Sitting of 13 November 1906

Preamble
The House met at quarter before Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  PETITIONS
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
    Petition from Fazeley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    TURNER, WILLIAM BARWELL.
    Petition of William Harwell Turner, for inquiry into his case; to lie upon the Table.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

    RAILWAYS (FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND BRITISH POSSESSIONS.
    Return ordered, "showing, so far as the particulars can be obtained, (a) in what Foreign Countries and British Possessions other than those covered by the Return ordered on the 2nd day of July, 1906, the Railways have been in

    Great Britain.

    1901–2. Actual Expenditure.

    1906–7. Estimate.

    £

    £

    Shipbuilding

    8,865,080

    9,252,131

    Repairs and maintenance of material (i.e., hulls, machinery and equipment, anchors, cables, &c), but not stores

    1,771,420

    1,628,100

    Armament and first outfit of ammunition for new ships and re-armed ships

    1,546,600

    1,624,500

    Repairs and maintenance of guns and torpedoes

    133,900

    67,400

    Total

    12,317,000

    12,572,131

    whole or part either built or acquired by the Government; (b) the cost of building or acquisition of such Government Railways, and in the latter case the precise date and terms of purchase; (c) the financial results in each case, showing, inter alia, the revenues, working expenses and net loss or profit for the last two years for which figures are available, and what amounts of capital, if any, have been repaid out of revenue."—(Mr. Chiozza Money.)

  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Shipbuilding Programme—Great Britain, France and Germany.
    MR. COWAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether ho can state what was the Vote for shipbuilding, repairs, and armaments in 1901–2 for Great Britain and the aggregate sums for France and Germany; whether he can give similar figures for the present year; and whether he can state approximately by how much our own expenditure under this head will be reduced in 1907–8.
    (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The following statement gives the information required by the hon. Member for the years 1901–2 and 1906–7. The information asked for in respect of the expenditure of Great Britain in 1907–8 is not yet available:—

    France and Germany.

    Aggregate Sums voted or expended for Shipbuilding, Repairs, and Armaments.

    1901. (Expended.)

    1906. (Voted.)

    £

    £

    France (financial year, January to December)

    6,096,446

    6,293,320

    Germany (financial year, April to March)

    5,982,011

    6,764,063

    Total aggregate

    12,078,457

    13,057,383

    Excess at Spirit Store Stocktaking, at Glen-Glassaugh Distillery, Portsoy.
    MR. MEEHAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether an increase or excess on a spirit store stocktaking at a distillery, when the balance is struck for the period according to Sub-section 9 of Section 43 of 43 and 44 Vic, c. 24, is an unnatural, or an unusual result of the distiller's operations for a period, and the balancing for a period; and, if unnatural or unusual, does it denote that either fraud on the distiller's part has taken place or that a blunder has been committed by the Excise officials connected with the distillery or any other mistake committed; and what was the source or cause of the excess or increase found at Glen-Glassaugh distillery, Portsoy district, when the balance was struck for the period on October 28th, 1905.
    (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am informed that the finding of an excess in the stock of spirits in the circumstances stated is not common. But it is quite possible for it to occur without either fraud on the distiller's part or a blunder having been committed by the Excise official. On the date named, an excess of, four-fifths of a gallon was discovered in the stock at Glen-Glassaugh distillery, and duty was charged upon it; but it was not considered necessary by the Board of Inland Revenue to call for an explanation of this trifling excess.

    Retiring Age of Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes.
    MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.): To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the grounds on which the retirement order of established Civil servants was applied to the late clerk to an inspector of taxes in Scotland who, it is alleged, held an unestablished position; whether he will state on what basis the gratuity of £78 was computed; whether he is aware that such clerk was only in receipt of 30s. wages weekly up to his thirty-first year of service; whether he will state total' service of such clerk; and whether he will state the amount of pension such clerk would have been entitled to had his position been an established one.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Order in Council requiring established Civil servants to retire at sixty-five is not applicable to the clerk referred to, but such clerks are required by the Department to retire on attaining the age of sixty-two in the absence of any special reason to the contrary. The gratuity of £78 was calculated at half the annual pay of the clerk. It is a fact that his wages were only 30s. a week up to his thirty-first year of service. He would have been qualified for a pension of £101 13s. 6d. per annum if his position had been an established one.

    Sentences of Tlogging.
    MR. LLOYD MORGAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number of prisoners sentenced to be flogged who were sent on by the justices to the sessions to be dealt with under the Vagrancy Act during the years 1904 and 1905 respectively; the

    Place of Conviction.

    Offence.

    Sentence.

    1904

    Dorset County Sessions, 19th October, 1904

    Convicted of lodging out, after previous conviction as a rogue and vagabond (17 previous convictions, 6 for sleeping out)

    1 month hard labour and 12 strokes with a birch rod

    Gloucester County Sessions, 22nd June, 1904

    Indecent exposure of his person with intent to insult highway, after a previous conviction as a rogue and vagabond (for the same offence)

    6 calendar months hard labour and 12 strokes with a birch rod

    Lancaster County Sessions, 1st December, 1904

    A male person living on the earnings of prostitution, after a previous conviction as a rogue and vagabond (2 previous convictions, 1 for the same offence)

    8 calendar months hard labour and 10 strokes with the cat

    London County (North) Sessions, 12th July, 1904

    A male person soliciting and importuning other male persons for immoral purposes (6 previous convictions, 2 for similar offences)

    12 months hard labour and 12 strokes with a birch rod

    Sussex (West) County Sessions, 7th April, 1904

    Indecently exposing his person with intent to insult a female, after previous conviction as an incorrigible rogue and vagabond (2 previous convictions, both for the same offence)

    4 calendar months hard labour and 25 strokes with a birch rod. (In this case the whipping was remitted on medical grounds)

    Middlesex County Sessions, 28th May, 1904

    Indecently exposing his person in a public place with intent to insult females (2 previous convictions, 1 for the same offence, the other for indecent assault)

    12 calendar mouths hard labour and 12 strokes with a birch rod

    names of the sessions where such sentences were passed; the offences the prisoners had committed: and the sentences passed.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The following is a list of the cases of persons who in 1904 and 1905 were dealt with at sessions under the Vagrancy Act, and were sentenced to be whipped:—

    Place of Conviction.

    Offence.

    Sentence.

    1905.

    Dorset County Sessions, 4th, January, 1905

    Begging, after a previous conviction as an incorrigible rogue and vagabond (7 previous convictions for similar offences)

    1 month hard labour and 12 strokes with a birch rod

    Dorset County Sessions, 28th June, 1905

    Lodging out, after previous convictions as an incorrigible rogue and vagabond (the same man as in the last case)

    1 month hard labour and 25 strokes with a birch rod.

    Dorset County Sessions, 28th June, 1905

    Lodging out, after previous convictions as an incorrigible rogue and vagabond (11 previous convictions)

    1 month hard labour and 12 strokes with a birch rod.

    Dorset County Sessions, 5th April, 1905

    Indecently exposing his person with intent to insult a female,(19 convictions, 1 for the same offence and for the aggravated assault on a female)

    1 month hard labour and 12 strokes with a birch rod.

    Worcester County Sessions, 16th October 1905

    Indecently exposing his person with intent to insult a female, after previous conviction as a rogue and a vagabond (8 previous convictions, 7 for the same offence)

    2 calendar months hard labour and 12 strokes with a birch rod.

    On 12th August, 1905, my predecessor wrote to the Chairman of Quarter Sessions for Dorset, expressing a strong opinion that birching is not an appropriate punishment for the offence of "sleeping out," however often the offence may have been repeated. In this opinion I entirely concur.

    Enamel Ware Utensils in Prisons.
    MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state why effect has not been given to the recommendation of the Departmental Committee on Prison Dietaries in 1898, that the tin utensils used in prisons in the service of the food should be replaced by enamel ware.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The enamel ware was tried, but it was not
    1272
    found desirable to bring it into general use. It was unsatisfactory for cooking utensils on medical grounds, the enamel was liable to chip, and the chips swallowed were injurious to health. As regards service utensils, its general introduction would have cost £4,000, and the cost of maintenance would have been doubled. In these circumstances I am not prepared to press the Prison Commissioners to make any alteration.

    Working of the "Pioneer" Fishing Cruiser.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can give an approximate account to date of the working of the "Pioneer"; if she is now at work and where; and if he has had further communication with the manufacturers of

    1273
    the motor relative to the working of the capstan.
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) As the "Pioneer" is engaged in the prosecution of the English herring fishing, and as that fishing will probably soon come to a close, it is desirable to delay furnishing a report upon her working until the termination of the English fishing. The "Pioneer" is fishing from Yarmouth. There has been no further communication with the manufacturer of the motor relative to the working of the capstan. This matter and the advisability of further experiments will bo considered at tho conclusion of the English fishing.

    1891.

    1895.

    1906.

    Number of men eligible for Greenwich Hospital Age Pensions

    10,300

    10,250

    12,630(Approximate numbers)

    Number in receipt of Pension

    7,500

    10,000

    9,050

    Amount set apart from Greenwich Hospital Funds

    £79,800

    £100,000

    £100,900

    The provision of pensions for all men eligible would involve an expenditure for the present year of £128,000.

    Revision of Estimates for School Buildings in Ireland.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL (Longford, N.): To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what progress, if any, has been made during the past three months with the revision of estimates for school building in Ireland under Plan VI. (a); and whether the Board of Education are still refusing to accept the amended plan.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The position has not changed, so far as is known, since the reply of my hon. friend to a similar Question by the hon. Member for the South Division of Kerry on the 24th July last.†

    Longford Petty Sessions Clerkships.
    MR. J. P. FAKRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state which of the

    Greenwich Age Pensioners.
    MR. BRAMSDON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will say how many men are now eligible to become Greenwich Age Pensioners, and how many actually receive these pensions; what is the annual amount set apart from Greenwich Hospital funds for the purpose of paying these age pensions, and how much would be required annually if all eligible men were actually provided for; and will he give similar information with reference to the years 1891 and 1895.
    (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.)
    Law Officers of the Crown was consulted upon the subject of the Longford petty sessions clerkship, which was filled by election on the 8th June, when Mr. E. Daly M'Cann was appointed: whether in this case the opinion of the chief Crown solicitor for Ireland was taken; and, if so, whether such matters are as a rule referred to him or to the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General for Ireland.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) It would be entirely contrary to practice and plainly inconsistent with principle to give the detailed information asked for in the Question.

    Opium consumed in the Federated Malay States and Singapore.
    MR. A. ALLEN: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now able to give the Return promised on the 16th July of the quantity of opium consumed and the amount of revenue derived there from during the last ten years in the Federated Malay States and Singapore.
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Secretary of State has not yet received the Report for which he has asked from the Governor of the Straits Settlements, who will be reminded of the matter.

    Retiring Allowance of Richard Bewsey, Office of Works.
    MR. ALDEN: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that Richard Bewsey, belonging to the lighting and ventilating department, after thirty-one years service, has been retired; would he state what amount Mr. Bewsey received as a free grant; and whether, under the circumstances of the case, he could see his way to establish an old age pension scheme for such aged and deserving servants.
    (Answered by My. Harcourt.) The reply to the first inquiry is in the affirmative. Richard Bewsey received a gratuity of £58 18s. on retirement. The principle involved in the last Question is one for the Treasury to deal with, as other Departments than the Office of Works are concerned in it.

    Charge of Books at Public Schools in Ross and Cromarty
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state whether a charge is made for books at any of the public schools in Ross and Cromarty; and, if so, will he give the names of such schools.
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) All the information which I can give to my hon. friend is that in five cases, viz., Loch-broom, Ardindrean Public School, Lochbroom, Badcaul Public School, Lochbroom, Ullapool Public School, Stornoway, Bayble Public School, Stornoway, Tolsta Public School, the school accounts show receipts from books or other articles sold to children.

    "Destroyers" laid down by Great Britain, France, and Germany, since 1899.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the total number of destroyers laid down by Great Britain, France, and Germany, respectively, since 1899, and including those to be laid down under this year's estimates,
    1276
    specifying separately the type known as coastal destroyers.
    (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The total number of destroyers laid down since 1899 by Franco and Germany is fifty-three and forty-eight respectively. The number laid down by Great Britain is sixty-eight, of which twenty-four are coastal destroyers. In addition, eleven torpedo boats have been built, closely approximating in size, etc., to the coastal destroyer type.

    Naturalisation Fees.
    MR. STUART SAMUEL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the fee charged for naturalisation in the principal States of Europe and America; and, if not, will he take steps to obtain the information.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) It is not possible to make an exact comparison between the cost of naturalisation in the United Kingdom and in other countries, having regard, amongst other things, to the differences in practice and expense in connection with preliminary procedure. The best information in my possession, obtained by inquiries which I instituted some time ago, is given in the following statement:—

    Naturalisation Fees in Foreign Countries.

    United States of America

    11 dollars.

    France

    175 francs, 25 centimes.

    Germany

    The fee varies in the several component States of the Empire from 1 mark, 75 pf. to 300 marks.

    Italy

    240 lire.

    Norway

    Nil.

    Russia

    1 rouble, 50 copecks.

    Sweden

    £1 2s. 2d.

    Switzerland

    Federal fee, 20 francs. Communal, nil to £48. Cantonal, nil to £160.

    Petition of Assistant Clerks, Statistical Office, Custom House.
    MR. WATERLOW: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury when an answer will be given to the petition forwarded in June last by the

    1277
    assistant clerks (new class) employed in the Statistical Office, Custom House.
    (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) A reply to this petition was sent on the 2nd instant.

    Retired Civil Servants and Candidature for Parliament.
    MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there is any minute, regulation, or statutory enactment which renders a person in receipt of a pension as a retired Civil servant incapable of becoming a candidate for Parliament; and whether such a person, on being elected, would forfeit his pension.
    (Answered by Mr. Ranciman.) The Answers to both parts of the Question are in the negative.

    Class.

    Number of Holdings.

    Exceeding 500 acres

    76

    Exceeding 100 acres and not exceeding 500 acres

    654

    Exceeding 50 acres and not exceeding 100 acres

    272

    Exceeding 10 acres and not exceeding 50 acres

    783

    Exceeding 1 acre and not exceeding 10 acres

    1,168

    2,952

    These holdings are exclusive of all lettings under one acre (chiefly cottage gardens, about 1,000 in number) and of 1,758 acres let for allotments. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have not adopted any system for facilitating the further division of holdings, but they put no hindrance in the way of the creation of small holdings where large farms can suitably be divided, and the figures above given show that the proportion of small holdings on the Commissioners' estates is considerable, the number of holdings under fifty acres being 66 per cent, of the whole, and the number of those under 100 being 75 per cent, of the whole. In cases deemed by them suitable the Commissioners facilitate the purchase of their holdings by tenants

    Ecclesiastical Commissioners on Tenancy Holdings.
    MR. WEDGWOOD (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the hon. Member for East Bristol, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, how many of the tenancy holdings, included in the 250,000 acres owned by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, exceed 500 acres; how-many are between 100 and 500 acres; how many are between fifty and 100 acres; how many are between ten and fifty acres; how many are less than ten acres; and what provision do the Commissioners make for the extension of the system of small holdings.
    (Answered by Mr. Charles Hobhouse.) The 250,000 acres comprise 2,952 holdings, the number of holdings in each of the suggested classes being as follows:—
    who desire to aquire the freehold by allowing 85 per cent, of the purchase money to remain upon mortgage repayable by equal half-yearly instilments (including principal and interest) over a period of thirty-five years, the interest being at the rate of £3 10s. per cent. On these terms the instalments amount to £5 per cent, per annum on the unpaid portion of the purchase money. Upwards of 450 sales have been effected upon this system, mainly sales of agricultural holdings.

    Petition for holding additional Fairs at Ballina.
    MR. FETHERSTONAUGH (Fermanagh, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether

    1279
    the Urban District Council of Ballina, county Mayo, has presented a petition to His Excellency praying for a patent for holding additional fairs at Ballina; and, if so, when was such petition presented, and has any action been yet taken upon it.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The petition referred to was received on 13th September last, and is still under consideration. Questions have arisen as to the power of levying tolls and as to the creation of certain trusts in the proposed new patent.

    Ballycastle—Bellmullet Railway.
    MR. FETHERSTONAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received any influentially signed memorial from the inhabitants of Ballycastle, county Mayo, on the subject of a railway to that town; and, if so, will he give the contents of the memorial his early attention; and has the Irish Government considered the desirability of making the railway to Belmullet by way of Ballycastle?
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have received the memorial in question, and will give it due consideration. The question of the various routes for any railway that might be made to Belmullet has been long before the Irish Government.

    Investigation of Complaints against Irish National School Teachers.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any objection to give the name and qualifications of the officer appointed by the National Board of Education, as stated in their Report 1904–6, to examine into cases of complaint against teachers, and, when he thinks desirable, to recommend their dismissal by the Board.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that, on administrative and other grounds, they do not consider it to be desirable to give the name of the officer referred to. They remark, however, that teachers are not dismissed on the recommendation of any particular official. All the circumstances of each case are fully examined by more than one officer before it is submitted to the Board for considera-
    1280
    tion. No teacher is dismissed without the formal order of the Board after his case has been specially submitted at one of the stated meetings of the Commissioners.

    Lord-Lieutenants—Residential Qualifications.
    MR. BERTRAM (Hertforsdhire, Hitchin): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the number of deputy - lieutenants for counties who do not reside within the county for which they are appointed; whether he is aware that the provisions of Section 30(1) of the Militia Act, 1882, as to residence within the county, are-binding upon lords-lieutenant in making appointments, and that it is the duty of lords - lieutenant to displace deputy-lieutenants who cease to be qualified by residence; and whether he will call the attention of lords - lieutenant to the matter, with a view to the removal from office of all non- resident deputies.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. Residence within the county is a condition precedent to appointment only, and is not a qualification as defined by Section 33 of the Militia Act referred to. Residence outside the county would not affect the position of a deputy-lieutenant provided he retained one or other of the qualifications detailed in Section 33. The Act referred to does not apparently intend the Secretary of State for War to determine questions of qualification. That duty is imposed by the Act upon the lords-lieutenant.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Greenwich Age Pensions.
    MR. BRAMSDON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will say how many men are now eligible to become Greenwich Age Pensioners, and how many actually receive these pensions; what is the annual amount set apart from Greenwich Hospital funds for the purpose of paying these age pensions, and how much would be required annually if all eligible men were actually provided for; and will he

    1281
    give similar information with reference to the years 1891 and 1895.
    *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee):

    1891.

    1895.

    1906.

    Number of men eligible for Greenwich Hospital age pensions

    10,300

    10,250

    12,630*

    *(Approximate numbers.)

    Number in receipt of pension

    7,500

    10,000

    9,050

    Amount set apart from Greenwich Hospital

    £

    £

    £

    Funds

    79,800

    100,000

    100,900

    The provision of pensions for all men eligible would involve an expenditure for the present year of £128,000.

    H.M.S. "Montagu."
    MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the sailors who worked very; hard in their efforts to save the "Montagu" will be themselves obliged to pay for the new clothes rendered necessary by such extra work.
    *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The men will not be put to any extra expense in replacing clothing which may have been rendered unserviceable by the operations.

    Destroyers for Germany.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the German programme provides for twelve destroyers to be laid down in each succeeding year.
    *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Answer is in the affirmative.

    Gun Contracts.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty on what dates the 12-inch guns of the "Lord Nelson," "Agamemnon," and "Dreadnought," wore ordered.
    *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: It is not considered in the interests of the public service to make any statement with regard to the dates on which war materials are ordered.

