PARLIAMENT RIGHTS OF PRIVATE MEMBERS.-QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS. MR. NEWDEGATE moved that the House do now adjourn. He said that he did so on account of what had just occurred, and of the division which had just taken place. He was not about further to allude to the subject of that division than by saying that the Members present in the House had, by anticipating the decision of a question at that Morning Sitting, which stood for the evening on the Notice Paper, the Notice having been given by the Government, established a precedent of action not only totally at variance with the practice of the House, but which, if further acted upon, must prove destructive of the House itself, as a deliberative and legislative Assembly. It was manifest that if the Business appointed at one Sitting was to be taken by anticipation at a previous Sitting, no Members, except those who might happen accidentally to be present, could have any effective voice in the decision of that Business, however important: It was manifest that any faction might usurp the authority of the House, in the absence of the great body of the Members of the House, by very easily preconcerted action. He should not waste more words in remonstrance upon what had been done; but with reference to the decision of the Members then present in the House in respect of the taking the Tuesdays and Wednesdays from the unofficial Members of the House and their Business, and appropriating those days to the Business of the Government, he wished to observe that the Monastic and Conventual Institutions Bill, of which he had charge, stood for Wednesday the 4th of August; that appointment was now, of course, superseded by the action of the Government in the House. He (Mr. Newdegate) might now mention that it had not been his intention to press the second reading of that Bill; but on being asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) to withdraw that Bill, in order to facilitate the attendance of the Irish Members at the O'Connell Centenary, in Dublin, he declined to give an answer, because he did not choose to be counted as a supporter of what he understood was to be an Ultramontane demonstration. By the course Her Majesty's Ministers had now pursued, they had become promoters of the O'Connell demonstration. After what had occurred, it was difficult to imagine what further interference with the due order and regular procedure of the House might not be proposed; and his chief object in having moved the adjournment was to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it was the intention of the Government, by proposing the Resolutions of 1869 with respect to Amendments on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply or Committee of Ways and Means, or by any other Resolutions, to preclude the Members of this House from submitting such subjects as may appear to them important for the consideration of the House during the remainder of the Session? MR. GREENE seconded the Motion. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.". (Mr. Newdegate.) MR. DISRAELI said, there was no such intention, nor had any proposal been submitted which trenched on the privileges of private Members, unless there was a general concurrence of the House in its favour. There was, however, one Session-that the privilege of bringing remarkable characteristic of the present forward Motions on going into Committee of Supply and Committee of Ways and Means, which was to a certain degree regulated and restricted by pretailed by the present Government, who vious Administrations, was not so curthroughout the Session had proposed no such arrangement. He was rather surprised, therefore, that his hon. Friend should impute to the Government a that now, when time was so valuable design of such a character. He hoped and when every minute might be said to be golden, his hon. Friend would not persist in the Motion. MR. NEWDEGATE, having obtained the answer he required, said, he would withdraw the Motion. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) (re-committed) BILL.-[Lords.]-[BILL 222.] (Mr. Disraeli.) COMMITTEE. [Progress 26th July.] Clause 16 (Compensation agreed or settled by reference). MR. OSBORNE MORGAN (for Mr. | point, and that there was no necessity JACKSON) moved, in page 5, line 10, to for appointing a new Court of Arbitraleave out "if in any case," to end of tion, as was suggested by the Bill. He clause. The object of the clause, he believed that all the machinery of arbicontended, was to oust and repudiate tration was already provided by the altogether the action of the ordinary Lands Clauses Act, and for that reason Courts of Common Law by making he should move to strike out the whole arbitration in every case compulsory. of the sub-sections, leaving the clause to If the Government would substitute read, "Where there is a reference under "may" for "shall" he should be con- this Act, a referee, or two referees and tent, otherwise he should persist in his an umpire, shall be appointed." Amendment. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL believed his hon. and learned Friend's object was to get rid of arbitration altogether, which was one of the main principles of the Bill. The Committee had already decided that compensation should be given, and if they did away with arbitration it would be only putting the parties to great expense and delay. SIR HENRY JAMES believed that the reference to arbitration provided by the clause would be more expensive than an appeal to the ordinary tribunals. As, however, the Committee had already substantially adopted the clause he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Amendment to a division. They had better apply themselves rather to improving the clauses than make futile attempts to get rid of them altogether. MR. MELDON said, that they had had some experience of Ireland under the Land Act of these references, and landlords and tenants were unanimously in favour of Courts of Arbitration, and getting rid altogether of the County Courts. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT also thought it would be better to leave the parties to settle disputes among themselves, rather than to provide such an elaborate machinery of appeal as was proposed by the Bill. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, it was all very well to talk of leaving parties to agree among themselves. He himself knew of instances in which both parties to a dispute agreed to refer all matters in difference to arbitration, but could not agree as to how the umpire was to be appointed. The sub-sections of the clause would entirely remove that difficulty. MR. CAWLEY said, some provision must be made for the appointment of an umpire where the referees did not agree, otherwise arbitrations would constantly break down. MR. GREGORY advised the Government to agree to strike out all those subsections, and to introduce a reference to Common Law procedure, so as to make the clause run thus:-"Where there is a reference under this Act referees and an umpire shall be appointed under the Common Law Procedure Act." That, he thought, would meet the whole difficulty of the case, as the machinery of the latter Act was sufficient to meet all disClause 17 (Appointment of referee or putes without creating an entirely new referees and umpire). legal tribunal. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. COLONEL DYOTT moved, in page 5, line 13, to leave out from " as follows, to end of sub-sections. His object, he said, was not to interfere in any way with arbitration; but if the parties concurred, the question in dispute might be disposed of by one referee, and so get rid of the County Courts altogether. MR. GOLDSMID said, before that Question was put he should like to move an Amendment which, properly speaking, came before that of the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield. His opinion was that landlords and tenants ought to be left to agree among themselves on this SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, that if this latter suggestion was agreed to a great many Amendments would be got rid of, and the progress of the Bill immensely facilitated. MR. HUNT opposed the suggestion, on the ground that if it were adopted farmers would have to deal with two Acts of Parliament instead of one. That would simply lead to trouble and mystification. What the farmers wanted was to have the whole law on the subject embraced within the four corners of a single Bill, and not to be puzzled and distracted by having to turn from one Act to another. Should the parties wish to adopt the Common Law Procedure Act they would be able to do so by agreement. THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON said, they had been told in the early part of the Sitting that the Government hoped to get through the Bill to-night; but whenever objection was taken to any of the clauses the Committee was referred to Amendments which the Go MR. RODWELL admitted that the Common Law Procedure Act contained very much the same terms as those of the specific clauses to which the Amend-vernment intended to introduce, but ment applied; but thought it better that people should have the provisions before them in an easily comprehended form than that they should have to be referred to the complicated sections of the Act in question. which somehow or other never got on the Paper. He did not think that was a fair way to treat the Committee. He thought that the state of the Business was not such as to warrant the Government in encumbering the Bill with provisions setting up a new system of pro Amendment (Colonel Dyott), by leave, cedure, when there was already a well withdrawn. MR. OSBORNE MORGAN thought that the arbitration provisions in the Bill ought to be made as simple and perfect as possible, and he supported the adoption of the procedure under the Common Law Procedure Act. considered system under the Common Law Procedure Act. Amendment (Mr. Goldsmid) negatived. MR. KNIGHT moved, in page 5, line 21, after "referee," to add "And either party on so appointing a referee may stipulate that should an umpire be required MR. MELDON observed, that a great he shall be named by the county court judge, objection to the provisions of the Com-but should a demand made by one party that mon Law Procedure Act being adopted was that in nearly every case they would necessitate the removal of the claim to the Superior Courts at Westminster, and thus entail great expense. MR. HERSCHELL suggested that the best course would be to adopt, as the system of arbitration, and the mode of checking it, the system already provided by law, which had worked well in every case in which it had been in operation. MR. E. STANHOPE thought the plan proposed by the Government was the best, especially in cases of small claims for compensation, as it was far the cheapest and simplest. MR. CAWLEY was of opinion that it would be absurd to allow the appointment of the umpire to rest with the Judges of the Superior Courts. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT pointed out that in the Bill as it stood there was no power to obtain compensation under any other reference than that contained in this clause. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, it had been stated over and over again that it was the intention of the Government, in order to put the matter beyond all question, to provide in a future part of the Bill that it should be in the power of the parties to make such agreements. judge be objected to, the objecting party may the umpire shall be named by the county court require that he shall be named by the Inclosure Commissioners, and such nomination by the Inclosure Commissioners shall be final." were MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN moved that the Amendment should be amended by striking out " County Court Judge," leaving the appointment of umpire to the Inclosure Commissioners. The latter alternative, however, would not necessarily be involved even if the words "County Court Judge struck out. In his opinion, where questions of mere law were concerned, such as the determining whether an award was valid under the provisions of the Act-what costs should be given, and other points of law, the County Court might be employed as the cheapest Law Court accessible to the farmers. But he objected to giving to the County Court Judge the appointment of referees and umpires, or of deciding upon points which could only be properly decided by practical agriculturists. The County Courts were mainly known to the agricultural community as Courts for the recovery of debt, and their unnecessary introduction into the Bill would not tend to make it popular. The County Court Judge would probably know little of the farmers, though he might be a friend of many of the landlords, which, however unjustly, might expose his appointments to suspicion. Besides, an appeal was | Committee and bullied them, as he (Mr. to be given to the County Court Judge, Knight) thought, without any reason and if the clause stood as it was, this whatever. The hon. and learned Genwould be an appeal against the decision tleman told the Committee that he was of his own nominee. In 99 cases out of fond of galloping over commons, and he 100 the umpire would be appointed by objected to their being inclosed, as that the referees, and where another autho- prevented his galloping. He (Mr. rity was necessary, the Inclosure Com- Knight) felt that no public officers had missioners would be the best, for, having more fully earned the confidence of the continual land transactions in every public than the Inclosure Commissioners. county, they could at once lay their hands upon the best practical valuers to appoint as referees or umpires. MR. HUNT agreed in the opinion that appeals from the appointment of umpire by the referees would be rare; but the Government were prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Knight), that if one of the parties had an objection to the appointment