Sitting of 10 July 1900

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went; and, being returned—
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to a number of Bills (see page 1077).

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, viz.:—
  Crystal Palace Company Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

READING CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS) BILL.
  WOLVERHAMPTON GAS BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  VALE OF RHEIDOL LIGHT RAILWAY BILL.
  Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
  EDINBURGH DISTRICT LUNACY BOARD BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time and passed, with Amendments.

  ALEXANDRA PARK BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  GRE AT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords],
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  SHANNON WATER AND ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  GLASGOW DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL. [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.

    LONDON (ST. LUKE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    LONDON (SOUTHWARK) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    Read the third time, and passed.

    EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [Lords].
    Read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,. "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee."—(Lord Hugh Cecil.)
    Debate arising, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL [Lords].
    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [Lords].
    Read a second time, and committed.

    STANDING ORDERS.
    Resolutions reported from the Committee:—

    1. "That, in the case of the Caledonian Railway Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

    2. "That, in the case of the South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:— That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that Clause 49 be struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

    Resolutions agreed to.

    SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL [Lords].
    Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
    Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    London United Tramways Bill.—That they do request that this House will be pleased to give leave to Thomas Skewes-Cox, esquire, a Member of this House, to attend in order to his being examined as a witness before the Select Committee appointed by their Lordships on the London United Tramways Bill.
    Lords Message requesting the attendance of Mr. Thomas Skewes-Cox considered.
    And Mr. Thomas Skewes-Cox, in his place, having consented:—Leave given.
    That they have agreed to—Great Eastern Railway Bill; Hamilton, Mother-well, and Wishaw Tramways Bill; St. Albans Water Bill; London and Saint Katherine Docks and East and West India Dock Companies Bill, with Amendments.
    That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act for rendering valid certain letters patent granted to John Pearce Roe for an invention for improvements in apparatus for shipping or transferring coal and other materials." Roe's Patent Bill [Lords].

    ROE'S PATENT BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL.
  Petition from Kingston-upon-Hull, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from Kingston-upon-Hull, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Stony Stratford; Hornsey; and Norwich; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATTNG LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Retford; Worksop; and Norwich; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from Vale of Leven, against; to lie upon the Table.

  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Darsham; Retford; Norwich; and Louth; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, BEPOBTS, ETC.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890, AND MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council, of the 29th June, 1900, entitled The Cyprus Maritime Order in Council, 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council,, of 29th June, 1900, authorising certain Pilot Signals [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PILOTAGE.
  Copy presented, of Abstract of Returns, relating to Pilots and Pilotage in the United Kingdom (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 242, of Session 1900) as furnished in the various Pilotage Authorities [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 265.]
  WAR RELIEF FUNDS COMMITTEE.
  Copy presented, of Minutes of Evidence, given before the Committee, with Appendices, the Report of the Committee, and an Index [by Command I: to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
  Copy presented, of List of all Pensions granted during the year ended 20th June, 1900, and charged upon the Civil List [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 266.]
  ARMY VOLUNTEERS.
  Copy presented, of Proposed Regulations under the Volunteers Bill now before Parliament as to special engagements by members of Volunteer Corps, [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTION.

  CHIN A— ANTI-FOREIGN OUTBREAK— CO-OPERATION OF JAPAN IN SUPPRESSING DISTURBANCES.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to show that Japan did not at the beginning of the Chinese crisis despatch a sufficient force to restore order at Peking owing to the opposition of the Russian Government.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): Her Majesty's Government are not aware of any such opposition having been made by the Russian Government.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Japan has imposed any conditions upon or attached any stipulations to the employment of her troops in North China.
  *MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: On behalf of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the date on which Her Majesty's Government addressed a communication to the Government of Japan, proposing that larger reinforcements should be sent to China; and whether the terms of such communication can be laid upon the Table of the House.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Communications between Her Majesty's Government and Japan respecting the increase of force required at Ta-ku began on 13th June, and they have continued without intermission. On 22nd June Her Majesty's Government addressed an urgent telegram to the Chargé d'Affaires at Tokio, instructing him to inform the Japanese Government of the critical position of the Legations, and of the large reinforcements placed under orders from India, and urging on the Japanese Government the necessity of immediate action. The papers to be laid will include these despatches.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Did Lord Salisbury offer any inducement to Japan to send reinforcements?
  [No answer was given.]
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the consent of the Japanese Government to send large reinforcements to put down the disturbances in China is conditional upon the consent of all the Great Powers; and, if so, whether that consent has been given.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The answer is "No."
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: To which of my two questions does that apply—the first or the last?
  *MR. BRODRICK: I intended to convey that, as far as the Government are aware, there has been no opposition on the part of other Governments. The answer, therefore, applies to both questions.

  POSITION AT PEKING—SIR CLAUDE MACDONALD'S DESPATCHES.
  *SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the date of the last despatch received from Sir Claude MacDonald; whether our Foreign Office has any knowledge of despatches of a later date, sent from foreign Legations at Peking, having been received; if so, can he state the date of the latest despatch from any of the Legations at that place; and, whether any despatch known to the Foreign Office gives any information as to the steps taken, and preparations made, for the defence of the Legations and protection of foreign residents in Peking; and, if so, whether he has any objection to indicate generally the nature of such arrangements so reported.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The las telegram addressed by Sir C. MacDonald to the Foreign Office was dated 12th June, three days after Admiral Seymour had landed his force. In it Sir Claude urged immediate measures, which had been already taken. I believe no telegram of later date was received from any other Lega-

  1109
  tion. Despatches up to 28th May from Sir C. MacDonald were received yesterday. In one of these he describes an interview held on 27th May with Prince Ching, at which the latter stated that as Commander of the Peking Field Force he was willing personally to undertake the protection of all foreigners. It was, however, decided to send for the Legation Guards, but no assault on the Legations appeared at that moment to be contemplated.

  NAVAL GUARD AT THE PEKING LEGATION.
  *SIR J. COLOMB: I bog to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the British Legation at Peking has any guard furnished by the naval forces on the China station; if so, what is the strength and composition of the guard detached for that service; and whether it was composed of supernumeraries to the complements of ships on the station.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): Yes. So far as is known there are throe officers and seventy-five men of the Royal Marines at Peking. In all probability this guard was drawn from the Wei-hai-wei detachment, and not from ships' complements. Fuller information will doubtless be received later.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR — HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS— COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Sir William MacCormac, who was last week the guest in Dublin of Professor Cunningham, and Dr. Jameson, the Director General of the Army Medical Department, or either of them, were consulted with reference to the appointment of Professor Cunningham as a member of the South African Commission to inquire into the charges brought against the administration of the Army Medical Department, and whether there was any communication with these gentlemen directly or indirectly with reference to Professor Cunningham's appointment.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think that the hon. Member will see that this is a question which ought not to be put, and, if put, one which ought not to be answered.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Am I to conclude that the answer to the question is in the affirmative, and that he is an agent of the Army Medical Department?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; the hon. Member must only conclude that the question is one which ought not to be put.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to when he will announce the new constitution of the committee of inquiry?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope to be able to give the House the information as to the addition of the new names at a very early date; but it is not a matter easy of negotiation, nor is it to be rapidly carried through.

  PROMOTIONS FOR NAVAL OFFICERS SERVING IN SOUTH AFRICA.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended to issue, before the end of the war, a list of promotions for naval officers who have served with the field forces in Natal or elsewhere in South Africa, similar to that issued for the officers who have come home in the "Powerful"; and whether promotions for naval officers serving with the field forces will be antedated in the case of lieutenants senior to those whose promotions have already been gazetted, so as to avoid serious injustice.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The question of any Naval promotions that may be made on account of the war in South Africa will be considered when the despatch is received from the Field Marshal commanding in chief, giving the names of all officers whom he wishes to recommend. Should the Naval Brigades be withdrawn before the end of the war, their case will be specially considered. I am not prepared to answer the last question of the hon. Gentleman.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that serious injustice will be done to these Naval officers if the promotions are not ante-dated, as is suggested in the question?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member had better wait and see what is done.

  STORES BORROWED BY THE ARMY FROM THE NAVY.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consent to lay upon the Table at an early date a Return showing up to 31st December, 1899, the amounts of the various classes of warlike stores borrowed by the Army from the Navy for the purposes of the campaign in South Africa.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There will be no objection to laying the Return, but some of the figures are not yet at our disposal.

  SHORNCLIFFE CAMP—HOSPITAL ARRANGEMENTS — DEATH OF SERGEANT WILMSHURST.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he is aware that at an inquest held on Saturday last, at Shorncliffe Camp, on Sergeant Wilmshurst, of the Sussex Regiment, it was shown in evidence that there was not a single orderly of the Army Medical Corps in the hospital, and that Wilmshurst, when taken to the hospital in a fit, died before a doctor could be found; and in view of the comments made by the jury at the inquest, whether he can say what steps, if any, are now being taken to secure without delay and adequate staff' for our military hospitals both at home and abroad.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The hon. Member has been misinformed. Sergeant Wilmshurst was brought to hospital at 5.40 a.m., and was received by the orderly wardmaster, who was a Militia sergeant trained in Army Medical Corps-duties at Aldershot, and by a first-class orderly of the Royal Army Medical Corps, who had served both at home and abroad, and rejoined for hospital duty as a Royal Reservist in March last. The medical officer was sent for and arrived in a few minutes. The man was unconscious when brought to hospital and evidently dying, but not in a fit. Examination after death showed extensive heart disease quite sufficient to account for the suddenness of his death. No comment or rider was attached by the jury to their verdict. The staff serving at the hospital consists of seventeen non-commissioned officers and men of the Royal Army Medical Corps, besides regimental soldiers.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: What proportion of that staff is at the hospital at the; present time?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The whole of it is there now, and was there on the occasion in question. The hon. Member read a completely misleading paragraph in the newspapers, for which there was not a. vestige of foundation.

  NAVAL MANŒUVRES OF 1899—WATERTUBE BOILERS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of Vice-Admiral Domvile on the Naval Manœuvres of 1899; and will he in any case lay upon the Table that portion of the Report which relates to the water-tube boilers of H.M..S. "Europa."
  MR. GOSCHEN: I do not propose to lay the Report of Admiral Domvile on the Table of the House, but the defects of the "Europa" during the manœuvres in question will be fully set forth in a Memorandum on Belleville boilers, which is being prepared for the discussion on Vote 8.

  PAY OF ENGINEERS OF THE FLEET.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the recent increase of pay to the engineers of the Fleet is being recouped to the Admiralty by reductions in charge pay to some of the engineers both for cruisers and destroyers; whether charge pay to engineers in charge of machinery of destroyers is to be lowered from 3s. to. 1s. 6d.; and whether there is a scarcity of engineers, so that it has been found necessary to place warrant officers in charge of machinery on three of the destroyers.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,):. The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative. The maximum rate of charge pay has been reduced, and the whole scale has been recast on the recommendation of the engineer officers themselves, the net result of the changes in regard to pay and allowances of engineer officers generally being, an increased charge to the Crown of £14,000 a year. The future rate of charge pay for de-

  1113
  stroyers will be 2s., and not 1s. 6d. as stated in the question. In accordance with the purpose for which the warrant rank of artificer engineer was created, these officers have been placed in charge of the machinery of a number of smaller vessels, and included in these are four destroyers of the older twenty-seven knot type. Such officers are considered as available engineer officers in the ships to which they are appointed, and such appointment is no indication of a dearth of engineer officers.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: But is it not the fact that certain individual engineer officers will receive a less payment for their services by this reduction of pay than they have hitherto received?
  MR. MACARTNEY: Arrangements have been made to prevent any loss, but it is true that the maximum has been reduced to make a better distribution. Certain individuals in the future will receive less than they have been receiving hitherto.

  INDIA—HONNIBAL SHOOTING CASE.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Clare, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the Honnibal shooting case, when Captain Wood, accompanied by other officers, fired into a sugar cane plantation and hit an old man; whether he is aware that a villager named Kenguri detained the officers and was afterwards sentenced to four months imprisonment on a charge of assault; whether inquiries have been made as to the injuries sustained by the old man at the hands of the officers; and whether he will lay a statement of the whole case upon the Table of the House.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): From information received from India, I understand that an officer while out shooting accidentally wounded a native with small shot; subsequently a crowd of villagers collected, and certain of them acted in such a manner as to induce the officers to bring an action for assault and wrongful restraint. I should add that the first acts after their release were to send a doctor to attend to the wounded man, and inform the collector of
  1114
  what had occurred. The result of the action at law was that a native was condemned to three months rigorous imprisonment and one month's simple imprisonment. An appeal has been lodged against this sentence, but has not yet been heard.

  INDIAN FIELD BATTERIES.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the reorganisation of the heavy field batteries in India diminishes either peace strength or war strength in guns and men.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The whole question of the organisation of artillery in India is now under consideration. Until a final decision has been reached, I cannot give information upon matters of detail.

  COLONIAL CHAPLAINS—CHAPLAINS ROYAL.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Colonial clergymen are eligible for appointment to the dignity of Chaplains Royal; and, if so, whether any such appointments have as yet been made.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I am informed by the Lord Chamberlain, in whose Department is the appointment of chaplains to the Queen, that Colonial clergymen, members of the Church of England, are eligible and have been appointed.

  PACIFIC ISLANDS—INCORPORATION OF CERTAIN GROUPS WITH NEW ZEALAND.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any decision has been arrived at on the subject of the memorandum from the Governor of New Zealand, suggesting the incorporation of certain groups of Pacific Islands within the boundaries of that colony; I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will explain how it is proposed to discriminate between the islands of the Pacific that will come within the legislative purview of the Australian Commonwealth Parliament, and those that are regarded by New Zealand as coming within her legitimate sphere of influence.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: In answer to these questions I have to state that the matter is one which must be discussed by Her Majesty's Government with the Governments of New Zealand and of the Commonwealth of Australia when it has been established.

  MOROCCO — ANGLO?FRENCH ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the recent occupation of Igli by French troops is in contravention of the delimitation of frontiers treaty of 1845, concluded between France and Morocco, and is also a breach of a subsisting convention agreed to by France and Great Britain; and whether any representations on the subject have been made to France by Her Majesty's Government; if so, with what result.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The question whether the occupation of Igli by French troops is in contravention of the Franco-Moorish Treaty of 1845 is one which primarily concerns the Governments of those two countries, and Her Majesty's Government do not at present feel called upon to pronounce an opinion on the subject. As I have already stated, Her Majesty's Government have no separate understanding with Franco in respect of Morocco. No representations on the subject of the French occupation of Igli have been made to France by Her Majesty's Government. They have, however, as I informed the hon. Member on 24th May, received assurances at different periods of the desire of the French Government to maintain the status quo.

  COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH GERMANY—POSITION OF CANADA.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the new Commercial Treaty now being negotiated with Germany, the Dominion of Canada is specially excepted from the favourable rates therein given to the remainder of the British Empire; whether this exception is made on account of the provisions of the tariff lately passed by the Parliament of Canada giving preferential tariff rates to the mother country, and to other portions of the Empire as compared with foreign countries; and whether, in view of the loss of trade that has been inflicted
  1116
  on Canada by the exclusion of her products from Germany, except on unfavourable terms, the Government have given any consideration to the question whether some compensating advantage can be given to Canada.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the negotiations with Germany as to the new Commercial Treaty were proceeding on the lines that it was not applicable to any colony unless notice was given on behalf of such colony that it desired to be included. The hon. Member was probably referring to the law which had been passed by the Reichstag pending the negotiations for the treaty. Under that law Germany had not extended to Canada and Barbados the most-favoured-nation treatment for their products, for those colonies had not, in the opinion of the German Government, reciprocated. He was not aware that the action of Germany had inflicted loss on the trade of Canada, which he was glad to say had greatly increased during recent years.
  GENERAL LAURIE: Has not the importation of Canadian products been forbidden in Germany, except on unfavourable terms, since Canada gave preferential rates to the mother country?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better put down notice of the question, as this is not a matter with the details of which I am familiar.

  LIGHTHOUSE COMMUNICATION— WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY.
  SIR R. PENROSE-FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Interdepartmental Committee to whom the question of wireless telegraphy for life-saving purposes has been referred is a Committee appointed in consequence of the recommendation contained in the final Report of the Royal Commission on Electrical Communication with Lighthouses and Light Vessels; and whether such Committee comprises all the representatives suggested by the Royal Commission—namely, the Board of Trade, the Post Office, the Trinity House, and other lighthouse authorities, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and the Admiralty.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): The Inter-departmental Committee to which my hon. friend refers was appointed to consider and report (a) with respect to the provision and maintenance of communication between outlying lighthouses and light vessels and the shore, and whether any, and, if so, what extension and improvement can be made therein, special regard being had to a system of wireless telegraphy; (b) how far and subject to what conditions the means of communication with such light stations can be made available for private messages without affecting the efficiency and safety of the lighthouse service; and (c) how far the connections between shore lighthouses and post offices or coastguard stations should be made available for private messages. This Committee has superseded that which was appointed in consequence of the recommendation contained in the final Report of the Royal Commission on Electric Communication with Lighthouses and Light Vessels, and comprises representatives of the Board of Trade, Admiralty, Treasury, Post Office, and Trinity House.
  SIR R. PENROSE-FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give instructions to the Inter-departmental Committee to whom the question of wireless telegraphy for life-saving purposes has been referred, to communicate with the German Government and the German lifeboat authorities as to the exact nature of the system in use in the Borkum light-vessel.
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Sir; the Committee will endeavour to ascertain the nature of the system of communication with the Borkum light-vessel which has been adopted.

  SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, does he propose to proceed with the motion for the Second Reading of the Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Bill, which substitutes a varying rate of interest for the fixed rates now payable by law to the depositors in Post Office Savings Banks; and, if so, can he say on what day the Second Reading debate will be taken.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I am not in a position to say at present.

  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL— JUDGES ON JURY VERDICTS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that at the recent Assizes at Chelmsford and Worcester respectively, judges have in two cases publicly expressed disapproval of the verdicts of juries on prisoners tried before them, he will use his influence with the Government to induce them to take steps to establish a Court of Criminal Appeal; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the cases of these prisoners by way of review of the convictions.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): The cases referred to are being enquired into, but I do not think that what has occurred in them is at all decisive on the difficult question as to the desirability of establishing a Court of Criminal Appeal.

  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS COMMISSION— HARDWICKE PAPERS.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Historical Manuscripts Commission will publish in their series of reports extracts from the Historical and Political Correspondence and Papers of the First Earl of Hardwicke, recently purchased by the trustees of the British Museum.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): The Queen's authority to the Commissioners directs them to investigate manuscripts belonging to private persons, and it is clearly better that they should limit themselves to this field instead of encroaching on the work which is at present admirably performed by the officers of the Museum itself.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLER: Then are we to understand that where valuable manuscripts are in private muniment rooms, and the nation purchases them, the nation is to be excluded from seeing them?
  MR. HANBURY: The nation can see them, of course, at the British Museum.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLER: They cannot.

  POSTAL DELAY IN THE METROPOLIS.
  MR. COHEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that a number of letters posted in closed envelopes in the E.C. district by the Bank of England and other dividend-paying agencies on 30th June and subsequent days, and containing dividend warrants and other cheques, were not delivered in districts within the metropolitan area till periods varying from twelve hours to three days after posting; and whether the new postal arrangements affect letters posted and delivered within the metropolitan area; and if not, what is the cause of these delays, and when may they be expected to cease.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General, I am informed, is not aware that any such delay as the hon. Member describes occurred; but it is probable that some of the large number of letters collected from the Bank of England on the date named were not delivered in ordinary course, because it appears to have been found impossible at the Bank to comply with the Department's request that the letters should be divided into batches for London and the provinces respectively. The new arrangements do not, as a rule, affect letters posted and delivered within the metropolitan area, but it is essential to punctual delivery that letters posted in the E.C. district in the usual way, should be put into the proper boxes according to their destination; that is to say, London letters into the London box and provincial letters into that for the provinces.
  MR. COHEN: May I ask whether it is not possible to give some clearer indication on the letter-boxes as to the division in which letters should be posted; because the present instructions are invisible in the dark hours?
  MR. HANBURY: Now that letters are sorted, some at St. Martin's-le-Grand and some at Mount Pleasant, it is all the more important that the right letters should be put into the right boxes.
  1120
  Whether the intimation to the public is sufficiently clear I do not know, but I will suggest to the Postmaster General that the public should be fully impressed with this necessity.
  MR. COHEN: Are the double boxes confined to the E.C. district?
  MR. HANBURY: Oh, no. They are all over London.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLER: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that now it takes a longer time to send a letter from the E.C. district to Kensington than to Birmingham?
  MR. HANBURY: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is correct in his statement. I myself have had experience of a number of letters so delayed.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to put an end to the delay?
  MR. HANBURY: It is not in my power to do so. But I will press the Postmaster General to do so.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is there to be an extension of this system of making the public sort its own letters under penalty of delay in the delivery?
  MR. HANBURY: I do not know whether it will be extended. But it is universal all over London.
  AN HON. MEMBER: No.
  MR. DILLON: Is this system the result of the appointment of Lord Londonderry?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !

  DELAYS IN AUSTRALIAN MAIL DELIVERIES IN LONDON.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that there have been repeated delays in the delivery of the Australian mails in London through the inefficiency of the Continental railway arrangements; and whether the Postmaster General can bring any pressure or influence to bear upon the French and Italian railway

  1121
  authorities with a view to securing the rapid and uninterrupted transit of the Australian mails to London.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is aware that on one or two recent occasions the Australian mails have sustained delay in their transmission from Naples to this country, and, as was stated in reply to a somewhat similar question in this House last week, he is making continued effort to prevent delay in this service. Representations have already been addressed to both the French and Italian Governments on the subject.

  CALEDONIAN RAILWAY—DUMFRIESSHIRE TRAIN SERVICE.
  MR. JOHNSON-FERGUSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the service of trains between Carlisle and the local stations of the Caledonian Railway in Dumfriesshire, which frequently entails on passengers to and from stations south of Carlisle a delay at Carlisle of two or three hours before getting a train to take them to their destination; and whether, considering the obligation of the railway companies to provide reasonable facilities, he will, in the interest of the public, use his good offices with the Caledonian Railway Company to secure a better service of local trains.
  MR. RITCHIE: I have been in communication with the railway company concerned in regard to the hon. Member's question, and they state that the local trains now run to and from Carlisle are as numerous as the demands of the traffic would justify. It is added that an additional train put on experimentally last year to connect with the down day express from London was made little use of. I shall be happy to show the company's reply to the hon. Member if he so desires.

  FEE GRANTS (SCOTLAND) RETURN.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can state the amounts paid out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account in respect of each of the four headings left blank, for the year ending 31st March, 1899, in the Return headed Fee Grant (Scotland), No. 224 of that year, and if he can state the amounts respectively under the same
  1122
  headings, and also under the heading immediately following, for the year ending 31st March, 1900.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The figures desired by the hon. Member in the order of the headings of the Return are for 1899: £161,912; £5,379 12s. 2d.; 621,405; £372,332 14s. For 1900: £149,073; £64,036 15s. 5d.; 626,341; £374,090 13s.; £321,396.

  COAGH (CO. TYRONE) POSTAL SERVICE.
  MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if his attention has been called to the fact that the existing post office service at Coagh, county Tyrone, is defective in consequence of its mails being sent viâ Moneymore instead of from Cookstown; is he aware that the change of connection to Cookstown could be made at slight cost, and, if made, that English and Dublin mails would reach Coagh seven hours and thirty-five minutes sooner than they do at present, and that replies to English letters would reach their destinations in two days instead of four; and whether, with a view to remedy the grievance, he will reconsider the memorial of the inhabitants of Coagh and district.
  MR. HANBURY: The question of serving Coagh from Cookstown instead of from Money more, with the view of accelerating the day mail from Dublin containing the English letters, was considered last year, but it was found that the change could not be made without considerable additional expense, which the circumstances did not justify.
  MR. DOOGAN: I will send the right hon. Gentleman some information on the subject.

  IRISH MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the provision of the new Sanitary Order of the Irish Local Government Board, by which the tenure of Irish medical officers of health has been fundamentally altered from that provided by

  1123
  the Act of 1878, which secured fixity of tenure save for sufficient cause; and whether he can state the authority under which the alteration has been made.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRLLAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The provisions of the new Sanitary Order in regard to the tenure of medical officers of health are identical, except for slight differences of wording, with those contained in the Order issued under the Public Health Act of 1878.

  LICENSING CONVICTION AT CAHIRCIYEEN.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that at the Cahirciveen petty sessions, which were held about the middle of June, 1900, the following magistrates attended: Messrs. J. W. Leahy, A. J. M'Dermott, R.M., and the Hon. Francis Spring Rice, and that a local licensed publican named Mary O'Neil, of Renard, was fined by those magistrates in a sum of £2, and a record on the licence; whether the offence charged against Mary O'Neil was the sale of drink after the legal closing hours; whether he is aware that the only evidence given in this case was that the licensed publican treated gratuitously the man found on the premises to a half glass of whisky; and, whether he can state what offence was committed.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The facts are as stated in the first and second paragraphs, except that the date of the petty sessions was the 12th May. As regards the third paragraph, the decision of the justices at potty sessions was upheld on an appeal brought by Mrs. O'Neil to the Killarney quarter sessions; evidence to the effect stated may have been given on her behalf—for that appears to be the usual defence—but evidence of a sale of drink, apparently of a more convincing character, was produced by the police against this publican, who has three times previously within the last three years been convicted of a similar offence.
  MR. FLAVIN: Was the man found on licensed premises a fisherman who had slept seven miles away the night before, so that he was a bona fide traveller?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !

  ROCKCOKRY SPIRIT LICENCE CASE.
  MR. MACALEESE: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any report has boon made to the constabulary or excise authorities in Ireland in relation to the case wherein the agent of Lord. Dartrey's estate obtained, in his own name, a transfer of a spirit licence at Rock carry petty sessions; has the agent,. Mr. Leslie, complied with the requirements of the law by placing his name above the public-house door as licensed to sell drink for consumption on or off the premises, or is the name of his predecessor still there; and has the Government finally decided to take no action in relation to the manner in which this, magistrate and land agent obtained the. transfer.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The police have no duties to discharge in relation to the matters mentioned in the first paragraph. When the transfer of the licence is completed it will be the duty of the police to see that the person named in the excise licence complies with the pro visions of the law referred to in the: second paragraph. The answer to the last paragraph is in the affirmative. No necessity for any action on the part of the Government has, so far, arisen.

  LOCOMOTIVES ON IRISH PUBLIC ROADS.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the. Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can see his way to add to the Local Government (Ireland) Amendment Bill a clause to assimilate the law in Ireland to that of England in reference to the use of locomotives on public roads.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Such a clause would be out of order and could not be, added to the Bill.