    Naval Shipbuilding Policy.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the settled policy of the Admiralty in framing their shipbuilding programme to meet only those programmes of Foreign Powers which are actually sanctioned by their respective Parliaments.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Answer is in the affirmative, but the Admiralty are also guided by the number of vessels actually laid down and the progress made with their construction.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershire, E.): May I ask whether the Government takes into account in considering the programmes of foreign Powers the progress made in vessels before they are laid down? Hon. Members are familiar with the fact that great sums are often spent on a vessel before it is laid down with a view of securing rapid progress.
    *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: That is not lost sight of.
    MR. BELLAIRS: Is it not the fact that in another place an assurance was given that the programmes of the French and German navies which were only sanctioned last May were taken into account.
    *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked for notice of the Question.

    Naval Manoeuvres.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if, bearing in mind that the naval manœuvres of 1906 involved a considerable expenditure of public money, he can put the House into possession of the strategical and tactical lessons they taught as regards the clear food route of Great Britain, and its alleged inviolability in the future from a recurrence of the Foreign invasions from which it has suffered in the past, and which have even been threatened in

    1283
    our own time, when Foreign navies were less powerful than at present.
    *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Board of Admiralty are of opinion that no statement in regard to the strategical and tactical lessons drawn from the recent manœuvres can be made without detriment to the public interest; but they do not in any way share the apprehensions which the hon. and gallant Member appears to entertain in regard to the danger to our food routes.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: As large sums of money were spent on these manœuvres, are we to have any information of the result? Over 300 vessels were employed in them.
    *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked for notice of the Question.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: It is the j question on the Paper.
    *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I do not think so.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: But can the hon. Gentleman give no indication of the effect these manœuvres had upon the opinion of the Admiralty?
    *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I can only repeat the Answer I have already given.

    The Disturbance at Portsmouth Barracks.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that during the recent disturbance at the Portsmouth Naval Barracks the senior officer in command ordered some stokers who were implicated in the disturbance, and were required to parade in the gymnasium, to kneel while he addressed them, and that this order was first disregarded, and on being repeated was obeyed with evident reluctance by the men with one exception, the offender being immediately handed over to the naval police; and will he say if a naval officer is invested with authority to order the men under his command to kneel; and, if so, under what circumstances, and under what provisions, if any, of the Naval Regulations; and whether, if the giving of a command of this character be in con-
    1284
    sonance with the provisions for maintaining discipline in the Navy, steps will be taken for the abolition of the power of naval officers to order their men to kneel, having regard to the fact that delinquents in courts of justice do not kneel.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I have nothing to add to my Answer yesterday to the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs.†
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The Question was with reference to an incident that occurred a year ago. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my Question?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: That is part of the whole case. No statement in regard to the matter can be made until the Board of Admiralty have completed their consideration of the report of the Court of Inquiry.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Are orders to kneel allowed to be given in the Navy?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I will give full information when I have got and considered the report.
    MR. DALZIEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that the House will have an opportunity of considering the report, and when will he make a statement?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Probably to-morrow.

    Preston Barracks.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask tho Secretary of State for War whether, as it is proposed to do away with a cavalry station in Scotland, he will consider the advisability of again stationing a cavalry regiment at Preston Barracks, Brighton.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington): These barracks are not large enough to accommodate a complete cavalry regiment. They are capable of holding a Brigade of Royal Field Artillery and for this purpose they are being retained.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I hope the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of the fatigues of last night's prolonged sitting, will to-night give me a personal interview so that I may show him reasons for reconsidering his decision.

    Maltese Garrison.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what was the total number of troops of all descriptions at Malta on 31st March, 1906; and what was the number ten years before.
    MR. HALDANE: The numbers were as follows:—On 31st March, 1896, 9,539; on March 31st, 1906, 8,476.

    Woolwich Arsenal.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the magnitude of the national undertaking at Woolwich with its site stretching two miles on the Thames, and of the fictitious prosperity and deep distress which are alternately created by the Imperial authorities in Woolwich and neighbourhood, he will give consideration to the advisability of making arrangements with other Departments of State to use the fine engineering plant regularly for other work, such as the construction of locomotives, wagons and bridges for the State railways in India and the Crown Colonies, work which could be temporarily suspended in time of war.
    MR. HALDANE: NO, sir, I do not consider it desirable that the ordnance factories should undertake such work. Railway locomotive building could not be done with the present plant and staff in the ordnance factories. It is very different from any work now done there. Bridge building requires machinery for preparing steel plates not at present existing in these factories, the only similar work done being boiler repairs, and the men employed on these repairs are few.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of making the very small investment required to instal the necessary plant?
    MR. HALDANE'Sreply was inaudible.
    MR. CROOKS: Has the staff now reached its minimum strength?
    MR. HALDANE: I must ask for notice of that Question.

    St. Helena.
    MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that a sum of approximately £35,000 will be saved on Army Votes in consequence of the withdrawal of the garrison from St. Helena, he will ask leave of the House to devote a portion of that sum to the relief of the inhabitants of the island.
    MR. HALDANE: This is not a matter for my Department, but I may refer the hon. Member to the reply made to him on this subject by my hon. friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies on Wednesday last as regards the views of the Government on the economic situation created by the withdrawal of the garrison.†
    LORD BALCARRES: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of how this money will be used?
    MR. HALDANE: It will appear when the Estimates are framed.
    LORD BALCARRES: Will not some of the money be released in the current year and not appear in next year's Estimates?
    MR. HALDANE: A very small part only.

    Madura District People's Association Petition.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the refusal of the Government of Madras to grant the request of the Madura District People's Association for information regarding the proposed division of their district; and whether, in view of the fact that the people have no voice in the government of their own country, he will ask the Madras Government to consider favourably in future representations of this nature.
    THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. JOHN ELLIS, Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe): I have no ' information as to the particular case mentioned; but I will communicate with the Government of Madras on the subject.

    Repatriation of Chinese Coolies from South Africa.
    MR. DUNCAN SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what number of Chinese coolies were repatriated at the expense of the Home Government during September and October of this year.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): Two hundred and sixty-seven Chinese coolies were repatriated at the expense of His Majesty's Government by the "Indravelli" which sailed at the end of August or beginning of September, and about 300 by the "Cranley" which sailed about the middle of September. There has been no opportunity of effecting further repatriation up to the present since the sailing of the "Cranley," but the necessary arrangements will be made in due course.

    The New Hebrides Convention.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why representatives of Australia and New Zealand were not invited to take part in the conference regarding the position of the New Hebrides; and whether he can state that in any future conferences dealing with matters vitally affecting Australia and New Zealand the representatives of those countries will be called into consultation.
    MR. CHURCHILL: We have sent a reasoned despatch of considerable length to the Government of Australia dealing with the whole course of these negotiations and dealing with the Convention on its merits. That despatch will take some time to reach Australia, and it would not be considered proper for us to make it public in England until we have a communication from them that they have received it. As soon as we know they have received the despatch we shall lay Papers on the Table dealing with the whole of the negotiations connected with the New Hebrides Convention, which
    1288
    will give a full explanation of the position taken up by the Government and their justification for it. With regard to the second part of the Question, so far as the future is concerned we shall always desire to consult with the Colonies in the fullest manner on any subject which affects their interests, both before and during the negotiations. In the coming Colonial Conference further opportunity will arise for considering the machinery to be employed.
    MR. R. DUNCAN: Will the question of the coaling stations on the Pacific be considered at the same time?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I must ask for notice of that.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: When the Papers are laid will they include the original agreement made in 1887?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I should like notice of that also.

    Conviction of Chinese Coolies.
    MR. DUNCAN SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the number of desertions of Chinese coolies for the months of August, September, and October of this, year.
    MR. CHURCHILL: In August the number of convictions of Chinese coolies for desertion was thirty-four, and, in addition, sixty were convicted for refusal to work, and 682 for unlawful absence from work. The Returns for September and October have not been received.

    The Congo.
    MR. HIGHAM (Yorkshire, W. R., Sowerby): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if His Majesty's Government can state whether the territory of the Lopori-Marringa in the Upper Congo is still subject to the régime militaire spécial; and if His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the persons and property of British subjects residing therein are safe from molestation.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick).: I have

    1289
    received no definite information as to whether the réjime militaire is still in force but M. de Cuvelier informed His Majesty's Minister at Brussels last month that the three months mentioned in the decree of 24th July establishing that régime had almost expired, and that he had no reason to suppose that this term would be extended. The Congo Government have informed His Majesty's Government that the only effect of the régime militaire is to extend the competence of the courts-martial, but that these courts can only apply to civilians the ordinary penal laws, and that non-native civilians the expression including coloured British subjects) can appeal to Boma. I have not heard of any molestation of British subjects during the period named.
    MR. HIGHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if His Majesty's Government can now publish Consul Mackie's Report on the sittings of the Commission of Inquiry which he attended, and also the Reports furnished to Consuls Mackie and Nightingale by British subjects who were called as witnesses before the Commission at sittings where no British Consular representative was present.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have nothing to add to the replies on this subject given on April 3rd and May 24th. Mr. Mackie's comments on the evidence which he forwarded did not differ materially from those of the Commission of Inquiry, and he was only able to attend three sittings of the Com- mission. His Majesty's Government cannot publish information respecting the evidence which has reached them from unofficial sources.

    The Rev. Edgar Stannard's Case.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the attention of His Majesty's Government has been drawn to the statements made by the Rev. Edgar Stannard that certain evidence given before the Congo Commission of Inquiry by native witnesses and vitally affecting Mr. Stannard's defence was not accessible in the course of his recent trial at Coquilhatville, in the Congo State; if the attention of His Majesty's Government has been drawn to the sworn state-
    1290
    ments of the Rev. J. H. Harris and his wife, witnesses before the Congo Commission of Inquiry at Baringa, in the Congo State; that the gravest charges were preforred at the sittings of the Commission in regard to the proceedings of Commandant Hagstrom, who recently obtained damages against the Rev. Edgar Stannard for alleged libel before the Coquilhatville Court; and if the attention of His Majesty's Government has been drawn to the detailed notes, published by the Congo Reform Association, made by Mr. and Mrs. Harris, of the testimony of the Chief Lontulu, of Bolima, at the Commission's sittings affecting that Congo Government official; and, if so, what action he proposes to take.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The attention of His Majesty's Government has been drawn to all the matters referred to. I stated yesterday that His Majesty's Government had again pressed the Congo Government to publish the evidence taken by the Commission of Inquiry, and I have now heard that the Government adhere to their refusal to do so, on the recommendation of the Commission itself. But I have also received the assurance that the entire records of the proceedings of the Commission in so far as they bore on the prosecution of Mr. Stannard, were placed before the Court in the fullest detail, and without the omission of a single item. It is open to Mr. Stannard to insist upon the examination of this evidence at the trial.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Will it be open to him to insist on the examination of the Papers at the appeal. I do not suppose it will be in his power to make public the proceedings.

    Dear Money.
    MR. STRAUS; I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, owing to the dearness of money which is hampering trade, he can see his way to bring in a short Bill compelling every bank to publish a balance sheet every month, showing weekly average gold reserves, with a view to increasing the gold reserves and cheapening money.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): I am not prepared to pledge myself to

    1291
    legislation on this subject, but in the consideration which I am giving to it my hon. friend may be assured that I shall not leave out of sight the important aspect to which his Question refers.

    Case of Max Nettlau.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it has been reported to him that M. Max Nettlau was refused permission to land in this country because he refused to undergo a medical examination under the terms of the Aliens Act; whether he is aware that Dr. Nettlau is a doctor of philosophy who for twenty years past has paid an annual visit to this country for the purpose of studying at the British Museum; and whether he will give instructions to prevent a recurrence of such an incident.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): I have made full inquiry into the circumstances of this case, and I have satisfied myself that the medical inspector in no way exceeded the duty imposed on him by the Act, and showed all possible consideration for Dr. Nettlau's feelings.

    Prosecutions for Vivisection.
    SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the Annual Report of the Inspector, under the Cruelty to Animals Act, is issued each year at so late a date that prosecutions for illegal experiments described in his Report are rendered impossible by the operation of Section 1 of The Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893; and whether he will during the continuance of the existing law direct that the Report shall be issued quarterly and promptly instead of, as at at present, once a year, and long after the experiments have taken place.
    MR. GLADSTONE: There has been no avoidable delay in issuing this Report. An immense mass of documents has to be received and examined before the Report can be prepared, and to issue it quarterly would very greatly increase the labour involved with little or no advantage. Contraventions of the Act are reported to the Secretary of State as soon as they are discovered, so that the institu-
    1292
    tion of proceedings for performance of illegal experiments is not dependent on the date of the Report.
    In reply to a further Question, Mr. GLADSTONE promised to see if the publication of the Report could be hastened.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it not the case that under this Act no prosecutions have ever been successfully instituted?
    *MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the right hon. Gentleman's Answer.

    Enfield Betting Convictions.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Alfred Ball, who was convicted at Enfield Quarter Sessions for betting in a public-house, and sentenced to six months hard labour without the option of a fine; and whether, in view of the fact that it was stated by one of the police witnesses that Ball's personal character was satisfactory, he will consider the advisability of reducing his sentence.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have carefully considered all the circumstances of this case, but I regret that I am unable to advise any reduction of the sentence.

    Railway Carriages—Third Class Sleepers.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will represent to the railway companies which provide first-class sleeping carriages the necessity of reconsidering the question of providing third-class sleeping carriages before they come to Parliament to ask for further concessions.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY, Devonport): The railway companies are no doubt fully alive to the situation, and no action on the part of the Board of Trade seems necessary at the present moment.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Committee of Managers of Railway Companies recently decided not to introduce third-class sleepers?
    MR. KEARLEY: Yes, Sir, and I communicated that information to the House myself.
    MR. MORTON: Will the Board of Trade support the movement to secure third-class as well as first-class sleepers?
    MR. KEAKLEY: I cannot pledge the Board of Trade so far in advance.

    Crown Land Tenants.
    MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what compensation will be. paid to the tenants of Crown agricultural Lands, especially the widows, on whom notice to quit has been served upon the termination of their tenancy; and whether compensation will be assessed on the basis of the Land Tenure Bill.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.): The compensation payable to any outgoing tenants on the Crown Lands will be the amount to which they are entitled by the law which is in force at the time of quitting their holdings. The Answer to the latter part of the Question depends on whether the Land Tenure Bill has or has not become law at that time.

    New Local Government Board Offices.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.): On behalf of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if a Supplementary Estimate will be required to meet the cost of structural or other work connected with the new Local Government Board offices in Whitehall.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury, for Mr. Harcourt): The cost of this building is provided for by the Public Building Expenses Acts of 1898 and 1903, and no further grant will be required except for furniture and office fittings, for which no provision has been made. Amounts for these services will be taken in the ordinary annual Estimates.

    Lighting of Parliament Buildings.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he
    1294
    can do anything to improve the defective lighting in the Central Hall and Conference Room.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The First Commissioner will give directions for the improvement of the lighting of the Conference Room. But he is disposed to think that the Central Hall is not inadequately lighted at present, having regard to its purpose.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly call the attention of the First Commissioner to the fact that the light is so bad in the Central Hall that it is almost impossible to recognise one's constituents.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: Certainly.

    National Gallery—Private Traders.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has now communicated with the trustees of the National Gallery with reference to their action in allowing private firms to trade rent free within the precincts of the gallery; and if so, with what result; and whether consideration will be given to the fact that, if an official department were opened at the gallery for the sale of reproductions of national pictures, a considerable contribution might bo secured towards the maintenance of the building.
    MR. RUNCIMAN (for Mr. MCKENNA): My hon. friend has been assured that this matter will be laid before the National Gallery Board at their next meeting, which will be held very shortly.

    The Hollesley Bay Voters.
    MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General if he will ascertain who was responsible for the payment out of voluntary contributions of the travelling expenses of the fifty-two unemployed who were given special leave, in anticipation of their usual holiday, to go to London for the purposes of voting in the municipal elections; and if it is his intention to prosecute such person or persons under Section 7 (1) (a) of the Corrupt Practices Act of 1883.
    *THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.): The information necessary for answering the

    1295
    earlier portion of the Question was given yesterday by the President of the Local Government Board, † Assuming these facts, there is not, in my opinion, any infringement of the section.
    MR. T. L. COEBETT: Were the subscribers consulted before the sums collected from them were devoted to a purely Party purpose?
    *SIR JOHN WALTON: The hon. Member must ask the President of the Local Government Board. The facts are not within my knowledge.
    MR. BRIDGEMAN: Is it not a fact that some of the members of the Committee who authorised this expenditure were themselves candidates for the election to which the unemployed travelled to vote, and, if that is the case, does it not constitute an infringement of the section?
    MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent): Are not the majority of the Committee Moderates?
    *Sir JOHN WALTON: I can only deal with the question of law on the facts before me, and on the facts I am clear that there is no infringement.
    MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.): Would the President of the Local Government Board be able to give information with regard to the facts?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): If the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question I shall be pleased to give him all the available information. I may tell him, however, that, in answer to a Question yesterday, i did, at considerable length, place all the available information at the disposal of the House.†
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: DO I understand the Attorney-General to say that it is not illegal to pay the expenses of persons going to vote in municipal elections?
    *SIR JOHN WALTON: It is illegal to pay the expenses of persons going to
    1296
    vote provided that the payment is made with the view of procuring the election of a particular candidate. In this particular case I understand that a sum of money was provided to enable these men to go to London on their furlough, and not to procure the election of any candidate. The mere fact that money is provided to enable men to exercise the franchise, unless it is given by or in the interest of one of the candidates, is not an offence.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is it not the case that the furlough coincided with the date of the election, and that the people who authorised the payment happened to be candidates? If that be the fact, and if that be not an offence under the law, will the Government make it an offence, as it obviously ought to be?
    AN HON. MEMBER: He cannot answer conundrums!
    MR. JOHN BURNS: That Question cannot be answered until I supply the information promised.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It's a Chinese puzzle !
    MR. MYER (Lambeth, N.): Is any Member of the Government obliged to answer hypotheses?

    Secondary School Grants.
    SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether any secondary schools containing infant or junior departments receive grants from the Board of Education; whether such grants are applied wholly or in part to payment of the cost of those departments; and whether those departments are maintained with a view to class distinctions.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH, Islington, W.): I believe that in certain secondary schools, especially those provided and maintained by local authorities which were formerly known as higher grade schools, there are preparatory departments for boys and girls under twelve years of age. All grants paid in respect of secondary schools go into the school fund of such schools, and are not, as indeed they could not be,

    1297
    earmarked to be spent solely on any one particular portion of the school expenses. The Answer to the third paragraph is in the negative. The purpose of these preparatory departments is to enable children coming from a public elementary school to profit more fully by the secondary school course than they could otherwise do, in fact, to compensate them for the better preparatory education which other children attending the secondary school may have received owing to the greater private means of their parents.

    Watford Grammar School
    SIR G. KEKEYVTCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, at an inquiry held by an inspector of the Board of Education with regard to a scheme for Watford Grammar School submitted to the Board of Education by the County Council for Herts, the inspector refused to inquire into the financial proposals of the county council under the scheme; and whether the course taken by the inspector was in accordance with the instructions of the Board of Education.
    MR. LOUGH: The inquiry referred to was an inquiry relating to the draft of an amending scheme for the Watford endowed schools. The Hertfordshire County Council bad made proposals for aiding the foundation out of the rates under Section 18 (I) and Section 18 (1) (A) of the Education Act, 1902, and the inspector, in accordance with the instructions of the Board, refused to inquire into the objections to these rating proposals on the ground that the questions which they raised were outside the jurisdiction of the Board.
    SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the Watford Grammar School is held under denominational trusts; whether, under a scheme submitted to the Board of Education by the Herts County Council, it is proposed to endow that school with a considerable capital sum raised by loan on the security of the rates, and with an annual subsidy of public money; and whether the Board of Education have sanctioned, or intend to sanction, the scheme.
    MR, LOUGH: The Answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. But the county council's financial proposals, which are in substance as defined by the hon. Member, are not, as the Question seems to imply, embodied in the scheme recently made under the Charitable Trusts Acts by the Board of Education. The county subsidy is given outside that scheme at the discretion of the local education authority with which the Board of Education saw no reason to interfere.

