character, and that the tenant would not have to particularize his improve ments. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL pointed out that the Committee had already deIcided that the award should be made in detail, and not in the lump. Amendment negatived. On Question, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?" MR. MUNDELLA said, that having had considerable experience in matters of arbitration, he felt bound to say that great hindrance would be thrown in the way of the arbitrators by this clause. If the clause was intended for the protection of the farmer, he would come off very badly indeed. He begged to move the omission of the clause. MR. GREGORY considered that in appointing an arbitrator you must assume that he was competent and that his award would be fair and reasonable, and legislation should proceed upon this footing. MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN feared that the practical working of the clause would be found very difficult. One effect would be that practical valuers of repute, being called upon to do so many things which they had never had to do before, would decline the task, or if they undertook it, as their work would be so much greater, they would charge more, and the expense of valuations, to landlord and tenant, would be much increased. MR. PELL thought that was one of the most useful clauses in the Bill, and one that was necessary for the protection both of the incoming tenant and the Owner. It was quite proper that the arbitrator should state all the specific facts required by the clause, instead of only giving a general lump sum, which would throw an air of mystery over the matter. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT expressed a hope that the Government would re-consider the clause before bringing up the Report. Under every disputed claim for compensation the tenant might compel the landlord to produce his title, and the difficulties arising from such production would be very great. Amendment negatived. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 25 (Costs of reference). SIR HENRY JAMES moved, in page 7, line 21, to leave out from "other" to end of clause; in line 23, after "costs,' insert "mentioned in this clause." Amendments agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 27 (Submission not to be removeable, &c.) SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT objected to the clause, as requiring further consideration than could now be given to it, and he, therefore, moved that it be postponed. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, the clause simply related to awards, and he thought might be at once disposed of; but he was in the hands of the Committee. MR. HERSCHELL observed, that there ought to be some control over the arbitrator, and this could only be effected by permitting the award to be made a rule of Court. He thought it would be better to postpone the clause until the Committee should determine whether or no there was to be a system of appeal. MR. RODWELL was of opinion that cases of appeal, under the provisions of this Bill, ought, as in all other cases of award, to be referred to the Superior Courts. Clause postponed. Clause 28 (Validity of award) postponed. Clause 29 (Appeal to County Court). MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN moved Amendments having for their object the making the award of the umpire final in all cases without reference to the Law Courts. With great deference to his legal Friends, he thought the less the farmers had to do with law in these matters the better. After short discussion, Amendments, by leave, withdrawn. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT moved to omit the following words at the commencement of the clause : "Where the award is valid, and the sum claimed by neither party for compensation exceeds fifty pounds, the award shall be final. Where the award is not valid, either party, and." SIR HENRY JAMES thought that the object of his hon. and learned Friend would be gained by adopting the Amendment of which he had given Notice namely, to leave out merely the words, "where the award is not valid, either party, and." Committee report Progress; to sit again this day. It being now Seven of the clock the House suspended its Sitting. agricultural details, would be more competent to deal with them than County Court Judges, and that on matters of law there should be an appeal to a Superior Court at once. He suggested that the appeal to the County Court should be done away with. MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN thought that if this was the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire, he should have supported his (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen's) proposal to get rid of the County Court The House resumed its Sitting at Judge on a previous clause. Now, Nine of the clock. AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) (re-committed) BILL.-[Lords.]-[BILL 222.] (Mr. Disraeli.) COMMITTEE. Clause 29 (Appeal to County Court). On Motion of Sir HENRY JAMES, words were omitted from the clause the effect of which would be that no appeal would exist where the sum was below £50. SIR HENRY JAMES said, that upon this part of the clause would arise the question whether the appeal should or not be to the County Court Judge. MR. J. S. HARDY objected to the appeal being to the County Court Judge. Such an appeal, from its cheapness, would lead to much litigation; and he should therefore prefer that the appeal should be to a higher tribunal. To effect his object he moved to omit the words "to the judge of the county court.' THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that the appeal to the County Court would be the cheapest and readiest form of appeal, and it appeared to him, as a lawyer, to be the best; it was, however, for those hon. Members who were more conversant with agricultural matters than he was to state what objections there were to the proposal of the Govern ment. MR. GOLDNEY supported the appeal to the County Court, where the case could be speedily decided; whereas if the appeal were to be to a tribunal in London, it would operate very hardly upon the farmers. MR. MELDON maintained that there should be no appeal at all from the decision of the referees. MR. RODWELL thought that all matters of fact should be left with the valuers, who, being conversant with however, that the Committee had decided that the County Court Judges should be brought into the Bill, the proper course would be to let them determine questions of law only. MR. HUNT suggested that the decision of the referees or umpires should be final as to all matters of fact and as to the amount of compensation; but that on points of law an appeal should lie to the County Court, which the Government thought would be the cheapest, most accessible, and most expeditious tribunal. VISCOUNT GALWAY thought that if there was to be an appeal from the referees or the umpires, it would be preferable that it should be given to the County Court. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, the question of law, which would arise in nearly every case, would be whether or not the landowner was the absolute owner of his estate, and the County Court Judge was a most undesirable person to have to decide such a question. He thought it would be better to take appeals on such questions at once to a Court of Law. MR. J. S. HARDY remarked that he attached no importance to the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford with reference to the absolute owner. After what had been said by the First Lord of the Admiralty, he did not desire to press his Amendment Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. SIR HENRY JAMES moved, in page 8, line 1, after "court," to leave out to end of clause, and insert "1, on the ground that the award is invalid; 2, that compensation has been awarded to which the party claiming was not entitled; 3, or that and the County Court Judge shall hear and the amount of compensation was not correct; determine the said appeal, or, in his discretion, Charge of Tenant's Compensation. Clause 34 (Power for landlord, on paying compensation, to obtain charge for himself). MR. FLOYER moved, in page 8, line 41, after "Act," to insert, "for an improvement of the first class." There was a great difference in the character of the improvements comprehended severally under the first, second, and third classes, and, in his opinion, there could be no reason for charging the holding with improvements not of the first class. MR. HUNT opposed the Amendment. The hon. Member would see, on reflection, that in some cases-such as that of the incumbent of a benefice who let the glebe farm, but had no personalty of his own. If he died or left, the tenant had no remedy, if the improvement could not be charged upon the holding. The law did not recognize the incoming tenant, who could only deal with his predecessor through the landlord. Sir Henry James MR. FLOYER observed, that it would be no security to the tenant to charge for these improvements, but the advantage would be to the landlord in case the tenant should leave before his time had run out. MR. GOLDNEY thought the provision would be a great security to the tenant. MR. PELL asked, whether or no a tenant for life occupying a farm might obtain from the County Court a charge on the holding? MR. MELDON said, that by a subsequent clause it was provided that if the landlord, under such circumstances, ceased to be so, the charge fell through. SIR THOMAS ACLAND had also a question to ask the Attorney General. Suppose a tenant for life had not con tracted himself out of the Bill, and his tenant went on accumulating improvements under the second class for which the consent of the landlord was not necessary, and the tenant for life died after two years, what security had the tenant against the next man? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL made no reply. Amendment negatived. MR. HUNT moved an Amendment, with the view of meeting an objection taken by the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford (Sir William Harcourt). The clause said— "The Court shall have power, on proof of the payment, to make an order charging the holding with repayment of the amount paid," and he proposed to insert after the word "payment" these words— "On being satisfied of the observance in good faith of the conditions precedent thereto imposed by the Act." Amendment proposed, In page 9, line 1, after the word "payment," to insert the words " and on being satisfied of the observance in good faith by the parties of the conditions imposed by this Act."-(Mr. Hunt.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted." SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, that this Amendment would merely get rid of the difficulty by evading it. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL held that it introduced a reasonable and proper precaution. "and that such payment did not exceed in amount the value of the improvement actually made by the tenant."-(Mr. Meldon.) MR. DODSON thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kildare an infinitely better and more intelligible one than that of the First Lord of the Admiralty. MR. HUNT remarked that it did not go so far as his proposal. MR. KNIGHT said, they were imposing on the County Court Judge duties which he could not perform. He thought the whole clause simply absurd. MR. GOLDNEY protested against the assumption that the landlord and tenant would conspire to defraud the remainderman. Question put, "That those words be there added." The Committee divided:-Ayes 91; Noes 168: Majority 77. Amendment (Mr. Hunt) agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 35 (Power for landlord to obtain charge for tenant, in certain cases). MR. MELDON moved, in page 9, line 29, after "tenant," to insert "Provided, That in case of the landlord being a limited owner no such order shall be made by the Court unless upon such notice being given as is mentioned in the concluding part of the foregoing section." MR. HUNT had no objection to the insertion of the proviso, because he hoped the Committee would, on the suggestion of the hon. Member for MidLincolnshire, strike out the clause. Amendment agreed to. MR. CHAPLIN moved to leave out the clause. MR. GOLDSMID hoped the hon. Gentleman would explain the reasons which had induced the Government to