  FISHERY REPRESENTATION ON THE IRISH AGRIOULTUKAL.BOARD.
  MR. SETON-KARR: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland, as under the provisions of the; Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, the entire powers, and duties of the Inspector of Irish Fisheries are placed ! under the control of the Department created by the said Act whether the Agricultural Council and the

  1125
  Agricultural Board have power to advise the Department on the various subjects, including fisheries; whether the said Council and Board are now fully constituted; and will, he explain why, although the Department had the power of appointing thirty-four members to the said Agricultural Council and four member to the said Agricultural Board, no representatives of the large fishery owners have been selected among the said members so appointed; and whether the Government will take any, and, if so, what steps to secure adequate representation of the large fisheries of Ireland on the Agricultural Board or other appropriate Department.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUE (for Mr. PLUNKETT): The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative, but the disposal of the sum of £10,000 a year assigned for the purposes of sea fisheries in the Act is under the full control of the Department, and does not require the consent of any other body. The Council and the Board are fully constituted. In selecting persons for appointment on both bodies the Department took into consideration the various public interests involved, and did not consider it their duty to provide, as the hon. Member's question appears to suggest, for the representation of private interests. I understand that amongst the representatives appointed are persons who were chosen with reference to fishery interests,
  MR. SETON-KAEE: Is it not a fact that, while the fisheries are valued at, £600,000, the only two members appointed to represent it are one whose fishery interest is valued at £15 a year and another interested to the extent of £20 a year, while the rest of the industry is absolutely unrepresented?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! That hardly arises out of the question.

  ARKLOW FISHERMEN AND DRIFTNET FISHING.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will favourably consider the request of the fishermen of Arklow for the repeal of the laws prohibiting drift-net fishing between sunrise and sunset, as stated in their petition presented to this House.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUE: If a copy of the petition referred to be forwarded to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, the matter will be considered.

  IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD AND IRISH COUNTY COUNCILS,
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if an opportunity will be given this session to discuss the action of the Local Government Board for Ireland towards the Irish county councils.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUE: This matter has already been discussed twice, and I think it has had its proper share of Parliamentary time.

  IRISH NEWSPAPERS IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the TREASURY if he will take steps to secure that the local newspapers relating to the counties of Wexford and Kerry prior to the year 1835, which have accumulated in the British Museum, and are now about to be destroyed, be handed over to the county councils of these two counties respectively.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The British Museum Bill has been withdrawn, and the authorities, therefore, have no power to destroy the newspapers.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those county councils, have passed resolutions asking for the return of these papers? Have the British Museum authorities acceded to their request?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot say.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Have the trustees of the British Museum any legal power to destroy documents?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No. As I understand it, the Bill asked power to transfer the custody of the papers to the local authorities; but it has been with-drawn, and they must, therefore, retain them.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: When will the Memorandum on Water-tube

  1127
  Boilers be in the hands of Members? Will the Navy Vote be taken on Friday?
  MR. GOSCHEN: In all probability the Navy Estimates will be taken on Friday, and I hope that the Memorandum will be issued in time before the discussion. It depends, however, on the final print of the Memorandum whether the Estimates will be taken; but I am almost sure that they will.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: We shall know, at the latest, to-morrow?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes.
  MR. TENNANT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is still in hopes of being able to proceed with the Factories and Workshops Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes. I hope rto make a statement on Monday, and until then my hopes are not of a defined kind.
  MR. DILLON: When is it proposed to take the Third Reading of the Irish Tithes Bill? Will it be put down as the first Order of the Day?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope to take lit as the first Order on Thursday. Of course, it depends in part on the progress made with the Agricultural Holdings Bill.

  SUNDAY CLOSING (WALES) ACT (1881) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, etc., with Amendments.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 267.]
  Minutes of Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 267.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered on Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 291.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled "An Act for the regulation of the burning of human remains, and to enable burial authorities to establish crematoria." Cremation Bill [Lords].

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRADE, ETC.—COMPANIES BILL.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): I have to move the resolution standing in my name. I should like to explain that, although it has rather a formidable appearance, it is in accordance with custom, and the House will understand that even if it passes it will be entirely in the hands of the Committee to say on what days they will meet and how long they will sit. There is no intention to ask the Committee to suffer any undue strain either of time or attention; but a heavy Bill has to be dealt with, and, having regard to the late period of the session and the universal desire that this Bill or something like it should be passed, I hope that the House will assent to the motion. I may point out that so far we have only had three sittings, and each only lasted about two and a half hours. We have got through but very few clauses, and though I do not think there will be any necessity for very frequent sittings or undue debate, I do suggest it should be put in the power of the Committee to sit more frequently and longer if they so desire.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, until the conclusion of the consideration of the Companies Bill, the Standing Committee on Trade, etc., have leave to sit every day during the sitting, and notwithstanding the adjournment of the House."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
MR. OLDROYD: On what day will the Committee next sit?
MR. RITCHIE: It will sit on Thursday, and I want to make it possible for it to sit on Friday if it will consent to do so.
SIR J. FERGUSSON: Is this motion, which is of the kind usually made by the Chairman of the Committee, proposed with the consent of the Committee?
MR. GALLOWAYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had rather suggested that members of the Committee who had taken great interest in the Bill has obstructed its progress. Now, for his part he ventured to say that they, like himself, desired to see the Bill passed in the best possible form. It must be apparent to everybody on the Committee that it contained a great many points

1129
which the right hon. Gentleman himself had not even considered until the Committee sat. He was not suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman was in any way to blame for that, for, as they knew, the Bill had come down from the House of Lords, which had taken six years to produce it. The right hon. Gentleman now suggested that more time should be given to the Bill, and that the Committee should sit oftener. They had so far only held three sittings, each of them lasting rather over two and a half hours, and he did not think it could be denied that, they had made considerable progress. This motion had been made without the Committee being consulted and having an opportunity of stating whether or not they desired it. He for one strongly protested against it. Under it power was taken to sit on Saturdays, although he hoped it was not the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to do that. In order to make it quite clear, however, he would move as an Amendment to insert after "every day," "except Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays during the sitting of the House, but not later than half-past three."
MR. BARTLEY: Is it in order for an individual member of a Committee without consulting that Committee to move such a resolution as this?
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it not the fact that a Committee appointed by this House is a foreign body sitting outside, and of the proceedings of which this House has no knowledge until it receives its Report? Is it not the case that the House can only be properly informed of the proceedings of a Committee through its chairman?
*MR. SPEAKER: The motion is one for which there are precedents. It is in order for the Government dealing with a Government Bill to put down a motion of this kind without consulting the Chairman of the Committee. It is quite true that a motion is frequently made at the very commencement of the sitting of the House, and without notice, to enable a Committee to prolong its sitting, and that I do not put it from the Chair unless it is moved by the Chairman or some Member specially designated by him. But that only applies to motions made at that time, and of which no notice
1130
has been given. But this is a motion by the Government in respect of a Government Bill. Notice was given of it, and it is in order.
MR. BRODIE HOAREseconded the Amendment. He did not entirely agree with all said by the hon. Member who moved it, as he would like also to exclude Wednesdays, for the very good reason that the Public Accounts Committee, of which he was a member, met on that day, and obviously he could not be in two places at the same time. He wished, further, to add his testimony to what was said by the hon. Member for South-west Manchester, that there had been absolutely no obstruction and no long speeches. The divisions had been very close: in one the Government had been beaten, and in several cases they had only had a majority of two. The divisions had not been taken on party lines. The Bill had proved to be one of most extraordinary complication, and it required, if he might repeat a famous phrase, a "few men of common sense" to give it very careful consideration. Although ten clauses had been passed, the most contentious points had been reserved for the Report stage. If the motion of the right hon. Gentleman were carried, the only thing he could do would be to absent himself entirely from the Committee, and devote his energies to the Report stage. He had put down Amendments which he did not intend to be obstructive, but which he believed to be important, and he would move them some time, with a view to improving the administration of joint stock companies. He had given up the directorship of one of the two very important companies with which he was connected, in order to assist in passing a satisfactory Bill.
*MR. SPEAKER: The form of the Amendment would be improved if it were put as follows—
"To leave out the words 'every day' in order to insert 'on Mondays and Fridays until half-past Three o'clock.'"
MR. GALLOWAY: I will accept that form.
Amendment proposed—
"After the words 'every day,' to insert the words 'on Monday and Friday until half-past Three o'clock.' "—(Mr. Galloway.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'every day' stand part of the Question."
MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Member made one statement which I wish at once to contradict. I do not think he has been present at all the meetings.
MR. BRODIE HOARE: I was prevented by urgent business from attending yesterday's meeting, but I have been present at the others.
MR. RITCHIE: It was at the last meeting that the question arose of more frequent sittings. It is not accurate to say that all the important points have been reserved for the Report stage. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton if I am not correct in that. At the last meeting considerable dissatisfaction was expressed in more than one quarter at the short time the Committee had to work. It was suggested that the Committee should sit longer on that particular day, but there were some dissentients, and at last the Chairman said he would go down to the House and ask for liberty to sit. I then stated I would call further attention to the matter and move a resolution on the subject. Subsequently I consulted my hon. friend the Chairman of the Committee as to the best course to pursue, and he expressed his own readiness to come down and move the resolution now under debate. I said I did not think it was necessary that he should do so. It has now been moved in the usual form. I need hardly say I shall not ask the Committee to consent to meet on Saturdays, nor will it be invited to meet at any day or hour which would be inconvenient to the great bulk of the members. But it might sometimes sit till four or five o'clock, and perhaps meet on one or two extra days, so that it may get through its work, and report the Bill to the House in time to enable it to consider the various important questions involved. It is most desirable that we should make a strong endeavour to pass this Bill, which has been before Parliament four or five years.
SIR ALFRED HICKMAN: May I point out that this motion is purely a permissive one, and when it is passed it will still be in the hands of the Committee to decide when and how long it shall sit. I should be extremely sorry to see the labour spent on this Bill thrown away for the sake of having one or two additional meetings of the Committee.
MR. LAWSON WALTON: As a member of the Committee who has taken some little interest in the Bill, I venture to express a hope that the motion of the right, hon. Gentleman will be accepted. Some members of the Committee have, at considerable personal inconvenience, made a point of attending the meetings, and it has been not a little disappointing to find what an extremely small amount of time has been at our disposal. When only one or two matters have been discussed the hands of the clock have approached three, and the time has arrived for adjourning. If the motion is carried, the Committee will still be able to arrange its own meetings and consult its own convenience.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Do I understand that the Amendment as now worded will exclude Wednesdays?
*MR. SPEAKER: Yes.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: It is very important that members of the Public Accounts Committee should be present at the meetings of that body, and therefore I hope the House will agree to the exclusion of Wednesdays. I cannot comprehend the right hon. Gentleman coming down here otherwise than as the mouthpiece of the Committee; unless he is so his action strikes at the very root of the constitutional power of the Committee. If you are to say that a Committee is to be in the hands of any Member of the Government, and that any proposition, however wild, novel, or unexpected, may be brought forward by him simply because he happens to sit upon the Committee, you strike at the root of the authority and power of that Committee. It seems to be clear that in this instance the Committee has not been consulted. If it had been, then I conceive it was the duty of the Chairman, and not of an incidental member of the Government who happens to be on it, to act as its mouthpiece here. It behaves the House to deal very carefully with this matter. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his motion. I think he has done this thing without reflection, and here is an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to make a graceful concession and to state that he will accept the Amendment.
*SIR HENRY FOWLER: I feel it my duty to express my concurrence with what has fallen from the

1133
Members for West Wolverhampton and South Leeds, and I would also endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Hampstead that there is great need on the Committee for men of common sense. I would ask the House to deal with this matter in a common-sense way and not wander into any of the constitutional bypaths suggested by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. The hon. Member said that there was only one member of Her Majesty's Government upon that Committee; but I would remind him that upon that Committee there will be found the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and the Secretary to the Local Government Board. I think that is a very fair complement of Government representatives. This motion is really to enable the Committee to do what it likes. Under the rules of the House the moment the bell is heard tingling, whatever the Committee are doing, they have to stop. A Committee which assembles at twelve o'clock to rise at three, with an adjournment for half an hour for lunch, has not much time for business. The Committee come to the House and ask to be emancipated from this position, leaving the matter entirely in the hands of the Committee. My experience of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the Chairman of the Committee makes me absolutely certain that no measure will be passed by the Committee to interfere with the convenience of Members, or with Avednesdays or Saturdays. What we want to be able to do is to meet at eleven if we choose, or go on till five, in order to get through the work which the House has given us to do. I wish to ask another question, and it is whether this Bill is to be passed or not? A large number of hon. Members would have liked to have seen the Companies Bill made somewhat stronger; but, speaking with some knowledge of rejecting a Bill one session in the hope of a stronger measure being brought forward in the next session, I think a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and this is a very good Bill as far as it goes. Hon. Members will have an opportunity of considering the measure when it comes down from the Committee. In the meantime the Committee stage must be got through, and it cannot be got through in the limited time which is placed at the disposal of the Committee this session. I think it would be a very great pity
1134
and would strike a very serious blow at these Committees if, after a large number of Members had devoted their time and attention to endeavouring to pass a Bill, that Bill should be thrown over at the end of the session and all their labour wasted. I shall support the motion of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade.
MR. JAMES LOWTHEE: At the risk of wandering into one of those constitutional by-paths alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, I would like to call attention to the ordinary method of procedure. The right hon. Gentleman wants every Standing Committee to be the custodian of its own movements, to sit when it likes and where it likes. I must remind hon. Members that the House has always itself laid down a general rule upon this question which it has only varied under special circumstances. The service of the House, after you, Mr. Speaker, have taken the Chair, has always had precedence over all other business, and I do protest against the doctrine being laid down that the service of the House itself is to be put aside, and that hon. Members are to be called upon to perform dual services upstairs and down at the same time. The way to get over the difficulty is that the Committee should sit at a reasonable hour which suits the convenience of the Members, but they should not be permitted by the House to sit after 3.30. I think that to sit after that time would be running counter to all precedent, and it is not merely rod tape, but it simply means that the service of the House itself stands forward as our first consideration. I venture to suggest that 3.30 of the clock should be the limit.
MR. MACLEAN: As a humble member of the Standing Committee I wish to point out that the question is not so much whether the Bill is to pass or not, as was asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, but whether the Bill is to be passed with or without adequate discussion. It is impossible for this Bill to be passed with adequate discussion if you call the Committee together to discuss the Bill when the busiest members of it are engaged elsewhere. They will not attend then, and the measure will be discussed in a very perfunctory manner. What is

1135
the meaning of all this hurry? I never saw the motion of the right hon. Gentleman until I came down to the House today, and nobody ever suspected that such a motion was going to be made. One might assume from this hurry that the existence of the Government was at stake, and that the Government would inflict upon the country the calamity of going out of office if the Bill were not passed. It is a most contentious and difficult Bill, and it is impossible not to admire the ingenuity and skill with which the Committee have discussed every line and word of the clauses of the Bill already dealt with. I think the House should have an almost perfect Bill brought before it. It is really of little importance whether the Bill is passed this year or next year, for it does not virtually affect the business of the country. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has shown the slightest reason for the extraordinary course which he has taken.
*MR. MARKS: As a member of this Committee, I wish to say that I share the expression of regret made by my hon. friend that this matter was not mentioned when the Committee was sitting because if it had been so mentioned an opportunity would have been given of making a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill which I may be permitted to make now, and which would tend to save time. It is that he should confer with those members of the Committee who put down acceptable Amendments on the Paper with a view to reducing the amount of discussion that goes on in connection with them. During the past three sittings we have been discussing Amendment after Amendment and voting them down, and after they have been discussed and rejected the right hon. Gentleman has more than once accepted some Amendment which has stood on the Paper the whole time. If those Amendments had been accepted in the first instance, all the discussion which preceded them would have been rendered unnecessary. There is a strong disposition to put the Bill forward as rapidly as possible, but if quick progress is to be made, useless discussion must be avoided, and the acceptance of reasonable Amendments, to which no real objection exists, should be promptly notified.
*MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: As Chairman of the Committee I desire to say a word or two to remove any misapprehension that may exist as to my own position in this matter. The fact is that at several sittings of the Committee there has been a desire manifested to make progress with the Bill if necessary during the time when the House is sitting. This, was especially so at the last meeting, at the conclusion of which I signified to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that I was perfectly willing to move in the House for leave for the Committee to sit during the sittings of the House. The right hon. Gentleman kindly expressed his readiness, to make such a motion himself, and that is the motion which I anticipated would be on the Paper. When I saw the actual terms of the motion this morning for the first time, I was very much surprised. The right hon. Gentleman has informed me, since I entered the House this afternoon, that he was informed at the Table that this was the usual motion made upon occasions of this kind; and under those circumstances I presume that I should myself have had to make a motion in the same terms. It appears to me, however, that those terms are a great deal too wide. I could not comply with them myself. I am bound, for instance, to be on Wednesdays in the Chair in the Public Accounts Committee, and it would be impossible for me to be in the Chair of the Standing Committee on that day. The difficulty might, perhaps, be got over by means of an Emergency Chairman, under the arrangements which members of the Chairman's Panel make among themselves; but that is not desirable. It appears to me that a motion asking for leave to sit while the House is sitting is all that is necessary. The Committee already have the power to meet at eleven or twelve o'clock. It also has power to meet on a Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, or Friday, and last week the Committee did sit on Tuesday instead of the usual Monday, and the same divergence from the usual practice could be exercised by the Committee at its discretion. I think, therefore, that a, motion for leave to sit while the House is sitting would meet all the requirements of the case. The reason I rose to explain was lost some hon. Members of the Committee should think that I was in any way wanting in my duty to the Committee, or in the respect which is due to it.
MR. EITCHIE: After what has fallen from the hon. Member who is the Chair man of the Committee, I am quite prepared to ask the leave of the House to amend the motion in the direction indicated. I understood that a motion would be made leaving it entirely in the hands of the Committee, to adopt whatever course they chose. I am quite prepared to move my motion in the form suggested.
*MR. SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. Member wishes to withdraw his Amendment, and that the motion should be amended by leaving out all the words after "sit" in order to insert "during the sitting of the House."
MR. ELLIOT: Are we to understand that the Committee will have power to sit on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays if they choose? I think it is well that the matter should be made plain.
MR. RITCHIE: We are now merely giving a kind of instruction to the Committee that they should consider the propriety of sitting on other days beyond what is usual.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: I desire on behalf of a great number of Members to state how much we appreciate the efforts of the President of the Board of Trade to push this matter forward. It is a common-sense arrangement, especially in view of the fact that we are getting to the end of the session.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I should like to ask if the President of the Board of Trade has had the approval of the Chairman of the Committee in the motion he has made, because I read in the report of the last meeting of the Committee that, with reference to the suggestion that the Committee should sit longer and more frequently—
"Mr. Ritchie expressed himself as very willing, and even anxious, that this should be done, but, on the Chairman's proposing to ask leave of the House for the Committee to sit till a later hour, the proposition met with strong indications of dissent. The Chairman said that, in view of the pronounced opposition, the thing could not he done."
I think it is a pity that the Chairman of the Committee is not here to explain.
MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Gentleman will be surprised to learn that the Chairman is here and has spoken in this discussion. He stated that he and I had arranged that a motion should be made, though not the particular motion on the Paper.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'sit,' to the end of the Question, and add the words' during the sitting of the House.'"—(Mr. Ritchie.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of, the Question."
MR. COHEN: I am quite sure this discussion would not have arisen to-day if we had known of the intention of the right hon. Gentleman in the Committee.
Question put, and negatived.
Words added.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Ordered, That, until the conclusion of the Consideration of the Companies Bill, the Standing Committee on Trade, etc. have leave to sit during the Sitting of the House.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
*MR. CHANNING: The clause I have to move is to provide for compensation to a tenant who is compelled to vacate his holding under circumstances that cannot be described as his-own fault. My object is that we should take an important step in what should be the direction of this type of legislation— namely, to give more encouragement and a greater degree of security to farmers who have improved their land and discharged their duties to the landowners, and to discourage farmers who have not carried out that policy and who have deteriorated the land. The clause which I have placed on the Paper has been before the House on previous occasions. It was considered very fully by the Welsh

1139
Land Commission, and I should like to remind hon. Members who have read the Reports of that Commission that both the Majority and Minority Reports express their assent in explicit terms to the precise wording of this clause. I wish to draw attention to that fact because I desire to give as much authority as I can to the form of the proposal. The object of the clause is to deal with certain cases which can be easily enumerated. In the first place we have capricious evictions by landowners. The most familiar cases arise with regard to the use by the tenant of the legislative rights which have been given him under the Ground Game Act. I have a number of cases where farmers have received notice to quit because they have exercised these rights, and the object of the clause is to provide that where a tenant farmer is capriciously evicted the same principle of compensation shall be applied as is applied where a person is deprived of a valuable interest in any other form of real estate. What the clause asserts is that where a tenant is dispossessed of his holding without sufficient reason he shall have an allowance which would cover the loss of his trade connection, goodwill, and other losses of that kind. In addition to those cases of capricious eviction the House will remember that the Welsh Land Commission especially drew attention to the hardship inflicted on tenants on estates where the ownership passed by sale, inheritance, or bankruptcy. Very great hardship occurs under the existing law, because the tenants have to decide practically at once whether they will accept a higher scale of rents and retain their holding, or whether they will submit to a very considerable loss. I should like to quote the evidence of one very able witness before the Agricultural Commission, who, I believe, is a strong supporter of the Government in Northumberland. I refer to Mr. Wilkinson. He said that the tenant has insufficient security and was often compelled to accept an unjust and unreasonable rent rather than leave the farm and suffer loss. He states—
"I think the tenant should be protected from an arbitrary notice to quit by being allowed compensation for disturbance. We want to be able to deal with our landlords on equal terms, and not for them to be able to say Sign that agreement or quit the farm.' We are tired of that sort of thing in the North, and we say that we are entitled to compensation for loss sustained in that way."
1140
The whole clause turns on the fact that the man who puts most into the land is the man who is least protected under the existing law, and the greater a tenant's stake is in the improvements he has carried out the weaker is his position with regard to the whole question of bargaining as to rent. I will not in the least disguise that the main object of the clause is to put the tenant farmer into a position of greater strength in order that he may be able to bargain, with a reasonable chance of success, for a fair rent. This, of course, may be met with the familiar retort that the tenant farmers have been masters of the situation, and have dictated the rents of all the farms in England during the last ten or fifteen years. I absolutely traverse that contention. It is true only of derelict, broken-down, and worthless farms, which go begging in the market, and for which a tenant farmer or anybody else can make any terms they please. But in regard to highly cultivated farms to which men had devoted their capital and energy for years, making the land the bank in which they invested the savings of their lives, the tenants are in a position of great weakness, and they have not been able to transfer the economic loss of the depression from themselves to the landlord. One of the sub-commissioners of the Royal Commission, Mr. Wilson Fox, who cannot be accused of a lack of friendliness to landlords, and was also a man of great ability and fairness of mind, gave us figures of large farms of various types, most of them of high quality, in the county of Lincoln. Those figures showed that the rents of eleven of these farms during the period of depression were between forty and fifty times the net profit obtained by the farmers. I allude to that in order to show that during the period of depression farmers, so far from being able to obtain a reasonable reduction of rent, which would put them in the position of having, as the Income Tax assessment assumes, a profit of half or even a third of the rent, had their profit reduced to a fifth, a seventh, and even a thirtieth or a fiftieth part of the rent. I therefore say that there is no force in the contention that the farmers have been able to dictate their own terms. On the ground of strengthening their position and of enabling them to deal fairly with rent I beg to move this clause, which goes to this effect, that where the farmer is dispossessed, not

1141
through his own fault—I do not wish to protect any farmer who behaves wrongly either as regards rent or covenants— we should have applied the same principle as to allowance, or compensation, which is observed in dispossessing every other class of persons in the land, or in our social arrangements. He is to be compensated for loss of trade interest, business connection, and all the rest of the loss caused by removal.
New clause—
"Where a tenant is compelled to quit his holding by the act of his landlord for any cause other than the following (that is to say):—

(1) That he has not paid the rent due to his landlord within any period agreed by the contract of tenancy or otherwise; or

(2) That he has persisted in committing or permitting waste, to the prejudice of his landlord, by the dilapidation of buildings or fences, or by the deterioration of the soil, after notice from the landlord not to commit, or permit, or to desist from the particular waste specified in such notice;

the tenant shall be entitled on quitting his holding to obtain from the landlord, in addition to the compensation, if any, due to him under the Act, farther compensation in respect of the loss sustained by reason of quitting his holding, and any question under this section, if in dispute, and the amount of such compensation shall be determined by arbitration under this Act, and such compensation shall be separately specified in the award, and shall be recoverable under the provisions of this Act."—(Mr. Channing.)
—brought up and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG, Liverpool,): I hope the House will not read this clause a second time. The hon. Member has told the House that the principle of compensation for disturbance was recommended by the Welsh Land Commission, but he has not told the House that this question was most carefully inquired into by the Royal Commission on which he himself sat, and in the Report issued by that Royal Commission it was stated that while some witnesses had argued in favour of that proposition the whole question had been carefully investigated, and that the Royal Commission were distinctly opposed to the principles of the proposal. Apart from the finding of that Commission, I may say that if ever there was a time when a proposal of that kind could be
1142
justified, that time no longer exists. It is possible that in the days of very great agricultural prosperity, and when, no doubt, the opportunities of the tenant for guarding his own interests or for selecting his own position were not so good as now, there wore cases of hardship. But I believe that there have been fewer cases of injustice and hardship to a farmer who expends his capital in improvements, than in the history of any other negotiation in the country. It is said that the tenant farmer is capriciously evicted. No doubt there have boon such cases and they may arise again; but everybody knows that at the present day the great object of the owner of land is to encourage the tenant farmer to remain in occupation of his holding, and to farm it on the best terms. I do not believe, therefore, that there is any justification for a proposal of this kind. In the first place, as the Bill stands a principle is laid down which can easily be acted upon both by the landlord and the tenant, and which gives to the tenant a right to secure payment for that which he leaves on the land, the benefit of which will be reaped by somebody else. The Bill provides the machinery for that. But if you open up the question of compensation suggested by the hon. Gentleman you will render the task of the arbitrators one of immense difficulty, and present a certain vista of litigation between the landlord and the tenant. It would introduce a principle which would be vexatious to the landlord, of no good to the tenant, and it is one which would deter landlords from entering into arrangements with their tenants which might be beneficial to both. On all grounds, therefore, I hope the House will not accept a proposal of this kind. I quite understand the motive of the hon. Gentleman. He believes that legislation ought to interfere more than at present with the position of landlord and tenant. Some people believe that the relations between landlord and tenant will never be satisfactory until the whole question of rent is decided by some public tribunal, and not, as now, by private arrangement between owner and occupier. The Government, who are responsible for this Bill, have no sympathy with views of that kind. They believe, on the contrary, that the adoption of such views would be prejudicial to the interests of tenants, and result in the absolute ruin of the agricultural interest

