of Ireland, for the purpose of relieving distress, exceeded their legal borrowing powers with the permission of the Government; and the clauses to which the noble Earl referred were for the purpose of giving them a legal indemnity.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.
  House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.