    Company Schools.
    SIK G. KEKEWiCH:. I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether secondary schools carried on by public companies receive grants from the Board of Education; and, if so, whether such grants directly or indirectly contribute towards the payment of a dividend to the shareholders.
    MR. LOUGH: No grants are now paid in respect of secondary schools carried on by public companies unless they are under a strict trust, under the Charitable Trusts Acts, by which any profits in respect of the working of the schools, or any assets in the event of the discontinuance of the schools, are absolutely secured for the benefit of the school or for other educational trust purposes, thus precluding any payment of dividend directly or indirectly to any shareholder.

    Unemployed Workmen's Act in Scotland.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state how many county councils in Scotland have now taken action under the Unemployed Workmen's Act.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 24th July.†

    School Water Supplies in the Island of Lewis
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the fact that there are eighteen schools in the Island of Lewis, the water supply for which is reported to be defective, will he ascertain in how many cases action is

    1299
    being taken with a view to securing a suitable supply.
    MR. SINCLAIR: At Bragar and Valtos improvements have been carried out, and at Crowlista and Leumarava improvements will be carried out. The word "defective" is a general term, and my hon. friend's interpretation of it is properly, I think, under the circumstances, not that of the medical authorities concerned.
    MR. MORTON: Will these people be given a proper water supply?
    MR. SINCLAIR: In the opinion of the medical authorities there is a suitable supply in all places, except those to which the Answer refers and for them a supply is being provided.

    Medical Belief at Uig.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that, owing to the recent absence of the medical officer for the parish of Uig, island of Lewis, one of the occupants of thirteen Tolstachulish in that parish was compelled to send to Stornoway, about twenty miles, for medical attendance on a widow who was found to be suffering from fever; and, seeing that this cost the poor family about £2, will arrangements be made for the presence of a substitute when the resident medical officer finds it necessary to absent himself from the district.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The woman in question was not a pauper; she was, therefore, not under the jurisdiction of the parish council who have no duty to provide medical attendance for others than paupers. The absence of the parochial medical officer was caused by the serious illness of a relative. He left a substitute in charge whose residence was nearer to Tolstachulish than the residence of the medical officer himself.

    Illegal Trawling off the Island of Lewis.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state how many cases of ilegal trawling in Broad Bay, Island of Lewis, have been reported by the lightkeepers at Tiumpan Head, and how many prosecutions have been instituted as the result of the reports.
    MR. SINCLAIR: Two cases have been reported by the lightkeepers at Tiumpian Head during the current year. One case was prosecuted and in the other case the trawler was not identified.

    Dr. Dittmar's Report
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that the Secretary for Scotland does not feel justified in authorising the expenditure which would be incurred in Printing the memorandum by Dr. Dittmar. the Local Government Board's Medical Inspector, entitled Statistical Data presented by the Lews for ten years to 1904, will he arrange to have it printed if the Parliamentary representative for the county undertakes to pay the cost of printing, especially having regard to its importance in connection with the Report on Physical Deterioration and the increase of phthisis in the island of Lewis.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I should have already laid this Report, had I thought it required. My Answer, therefore, to my hon. friend must be in the negative.

    Illegal Trawling in Durness Bay.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will state to the House where the fishery cruiser, which should have been off the coast of Durness, on Sunday, the 9th of September, was; and whether fishery cruisers are not on duty on Sundays; and, if so, what steps, with a view to prevent illegal trawling, does he propose to take to prevent its being known that the cruisers are not on duty on certain days in the week.
    MR. SINCLAIR: It was not the special duty of any fishery cruiser to be off Durness on Sunday, the 9th of September. Fishery cruisers are frequently engaged in patrolling on Sundays, and there are no days in the week on which they are not on duty subject to the necessities of refitting.
    MR. MORTON: How is it the fishery cruisers never discover these trawlers in Durness Bay? I have seen them several times.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I imagine the trawlers take very good care not to meet the cruisers.
    MR. MORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman put some faster cruisers on this station?
    MR. HUNT: What is the use of these cruisers if they cannot catch the trawlers? Is it not a perfectly useless expense to keep them there?
    MR. SINCLAIR: It is far from being tho case that these cruisers are not successful in their work.

    Crown Prosecutions in Ireland—Right of Reply.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney Goneral for Ireland whether the attention of the Irish justiciary has been directed to the exercise in Ireland by all counsel representing the Attorney-General in criminal cases of a general right of reply, even in cases where no evidence on behalf of the accused has been produced, whereas in England, by a resolution of the English justiciary in December, 1884, in criminal cases in which the prosecution is conducted on behalf of the Crown, where no evidence is offered for the accused, the right of reply is restricted to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General alone when prosecuting on behalf of the Crown in person; and will he state the reason for this dissimilarity between the practice in criminal prosecutions in England and Ireland.
    THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY, Liverpool, Exchange): The difference in the practice of the Criminal Courts in England and Ireland referred to by the hon. Member has not, so far as I am aware, recently engaged the attention of the Irish Judiciary as a body, though all the Judges are of course aware of it. I shall be glad, if the hon. Member desires it, to bring the matter under the notice of the Judges of the King's Bench Division with a view to ascertaining whether they would consider it wise, in the interests of justice, to adopt the resolution passed by the English Judiciary in 1884, and so assimilate the practice in the two countries.

    Magistrates' Fees in Ireland.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that a magistrate,
    1302
    on his appointment to His Majesty's Commission of the Peace in Ireland, has, at present, to pay in stamp duty and other charges a sum amounting to £6; and whether, seeing that in England, Scotland, and Wales the total amount payable by a magistrate on his appointment in no case exceeds £2, steps will be taken by the Government to assimilate the law as it applies to Ireland in this regard with the other portions of the United Kingdom.
    MR. CHERRY: I am in communication with the Treasury on this subject.

    Colonel Malone's Westmeath Estate.
    MR. G1NNELL (Westmeath, N.): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if his attention has been called to the face that the Estates Commissioners ignore the existence of congestion on and around Colonel Malone's estate in Westmeath, and propose to advance £3,000 to enable one tenant, not within the Land Law Acts, to purchase an undivided grass tract; and, if there is no legal reason why the Commissioners should not exercise in this case their discretion. judicially established in the Blake-Foster case, will the Government advise them to do this in order to make the grass land available for the people in need of it.
    MR. CHERRY: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary gave to his Question on this subject on Wednesday last.† The matter in question is one for the discretion of the Estates Commissioners, and it is not within my province to intervene in the manner suggested.
    MR. GINNELL: Has any Court decided that the discretion cannot be exorcised in such a case as that stated in the Question?
    MR. CHERRY: I do not know that any Court has, and it is not for me to advise any Court how to exercise its discretion.

    Aroddy Evicted Tenant.
    MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH (Leitrim, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to

    1303
    the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from an evicted tenant named McGarty, in the townland of Aroddy, on the Lawder estate, in the county Leitrim; and if any action will be taken in the matter.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.): The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have recently received from Thomas McGarty an application for reinstatement as an evicted tenant, and that they will have the case investigated in due course.

    Cooscroun Landing Stage
    Mi:. BOLAND (Kerry, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board is now in a position to undertake the work of improving the landing facilities at Cooscroun, county Kerry.
    MR. BRYCK: The Congested Districts Board are at present considering the question of providing landing accommodation at Cooscroun, as well as other works in County Kerry. The matter will have the Board's further attention at their next meeting.

    Skeagh Estate, County Cavan.
    MR. SAMUEL YOUNG (Cavan, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have purchased the Skeagh estate, county Cavan, of Sir Robert Hodson; and, if so, were the tenants' claims for turbary conceded by the landlord in his negotiations with the Commissioners.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have not purchased the estate in question, but agreements for direct purchase by the tenants have been lodged with them. The purchase agreements provide that the turbary is to be vested in the landlord, but the Commissioners are not prepared to sanction such a provision, and have informed the vendor that satisfactory arrangements must be made before the sale will be sanctioned.

    Value of Irish Agricultural Products.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he has noticed that, according to the latest official statistics of Irish Departments, since 1902, the most important agricultural products have decreased in market value, the cost of labour has increased owing to the continued emigration of rural labourers, the j cost of maintaining the poor and pauper lunatics has increased, and yet the reductions of rent given by the Irish Land Commission, instead of increasing with those burdens, are 5 per cent. less than the scale of previous years; and if, in order to remove the impression that this is part of a policy of forcing tenants to purchase at exorbitant prices, he will direct the attention of the Land Com- mission to the discrepancy between statistics and rent-fixing.
    MR. BRYCE: I have communicated this argumentative Question to the Land Commissioners, but have not yet received their observations upon it. I think, however, that the hon. Member may rest assured that the question of all the causes which affect the value of land will be kept present to the minds of the Land Commissioners.

    Colonel Malone's Baronstown Estate.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, Colonel Malone's Baronstown estate having been inspected prior to the instructions under which inspectors now act, and in consequence no attempt having been made to ascertain or report upon the existence of congestion on and around that estate, and no subsequent investigation having been made on the ground notwithstanding complaints, will the proposed sale be stayed pending a further inspection under the instructions now in force, with a view to having the grass farms included for distribution.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to refer to my reply to the hon. member's Question on this subject on Wednesday last The Estates Commissioners inform me that they do not consider any further inspection to be necessary.
    MR. GINNELL: If I send the right hon. Gentleman a list of tenants of uneconomic holdings on this estate will he reconsider the matter?
    MR. BRYCE: The matter is fully before the Estates Commissioners, and I have no doubt they will deal with them as far as they can.

    Uneconomic Holdings in Leinster.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if ho will explain why the Estates Commissioners, according to their Returns of Advances, are allowing the Act of]903 to be used to perpetuate large grass tracts and uneconomic holdings side by side, and thus promoting the further emigration of working people from the depleted counties of Leinster; why do they not exercise in all such cases their discretion judicially recognised in the Blake-Foster case, and, if the Government disapprove of forcing young people to emigrate, will action be taken under Section 23, sub-section (8), to stop the present abuse of the law.
    MR. BRYCE: I have referred this Question to the Estates Commissioners, who inform me that they cannot, in reply to a Parliamentary Question, deal with a general statement as to the conclusions to be drawn from their returns, and as to the effect of their administration of the Act. The Commissioners add, however, that it is their policy to improve the poorer holdings where practicable, and that in their administration they pay due regard to the principles laid down in the Blake-Foster case, as they do to judicial decisions upon the Acts in all matters.

    Mr. Paget's Hilltown Estate
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask tho Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that negotiations for sale and purchase have been in progress for two years on Mr. Fitzclarence Paget's estate at Hilltown, Castlepollard; and whether, in view of the evictions that have been carried out, and of the fact that the tenants are willing to buy at prices to be fixed by the Estates Commissioners, he will ask the Commissioners to intervene.
    MR BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that proceedings for the
    1306
    sale of one holding on the estate in question were instituted before them on the 10th July last. The Commissioners have no knowledge of the negotiations with other tenants or of evictions which may have taken place on the property; but it is stated in the originating application that the vendor proposes to restore an evicted tenant named McDavitt to his former holding, now in the occupation of the owner. The Commissioners have no information which would lead them to consider the case of this estate as one suitable for their intervention.

    Sales of Estates in October.
    *MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many estates were before the Estates Commissioners for sale on the 31st October last; how many of these were direct sales; and how many were in respect of sales under Sections 4, 6, and 7.
    MR. BEYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that on 31st October proceedings for sale were pending before them as follows:—Direct sales by landlords to tenants, 2,906 estates; sales under Sections 4, 6, and 7, 203 estates. These figures are exclusive of 100 estates in regard to which proceedings for sale to the Congested Districts Board are pending.
    *MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say approximately when agreements for sale which are filed now will be mature for vesting the holdings in the tenants?
    MR. BRYCE: I cannot answer this Question from the information at present at my disposal.

    County Fermanagh Revision.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the complaints made by Nationalist electors in county Fermanagh with regard to the manner in which the recent revision sessions were conducted; and whether these complaints will be considered at the next appointment of revising barristers.
    MR. BRYCE: No complaint in regard to the recent revision of voters in Fermanagh has come to my knowledge, and the Lord Chancellor informs me that none has reached him. The list of voters for county Fermanagh was revised by the County Court Judge with the aid of an Assistant Revising Barrister. The Gentleman appointed as Assistant Revising Barrister in Fermanagh was one in whose efficiency and impartiality the Lord Chancellor has every confidence.

    Limerick Fishery Conservators.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the fact that the Limerick Board of Fishery Conservators is entirely composed of fishery owners and their nominees; that some of them do not fish either for profit or sport; that they are elected by proxy votes, to the exclusion of fishermen representatives, not one of whom has a seat on the board for the entire district; is he also aware that miles of the River Shannon claimed and reserved by private individuals, to the exclusion of the public, are not rated under the Poor Law Valuation Acts and do not contribute anything for the conservancy of the river; and whether the Government contemplate doing anything to remedy this state of things
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed that the Limerick Board of Conservators is partly elected and partly ex-officio. The elected members, numbering twenty-four, are elected by those persons, both fishermen and proprietors of fisheries, who take out licenses for salmon fishing in the district. The ex-officio members, the number of which is variable, are either owners of several fisheries exceeding £100 valuation, or magistrates who take out licenses and are riparian owners. The number of such ex-officio members who attend meetings of this Board does not exceed ten. The fishermen who are qualified to vote are in no way restricted in their choice of a candidate, but may vote for whom they please. The Department of Agriculture have no information as to the particular class of licensees by which the elected members of the present Limerick Board | have been chosen. It is a fact that miles of the River Shannon owned by riparian proprietors are not rated, but the Department understand that
    1308
    all private fisheries which are a source of profit to their proprietors are rated. Should any such fishery be insufficiently rated or not rated at all, it, is open to the rating authorities or the Board of Conservators to move in the matter. It is to the interest of the Conservators that private fisheries should be adequately rated, because the Conservators are entitled to receive for the purposes of their district a rate of 10 per cent, on the value of the fisheries. I do not feel at this moment to be in a position to make a statement as to possible legislation on the subject of salmon fisheries and Boards of Conservators.

    Ardagh Estate, County Mayo.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the result of the negotiations between the Estates Commissioners and Mrs. Perry-Knox-Gore for the purchase of the latter's property at Ardagh, Ballina, county Mayo.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that in July last they approached Mrs. Perry Knox-Gore with a view to the purchase of her untenanted land in county Mayo. Mrs. Knox-Gore has intimated her willingness to sell to the Commissioners, and the matter is new under their consideration.

    Investments with the Public Trustee
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what proportion of the £15,000,000 paid for Irish land since the Act of 1903 was passed has been entrusted to the Public Trustee in Ireland for investment, and the dividends paid by that official on the sums invested by him for each year since the passing of the Land Act of 1903; and if he will also state what is the salary of the Public Trustee?
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Public Trustee that the amount which has been placed in his hands for investment by orders of the Court since the passing of the Act of 1903, is £80,842, viz.", £29,142 in 1905, and £51,700 during the present year. In addition, the sum of £20,000 has been dealt with under Section 39 of the Act. In 1905, the amount of dividends paid was £303 7s. 5d., and in

    1309
    1906 to date, £2,030 12s. 1d. The salary of the Public Trustee is £1,200 per annum.

    Kerry Potato Crop.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a memorial from the inhabitants of Glencar, county Kerry, with reference to the failure of the potato crop in that district and other matters; and whether he will have special inquiry made into the conditions of the whole parish of Glenbeigh and Glencar, and will consider the advisability of sanctioning a grant of seed potatoes, and of urging the Congested Districts Board to undertake the making of a road on the western side of Caragh Lake.
    Mr. BRYCE: I have received the memorial referred to. The Local Government Board have; directed their inspector to make special inquiry into the alleged failure of the potato crop and the Circumstances of the people in the district mentioned. The Congested Districts Board do not consider it desirable to undertake the construction of a road along the western shore of Caragh Lake, which it is estimated would cost £2,000. It is not within the province of the Congested Districts Board to undertake works for the relief of temporary or exceptional distress.

    Valentia Island Evicted Tenant.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a claim for reinstatement has been made by Michael Shanahan, of Farranreigh, Valentia Island, county Kerry, from which his father, Maurice Shanahan, was evicted in 1883; and whether, seeing that this farm does not constitute a portion of the Knight of Kerry's home farm now any more than it did at the time of the eviction, he will have inquiries instituted so that this man may be reinstated in his farm.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they communicated with the landlord's agent with a view to the reinstatement of Michael Shanahan in the holding from which his father was evicted. The Commissioners were informed in reply that the holding now forms part of the landlord's
    1310
    home farm, and that the landlord has spent a considerable sum of money in improving it, and is not desirous of parting with it.

    Cavan and Leitrim Light Railway.
    MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the fact that the directors of the Cavan and Leitrim Light Railway intend closing four Hag stations on the line to goods and mineral traffic, at which there are sidings; and, as the ratepayers in the guaranteeing area are paying a rate of one shilling in the pound, whether these stations will he left open to the public as heretofore, seeing that other-wise the ratepayers will have to bear increased taxation, as considerable traffic will be diverted from the line, and that when the line was being constructed about twenty years ago an agreement; was entered into for the putting in of the sidings at those flag stations.
    MR. KEARLEY: The Railway Company with whom the Board of Trade have communicated on the subject state that the flag stations in question will not be closed to goods and mineral traffic, and that a service thereto will be afforded three times a week. They explain that they have been obliged to restrict the use of these stations for goods and mineral traffic, in order to meet important through connections, and to effect reductions in the hours of labour of their servants without incurring heavily increased expenditure, and thus adding to the burden of the guaranteeing area.

    Legislation by Reference.
    MR. BRAMSDON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the difficulties and objections attending legislation by reference, he will, in order to facilitate the construction of Acts of Parliament and by way of convenience, consider the advisability of arranging that where a reference is made hereafter to individual sections of another Statute, a copy of such individual sections shall, wherever possible, be placed in the form of a footnote on the same page of the Act of Parliament in which the reference is made.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNEUMAN, Stirling Burghs): I

    1311
    doubt whether the printing of Sections of Acts of Parliament for reference in the shape of footnotes would greatly facilitate the interpretation of Acts of Parliament. There are, I understand, many enterprising lawyers who seize upon new, Statutes and elucidate them in a way which it would be impossible to excel and the handbooks which contain their handiwork are issued at a price which makes them accessible to all. I should like, however, to add that if the House would look favourably upon the efforts which are made from time to time to consolidate existing Statutes it would do more than anything else to provide a solution of the question.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    MR. KE1R HAEDIEasked the Prime Minister what Bill would be taken when the Land Tenure Bill had been disposed of.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BAXXERMAX: I understand that the Leader of the Opposition wishes to ask me a Question on the subject.
    MR. A. J. KALFOUR: Yes. By the arrangement come to this morning, we are to finish the Report Stage of the Land Tenure Bill to-morrow night. I should be glad to know the views of the Government with regard to the business on Thursday and Friday, and, if possible, Monday also. Some of us will not be able to be here on Thursday night, and therefore it would be convenient it business of a non-controversial character could be arranged.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BAXXERMAX: I do not wish to take any step or make any statement that would seem to lower the dignity of any Bill, but on Thursday we contemplate going on with the Merchant Shipping Bill, and, if that is concluded, we intend to take the consideration of the Report of the Committee on Procedure on Friday, and on Monday to take the Plural Voting Bill.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEasked when the Government intended to take the Work men's Compensation Bill and the School Children (Provision of Meals) Bill.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BAXXERMAXsaid that he did not think it was possible to fix any date until after the Plural Voting Bill had been disposed of.