1143
as a whole. We are told that poor tenant farmers cannot make bargains which would protect their own interests. I have lived among tenant farmers all my life, and have come in contact with them in all parts of the United Kingdom, and I am inclined to believe that the statement of the incapacity of the farmer to look after his own interests would not be made so readily at an agricultural gathering. The farmers themselves would be the first to show that they were well able to manage their own affairs, and to resent the imputation that they are either very weak or very foolish. I believe that farmers are not likely to be capriciously evicted unless they adopt the principles of the Irish Land Acts about fixity of tenure, free sale, and compensation for disturbance, with all their mischievousness. The only safe policy for the House to adopt is to adhere to the; principles embodied in the Bill.
MR. LLOYD MORGAN: When I saw this new clause on the Order Paper I did not entertain any very sanguine hopes that the right hon. Gentleman would accept it; but I cannot help expressing my regret that he has not been able to do so. He has told the House that this clause was not recommended by the Royal Commission on Agriculture. In that the right hon. Gentleman is quite correct; but I think that he is incorrect when he goes on to say that the farming class do not desire to have the proposal contained in this clause. When this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, there is nothing, I am sure, which will give the tenant farmers of the country more widespread disappointment than the absence of a clause of this kind. I quite appreciate that in several instances agricultural associations in different parts of the country have passed resolutions expressing satisfaction with the proposals of the Government as embodied in this Bill. But I repeat that when the great body of farmers get face to face with the actual accomplishment of the Government, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that they will be very much disappointed. The expectations held out to them during the course of the last general election were of a very different kind from those embodied in this Bill. I do not think any hon. Gentleman will venture to dispute that. My hon. friend in moving the new clause told the House
1144
that a proposal of this kind was very much required in Wales. The recommendations of the Welsh Land Commission, which did not seem to me to be received by the right hon. the President of the Board of Agriculture with the respect which they deserve, contained a proposal that tenants should receive compensation for capricious eviction from their holdings. That was a recommendation not of a mere majority of the members of the Commission, but was arrived at unanimously. Mr. Sebohm, Lord Kenyon, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea, were all agreed that, on the evidence put before the Commission, an unanswerable case had been made out for compensation for capricious eviction. On behalf of my constituents, therefore, I think this clause should be adopted. The President of the Board of Agriculture has told us that this proposal is not required by the farmers of England at all. It may be that that is true. I do not pretend to have a complete knowledge of the farmers of England, but I am entitled to speak with some knowledge of the farmers in my own part of the country, among whom I have lived all my life, and I maintain that nothing is more urgently required by them than that they should have compensation for capricious eviction. There is no suggestion in this clause that a farmer who left his holding on his own account would have any compensation except that which is given by the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883. All that is proposed is that if the farmer is compulsory evicted he shall be compensated. It is only fair and right that when a man is turned out of his holding at the mere caprice of his landlord, not because he is a bad farmer, not because he is letting his land deteriorate, not because he has allowed his buildings to become dilapidated, but because he has had some i petty quarrel with his landlord about the county council election or something that has taken place in the parish, he should receive compensation. The right hon. Gentleman says that such a state of things as that does not arise in England. That may or may not be, although I do not agree with him, because it does arise in Wales—I do not think these cases arise so frequently as they used, but they undoubtedly do arise—and when a man is turned out of his holding in that way he should have some compensation for the trouble and expense to which he is

1145
put, for which this Bill gives no compensation. This is a small Bill, which does not introduce any new feature into the agricultural law, and deals rather with the machinery of the law than with anything else. But if this clause, and it is not a revolutionary clause by any means, be accepted, it will to some extent give the tenant farmer some security of tenure. He would occupy a position of greater stability if his landlord knew that if he gave him notice in a fit of caprice he would have to pay for it. It is not the better class of landlord who gives his tenant notice in a fit of caprice. If this amendment is accepted it will operate to some extent in favour of security of tenure, because if the landlord knew that, if he gave his tenant notice to quit for an insufficient reason, a tenant who had formed well and carried out all the terms of his agreement, but who had displeased his landlord—if the landlord knew that if he gave that man notice to quit for an insufficient reason he would have to pay, over and above that which the law allows, some compensation for disturbance, it would prevent him from taking such a stop. I daresay in some parts of England such legislation is quite unnecessary; but I am speaking for a class of people for whom it is necessary, and the Welsh Land Commission has reported in favour of such legislation. Under these circumstances, if my hon. friend goes to a division, I shall be happy to support him.
MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, so long as the hon. Member for West Carmarthenshire confined his remarks to the Welsh aspect of this question, it was beyond his light to criticise them. He had not looked at the Celtic side of the matter. From the position taken up by the hon. Gentleman one would imagine that a person had a right to hire another person's land, and that then, in defiance of the owner, he could claim compensation on receiving notice to quit. That was a principle which, so far as he was aware, had never been laid down by any Commission which had ever sat. The representative agricultural bodies of the country had wisely declined to lend themselves to any such revolutionary doctrine. There might be here and there a farmers' club which advocated it, but the great representative agricultural bodies of the country did not. The
1146
House would do well to reject the Amendment, and support the proposition that a man has a right to let his farm to anyone he thinks fit, in accordance with the law, and to terminate the tenancy when he thinks fit, in accordance also with the law.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I will not detain the House more than a few moments, but I should like to point out that the Bill, so far as Wales is concerned, does not go to the root of the evil, and on another occasion it will be the duty of the Welsh Members to lay their views before the House in a different form. With regard to the Bill now before us, I should not like the discussion on this clause to terminate without cordially supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire. With regard to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Thanet, who admitted that he had never dived into the Celtic fringe in this matter, if that be so, we cordially forgive him for the remarks he has made. This sub-clause is the result of recommendations made, after exhaustive inquiries, by the Welsh Land Commission, and the feeling of the country is very strong upon it. I live in a country where the land question looms large, and I have no hesitation in saying that if this clause were passed it would meet with a very large force of public approval, and be the means of amending this Bill, so far as Wales is concerned, in a very substantial manner.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid he was scarcely prepared to give the clause his support if it went to a division, but as a Scotch Member he felt that there were circumstances under which a clause of this description would be to the interest of the tenants. He quite agreed that cases of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member opposite were not so common now as formerly, though there could be no doubt that they did arise even now. The right hon. Member for Thanet seemed to claim a right for the landlords to let land at their pleasure, and then to evict tenants as they pleased, and that this was a Bill to interfere with that which the landlords have a right to do. This clause did not interfere on behalf of the tenant farmer, but in the interests of the nation at large. The Bill provided compensation for improvements;

1147
but the Committee ought to go further if agriculture was to be a prosperous occupation They ought to give to the tenant security of tenure, and if the farmer invested his money on other people's land he ought to know that he was secure from the curious freaks of temper of the landlord, and therefore some equitable arrangement of this kind ought to be made. he supported the broad principle, but was afraid he could not support the Amendment to the extent of voting for it on a division.
*MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I support the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire. If the clause is passed it will be regarded by Welsh farmers as an extremely valuable addition to the Bill. Formerly, when a rich man purchased an estate, he bought not only the land and the buildings upon the land, but in addition to that he bought the consciences—the political consciences, at all events—of the tenants of the soil. We have in the past seen a great deal too much oppression both in religious and political life in consequence of the enormous powers which the landlord possessed, and which, directly or indirectly, he could exercise. That power has seldom been exercised directly, but for every single eviction that has taken place hundreds of people have been terrorised. I am glad to bear my testimony that that state of things has very largely improved in England and Wales in recent years. I should be sorry to say that anything of the kind I have described has been of a general character. What we ask is that the tenants should be placed beyond the reach of fear in this respect, and that a man's politics and religion should have absolutely nothing to do with the tenure or cultivation of the land. If this clause were passed I believe the effect would be that the tenant would feel himself to be what I am sure every hon. Member in this House (except, perhaps, the hon. Member for Thanet) would wish him to be—a really independent man, owning no allegiance to the owner of the soil in regard to religion or politics because of the relationship between them as landlord and tenant. Have I not laid down a fair proposition? Is there any Member of the House who would venture to dispute that? What my hon. friend proposes
1148
to do by the clause is to assure to the tenant a position that would put him outside the reach of fear. I hope the Government may see their way to accept this clause, believing that, in Wales at all events, it would be accepted by the tenants as giving them protection to which they are entitled.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid he had to express his pleasure that the Government had been unable to accept the clause, which involved a principle going far beyond the limits of the Bill, and illustrated very well the point at which it was necessary to draw the line. The Amendment introduced the principle of divided ownership. No such principle was recognised in the Bill, at all events he hoped it was not recognised. The principle of the Bill, as he understood it, was that whore a tenant added to the value of the landlord's property he should be compensated for that, but the principle of the Amendment was that the tenant should acquire a right in the property, and that he was to come into possession of the landlord's right. It was clear that if they once admitted that principle they would adopt the whole Irish land system. The moment the tenant got in as a partner in the ownership of a farm, then he had a right to sell that farm. The Government would have to come down and settle the relationship between them as regards fair rents, and every detail in the management which was characteristic of the Irish land system. [An HON. MEMBER: Why not?] he would give an illustration. It had been said that the landlord might use his power vexatiously. Almost all rights of property of any kind whatever might be used vexatiously. The hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs had spoken of intimidation in religious matters, but the same thing might occur in other avocations. A banker or solicitor who had lent money to various small shopkeepers might exercise an improper influence over his debtors. They could not prevent people who had not a free choice from being subject to the influence of others. The essence of freedom was to have a free choice. It should be recognised that this Amendment proceeded wholly on a different principle from that embodied in the Bill. He hoped that they would be careful to maintain on this occasion the great im-

1149
propriety of divided ownership. The true remedy for the grievance was a healthy public opinion. In England intimidation would never be tolerated. They would resent it vigorously, and if English landlords endeavoured to coerce their tenantry, they would speedily find that to be so.
SIR MARK STEWARTsaid he could not conceive how anybody who understood the agricultural position of the country could have drafted such a clause as this. It was altogether on the wrong lines, as any man of common sense would see. He thought it would be unfair to interfere too much between landlord and tenant. What would be the end of it? The tenant would, no doubt, put before the arbitrator every single point in a long term of tenancy, and all that would lead to lawyers' bills; and if there was one thing that a farmer disliked extremely it was to pay such bills. The tenant would have enormous bills to pay if this clause was carried out, and he would be continually arbitrating with the
landlord. He knew very few landlords who would care to put out a tenant who had met his obligations justly and reasonably. If a landlord got his fair share, or what he had invested in the land, they might depend upon it that he would take a lenient view of the whole case, and be willing to judge what should be done with regard to compensation. If this clause was carried they would have no end of litigation and no peace. They would have the Irish land question in Eng-land and Scotland. He hoped the House would by a very large majority defeat the Amendment.
MR. JASPER MOREsaid it was all very well to speak of cases of capricious eviction, but he believed such eases hardly ever occurred.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 111; Noes, 207. (Division List No. 200.)

AYES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Horniman, Frederick John

Reckitt, Harold James

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Baker, Sir John

Kitson, Sir James

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Barlow, John Emmott

Labouchere, Henry

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Billson, Alfred

Langley, Batty

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Birrell, Augustine

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Broadhurst, Henry

Leng, Sir John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Lewis, John Herbert

Spicer, Albert

Caldwell, James

Lloyd-George, David

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Lough, Thomas

Stevenson, Francis S.

Causton, Richard Knight

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Cawley, Frederick

Macaleese, Daniel

Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Queen's, C.)

Tennant, Harold John

Crilly, Daniel

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

Crombie, John William

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

M'Crae, George

Wallace, Robert

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Ewan, William

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Davies, M Vaughan- (Cardigan)

M'Ghee, Richard

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Wason, Eugene

Dillon, John

M'Leod, John

Wedderburn, Sir William

Donelan, Captain A.

Maddison, Fred.

Weir, James Galloway

Doogan, P. C.

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Dunn, Sir William

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Emmott, Alfred

Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Moulton, John Fletcher

Wills, Sir William Henry

Evans, Sir F. H. (Southampton)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Oldroyd, Mark

Wilson, John (Govan)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Malley, William

Woods, Samuel

Gold, Charles

Palmer, George W. (Reading)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Pickard, Benjamin

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Mr. Channing and Mr. Lloyd Morgan.

Holland, William Henry

Price, Robert John

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Flower, Ernest

Mount, William George

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Muntz, Philip A.

Arrol, Sir William

Fry, Lewis

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Galloway, William Johnson

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Garfit, William

Myers, William Henry

Baird, John George Alexander

Gedge, Sydney

Newdigate Francis Alexander

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (Cy of Lond.)

Nicholson, William Graham

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds)

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Banbury, Frederick George

Gilliat, John Saunders

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Bartley, George C. T.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Paulton, James Mellor

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Percy, Earl

Bethell, Commander

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Pilkington, R. (Lancs., Newton)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Gull, Sir Cameron

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Biddulph, Michael

Gunter, Colonel

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Bill, Charles

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Blakiston-Houston, John

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bond, Edward

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Pym, C. Guy

Boulnois, Edmund

Hardy, Laurence

Rankin, Sir James

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bowles, T. Gibson (Kings Lynn)

Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead)

Richards, Henry Charles

Brassey, Albert

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hobhouse, Henry

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Glasgow)

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Round, James

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Russell, Gen. F.S.(Cheltenham)

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Sandon, Viscount

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Seton-Karr, Henry

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Kimber, Henry

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Knowles, Lees

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Chelsea, Viscount

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.)

Coddington, Sir William

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Leighton, Stanley

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Cox, Irwin E. Bainbridge

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool)

Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Lowe, Francis William

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Curzon, Viscount

Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

Strauss, Arthur

Dalkeith, Earl of

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Thornton, Percy M.

Davies, Sir. Hon. D. (Chatnam)

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Tollemache, Henry James

Denny, Colonel

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Macdona, John Cumming

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Maclure, Sir John William

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Donkin, Richard Sim

M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunt'n)

Dorington, Sir John Edward

M'Killop, James

Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Malcolm, Ian

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Manners, Lord Edward Wm. J.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Marks, Henry Hananel

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Faber, George Denison

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Milward, Colonel Victor

Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Monckton, Edward Philip

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r)

Monk, Charles James

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Wylie, Alexander

Finch, George H.

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Wyndham, George

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Morgan, Hn. Fred.(Monm'thsh.)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Fisher, William Hayes

Morrell, George Herbert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Morrison, Walter

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

*MR. GORDON: In moving the now clause which stands
1152
under my name I desire very shortly to explain to the House the purposes this

1153
clause has in view. Among the agricultural tenants of Scotland by far the largest proportion are men whose buildings have been erected by the capitalists who own the property, the tenants themselves having no interest in and making no claim for the buildings. There are a second class, well known to this House, namely, crofters, in the Highland districts of Scotland, whose interests in their holdings have been regulated by the Crofters Acts. What I want to bring to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill and of the House is that there is a third class, not a very numerous class in Scotland as a whole, though somewhat numerous in my own constituency. This class stand in a different relation, and under this Bill I cannot see that they will receive any protection whatever. The Government, no doubt desire to cover every agriculturalist, whether he is large or small in his occupation; whether protected by legal documents or trusting to the feudal estates and the customs of those estates, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to look with favour upon such a clause as this. I would not seek his approval of the words if I could secure his approval of the principle, so that this class of men who are crofters, but not in the crofting districts, should, in case of removal, have the power of coming into the benefits of this measure, and at least have the opportunity of proving before the tribunal created under this Bill whether or not the improvements on their farms are of their own creation; so that, as I believe they have in morals, they may also have in law, a protection for their property in these matters. In my own constituency cases arise rather under estate management. Many of the estates erect buildings from A to Z, but there are other estates where the buildings are left to the creation of the crofter himself, and very often they have been erected by previous generations. Whilst I would pay every tribute of regard to the management of these large estates and the sanctity of contract maintained between proprietor and crofter, in nearly every case the danger becomes almost alarming when those old estates pass into the hands of new men, or under the management of lawyers, who take a sharper, harsher, and more strictly legal point of view. All I ask is that this Bill shall not pass through the House without allowing these men,
1154
who are undoubtedly the creators of their own improvements, and whose position is now respected on the estates where they live, should not suffer the danger in strange hands of being unprotected by the law while the law is in process of amendment. No claim is made by the man on whose behalf I am now speaking for any compensation for anything created by the capital of the proprietor. All he asks is that property of his own creation, whether it is in the reclamation of land or in the building of houses, should become matter for investigation before the tribunal created by this Bill. It is easy to see that in an old-fashioned arrangement, such as the one I have described, there might be claims put forward by the landlord which would to some extent nullify the claims of the tenant for his improvements. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
New clause—
"That in the case of crofters or cottars in Scotland, as defined in the Crofters (Scotland) Holdings Acts, 1886, 1887, and 1888 (whose holdings are situated in parishes or counties to which these Acts do not apply), such improvements as are set forth in Part 1 of the First Schedule of the Act, which may have been executed or paid for by the crofter or his predecessor in the same family whilst under no written obligation to the landlord to make them, and prior to the passing of this Act, and which will add to the letting value of the holding, shall be compensated for on his leaving the holding, under the procedure provided in this Act, but for such improvements executed after the passing of this Act consent of the landlord will be required."—(Mr. Gordon.)
—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
*MR. LONG: I hope my hon. friend will not press this clause, because it seems to be moved under a misapprehension. The object he seeks is to include within the benefits of this Bill those crofters or cottars in Scotland who do not come under the Crofters Act, which is limited to particular counties, to which benefits have been given on account of particular circumstances. My hon. friend suggests in the case of these crofters that they shall be treated as if they had obtained consent, and that only in future shall they require to obtain consent. I am not in the position to speak of tenants in a similar position to crofters, though they

1155
are not under the Crofters Act. It may be true that there are individual cases of hardship, but it would be impossible to apply this measure to a limited portion of the kingdom. Not only this, but it would be extremely unfair to attempt to do anything of the kind. I submit that the proper course for my hon. friend to take is not to seek to graft on to this Bill a proposal dealing with these people, but endeavour to bring the crofters for whom he pleads under the Crofters' Holdings Acts.
MR. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman has, I am sorry to say, given but small encouragement to my hon. friend in regard to the clause he has laid before the House. The two main arguments of the right hon. Gentleman have been (1) that my hon. friend's clause merely dealt with a few individual cases in Scotland— with regard to which argument I shall have a word or two to say in a moment; and (2) he contended that the Government could not be expected to deal with cases of special hardship. If any Government come before this House and lay on the Table a Bill which is to alter the condition of agricultural tenancies, they ought to endeavour to meet all special cases of hardship as well as all general cases. This Bill, as it stands, endeavours to meet a hardship analogous to that of the crofters in the case of the market gardeners, who are provided for in the schedule.
*MR. LONG: That is not so, and I do not profess in this Bill to legislate in any way whatever for market gardeners.
MR. BUCHANAN: All I contend is that the special case of market gardeners is recognised, and I make a similar claim on behalf of these small tenants. I was somewhat astonished at the last-statement of the right hon. Gentleman when he told the hon. Member opposite to try and get these tenants included in the Crofters Act. Does he mean that statement to be taken literally?
*MR. LONG: I guarded my remarks by saying that I had no personal knowledge as to whether those crofters had a claim for legislation, and I submitted that it would not be proper in this Bill to propose crofter legislation.
MR. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we should try and get the Crofters Act extended to these particular tenants. The President of the Board of Agriculture should not hold out that as an inducement to the hon. Member not to press forward his Amendment, unless he is prepared to assist him in obtaining the remedy he seeks. But is this really a small grievance to which my hon. friend has called attention? Why does the right hon. Gentleman bring forward a Bill which includes Scotland, where the conditions are different to those prevailing in England, when he himself admits that he is unaware of the condition of the tenants in Scotland? What is the condition of affairs in the north-east of Scotland? Here is a Return which is ten years old, which shows that in Morayshire there were 1,762 farms, and of these 1,107 were under £30 annual value, £35 being the limit allowed by the Crofters Act. Under this Act these tenants would have a substantial grievance to all intents and purposes. They have made all the improvements in those farms, but they will receive no compensation under this Bill. In another county, out of 3,000 farms, no less than 2,114 are under £35 annual value. In Aberdeenshire the proportion is not quite so large, but out of 11,300 holdings no less than 6,053 are crofts under £30 annual value, and upon the vast majority of these crofts the tenants have made all the improvements. They have brought the land into cultivation, erected fences, and built dwellings upon them without obtaining the written consent of the landlord to construct them. What is the condition of things under the Bill? The measure provides that no tenant shall obtain compensation for building substantial improvements unless he has obtained the consent of his landlord to the making those improvements. That proviso absolutely shuts out two-thirds of the tenants in the north-east of Scotland from any possible benefit under the Bill. I think that is a very glaring omission in a Bill which purports to provide a remedy for the tenants of Scotland as well as for the tenants of England. I say that this particular class of tenant has a prerogative claim upon the attention of Her Majesty's Government in dealing with this subject. Five years ago, in the year

1157
1895, when a Liberal Government was in office, they brought forward a Bill in which it was proposed, amongst other things, to extend the benefits of the Crofters Act to crofters in the northeastern counties of Scotland. That measure was opposed by the present First Lord of the Treasury from the Front Opposition Bench, and when we urged that what was particularly wanted was an easy and cheap method of giving tenants compensation for improvements, what was the answer given by the then Leader of the Opposition? In reply to our argument as to why the Crofters Act should be extended, the present First Lord of the Treasury said on the 11th of June, 1895—*
"In my opinion small tenants have an absolute right to be protected, but they have no greater right than the big tenants, and therefore the right ought not to be confined to one or two counties in the north-east of Scotland. I should like to see that protection extended in a safe and fair form to all counties, in all eases in which expenditure by the tenant has taken the form of a legitimate improvement of the holding of which he is the occupier."
That was a substantial promise that when the Government of which he was a Member came to legislate upon this subject he would endeavour to deal when legislating with all the three countries and with all the cases in them. In excluding these tenants from the possibility of claiming compensation for the substantial improvements they have effected on their farms, the Government are failing to carry out the policy which they held out to the people of Scotland, and they have presented to this House a very imperfect and inadequate measure.
GENERAL RUSSELLsaid it did not follow that because a tenant was paying under £30 a year that he was a crofter. Most of the tenants in the north-east of Scotland, to whom the hon. Member had referred, were not crofters, but small farmers, and most of the buildings on their land were built not by the tenants, but by the landlords. Upon farms of £30 rental the walls were built by the landlord and the drainage was generally carried out by the landlord. Therefore he could not imagine anything more detrimental to small farmers in Aberdeenshire and Morayshire than to
* See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xxxiv., p. 912.
1158
bring them under the Crofters Act when they were not crofters at all. Such a proposal would prevent any farm servant from taking a small farm on his own account. The great ambition of farm servants was to save up sufficient money to take a small farm and be independent. If the suggestion made by the Member for East Aberdeenshire was adopted, not only would everything which the landlord had erected on these farms be confiscated and handed over to the tenant, but it would prevent any industrious farm servant from the possibility of getting a small farm. Not only this, but it would act as an inducement to the landlord not to carry out any improvements upon these small farms. It would also be ruinous to the farmers themselves. It was true that there were a large number of tenants who had improved their farms and had erected the whole of their farm buildings, but in such a case when the farmer gave up his farm the incoming tenant had to pay for all those buildings.
DR. FARQUHARSONthought that the speech of the President of the Board of Agriculture was undoubtedly the best defence they could have of the action they took upon the Second Reading of this measure, in regard to having separate Bills for England and Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman had told them, with a simplicity that was remarkable, that he had had no experience in regard to the tenants of Scotland, but still, he might have consulted the Lord Advocate. He hoped that his hon. friend would press his Amendment to a division. The right hon. Gentleman had told him that he must not graft this legislation on the Bill before the House, but that he must take some future opportunity of bringing in special legislation on this question. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman had given them encouragement to bring forward a Bill in the future for extending the Crofters Act, and perhaps he would throw in his influence to get the Government to back up the First Lord of the Treasury in those strenuous endeavours which he had several times promised to make on behalf of this meritorious class of people. He was bound to say that he thought his hon. friend had made out a strong case on behalf of a certain class of people. There were cases in Aberdeenshire where tenants had carried out their own im-

1159
provements largely under the protection, so called, of improving leases. That was a very doubtful and shadowy protection, which might be terminated or destroyed by the conditions which had been so well described by his hon. friend. Perhaps when the Minister for Agriculture had had time to consult the Lord Advocate he would agree that this was a very reasonable concession to make, this slight alteration in the Bill. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would assure them that if they brought in legislation to meet this crying evil he would give them his assistance in getting the Crofters Act extended.
SIR. WILLIAM WEDDERBURNsaid the Amendment appeared to be a very small and moderate concession. It was simply a request that the small holders should be relieved of the penalty for not having obtained the consent of the landlords in carrying out the small improvements which they had made. The hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham appeared to think that the rights of the landlords would be invaded: by this proposal, and that they would be called upon to pay for their own improvements. As a matter of fact, in the case of the small holders which had been so clearly set forth by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire it was almost impossible that any of the improvements which they carried out would have obtained the consent of the landlords. None of those permanent improvements carried out by the small holders who formed so very large a portion of the cultivators of the soil in Scotland would receive any benefit from the Act. Indeed, so difficult is their position and so impossible is it for them to get the previous consent of the landlord for their small improvements, that the hon. Member who moved this Amendment had provided at the end of the clause that the consent of the landlord would be necessary as regarded future improvements.
*MR. WEIRexpressed his surprise at the ignorance admitted by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill in regard to Scotch tenants. He had told them that he knew nothing about these cases in Scotland. He contended that he ought to know about them, and that he should
1160
have made it his business to inquire before he brought in legislation for Scotland. The Lord Advocate knew all about his own constituency in Bute and Arran, that dark island where there was no security for the tenant, and where the tenants from year to year were liable to be turned out at very short notice without any compensation. The Lord Advocate would not be able to deny that.
*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): But I do deny it. I may inform the hon. Member that there are scarcely any tenants there who have not got leases to protect them.
*MR. WEIRreplied that there had evidently been an alteration since he was there. From the manner in which the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham had spoken one would suppose that he owned the whole of Cheltenham. Probably the hon. and gallant Member was a good landlord, but there were a number of very bad landlords in the north of Scotland, and their existence necessitated the passing of the Crofters Act. The hon. Gentleman who moved this clause only asked for the crofters of the north-east of Scotland similar treatment to those in the west. The holder on the east coast of Scotland had cultivated the land from its wild state; they had built their own houses, erected fences, and brought the land into cultivation, and yet they were liable to be turned out at the shortest notice without any compensation. That was the state of matters existing in the east of Scotland, and the First Lord of the Treasury had practically promised to bring forward some legislation upon this question. The Lord Advocate stated that the Government had not been asked to extend the Crofters Acts to other parts of Scotland where the people were living in precisely the same condition.
GENERAL RUSSELL: The conditions are entirely different. I have property in these districts, and know the condition of the people.
*MR. WEIRsaid he did not dispute the fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had property in Scotland, but he maintained that there were thousands of crofters living under entirely similar con-

1161
ditions to those in the crofter districts, and that it was the duty of the Government to extend the Crofters Acts to them. It was not decent for the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to show so much ignorance in the matter, and he hoped that his hon. friend would divide the House. They would then be able to see who were for and who were against the people.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: May I make an appeal to the President of the Board of Agriculture? I had not the advantage of hearing the speech of my right hon. friend, but if he is correctly represented as stating that small holders in one part of Scotland live under materially different conditions from small holders in another part, I can only state that I am of a different opinion. The conditions are very much the same, and there is in the minds of those persons who are not within the scope of the Crofters Acts a feeling that they have been unfairly excluded because of a geographical distinction. I do not know whether this
would be a suitable occasion to remedy this grievance, but I put it to my right hon. friend that this is a reasonable proposition. What is proposed is that if a crofter executes improvements which add to the letting value of his holding he should receive compensation even though the landlord has not given his consent. All the arguments we have heard with regard to this Bill are to the effect that it is intended to put right and redress the wrongs of agriculturists, and on such an. occasion we should not pass by any section, however small, of the community. Is it fair that the claim of these small holders, whose improvements have added to the value of their holdings, should not receive our attention? If it be just and right my right hon. friend ought to face it, and I must hear some stronger argument as to why this clause should not be accepted before I will vote against it.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 123: Noes, 196. (Division List No. 201.)