accede to the Amendment. MR. CHAPLIN said, the clause provided that, under certain circumstances, the compensation to the tenant was to be paid by instalments; but, as the tenant would in most cases want the money immediately in order that he might take another farm, he thought it desirable that the clause should be omitted. MR. MELDON thought that it was for the benefit of the tenant that the clause should be retained, else he would have no chance of obtaining compensation from an impecunious landlord. MR. DODSON wished to know from the authors of the Bill why they agreed to omit Clause 7 ? MR. HUNT said, the clause was not in the original Bill, but had been in serted in it on the Motion of the Lord Chancellor of the late Government. He was unable to defend it. THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON complained that there was not some had charge of the Bill in the House of better understanding between those who Lords and those who had charge of it here. The former agreed to the clause and the others agreed to take it out. Amendment agreed to. Clauses 36 and 37 agreed to. Clause 38 (Application of Act to land of Duchy of Lancaster). MR. GOLDSMID inquired whether it was not necessary first to obtain the consent of the Crown to such a provision ? MR. DISRAELI said, that the assent of the Crown had been already obtained. Clause agreed to. Clauses 39 to 42, inclusive, agreed to. Notice to quit. Clause 43 (Time of notice to quit). MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN moved an Amendment to the effect that two years' notice should be substituted for one, as proposed by the clause. He made the proposal with diffidence, but it was one that had met with favour with the Farmers Club and other agricultural bodies, and its acceptance would be hailed by tenant farmers generally as an earnest of the sincerity of the House in desiring to give increased security of tenure. He reminded the Prime Minister that he himself had once made a similar proposal. MR. ASSHETON objected to the Amendment, because he regarded it as a most grave interference with the tenure of the greater part of the land of this country-namely, with yearly holdings. MR. M'LAGAN supported the Amendment, as without it the Bill would be of a revolutionary character. advantage was derived, would be overridden. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would be able to accept his Amendment; if not, he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the Committee upon it. Amendment proposed, Question put, "That the word 'a' stand part of the Clause." The Committee divided:-Ayes 202; or May."-(Mr. Chaplin.) Noes 39: Majority 163. In page 12, line 12, after the word "same," to insert the words "unless the year of tenancy shall have commenced in the months of April MR. CHAPLIN moved, in page 12, line 12, after the word " same, to insert "unless the year of tenancy shall have commenced in the months of April or May." He said, that when a farm was to be vacated the sooner the tenancy came to an end the better it was for the farm, for the outgoing tenant himself, for the incoming tenant, and for the general consumer. He had always felt the strongest objection to a 12 months' notice to quit, but had deferred to the representations made to him as to the feelings of the tenant farmers. In the parts of the country with which he was acquainted a Michaelmas entry was the rule, and a Lady Day or May Day entry the exception, and the object of his Amendment was, instead of omitting the clause, to obtain the exemption of those holdings which were held on Lady Day or May Day entries. A Michaelmas holding differed very much from those entered upon in the Spring. One of the chief operations was the cleaning of the land and preparing it for the crops, and under such a holding it mattered little whether the notice was six or 12 months. With a Lady Day entry and six months' notice, however, it was the incoming tenant who performed that operation. He might be told that people might contract themselves out of the Bill. That remark applied to his own proposal also; but he protested against accepting anything as permissive which he should reject as compulsory. There was one golden rule in that House, which was to let well alone. In the county which he had the honour to represent-and there was none which had attained a higher position in agriculture-every farm, without exception, was let on a Lady Day entry, and with a six months' notice to quit. That system they believed to be an excellent But if this clause remained unaltered, that custom, from which so much one. Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted." MR. MELDON expressed a hope that the Committee would not accept the Amendment, which was one of the most unjust and unfair that could possibly be conceived as regarded the interest of the tenant farmers. MR. BEACH said, that in Hants the Michaelmas tenancy prevailed, and that it was found to act just and fair to both parties, and he objected to a tenant being turned out at a six months' notice, which would materially affect the value of his stock, and not give him sufficient time to find another holding. MR. MONCKTON said, the tenants attached more importance to this part of the Bill than to any other portion of it, and he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment. He should prefer to see the whole clause omitted from the Bill. COLONEL KINGSCOTE said, it was no hardship that a tenant should only have six months' notice. The incoming tenant would recompense him for his clearing the land, and a six months' notice was equally beneficial for the tenant as for the landlord. LORD ELCHO said, no landlord who had a good tenant would think of getting rid of him, and it was now proposed that a bad tenant, who was deteriorating the land, and lessening the supply of food, should be able to pursue that course six months longer. MR. GOLDSMID said, it would be better to omit the clause. The six months' notice was only required for the purpose of getting rid of a bad tenant. clause. He should vote against the MR. FLOYER said, the Committee appeared to be legislating on the assumption that every landlord was a good one, but their object should be to meet |