made by the County Court Judge a reference might be made to the Inclosure Commissioners. hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw the Amendment he had proposed in order that the Government might prepare a form of words which could be more conveniently inserted. He did not approve of the proposal to leave out the County Court Judge, because very few farmers would know where to find the Inclosure Commissioners. He SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT regretted to hear that the Government were willing to allow the ultimate nomination of the umpire to rest with the Inclosure Commissioners. They knew something of the Commissioners in that House, and had practically suspended their action for six years in reference to inclosures because it was not such as Parliament could approve. The whole pith of the Bill was the umpire, and he protested against this serious change, which would shake the confidence of tenant farmers in the measure. MR. KNIGHT said, the arrangements made by the Inclosure Commissioners as regarded the improvement of the tracts of open country surrounding Exmoor had given perfect satisfaction to the proprietors and farmers. Their work had been well done, and most beneficially to the working classes. Large tracts of common land, where no one was employed formerly, now employed many labourers at much increased wages. On one occasion the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) got the Inclosure Commissioners before a Select Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN said, he intended to take the sense of the Committee on the question of the County Court Judge, and it would save some trouble if the matter were settled at once. SIR THOMAS ACLAND thought that if the right hon. Gentleman intended to divide the Committee on the County Court Judge he had better do so on a direct Motion, and not an Amendment upon an Amendment. Amendments, by leave, withdrawn. MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN moved, in page 5, line 28, to leave out seven,' ," and insert "fourteen." Amendment agreed to. MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN moved, in line 31, to leave out "the County Court," and insert "the Inclosure Commissioners." Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 31, to leave out the words "County Court," in order to insert the words "Inclosure Commissioners."-(Mr. KnatchbullHugessen.) Question put, "That the words 'County Court' stand part of the Clause." The Committee divided:-Ayes 229; Noes 81: Majority 148. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 18 (Mode of submission to reference) agreed to. Clauses 19 to 22, inclusive, agreed to. Clause 23 (Reference to any award by umpire). SIR HENRY JAMES moved, in Page 6, line 40, leave out from "ap points" to end of clause. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 24 (Award to give particu lars). MR. HUNT moved that for the words "The mode and extent in and to which each improvement of the first or of the second class adds to the letting value of the holding "(that being one of the points required to be specified), the following should be substituted : "In the case of an improvement of the first class, where the landlord was not at the time of giving consent to the execution thereof absolute owner for his own benefit, the extent to which the improvement adds to the letting value of the holding." The right hon. Gentleman explained that this Amendment was a consequential one, rendered necessary by that of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell), relating to the same subject, which had already been adopted. Amendment proposed, per In page 7, to leave out from the word “ mitted," in line 6, to the word "holding," in line 9, inclusive, in order to insert the words "In the case of an improvement of the first class, where the landlord was not at the time of the consent given to the execution thereof absolute owner of the holding for his own benefit, the extent to which the improvement adds to the letting value of the holding."-(Mr. Hunt.) SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT objected to the use of the words "absolute owner" in the Amendment. The words had no meaning, inasmuch as a landowner who had a mortgage on his estate or a settlement of any kind could not be described as an absolute owner, and there was not a gentleman in England possessed of property for four or five years who had not some such settlement upon it. MR. DISRAELI said, if not one owner in five were an absolute owner, the hon. and learned Member must know what constituted an absolute owner. The Committee had accepted the words. THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON remarked that the words were accepted on the understanding that the Govern-' ment would introduce Amendments in the Interpretation Clause. It was very extraordinary that a Bill of that kind should be hurried on upon the assurance that Amendments would be inserted which the Committee had not yet even seen. MR. HUNT said, the words "absolute owner were objected to before, and the Committee decided not to entertain the objection. MR. DODSON appealed to the Government to postpone the words "absolute owner "until after their meaning had been defined. MR. GOLDSMID said, that when he proposed an Amendment which did not appear on the Paper, the Government stated that they could not form an opinion as to its character merely by having it read offhand; but the Committee was called on by the Government to do so now, as this Amendment had not appeared on the Paper. MR. HUNT observed, that the difference was, that the Government were responsible for the Bill, while the hon. Gentleman was not. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, that was unconstitutional doctrine. MR. GOLDSMID remarked, that he would not like to be responsible for much that was contained in the Bill; but, at the same time, when it had passed through Committee, every Member of the Committee would be responsible if no objection were raised. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL observed, that the term "absolute owner had already been considered in the course MR. HUNT observed that, at all of the discussions on the Bill; and the events, the Government would be reInterpretation Clause had been post-sponsible for what they recommended. poned for the express purpose of having a proper form of words prepared, by which it should be accurately defined. MR. DODSON suggested that the insertion of these words should be postponed till the Report. MR. HUNT said, that they were proposed in consequence of an Amendment already inserted in the clause. MR. OSBORNE MORGAN observed, that not one owner of an estate in five was an absolute owner. Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived. Question put, be there inserted." The Committee divided:-Ayes 188; Noes 124: Majority 64. "That those words MR. WHITWELL then proposed to amend the clause so as to secure that the award should be general in its |