AYES.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. Henry

Haldane, Richard Burdon

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Hedderwick, Thos. Charles H.

Oldroyd, Mark

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

O'Malley, William

Barlow, John Emmott

Hogan, James Francis

Palmer, George Wm.(Reading)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Holland, William Henry

Paulton, James Mellor

Billson, Alfred

Horniman, Frederick John

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Birrell, Augustine

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Philipps, John Wynford

Broadhurst, Henry

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pickard, Benjamin

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Kitson, Sir James

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Caldwell, James

Langley, Batty

Price, Robert John

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Reckitt, Harold James

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

Causton, Richard Knight

Leng, Sir John

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs).

Cawley, Frederick

Lewis, John Herbert

Runciman, Walter

Channing, Francis Allston

Lloyd-George, David

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

Lough, Thomas

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Crilly, Daniel

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Macaleese, Daniel

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarshire)

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn.'s Co.)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Spicer, Albert

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

M'Crae, George

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Denny, Colonel

M'Dermott, Patrick

Strachey, Edward

Dilke. Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Ewan, William

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Dillon, John

M'Ghee, Richard

Tennant, Harold John

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

Doogan, P. C.

M'Leod, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dunn, Sir William

Maddison, Fred.

Wallace, Robert

Emmott, Alfred

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Wason, Eugene

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Wedderburn, Sir William

Flynn, James Christopher

Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

Weir, James Galloway

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Moulton, John Fletcher

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wills, Sir William Henry

Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'rsfld)

Yoxall, James Henry

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Woods, Samuel

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Wylie, Alexander

Mr. Gordon and Mr. Buchanan.

Wilson, John (Govan)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Finch, George H.

Morrell, George Herbert

Aird, John

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Morrison, Walter

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fisher, William Hayes

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Arrol, Sir William

Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Mount, William George

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Muntz, Philip A.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Baird, John George Alexander

Foster, Colonel (Lancaaster)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

Fry, Lewis

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G.W. (Leeds)

Galloway, William Johnson

Percy, Earl

Banbury, Frederick George

Garfit, William

Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton)

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Gedge, Sydney

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bartley, George C. T.

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Beach, Rt. Hon. W. W. B. (Hants.)

Gilliat, John Saunders

Purvis, Robert

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Pym, C. Guy

Bethell, Commander

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Biddulph, Michael

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Rankin, Sir James

Bill, Charles

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Remnant, James Farquharson

Blakiston-Houston, John

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Richards, Henry Charles

Bond, Edward

Gull, Sir Cameron

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Gunter, Colonel

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Boulnois, Edmund

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Round, James

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord Geo.

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Brassey, Albert

Hardy, Laurence

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Sandon, Viscount

Bullard, Sir Harry

Henderson, Alexander

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Butcher, John George

Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampste'd)

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow)

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Hozier, Hon. J. Henry Cecil

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh'e)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Keswick, William

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

Chelsea, Viscount

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Knowles, Lees

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Coddington, Sir William

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(C'rn.)

Strauss, Arthur

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Llewelyn, Sir Dilhwyn-(Swans.)

Tollemache, Henry James

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Curzon, Viscount

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Welby, Lt-Col A. C. E. (Tauntn)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lowe, Francis William

Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lowles, John

Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L.)

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm)

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. D.

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Donkin, Richard Sim

Maclure, Sir John William

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk)

Dorington, Sir John Edward

M'Killop, James

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Malcolm, Ian

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.).

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Wyndham, George

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Milward, Colonel Victor

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Faber, George Denison

Monckton, Edward Philip

Fardell, Sir T. George

Monk, Charles James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.)

MR. HEDDERWICK: The clause which I am now about to move touches neither the substance nor the principle of this Bill. It applies solely to Scotland, but though its scope is limited yet I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see fit to accept it, as it will confer at least some benefit on agriculturists in Scotland. I think I can explain very shortly what the new clause proposes. Under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1883, the manner in which notice of the termination of a tenancy is to be given is prescribed by the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1853, and the form and mode of procedure under this old Act are by no means inexpensive or easy. But there is a subsequent Scotch Act passed 1886, the Removal Terms (Scotland) Act, under which notice may be given by a registered letter, and the whole effect of this Clause is to substitute notice by registered letter for the old and cumbrous method of giving notice under the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act. I venture to hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment, inasmuch as it proceeds on the lines of the main object of the Government in proposing this Bill —namely, to institute an inexpensive mode of procedure.
MR. LONG: The Government are prepared to accept the new clause, for the reasons stated by the hon. Member.
New clause—
"From and after the passing of this Act notice of termination of tenancy under Section 28 of The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 18S3, may be given in the same manner as a notice of removal under Section 6 of The Removal Terms (Scotland) Act, 1886" —(Mr. Hedderwick.)
—brought up and read the first and second time, and added.
MR. BUCHANAN: The Amendment which stands in my name, if carried, would remove the schedules from this Bill, and would make it, I think, a more substantial Bill than it is at present, because it then would lay down in general terms the compensation which a tenant could claim for improvements executed on his farm which added to its value. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that he desires to make a substantial improvement in the Agricultural Holdings Act, and when he introduced the Bill he stated that its
1166
expressed object was to settle once and for all the differences between owner's and occupiers of land. Looked at from that point of view the Bill, when it comes to be considered in detail, is a very small measure indeed. It amends, and to a certain extent improves, the Agricultural Holdings Act, but as for making anything like a settlement of various outstanding questions, or making that radical alteration which is certainly desired by many who have considered this subject, at any rate in Scotland, it is a very small Bill indeed. Of course what may be suitable for England may not be suitable for Scotland, and one of the fundamental difficulties that has arisen is that many of the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman are such as we would not put into a Bill drawn with a view to meeting Scotch opinion. I will only quote two opinions in favour of the Amendment. One is that of the gentleman who represented Scotch farmers on the Committee of Agriculture. In his report he said that in his opinion schedules were unnecessary and should be swept away. The other Gentleman—Mr. Hope —is also a great authority on agriculture. He was a Deputy Commissioner to take evidence in various parts of the country, and made reports with reference to such diverse counties as Oxford, Berkshire, and Aberdeen. In summing up the evidence which he had taken, his first conclusion invariably was that schedules should be abolished, and that all improvements executed by the tenant which enhanced the value of the holding should be paid for by the landlord at the termination of the tenancy. The object of my Amendment is to give effect to what is undoubtedly a general desire on the part of leading agriculturists in Scotland. There can be no objection to this so long as we have complete confidence in the tribunal we are establishing. If we have complete confidence in that tribunal then we may lay down in general terms that the tenant should have the right to obtain compensation for any improvement that adds to the value of the farm.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words 'comprised in the First Schedule to this Act.'"—(Mr. Buchanan.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
*MR. LONG: I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the questions which have been raised by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman has often told us, speaking as he does apparently for Scotland, the particular views he holds, but at all events he stands somewhat alone in regard to this particular question. So far as the assurances which have reached me from various parts of Scotland go, it is quite evident that there is a general desire on the part of agriculturists in Scotland that this Bill should pass very much in its present form, and I believe that it will confer substantial benefits on Scottish agriculture. The hon. Gentleman in moving this Amendment quoted the opinions of two Scotch agriculturists. Everyone who has had the privilege of knowing these two gentlemen will admit that they speak with the greatest possible authority, and that whether in their agricultural or private capacity they enjoy the respect and confidence of all who have had the good fortune to make their acquaintance, and everyone who knows them would give very great weight to the opinions they express on this or any other agricultural subject; but when they expressed the opinions quoted by the hon. Member they did not appreciate the ineffective character of the method they proposed. It is very difficult to understand from the hon. Gentleman's speech what object he has in view. I understand his object to be that as little limitation as possible should be placed on the right of the tenant to claim compensation. That is undoubtedly a very important feature. But it is by scheduling certain agricultural operations and calling them improvements that we give the tenant a statutory right to claim compensation for an agricultural operation as an improvement which might otherwise be open to doubt. The hon. Gentleman proposes to do away with the schedules altogether, but if the Amendment were carried the Bill would be unworkable, because the words he proposes to leave out are required in the present construction of the Bill. The improvements scheduled are divided into three classes. The first class must be carried out with the consent of the landlord. The second requires notice to the landlord, and the third requires neither consent nor notice. The hon. Gentleman proposes to merge all three, but he does not suggest the machinery by which that
1168
can be carried out. While I admit that his desire is to free the tenant, I am bound to say that the adoption of his proposal would leave the tenant in a much worse position than under this Bill. The schedules cover the greater part, if not all, the ground which ought to be covered in regard to improvements carried out by the tenant; and I submit that if the hon. Gentleman is able to show the House that there are agricultural operations which involve improvement to the soil, and which are not included in these schedules, instead of upsetting the whole Bill, he ought to add them in the schedules. If the words were loft out, the whole Bill would be upset, and it would not have the effect the hon. Gentleman desires.
DR. FARQUHARSON: I do not think that hon. Members on this side of the House who are interested in agriculture would break their hearts if the Bill were upset. My hon. friend's proposal is that the tenant should get full compensation for any operation on the farm which would have the effect of improving the letting value of the land. If there is full faith in the valuator, he would decide that where the tenant has done anything unnecessary or had deteriorated the value of the land, the tenant should not get any compensation at all. And quite right, too. My right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture has not, I think, given full credit to Scotch agricultural opinion. I do not know whether my right hon. friend remembers attending a conference of Scottish agriculturalists, when some home truths were presented to him. These Scottish agriculturists told him that they did not believe his Bill would do much good in Scotland. I reiterate my protest against Scotland being lumped together with England on this question. There should have been a separate Bill for Scotland, where the conditions of agriculture are so different from those of England.
*MR. CHANNING: I support the Amendment on several grounds, but chiefly on the grounds of principle and precedent. The Market Gardeners' Compensation Act of 1895 practically gives assent to the principle involved in the Amendment of my hon. friend. What he has moved is simply to abolish the schedules, and that means that in every

1169
contract of tenancy there should be implied the complete right of the tenant to execute any improvement which will increase the value of the holding for the purposes for which it was let, and to obtain compensation for doing so under the arbitrator's award. My right hon. friend has urged that it would be better to have the schedules and that they increase the power of the tenant to obtain compensation; because the tenant would have a list of the improvements that might be made, and if his improvements were in that list he would be able to set up a case. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman has heard of the discussions in the Central Chamber of Agriculture, which ended in a recommendation that there should be several additions to the list of items in respect of which payment might be made, and—
"Finally, any other improvements increasing the letting value of an agricultural holding, not specifically mentioned in the schedules, and for which a tenant is not otherwise compensated."
That recommendation, though shown by practical opinion to be necessary, is obviously a reductio ad absurdum of the whole theory of schedules. My hon. friend the Member for East Aberdeen-shire quoted the opinion of Mr. Clay and Mr. James Hope. He might have quoted many others who came before the Commission, and desired that the most absolute freedom should be given to the tenant to make improvements. I may say that this is not a merely Scotch contention. On the contrary, the principle was first embodied in the English Market Gardeners Compensation Act in 1895. That Act was the outcome of a custom which had grown up among the fruit-growers of the Vale of Evesham of recognising the absolute right of the tenants to carry out improvements in their own way. I might also quote Mr. Drew, the Secretary of the Farmers' Club, who repeatedly expressed the opinion that the schedules should be done away with, and that a general presumption should be established of the right of the tenants to make improvements with a right to compensation, unless where waste or damage had been done to the holding. That principle had the support of many practical farmers, including former chairmen of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and also the strong support of the fruit growers of Kent. It seems to me that a very sub-
1170
stantial case has been made out for the Amendment. I have myself taken the intermediate course of suggesting that some items of the schedule should be transferred from Part 1 to Part 2, and others from Part 1 to Part 3, as a compromise. At the same time, as a matter of principle, I think that ultimately we shall arrive at the system proposed in the Amendment, of recognising all improvements which are reasonable and suitable for the purposes for which a holding is let, and we should thus get rid of a great deal of needless friction. The landlord would, of course, remain able at common law to prevent improper experiments by the tenant on the holding he has on lease. In any case, my hon. friend is well advised in raising this question by his Amendment. The principle is one upon which legislation will ultimately proceed, and I certainly will give him my support.
MR. JEFFREYS: I should not like it to go forth that the Central Chamber of Agriculture favours the abolition of the schedule. I may remind the House that the first schedule is divided into three parts. The first sets forth the things which may be done on a farm, after getting the consent of the landlord; the second, the improvements in respect of which notice to the landlord is required; and the third, the improvements in respect of which the consent of or notice to the landlord is not required. The Central Chamber of Agriculture did not favour the abolition of this schedule.
*Mr. CHANNING: I only mentioned that several leading farmers advocated, in the Chambers, the abolition of the schedules, and that two former presidents of the Central Chamber of Agriculture had expressed the same opinion.
MR. JEFFREYS: The Central Chamber of Agriculture supported the three parts of the schedule very strongly, and only wished to add to them. I hope the House will reject the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, for it would really cut away the whole benefits of the Bill.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 170; Noes, 91. (Division List No. 202.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Garfit, William

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry).

Aird, John

Gedge, Sydney

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Arrol, Sir William

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lon.)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Baird, John G. Alexander

Gilliat, John Saunders

Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W.

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manch'r.)

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Percy, Earl

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Pilkington, R. (Lancs Newton)

Banbury, Frederick George

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bartley, George C. T.

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. H. (Brstl)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Gull, Sir Cameron

Purvis, Robert

Bethell, Commander

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

Pym, C. Guy

Bill, Charles

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Blakiston-Houston, John

Hardy, Laurence

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew, W.

Bond, Edward

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Henderson, Alexander

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Bowles, T. Gibson (Kink's Lynn)

Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

Round, James

Brassey, Albert

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'hm)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Houston, R. P.

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Hutchinson. Capt. G. W. Grice-

Sandon, Viscount

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derby)

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

Sidebottom, T. Harrop (Stalybr)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Sidebottom, William (Derbys.)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Keswick, William

Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

Chelsea, Viscount

Knowles, Lees

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Lawrence. Sir E. Durning-(Corn)

Stanley, Edward Jas (Somerset).

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Stanley, Sir Henry M. (Lambeth)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. E. H.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Cox, Irvin E. Bainbridge

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Thornton, Percy M.

Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

Tollemache, Henry James

Curzon, Viscount

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lowles, John

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham)

Lyttleton, Hon. Alfred

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Welby, Lt.-Cl. A. C. E. (Taunt'n)

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

M'Killop, James

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Malcolm, Ian

Whiteley, H. (Asht'n-under-L.)

Donkin, Richard Sim

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Milward, Colonel Victor

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Monckton, Edward Philip

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Faber, George Denison

Monk, Charles James

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Wylie, Alexander

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Wyndham, George

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Fisher, William Hayes

Morrell, George Herbert

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Mount, William George

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Muntz, Philip A.

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute)

NOES.

Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

Channing, Francis Allston

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. J.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Barlow, John Emmott

Crilly, Daniel

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Billson, Alfred

Dalziel, James Henry

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Birrell, Augustine

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

Dillon, John

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Broadhurst, Henry

Donelan, Captain A.

Hogan, James Francis

Caldwell, James

Doogan, P. C.

Horniman, Frederick John

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Causton, Richard Knight

Flynn, James Christopher

Kearley, Hudson, E.

1172

1173

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Leng, Sir John

Philipps, John Wynford

Wason, Eugene

Lewis, John Herbert

Pickard, Benjamin

Wedderburn, Sir William

Lloyd-George, David

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Weir, James Galloway

Lough, Thomas

Power, Patrick Joseph

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Macaleese, Daniel

Price, Robert John

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Reckitt, Harold James

Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk)

M'Crae, George

Robson, William Snowdon

Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

M'Ghee, Richard

Runciman, Walter

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

M'Leod, John

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Maddison, Fred

Sinclair, Capt. Jno. (Forfars.)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddrsfi'ld)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Spicer, Albert

Woods, Samuel

Moulton, John Fletcher

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Yoxall, James Henry

O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

Tennant, Harold John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Oldroyd, Mark

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Mr. Buchanan and Dr. Farquharson.

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Wallace, Robert

MR. YOXALL: Hon. Members will see that the Amendment I now move refers to suburban allotments, which are of a very peculiar nature, and held under a very peculiar tenure. The Allotment Gardens Compensation Act of 1887 does not meet their case, and my Amendment, I venture to say, will do substantial justice to a class of people worthy of the greatest consideration, and will meet a special want in regard to the tenure of land in this country. The land given up to these allotments in the neighbourhood of great towns is land that is ripening for building purposes. It is land outside a ring fence, that cannot be properly attached to a farm, and is often bounded by railways or canals, and consists of loose patches waiting for the builder. In the meantime it is let out in half or three-quarters of a rood to artisans from our great towns, who go out there to obtain some touch with nature and some change from the monotony of factory life. They bring their wives and children with them, and on a Sunday, outside church hours, you will find them in hundreds and thousands enjoying there the best imitation they can obtain of the beauties of nature. In order the better to enjoy this suburban rurality it has grown to be a custom, I may almost say an essential thing, to build a small summer-house, sometimes with a little kitchen range and a chimney, and to furnish it with a table and a few chairs. Frequently the midday meal on a Sunday is partaken in these small summer-houses. A small greenhouse is often
1174
found attached; and occasionally, where the gardens are sufficiently removed from the city, there would be a fowl-house or a pig-sty. These buildings, no doubt, are put up without the leave of the landlord. I venture to speak on behalf of the Federation of Allotment Garden Holders Associations, who have carefully considered this matter, and who believe they have a claim for compensation for these buildings when they are compelled to move. Having regard to the moral influence of these suburban allotment gardens, I see no reason why the House should not make it possible for these people to enjoy this semi-rural life on Bank Holidays and Sundays in safety as to the future. I do not complain on their behalf of the high rents they pay, often as much as at the rate of 20 guineas per acre, which is very high compared with agricultural rent in this country. I do not complain of the high rent of twenty guineas per acre. I do not complain of the cottage gardener or the allotment gardener, the class to which I refer, receiving no compensation if against his wish he has to leave his plot because he has to go and live in another town. I do not complain of that at all, but what I do complain of is, that having established these allotment gardens and cultivated them and put up their little buildings upon them on the faith of long custom and long habit, they cannot when that land is sold for building purposes claim any compensation at all. The land is only sold when it is absolutely ripe for building, and it is sold then at a very high profit, and the small amount of compensation that I have suggested in my Amendment the Committee will agree is not too much. The compensation is

1175
strictly limited in amount. I shall be told that they have a right to take away the fruit bushes and fruit trees not firmly planted in the land, so to speak. But I would point out to the Committee that one cannot take away from the land with any profit fruit trees and fruit bushes; and the buildings which have been put up are not saleable at all at the price of the cost which they represent. What I wish to do is to obtain for those tenants the right to take away their fruit trees and fruit bushes, and I think on the determination of the tenancy by the action of the landlord and not of the tenant—as in cases where the land has become ripe for immediate building purposes, and the tenant is turned out at six months notice—where there is no compensation at all by the operation of the compensation clause of the existing Act, the tenant ought to have the right to compensation to the extent of one-third of the gross value of his improvements or £10, whichever is the greater sum. I venture to hope that I have shown to the Committee a good case for their favourable consideration. This is a very deserving class, the artisans of the great towns; and from the point of view of public behaviour and public morals, of detachment from less worthy pursuits, of health given to wife and children who are enabled to spend many hours in the spring and summer months amongst the green leaves and away from the shut-in atmosphere of the cities—from the point of view of public interest and national interest generally, and of improving the physique of the people, and detaching them from public-houses and from betting and other forms of amusement far too prevalent in our towns, I ask that the tenant shall be put in a better position than he stands at present. My Amendment is one that is looked upon with great favour by the populations of the large manufacturing towns of this country, and I believe it is the only proposal of this particular kind now before the House. I beg to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 12, after the word 'tenant,' to insert the words, 'And the tenant of a holding, being an allotment or cottage garden, shall be entitled to obtain from the landlord compensation in money for fruit trees, fruit bushes, drains, and for any outbuildings, pigsties, fowl-houses, or other structural improvements made by the tenant upon his hold-
1176
ing to the extent of one-third of their gross value; provided always that this compensation; shall not exceed ten pounds, and that the-tenant shall have the right to remove such fruit trees, fruit bushes, outbuildings, pigsties, and fowl-houses in addition to the right to the aforesaid compensation, and that if the tenancy be determined after notice given by the tenant no right to compensation in money shall exist.' "—(Mr. Yoxall.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*MR. LONG: The hon. Gentleman has honestly endeavoured to deal with what he no doubt considers a very difficult, question, but I very much doubt if the difficulty be as great as he imagines it is, or whether there is any difficulty at all,, and I do not know whether the allotment holders, after all, will approve of this Amendment when they find how it works out in their own individual cases. How does the question of compensation stand? The Allotments Act of 1887 provides that the tenants shall receive full compensation for the erection of buildings and other improvements, provided they obtain the assent of the landlords to those improvements in the first instance. Then they can do what they like. The hon.. Gentleman proposes by his Amendment that that assent shall be done away with,, and that the tenant shall be entitled to compensation to the extent of one-third of the gross value of his property, and then, in order to do justice to the landlord, he proposes that the compensation shall be limited to £10. I cannot conceive how a proposal of this kind could work out equitably throughout the country generally. Everybody agrees-with what the hon. Gentleman said as to the desirability of people in the towns having gardens of this character, and everybody who has observed the condition of large towns must be aware of the wonderful increase in the provision of allotments and gardens all over the country. The hon. Gentleman by his proposal not only suggests that the tenant shall be entitled to claim compensation from the landlord with respect to the expenditure and disturbance entailed upon him, but that when the landlord has paid the compensation the tenant shall be entitled to remove the fruit trees and other things which he has sold to the landlord. It is a most remarkable way to

1177
arrive at a just compensation, and I cannot believe it will confer the advantage upon the allotment-holders which the hon. Gentleman desires. I am bound to say also that it involves a principle to which I could not assent, that these men are to be allowed to make alterations in the character of their holdings without the consent of the landlord. Therefore, I must resist the Amendment.
MR. PRICE: I am very sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way to accept this Amendment, or some portion of it. There is no real difficulty in this matter; that is shown by the fact that all this large number of associations have asked my hon. friend to move in the matter. It is true that compen-
sation can be claimed if the assent of the landlord in writing has been first obtained,, but in the vast majority of the cases the assent of the landlord cannot be obtained, the result being that large amounts of improvements have been confiscated. Of course it is very difficult to say what are improvements on land that is to be used for building and what are not, but at the same time I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, whilst agreeing to the desirability of doing something, has not seen his way to accept the Amendment.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 76; Noes, 134. (Division List No. 203.)

AYES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Pickard, Benjamin

Barlow, John Emmott

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hogan, James Francis

Price, Robert John

Billson, Alfred

Horniman, Frederick John

Rickett, J. Compton

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Broadhurst, Henry

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'lnd)

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Burns, John

Lewis, John Herbert

Spicer, Albert

Burt, Thomas

Lloyd-George, David

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Caldwell, James

Lough, Thomas

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Crilly, Daniel

Macaleese, Daniel

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan E.)

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

M'Dermott, Patrick

Wedderburn, Sir William

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Ghee, Richard

Weir, James Galloway

Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

M'Kenna, Reginald

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

Dillon, John

M'Leod, John

Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

Donelan, Captain A.

Maddison, Fred.

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Doogan, P. C.

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Fenwick, Charles

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Moulton, John Fletcher

Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd)

Flynn, James Christopher

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Woods, Samuel

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Malley, William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Griffith, Ellis J.

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Mr. Yoxall and Mr. Steadman.

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Philipps, John Wynford

NOES.

Arrol, Sir William

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Baird, John George Alexander

Bullard, Sir Harry

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbys)

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Bartley, George C. T.

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Curzon, Viscount

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Bethell, Commander

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worcr)

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Blakiston-Houston, John

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Donkin, Richard Sim

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Charrington, Spencer

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Llewellyn, Sir Dillwyn (S'nsea)

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Fisher, William Hayes

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Round, James

Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Lowles, John

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Garfit, William

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Sidebotham, T. Harrop (Stalybr.)

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Macdona, John Cumming

Sidebottom, William (Derbys.)

Gilliat, John Saunders

M'Killop, James

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Malcolm, Ian

Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Monckton, Edward Philip

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Thornton, Percy M.

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Tollemache, Henry James

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

Morgan, Hn. F. (Monmouthsh.)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. M.