    LAND TENURE BILL.
    As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
    MR. REMNANTmoved the omission of Clause 5 (Compensation for unreasonable disturbance). The subject of the clause, he said, was wholly distinct from other matters with which the Bill dealt, and its omission would improve the Bill and its chances of passing into law. Under the Agricultural Holdings Act as amended by the Bill, a quitting tenant had ample security for the refunding of his capital. To give him also a permanent hold upon that which he had only hired for a limited time would be to endow him with something he had not paid for. In commercial transactions no one would propose to give a borrower the right to retain capital beyond the time for which he borrowed it, if the lender wished to recover it, and a proposal to make the lender pay a fine for resuming possession of his own money would be universally scouted. Why should not the principle of common honesty apply also to contract's concerning agricultural land? He had studied the Bill carefully and, like others who were interested in the agricultural question, he was anxious to do anything he could to assist legislation which would benefit the land owner and also the tenant. But such a clause as this could only be defended if English landowners were in the habit of evicting their tenants unreasonably, or of imposing unreasonable terms as conditions of renewal. This notoriously had not been the case. The Royal Commission on Agricultural Depression in their final Report in 1897, said ample evidence showed that as a general rule—
    "Landlords are most anxious to keep their tenants, and in many cases made great sacrifices in order to retain them, unfair or capricious disturbances being exceedingly rare."
    The Commissioners went on to say they were unable to see upon what grounds a quitting tenant who had received compensation for unexhausted improvements

    1313
    could justly maintain a claim for compensation for disturbance, and they expressed the opinion that "no countenance should be given to any such demand." A similar view was expressed by the Royal Commission on Agriculture in 1882—that—
    "No compensation should be required from landlord or incoming tenant except for outlays valuable in future cultivation of the farm."
    Such recommendations should receive attention from a Government which so largely availed itself of the assistance of Royal Commissions, and which ought, therefore, to be the last to depart from their findings. The pull of the market was against the landlord; it was less easy for him to find a new tenant than for a tenant to find a new farm, while the outlay involved was a substantial reason for a landlord to avoid a change of tenancy The late Sir W. Harcourt in 1874 gave useful advice to an audience of land tenure reformers at Oxford when he said—
    "Don't begin by ballyragging the landowners. You will only set their backs up and defeat your object. To hear some of these people talk you would suppose they had never seen a live specimen of an English squire."
    The interests of the landowners and the community generally were identical in preserving the permanent fertility of the soil. I here was no justice in taking from the owner his right to prefer one tenant to another. Such curtailment of a legal right would encourage absenteeism, cause ill-will and interminable litigation turning upon the words "unreasonable" and "due and sufficient cause." The clause would have a one-sided operation, the landlord being fined for a change of tenancy, the tenant being free to move away at will. That landlords held up land that might be let for building was an unfounded charge, but undoubtedly if the clause became law it would in some cases, at least for a time, act as a deterrent from bringing land into the building market. Again, let them take the case of a landowner who wished to divide a part of a farm at the end of the tenancy into small holdings or allotments, for which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham pleaded so earnestly in his recent book on Land Reform. Some hon. Members might also have read another eloquent plea for such
    1314
    action made by a well known writer on agricultural matters, viz. Mr. Kebbel. That gentleman had writted in the Nineteenth Century of July last—
    "The subdivision of tenancies would undoubtedly inflict some hardship upon sitting tenants. But I do not see why this result should be inevitable. As tenancies expired such arrangements might, of course, be made without harm to anyone."
    Under the clause, such action would obviously be seriously hindered. The clause went a long way towards dual ownership. The broad question, to his mind was whether they were going to continue the land system of this country as it was to-day, or were they going to destroy it? Personally he shared the opinion so well expressed by the late Mr. Gladstone in 1890 at Hawarden, when he said—
    "The best and most wholesome system is that which now prevails, the well-working of which depends on the wisdom and good conduct of the people concerned, where the soil is owned by one set of men, and occupied and cultivated by another set of men."
    Irish experience showed that a dual system could never be a satisfactory and lasting settlement. For that, if for no other reason, he trusted the House would decide to omit the clause from the Bill.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSONin seconding the Amendment, said the fifth clause was rejected by the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture on grounds with which he entirely agreed. He had expected to see a Government Amendment on the Paper concerning this clause, because at the conference of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture the question was put before the President of the Board of Agriculture, who said that the hon. Baronet in his behalf had given notice of an Amendment to the clause which would confine the compensation payable to the actual cost to the tenant who was disturbed in the occupation of his holding. He did not see any clause to that effect. He thought there was an objection to the clause either as it stood or with the restriction. Ho was favourable to the restriction if it could be applied, but he had come to doubt the wisdom of it because the costs of the arbitration would eat up a great deal more money than that which changed

    1315
    hands. It was simply that consideration which had led him to be rather sceptical as regarded several clauses of the Bill, as he thought that the costs under the whole system were going to be extraordinarily heavy. No doubt there were various ways in which the costs could be mitigated. If the Board of Agriculture gave free arbitration it would greatly decrease the cost, but he did not know whether the taxpayer would altogether appreciate it. Taking the clause as it stood, he would like to hear some justification for the proposal. He did not see the need for it so far as Scotland was concerned, and it had been repudiated by the tenant farmers' organisation. He did not think the clause meant very much. The amount of money that would change hands would not be very great, and so far as it went it simply amounted to the transfer of a portion of one man's property to another. That was the blunt result of it, and it needed some justification. The costs would be placed upon the in-coming tenant. One of the curses of the Irish land system had been the enormous debt burden upon the in-coming tenant, and the Bill as it stood would not only very largely add to the burden of the in-coming tenant, but it would add a wholly new burden, because he would have to pay for any evil deed committed by the owner in the getting rid of a tenant whom he should not have got rid of. In practice he thought it would be the exceptional case that would not come under arbitration.. It would be extremely difficult to discriminate bet been the tenant who was and the tenant who was not entitled to compensation; in practice a much larger proportion of claims would come up than the promoters of the Bill supposed. The cases of hardship in which tenants received notice to quit without cause were very few. If they could see their way to make a landlord suffer for harshly treating a tenant he would be delighted, but he did not think it would be done under this proposal. It was a clause which should be considered along with any general scheme for land legislation. If it were intended to give fixity of tenure to large farmers and at the same time cut up large farms for small holdings, then the Government were riding two horses which were moving in opposite directions. The clause ought not to
    1316
    have been brought before the House until the whole scheme of the Government for land reform had been fully considered. They were getting into conflicting currents, and this clause being a doubtful one ought to be excluded from the Bill. The Scottish farmers wanted an alternative clause, but apparently the promoters would not give it. Why they should be forced to have what they did not want and be refused what they did want he had not been able to make out. The Scottish case would have to be separated from the English.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 3, line 10, to leave out Clause 5."—(Mr. Remnant.)
    Question proposed. "That the word 'where' stand part of the Bill."
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.)thought it might clear the air if he were to state exactly, as he was authorised to do, what the President of the Board of Agriculture meant by what he had said in reference; to this question. His noble friend had said that he wished to confine the compensation payable under this clause to the expense of removal and actual costs. He did not mean by that to confine the compensation merely to the cost of removing household goods from one farm to another or elsewhere. He meant to include such loss as was incidental to the change of tenancy, such for example as might be incurred through a forced sale, or the disposal of a milk walk, for which the tenant might have paid a considerable sum as goodwill. In the case of having a forced sale the tenant might not be able to dispose of it satisfactorily, and therefore it was only fair that he should have compensation for the business that he had built up in his farm and in his business. His noble friend did not at all mean that the tenant should have compensation for losses outside his business, such as losing his post as overseer or church organist. The Government did not propose to give in this case "moral or intellectual" damage, but only the actual loss sustained by the man who had to quit his farm unreasonably and without good and sufficient cause. The hon. Member for Leith Burghs

    1317
    had referred to the case of transferring one man's property to another.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I should like to call my hon. friend's attention to the actual words used. The President of the Board of Agriculture said that the hon. Baronet had given notice of an Amendment to the clause which would confine the compensation payable to the actual costs of the removal of a tenant who was disturbed in the occupation of his holding. That is not quite the interpretation which the hon. Baronet is putting upon it now.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid all he could say was that he was authorised to explain what the President of the Board of Agriculture meant by the words used at Edinburgh. He assured his hon. friend also that he was just as loth, without good and sufficient reason, to transfer one man's property to another; and he repudiated the idea that the clause did anything of the sort. As to the costs falling on the incoming tenant, he reminded his hon. friend that the Bill was governed by the Acts of 1883 and 1900. By arbitration the expenses of the incoming tenant, under a valuation, were payable by the landlord. It was true that, as a matter of convenience, an arrangement was often made between the landlord and the incoming tenant to relieve the landlord of the burden of the tenant's outgoing. But that arrangement was merely between themselves; the incoming tenant was not bound, unless he chose, to take over those liabilities. The man to be shot at by the outgoing tenant was the landlord. Permanent improvements, for example, were paid for by the landlord. The whole object of the clause was to give compensation where a landlord had harshly and cruelly exercised his rights as a landlord. The number of landlords was very small who treated their tenants harshly and unreasonably in respect of questions affecting the good and efficient management of their farms. The cases were few where a landlord had i been found to act unreasonably, but if there was a case showing unreasonable, unfair, and harsh action, it was only right that the landlord should be made to compensate the tenant for the loss
    1318
    arising from his removal from the holding. Upon these grounds the Government thought it right to have a clause of this kind is the Bill giving protection from capricious and harsh landlords. Whatever might be the case in Scotland, | English farmers, at least, had approved of this particular clause. He might have been inclined to suggest some modifications which would meet reasonable objections, because a Bill that had been adopted by the Government naturally needed more revision than if it had been their own measure. But he found that suggestions of that kind which had been made had only lengthened the debates. If the Government were met in a reasonable spirit they would show an equally reasonable spirit in every possible way, as well as no desire to force the clause down the throats of hon. Members.
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid the last sentences of the hon. Baronet's speech were very cryptic. Did he mean because of the reception given to his Amendment yesterday he did not propose to move the Amendments standing in his name on the Paper? Or did he propose to move additional Amendments to those on the Paper? It would simplify discussion if the hon. Baronet would let the House know exactly what he meant. He was sure no one would desire to throw the smallest blame upon the hon. Baronet because he was unable to do more than carry out the instructions he received, but he thought hon. Members were entitled to comment on the difficulty in which they found themselves when the Minister responsible for the Bill in this House pleaded as an excuse for the shortcomings of his own statement that he could not go further than the instructions he had received. It was obvious that if the hon. Baronet was to confine himself to retailing to the House the explanations given by the President of the Board of Agriculture the House would be in a difficulty, because it was clear that the Amendments on the Paper, even with considerable alteration, did not give effect to what the Opposition believed to be the intention of the Government as represented by what the President of the Board said in Edinburgh. They understood that it was the intention of the

    1319
    Government to limit very materially what was regarded as the injurious portions of the clause. But the statement of the hon. Baronet meant that there was to be no limitation at all, and that when a tenant was called upon to quit his holding he was to be entitled to compensation for disturbance over and above, and independently of the money he received for the improvements of his holdings. The hon. Member for Leith Burghs had told the House that in many cases compensation would not be large. The hon. Gentleman was a high authority on any question relating to agriculture, but. he would forgive him for saying that it would be very difficult and dangerous to lay "'down any definite compensation limit, and that, in many cases the actual amount payable for compensation would be considerable. Moreover, it was the literal truth that, adopting the proposals of this clause, and at the same time declaring in favour of the sub-division of existing holdings and the creation of new holdings, would be like riding two horses going in different directions. Not a single speaker had shown the case that it was desired to remedy. Supposing the landlords of this country were as black criminals as some people thought them to be, there was one thing that ought to be borne in mind, and that was that it paid them to treat fairly those who were good occupying tenants. There was no practical agriculturist in the House who had not had to deal with eases of this kind. Let them take a case where a tenant farmer was occupying a farm of 700 acres, and it was clear, though the tenant did not admit it, that he was carrying more land than he could profitably occupy, and that the farm ought to be divided. This was an operation which would cost the landlord a considerable sum of money, for a new farmhouse or buildings would probably have to be erected. Did hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Government side really think that the landlord was going to run the risk of such heavy expenditure if, in addition, he was to be liable to an action for disturbance, and for the loss which would undoubtedly accrue if the tenant had to sell his stock at a price which he would not think gave him a fair return? Take the case of a man holding 100 acres, not one small holding would be got out of that if once this prin-
    1320
    ciple of compensation was adopted. Apart altogether from its injustice, this clause embraced an absolutely new principle in land legislation and nothing would be more injurious to the sub-division of holdings, or the erection of fresh holdings, or do so much to retard movements in this direction than the policy contained in this clause. In putting it forward the Government were deliberately adopting the policy of compensation for disturbance embodied in the Irish Land Acts. When a man was called on to vacate his holding, not because he was being treated unfairly or harshly, but because the landlord wanted possession, the landlord was required to pay compensation. That was not right. It was a monstrous injustice and he hoped that Members generally would hesitate before they committal themselves to this clause which would be the most serious and disastrous step ever taken in English land legislation.
    THE SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir W: ROBSON, South Shields)said it would be very unwise if he and his friends did not recognise that there was something in the arguments that had been addressed to the House, and if they did not endeavour, so far as they could, to frame the clause so that it would not unduly impede subsequent legislation relating to small holdings. He did not suppose anything he could say or suggest would remove objections to the principle of the clause, but if he suggested modifications it might lessen the hostility. With regard to the words in the first part of the clause "unreasonably and without good and sufficient cause," he quite agreed that the words were very vague. A definition was thought to be necessary and was desired by both parties and he proposed to leave out these words and to accept those which had been suggested by the hon. Member for Hertford—namely—
    "For a reason other than would be looked upon as usual and proper on a well managed estate."
    The words of the clause as they now stood imposed upon the tenant in putting forward his claim the obligation of proving that he had been deprived of his tenancy "unreasonably and without good and sufficient cause." The onus

    1321
    of proof did not lie on one party alone. The tenant who claimed compensation had to establish a prima facie case, and it rested with the other side to meet the claim. The landlord had to show good and sufficient cause. In reality "unreasonable" and "without good and sufficient cause" were very nearly equivalent terms. It would be in the interests of the landlord to retain one of them. The hon. Member suggested words of limitation. It had been suggested to him that appropriate words familiar to all who were acquainted with legal documents and more easily construed would be "good estate management." The Government had no desire unduly to enforce the limitation, and thought that where the landlord without good and sufficient reason —unreasonably and without good and sufficient cause, if the House preferred that form of words—and "for some reason unconnected with good estate management." refused to renew or continue the tenancy, the tenant should be entitled to compensation. An obligation would be thrown on the tenant to prove that his tenancy was determined for reasons not connected with good estate management. The House must be careful not to put too much in. If a landlord, desirous of creating small holdings, took land from his tenants for that purpose, and the tenant claimed compensation for disturbance, the landlord might say, "I am trying to make more holdings, and that is good estate management." In such a case it would not be sufficient for the tenant to prove that the change was not in accordance with good estate management on the ground that he was paying more rent than the landlord would receive from the small holdings or the market gardens; for the arbitrator might say that the landlord was only using his estate as he was entitled to use it; but it must also be established that in so doing the landlord was inflicting a malicious or unnecessary wrong upon the tenant. Therefore the House must not only say "reasonably and as connected with good estate management," but that for the determination of the tenancy there was good and sufficient cause. There need be no fear at all that the arbitrator would refuse to recognise this. His discretion was wide and would undoubtedly
    1322
    cover the case of good estate management. The twofold obligation that would be imposed on the tenant who made a claim would be a substantial limitation to any unreasonable claim the tenant might bring forward. As regarded the other part of the clause, as he had said, the words were the same thing, but from the lawyers' point of view were necessary. When more onerous terms and conditions were required from a tenant that determined the old tenancy. If a contract was varied a new contract was created. But although the words were not absolutely necessary many draughtsmen thought they should be retained, because they would make it clear that they were not to apply to a contract that had been terminated, but to some fresh conditions. In looking through the Amendments there was one which really struck him as being better. He thought better words for the purpose were those in the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for the Newport division of Shropshire. That Amendment was to leave out from "Where" to end of clause, and insert—
    "It can be shown that an increase of rent is demanded from a sitting tenant as the result of improvements to a holding affected at the cost of such tenant, and for which he has not, directly or indirectly, received an equivalent from the landlord, and where such a demand results in the tenant's quitting the holding, he shall be entitled, above and beyond any compensation to which he may otherwise have a right by law or agreement, to further compensation not exceeding in amount ten times the animal increase of rent so demanded."
    If the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Gentlemen who sat with him chose to accept that Amendment he thought it would be an improvement of the Bill. The tenant as a rule obtained compensation under the Act of 1883, but he did not do so in all cases. There were some cases under the Act where the tenant could only make improvements with the consent of the landlord, and there might be some cases where the tenant, relying on obtaining the consent of the landlord, made the improvements before obtaining it—and in those cases he would not obtain compensation. He did not speak authoratively on this matter, but on the acknowledged authority of the right hon. Gentleman opposite he thought

    1323
    the fact that the tenant was being rented on his own improvements ought to be a case for obtaining compensation. Another advantage which the Amendment possessed was that it specified one case only in which the landlord might raise the rent. The clause did not purport to forbid the landlord in all circumstances to raise the rent. Of course, if it were proved that the landlord was raising the rent simply to get rid of a tenant obnoxious on political or religious grounds,that would be evidence in favour of compensation for disturbance on unreasonable grounds. But the arbitrator would have no right to say whether the rent was reasonable or not. That would be quite outside his obligations, and it was not a bad thing to make that clear by specifying the one case in which the arbitrator had express jurisdiction to deal with the raising of the rent. It would help the construction of the clause by showing that the clause had not given the arbitrator the powers of a rent Court at large. The Amendment would first of all exclude the right, of the landlord to raise the rent on the tenant's improvements, and, secondly, it would prevent the clause from being applied in some wide, general way which would interfere with the landlord's rights in respect of matters which the framers of the clause had not in mind. After the arbitrator had ascertained that there had been dismissal without due cause, he would next consider what was the loss. As it stood, the phrasing of the clause was extraordinarily and dangerously wide, especially for a lay arbitrator. Nothing looked easier to interpret than the word "loss." But highly-trained and highly-remunerated minds could find a dozen meanings for it. A Judge would construe the word by reference to the subject-matter and general scope of the Hill; but the tendency of the lay arbitrator would not be towards limitation, but towards unduly magnifying his award. Therefore there ought to be some indication to the arbitrator not to construe the word "loss" beyond the limits of the Bill, but to confine it to what related to agricultural holdings. Some words should be introduced to confine the compensation to those things which were directly connected with the estate or the soil, so as to make it reasonable
    1324
    compensation for a real disturbance. When these matters were considered he would not pretend to say that he would have removed all the objections of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, but they would be suggestions which they were free to accept or to reject.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURthought everybody who had heard the very interesting and important statement just made by the learned Gentleman would feel that he was doing his very best to mitigate the objections of those who disliked this clause, and also to put the Bill into a condition which would make it tolerable to many who objected to the Bill for its looseness of wording and indifferent drafting. Everyone must admire the lucidity in which the hon. and learned Gentleman had dealt with an extremely difficult case. The discussion in which the House was now involved was a very instructive comment upon the special difficulties and the great inconvenience attaching to the adoption by the Government of a private Member's Bill upon a difficult and complicated subject, and also showed the limitations of the discussion on such a measure upon the Report Stage. The hon. and learned Gentleman had now shadowed forth to the House a number of Amendments, which represented not merely concessions to the Opposition, but also what, in the view of the Solicitor-General, were real and necessary modifications of the Bill itself. He hoped the lesson would go home to those who were responsible for the course that had been adopted, and that they would feel that important legislation could not be conducted through the House of Commons unless it were conducted from the very inception under the auspices of the Government responsible. As to limiting the discussion, hon. Members would agree that he was not one of those who had been reluctant to admit that some modification of the amount of discussion which took place in this House might be, not only desirable, but necessary. He had not taken an obstructive part in regard to the legislation of this Government in the past. He thought there was a good deal to be said in favour of limiting the opportunities of the discussion of a Bill both in the Committee and on the Report