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Morrell, George Herbert

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Hardy, Laurence

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Mount, William George

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts)

Henderson, Alexander

Muntz, Philip A.

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

Houston, R. P.

Nicholson, William Graham

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Parkes, Ebenezer

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W.

Wylie, Alexander

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Percy, Earl

Wyndham, George

Keswick, William

Pilkington, R. (Lancs., Newt'n)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Knowles, Lees

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn.)

Pretyman, Ernest George

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Purvis, Robert

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

Pym, C. Guy

*SIR CHARLES WELBY: The words of the Amendment which I now beg to move are taken bodily from the existing Act, and therefore it seems to me it falls upon the Government to justify their omission rather than on me to justify their retention. When this question was referred to upstairs, it was pointed out that the proviso was not in the Act of 1883, as it was originally drafted, but was inserted in the Committee stage. But what was the history of its insertion? It was inserted in the Bill of 1883 upon the motion of the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it was moved after a more drastic Amendment, which limited the compensation of the tenant to his actual outlay, had been proposed and carried by the present First Lord of the Treasury. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was, with some slight modifications, accepted by the Government and inserted in the Bill, and it was then recognised upon all sides of the House to be a reasonable precaution against possible misunderstanding. This Amendment which I now move will have the same effect in this Bill. I admit that the words are vague and unsatisfactory,
1180
but the object of the proviso is, so far as improvements are concerned, to separate as far as possible the interest of the tenant from that of the landlord. I am as anxious as anyone to secure for the tenant full compensation for his outlay, initiative, and energy, but it is perfectly obvious that there must be a point at which one interest ends and the other begins. Take an extreme case which I admit is unlikely to arise, but which shows the principle. A man may, by the mere fact of turning the course of a river, turn 200 acres of worthless swamp into valuable fertile land. But no one contends that in such a case as that he should be entitled to the capital value of all that reclaimed acreage of land. But I confess I can see in this Bill no sort of safeguard against such an extreme interpretation as that being placed upon it. The right hon. Gentleman, as I understood when this question was raised upstairs, objected to the proviso, mainly on the ground that it was of no practical effect. I am not prepared to accept that entirely, but even granting it, I submit that it does not necessarily follow that, because words are in an Act of Parliament and have no effect, the deliberate omission

1181
of those words will have no effect. We apprehend, rightly or wrongly, that these words having been in an Act of Parliament, their omission may be construed as an instruction to arbitrators to make some change in their practice, and to ascribe to an outgoing tenant something that has hitherto been recognised by all as inherent with the ownership of the soil. The right hon. Gentleman made the important statement, upstairs, that the Government did not by omitting these words intend any change in the law or in the practice. I would respectfully submit to him that, as the Government do not intend to make any change in the law or in the practice, and as, so far as I am aware, there is no demand for any change; and as, on the other hand, there are apprehensions in many quarters as to what the effect of the omission may be, it would be well to let well alone, and to reinsert these words as part of the law. I beg to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 12, after the word 'tenant,' to insert the words,' Provided always that, in estimating the value of any improvement in Schedule I., there shall not be taken into account, as part of the improvement made by the tenant, what is justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil.' "—(Sir Charles Welby.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*MR. LONG: My hon. friend may be quite certain that apart altogether from the distinguished origin of the Amendment, the subject is one which coming from himself would receive my consideration. I confess that when I was anticipating the points of difficulty that might arise in the discussion of this Bill, it never entered my head that this would be one of them. The reason for leaving out the words was accurately described by my hon. friend. he told us something of the history of the way the words got into the Act of 1883. It is quite true that they were words suggested by my right hon. friend, but I am not quite sure that they were suggested by him because he believed they were of very great importance, or far reaching. Now he entirely concurs
1182
that they are of no value as they stand. My hon. friend suggests that, although they may be of no value, the fact that they are in the Act of Parliament, and that Parliament is asked to leave them out of this Bill, may have a bearing on future action in this matter. I confess that I have never been able to understand how a landlord is going to consider agricultural operations in connection with the soil without considering in the valuation what is due to the soil itself—how much the soil has paid for the production of the article for which compensation is to be given. My hon. friend thinks the omission of the words may lead to difficulty. The Royal Commission considered these words with the greatest possible care, and made some moderate and sensible recommendations. Mr. Lipscombe spoke in the strongest terms of these words, and other valuers have described them as having a mischievous effect. Recommendations have been made from all quarters that the words should be omitted. They have led to the suggestion, as my hon. friend is aware, that the landlord seeks to deprive the tenant of that which is the result of the tenant's work. This has led to some reflection being cast on the Act of Parliament itself. I have discussed this matter with some of the most experienced valuers I have lately come-across, and so far as I know there is no suggestion that the omission of these words would have the far-reaching and serious effect my hon. friend fears. I confess I do not share my hon. friend's fears in any way whatever. I hope the House will accept the suggestion the Government have made and will not assent to the reinsertion of the words.
*EARL PERCYsaid he regretted extremely that the right hon. Gentleman had not been able to accept the small and reasonable Amendment of his hon. friend. They had really heard no reason whatever, either in the Committee upstairs or in that House, in favour of striking out the words, except the evidence given before the Royal Commission. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to that and it would be worth while to see how absolutely conflicting and contradictory it was. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the evidence given by Mr. Lipscombe

1183
who was in favour of striking out the I words, because they were entirely unnecessary and inoperative at the present moment. Sir J. Bennet Lawes, while in favour of the exclusion of the words, was of opinion that they contained a principle which the arbitrators would be bound to take into account in giving an award, whether the words were in the Bill or not. Did Mr. Lipscombe mean that the arbitrators had acted in open defiance of the principles laid down by the law? He should say that was a good reason for appointing a commission of enquiry similar to the Fry Commission, which reported on the working of the Irish Land Acts. If Sir J. Bennet Lawes was correct, what on earth could be the reason for striking the words out of the Bill? A more extraordinary way of enlisting the confidence of either tenant or landlord in the impartiality of this tribunal, to which for the first time they were giving unlimited discretion, while withdrawing the right of appeal which had hitherto existed to the county court, could hardly be imagined. The right hon. Gentleman had stated in reference to the history of the matter, that although it was true these words were inserted in the Bill in 1883, on the motion of the right hon. Gentleman who was now Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was not at all sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time attached any importance to them. All he knew was that his right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury moved an Amendment in 1883 on the Bill of the then Government—a far more stringent one— providing that compensation to tenants in case of improvements executed without the consent of the landlord should be limited to the amount of the capital expenditure by the tenant. He carried that Amendment against the Government, and the Government was so annoyed that they proceeded to suggest that the Amendment by the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be accepted in place of the Amendment by his right hon. friend. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, in moving the Amendment, used words quite incompatible with the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman, that he attached no importance to it. He said—
"He was bound to say he thought there would be something required in the Bill in the nature of a limit to the discretion of the valuer beyond the words 'inherent capabilities of the soil.'"
1184
Later on the right hon. Gentleman said—
"What he was anxious to do was to enable this Bill to work if it could; and what he was convinced of was this—that it would be difficult enough for the first part of the Schedule to work under any circumstances, for he did not believe the tenantry of England were likely, so long as the English land system endured, to desire to make these permanent improvements. But if the Committee wished to deter landlords from giving their assent to the making of these permanent improvements by the tenants, they could not do better than leave it open to the valuer to give to the tenant compensation for that which really belonged to the landlord. Therefore, he was anxious to limit the action of the valuers in this matter, as the Government themselves desired, and to show in the four corners of the Bill that the valuers were not to take that course. The landlord, if he gave his consent to the permanent improvements being made, would not then be under any fear that he would be deprived of any property which belonged to him; and with that view he had proposed this Amendment."
It appeared, therefore, that he did attach importance to it at the time. A protest ought to be made against this kind of slipshod legislation to which they were becoming accustomed in connection with all questions relating to agriculture. The Government pretended that these words were unnecessary, or at any rate that they might raise conflict and misunderstanding, and instead of taking the trouble to devise some phrase to express their meaning better, they asked the House to strike the words out of the Bill. Surely the English language was capable of giving such a definition. They might find words which would not be open to the objections urged against this proviso in Ricardo's "Original and Indestructible Properties of the Soil," or in the definitions of any treatise on political economy. Instead of trying to devise an alternative they trusted absolutely to the impartiality of gentleman who, it had been stated, paid no attention to the principles of the statute under which they act. It was said in evidence before the Royal Commission that these words might deter tenants from coming forward with claims of a certain character. If there was one difficulty in this legislation it was that it encouraged a tenant to believe that by a dexterous manipulation of his claim he might extract from the arbitrator something to which he had no right and which the law never intended to give him. The result was that the landlord had to make an equally exaggerated claim, and the

1185
arbitrators, in order to save themselves the trouble of going into the matter, took the easy way of splitting the difference. In some form or other words should be introduced which would limit and restrict the discretion of the arbitrator.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYconfessed he was somewhat disappointed at the reply of the President of the Board of Agriculture, because he thought the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give a better reason for his opposition to the Amendment than he had done. When he came to the House that night he did not think this was a point they should press on the Government.; but, considering the small excuse the Government so far had given for leaving out the words which appeared in every other Agricultural Act dealing with holdings, he should feel himself bound to support his hon. friend unless they got some better explanation. The two hon. Members who had just spoken had fully gone into the history of the words and the reason for the Amendment. He would give one example to the House of a thing which might occur, and which might bring this question very much to the front. Suppose that some year there was a considerable rise in the price of wheat and barley. Hon. Members were perfectly well aware that there was a large amount of land at the present moment which no longer could be worked at a profit in growing corn. On the other hand, it produced an indifferent and inferior article, and would let at from 2s. 6d. to 5s. an acre. That land, if ploughed and cultivated, would certainly produce a rent of 15s. to £1 an acre. He wished to ask the House whether it was fair that the whole of that increase should go to the tenant. Undoubtedly the "inherent capabilities of the soil" were what would grow the wheat. It would not be wheat of five quarters to the acre, which would pay cultivation at present prices. It would only produce three-quarters to the acre. He saw no reason why such words should not be placed in. the Bill, so that valuers should at all times know how to act.
MR. SEALE HAYNEsaid he only wished to bring before the House his view of "the in-
1186
herent capabilities of the soil." What did a tenant pay for when he paid rent? He paid for the inherent capabilities of the soil. If those capabilities were good he paid a high rent, and if they were bad he paid a low rent. There was no such thing as the inherent capabilities of the soil, because the soil without labour and without manure would produce nothing that was marketable. [Cries of "Oh !"] Certainly not. If they put by an acre of land and did not work it, that acre of land would produce nothing of any marketable value. The soil had no inherent capabilities unless worked by tenants. If these words were worth anything, and if they resulted in anything being got out of the tenant, it would really be robbing him.
MR. PHILIPPS: I do not pretend to be quite certain what effect the omission of these words will have, but the right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill, as far as I understood him, assured the House that whether or not the words are in the Bill will make no difference in the minds of the valuers, and he proposes to leave them out only as being more or less immaterial. It is possible that may be so, but for my own part I have some hope that if these words are omitted valuers will be inclined, from the very fact of their omission from this Bill, while they were inserted in a previous Bill, to give to the outgoing tenant a larger sum as compensation than they would have been inclined to give. I therefore hope the Government will stick to their guns and insist that these words should not be added to the clause. I desire to take this opportunity of putting in a protest against some of the arguments by which this Amendment has been justified. The hon. Baronet the mover gave us what he evidently considered was a most shocking example. He said that unless the Bill was safeguarded by these words a case might happen in which a man took a farm with even as much as one hundred acres of swamp upon it—swamp that was absolutely useless— and by altering the course of a river turned that swamp into most valuable land. That is the way the hon. Baronet looked at it, but it seems to me, looking at it from the Liberal point of view—and I fancy most agricultural constituencies, whether they return Liberals or Conser-

1187
vatives to this House, will have much the same opinion—that if a man takes a farm which has an acre of swamp, worth practically nothing to anybody, and by turning the course of a river or stream makes that swamp into good meadow land, the man is fairly entitled to every penny the land is worth.
SIR CHARLES WELBY: But he may reclaim a thousand acres.
MR. PHILIPPS: Suppose a man improves one acre of land, he is entitled to compensation. "Why is he less entitled if he improves a thousand acres? It has been laid down that a man benefited his country if he made two blades of grass to grow where one Wade grew before. But the man who drains a swamp makes many hundreds of blades to grow where only one grew before, and if the man who makes two to grow is a benefactor to his country, the man who makes a hundred to grow is much more a benefactor. This may shock the hon. Baronet; he appears to think it may be reasonable that a man who reclaims one acre of bog should get compensation, but he speaks of the possibility of a man getting compensation for reclaiming a thousand acres as a very terrible thing. If it is a good thing to reclaim an acre surely it is a better thing to reclaim two acres, and a far better thing to reclaim a thousand, and the man who docs such a deed certainly deserves every penny of the advantage his labour or skill has given to the land. After all, it is not generally such an easy thing to drain land, and if a man has the skill to drain a thousand acres of bog land on a remunerative basis—that is, so that the land is worth more than the amount he spends in draining it—he certainly is entitled to all the credit and advantage. That is my view of the principles on which the House ought to legislate, and if the omission of these words will lead to the man who drains land getting the benefit I earnestly hope the House will condemn the Amendment. I dissent altogether from the arguments of the noble Lords sitting opposite. I say that a tenant ought to get the benefit of any improvement to the value of the holding when he leaves it, which is due to inherent capabilities of the soil. My
1188
right hon. friend the Member for the Ashburton Division put the matter very clearly. What is it that a man pays for when he takes land? Some men rent, land at 5s. an acre, and some rent land at £2 an acre—grass-land in a, similar county, one part being poor and the other rich grass-land. What does a man pay for if he pay £2 rather than 5s. an acre? Surely he pays for "the inherent capabilities of the soil"? I say that he is entitled to the benefit of those capabilities, and it would be most unjust if, by such an Amendment as the hon. Baronet proposes, the tenant was shut out from these advantages. As regards some of the matters in the first schedule of this Bill, unless a man is benefited by the improvement of the soil I cannot understand how a valuer can give compensation. The tenant can only get compensation if the land is benefited and gives increased crops. I hope the Government will stand to their guns and refuse to accept this Amendment. If the Amendment is accepted the heart of the Bill will be struck out, and it will be nothing more than a mockery and a sham.
MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEthought the ingenuity and eloquence of the hon. Member for Pembroke had been somewhat misapplied The practical question they had to decide was not whether these words were wisely introduced in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883, but whether their extrusion from the existing law at the present time might not have an injurious and unfair effect upon the rights of the owners of the soil. If these words were retained from the Act of 1883, it would enable the, arbitrator to give something to the tenant which he was not entitled to give him at present. He laid very little stress himself upon these words, and he was quite prepared to admit that it was a very difficult thing to translate them into pounds, shillings, and pence. If they had never been in the Act of 1883, he did not think that he should have voted for leaving them in this Act. But there they were, and so far they had worked no injustice, and if there had been ambiguity it had not been followed by any serious consequences. The question was whether the words should be taken, out. or not. He thought some further reason should. be

1189
given for taking them out. Let the House look at the matter in a plain and simple way. They were not dealing for the moment with existing tenants. The tenant paid for the inherent capacities of the soil in the shape of rent. He took his farm upon certain terms—it might be from year to year, or for a longer period— but as long as he had the farm he had the use of the inherent capacities of the soil to treat as he liked, with the assistance of his skill, his capital, and his labour. Therefore, the tenant got what he bargained for. Then they came to the position of things between the parties when the contract was at an end. It was right that the tenant should be compensated for what was due to his own exertions and industry and his capital, and the present Bill gave compensation for those matters. But when it came to putting into his own pocket money which, by the very wording of this clause, was due not to what he had done, but to the inherent capacities of something which belonged to another man, and the use of which he had had for a certain period of time, and for which he had paid, then he thought that was not the tenant's property, but the property of the landlord. For what those words were worth, he thought it was a pity to throw them away in the present Bill. He somewhat regretted that those words were ever introduced in the Bill of 1883, but being there, the question the House was called upon to decide was, whether it was right and wise to abandon them, and thus open a loophole which would enable an arbitrator to give a tenant compensation not for what he had done, but for what was really and truly the property of the landlord.
MR. HALDANE: I do not gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of this Bill that in maintaining the omission of these words he was animated by any particular abstract principle. On the contrary, I gather that there was no principle of any sort at the back of his opposition, and if any justification is wanted of the practical sagacity of the hon. Gentleman in trying to get rid of those words it is to be found in the debate which has taken place. I cannot help thinking that the House has discussed this question in a somewhat innocent fashion. Hon. Members have spoken as if this was some virgin soil
1190
which they could till, and there has been in addition the argument about "inherent capabilities." They leave out of account the fact that what they are contemplating is ground which has already been discussed. This very question gave rise to the famous case of "Adams v. Dunseath," and I for one contemplate with abhorrence the notion that the controversy which that case let loose in Ireland should now be let loose on this side of St. George's Channel. As that controversy was entirely the outcome of these words, I think the only practical expedient for us to adopt now is to omit them. It is a great delusion to suppose that the practical man who comes to value the improvements of the tenants takes into account the inherent capabilities of the soil. On the contrary, what he does is, not to think of the inherent capacities of the soil, but to apportion the value of the improvements between the labour of the tenant and something which is the subject-matter on which he has been operating. The valuer is generally some practical farmer with a great knowledge of agriculture and valuations, and he asks himself, what has the tenant substantially contributed to the improvement of the farm? So far from drawing a distinction between the inherent capacities of the soil and the labour of the tenant, he does nothing of the sort. He makes no such distinction, because it is a purely metaphysical one, and it has no practical value. In considering what the tenant does to add value to the soil, some account of course must be taken of what is due to the inherent qualities of the soil. The tenant would not have occupied the soil unless he believed it had some inherent qualities of which he could take advantage. On the other hand, to imagine that there is some hard-and-fast line to be drawn between what is due to the inherent capacities of the soil and what is due to the labour of the tenant is really raising a figment of the imagination of philosophers and lawyers. I object to introducing a figment of philosophers and lawyers into this controversy between landlord and tenant. The practical man is quite capable of dealing with this question, and of distinguishing between what is due to the inherent qualities of the soil and what is due to the tenant; he will take a broad view, and consider whether a particular tenant

1191
has, by his labour and his money, made an improvement of that kind which the Act of Parliament lays down. The Act of Parliament is not one which am bodies any abstract principle, and I never knew any Act which did embody an abstract principle which anybody could understand; and least of all does the Agricultural Holdings Act provide any logical basis which would enable the unfortunate valuer to consider the subtleties which were raised by the noble Lord the Member for South Kensington. The valuer has to look at these things from a business point of view, and if he were instructed otherwise I should protest against him being made arbitrator in the controversies under this Act, because he would not be fit for the duties imposed upon him. Heaven forbid that we should place any such burden upon the back of the unfortunate arbitrator as was raised in "Adams v. Dunseath." There is not very much chance of the arbitrator making a mistake, and if he does no court of law would endeavour to correct him, and because these words seem to introduce ambiguity into what is otherwise quite clear I think the Government have acted wisely in omitting those words.
MR. VICARY GIBBS: I think it comes rather strangely from the hon. and learned Member for Haddington that he should charge hon. Members on this side with being philosophers and lawyers. But, to return to the more serious part of his speech, he very properly pointed out that this was anything but virgin ground, and that these questions had all been gone through in 1883. It must have amused the older hon. Members of this House to hear the way in which this subject was dealt with by my noble friend behind me. There is one remarkable difference between the state of things which existed in 1883 and now, and it is that whereas everyone of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury bench voted "aye" in 1883, they propose to vote "no" now. I do not suppose that I can raise a blush on the cheek of an official, but I think this fact fully justifies us in asking for some further explanation for the complete change of front which has taken place. These words which we desire to retain were introduced by the
1192
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and were strongly supported by the First Lord of the Treasury, and now the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill says they are unimportant, and he also says that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has come to the same conclusion. I observe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not present to face the music, and he has not come forward to explain why he pressed the House to carry in 1883 words which he now considers unimportant and mischievous. But why are these words mischievous? We asked the right hon. Gentleman to explain, and all be could tell us was that some eminent valuer had said they were mischievous. A man might be capable of estimating what was fair between landlord and tenant, and yet not be a safe guide for us in a matter of legislation, and I really think we ought to have some explanation from a member of the Government as to what is the mischief and what is the harm which the words proposed by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer have done. What was the great mischief he did to the country by his proposal? I should like to have that question answered. What does the right hon. Gentleman say? He says that every valuer will act exactly as if these words were there, and that it is the only honest course to take. The hon. Member opposite proceeded to say that there was no inherent value in land. That proposition is a most ridiculous one. It would be just as reasonable to say that any farmer could grow just as good a wheat crop on the floor of this House as upon any piece of land of the same size in the country. The proposition is so ludicrous that I am surprised to hear the hon. Member defend it. If the words which existed in this Bill were carried out by the valuers it would be a robbery. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to leave out those words because he says that robbery will continue whether the words are there or not. I cannot help saying that the right hon. Gentleman is playing into the hands of people who differ from him absolutely upon this question. The right hon. Gentleman showed something less than his usual prescience when he expressed official astonishment that there should be any objection to the omission of these words. It never occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that the words introduced by a leading member of this Government and

1193
supported by the Leader of the House, and which were produced as a protection and safeguard to the landlords against robbery, would be defended by anybody in this House, and he did not think we should take the trouble to protest against such a motion.
*SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I am induced to make a very few observations and to interpose in this interesting debate by the reference which has been made by my hon. and learned friend the Member for Haddington to the celebrated historic case of Adams v. Dunseath. I am very glad to see my hon. friend on the front Ministerial Bench, who is very familiar with that case. He will probably follow me, and if I say anything which does not commend itself to his logical mind perhaps he will be good enough to correct me. I confess that I am rather inclined to favour the insertion of those words, but on grounds altogether different from those which commended themselves to the noble Lord who so ably and eloquently defended this Amendment, and on grounds different from those put forward by the hon. Members who have supported him. Those words do not occur at all in the Irish Land Act, for there are no cognate words referring to the capabilities of the soil in that statute. The difference arose to some extent from those words not occurring. On the one hand the landlord contended that all the tenant was entitled to was the actual capital expended on his improvements, with interest say at 5 per cent. from the time the capital was expended. That was one pole of the question. On the other hand, what was contended for by the tenant was that the landlord was only entitled to what was termed and became a historic phrase—that is, the prairie value of the land. That is there was the prairie value on one hand and the capital value and interest on the other. I confess that in Ireland the question of the prairie value would be very different to what it would be in England. If we went back to what was done by the tenants in Ireland it would be found that the land was actually reclaimed from its wild and prairie state by the exertions, the labour, and the in-
1194
dustry of the tenants from generation to generation. That is not so in England, because the tenants do not go back in that way. There have been leases in England, and it can easily be ascertained what was the state of the soil when the tenancy commenced. My idea is, that if you leave in these words they will at once challenge inquiry as to what the precise measure of compensation that the tenants should get is, and it will prevent the arbitrator from applying that very valuable standard of common sense which is so popular with everyone when they can clearly understand the meaning of it. But there is nothing more dangerous, in my opinion, than common sense. It is very frequently a convertible term with the particular opinions of the person who applies it, which are often chimerical, and which lead to obvious errors. My idea of the effect of this Amendment is this: Dean Swift said that the man who made two blades of grass grow where only one grew before was a benefactor to his country. That is the principle on which I go. If a man makes two blades of wheat grow where only one grew before, what would justice and equity say? Why, that he should have one blade for himself, and the landlord should have the other blade for allowing him the use of the soil. I defy the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Derby, with whose logical and metaphysical powers the House is so familiar, to meet that argument. Supposing a tenant makes two blades of wheat grow where no wheat at all would have grown but for the exertions of the tenant. Is the tenant to get the two blades, and is nothing to remain for the landlord but the value of the virgin soil upon which the two blades grew? This is what creates the difficulty. If the land was not there, you might as well attempt to grow wheat on the floor of this House. The only true solution is, I think, that the tenant ought to receive compensation for every improvement he has applied to the soil, and all the landlord should get is the value of the uncultured and uncultivated soil at the time the letting was made. I will not trouble the House any further, and I should not have spoken at all but for the fact that the case of Adams v. Dunseath was mentioned, and I may say that the case is still sub judice, and is as far from a solution as ever it was.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: We have been told in this debate that common sense is the most injurious quality a man can possess, and that no soil possesses any inherent capabilities. I rise mainly because I am anxious to defend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his regrettable absence, against the attack of the hon. Member for St. Albans, who has complained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed a clause in the original Act, and is not here to prevent its extrusion by the Government of which he is a member. Does the hon. Member forget the difference between being in opposition and being in power? I think the hon. Member for St. Albans should remember that when a distinguished Member of this House is in Opposition he acts in accordance with his conscience and knowledge, and votes against nefarious schemes like the Finance Act of 1884, but when he comes into office his conscience is changed and "as bees on flowers alighting cease to hum," so on going into office Chancellors of the Exchequer are dumb. That is the explanation. The right hon. and learned Serjeant opposite spoke of this Amendment as if it proposed to insert something in the Bill. That, I assert, is a wrong way of putting it. The proposal of the Government is to leave something out. Let us remember that this Bill and the existing Act are one, and must be read one with the other, and everything that is done is subject to the provisions of both. If you repealed the existing law, and were starting anew, I think it would be arguable whether these words should be inserted, but the proposal apparently now is that we should leave out these words, while at the same time we keep them in, because we keep them in for reference but leave them out for legislative effect. Now, what is the result? The President of the Board of Trade told us that every arbitrator must have in mind the principle embodied in this Amendment—namely, that whatever is derived from the inherent capabilities of the soil should not be subject to compensation. He said that that principle must necessarily be in the mind of the arbitrator, whether we put in these words or not, but when an arbitrator comes to these two Acts, and the other nine Acts to which I will not now refer, he will
1196
have to consider them together. He will find in the first Act that he is directed not to take into account such part of the improvement made by the tenant as is-justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil, but he will also find that in the latest Act the Government, of malice prepense, have advisedly struck out these words, and he will take that as an overt direction to himself that he is no longer to proceed on the old Act but on the new. If you repealed the first Act it would be the cleaner way of doing it. Why not repeal all the nine Acts, and then set forth what you mean in a new Act? But, for reasons which we all know, the Government will not undertake that. Instead, the Government are legislating by allusion. They are superimposing the present Bill on the old Act, and are saying to the arbitrator, "We told you in 1883 that when you came to your arbitration you must not take into account in awarding, compensation such part of the improvement made by the tenant as was justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil. Now, in the Act of 1900 we leaver out in the most marked manner the clause giving that particular direction." Would not any arbitrator, any man of common sense, even any lawyer, say at once, "Oh, I understand what is meant. In 1883 I was told to take into account the inherent, capabilities of the soil, but in 1900 I have not got to do anything of the kind." It is as plain as a pikestaff. One other-point. In the list of improvements in the schedule there are very few indeed to which this clause would apply. It would not apply to the putting up or taking; down of fences or the erection or enlargement of buildings, and I do not think it would apply to "warping or weiring of land," a cryptogram which I hope in due course will be explained. If hon. Gentle- men will go through the list, they will find very few improvements in which the-inherent capabilities of the soil are involved at all. That being so, the principle is not a very large one. It is undoubtedly a just one, and was recognised as such by that great and most eminent, professor of justice the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1883, though I am perfectly certain that, if by the merest accident, the right hon. Gentleman were not away at the present moment, although he was here most of the afternoon, he would not now defend it. I do not know why he has changed his opinion. It is true that