    1325
    Stage. But he would honestly prefer, if there was to be any limitation, that it-should be on the Report Stage. When this clause had passed through the ordeal of the Report Stage and had been modified in the manner outlined by the Government, the House would for the first time see a clause wholly different from the clause originally introduced, and if it disliked the clause it would have no further opportunity of dealing with it. That was a rather serious matter. In regard to the proposed Amendments, the policy and intention of the Government was that there should be no compensation for disturbance for any tenant who had to quit his holding in. consequence of the ordinary incidents of a well-managed estate. Amongst the incidents of a well-managed estate were not only the division of holdings in order to make smaller holdings, but sometimes also the consolidation of holdings. It was impossible to exclude the possibility that the holdings might be required for consolidation, and would not constitute a case for compensation. If a landlord reasonably desired to take the land into his own hand again, that would be in conformity with good management, and no compensation would be paid. These Amendments would greatly improve the general scope of the clause. So far as he was personally concerned, he could not find himself reconciled to anything which established a dual ownership. He did not know why in some cases the landord should not be given compensation. If new principles of legislation were to be laid down he could not see why the treatment proposed should not be meted out to unreasonable conduct on the part of the tenant. The amount of loss, inconvenience, and suffering which a mortgagee might inflict by unreasonable conduct was enormous. Nevertheless he thought the House would do well to hesitate before it declared that a mortgagee who insisted unreasonably and without due cause upon his debt's being repaid at a particular time ought to pay compensation to the borrower. Could a distinction reasonably be drawn between that case and the case which the House was considering? If Parliament were to plunge into this legislative bog and try to
    1326
    penalise everybody who used unreasonably rights which could not in the interests of the community be withdrawn, they would have to deal not merely with landlords, but also with mortgagees and employers and employed, with a master who gave arbitrary notice to a servant, and a servant who gave; arbitrary warning to his master. It was a mistake to regard the landlord as a man who simply owned an unimproved area of land, and the tenant as a capitalist who turned that unimproved area to account. Landlord and tenant were co-operating capitalists, and of the two it was the land-lord who provided the largest amount of capital. It was consistent with no rational scheme of social economy to say that one partner should be treated on wholly different legislative principles from the other partner. He viewed with great dislike the whole principle of this clause, and the intensity of his dislike was only mitigated by the concessions of the hon. and learned Gentleman. When dealing with Ireland twenty or thirty years ago, the Legislature had to meet a case in which the tenant not only contributed the movable, capital, but was the real producer of the permanent buildings. But in England and Scotland the landlord provided the fixed capital and the tenant the movable capital. It was alleged that we were living under a feudal system. We lived under a system of ownership and tenancy which with differences of detail was universal. The House ought to approach the subject in a more cautious spirit and with much greater regard for general principles than it seemed inclined to show. He insisted strongly on this point, feeling that the House sincerely believed that it was in its power to carry out great social schemes of amelioration, and that it could only avoid irreparable disaster if it carried them out with a clear, simple, and accurate conception of the fundamental underlying principles which he did not think could be abandoned so long as the present individualistic system of society existed.
    MR. ACLANDsaid he would like to reply, and he did so with diffidence, to the last few words

    1327
    of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. He had said that logically there was no difference between the position of the farmer who was given notice to quit and that of the landlord who at great inconvenience and expense to himself received such notice, and that if they set up this principle of giving the fanner compensation for unreasonable disturbance they ought to extend it to the workman in the towns or to the employer in the towns or to the tenant in the town house, or to any other class who habitually entered into contract with the persons above or below him. He ventured to submit that there was a very great-difference between the position of the farmer and the position of almost every other class that could be imagined in this respect. If they were to compare his position with that of the ordinary workman who was given a week's notice to discontinue his employment they must realise the total difference of the two positions. In the case of the workman his capital was his skill. He could very likely get employed the week after at the same trade. There was nothing like the same loss that must occur the the fanner whose capital was not his skill but so largely consisted in animals and things which he could not easily remove when he himself moved away. It was the same with the town tenant who was given notice to quit his house, but could easily get another one in j the same neighbourhood. That again was quite different from the case of the farmer. He submitted that the farmer had a special case, and it was only because they had for years realised this that they intended, if they could, to pass this special legislation in his favour. This clause was far and away the most important clause in the Bill. He was perfectly certain in his own individual case that he won more votes from advocating the principles of this clause than by any other point connected with agricultural policy or the land system. He had an instance of the popularity of this, matter on the previous night when he happened to be speaking in the constituency of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire. He found there in speaking to an audience which he
    1328
    must admit was not particularly pleased with what he said—was not particularly receptive on the fiscal question about which he was talking—that it rose as one man and applauded almost wildly in favour of this particular clause in this particular Bill, which it evidently cared for immensely. He believed that would be found to be the case in a very large part of agricultural England. He wanted to say a word about the fear that seemed to exist in the minds of hon. Gentlemen as to the amount of litigation which this clause would involve. He believed it had been very largely exaggerated. The ordinary farmer would be very unwilling to run the risk of bringing his landlord into court if he knew there was any chance of its being shown that he had neglected his farm, because if that could be shown against him in any way he would leave the court with the reputation of being a bad farmer and would find it much more difficult to get another farm. And in the same way he believed the landlord would not be anxious to take his tenant into court if there was something like a case of unreasonable disturbance. The vast majority of landlords were perfectly reasonable men, and if this clause, passed there would not be a great deal of bickering and litigation. They would perfectly reasonably say, "I recognise that for reasons of one sort or another I have had to give you notice I offer you a certain sum under this clause to compensate you for the sudden necessity you are in of realising your capital, perhaps at a loss, and looking for another farm "In his opinion, such offers would be in by far the greater number of cases accepted. and the extra number of cases coming into the law courts would be very small indeed. He wanted to make a point as to the great fear of dual ownership. He believed that with the Amendments which had been indicated there would be very little fear of the clause setting up any such system. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin was right in saying that the farmers as a whole did not desire a system of dual ownership. Those who had advocated the principle of this clause had never in the

    1329
    least tried to make out that it was meant to lead to a system of dual ownership or tenant right. They had simply argued it as a clause which would, if passed, avoid the chance of capricious ejectment, and not as a clause which would change the whole conditions of tenancy in this country. They wanted to secure for the farmer in case of capricious ejectment the difference in money value which would come to him between his leaving the farm at his own convenience and desire, and his leaving it at his landlord's convenience and desire. To those who feared that the clause might prevent the division of farms into small holdings he might, perhaps, be allowed to say a word. Those who advocated the clause did not intend to do anything which might make it harder for farms in the future to be divided into small holdings, or for justice to be done to the would-be small holder or labourer. It was inconceivable that under any system of facilitating small holdings less would be offered to the large farmer who might be expropriated than was offered under this clause. When they came to this question they would have to give the large fanner whose farm was divided the compensation offered under this clause, and they would not find when they came to deal with the question of small holdings that anything they might do under this Bill would stand in the way of increasing, as they all hoped to do, the number of those holdings throughout the country. People on the other side and throughout the country had often said during the agitation on this Bill, particularly on this clause, that there was no reason for it, that capricious disturbance did not take place —it was an imaginary grievance, and there was no real case in which the clause would operate. Landlords who said that carried out perhaps even too fully the scriptural injunction of not letting their left hand know what the right hand did. At any rate, although they themselves were very often blameless they could not know what happened in great parts of the country and what was done, not by them but by their agents, and how there was in many parts of the country the fear of intolerant and unreasonable action on the part of agents on account of matters connected with religion and politics and not
    1330
    with agriculture at all. There were m any districts where, perhaps, only one case of that sort was known, and yet the knowledge of that case and the fear of similar action being taken in other cases had spread a sort of funk throughout the whole district, and had made the proper relations between landlord and tenant much more difficult than they would be if such cases were simply and properly provided for as was proposed under this clause. This was meant to be a definite and strictly limited thing. He looked upon it as persons looked upon the Parish Councils Act. Not much use had been made of that Act. Things went on very much as before, but there the Act was. The people of a place could always appeal to the Act and get things done by the parish councils if they wanted it. And in the same way, although there would not be many cases of this sort under the clause, there was a great gain, as the farmer would know for once and all that so long as he cultivated properly and reasonably he was absolutely secure.
    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYafter congratulating the hon. Member for the Richmond Division on his speech, said he had come down to the House with the intention of saying something rather strong against this clause, but, speaking for himself alone, after the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, he felt inclined to change his line of attack, so much did he appreciate the courteous and kindly way in which the learned Gentleman had spoken, and the real magnitude and value of the suggestions he had thrown out for the consideration of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman had made it, he thought, comparatively clear that he had a bona fide intention in this matter, and that the protection he intended should flow from the adoption of such words as "good estate management" was real and sincere. In "good estate management" he understood was included such instances as those of a landlord taking upon himself the very natural duty of setting an example, and of being rather in the van of any agricultural movement for the development of new ideas. He was certain that he had the hon. Member's sympathy and that of

    1331
    others with him when he said that anything in the direction of building cottages and improving the accommodation on the estate generally for the working classes connected with that estate would certainly be an instance of good estate management, and yet in order to carry out such improvements it might be necessary under certain circumstances to take land which otherwise the tenant might not be willing to give up and which might cause him rather a hardship if made to give up. He could not, of course, attempt to follow in detail what would be the result of the suggestions made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He looked forward with the greatest interest to seeing them come forward one by one in their proper places, and they would be considered in the spirit in which they were put forward. He understood that there was a lurking apprehension among his hon. friends that there might still remain in the suggestions of the hon. and learned Gentleman something too much akin to dual ownership to make them acceptable. He (Colonel Kenyon-Slaney) had made it no secret that he hoped there might be brought about an arrangement whereby this clause could be so amended as to pass with the consent of both sides. He did not for a moment ask or suggest that any right hon. or hon. Gentlemen should in any way resign any principle to which they attached great value, but he did suggest that while it was very wise to maintain a good and just principle, it was not wise to shy at a shadow or to magnify a danger which might not be a real one, and which it might be possible to avoid altogether by a wise acceptance of Amendments.
    VISCOUNT HELMSLEY (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk)said that although his objections to the clause would be to a certain extent mitigated by the Amendments foreshadowed by the Solicitor-General, they were very nearly as strong as they were before, because to his mind the objection to the clause was not in its probable future working. He had never attached very much importance to the immediate actual results which would come from the passing of the clause as it originally stood. He had always held that these cases of capricious eviction were ex-
    1332
    tremely rare, and when they were inquired into it was probably found that the eviction was due to bad farming or to some other reason unknown to those who spread the rumour about the eviction. And therefore he thought the clause as it stood would not have any very great practical effect, because it would not very often be called into play. But in that clause, with the Amendments foreshadowed, there lay the objectionable principle which had been alluded to namely, the principle of the right to sit, which was practically dual ownership. The tenant who had been long on the estate suffered a moral hardship if he was turned out of the estate for no good cause. But had he a right to sit there? If he had, that right must be negotiable. The direct corollary of giving that right a monetary value was that it might be parted with to somebody else. They were told that loss by removal was to be compensated for. That meant that if the tenant stayed, and did not remove, it gave him certain rights. That would be the stepping-stone for saying in future legislation that the tenant's sitting on the farm was something which he could sell to a future tenant. If that was not the beginning of the dual ownership system which had done so much harm in Ireland, he would like to know where such a beginning could be found. As to the question of limiting compensation, it was all very well to limit it, but the principle remained. He believed it was intended to limit the right of compensation to the actual loss suffered in the agricultural value of the holding. Would that include a bad sale by the tenant of his stock, because, if it would, how was the arbitrator to know how much of the deficit in the amount realised was due to the untimely removal, or to the intrinsic demerits of the stock itself, or to unfortunate circumstances over which the landlord had no control whatever? Then, again, if the landlord had to take the risk of loss owing to the sale of the stock, was it a corollary that if the farmer made money by the removal—had a better sale than there was reason to expect— then the landlord was to pocket the proceeds? Though he would not advocate that, it seemed to him directly to follow that the landlord should

    1333
    bear the loss if the sale was unprofitable. The point he wished to emphasise was that it would be impossible for any arbitrator to say how much of the loss on the removal was due to the action of the landlord, and how much to the circumstances over which he had no control whatever. An hon. Gentleman in the course of the debate had made reference to the part of the clause which dealt with the more onerous conditions as terms of renewal. For his part he quite agreed with the Amendment of his right hon. friend the Member for Newport, who had an Amendment on the Paper providing that a landlord should not raise the rent on the tenant's own improvements, and he would be very glad to see a provision of that sort brought into the Bill, if it. could possibly be done. He thought that would meet the whole difficulty of the case. Hon. Gentlemen opposite practically admitted that that was the case, because they said that if the tenant was reasonably and with sufficient cause removed from his holding, then he was not going to suffer damage. Now, the sentimental damage to the tenant—which they could not compensate him for—was the same whether he was evicted capriciously or for the sake of turning the farm into small holdings. Why, therefore, in one case, were they going to compensate, and not in the other case? That only proved that all compensation was really beside the mark, because they were going to try to estimate moral and sentimental loss. All the grievances therefore would be perfectly well met by the Amendment of his right hon. friend, which would stop what they were all anxious to stop, the raising of rent on tenants' own improvements. That would not be open to the objection that they were introducing dual ownership, and which, he was afraid, the clause would still be open to when the Amendments foreshadowed by the Solicitor-General were embodied in it.
    THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. URE, Linlithgowshire)said he regretted that the outcome of the discussions upstairs had been insufficient to reconcile the noble Lord to the clause. Very different, however, was the attitude of the right
    1334
    hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newport, who in Committee was almost irreconcilably opposed to the clause. Hon. Gentlemen on his own side of the House welcomed even more gladly the calm and conciliatory attitude of the Leader of the Opposition, in the interesting and suggestive speech to which they all listened with deep attention. He did not at all misunderstand the position of the right hon. Gentleman and those who acted with him. He realised that they entertained a fundamentally different view with regard to the clause from that taken by the Government. He readily recognised that there was no Amendment which could be suggested from that side of the House which would make the clause palatable to the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. He saw that there was a deep fundamental difference of principle between the two sides of the House. He did not deny that the clause made a not unimportant change in the law both of England and of Scotland; but, at the same time, he thought it was just possible that the House might exaggerate the importance of the change, and he had felt that perhaps the lawyers were more disposed to exaggerate its importance than the agriculturists. They were going to introduce a clause giving a man a right to claim damages for what was undeniably no breach of contract. They were going to give a tenant a right to claim damages against his landlord for failing to renew the tenancy at the legal termination of the tenancy, or for putting the tenant out of the holding at the time when the landlord was legally entitled to put him out of the holding. Therefore, they were making an important change in the laws. He could not remember any instance in which a claim for compensation for damage was given where there had been no breach of contract; he admitted that readily. On the other hand, let the House remember what it was that this clause did. Stripped of all legal verbiage, all that it did was to give the tenant a claim for compensation if his landlord by mere whim or caprice either refused to renew the tenancy or determined the tenancy. He was not going to say for a moment that

    1335
    it was only bad landlords who did that. Good landlords might well do it. A very good landlord from every point of view night take some inconceivable dislike to a man—he could not exactly say why himself, but he just wanted to get rid of him. At the present moment, undeniably, the landlord was legally entitled to get quit of him. When the lease came to an end, and the time came for renewal, he might well say, "I decline to renew to that particular man. He is an excellent farmer—I have nothing to say against his moral and agricultural qualities, but I dislike the man and am determined to get rid of him." No one could deny that that was an attitude which could be understood—for the landlord was a human being. But, after all, was it not a hard thing that a man who had behaved himself well, had cultivated the land well, had lived a long time on the holding, had made it his home with his wife and family, and was thriving and doing well, should suddenly find himself turned to the door and asked to seek about for a new home, where he must drag his household goods and make a settlement for his wife and family. They all felt instinctively that that was a hard case. It was a little too late in the day to say that they must treat land like any other property. Whenever they had a man settling down and doing well in a place, they felt instinctively that that man ought not to be disturbed. Since at least the days of the Land Clauses Act they had all recognised in this country that there were reasons of public policy which might well justify them in interfering with rights of private property. When great public undertakings were at stake land was required, and they had for many years given authority to railway companies and other undertakings, municipal and otherwise, to take land against the will of the landowner. Thus Parliament had really treated land in a different way from other property. During the nine or ten days that this Bill was passing through Committee upstairs he felt that somehow, if they could get out of the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite that this change in the law did not mean dual ownership, they would have done a good deal to remove their apprehension, and the obligations of some hon. Gentlemen
    1336
    who had so heroically and legitimately and honourably supported the rights of the landlords would have been got over. Let them see whether, if this clause became law, they would really have introduced dual ownership. He was not at this moment going to discuss what the consequences of introducing dual ownership would be. After all, the much more important question was, were they introducing it? He would offer to the House three tests; firstly the right of possession; secondly, the right of use and employment; and thirdly, the right of disposal. If the clause became law, if they found that the relation between landlord and tenant stood those three tests, he thought right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would agree with him that dual ownership was not to be found in the Bill. If two men were private owners of a property, one of them could not legally evict the other from that property. One of them could not dispossess his joint proprietor. But, if this clause became law to-morrow, a landlord might turn out his tenant at the termination of the tenancy, without any condition of any kind being imposed upon him.
    VISCOUNT HELMSLEY: He would have to pay him.
    MR. UREsaid he had felt quite sure that the noble Lord would say that. He was about to point out that this clause did not make the landlord's right to turn out the tenant conditional upon paying damages. He readily recognised that if this clause made it a condition of the landlord's right to terminate the tenancy that he should pay damages there would certainly be a trace of dual ownership. But let the House remember that there was not a single condition imposed upon the landlord. He might, with perfect freedom, refuse to renew the tenancy and turn out the tenant at the legal term, and if the tenant could establish to the satisfaction of the arbitrator that he had suffered loss, then the landlord's right was not conditioned by the payment of damages to the tenant. The question was never raised before the arbitrator until the tenancy was done with, and the tenant then came and said, "My tenancy has