1197
he has sold his land, though that may not have altered his principles. At any rate, he is not here to defend the abandonment of a principle he maintained in 1883, and which with great difficulty he embodied in the Act of that year. When such a course is proposed, it demands adequate justification, and no such justification has been yet given. We have been told that the arbitrator will bear the principle in mind, but I have endeavoured to show that he will take the omission of these words as a direction that he is not to have the regard for them which he was required to have by the Act of 1883. Consequently, in my opinion no case whatever has been made out for the omission.
CAPTAIN PRETYMAN: I only desire to say a few words in order to bring the discussion back to a practical issue. After all, the question we have to decide is whether it is really necessary, for the protection of landlords against unjust claims, that these words should remain as they were in the Act of 1883. I have listened very carefully to this debate, and the one consideration which inclined me to support this Amendment was the line taken by hon. Members opposite, who seemed to hope that the omission of these words would enable an entire change to take place. One hon. Member even stated that the whole value of the Bill would be destroyed if the words were inserted, and evidently a great deal of importance is attached to them. However, we have the assurance of my right hon. friend in charge of the Bill that he has no such intention as is evidently entertained by hon. Members opposite, but I do not think that we can attach very much importance to that, because after all it is not intentions, but words and the interpretation of words, we have to consider. When we come to the particular point as to what the landlords risk by leaving out these words, it will be seen that the risk is limited to the first schedule of the Bill. In the case mentioned by my hon. friend of ploughing up a field to convert it into wheat land, there would be no claim for compensation under this Bill in respect to that particular matter, and as regards the other case
1198
of the diverting of a river, that is not in the schedule at all, or, if it is in the schedule, it would come under "watercourses," where the consent of the landlord would be required, and he would therefore be able to protect himself. The possibility of injury to the landlord is confined to the third part of the first schedule, but I think where a tenant cultivates land as a mere matter of cultivation he is entitled to any improvement which he may hand on to the landlord. After all, that is the foundation of the Bill. If the cultivator improves the landlord's property he is 13 be entitled to the value of that improvement, which the landlord is able to charge the next tenant for. Therefore I do not think that taking out these words is likely to injure the landlords. Then is there any advantage in taking them out? I think there is. I do not think that their being in really affects the matter of compensation one way or the other, but, as was so ably pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Haddingtonshire, they would really confuse the mind of the valuer. I cannot imagine anything more difficult than two valuers, one taking into account these words and the other not considering them, endeavouring to arrive at the value of a farm. One may argue that all the improvements are due to the inherent capabilities of the soil, and the other may argue, not I think very forcibly, that they are all due to the farmer. Therefore you get great confusion in practice; and, after all, the advantage of keeping these words in is not great. Speaking from a practical standpoint, I think on the whole that it is desirable that they should be omitted.
LORD HUGH CECIL: I congratulate my hon. friend on having brought back the discussion to a more serious vein. We have heard a lesson in political economy from the hon. and learned Member for Haddingtonshire in his character as a man of common sense, and we also listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman describing the celebrated case of Adams v. Dunseath, and though we might unbend in the gravity of our discussions a little, I think it is important that we should make it clear that this Amendment has a serious side, and that

1199
it was not moved for the purpose of pointing out any supposed inconsistency on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or of dwelling on those other more humorous sides developed in the course of the debate. It appears to us to contain a principle of importance, and I confess that it is my opinion that the Amendment is one which ought to be included in the Bill. It cannot be shown that any harm will result from it, and it could not confuse the mind of an arbitrator who was capable of understanding the words of the Amendment, which have a very plain meaning to a man of common sense. The President of the Board of Agriculture brought forward a long catalogue of cases which this clause would affect, but he did not produce one solitary atom of evidence that it had ever produced the smallest evil in the past. When you come to the other side of the question, it is remarkable that its omission has been accepted by hon. Members opposite as making a great change. One hon. Member went so far as to say that the Amendment would knock the heart out of the Bill if it were accepted, and several hon. Members have been at pains to argue that it ought not to be accepted, but I cannot understand why these words should not be put into the Bill to carry out the intention which the Government admit they have. I cannot believe it is safe to leave words out now which have been in the Act up to the present. Would any arbitrator understand that the deliberate omission of these words meant nothing whatever? What kind of an arbitrator would he have to be? According to the Government he would have to be a person not able to understand very plain words, or not even able to attach any importance to the deliberate omission of important words. In fact, the Government are relying on the natural incapacity of the arbitrator. The safest course is to accept the Amendment. It cannot do any harm, and may be very important. If the Government have some verbal criticisms, which prevent them from approving this particular form of words, let the words be put in now, and they can be amended in another place. It is most unsafe to leave out words which have been in an Act of Parliament for several years, and which every arbitrator is familiar with, in order to start arbitrators on a new course of procedure. Let us retain the words,
1200
and we may rely on it that the arbitrators will understand them in the future as they have understood them in. the past.
*MR. LOYDsaid it appeared to him that the hon. Member for King's Lynn, in the references which he had made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had forgotten that when the Act of 1883 was introduced,, the existing Act, that of 1875, provided a method of compensation by taking the outlay as a starting point, and then deducting so much for each year that had: elapsed since the outlay. Then the Act of 1883 introduced for the first time the principle of giving as compensation to the outgoing tenant what the improvement was fairly worth to the incoming tenant. On that change there was a good deal of apprehension lest more should be given than was justly due to the efforts of the tenant, and the present First Lord of the Treasury proposed to meet the danger by saying in no case should the compensation exceed the outlay. That was objected to, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to get over the difficulty by introducing, the words which were the subject of the present discussion. But since those words: were inserted in the Act of 1883 they had had a mass of evidence from valuers and agriculturists against their retention, and had also witnessed the subtle and expensive controversy in the case of: Adams v. Dunseath. They were not,, therefore, now in the same position as in 1883. For his own part, he saw nothing inconsistent in the right hon. Baronet proposing those words at that date and being quite willing to assent to the course now proposed by the Board of Agriculture on the advice of their skilled advisers and after the experience of the intervening years. The words in question were from the outset regarded with misgiving. They were dangerous because on the one hand they might mean nothing but what every arbitrator would see for himself if he applied his mind to decide what was the fair value to the incoming tenant, who, if the improvement had not been made, would have received the land with its-inherent capabilities; but, on the other,

1201
they might gravely embarrass a sensitive and cautious arbitrator who felt it difficult to consider anything as an improvement to which the inherent capabilities of the soil had not responded. He should support the Government in declining to accept the Amendment.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: I hope that the President of the Board of Agriculture will adhere to the attitude he has taken up as regards this matter. Hon. Members who have spoken have forgotten that public opinion has developed enormously since the time compensation was first given for tenants' improvements. We are now familiar with the fact that these provisions have worked without any injury to the landlords' interests, and for the protection of the tenants' interests. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that the
aspect presented by the House of Commons in discussing a very grave and serious matter of this kind has not been such as. agriculturists will regard with favour. This Bill may be called the charter of the tenant farmers, and I can assure my noble friend that there is no proposal that will be looked upon with greater suspicion than the proposal to revive words which have been looked upon with the greatest aversion. The confusion which has attended the attempts of lawyers to explain these words is, in my opinion, a most convincing reason why this House should not have any more to do with them.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 24; Noes,. 186. (Division List No. 204.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton)

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo

Pym, C. Guy

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Butcher, John George

Lecky, Rt. Hon. William E. H.

Sidebottom, T. Harrop (Stalybr.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Lucas-Shadwell, William.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Malcolm, Ian

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Finch, George H.

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Sir Charles Welby and

Gedge, Sydney

Nicholson, William Graham

Earl Percy.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Charrington, Spencer

Galloway, William Johnson

Arrol, Sir William

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Garfit, William

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Gilliat, John Saunders

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Colville, John

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred

Baird, John George Alexander

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds0

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Banbury, Frederick George

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Barlow, John Emmott

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Bartley, George C. T.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Davies, Sir Hon. D. (Chatham.)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Griffith, Ellis, J.

Billson, Alfred

Denny, Colonel

Gull, Sir Cameron

Blakiston-Houston, John

Dillon, John

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Doogan, P. C.

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Bond, Edward

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Brassey, Albert

Emmott, Alfred

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Broadhurst, Henry

Fardell, Sir T. George

Hedderwick, Thos. Charles H.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Henderson, Alexander

Bullard, Sir Harry

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

Burns, John

Fenwick, Charles

Hobhouse, Henry-

Hurt, Thomas

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Holland, William Henry

Caldwell, James

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Hornby, Sir William H.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Fisher, William Hayes

Horniman, Frederick John

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derby.)

FitzGerald, Sir Rbt. Penrose-

Houston, R. P.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)

Fitz Wygram, General Sir. F.

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph.

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Flower, Ernest

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Keswick, William

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Knowles, Lees

Muntz, Philip A.

Steadman, William Charles

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Strauss, Arthur

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Lewis, John Herbert

O'Malley, William

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Philipps, John Wynford

Thornton, Percy

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

Pickard, Benjamin

Tollemache, Henry James

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

Lowles, John

Pilkington, Sir Geo A. (Lancs S. W.)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

Macaleese, Daniel

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wedderburn, Sir William

Macdona, John Cumming

Price, Robert John

Weir, James Galloway

Maclure, Sir J. William

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Purvis, Robert

Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

M'Crae, George

Reckitt, Harold James

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm)

M'Ghee, Richard

Rentoul, James Alexander

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

M'Killop, James

Round, James

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

M'Leod, John

Runciman, Walter

Wilson, John (Govan)

Maddison, Fred.

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'rs'd)

Milward, Colonel Victor

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Woods, Samuel

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Wylie, Alexander

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wyndham, George

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Morgan, J. Lloyd Carmarthen

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

Younger, William

Morrell, George Herbert

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Yoxall, James Henry

Morrison, Walter

Smith, Abel H.(Christchurch)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Mount, William George

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

MR. HALDANEsaid he moved the Amendment standing in his name with a strong sense that the Government, in inserting Sub-section 4, Clause 1, had made a really honest attempt to meet a difficulty. But it seemed to him that while it would meet the difficulty in some fashion, it ran counter to the principle of the Bill, which was the abolition of all penal clauses. The sub-section, as it left the Grand Committee, was as follows—
"In the ascertainment of the amount of the compensation payable to a tenant in respect of manures as defined by this Act, there shall be taken into account the value of the manure required by the contract of tenancy or by custom to be returned to the holding in respect of any crops sold off or removed from the holding within the last two years of the tenancy or other less time for which the tenancy has endured."
Now, that left it open to the landlord who desired to prevent the sale of way going crops—a thing which the tenant had a perfect right to do—to defeat that right by putting in a stipulation that the tenant should not be entitled to sell his way-going crops except on condition of putting on the land, say, 1,000 tons of manure. Accordingly, the
1204
result would be that the tenant's claim for compensation in respect of unexhausted manures would be wiped out, contrary to the intention of the Bill. He quite admitted that the Government had a good motive in bringing in that sub-section. As the law stood under the old Act the tenant had to submit to a deduction, which was assessed on a principle which, however fair to the tenant, was purely hypothetical, and gave no guidance to the arbitrator. In substance the tenant was entitled to compensation for unexhausted manures, but subject to the deduction of an amount which the arbitrator might think would be equivalent to the consumption on the holding of the way-going crops in the ordinary course of good husbandry. The objection to the Act of 1883 was that it put on the arbitrator the burden of making his calculations on a hypothetical basis of fact. The Government, wishing to get rid of that difficulty, put in this clause to make it a matter of bargain; but the draftsman overlooked the fact that the effect of so doing was to penalise the tenant who sold his way-going crops. He confessed that, having meditated over this subject a good deal, he could not think the Government

1205
proposal was satisfactory. He recognised the difficulty of the old clause; but he also saw very clearly the difficulty of the new clause inserted in Grand Committee. The arbitrator was to ascertain the manurial value of the way-going crops. He objected to the introduction into the English language of such a phrase as "manurial value." It seemed to him that the calculation of manurial value involved a problem to the arbitrator as great as a calculation on a hypothetical basis of fact. Probably the least evil would be to go back to the policy of the old Act. If his Amendment were accepted, Sub-section 4 of Clause 1 would read as follows—
"In the ascertainment of the amount of the compensation payable to a tenant in respect of manures as denned by this Act there shall be taken into account the value of the manures that would have been produced by the consumption on the holding according to the rules of good husbandry of any crops sold off and removed from the holding within the last two years of the tenancy, or other less time for which the tenancy has endured, except in so far as a proper return of manure to the holding has been made in respect of such produce so sold off or removed."
He hesitated to assert that that represented the "good common sense" desiderated by the noble Member for Greenwich; but it was common sense, and just what a good arbitrator would do. He was sure it was the best basis on which they could work, and he could not help thinking that if the Government were to consider the matter a little longer they would agree to it. He would, however, be perfectly content if the right hon. Gentleman would undertake, before the Bill came up in another place, to devise some words which would restore the sounder basis of the old state of the law, with such additions as would get rid of the puzzling calculations the arbitrator had at present to make.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 23, to leave out the words from the word 'manure' to the word 'endured,' inclusive, in line 27, and insert the words, 'that would have been produced by the consumption on the holding according to the rules of good husbandry of any crops sold off and removed from the holding within the last two years of the tenancy, or other less time for which the tenancy has endured, except in so far as a proper return of manure to the holding has been made in respect of such produce so sold oil' or removed.'"—(Mr. Haldane.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'required by' stand part of the Bill."
*MR. LONG: The description which the hon. and learned Gentleman has given of the history of the Amendment is quite accurate. The difficulties which arose were practical difficulties. When the Act of 1883 was passed it was no doubt the general practice for tenants to enter into an agreement which precluded them altogether from selling off their way-going crops. There are now three different positions in regard to this matter. Under the first the tenant is absolutely prohibited from the sale of the way - growing crops. Second, he is allowed to sell, subject to the replacement of manures of equivalent value; and third, he is given a free hand. If the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment were adopted a fresh difficulty would arise; because if the tenant exercised his undoubted right to sell, yet the fact that he had sold would have to be considered in adjudicating his claim for compensation, and therefore he would be penalised by the adoption of these words as they stand. The words adopted by the Government in endeavouring to meet the three different cases are unquestionably open to the construction which the hon. and learned Gentleman has placed upon them. Undoubtedly the hon. and learned Gentleman is right in saying that one of the main objects which the Government had before them was to get rid of the penal clauses; and by Clause 6 of this Bill the penal clauses are practically got rid of, with, of course, certain limitations. It certainly is true that under Sub-section 4 of this clause, as it left the Grand Committee, something of the form of a penal clause would be introduced, that is whore the contract between landlord and tenant demands that where the tenant sells off his way-going crops he must put on manures in proportion to what he sells. It seems to me, as appears to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that it is extremely difficult to avoid one of the many difficulties that arise on this subsection. Our object in amending this sub-section was to give to the tenant the right to which he is justly entitled, in whatever category of contract he comes, and to give to the landlord his just right

1207
also, but at the same time not to make it possible for the landlord to make use of a system of penal clauses which by another part of the Bill is abolished. It must be remembered that this subsection applies only to the last two years of the tenancy, and during these years it has always been held that the landlord is entitled to have a tighter hold over the tenancy, as to the methods of cultivation, than is necessary during the preceding period. At the same time, it is not the desire of the Government that this should enable the re-enactment of the penal clauses. I gladly adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman that if I find it possible to devise words which, while without in any way diminishing the value of what we believe would be the result of this sub-section, would prevent a revival of the old penal clause system, I shall be very glad on the part of the Government to adopt them.
MR. MOULTON: No one who has heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman can fail to feel that there is a most genuine desire on his part to meet the difficulty so very skilfully pointed out by my hon. and learned friend. The object is to give to the landlord his just right of not having the condition of the land let down during the last two years of the tenancy by selling off the way-going crops, and yet to leave the maximum of liberty in the hands of the tenant. Might I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the evil is introduced by the words "contract of tenancy"? It is not intended that, by any language in the contract of tenancy, we should get rid of those relations between landlord and tenant which are good for good husbandry. Might it not meet the difficulty if these words "contract of tenancy" were left out, and the clause made to read something in this way: "Shall be taken into account the value of the manure required by custom, or the requirements of good husbandry, to be returned to the holding in respect of any crop "? This would prevent the amount of manure which had to be put in during the last two years from being altered by any unreasonable requirements inserted in the contract of tenancy. I am perfectly satisfied that the object of the Government would not depend upon the fact that
1208
a grasping landlord would put in an unfair clause. The desire in all these restrictions on the tenant should only be to treat the landlord fairly.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid he desired to accentuate the advice which had been so well expressed by his hon. friend on the opposite side of the House. The House would, no doubt, be aware; that very great interest in this subject existed in Scotland, and that the: Scottish Board of Agriculture had carefully considered the question, and considered that a change was desirable. The crux of the whole question was in the words "contract of tenancy." He made these remarks because he did not think that Scotch farming was quite understood in this country. The tenants did not exercise proper control over the terms of the lease, and it was because the tenants were not in the habit of exercising that control that a Bill of this kind was necessary. If the tenants were in a, position to exercise that control this Bill ought not to be brought in, because it was an interference between the landlord and tenant in freedom of contract; but it was because freedom of contract was not possessed by the tenant, and because his interests were such as ought to be conserved, not only from the tenant's point of view, but from the national point of view, that the Amendment should be considered and incorporated in the law of the land. Under the possibilities of the present system of "contracts of tenancy" there was serious reason to believe that the compensation given by this Bill might not find its way into the pockets of tenants. The President of the Board of Agriculture no doubt was desirous to give effect to that which this Bill professed to do in this matter, and therefore, on behalf of Scottish agriculture, he wished to support the Amendment.
MR. HALDANEsaid, in consequence of the very satisfactory explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture, he should not trouble the House by going to a division, and therefore bogged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*MR. CHANNINGsaid the words which he proposed to move by his first Amendment he understood were not acceptable to the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, and therefore he did not propose to move that Amendment. He proposed to move the second Amendment, the words of which followed line 27. The words that he proposed to move would form a continuation or an addition to the clause as it stood, and they had the warm appreciation of the Central Chamber of Agriculture and other agricultural bodies. It appeared to him there was very good reason for these words being added, but as he had not had the advantage of being present when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture had replied to the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire, he was not quite sure whether any explanation had been made which would cover the special point raised by his Amendment. His Amendment sought to re-insert the words which now stood in the original Sub-clause 6 of the English Agricultural Act of 1883, which secured to the tenant the right to be compensated for any manure which had been returned to the holding during his tenancy. It seemed to him that that point should be covered in a Bill of this description, because unless it was covered the clause as it at present stood might operate very unjustly to tenants of agricultural holdings in the immediate neighbourhood of largo towns, where to all intents and purposes freedom of cultivation and sale of produce ought to be, as was in practice, given to the tenants of the holdings. The practice in many of these cases was to let out farms without any contracts at all. As the clause stood upon the Paper undoubtedly those contracts of agreement introduced in the lease of land in the. neighbourhood of towns might operate a great injustice to those producing vegetables from their lands and making, as they might easily be able to make, ample manurial returns to the land. The words that he proposed to move had been strongly desired by the Chamber of Agriculture to be re-inserted in the clause. He was bound to say, from the consideration that he had given during the last few weeks to the immense amount of letters that he had received upon this particular question, that the Bill was nearer a settlement of this
1210
great question than any that they had had before. All he desired to do was to strengthen the Bill which had been introduced.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 27, after the word 'endured,' to insert the words 'except so far as a proper return of manure to the holding has been made in respect of such produce so sold off or removed, or security has been offered or given by the tenant that such proper and adequate return of manure to the holding will be made at the proper season.' "—(Mr. Channing.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment. The ground which he was desirous of covering had been already dealt with by what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture; besides which, he was not at all sure that if the words which the hon. Gentleman proposed were inserted they would have the effect which was intended. Of course, all the manure which had been returned to the land would be deducted, and therefore he hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed.
*MR. CHANNING: His only object was to secure that that right should be given to the tenant. After the explanation which had been given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*MR. CHANNINGsaid that the Amendment he now proposed to move raised a wholly different point. This was a subsection which he had hoped to move in somewhat different terms, upon the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Wigtownshire, who had advised that the clause should be drawn in the form of the clause which was passed in the Scottish Act of 1877, the

1211
Damage by Game Act of Scotland. That Act gave the tenant the right to claim compensation for the amount of damage by game in excess of the amount agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant in the contract of tenure; or where there was no agreement it provided that a certain specified sum should be paid in respect to the holding, and all damage that was proved to be done to the crops of the tenant by all kinds of game in excess of such amount should be allowed to the tenant. What is suggested here is that the tenant should be allowed during the last year of his tenure to claim and have such claim as was equitable and justifiable in the eye of the law allowed for all damage done by game to his crops. It was clearly desirable that this, like any other analogous claim, should be brought within the scope of the arbitration, and dealt with frankly and fairly for what it was worth at the time the arbitration was going on. They wanted to arrive at the most fair and amicable settlement between the parties as quickly as possible, and if the tenant could claim that damage had been done to his crops by game, it was desirable that that subject should be brought within the arbitration. The damage caused by game of all kinds was very considerable, and any claim for such damage ought to be fairly and fully dealt with. Those who had followed the course of events knew that just so far as depression had lowered agricultural rents there had been a corresponding extension of sporting tenancies, and an enormous head of game was often kept, and the sporting tenants were in some cases men who showed too little consideration for the farmers. From this there had resulted friction and loss to the farmers, which ought to be taken into consideration. There had been a certain number of cases brought to the attention of public men from time to time. There was an interesting case in South Oxfordshire, where there was an estate where the tenants wished to exercise their rights, and where there was an over-preservation of game. When the tenants wished to have their rights under the Ground Games Act they received notice to quit from the landlord. Other very similar cases had been reported, and this very serious grievance had been urgently pressed by many witnesses upon the attention of the Agricultural Commission during their
1212
sittings. The suggestion which he made was on the same principle and upon the same lines as the Act which was passed in 1877 for Scotland. It was couched in the most reasonable form, and if a settlement was to be arrived at in matters of this kind it could not be arrived at by a better method than by bringing those matters promptly and simply before the arbitrator who was to settle mutual claims between landlord and tenant.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 27, after the word 'endured,' to insert as a new sub-section the words, '(5) There shall be taken into account in augmentation of the tenant's compensation any sum which may be found by arbitration under this Act to be due to the tenant in respect of damage to crops by winged or ground game or deer during the last year of the tenancy.'" —(Mr. Channing.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*MR. LONGsaid that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member proposed to give the tenants a claim for compensation for damage done by game which he could assert against the landlord and so far they were on solid ground, but the hon. Gentleman assumed that the landlord was the person responsible for any damage done by game, and upon his shoulders it was proposed to throw the liability for damage caused by game over which he had no sort of control whatever. It was extremely unfair to him. Take the case of a small landlord who had no game. His tenants were to have a claim for damage done by game belonging to some large landowner in the immediate neighbourhood which came over and damaged his crops. He admitted that there were these scandals with regard to game, and they were one of the difficulties which the House of Commons had to meet in dealing with this question. In certain cases there no doubt was an over-preservation of game, and in certain cases there was damage done by winged game, but the greatest damage which was done was done by the rabbits, and as a rule the tenant had no difficulty in getting compensation for the damage which the rabbits had done. With winged game it was a different thing

1213
altogether. There might be damage, but if there were he was of opinion that the liability for compensation should not rest upon the owner of the land, but the owner of the game.
*MR. WASONwished to enter a protest against the way in which this Amendment had been resisted. Any person who had lived in the south-west of Scotland, with which he was intimately acquainted, knew perfectly well that the way in which to keep grouse on the moorland was by improving the moorland and taking a crop of oats off it, which prevented the grouse leaving the moorland and committing depredations on the lowland agricultural farms. What the tenant farmer did complain of was not so much of grouse, still less of partridges, but the enormous over-preservation of pheasants, which damaged the crops to a large extent, and for which, in his opinion, the landlord or his shooting tenant ought to pay compensation. The shooting rents had gone up, whilst agricultural rents had gone down. When the 12th of August approached people went mad to see how many grouse they could shoot. He was as fond of sport as anyone, but he thought it was carried to excess; and wealthy South Africans or Americans did little good to the community by the over-preservation of game, and giving employment for a few months during the shooting season to a few men. The principle should be adopted of giving the tenant farmer the absolute right to all game found upon the land. It that were done there would be more sport, better sport, and more game in the country than at present. The sporting tenant and the tenant farmer used to be absolutely and entirely distinct, but he was glad to say he now knew of many tenant farmers who had the shooting on their farms for which they were willing to pay, and he ventured to think that better shooting and better sport was never found in the country than when the tenant farmer had the same right to the winged game as he had to the ground game at the present time.
MR. HEDDERWICKventured to suggest that his hon. friend the mover of
1214
the Amendment would be well advised if he withdrew it, and if the object which he had in view was desirable he should re-draft his Amendment. As he understood, the hon. Gentleman was desirous of placing upon the landlord the responsibility for the damage done to the crops by deer, winged and other game of various sorts, and that was upon the assumption that the game emanated from the ground of the landlord. But as the Amendment was drawn there was no security that the landlord's game would be held responsible for the damage done. A few years ago there was a suggestion made by an hon. Member of this House that all food coming from abroad should be labelled with the name of the place from which it had been produced. That proposal was not taken seriously in the House, because it was conceded that it would be a difficult thing to label every strawberry that came from France or the Netherlands. But if that was difficult to do, it was more difficult, in his opinion, to label every winged bird in the country, and he did not suppose that his hon. friend would obtain the object which he had in view by the Amendment, as it was impossible to put the responsibility upon the proper shoulders. This Amendment would make the landlord responsible for devastation done to crops, not by the game of the landlord at all, but by the game of an adjoining landowner who had over-preserved. He did not think those who proposed to support the Amendment seriously intended that the burden should be placed upon the wrong shoulders for the damage done by other people's game.
*CAPTAIN PRETYMANsaid that the tenant had under the Ground Game Act an inalienable right to the rabbits, and therefore the effect of the Amendment would be that the tenant would be compensated by his landlord for damage done to his crops by his own rabbits.
MR. BUCHANANhoped that his hon. friend would adhere to his Amendment as it stood, because looking at the matter in a broad light, the tenant who went before a Court for compensation for damage done to his crops had a right to claim for damage done by game of any sort. The Amendment limited the claim for damage