    1337
    been terminated. I have been compelled to go and seek another farm and make another home for myself Give me damages for that." They did not come to the assessment of damages and to the arbitration at all until the tenancy was entirely terminated. Moreover, if the landlord was to become bankrupt the tenant's claim would not be satisfied. He would not be able to recover one penny of the sum to which the arbitrator found him entitled, and yet the landlord would be absolutely entitled in law to turn him out of the tenancy. That was a vital and radical test of dual ownership. Dual ownership never could exist if one of the joint owners could exclude the other from the property. Then there was the second test, right of use or employment. Did anyone ever hear of two joint owners of property, one of whom was entitled to say, I will not put that property to any use whatever, I shall occupy it myself, but I decline absolutely to let my joint owner put his foot on it. I shall cultivate as I think proper, or let it go out of cultivation." If this Bill became law to-morrow the landlord would be able to put the tenant out of his tenancy, and either to see the farm in his own hands, or let it to another tenant, without saying "By your leave," to the tenant. He knew of no dual ownership under which one of the dual owners was entitled to put property to any use he pleased, or to no use at all, without saying "By your leave" to the other. His third test was the final and conclusive test of the disposal of property. He did not know of any property held jointly, of which the joint proprietor was not entitled either to sell his share, or, if the property was indivisible, to bring an action to have it divided, or to bring it to a sale, if it could not be divided, and to divide the proceeds of the sale between the joint owners. There was a test which, he submitted, was absolutely final and conclusive. Any joint owner of any kind of property was entitled to bring that property into Court and insist upon its being sold, or to insist upon its being divided. If this Bill became law to-morrow was it suggested that the landlord would be compelled, if he desired to sell his property, to bring his tenant into Court and to say
    1338
    "By your leave" to the tenant before he was able to dispose of his own property? Tried by all these tests it was plain that there was not the faintest trace of dual ownership, even if they gave the tenant, as they proposed to do, a claim for damages for what at present was not breach of contract. If the efforts of the Solicitor-General were successful in re-framing that part of the clause which gave the arbitrator the right to fix the damages, then he thought the whole sting, so far as the landlords were concerned, would be taken out of the clause. He very much agreed with what his hon. and learned friend had said about the difficulty of laying down rules for an arbitrator who had to assess damages. It was well known to hon. Members that, when they went before a Judge to assess damages, the Court always erred on the cheese-paring side, and he could never divest from his mind the idea that he could only give damages for what directly caused the wrong. On the other hand he readily allowed that a lay arbitrator— even an exceptionally intelligent arbitrator such as they got under the Agricultural Holdings Act—might go wrong, and probably would go wrong, when he came to assess damages, unless he had very definite instructions given in the Act which he had to administer. And therefore in another part of this Bill he supported very strongly an Amendment which directed the arbitrator's attention to the precise sum which he was to give, and did not leave him with a sort of roving commission to give as much as he liked, having regard to sentiment and other perhaps purely personal grounds. He did his best upstairs so to limit this clause that the arbitrator would have his hands tied and his course clearly defined. He was unsuccessful then, but, the Bill being in better hands now, probably it would fare better, and, when the clause assumed its final form, he ventured to express the hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would realise that a change not so far-reaching and revolutionary as they thought would be made in the system of jurisprudence of both countries.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURasked permission of the House, on a pure question of procedure, to make a suggestion. Perhaps he

    1339
    had a right to do so, as he entered into a bond yesterday that the whole proceedings on this stage of the Bill should be concluded to-morrow. He noted that a great many of his hon. friends desired to speak upon the principle of this clause, but he thought the principle would inevitably come up on some of the far-reaching Amendments suggested by the Government. He did not propose that they should necessarily stop the general discussion now, but he did say that it would be very desirable not to delay long the time when they would have before them the scheme of the Government. At present they had only got that scheme in the speech of the Solicitor-General, who did not even read the words of some of the Amendments that he intended to propose, and the House did not know what they were. He was anxious that the discussion should not be unduly curtailed, but he only hoped it would be remembered that some of the most important work they had yet to do on this clause was before them.
    COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid that although the Solicitor-General for Scotland had endeavoured to remove their fears he had not allayed his suspicion and dislike of Clause 5, and he believed it would have been much better had it never been inserted in the Bill. The real reason why the Bill had been introduced was because the Government and their supporters wished to pose as the genuine friends of the agricultural classes. When he looked back upon what the Party now in opposition had done for agriculture he was not astonished at the envy and admiration with which the Liberal Party looked upon their work. The Party now in power had provided very meagre fare compared with the excellent and luscious dishes set forth by the Conservative Party. In order to redeem their promises the Government were going to substitute for the friendly intercourse that had hitherto existed between landlord and tenant nothing but hard, dry, legal bargains. As a landlord, therefore, he would have to employ a cheap solicitor or a reasonable barrister at a reasonable fee. The cost would come to £25 or £30, and to a poor man like himself the charge was serious. He honestly maintained that it was a mistake to substitute these legal
    1340
    bargains for the friendly and happy relations which now existed, and he hoped always would exist, notwithstanding the legal element, between the landlord and the tenant. He feared that the clause as well as the Bill as a whole would produce complications where no complications had hitherto existed, leading to unfriendly feeling between landlord and tenant, and that the benefits supposed to be conferred would be largely imaginary.
    *MR. MONTAGUsaid the Solicitor-General for Scotland had stated that he could not remember another case in which legislation had been attempted to prevent the freedom of refusing to renew a contract which had come to an end. Might he respectfully suggest an almost complete analogy in very recent years where it was enacted that a right granted to a man to enjoy temporarily should not be refused to him when the question of renewal was being considered, without compensating him for the refusal to renew? He referred to the Licensing Act. A great deal had been heard about the future of the small holder. Hon. Members opposite were afraid the Government would not be able to create small holders in sufficiently large numbers because of the possibility of having to compensate tenants where disturbed. Only a few days ago hon. Members opposite had shown intense anxiety because they thought that they had discovered some labourers who had been disturbed without being compensated in the small holdings created at Burwell. It seemed that hon. Members viewed with complete equanimity the suggestion that in order to institute a number of small holders on the land they should disturb tenant farmers, who in the past had been asked to look upon hon. Members opposite as their friends, without granting them the right of compensation at all. It was also urged that a great defect of the Bill was the cost of arbitration. The supporters of the Government hoped that it would be rarely necessary to apply this clause in actual practice. It was meant primarily as a deterrent; and all that it was intended to do was to ensure the doing by

    1341
    every landlord what hon. Members opposite who were landlords assured the House they did every day. If hon. Members were right in supposing that no landlord ever acted in an unreasonable way towards his tenant—a rather optimistic view—then the idea that the cost of arbitration would be prohibitive, or that the clause imported into the law a new and evil practice, was a bogey which need not concern them. As to dual ownership, the Leader of the Opposition asked why, if they compensated tenants for disturbance, they should not compensate the landlord when the tenant left his holding without reasonable cause. He would for a moment pay the right hon. Gentleman the compliment of taking his suggestion seriously. The great and essential difference was that when they refused a renewal of his lease to a farmer, they turned him out of the house in which he and his family had been accustomed to live perhaps for generations, whereas if a landlord had to look for another tenant, he had at least left to him the home in which he had been accustomed to reside. The right hon. Member for South Dublin had described the clause as the most reckless piece of legislation he had ever known. When the right hon. Gentleman first began to make remarks of that sort about each clause as it was debated he admitted he was impressed, but by the time the right hon. Gentleman would have assured him that the last clause— that dealing with the title—was the most monstrous enactment ever attempted, he would be able to listen to the right hon. Gentleman unabashed and unashamed. He doubted if there was any hon. Member on the Ministerial side who did not fully appreciate the great debt which rural social life owed to the great landlords of England. He considered them at their best indispensable to the prosperity of the country districts, where they often took on their ✶ shoulders not only the whole social organisation of the small villages, but sometimes the whole duties of local government, and that in the most ungrudging way But a measure like this, by which they endeavoured to prevent landlords acting by their property and their tenants in
    1342
    an unreasonable way, would tend to strengthen and protect a system which in its perfection they all desired to see strengthened and protected.
    MR. HICKS BEACHsaid hon. Members opposite appeared to be more fortunate in discovering cases of capricious and unreasonable disturbance than hon. Members of the Opposition, and he was very much inclined to think that if they had heard the other side of the case they would most probably have found in the end that the disturbance had been much more reasonable than unreasonable. In support of that contention there was the evidence afforded by the Royal Commission on Agriculture in 1897, which expressly declared that cases of unreasonable and capricious disturbance were exceedingly rare, and that in ninety-nine cases out of 100 the tenant gave notice to the landlord. He did not wish to quibble with the Solicitor General for Scotland over the question of dual ownership, but did not the hon. Gentleman agree that if a tenant under Clause 7 were allowed to transfer his holding, and if the landlord was not able to give the tenant notice to quit without paying him compensation, it followed that the landlord lost a very great deal of his original control over his own property? That was a contention which he thought hon. Gentlemen opposite could hardly dispute. The effect must ultimately be that the landlord would either cease to take as much interest in his property as he had done before, and would cease to spend that money on improvements to his property which he had done in the past, or he would do what he was told several landlords had already done, namely, give notice to their tenants and farm their land themselves. He did not say that the poor landlord would do this, but he would undoubtedly cease to spend his money on improvements to his property, and the rich landlord would farm, at any rate, the best part of his property himself. These were two consequences which had made him oppose this Bill very strongly: they would certainly happen if Clauses 5 and 7 were passed in their original form, and instead of improving the condition

    1343
    of land tenure in this country, they would go a long way to become the death-knell to the existence of the tenant farmers. He had opposed this Bill because he had looked to the interests of tenant farmers and because he saw under this clause a proposition that would take away from the lawful owner of property that thorough control over it which he ought to have. he contended that if a man saved money and chose to invest it in land that property was just as much his own as if he invested his money in Consols or anything else, he had also had serious apprehension about this clause because he felt it would be absolutely unworkable in practice. Fe agreed with the principle that underlay this clause, of putting a stop to the capricious dismissal of a tenant; but he thought public opinion, which had altered very much upon that question during the last twenty or thirty years, was a far greater deterrent and far more effective in preventing that than any such clause as was now proposed, he quite admitted that the Amendments which the hon. and learned Gentleman had announced his intention of accepting had gone a long way to do away with some of the objections to the clause, but he still objected to the principle that remained, namely, that a tenant should be entitled to compensation for disturbance, and he should therefore vote against the clause although he should give cordial support to the Amendments that had been promised.
    MR. VERNEYsaid the right hon. Member for the Epping Division had mentioned his fear that hard legal bargains would take the place of good relationship between landlord and tenant. He thought that the relations between landlord and tenant, if they were to be on all occasions as good as they would wish them to be, should be based on equity and justice and fair dealing. Nothing could be fairer than that it should be thoroughly understood, not that there should be dual ownership of land in England, which he did not think was the least bit required, but what the property of the landlord was on the one hand, and what the property of the tenant was on the other. Dual
    1344
    ownership of course, meant dual ownership of the same thing, and that was not proposed. What was said was that the property of the landlord was one thing, and the property which the tenant had created in the land by his own labour and skill was another, and that the tenant should have the right to feel it was really his own. The proposals in the amended clause—and indeed he should have said those in the-original clause—were based on that clear understanding and distinction between the ownership of the landlord and that of the tenant. They might look forward with satisfaction to the further discussion of this measure, especially after the prospect that had been held out by the right hon. Member for Shropshire of a good understanding between landlord and tenant, on which the peace and. the prosperity of agriculture depended.
    MR. ABEL SMITHregretted that the last speaker had not taken a larger part in the debate, and that the Solicitor-General had not at- tended the Committee. He did not think that any Bill dealing with such an important subject had over been conducted in such an extraordinary way. The Solicitor-General seemed to think this clause was necessary to meet cases where by his caprice or whimsical action the landlord refused to renew the lease. The question to his mind resolved itself into this—whether the landlord, the owner of an agricultural holding, had a right to terminate or renew a tenancy for some personal reason. All these questions of religious and political matters not connected with the agricultural interest were personal questions. The question whether the landlord had the right to get rid of a tenant who was personally distasteful was a matter of principle, and by this clause the right of the landlord to give his terant twelve months notice was restricted; that would be an undue interference with the right of property hitherto enjoyed under the how of the land The speakers on either side had failed to distinguish between agricultural and other kinds of tenancies. In his view a much stronger case could be made out for giving other classes security—say the working classes in their homes—

    1345
    than the agricultural classes in their holdings. The hon. Member for Richmond had told of the difficulty a farmer had in removing his stock. He forgot that horses and beef could walk. That was not so serious as the case of the working man who might receive notice to quit his cottage and at the same time lose his employment, his whole means of livelihood. The hon. Member had absolutely failed to convince the House that a distinction could be drawn between a landowner and any other landlord. There had been some talk about dual ownership, and it was quite clear this Bill interfered with the perfectly legal right of the landlord to give his tenant twelve months' notice. That was the first step towards a different position of the law. There was an exactly parallel case in the legislation for Ireland during the last forty years. Irish legislation began in the same way. In 1870 Mr. Gladstone submitted his proposals for compensation to tenants in Ireland for disturbance. There was an excuse for that which did not exist in the case of England, because Irish tenants had in many cases reclaimed the land and erected the house and buildings, and his title was recognised by custom. That was a good excuse if not a good reason for legislation of that kind, but it did not exist with regard to the land system in England. Immense practical difficulties would be found in carrying out arbitration under this clause. The arbitrator would be an agricultural valuer. Imagine the case of a landlord having given notice to his tenant and the tenant claiming compensation for disturbance and insisting that the landlord's action was due to whim or caprice. That would raise a question of immense difficulty quite outside the region of the arbitrator. He knew that the President of the Board of Agriculture once evicted a tenant for keeping too many rabbits. He did not say the noble Lord was not justified, but the tenant did not think so, but regarded his action as most unreasonable. If such a case could happen on the estate of the only good landlord in England, cases would arise in other parts of the country when this clause came into operation. He quite admitted that the Amendments suggested by the Solicitor-Genersl modi-
    1346
    fied opposition to the clause in detail, but so far as the principle was concerned objections remained, and he and his friends were as much opposed to it as ever.
    MR. NICHOLLSsaid the reason he supported the clause was because it was within his knowledge that many tenants had been removed from their holdings, and quite recently, for reasons that so far as he was able to judge were not good and sufficient. This clause would not affect good landlords who were always ready to help their tenants. A few weeks ago a case came under his notice of a man who had held his farm for sixteen years. He was recognised as a good farmer; the agent went to him and said—
    "If you will agree to go out of the district, I will give you as good a testimonial as any tenant farmer could wish to have."
    The agent was anxious to get rid of the tenant because of his views. In such a case he thought the tenant was entitled to compensation for unreasonable disturbance. The hon. Member for Leith Burghs had said the Bill did not satisfy the people of Scotland. He presumed they wanted something more. This particular clause would meet grievances that he had recently met with, and he urged every Member in touch with agricultural interests to support it.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid his first objection to the clause was its want of mutuality; they were asked to adopt it because of its equity to the tenant, but as he said it was without mutuality. If this clause passed, tenants would have what would practically amount to a freehold interest. It was not a question of dual ownership, as the Solicitor-General for Scotland had said, but one of an ownership that was single and of a very solid character. The tenant in possession for a limited term, if he did not want to go could not be compelled to go unless the landlord paid him for his loss. Therefore, the tenant was entitled to stay for ever and defy the landlord unless the landlord paid him his loss. Now what was the amount of that loss? It was the whole amount of his interest which was coming to an end, so that he would be a freeholder subject to the rent

    1347
    reserved in his lease. Let the House take the case of a new railway passing through the estate of the landlord, but not through but close to the estate of a particular tenant. The immediate result would be an additional value of 10 per cent, to the tenant's property. The landlord would get all the disadvantage and the tenant all the advantage. Would the landlord be entitled to compensation from the tenant for the increased value of his holding? How did the hon. and learned Gentleman get out of that difficulty?
    SIR W. ROBSONsaid it would be much better to deal with this question when they came to the words of the clause. The hon. Member was now discussing the clause which was subject to alteration. He was afraid the longer they took in discussing the general terms of the clause the less time they would have to discuss the details.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he was grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for what he had said, but at the same time he had not told the House how they were going to incorporate into the clause the words he desired to see included. He wished to ask these questions so as to enable them to be dealt with if possible. Suppose a landlord spent money on drainage and thus increased the value of the tenant's holding The tenant's loss would then be greater when he went out. Was the landlord to pay that? He hoped that point would be provided for in some reasonable way in the clause the Government were going to bring in. The landlord was by this clause precluded from improving his own land, because if he improved his tenant's holding he would have to pay more to get the tenant out. Any legislation which prevented a man from improving his own property was a mis-
    take. The next question was, was this a personal or a transferable right? Could the tenant's right to compensation for disturbance be sold or assigned? Would it pass to his widow or executor in event of his death? Could the tenant enjoy the right through a manager or bailiff or must it be in his personal enjoyment? In the other clause of the Bill the tenant must have done something, have been damaged by game or have made some improvements. But in this clause he had done nothing for this compensation for disturbance. He wanted to know whether it was personal to the tenant or assignable? The next question was the most important. Did this apply to every class of tenant, or only to the rack-rented tenant? Take the case of an old servant who was put into a farm at a rent which was less than the actual value of the land. When his term came to an end a renewal was refused, and he was told to go. The loss that he might claim then would be the difference between the rent he paid and the actual value of the land. Did this clause apply to such a case as that? If it only applied to rack-rented farms, there might be a glimmer of reason in it. But if it applied to tenants who were not paying rack-rents, it was obvious that under the clause it would be possible to do a large amount of injustice. Would the Government accept an Amendment at the end of the clause to the effect that the tenant who was entitled to compensation should at least satisfy the arbitrator that he had complied with the provisions of Clause 4, and had done his best to protect and improve his holding? In dealing with a matter of principle like this, he thought he was entitled to some explanation.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 289; Noes, 75. (Division List No. 406.).

    AYES.

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

    Astbury, John Meir

    Beauchamp, E.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Bell, Richard

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Barnard, E. B.

    Benn, W.(T'wr Hamlets, S. Geo.

    Alden, Percy

    Barnes, G. N.

    Bennett, E. N.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Berridge, H. T. D.

    Ambrose, Robert

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Bertram, Julius

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Montagu, E. S.

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Mooney, J. J.

    Billson, Alfred

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire)

    Gulland, John W.

    Morrell, Philip

    Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Gwynn, Stepehn Lucius

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

    Hall, Frederick

    Murphy, John

    Brace, William

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Murray, James

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Myer, Horatio

    Branch, James

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Napier, T. B.

    Brigg, John

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Nicholls, George

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Harwood, George

    Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)

    Brodie, H. C.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Brooke, Stopford

    Hazel, Dr. A. E,

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

    Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J.T. (Chesh.)

    Helme, Norval Watson

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W,)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Hodge, John

    O'Dowd, John

    Chance, Frederick William

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Grady, J.

    Cheetham, John Frederik

    Holden, E. Hopkinson

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.,)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)

    Clarke C. Goddard

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Shaughnessy, J

    Clough, William

    Hyde, Clarendon

    O'Shee, James John

    Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

    Jackson, R. S.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Paul, Herbert

    Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Joyce, Michael

    Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Cremer, William Randal

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Pollard, Dr.

    Crooks, William

    Kincaid-Smith, Captain

    Price, C. K.(Edinburgh Central)

    Cross, Alexander

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Price, Robt. John (Norfolk, E.)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Radford, G. H.

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Lambert, George

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Delany, William

    Lamont, Norman

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Rees, J. D.

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Richards, Thos. (W. Momn'th)

    Dillon, John

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn)

    Dobson. Thomas W.

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Richardson, A.

    Dolan, Charles Joseph

    Levy, Maurice

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roberts, Chas. H. (Lincoln)

    Duckworth, James

    Lough, Thomas

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lundon, W.

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Duncan. J. H. (York, Ot'ey)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

    Lynch, H. B.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Robinson, S.

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Eve, Hairy Trelawney

    MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

    Rose, Charles Day

    Everett, R. Lacey

    M'Callum, John M.

    Rowlands, J.

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    M'Crae, George

    Runciman, Walter

    Fenwick. Charles

    M'Killop, W.

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Ferens, T. R.

    M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Ffreneh, Peter

    M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Findlay, Alexander

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Maddison, Frederick

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton Under Lyne)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Sears, J. E.

    Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

    Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

    Seddon, J

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Shackleton, David James

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Marnham, F. J.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

    Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S)

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Massie, J.

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Ginnell, L.

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Meaghes, Michael

    Smyth, Thos. F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Glover, Thomas

    Menzie, Walter

    Snowden, P.

    Gooch, George Peabody

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Grant, Corrie

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Steadman, W. C.

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    1350

    1351

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Stuart, James (Sunderland)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Williams, Osmond, (Merioneth)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

    Williamson, A.

    Summerbell, T.

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

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

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Wardle, George J.

    Wilson, John (Durham Mid)

    Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

    Winfrey, R.

    Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid)

    Tillett, Louis John

    Watt, H. Anderson

    Young, Samuel

    Torrance, Sir A. M.

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Toulmin, George

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Ure, Alexander

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

    Verney, F. W.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Pease.

    Vivian, Henry

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    NOES.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Forster, Henry William

    Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

    Percy, Earl

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(CityLond)

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

    Randies, Sir John Scurrah

    Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

    Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Remnant, James Farquharosn

    Beckett, Hon Gervase

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rutherford. W. W. (Liverpool)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hills, J.W.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Hunt, Rowland

    Smith, F.E.( Liverpool, Walton

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

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

    Cave, George

    Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

    Starkey, John R.

    Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

    Keswick, William

    Staveley-Hill. Henry (Staff'sh)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Wore

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

    Collings, Rt. Hn. J.(Birmingh'm)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter Dublin, S.

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Younger, George

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Fell, Arthur

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Viscount Valentia.

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Nicholson. Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Fletcher, J. S.

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Question put, and agreed to.

    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYmoved an Amendment the effect of which would have been to substitute the following clause for the clause contained in the Bill:-" Where it can be shown that an increase of rent is demanded from a sitting tenant as the result of improvements to a holding effected at the cost of such tenant, and for which he has not, directly or indirectly, received an equivalent from the landlord, and where such a demand results in the tenant's quitting the holding, he shall be entitled, above and beyond any compensation to which he may otherwise have a right by law or agreement, to further compensation not exceeding in amount ten times the annual increase of rent so demanded." He said that by this Amendment he desired fairly and fully to meet what he
    1352
    believed to be the gravest of the grievances alleged against the present state of things. He had heard many complaints about the position of the tenants under the present law. But when these complaints were winnowed down the real essence of the grievance was the increase of rent demanded from a sitting tenant as the result of his own improvements. If there were any such cases as those alleged, if there was such a thing as an increased rent being demanded from the sitting tenant as the result of his own improvements, made at his own expense, for which he had received no equivalent, it was a scandalous proceeding. He would go far to remedy such a wrong inflicted on a tenant. In moving his Amendment

    1353
    he had to guard himself from cases in which an increase of rent was asked as the result of improvements in respect of which the landlord had directly or indirectly given an equivalent. But he thought the clause plainly showed what he had in his mind and the way in which he proposed to meet the grievance complained of. He was not wedded to the exact way in which compensation should be given or to the amount he had assigned. It was his desire to make the amount substantial and equivalent to the amount of injury the tenant had suffered. He begged to move.
    MR. LANE-FOX (Yorkshire, W.R., Barkston Ash)formally seconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 3, line 16, to leave out from "Where, 'to end of the clause, and insert the words ' it can be shown that an increase of rent is demanded from a sitting tenant as the result of improvements to a holding effected at the cost of such tenant, and for which he has not, directly or indirectly received an equivalent from the landlord and where such a demand results in the tenant quitting the holding he shall ho entitled, above and beyond any compensation to which he may otherwise have a right by law or agreement, to further compensation not exceeding in amount ten times, the annual increase of rent so demanded.'"— (Colonel Kenyon-Slaney.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'the landlord' stand part of the Bill."
    SIR W. ROBSONsaid he need not repeat what he had already said. He would say exactly how much he proposed to take of this Amendment. The early part of the clause would read—
    "Where the landlord unreasonably and without good and sufficient cause terminates or refuses to grant a renewal of the tenancy."
    Then followed certain words which were unnecessary in lines 18 and 19. Those he proposed to omit and to insert the words of the hon. Member—
    "Where it can be shown that an increase of rent is demanded from a sitting tenant as the result of improvements to a holding effected at the cost of such tenant, and for which he has not, directly, or indirectly, received an equivalent from the landlord, and where such a demand results in the tenant quitting the holding;"
    and then followed the latter part of the clause. The right hon. Gentleman's words
    1354
    would come in in substitution of the words left out.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURthought that if the plan of the Government was to be carried out his right hon. and gallant friend should withdraw his Amendment by the leave of the House, because, if it was negatived it could not well be revived, although the Government were willing to accept part. Before he asked for a formal ruling on that point he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman a question, as to the Amendment itself. How was it possible to show that the increase of rent was demanded for a particular reason? That involved a psychological analysis of the intention of the landowner, and no committee or arbitrator could penetrate his brain to discover his reasons. On the point of order, he wished to know whether it was not necessary for his right hon. and gallant friend to withdraw his Amendment if there was to be any chance of part of it being accepted.
    *MR. SPEAKERsaid it would be desirable that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should withdraw his Amendment, but he would point out that the Question he put was that the words "the landlord" stand part.
    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he would be glad to meet the suggestion of his right hon. friend and withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that the words would be introduced in the place which the hon. and learned Gentleman had indicated.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR W. ROBSONmoved to amend the clause so that it should read that where the landlord without good and sufficient cause and "for reasons inconsistent with good estate management" disturb a tenant, the latter should be entitled to compensation on quitting.
    Amendment proposed—
    "To insert in page 3, line 17, after the word 'cause' the words ' and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management.'"—(Sir W. Robson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    MR. LANE-FOXasked whether the disturbance of a tenant on the ground that he had been guilty of immoral conduct amounting to a public scandal would be a reason consistent with good estate management?
    SIR W. ROBSONreplied that he did not think such a reason would come within the definition of "good estate management." It would be within the discretion of the arbitrator to say whether it was good and sufficient cause.
    MR. ABEL SMITHregarded "good estate management" as meaning something connected with the management of the estate as an industrial concern, something to do with the agricultural management of the estate. He understood that if a case arose in which the landlord alleged that his reason for giving the tenant notice was that he had caused some scandal, that would be a matter in which the arbitrator would have to decide whether the landlord had good and sufficient cause outside anything to do with the agricultural management of the estate for giving the man notice. There was no doubt that many agricultural valuers throughout the country were perfectly competent to deal with that question, but there might be others who were not. Questions would be submitted to these excellent men quite outside their ordinary province, which was to make farm valuations and that sort of thing. They would have an entirely new duty cast upon them and that was the reason he for one looked upon this clause as being absolutely unpractical and unworkable. He did not think it was good business to submit to agricultural valuers, who were experts in one special branch of knowledge, questions of morals. The landlord would say, "I have good reason for looking upon this man as an undesirable person, as a man whom it would be to the public advantage to get rid of." What was the wretched arbitrator to do? He did not know whether many of them would be satisfactorily equipped to settle such questions as that. If he were one of these
    1356
    men he would be very sorry indeed to take the job on. He thought the clause even in its amended and improved form would not be of any practical advantage to agriculture.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid there was no doubt this was a very important matter. There were going to be two valuers and if they did not agree there was to be an arbtrator. The two coming together for the first time would probably be local auctioneers. They were excellent men and thoroughly understood their business, but when difficult legal points were placed before them he did not think it was likely to result in any great advantage to either party in the arbitration. It must be remembered that these people would no; always go before the arbitrator appointed by the Board of Agriculture, because it was likely that in order to save expense to both parties they would agree. The Solicitor-General earlier in the evening had said he did not put very much faith in the decisions of arbitrators, and he gave very excellent reasons, but there, again, he (Sir F. Banbury) was rather filled with apprehension, for he gathered from him that the arbitrator always gave more than he ought to. That was rather bad for the landlord. It must not be forgotten that the tenant would always be the receiver under this Bill. He would ask the Solicitor General whether he could not guard the words in the Amendment so as to give some definite guide to the arbitrator The words as they stood were very vague. They might be held to mean anything.
    SIR W. ROBSONsaid the words proposed to be inserted were in the interests of the landlord and any limiting words would necessarily weaken the Amendment.
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid they were unending what was perhaps the most important clause in the Bill by Amendments as they went along, and which they only held in their hands as the result of taking down the words as the hon. and learned Gentleman uttered them. He did not depreciate the efforts

    1357
    he had made: they were singularly able. What he was a little bit afraid of were the words in which he introduced the system of good estate management. These words—leaving on one side the earlier words—would ultimately be the governing words in this part of the section. His hon. friend behind him had pointed out that everything would depend on the view taken by the arbitrator of the proper construction of these words. He thought they would be very difficult to interpret. There might be a general standard in a district which meant for that particular district good estate management. That would cover undoubtedly the general relations between the landlord and the tenant as regarded the cultivation of the holding, and would cover the farmer's position in regard to the carrying on of his occupation satisfactorily, not merely for one year but for a series of years. He was not clear that it would cover the power of the landowner to deal with a farm on part of the estate in order that the whole estate might be satisfactorily dealt with. He was very doubtful himself how- far these words would be interpreted by an arbitrator to justify what might be called high-handed action on the part of a landowner towards his tenant, although the landowner might be animated by the strongest desire to do his duty by his property and by the district. Was it quite clear that the arbitrator would be entitled to say it was consistent with the principles of good estate management for a landlord to dispossess any of his tenants in order to create two or three small holdings when A. was in a position j to show that the creation of these small holdings could be better effected by dispossessing B. or by taking land which did not belong to the landlord at all but to somebody else? This seemed to get rather behind the exact management of an estate, and he was afraid it would be found when every effort had been made to leave these words sufficiently vague to secure that there should be a presumption of right, both on the part of the landlord and of the tenant, that they might tend also in the other direction and embarrass the landowner, even though he desired to do his duty. He thought the House would admit that the case was involved, and that the conditions under
    1358
    which they were trying to work it out were very difficult. He had been trying to put the case of the owner of the land as a citizen doing his best with the property in the interest of the general community. That was the point of view from which they had to look at ownership of the land and its usages. Far be it from him to object to this Amendment. He objected to the clause altogether, and no Amendment could possibly be introduced that would remove his objections to the principle it sought to establish. Therefore, if they did not object to Amendments on that side of the House it must not be presumed that they waived their objections to the principle, or that they were prepared to abandon the position they had taken up. Notwithstanding the brilliant arguments from the other side of the House, they still held that the Government were establishing a principle which they were trying to safeguard, but which it was practically impossible to safeguard as it ought to be safeguarded. They recognised fully the efforts the Treasury Bench were making to do justice all round, but they were extremely apprehensive as to the practical working of this clause even in its amended form.
    *MR. COURTHOPEsaid he had a suggestion to make which he thought would cover the cases of doubt which had been alluded to by his right hon. friend and also the case —which was really a serious case—of a public scandal. Could not the learned Solicitor-General add after "good estate management" the words "or public advantage." He would like to point out what a difficult matter this question of a public scandal was. In a case of which he had personal knowledge a great public scandal occurred and had been doing a lot of harm in the locality. Under the present system, it was perfectly possible for the landlord to get rid of the undesirable tenant in the interests of the public without stating his reasons, but if he had to state his reasons he would have to substantiate the case against that tenant. If he failed to substantiate it, presumably the landlord, and probably also the arbitrator, would be liable to a libel

    1359
    action. Very often there was not the slightest doubt as to the advisability in the public interest of getting rid of a person who was causing a public scandal, but it was a very different thing to bring the facts of that scandal definitely home.
    Mr. ABEL SMITHmoved to leave out the words "or refuses to grant a renewal of." He thought there was a definite point in this Amendment. It drew a distinction between yearly tenancies—tenancies that went on from year to year, and, perhaps for hundreds of years—and leasehold tenancies for a definite term, which at the end of that term had to be renewed by the action of the two parties. The point he wished to put to the hon. and learned Gentleman was whether it was not a reasonable thing to draw a distinction between these two cases. Although he had no personal experience of agricultural leases he thought it was an unreasonable thing to say that at the end of a definite term—say at the end of nineteen years—the landlord should not have full discretion to say whether or not he would renew the lease. He himself would think it very unreasonable to have to go before an arbitrator in such a case to prove that his action was reasonable.
    MR. HICKS BEACHseconded the Amendment. He remarked that when a gentleman succeeded to an agricultural estate the probability often was that he was rather short of capital and ready cash, and it was quite conceivable that he would like to let the home farm for a period of say five years. Would it be an unreasonable thing for a landlord at the end of the five years to wish to occupy that home farm?
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 3, line 17, to leave out the words 'or refuses to grant a renewal of.'"—(Mr. Abel Smith.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURYasked whether if a tenant died and left his property to his wife, the land-
    1360
    lord was bound to let the farm to a woman presuming he did not want to do so. If that were so, it was a very strong argument for leaving out the words. It was not always consistent with good estate management to allow a woman to remain in possession of a farm.
    SIR W. ROBSONreplied that death would not terminate the tenancy. If the woman happened to be an executor and the landlord thought she was not competent to carry the farm on, the point would have to be decided by the arbitrator. That would come within the words, "good estate management." The clause was not intended to restrict the general rights of the landlord, but any specific act of an unreasonable and wrongful character.
    *MR. CAVEthought the landlord ought to know some months before the termination if a tenancy whether the tenant desired to renew it or not. As he read the clause, the tenant might wait till the very List day of his tenancy, and then say "I want to renew," and until the last day of the tenancy the landlord (unless prepared to meet a claim for compensation) could not make his arrangements to get a new tenant. That was a very serious matter, and he suggested that some words ought to be inserted providing that the tenant should give a certain amount of notice of his desire to renew.
    MR. WALTER LONGThought his hon. and learned friend behind him raised a point of substance in pointing out that at the last moment there might be a demand made by the tenant which, if it were refused, would expose the landlord to the consequences of this section. He did not know why the words "or refuses to renew" were kept in unless they were meant to apply solely to leases. Surely, the remarks of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, when he pointed out that it must refer to a specific tenure for a fixed period, applied. Then, if the tenant or the landlord wished to renew, they were both open to do so, but with a clean slate, and with the power on both sides to make fresh terms, so that when the lease terminated a new state of things began. In the case of a

    1361
    yearly tenant, if the landlord were seeking to get rid of the tenant he gave him notice to quit, either at Michaelmas or Lady Day, according to the custom of the1 holding. Therefore they had sufficient assurance in regard to a yearly tenancy, In regard to a lease, however, he did not think the same conditions ought to apply, and there ought to be a limitation of the period within which the tenant: could exercise his right of claiming a renewal.
    MR. UREsaid that as far as regarded Scotland no risk of any kind would arise, because, if the landlord did not desire to renew he gave the proper notice to the tenant, and then the tenant said, "Yes, I want to stay on," and the landlord replied "But I will not have you staying on," and that would be under this clause refusing to renew. The point which the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned, he thought, never arose with them, namely, that the tenant at the last moment said "I want to renew." The tenant never did that. If nothing was said within the proper time, whatever it might be, the lease was renewed as a matter of course.
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid the hon. Gentleman was dealing with the question of leases. Leases were the custom in Scotland, and the exception in England, and therefore they on that side of the House were looking at it from' a different point of view.
    SIR W. ROBSONasking to be allowed to intervene by leave of the House, as he thought this was a point that they ought to regard. The tenant ought to be obliged to exercise his rights within a reasonable time. They might adopt one of two plans: either drop the words or make special provision. At all events, though the Bill had not to go through another stage in this House, there were other stages elsewhere, and the point which had been raised should certainly be considered.
    AN HON. MEMBERsaid that if the words "renewal of tenancy" were to relate to leases he quite agreed that
    1362
    it was very important to consider the matter of notice, but if the words were not intended to refer to leases they were mere surplus age, because a tenancy from year to year went on for ever: it could only be terminated by a notice on one side or the other. It seemed to him that if the words of the clause were intended to refer to leases, about which there seemed to be some doubt, then it was a matter for the learned Solicitor-General to consider whether it was the intention of the Government to make it clear that it should so apply. But if these words were intended to refer to tenancies which did not expire by effluxion of time, but which could only be terminated by notice, they were mere surplusage, and he thought they might go out.
    MR. ABEL SMITHsaid he always looked upon these words as necessarily referring to leases for definite periods, because a tenancy from year to year went on for ever until there was a notice on one side or the other. Might not a distinction be reasonably drawn between the case where a landlord by his own action gave notice to terminate a yearly tenancy, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the case in which a landlord, at the end of a definite period, whether long or short, refused to enter into an absolutely new contract with the tenant, whose first term had come to an end? There was a logical distinction between the two cases, and he understood from the Solicitor-General that the Government were prepared to consider whether it would be desirable either to omit these words or in another place to insert words to secure that the tenant, on his part, should act in a reasonable manner with regard to the request to renew. Under these circumstances he asked leave to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    " In page 3, line 18, to leave out from the word ' or,' to the word 'the,' at the end of line 19.' "—(Sir F. Banbury.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    SIR W. ROBSONsaid he accepted this Amendment. They would have to insert the words—
    "Whore an increase of rent is demanded from the tenant as the result of improvements which have been effected at the cost of such tenant, and for which he has not either directly or indirectly received an equivalent from the landlord, and such a demand results in the tenant quitting the holding."
    Question put, and negatived.
    Words omitted.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 3, line 18, to insert the words ' where an increase of rent is demanded from the tenant as the result of improvements which have been effected at the cost of such tenant, and for which he has not either directly or indirectly received an equivalent from the landlord, and such a demand results in the tenant quitting the holding.'" — (Sir W. Ribson.)
    SIR W. ROBSONsaid he intended to move the following Amendments:—
    "In page 3, line 20, to leave out from the word ' compensation,' to the end of line 25 and to insert the words ' for the loss or expense which a tenant, by reason of his quitting the holding sustains or incurs upon or in connection with the sale or removal of his goods,implements, produce, or stock;'"
    And also—
    "In page 3, line 20, after the word ' shall' to insert the words ' in addition to the compensation, if any, to which he may be entitled in respect of improvements, and notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.' "
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid he would like to ask if the word "disturbance" was included.
    SIR W. ROBSONsaid instead of putting in the word "disturbance" he was substituting what would be a definition for disturbance where the Amendment referred to compensation for such loss or expense as might have been sustained.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid it seemed to him that it was raising again the whole question of compensation for disturbance.
    MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid as far as he had grasped the point of the Amendments they might be discussed together if the House so desired because of the words "in addition to."
    SIR W. ROBSONsaid they might accept the second Amendment which he had read out and raise the discussion on the first Amendment.
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid there were really two distinct questions raised by the Amendments. The first question was raised by the words "in addition to" at the beginning of the second Amendment. That raised the broad question whether there was to be compensation paid over and above the compensation hitherto contemplated. The other Amendment laid down what form that compensation should take. Those were two distinct questions, and he asked for a ruling that it should not be held that, if the first Amendment he had mentioned were adopted without objection on that side of the House, they had thereby admitted the principle of additional compensation, and therefore would be limited in the debate to that amount of compensation and the basis upon which it should be estimated.
    MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid it was a matter on which he desired to meet the general wish of the House, and asked the Solicitor-General if he had any view he wished to express on the question.
    SIR W. ROBSONsaid it might be considered, if they passed the first Amendment which began the definition of the compensation by saying that it was additional to compensation already due under existing Acts, that they had agreed to the principle. Well, so far as he was concerned, it would be clearly understood that they did not.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 3, line 20, after the word 'shall' to insert the words 'in addition to the compensation, if any, to which he may be entitled in respect of improvements, and notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.'"—(Sir. W. Ribson.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 3, line 20, to leave out from the word 'compensation,' to the end of line 25, and to insert the, words ' for the loss or expense which a tenant, by reason of his quitting the holding, sustains or incurs upon or in connection with the sale or removal of his goods, implements, produce or stock.'" — (Sir W. Robson.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Bill."
    MR. ABEL SMITH, on a point of order, asked whether it would be open to any hon. Member to move an Amendment to this Amendment, because there were some very novel words introduced.
    MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid that assuming that the words were left out, then the Question would be that the words proposed to be inserted should be inserted. At that stage, would come the possibility of amending the new words that were to be inserted.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURYopposed the insertion of the words proposed, on the ground that they raised the whole question of compensation for disturbance. Earlier in the evening an appeal was made by the Leader of the Opposition, who suggested that if they wished to continue the discussion upon that particular point it would be more convenient if they raised it on an Amendment. Mr. Speaker gave his ruling that that might be done. The learned Solicitor-General for Scotland had told them that there need be no fear that these words would in any kind of way create dual ownership, but as against that opinion ho might quote that of the learned Attorney-General for Ireland, who had declared that it was the principle of compensation as applied to agricultural holdings that undoubtedly led to the fixing of fair rents. The Solicitor-General had said they need be under no apprehension as this was merely an innocent clause which would amount to nothing except in the case of a bad landlord who, for political reasons, turned an otherwise excellent
    1366
    tenant out of the home of his forefathers. That was a very pleasant picture, but it was not the case. It was extremely rare that political sentiments entered into the matter at all, but it was a fact that if they once admitted the vicious principle of compensation for disturbance they would not stop there, but would go on as in the case of the Irish Land Act. They all knew what happened in Ireland. The British taxpayer had to spend —120,000,000 to undo the work which they were now going to do over again in England. But in England it would cost something like —700,000,000 to buy the land. He did not know where hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway were going to get old age pensions from if the sum he had mentioned had to be spent in order to buy out the dual owner they were creating under this clause. The Bill was a bad Bill, badly drafted, badly conceived, and would give justice to no one. He recognised the desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite to do the best they could under the extremely difficult circumstances in which they were placed, but it was impossible to amend this Bill with satisfaction to anyone. There was only one course open and that was to reject the Bill. What might happen under this clause? If, owing to a neighbouring sale taking place on the same day, the particular outgoing tenant had a bad sale, the landlord would have to compensate him for the loss he thereby sustained. Or, supposing it was a wet day and people did not go to the sale which was consequently a failure, would the landlord have to pay the tenant, or would the Act of God intervene to prevent the operation of the clause?
    MR. UREsaid there seemed to be a suspicion that dual ownership still existed in this Bill. Even if the clause became law the landlord would still retain his absolutely unconditional right to terminate a tenancy or to refuse to renew a tenancy, without giving any reason, good or bad, for his action. All the clause said was that if a landlord did put a tenant out, if the tenant could prove that he was dispossosed unreasonably the landlord must pay the expense of the removal of the tenant to a new holding, as fixed by an arbitrator. There was