1215
done by game to the last year of the tenancy, which was a very considerable limitation. Everyone know that deer did a very great deal of damage to growing crops of the tenants of Scotland, and he ventured to think that this was an Amendment that ought to find a place in the Bill.
*MR. MOULTON: I seriously hope that this Amendment will not be persisted in, for a more ridiculous suggestion could not be made. Just consider. We all of us feel that it is a very hard thing for a tenant farmer that his crops should be destroyed because his neighbours will not keep their birds and rabbits and other game to themselves, and any attempt to remedy that injustice I shall certainly support. But consider what this proposition means. The proposition is that in the last year of the tenancy the tenant can make his landlord pay for damage done by his neighbour's game. The greater part of the damage is done by game which the tenant has a right to shoot down and ought to shoot down, and the remainder is done by game which is preserved by somebody, but the landlord may have nothing to do with it. I can under- stand some men feeling so indignant at the tenant farmer being compelled to suffer from damage done by game as to come to the conclusion that the landlord should compensate him, and seek his remedy against the neighbours who are guilty of preserving the game. But if you are going to introduce a system of that kind, why confine it to the last year of the tenancy? Why not make it perpetual? There is no reasonable ground for saying that in the last year of the tenancy the landlord shall compensate the tenant for damage he has no connection with. Do not let us try to get from the Government consideration for Amendments like this. They can have no other meaning than a protest against the game laws. This session to-night is a practical one. We are trying to make the best of the Bill, but do not let us press to a division an Amendment which we do not feel is worthy of being put upon the English Statute Book.
MR. WEIRsupported the Amendment, and said that in the vicinity of the deer forests of Scotland the deer got into the crops of the tenant farmers and of the crofters and did an enormous amount of damage. If the crofters had the power to shoot the deer he could understand the principle of their not asking for compensation, but since they were debarred from the power of shooting the brutes, why should not the owner of the deer pay a fair compensation for the damage that the deer had done? He had heard it said that the tenants should put up fences in order to keep the game out, but in the case of deer they would require to put up fences of seven or eight feet high; and if that were done, why should not the landlord pay for the fences? He was sorry to have to refer again to the want of knowledge possessed by the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill. It was a great pity that he ventured to deal with subjects of which he had little or no knowledge. Why did not the hon. Gentleman make it his business to know that this Act applied to Scotland as well as England? The destruction caused by deer was simply enormous, and was it to be said that before a man could claim compensation he was to find out who was the owner of the deer? It was the business of the owner of the ground upon which the deer were found to find that out. He should be made responsible to the tenant, or else the tenant should be given the power to shoot these brutes who devastated their crops.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIRsaid a great deal of ridicule had been cast upon the Amendment, but no argument had been advanced and no objection had been raised to the principle involved. Anything more misleading than the remarks of the hon. Member for Launceston could hardly be imagined. The only objection which had been raised by every speaker against the Amendment was that the tenant would obtain compensation from his landlord for damage caused by the game of somebody else, from whom he could not claim compensation. In nineteen cases out of twenty the objection was an artificial one, and in the twentieth

1217
case the rights of the landlord were perfectly safeguarded by the court of arbitration which would have to adjust the claims made under this Bill. The drafting of the Amendment might not be so good as it should be, still it embodied the fair principle that those who had the sporting rights should pay for them. He supported the Amendment with great pleasure.
MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEthought that those who supported the Amendment had not carefully considered where it was likely to lead to. If the tenant was to be compensated for damage done by game during the last year of the tenancy, why should he not be compensated for the hounds crossing his land and tearing down the fences during the same period, and for damage done by rooks and pigeons and small birds which come out from the towns in the autumn? What was to be the compensation for the damage done by beasts of the field, fowls of the air, and reptiles, from wherever they might come, and other agencies? The landlord was to be responsible for damage which he could not control; why should not the tenant be compensated for the damage done by the ground game, which he could destroy if he liked?
MR. WEIR: What about deer?
MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: The tenant was to be compensated for damage done by game not belonging to his landlord and over which he had no control. There was no knowing what this Amendment would lead to, and he could not support it.
MR. FLAVINasked whether the onus of erecting an eight-foot fence around his land to protect it from the devastation of deer was to be placed upon the tenant. He thought it was the duty of the landlord who owned the deer for his own pleasure to undertake such an expense as that. It was the duty of the landlord to enclose the farm or keep the deer within the bounds of the
1218
deer forest, and if he did not the tenant farmer had a right to shoot all that came on his land, even in the face of the law, to protect himself. These deer could wander from the park into the cornfields and cat all the corn or other produce, and it was a great injustice to say that the farmer should not kill them. He strongly supported the Amendment.
MR. FLYNNpointed out that a case arose in the county of Cork a few weeks previously, in which a farmer alleged that great depredations had been committed on his land by rabbits, and that he was entitled to a very large reduction in his rent in consequence, but because he could not prove that the rabbits came from a particular warren, which he alleged that they had come from, he did not get the reduction which he was legitimately entitled to. The small farmer had great difficulty in protecting his land from ground game. One of the most trying things to a farmer living in the neighbourhood of a rabbit warren was to protect his crops at all, and the onus of protecting them should be thrown on the landlord, and if the tenant could prove that the depredations were caused by the neglect of the landlord, he should be entitled to compensation. A considerable number of Irish landlords made a large income from their rabbits which caused these serious depredations, and every reasonable precaution should be taken by the landlords to keep their game in their enclosures. The onus should not be thrown on the farmer. He cordially supported the Amendment.
DR. TANNERsaid that when a question with regard to game came up for discussion every person in the House thought they were qualified to speak upon it. He strongly objected to the supposed prior right of the landlord to the game which came on the land of the tenant. Pheasants were bred like hens, and when they got fat, hon. Gentlemen went down from town and took a pleasure in shooting them and called it sport. The tenant farmer was prevented from having a "go" at the game, simply because he was a tenant farmer and not an aristocrat. They did these things

1219
somewhat better in Ireland, as there they took the law into their own hands, and long might they do so. As to rabbits, a personal friend of his had a large number, and they were getting into the country and committing depredations——
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The hon. Member is not addressing himself to the Amendment before the House.
DR. TANNERexplained that he was only pointing out that the rabbits committed such depredations that his friend had to get trappers in to trap the rabbits.
*MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to address himself to the Amendment.
DR. TANNERcontended that in such cases as those to which the Amendment referred, the tenant ought to get compensation, and where wrong was done on a poor man's land the poor man ought to have the right to shoot the game, no matter of what description it might be.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 63; Noes 174. (Division List No. 205.)

AYES.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Barlow, John Emmott

Lough, Thomas

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Billson, Alfred

Macaleese, Daniel

Steadman, William Charles

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Strachey, Edward

Burns, John

M'Crae, George

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Burt, Thomas

M'Ghee, Richard

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Caldwell, James

M'Leod, John

Tennant, Harold John

Cawley, Frederick

Maddison, Fred.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Colville, John

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Crilly, Daniel

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Wason, Eugene

Dalziel, James Henry

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wedderburn, Sir William

Dillon, John

Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading)

Weir, James Galloway

Doogan, P. C.

Pease, Jos. A. (Northumb.)

Williams, John C. (Notts.)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Philipps, John Wynford

Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

Fenwick, Charles

Pickard, Benjamin

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Price, Robert John

Wilson, John (Govan)

Flynn, James Christopher

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Reckitt, Harold James

Woods, Samuel

Griffith, Ellis J.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Hayne, Rt.-Hon. Charles Seale-

Robson, William Snowdon

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Horniman, Frederick John

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Mr. Channing and Mr. Buchanan.

Jones, William (Carnarvons.)

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Allsopp, Hon. George

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Fisher, William Hayes

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

FitzGerald Sir Robt. Penrose-

Arrol, Sir William

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Flower, Ernest

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Charrington, Spencer

Forster, Henry William

Baird, John George Alexander

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Garfit, William

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r)

Collings, Rt, Hon. Jesse

Gedge, Sydney

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds)

Cook, Fred, Lucas (Lambeth)

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Banbury, Frederick George

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Gilliat, John Saunders

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Bethell, Commander

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Bill, Charles

Dalkeith, Earl of

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Brassey, Albert

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Bullard, Sir Henry

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Butcher, John George

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Gull, Sir Cameron

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Gunter, Colonel

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

Finch, George H.

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Seely, Charles Hilton

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Milbank, Sir Powlett Charles J.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Hardy, Laurence

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Milward, Colonel Victor

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Henderson, Alexander

Monckton, Edward Philip

Sidebottom, T. Harrop (Stalybr)

Hermon-Hodge, Rbt. Trotter

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh)

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Hobhouse, Henry

Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Houston, R. P.

Morrell, George Herbert

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Mount, William George

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Muntz, Philip A.

Stephens, Henry Charles

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Strauss, Arthur

Keswick, William

Nicholson, William Graham

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Knowles, Lees

Parkes, Ebenezer

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn)

Pease, Herbert P.(Darlington)

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Ox. Univ.)

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

Peel, Hon. William Robert W.

Thornton, Percy M.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Percy, Earl

Tollemache, Henry James

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Sw'nsea)

Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. Taunton

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Purvis, Robert

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Lowles, John

Pym, C. Guy

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Remnant, James Farquharson

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Rentoul, James Alexander

Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Richards, Henry Charles

Wylie, Alexander

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Wyndham, George

Macdona, John Cumming

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Maclure, Sir John William

Runciman, Walter

Younger, William

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

M'Kenna, Reginald

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

M'Killop, James

Sandon, Viscount

Resolutions agreed to.

LORD HUGH CECIL LORD HUGH CECIL, in moving to omit Clause 2, stated that the Amendment was really put down to give the President of the Board of Agriculture an opportunity of explaining the bearing of the clause, and especially of the first subsection, about the meaning of which there had been a difference of opinion expressed. The words "agreement, custom, or otherwise" seemed to be rather wide, and there was also an uncertainty as to what would happen if the arbitration provisions in the agreement were ill made and not satisfactory. In such a case the proceedings would be in part under the Bill and in part under the agreement, and some confusion might arise. But the principal matter was as to the distinct bearing of the words "any improvement." There had been discussion on this point, and some Members appeared to think the words implied a procedure under which the landlord and tenant would endeavour to arrange their differences, and when they came to any particular improvement as to which they could not agree that
1222
particular question would be submitted to arbitration, and a separate award given. Another view, which he believed was the correct one, was that the more common proceeding would be to present the whole case to the arbitrator, who would make one award in a lump sum, and not review in detail all the points put before him. The point was one to be discussed on the schedule rather than on the clause, but it was desirable it should be made plain which was the correct view. It was worth noticing that the fourth sub-section contemplated a separate award in special cases, and that went to show that the ordinary procedure would be that of awarding a lump sum covering the whole case.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 5, to leave out Clause 2."— (Lord Hugh Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That the words of the clause to the first word 'and,' in line 8, stand part of the Bill."
*MR. LONGexplained that the object of putting in the words referred to was simply to secure to the tenant that where he had a claim to compensation arising under the present Bill or the principal Act, or under custom, and so on, that right should be reserved to him. As to the second point raised, as to the procedure in the event of the arbitration provisions in the agreement not being satisfactory, it was quite clear that in such a case recourse would be had to the arbitration procedure provided in the Bill, which became operative in the event of the parties not providing the necessary machinery. In reference to whether the award would be given as a whole or in regard to separate parts, as a rule it would probably be given as a whole. But supposing the landlord and tenant agreed upon several points and disagreed only upon one or two, the arbitrator's award would then be upon the one or two points upon which there was a difference of opinion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. BUCHANANsaid the next Amendment was put down for a similar reason to the last, namely, to get an interpretation of the meaning of the words referred to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 8, to leave out the words from the word 'Act' to the word 'the,' in line 10."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the words were not surplusage. Their object was to provide an opportunity for the parties to agree. If they agreed there was no necessity for arbitration; if they failed to agree on one or two points, those one or two points would be referred to arbitration. As to the
1224
assistance of valuers or others, that was a matter entirely for the parties concerned. If the words were omitted it would seem to indicate that arbitration should be resorted to at once without the parties attempting to come to terms. He therefore hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
*MR. CHANNINGthought the Amendment was put down under an impression as to the nature of the existing Act which was not absolutely well founded. The point at which objection should be taken to the procedure of the clause was not at this point but later on. The words as they stood were unobjectionable, but they certainly ought to move to omit the words which immediately followed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Debate arising:—
MR. DILLON: This Bill is a very important Bill, and I strongly object to it being taken at a time when it cannot be properly discussed. I therefore beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."— (Mr. Dillon.)
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)explained that the measure was a

1225
formal annual Bill, the provisions of which followed on the lines of its predecessors, and were not controversial.
MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I think the House ought to have from the Secretary to the Treasury some explanation with reference to this Bill, because in addition to the nomination of the Commissioners it is proposed to write off a certain amount of money in connection with loans lent under Acts of Parliament. In Part II. it is proposed to write off about £2,700 for one man, and in Part I. it is proposed to write off about £1,500. It is very unfair that such an important measure should be moved so near twelve o'clock, and if the Treasury are going to write off about £4,500 of loans due to them it is a very serious matter——
It being midnight, the motion for the adjournment of the debate lapsed without Question put, and the debate on the Second Heading stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

SUPPLY [6TH JULY].
Resolutions reported.
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.

  CLASS II.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,095, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Offices, including a Grant in Aid of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Fund."

  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £10,649, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray
  1226
  the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries, and Expenses of the Fishery Board in Scotland and for Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays."

  3. "That a sum, not exceeding£3,221, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Lunacy in Scotland."

  4. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,743, be granted to Her Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Registrar General of Births, etc., in Scotland."

  MEDICAL AND SANITARY ARRANGEMENTS AT THE CAPE.
  Address for "Return of Correspondence between the hon. Member for Ilkeston and the War Department in relation to Medical and Sanitary Arrangements at the Cape."—(Sir James Kitson.)
  COUNTY AND BOROUGH FRANCHISE ASSIMILATION (LONDON) BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered; Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  On the Motion for Adjournment—
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I propose to take the Second Reading of the Public Works Loans Bill as first Order to-morrow, as I am informed the money is urgently required. Though it is not strictly in order, I may say at the same time that I

  1227
  understand it will be extremely inconvenient to a large number of Members to sit later than 4 o'clock in the afternoon. I propose to adjourn the discussion on the Agricultural Holdings Bill, which will be the second Order, at that hour, and for the remainder of the day only non-controversial business will be taken.
  MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL: What Bill does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take after 4 o'clock?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Post Office Sites Bill and the Larceny Bill.
  An HON. MEMBERasked whether the Post Office Sites Bill and the Larceny Bill were the only Government measures to be taken after 4 o'clock on Wednesday.
  MR. DILLONasked whether it had been decided to take the Tithe Rent-charge (Ireland) Bill, Third Reading, as first Order on Thursday.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is impossible for me to answer with certainty the last question, as I do not know what progress
  1228
  we shall make with the Agricultural Holdings Bill to-morrow. I quite agree it would not be fair to take the Third Reading of the Tithes Bill at a late hour of the evening; it ought to be either first Order or very near it, and I will endeavour to give the hon. Member an answer tomorrow. I am not anxious to press on Government business to-morrow after the two measures I have mentioned, but it is. distinctly understood that the time we give up is not to be taken by private Members for their Bills. If after passing the Bills I have named the House prefers to adjourn I shall raise no objection, but if they do not adjourn Government and not private business will be taken.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would be able to state to-morrow when the Irish Estimates and the Education Bill would be taken.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: To-morrow or Thursday—at any rate, I will take an early opportunity.
  Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve of the clock.

ROYAL ASSENT.

  COMMISSION.
  The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

  1. County Surveyors (Ireland).

  2. Naval Reserve (Mobilisation)

  3. County Councils (Elections) Act (1891) Amendment.

  4. Colonial Solicitors.

  5. Burial Grounds.

  6. District Councillors and Guardians (Term of Office).

  7. Metropolitan Common Scheme (Petersham) Provisional Order.

  8. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 1).

  9. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2).

  10. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2).

  11. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3).

  12. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4).

  13. Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas).

  14. Leith Burgh Provisional Order.

  15. Gas and Water Orders Confirmation.

  16. Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Brighton and Preston United Districts, &c).

  17. Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1).

  18. Great Berkhampstead Water.

  19. Motherwell Water.

  20. Morecambe Urban District Council (Gas).

  21. Birmingham (King Edward the Sixth) Schools.

  22. Ossett Corporation Gas.

  23. Southport Extension and Tramways.

  24. Stockport Corporation Tramways.

  25. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.

  26. Paignton Urban District Water.

  27. Brewery and Commercial Investment Trust, Limited.

  28. Bristol Water.

  29. Commercial Union Assurance Company.

  1078

  30. Milford Docks.

  31. Birmingham Corporation (Stock).

  32. Scottish American Investment Company, Limited.

  33. Bedford Gas.

  34. Neath Harbour.

  35. Taff Vale Railway.

  36. Hoylake and West Kirby Improvement.

  37. Wakefield Corporation Market.

  38. British Gas Light Company (Staffordshire Potteries).

  39. Glasgow and South-Western Railway.

  40. South Eastern Railway.

  41. Hamilton Burgh.

  42. North Warwickshire Water.

  43. Widnes and Runcorn Bridge.

  44. Lincoln Corporation (Tramways).

  45. City of London Electric Lighting.

  46. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway.

  47. Woodbridge District Water.

  48. Wirral Railway.

  49. Sheffield District Railway.

  50. East Stirlingshire Water.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—
Taunton Corporation.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
Plymouth, Stonehouse, and Devonport Tramways Bill
ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that proof be given before the Examiners that the transfer provided for by Clause 35 of the scheduled agreement has been approved of by a meeting of the company held in accordance with Standing Order 64.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
Tottenham Urban District Council Bill ought to be dispensed with, and Bill allowed to proceed.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
Bray and Enniskerry Railway Bill
ought not to be dispensed with, but that the Bill may be allowed to proceed subject to Railway No. 1 being struck out of the Bill.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
London County Tramways (No. 1) Bill
ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that the powers to construct Tramways No. 7, No. 13, and No. 6 (Vauxhall and Camber-well Tramway), and one chain double line of Tramway No. 8 (Blackfriars and Kennington Tramway), be struck out of the Bill.
Read, and agreed to.

MID-KENT WATER BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The Orders made on the 26th of June and Friday last discharged; and Bill committed.
PORTLAND URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The Orders made on the 26th of June and Friday last discharged; and Bill committed.
FRASER SETTLED CHATTELS BILL [H.L.]
Reported with Amendments.
BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported with Amendments.
BELFAST AND COUNTY DOWN RAILWAY BILL.
Reported with an Amendment.

HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no
1080
parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The Orders made on the 26th of June and Thursday last discharged; and Bill committed.

HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL.
  BLACKPOOL, ST. ANNE'S, AND LYTHAM TRAMWAYS BILL.
    METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Viscount Frankfort de Montmorency be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Monckton (V. Galway); read, and agreed to.
    BRAY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
    Moved that the Order made on the 12th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 26th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed for Thursday next.
    ROE'S PATENT BILL [H.L.]
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  NORTH METROPOLITAN RAILWAY AND CANAL BILL.
    LEE CONSERVANCY BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
ALEXANDRA PARK BILL.
  COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.

    HASTINGS CORPORATION BILL.
    SHANNON WATER AND ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

    HARTLEPOOL GAS AND WATER BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
    LATIMER ROAD AND ACTON RAILWAY BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
    MOUNTAIN ASH WATER BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments made by the Lords to the Amendments made by the Commons agreed to.
    CORK ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
    LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
    Message to the Commons for leave for Thomas Skewes-Cox, Esquire (a member) to attend the Select Committee.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL. (No. 177.)
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL. (No. 178.)
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
    Committed to a Committee of the whole House.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
    Committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
    Committed to a Committee of the whole House.
    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL [H.L.]
    House in Committee (according to Order). The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made; further Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next.
    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL [H.L.]
    Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
    GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
    Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL.
    *LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I have been deputed on the unanimous desire of the Parliamentary Committee of the London County Council to move the motion standing in my name, for the recommittal of this Bill. It is a very unpleasant task to have in any way to impugn the action of one of your Lordships' Committees, and I hope I shall perform my task in a way that will not give any offence to anyone. I hope it is not necessary for me to tell the noble Earl the Chairman of the Committee, and his colleagues, that I do not for a moment impute anything in the nature of partiality to the Committee in the course they have adopted. This is no mere form of words. I am absolutely certain in my own mind that they came to the consideration of this Bill with every desire to do complete and substantial justice between everybody concerned. I would say in the first place that the action the Committee took was most unusual, and I think I might call it almost unprecedented. What the Committee did was this: They decided against the Bill after having heard the promoters, and the evidence of the promoters, solely on the opening speech of the counsel in opposition to the Bill. That is a very unusual course to adopt. The circumstances of this case make it extremely inexplicable to me and very mysterious why the Committee should have adopted that course. Now, my Lords, I quite understand that sometimes the Committee may adopt that course — that a prima facie case that appears to be a good case may be made out, and that the opposing counsel may make criticisms on the case and on the evidence of such a nature as to convince the Committee that what they thought was a good case was in point of fact a bad case. As regards this particular case, I think there is very little doubt that the promoters did make what the Committee considered a good prima facie case. At all events, it was a case good enough to satisfy the House of Commons Select Committee, with Sir William Houldsworth at its head, and clearly the noble Lords who composed this Committee considered that a prima facie case had been made out, because they asked the opposing counsel to make; his speech. Now, my Lords, if the ! counsel opposed to the Bill had merely

    1083
    contented himself with commenting upon the speeches and the evidence produced in support of the Bill, I could have understood the course that the Committee took; but the counsel against the Bill was not content with that very dull and prosaic method of proceeding. He took very high flights of imagination; he produced before your Lordships' Committee as facts that were uncontroverted and incontrovertible, facts that were very much in dispute; he raised to the position of axioms certain statements which he took for granted all through his speech— statements which had been completely riddled and disposed of in the House of Commons by the cross-examination of his own witness. That is my case, and I do suggest that there were two courses open to the Committee which they might have taken, and to which I could have taken no exception. One course was to disregard these statements of so-called facts utterly unsupported by evidence, because he called no evidence. The second course was, if the Committee were impressed with those statements of fact, to ask him to produce his witnesses in order that he might substantiate those statements. But the Committee did neither. Apparently these statements made a considerable impression on them, as they decided in his favour when he sat down, without hearing any evidence. My point is that the case was judged on an insufficient investigation of the whole matter, and that if the investigation had been carried, as I think it ought to have been carried, a little further, very likely the result might have been different. The Committee did not for a moment suggest that any further evidence was required. Now, my Lords, the very short facts in connection with this case, so far as it is necessary to refer to them—and I refer to them, not in order that your Lordships' House may retry the case, but in order to support my contention that the Committee came to their conclusion after insufficient investigation — were these: This Bill was a Bill to enable the London County Council to buy Spitalfields Market—market rights and all. The market in question had been in private hands for more than 200 years. It was a market entirely outside the City boundaries, and in a corner of what will hereafter constitute the new Borough of Stepney. The object that the London County Council had in wishing to buy,
    1084
    was that this market had outgrown its bounds, and had become a very serious nuisance to the neighbourhood. Your Lordships' House decided that this was a market as it is legally called, without metes and bounds, and being a market without metes and bounds, it had a right to spread itself for the purposes of the market over the public thoroughfares, and to create a nuisance which nobody could stop. The Home Secretary was applied to, the magistrates were applied to, and they said that there was no redress. Now, this market is practically under the control of one man, a lessee, who has more than sixty years of his lease to run, and he can do as he pleases. All the local bodies, without any objection—perhaps I ought to except the City, which does not appear to have taken any interest in the matter at all—but all the local bodies who interested themselves in this question of the market objected to the market remaining in private hands; there is no doubt about that; and most of the neighbouring local bodies wanted the London County Council to buy. On that point I would like to say this: that the localities principally affected by the market are Shoreditch and Bethnal Green, and not any part of the new Borough of Stepney, in a corner of which the market happens to be. Shoreditch and Bethnal Green have kept pressing the London County Council to do something to abate this nuisance, and preferably to buy the market. With regard to the new borough of Stepney there are five constitutional local bodies which will constitute that new borough. Of those five constituent local bodies three back up Shoreditch and Bethnal Green in wishing the London County Council to buy. The other two local bodies that will compose the new borough of Stepney, wish, not that the market shall remain in private hands, but they think that, on the whole, it will be desirable that the new borough of Stepney should have control of the market rather than the London County Council. But we have a vast majority of feeling on the part of the bodies most interested in favour of the London County Council buying. After long negotiation the London County Council arranged to buy out the freeholders for the sum of £177,000, and they arranged with the leaseholder to buy him out under the Lands Clauses Act. Under these

    1085
    circumstances the London County Council brought in their Bill to carry these agreements into effect. The City brought in a counter proposition, that was heard before the House of Commons, offering to buy the market themselves on the terms on which it was offered to the London County Council, not because they wished to run the market themselves, not because they considered there was a nuisance to be abated, but in order to prevent the London County Council having control of it, and for the further object, as they stated, of transferring this market to Stepney on terms that had not been settled if Stepney should wish to have it. Well, it is extremely unlikely that Stepney will wish to have it, inasmuch as three out of the five local authorities that will comprise the new borough of Stepney have given evidence in favour of the London County Council having the market; and Stepney, moreover, did not oppose in the House of Lords. Consequently it seems to me to be extremely improbable that the new borough of Stepney will wish to take over this market. In the Commons the matter was fully argued as between the London County Council and the City. Sir William Houldsworth was in the chair, and the result, after argument and hearing witnesses on both sides on the question, was that the House of Commons Committee rejected the City Bill and passed the London County Council Bill. Now it would have seemed that this Bill came up to the House of Lords under far more favourable circumstances than it came up to the House of Commons, because in the House of Commons we had a great many local authorities opposing on preamble with a view to getting clauses, whereas in the House of Lords the City alone was the opposer, and the House of Commons, having decided against the City, the alternative before the House of Lords Committee was this —not whether the London County Council or the City should have this market, but whether the market was to remain in private hands, or whether it was to be in the hands of the only public body that had brought in a Bill that had been passed by the House of Commons. Now, my Lords, the peculiar part of this case to which I would draw your Lordships' attention is this: that the evidence relied upon by Mr. Littler, the counsel for the City before the House of Commons, to
    1086
    substantiate his case, utterly and completely broke down, and it so utterly and completely broke down that the cross-examination of his witness was an important factor in our case before the House of Lords Committee. Naturally enough, in opening before the Lords' Committee, the counsel for the London County Council referred to the discomfiture of the only witness that the City produced, namely, their town clerk, Sir John Monckton. Directly Mr. Worsley Taylor, for the London County Council, tried to refer to the evidence of Sir John Monckton in the House of Commons, Mr. Littler took strong exception to any reference being made to the evidence of Sir John Monckton. Mr. Littler said—I am quoting from page 8 of the Lords' Report—
    "I am bound to say that when we are here in a fresh inquiry in one House, I do protest, unless there is some special reason for it, against going into what took place in the other House. Your Lordship will hear what my friend has to say here—
    " Mr. WORSLEY TAYLOR: May I take it that my learned friend is going to call the town clerk?
    "Mr. LITTLER: You 'may take' nothing from me; I never bind myself to bargains of this kind. But you may take it as a general principle which has been accepted many times, sometimes against me and sometimes at my instance, that if you want to prove what has taken place before another Committee you ought to call the witness who gave the evidence in question, and not read something that somebody said elsewhere, and only a part of that. If my learned friend is going to refer to Sir John Monckton's evidence, he must read the whole of it; and if that is done—well, how will your Lordships' time be occupied? I do think my friend must steer his case his own way, but I do protest.
    "The CHAIRMAN: Shall we have Sir John Monckton?
    "Mr. LITTLER: I do not know whether Sir John Monckton is here at the moment.
    "Mr. WORSLEY TAYLOR: If my friend tells me he is going to call Sir John Monckton, I will not say one word more about it.
    "Mr. LITTLER: I am not going to pledge myself as to whether I will call Sir John Monckton or not; but you may take this as a general principle, and I shall ask my Lords to follow it, that it is not right to read the evidence of a gentleman who can be produced. My learned friend had better rely on what he says before your Lordships."
    Then, after a further wrangle, Mr. Worsley Taylor says—
    "I say again if I were certain that my learned friend would not take the course of simply relying on his speech, and so prevent our having the chance of cross-examining his witness and relying on him; if I were satisfied of that I would leave it at once."