    1367
    nothing else in the clause so far as he could see. The hon. Baronet confronted him with the opinion of the Attorney-General for Ireland in which he was said to have declared that compensation for disturbance was the immediate precedent of fair rent. He, however, could not see that this clause would give a tenant any right to claim to have a fair rent fixed. The two things had no connection whatever one with the other, but even if they had, that fell very far from saying that compensation for disturbance was necessarily followed by dual ownership. Dual ownership and the fixing of fair rent were two different things. Because a man might be well entitled to go to a tribunal and ask for a fair rent he was not entitled to say he would remain on the holding whether the landlord agreed or not. It was the essence of dual ownership that the tenant could say to the landlord, "This farm shall be used as I please and not as you please," or, "This farm shall be sold, and I will have my share of the purchase price." There was nothing in the clause to empower the tenant to say such things.
    SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD (Somersetshire, Wellington)said that if the Solicitor-General were in the position of the tenant farmer he would take a very different view of this clause than he had taken as a Law Officer of the Crown. The hon. and learned Gentleman had twice used the phrase "whim and caprice." That was different from the phrase used in the Bill. If the Government meant to adopt the expression "whim and caprice," he did not know that the Opposition would have very much objection; but the House must see that there was a difference between that and the word "unreasonable." He recognised the efforts of the Solicitor-General to meet the critics of the Bill; but their main objection to this clause remained, and that was the use of the
    1368
    word "sale." The condition as to the sale of farm stock on the termination of a tenancy involved the landlord and tenant in a great gamble. If it were a fine day there might be a good sale; if it were a wet day there might be a bad sale. Was it fair that the question of the value of the stock, as between landlord and tenant, should be made to turn upon the condition of the weather? This provision was a premium on the disagreeable tenant. The hon. Member for Sleaford told them last night a great, deal about the Lincolnshire Chamber of Agriculture.
    MR. LUPTON: There has been a peaceful settlement since then.
    SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: And a resolution passed by that Chamber of Agriculture on November 3rd.
    MR. LUPTON: I said nothing about the Chamber of Agriculture last night. I carefully omitted mention of it.
    SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: Will the hoa. Gentleman admit that farmers do not belong to that association or that farmers he represent do not belong to it?
    MR. LUPTON: They belong to the Lincolnshire Farmers' Union, which was specially formed last year to deal with this question.
    SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid the resolution passed by the Lincolnshire Chamber of Agriculture stated that the Bill as a whole alienated the sympathy and help of the landlords, and would lead to litigation which would benefit only valuers and lawyers.
    *MR. WINFREY (Norfolk, S.W.)said there were only eight members present at the meeting.
    SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid that only showed how little farmers cared

    1369
    about the Bill. The system by which compensation was to be assessed was one of chance. The best interest the tenant had was the credit he got from his landlord. Nobody would deny that during many bad seasons the tenant. farmer had been able to pull through by the assistance and credit he received from his landlord. If the Government liked to make these relations too hard and to substitute what some people called "dirty commercialism" the men who would suffer would not be the landlords, but the tenant farmer and the men who received their weekly wages from him. In that case one bad season would break the tenant farmer.
    *MR. WINFREYsaid the Lincolnshire Chamber of Agriculture was composed principally of the representatives of landlords, valuers. and agents. The tenant farmers had largely withdrawn from it, and had formed a strong union of their own, which had no fewer than 1,600 members at the present time. The farmers of Lincolnshire felt that Clause 5 was the principal clause in the Bill because it not only gave condensation for disturbance but protected the farmer in other ways. There was one point not hitherto mentioned, and that was the impossibility some tenant farmers experienced in putting the Ground Game Act into operation. Though not in many cases, that would be equivalent to notice to a tenant to quit his holding.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Give one single case where a man has been turned out.
    *MR. WINFREYsaid he was familiar with a case in Norfolk where a tenant tried to get compensation for damage done by winged game.
    SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: What about ground game?
    *MR. WINFREYsaid it was the same thing. This tenant tried to get compensation from the shooting tenant, but failed in his efforts, and shortly after- wards he was politely asked to leave.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The tenant has certain rights under the Ground Game Act. The hon. Member says if the tenant exercises them he will be evicted. I asked him to give a single case and the only case he gives has nothing whatever to do with ground game.
    *MR. WINFREYquite recognised that the case was one of winged game. He knew cases where farms had been sold over the heads of sitting tenants, in some oases after twenty years. He was familiar with one instance in particular where a man. a considerable farmer, had purchased these farms and had given the three sitting tenants twelve months notice to quit. Those tenants had been in occupation for many years, and they had to go out without a penny of compensation. Under this clause these men would have got compensation for disturbance. He regretted that the Amendments had reduced the value of the clause.
    SIR ROBERT ROPNERwas quite sure that if the words proposed by the Solicitor-General were accepted, the inevitable result would be disagreements between landlords and tenants, and if it was made impossible for the landlord to get rid of the tenant who had made himself disagreeable the result would be dual ownership. A landlord knew a good tenant when he got him, and would not get rid of him without good reason. It was complained that a farm might be sold over the head of a sitting tenant. He would ask where was the ownership of the landlord if he had no right to sell and to determine a tenancy? It would be a great pity if this clause

    1371
    passed, because it would create great difficulties between landlords and tenants.
    MR. HICKS BEACHsaid it would have been a great advantage if the Government had made up their minds a | little earlier as to the exact words they would put in the Bill and the words they wanted to leave out. He objected to the Amendment, because he was opposed to the principle of compensation for disturbance. It took away from the landlord that right of control over his property which he now possessed. The landlord would spend less money on his property and buildings, and that would be a serious disadvantage to the tenants as a whole. The hon. Member for S.W. Norfolk had told the Committee that he knew cases where tenants had been disturbed for asking to get the advantage of the Ground Game Act. He was challenged, but he was not able to adduce one single case. With the hon. Member's large knowledge of agriculture one would have thought he would have been able to produce one case if there was one. In ninety-nine cases out of 100 when permission was asked to shoot a few rabbits leave was given at once. With regard to the particular words that it was now sought to introduce into the clause, he thought they were very wide indeed, and that they would open a large doorway for the inroad of fraud. He most strongly objected to the Amendment in its present form.
    MR. LANE-FOXsaid that before the hon. Member for S. W. Norfolk made the assertion that tenants had been evicted for seeking to take advantage of the Ground Game Act he should have been prepared with specific instances. When challenged, all the hon. Member could do was to mention the case of a man evicted for killing winged game, and that was in another county. The hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General had said there was no question of dual ownership in the compensation to be given under this clause.
    1372
    He disagreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Hon. Members would admit that if the question of dual ownership was not clearly dealt with by the clause it was a thing they were justified in being afraid of. Whatever the Bill might do, this was a substantial beginning. There were several questions involved in this clause which made it a very much larger question than appeared at first sight. Anyone who had any cognisance of farm sales knew what uncertainty there was with regard to them. No one had raised the question of the uncertainty that might arise as to the distance which a tenant might wish to move. It was manifestly unfair that if he wished to move five miles the landlord should be compelled to pay compensation. Other considerations also arose. One farmer might have a large family and another a small one and another no family at all. These were all matters of accident and were due to no fault of the landlord, and it was manifestly unfair that he should have to pay compensation with regard to matters over which he had no control. The hon. Member for Sleaford, who professed to speak on behalf of the tenant farmers of Lincolnshire, had expressed views diametrically opposed to those of the hon. Member for S.W. Norfolk. He left it to the two hon. Members to settle the difference between them. He did not believe that this particular clause would do any good to tenant farmers. He thought when it was coupled with Clause 7, which would be discussed later, it would put the whole burden of carrying out improvements upon the tenants and take it out of the power of the landlord to carry them out, thus withdrawing from him the interest he had in the soil.
    *MR. BERTRAMdrew attention to the words of this clause as now amended having a wider meaning than was necessary for the purpose they were designed to provide for.

    1373
    The Solicitor-General, in his speech, had created the impression that everything undesirable in this clause was to be removed, and that it was only intended to apply to the case where a landlord got rid of a tenant for some reason of petty spite—religious or political. But the words would certainly include other cases. It was quite evident that the amended section would allow an arbitrator to find that a landlord had treated a tenant with such harshness as to make the section applicable, although no personal spite whatever had existed, and in such case the section was far too wide. The tenant was to be compensated for any expense he sustained in regard to a "sale" or removal of his goods. "Goods" had nothing to do with farming, and it was plain from the wording of the section that a man was to be compensated for loss in the removal of his household goods. The section should be limited to farm implements and stock. The word "goods" included a large number of things which ought not to be included. The word "sale" was put in in order that the tenant should be protected from the consequences of a forced sale, but the tenant had six months notice and in some cases a year's notice within which to make arrangements for a sale. The Solicitor-General also went a good deal further than the Minister for Agriculture. His desire and intention was that the farmer in a case of unreasonable eviction should receive the amount of the expense he incurred in moving from one holding to another. He hoped the Government would consider the desirability of, in some way, limiting the wording of the clause as amended.
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid that after the manner in which one speaker after another on the Government's own side had criticised their proposal nobody could complain of the Opposition for debating the clause at by no means undue length. It embraced a new
    1374
    principle which many believed to be extremely dangerous. Never for the last thirty years, during which period he had frequently been responsible for legislation, had he seen such a spectacle as that which had been offered that night. He did not believe two men on the Ministerial side had the shadowiest idea of the meaning of the clause they were going to support in the lobby. He even doubted whether those on the Treasury bench could tell exactly what the clause was. What was the history of this clause? It was that certain Amendments of the Government were proposed and then withdrawn. Then it was found that-certain things were left out which ought to have been left in. Later on they discovered that they had incorporated words which ought not to have been incorporated, and the House cheered when Ministers withdrew to the seclusion of that part of the House where strangers congregated and, after an interesting colloquy, returned with a fresh set of Amendments, because they had left undone those things which they ought to have done and had done those things which they ought not to have done. He challenged hon. Members opposite to lay their hands on their hearts and say that even now they knew what the clause meant. The hon. Member for S. W. Norfolk supported the clause on grounds which were inconsistent with the Ministerial statement of what was possible by way of compensation to the tenant under the Bill. A variety of interpretations had been put on the clause by lawyers on he Ministerial side, and the last speaker lad said that the words under discussion vent further than the Government meant to go. As he (Mr. Long) read the words he objected to them altogether as being too wide and too loose, and likely to be used to inflict the greatest possible injustice on the landowner. A farmer night claim for damage to a motor-car n going from one big farm to another, They were bound to regard the words

    1375
    with suspicion and to offer to them the strongest opposition.
    *MR. WHITBREADsaid he desired to support the Amendment before the House, and to call attention to what he believed to be a remarkable fact in connection with it. The words—
    "Loss sustained by a tenant by reason of this quitting his holding "
    meant the loss or expense to which he might be put by reason of his removing. At an earlier stage his hon. friend the Member for Leith Burghs had referred to a speech made by the President of the Board of Agriculture at Edinburgh in an endeavour apparently to assuage the fears of his auditors. The Amendment to which the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture referred, would, according to the noble Lord, confine the compensation payable to the actual costs of removal of the tenant. That was practically the Amendment now before the House. It appeared to be the missing Amendment. It would confine the amount of compensation within very narrow limits. He was bound to say that the words reported to have been used by the noble Lord were much simpler and more direct, but since they appeared to have been lost somewhere the Amendment now before the House was probably the best thing that memory could supply in their place. Therefore it seemed that the whole authority of the President of the Board of Agriculture was at the back of this Amendment, and he sincerely hoped that the House would carry it. The noble Lord in making use of the words to which he had referred clearly contemplated that the clause as drawn would require limiting and defining, for he went on to say—
    "This amount would be perfectly easy to ascertain, and there would, therefore, be no question of a large undefined liability or a costly and protracted law suit."
    1376
    Those were just the fears which some of them had had in mind and those fears were evidently present to the mind of the President of the Board of Agriculture too, for he went on to assure his hearers that an Amendment would be tabled which would definitely limit the range of compensation to be paid, in the way in which the Amendment now before the House proposed to limit it. As to the clause as a whole, he was bound to say that it appeared to him to open a large and doubtful and dangerous question. At the same time. he recognized that where cases occurred of a tenant being arbitrarily, capriciously, and unreasonably dispossessed of his holding, such tenant was morally entitled to the fullest compensation. That, he believed, was the underlying principle of the clause, and so long as the operation of the clause was confined, by Amendments such as that now before the House, to cases of that sort he gave it his fullest and most enthusiastic support. He did not share the opinion which had been expressed that such cases did not occur. That they were rare he hoped and believed, but they were not unknown. Only the other day—
    *MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now going into other parts of the clause.
    *MR. WHITBREADsaid he would content himself by saying that the Amendments appeared to embody the principle laid down by the President of the Board of Agriculture, and that they constituted a very wise limitation of the clause. He was glad that they had been put before the House by a Member of the Government, and he sincerely hoped that the House would adopt them.
    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid it might be interesting to the House to know that the words which the last speaker had quoted were used by the President

    1377
    of the Board of Agriculture on two occasions. There was therefore no question of the utterance being accidental or merely effusive. In The Times of 20th September he found these words in the report of the speech of the noble Lord—
    "The Amendments which had been put down would confine the compensation payable to the actual loss sustained by the tenant in moving from the farm."
    Fourteen days afterwards when the noble Lord went to Scotland he made the same statement more elaborately. He therefore hoped that the contention that they had been putting an unfair construction on the words of the noble Lord would be given up. They had a right to expect that those words would be given effect to by those who were acting for the noble Lord.
    MR. HUNTasked the Solicitor - General how he thought the valuation of the stock was going to be made and, whether he did not think the clause would cause an enormous amount of litigation. It was still a very one-sided affair. The tenant for any whim or caprice—perhaps because he did not like his landlord's looks— was to be able to get rid of his landlord, and he might perhaps terminate his tenancy by leaving the land in a very bad condition; but the landlord who owned the land and put up the buildings could not got rid of his tenant without paying what he supposed would amount to a very heavy fine. It seemed to him that hon. Gent-lemon on the other side did not understand the agricultural position. They seemed to think that there was a great deal of fraction between the ordinary tenant farmer and his landlord. That was not the case. The difficulty that occurred most frequently in connection with the land question arose out of the jealousy between the labourer and the tenant farmer. He would put an ordinary case. Suppose
    1378
    they had a tenant farmer farming 500 acres. That farm would probably have four cottages on it, let by the landlord to the farmer and his labourers. They were going to give this farmer tho power either of staying on his holding or of compelling the landlord to pay him a very considerable sum for leaving. But what about the labourers who were working for the farmer? They were giving the farmer, who very likely might be better off than the landlord himself, an enormous advantage over his landlord under this Bill, but though hon. Gentlemen opposite pretended to be the friends of the working classes they were not doing one single thing for the cottagers.
    *MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That may be an important point to consider, but it is not in order now, and the hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment.
    MR. HUNT: I was only showing that the tenant farmer is the landlord of the cottages, and that if these cottagers had the same advantages—
    *MR. DEPUTY - SPEAKER: I am quite aware of the hon. Member's argument, but it is not in order on this Amendment.
    MR. HUNThoped that hon. Gentle-men would understand what he meant. They were trying to help the big man without doing anything whatever for the little man.
    MAJOR DUNNEintervened to say a few words from the point of view, of a landowner who sat on the Ministerial side. The right hon. Member for South Dublin had challenged anyone on that side to get up and support the clause and the Amendment with which the House was now dealing. He could honestly say that the clause, especially with this Amendment, had his support as a landowner. In regard to the right hon.

    1379
    Gentleman's second challenge—that someone would explain the clause—he thought it was plain English. It was only in very exceptional cases that the clause would operate at all, for he fully agreed that in most cases the relationship between landlord and tenant was such that it would not be necessary. But there was undoubtedly a suspicion lurking behind the minds of a great many tenant farmers that, if through some cause or other, a quarrel arose between farmer and landlord, the farmer ran the risk of being turned out capriciously. The plain meaning of the clause was that where such a thing happened the tenant farmer was to receive compensation.
    MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is dealing with other parts of the clause and not with the Amendment.
    MAJOR DUNNEthought that where a man was capriciously evicted the very least the landlord could do for him was to give him full compensation for all the expenses he incurred in the removal from one farm to another. A great deal had been said about the loss that might arise from a forced sale of stock. But everybody knew that changes from one farm to another generally took place at certain periods of the year, and a month or two before the removal took place it would be well known that there was to be a sale of stock on the farm. No question of a forced sale at a few minutes notice could arise. From the point of view of a landowner ne thought the clause and the Amendment wore deserving of the hearty support of the House.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURthought that all who had listened to the debate would feel that, through no fault of the learned Gentleman in charge of the
    1380
    Bill, they were in a somewhat difficult position in not having the words of the Amendment before them. It would conduce to the reasonableness of the discussion if they could defer any further consideration of the words until to-morrow. Of course, that would make no difference whatever in the bargain struck between the two sides of the House as to the conclusion of this stage of the Bill to-morrow night. Ho understood that the Government were prepared to put down important Amendments on Clause 7 which might shorten the discussion of that clause, and he believed they would be able to get through the Bill by a reasonable hour to-morrow. He would therefore move the adjournment of the debate, if it was understood that the right hon. Gentleman (the Prime Minister) would afterwards move the adjournment of the House. He begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he thought the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman reasonable. The words now under discussion were hastily patched together with a view to meet the general feeling of the House. It would be convenient to see them in print, and therefore he assented to the course suggested.
    Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
    Where upon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
    Adjourned at twenty minutes before Eleven o'clock.