    1087
    Then there is a further wrangle, and Mr. Worsley Taylor retires worsted. He says—
    "I desire to avoid discussion of this kind; I will not say one word more; I will leave my learned friend to put his reasons before your Lordships; I will substantiate my ease by my evidence, and if he does not call Sir John Monckton, then I shall ask your Lordships to remember what has taken place. There I will leave it."
    Then on another occasion Mr. Worsley Taylor tried to refer to Sir John Monckton's evidence, and Mr. Littler again tries to prevent any reference to it. Mr. Littler says—
    "My strict rights are that if he wants to prove what Sir John Monckton's views are about the case he must call him in the ordinary way; he is alive and well. I will not go beyond the regular course, and I am bound to stand upon that in this case after the way in which I have been treated here. I certainly do object, my Lord, to any reading of any statement that any gentleman has given who is alive and well and can come before your Lordships.
    "Mr. WORSLEY TAYLOR: This is the very first time, my Lord, I have ever heard that an admission made by a witness called by the opposite party in the other House might not before this tribunal—as before every other— be referred to.
    " Mr. LITTLER: The evidence was given on another Bill.
    "Mr. WORSLEY TAYLOR: Oh ! my learned friend surely will not take the technical point that it was on another Bill.
    "Mr. LITTLER: I do; I am perfectly entitled to do it."
    My Lords, I have said that Mr. Littler made various statements in the course of his speech that had nothing whatever to do with, or, at all events, were not confined to, criticisms of the evidence and speeches of counsel on the other side, but in which he advanced on his own account certain propositions. I will only deal with one of those propositions in order to illustrate my meaning. Mr. Littler's contention all through his speech was that the City was the market authority, not only for the City of London, but for London within seven miles round St. Paul's. He says on pages 20 and 21, and in other parts of his speech, "The City are the market authority at the present moment," and he "objects to setting up another market authority," and so on. Well, if the learned counsel thought fit to take that line, and to contend that the City was the market authority for seven miles round St. Paul's Church, when the evidence on which he tried to make out that proposition broke down before the
    1088
    House of Commons, it does seem to me that Mr. Worsley Taylor was justified in supposing that your Lordships' Committee, if they thought there was anything in Mr. Littler's contention, would have insisted on his calling witnesses to support that contention, and certainly would not have decided against him unless they had heard a witness in support of that contention. Now, I think it may be taken as being a rule almost without exception—I have heard it so stated by persons who are perfectly conversant with proceedings in Parliamentary Committees—that when an opposing counsel, after a strong prima facie case being made for a Bill, refuses to call evidence to contradict the evidence that has been given by the promoters, that action on the part of the learned counsel is almost invariably by Private Bill Committees interpreted in cue way and one way only; that is to say it is considered as equivalent, in sporting language, "to throwing up the sponge." The learned counsel for the London County Council thought that if the Committee should be against him simply on the speech of Mr. Littler, the Committee would naturally ask that Mr. Littler should produce his evidence, and on this, and I think fairly natural assumption, he thought he might safely avoid further unpleasant wrangles with Mr. Littler. I do not think I need labour the point as to how extremely damaging to the City the evidence of Sir John Monckton was in the House of Commons, and probably would have been in this House had he been called. The pertinacity with which the City counsel fought every attempt to refer to his evidence shows how damaging he thought it would be to him. In fact when he was cornered he had to assert that he stood on his strict legal rights, and would take every objection that he possibly could in order to prevent that evidence being brought before the Committee. I say then that Sir John Monckton's evidence was essential to the formation of a right judgment, and that the Committee should not have been satisfied with the very strange reason given by Mr. Littler for not calling Sir John Monckton. The reason given by Mr. Littler is this, in his own words, quite at the end of his speech. He says—
    "Now, my Lord, I do not see that any good object would be gained by calling before you any witness in this matter"—

    1089
    Mr. Littler, of course, knew that if he called no witnesses he would have the last word—
    "If I thought it would I would call Sir John Monckton. It does so happen that this week is the week of the meeting; of the Common Council, when he is exceedingly occupied— exceedingly engaged; but if he could assist you at all I should he very pleased to call him before you. This is a matter of history and of evidence given before you of our legal position under the Act of Parliament, and no dozen witnesses could assist you in relation to it, and therefore I do not think, having regard to the length of time that this case has taken, I should he justified in taking up your Lordship's time by calling evidence which would ready only, after all, be repeating in the witness-box argument and not giving evidence as to fact."
    Well, it was an ingenious way of getting out of calling his witnesses, but I must say that I do not think that that is an excuse that the Committee ought to have considered satisfactory. Now, my Lords, it appears to me that it would set a very had precedent if this was the final stage of this Bill. It would set a bad precedent of a Committee relying solely on the unsupported statements of counsel who call no evidence. I think sometimes counsel are disposed even now under present circumstances to make somewhat haphazard and unfounded statements on behalf of their clients which they would find some difficulty in establishing, and if the promoters of a Bill are to have their Bill rejected simply on the statements of fact that are made by opposing counsel, it does appear to me that a great strain will be put on the consciences of a good many counsel to place facts in a way that is not perfectly just to the Committee. I think that in this particular case there is a special reason why your Lordships should look farther into this matter. In this particular case there was not only this, that the learned counsel refused to call any evidence, but there is on the notes in the other House strong reason to believe that the reason why he did not call evidence was that he knew that it would be extremely detrimental to his case. If Bills are to be rejected on the statements of counsel who there is good reason to believe do not call witnesses because they are certain to break down under cross-examination, then it appears to me that justice is not likely; to be done. Now, my Lords, this is a serious matter to the London County Council, because the agreement to buy
    1090
    this market lapses if it is not carried into effect this year. Last year they made a somewhat similar agreement, and your Lordships threw out that Bill, and that delay has cost the London County Council £7,000. There was a substantial reason, I think, for your Lordships throwing out the Bill last year, inasmuch as it was not a complete Bill. It only gave the London County Council power to acquire land and did not give them the market rights, and what the House of Lords Committee said was this; that they considered the London County Council ought to make a complete case; that they ought to buy up the market rights as well as buy up the land. The delay of a year has cost us £7,000. It is impossible to forecast what another delay may not cost. The nuisance is great. No local authority but the City is in favour of this market remaining in private hands, and while it does remain in private hands there can be no abatement of this serious nuisance.
    Moved, "That the Bill be recommitted." —(The Lord Monkswell.)
    *THE EARL OF ERNE: I can assure the noble Lord that I readily accept his assurance that he does not intend to impute any partiality to the Committee in the decision they came to. At the same time I must point out that he is entirely wrong in supposing that there was any informality whatever in the procedure before the Committee. The case was opened in the usual way by counsel, and the promotors of the Bill called their evidence, which, I may say, did not satisfy the Committee. The counsel for the opponents then made their statement, and did not call evidence, and the counsel for the promoters were thereby precluded from making any reply. The room was cleared, and the Committee decided in the usual way. I do not see how we could have acted other than as we did, unless we had thrown out the Bill after the evidence of the promoters was concluded without hearing counsel at all. I understand from the noble Lord that his object in making this motion is to elicit from me, as Chairman of the Private Bill Committee to which the Spitalfields Market Bill was referred, a statement of the reasons which actuated us in throwing out the Bill. I shall be very happy to give him those reasons, and I shall be able

    1091
    to do so in very few words, because the point was a very narrow one, although the consequences, if the Bill had been passed, would have been far-reaching. The market powers of the City of London are of very ancient origin. They were conferred by a Charter of Edward III., and there was no attempt in the evidence to prove that those powers had been in any way misused or misapplied. I believe it is matter of notoriety that the markets which are under the direct control of the City are models of all that market management should be; I believe they are unequalled anywhere in the world. This being so, the London County Council come forward and practically attempt to supplant the Corporation as market authority. If we had passed this Bill there is no question that it would have boon taken to have been a precedent, and that the wedge, the thin end of which we had permitted to be inserted, would have been very soon driven home in subsequent Parliaments, until the Council had completely superseded the Corporation as the market authority. It was admitted that this was the first market that they had attempted to get hold of. Of course, it was admitted that they had no powers to get it in the Act which constituted them, and could not get them without coming to Parliament for the purpose. The Committee expressed no opinion whatever as to whether this change was desirable. For aught we knew, it might have been a desirable change or it might not, but what we felt, and felt very strongly and unanimously, was that a change of this far reaching nature ought not to be made by a Private Bill Committee of your Lordships' House upstairs, by five Members chosen at haphazard, with no special knowledge whatever of the subject, but that if it was made it ought to be made after full and free discussion on the floor of the Houses of Parliament. That was the reason why we determined that we would not proceed with the Bill. I think there is another point that I should mention, although I do not say that it would have weighed with us in rejecting the Bill. This was a Bill which proposed not only to acquire the markets, but also to remove the obstruction in the neighbourhood caused by the market. Although that was the professed object of the Bill, there was no power taken in the Bill to acquire adjoining property. We
    1092
    thought that that was a very grave and serious omission, but, as I said before, I do not know that that would have been sufficient to justify us in rejecting the Bill, and we rejected it entirely on the grounds that I have stated to your Lordships.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, I should like to say one word, not, of course, on the merits of the question, of which I have no more knowledge than any one of your Lordships. I quite understand my noble friend opposite, to whom, as a member of the London County Council, this subject is one of great interest, calling upon your Lordships to take this step, but to recommit a private Bill that has been carefully considered by a Private Bill Committee is a very rare and most unusual step to take. I remember no case in which it has been taken, except where it was alleged that the Committee had refused to hear evidence either for or against the Bill. Where a Committee have refused to do that, the Bill has been recommitted on the ground that evidence had not been produced to satisfy them. In this case nothing of the kind is stated. It is quite true that the counsel for the opposition took the somewhat astute course of not calling evidence, but surely the counsel has to manage his own opposition as best he can, and I think your Lordships must give the Committee, which was an experienced Committee, and their chairman, who is a very experienced chairman, credit for being able to take the statements of counsel at what they are worth. If they had had any doubt about those statements, I take it that they would have given them no more credit than they thought they were worth. Of course that is quite a different thing to a counsel who calls evidence and confirms that evidence by having his witnesses cross-examined. My Lords, under these conditions it does not appear to me that there has been any irregularity in the proceedings of the Committee, or that the Committee refused to listen to any evidence which was tendered to them. As to the wisdom or unwisdom of their decision, of course I say nothing; I know nothing of the facts of the case: but under these conditions, as the matter seems to have been discussed before them in the only way it could be discussed, I

    1093
    venture to think it is hardly a case for taking so strong a measure as recommitting the Bill.
    *LORD MONKSWELL: Of course I shall not attempt to divide the House after the opinion expressed by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees on the matter, but with regard to this question of market authority there is a good deal to be said. The noble Earl, who was chairman of the Private Bill Committee, has put it simply from his own point of view. My statement would be this, that if the noble Earl had had the advantage of hearing Sir John Monckton, it would have been elicited that this claim of the City to be the market authority is an absolutely antiquated claim, and is certainly, as the noble Lord knows, quite contrary to the "Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the existing state of the Corporation of the City of London, and to collect information respecting its constitution, order, and government, etc." That Commission was appointed in 1854. The Commissioners refer to this very Charter of which the noble Earl spoke, and they say—
    "The brevity of the ancient Charters, the antiquity of the language in which they are couched and the vagueness resulting from the use of concise and general expressions make it often a hard matter accurately to define their meaning. They refer often to a state of things which has wholly passed away, and their language has, therefore, to be explained often through the doubtful medium of antiquarian research. It is also often uncertain what Charters and what portions of Charters are actually in force; how far a subsequent Charter repeals or interferes with the provisions of a former Charter; a question depending upon the intentions of those who gave and received the Charter many centuries ago, and obviously full of doubt and obscurity."
    "The Charters of Edward III. and Charles I. granted to the Corporation contain a declaration that no market shall be granted by the Crown to be holden within seven miles all round about the City. Whatever may be the right which these grants may be held to convey for the prevention of new markets."
    That is not the case. This market was a market in private hands for 200 years. Prevention of new markets is a totally different thing.
    "Whatever may be the right which these grants may be held to convey for the prevention of new markets within seven miles of the City, it seems to us unsuited to the state of things which has grown up since the reign of Charles I., and we think that any such restrictive privilege which the Corporation
    1094
    may now possess with respect to markets without the limits of the City should be repealed."
    My Lords, I wish to withdraw my motion.
    Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I ask the House to suspend the Standing Orders in regard to these Bills, and allow them to be read a second time, under these circumstances. The Bills confirming these Orders were all introduced into the House of Commons within a reasonable time, and at such a time that they might naturally have been expected to pass both Houses. Owing to the unexpected length of the Whitsuntide recess, the time for petitioning against these Orders in the House of Commons was extended to June 14th, the first day on which the House sat after the recess. One or two of these Orders were petitioned against, and the Committee to consider those petitions did not meet till the 26th June. Under all these circumstances, and as there has been no delay on the part of the promoters for which they can be in any way held responsible, I hope the House will allow the Sessional Order to be suspended in the case of these four Bills, and I believe that I have the concurrence of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees in that course being taken.
    THE EARL OF MORLEY: Yes; under the circumstances mentioned by the noble Lord, I have no objection.
    Moved, That the Order of the 12th March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 26th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to; and Bills read 2a accordingly.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  WAR RELIEF FUNDS COMMITTEE.
  Minutes of evidence given before the War Relief Funds Committee; with appendices to the Report of the Committee, and an index; Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890, AND MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Order in Council of 29th June, 1900, entitled "The Cyprus Maritime Order in Council, 1900."
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Order in Council of 29th June, 1900, authorising certain pilot signals.
  PILOTAGE.
  Abstract of Returns relating to Pilots and Pilotage in the United Kingdom (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 242, of Session 1899) (as furnished by the various Pilotage Authorities), for the year ended 31st December, 1899.

  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
  List of all Pensions during the year ended 20th June, 1900, and charged upon the Civil List.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POOR LAW ADMINISTRATION (IRELAND).
  Return respecting. Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of the 8th of May last), and to be printed. (No. 176.)
  MINES (PROHIBITION OF CHILD LABOUR UNDERGROUND) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  COLONIAL STOCK BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee without amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  RAILWAYS (PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments. The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 175.)
ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  IMITATION OF COUNTY COURT PROCESS BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee without amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (1897) EXTENSION BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee without further amendment. The Report of the Amendment made in Committee of the whole House to be received on Friday next.

  CHARITABLE LOANS (IRELAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to accord a Second Reading to this Bill, which comes to your Lordships from the House of Commons. It is a short Bill, which is introduced to meet a difficulty which arose in reference to the Charitable Loans Act, 1843. Certain legal objections were taken to promissory notes that were current at the time owing to certain matters—non-residence, or the fact of renewals and other matters— and it was deemed right to set, the matter on a clear basis by an Act of Parliament. This Bill accordingly was introduced, and it has passed all its stages in the other House. It validates bills and promissory notes subject to equitable conditions, and provides for accounts being taken where necessary on equitable terms. It gives ample power to the judge to do all that is right in a matter of ordering payment by instalments and so forth. I trust that, under all the circumstances, your Lordships will think fit to accord the Bill a Second Reading.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

  TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I rise to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill. The Memo-

  1097
  randum which is prefixed to the Bill fairly, and I think with sufficient completeness, describes the scope and intention of the Bill. With one exception, which I must mention to your Lordships, it is perfectly accurate, and that exception is on page 2 of the Memorandum, in the fourth object. It states that the Bill is intended to assimilate the municipal and police boundaries of all burghs. That statement was accurate in regard to the form in which the Bill was introduced into the other House, but it has been found that the assimilation of boundaries would be too complicated a matter, and touch too often private interests, to be dealt with in a Bill of this kind, and therefore those pro-visions have been dropped. By an oversight, the statement that the Bill effects this purpose has not been deleted from the Memorandum as reprinted for your Lordships' House. In all other respects the Memorandum is, I think, accurate. My Lords, this Bill is largely a consolidation Bill. I will not say that there are not some amendments of the law, because there are some here and there throughout the Bill; but those Amendments are all in conformity with the general policy which has been adopted by Parliament for many years past—namely, to assimilate the conditions under which the government of the two classes of burghs in Scotland is carried on. This Bill is very complicated—it is full of detail; and although it has not been discussed at length in the other House of Parliament it has been very fairly and very fully considered. A very large number of Amendments have been made to meet suggestions made during its passage through the other House. It has also been considered with great care by the officers of my Department, and I have no hesitation in recommending the Bill to your Lordships for Second Reading. There are still some Amendments which will be necessary—some to protect the rights and interests of some of the larger burghs and cities of Scotland, and in one or two cases to adjust the rights of some of the counties—but with these exceptions the Bill, I think, will not cause any serious discussion, and, at any rate, I hope on this occasion your Lordships will give it a Second Beading.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday, the 20th instant.

  LUNACY REGULATION (IRELAND BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order); Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  BEER RETAILERS' AND SPIRIT GROCERS' LICENCES (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Amendments made; Bill re; committed to the Standing Committee -and to be printed as amended. (No. 179.)
  COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  LAND REGISTRY (NEW BUILDINGS) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  RIFLE RANGES—APPLICATIONS FOR GRANTS.
  *THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to state the conditions to which applicants for a portion of the grant for Volunteer ranges will have to conform. I must apologise for again raising this subject of ranges, but it is somewhat an important one, and as I understand that now there is a further sum of £100,000 to be allocated, I should like if possible to obtain from the noble Marquess certain information as to the conditions which will have to be conformed to before applicants receive a portion of the grant; I want to know how applications are to be made, to whom they are to be made, and the conditions to which applicants will have to conform. Perhaps I may be allowed to refer back to the former sum of £40,000 voted last year, because I think I shall be able to explain the difficulty in which those who desire to obtain a portion of the grant are placed. The noble Marquess has told us that out of that £40,000 a sum of £35,000 has already been allocated. I believe I was the first to raise the question in this House, some twelve months ago, and I extremely regret to say that the only battalion in Staffordshire which has not received a portion of the grant is the battalion in which I am personally interested. The other day I received a letter from the Colonel pointing out the fact that this is the only battalion that has not received a

  1099
  portion of the grant, and stating that he could not understand why that is so, and also stating that he has received no communication in response to his application. He also points out, and I think he is perfectly right, that his battalion is really one that deserves, perhaps, more than any other battalion, some little assistance, because his range was compulsorily closed he took time by the forelock, and with considerable difficulty obtained another range, which he has been engaged since that time in making and equipping. He has collected all the money he could in the neighbourhood, and he says he is still £400 short of what he wants. Now, this is not a case of an old I range. I believe one of the conditions laid down as regards the distribution of this Vote of £40,000 was that no money would be given to those who were already in possession of ranges, but I would point out that in this particular case the loss of the old range necessitated the provision of a new one, and it could not, therefore, come under the description of an old range, because it was not made or equipped. Therefore, I think that a man who takes the initiative, and as soon as he possibly can obtains a range to supply the deficiency is one who ought to have assistance. Of that £40,000, as I say, £35,000 has already been distributed. I may in passing suggest to the noble Marquess that the remaining £5,000 is amply sufficient to satisfy my immediate requirements. I do not know whether it is too late, but I would venture to make this suggestion. The point I particularly want to emphasise is the fact that this unfortunate colonel has done all he can to supply the deficiency. Whether he applied to the wrong place or whether he did not conform to the rules or not, or what is the reason why he receives no assistance, he does not know, because he has received no communication in response to his application. This seems to me to be a gross act of discourtesy on the part of somebody. I have the honour of being Lord Lieutenant of the county, and I think it is part of my duty to see that the colonels of Volunteers in my county are treated with proper respect. I believe Mr. Balfour has said that the War Office is in one respect the most splendid institution in the world, because whatever goes wrong it is impossible to put your finger on anybody who is responsible; but if the noble Marquis will privately inform me who has been
  1100
  guilty of this gross act of discourtesy and put me into direct communication with him, I should be very much obliged. I do think it is hard on a man who has had nothing to guide him, who. does not know-to whom he is to apply or where to make the application, that when he makes application he receives no answer. It seems to me a very simple matter that when the communications are sent round the conditions to be conformed to should be put before the applicants, so that those who apply may know what conditions they have to conform to and to whom to make the application. I would just point out that this £40,000 which was voted last year was public money voted by Parliament. It was intended for a specific purpose, and was not, I am sure, intended to give an opportunity to the War Office to have a game of hide and seek with the Volunteer colonels throughout the country. I do trust that when this new allocation is made this information will be given to those who are principally interested.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): I think my noble friend has a little misapprehended the procedure which is followed in the distribution of these grants to Volunteer corps. Let mo tell him exactly how the facts stand. We had in the first, place to allocate the £40,000, which was not voted by Parliament, but which was provided in the Military Works Loans Bill. Of that £40,000, £35,000 or thereabouts has,. as he truly observes, been distributed. As to that distribution our instructions to the local military authorities were that they should give the first place to those corps which were as yet unprovided with ranges. The result of that was to exclude for the time every corps which had already provided itself with a range. In that way we got rid of £35,000 out of £40,000. I believe the remaining £5,000 is already earmarked for a similar purpose, and I am afraid I cannot promise to act on the rather unblushing suggestion of my noble friend that the balance should be given to him.
  *THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: I did not ask for it all.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: With regard co the £35,000 there was certainly no "hide and seek," because I

  1101
  have laid on the Table of the House a statement of the manner in which the money was distributed. I now come to the further sum which I mentioned the other day as £100,000. I am glad to be able to tell my noble friend that, thanks to various circumstances with which I need not trouble your Lordships, we shall have a rather larger sum (probably about £130,000) to spend in this manner. After setting aside what will be required for the Metropolitan Volunteers, the remainder of that sum will be distributed to corps which have already, at their own cost, provided themselves with ranges. I quite agree with what my noble friend said, that those corps which took time by the forelock, and underwent considerable sacrifices in order to equip themselves with proper ranges, ought not to be left out in the cold, and they will not be left out in the cold in this distribution. They will receive, according to the circumstances of the corps, grants proportionate to the expenditure from corps funds, grants which will probably amount to about half or one-third of their own expenditure. Then as to the procedure, my noble friend evidently thinks that in these cases the War Office waits for applications from different corps, and makes its selection among the most clamorous applicants. That is not at all what is done. What has been done in regard to these distributions is this. The general officer of the district is instructed to send round an official who is known as the district inspector of musketry, and that official goes round to every corps in the district, whether an application has been received from it or not. He makes his report upon the position of the corps in regard to range accommodation, and gives advice as to the amount of assistance which ought, in his opinion, to be granted. These recommendations are collected and are sent up in a schedule to the War Office, where they are examined by a Committee known as the Ranges Committee. By that Committee they are sifted and revised, and upon the recommendations of that Committee the final distribution takes place. My noble friend will, therefore, see that it is not a question of instructing an applicant how he is to proceed. The corps have to wait until the local military authorities come to them and examine into their position, and report upon that position to the War Office. It may be that in the particular case to which my noble friend referred,
  1102
  an application was made and left unanswered, but he does not tell me by whom or to whom it was made. If it was not answered, or if there was any discourtesy shown, I regret it very much, and if my noble friend will give me the particulars I shall be glad to make inquiry, but I wish my noble friend to understand clearly that the corps' prospect of obtaining a share of this money does not depend on the fact of its having made an application to the War Office.
  *THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: I quite understand that, but I think it would be well if it was generally understood what the procedure is. Those who have been anxious to obtain a share of this grant have been under the impression that it was for them to make the application. Would it not be possible to let the conditions be generally known? I do not think that it is generally known by commanding officers of corps that it is not for them to make the application. I continually get letters asking me what course ought to be followed in order to obtain assistance.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think the best corrective of that statement will be found in the procedure which is on the point of being followed at this moment, and which I endeavoured to describe just now. This officer will go round from corps to corps, and if the corps will possess their souls in patience for a few days or a few weeks, each corps will be visited by the inspector, and will be made thoroughly aware of what is intended.
  House adjourned at half-past Five of the clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten of the clock.