SIR THOMAS ACLAND said, the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sandwich was an important one. The Prime Minister had told them that the principle of the Bill was freedom of contract. That was a principle which the House had not formally adopted. What was wanted was, to secure compensation and security to farmers in the carrying on of their practical business as farmers. There was another interest to be kept in view, and that was the interest of the whole community having capital invested in land, so as to secure the largest possible production of food of all kinds. What he desired was that a Bill dealing with this subject should be a reality. It was partly declaratory, and partly enabling. He wanted to make the declaratory part a reality, and to relieve the limited owners. With respect to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, he must say that he felt himself in a difficulty. He had an Amendment on the Paper, one of a series of Amendments which had been carefully prepared, to reserve freedom of contract, and if he voted with his right hon. Friend it would be with the reservation that he would at later stages in Committee have the right of urging that some real security should be given to tenants. The adoption of the principle involved in those Amendments would give substantial value to the Bill, and he trusted that Her Ma

fully defined what that compensation ought to be, and how it should be given. They had pointed out what they considered the best way of giving it, and all that his Amendment did was to say that, if landlords preferred to give it in some other way they might do so, but that they should not contract themselves out of the Bill altogether without giving it in any way at all. It might be said that the Amendment would lead to litigation; but it would soon be discovered what the Courts would hold bond fide compensation to be, and he believed there would be little difficulty in the matter. The question of compulsion had not yet been really decided by the Committee. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had stated his views upon the subject at length upon the second reading of the Bill. But he had not then pressed his Amendment, because he owned that its permissive character was not the main or only principle of the Bill, which did admit that compensation should be given to farmers, against which a vote against the Bill upon second reading or Committee would have seemed to be given. For the same reason he had voted with Government upon the question of going into Committee upon the Bill, when the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) again raised the question of compulsion and against advice insisted upon a division when the real issue could not be before the House. That issue was now fairly before them. According to his pro-jesty's Government would give it their mise upon the second reading, he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had brought it forward in a legitimate manner, and he earnestly pressed the Government to accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed,

In page 12, line 40, after the word " agreement, to insert the words "securing to the tenant bonâ fide compensation for his unexhausted improvements." (Mr. KnatchbullHugessen.)

MR. HUNT said, the question whether the Bill should be compulsory or permissive in character had been fully discussed on the second reading, and he hoped he should be excused from going into the matter again at that late period of the Session. The Government considered that the Amendment was in restriction of the freedom of contract, and therefore against the principle of the Bill, and on that ground they were unable to accept it.

serious consideration. He begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty and the hon. and learned Attorney General for the courtesy with which they had uniformly treated their opponents during the consideration of the Bill; and it was but just to add that the discussions which had arisen on the provisions of the Bill were highly honourable to the country Gentlemen who were Members of the House, and evidenced the kindly feeling which existed between them and those who were connected with them in the position of tenants.

SIR EARDLEY WILMOT, as the Representative of an agricultural constituency, regretted that the Government had not seen their way to the adoption of the principle to secure bond fide compensation to tenant farmers for unexhausted improvements.

of this country as being founded on what might be termed "the supply of food" argument. If increased security given to the investment of capital in the soil should increase the supply of food by 25 per cent, amounting, as it was

be equal to the creation of new wealth of the most valuable kind to the amount of £60,000,000 a-year. That would at the same time greatly increase the demand for labour in this country, and the agricultural labourer would greatly prefer to remain at home than emigrate to any of our colonies. Those who sanctioned a permissive Bill should remember that the House, whatever it might do with regard to Corporations, never sanctioned the permissive principle between individuals. He (Mr. Fawcett) never did anything to jeopardize the Bill

MR. FAWCETT, in supporting the Amendment, said, that those who on the second reading of the Bill pointed out its shortcomings did not wish to oppose its progress, because, though defective in itself, it contained seeds which would in future bring forward a bountiful har-stated it did, to £240,000,000, it would vest of land reform. It was a great thing to enunciate the principles on which landlords and tenants should conduct their mutual relations, and, though not compulsory, it might be expected that in course of time custom would grow into accordance with law. As to the objection that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would infringe the principle of freedom of contract, it was only necessary to say that in many other instances they had set aside that principle; and in every particular case that point must be discussed as one of policy and expediency with reference to the he was bound to confess that, though special circumstances of each case. Why, very imperfect, it would be productive of even the high priest of that new religion much good. The most important of the -the noble Lord the Member for Had-tenant farmers assembled at Wilts were dington-had supported an infringement of it in the case of miners, as the House had done in the case of the Artizans Dwellings and other Bills passed that Session. Whatever might be his line on this Bill, where the interest of the masses was concerned the noble Lord was ready to treat them as children. These questions, however, were not to be settled by a phrase, but must be determined by considerations of policy, expediency, and necessity. He had heard it said over and over again that what was wanted to be done by the Bill was to constitute a model agreement and, as his hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Greene) had said, a model lease; but was it not treating the tenant farmers of England like children, if it was said that the House was going to occupy itself night after night in telling the tenant farmers what was the best kind of lease and what was the best kind of agreement which ought to subsist between them and their landlords? If it were necessary to draw a model agreement for a farmer, why should not such agreement be drawn for all other classes of people? As he had said, he advocated a Tenant Right Bill on the ground of the great land reforms that would in future come from it. The speech delivered by the Prime Minister last week would be memorable in the history of the land tenure

in favour of the principle of the Amendment they were now discussing; but what would they say when they heard that the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Mr. Knight) had declared that there was only one landlord in the House in favour of the Bill? What danger could there be in making the Bill compulsory? The landlord interest was fenced round in it with every security, and he could see no reason why the principle of compulsion should not be adopted. Nothing in the first class could be done by the tenant without the permission of the landlord; and the landlords could, if they liked, contract themselves out of the Bill. As to the improvements of the second and third class, they were simply comprised in the term "good husbandry;" and no possible disadvantage could come to a landlord from his tenant spending his capital in what formed good husbandry. It was evident that the Prime Minister, in common with the farmers generally, himself did not expect that the measure would be attended with any great and immediate practical results; but it was a measure which laid the foundation for a great land reform; and he (Mr. Fawcett) ventured to predict that in after years the name of the right hon. Gentleman would be associated not only with a great political change in our Constitution, but also with the fact of his having

originated a still more important reform | Bill to make provision for giving further

in the land tenure of the country.

COLONEL -BRISE said, he was not disposed to admit the authority of the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Fawcett) upon questions of agriculture. He (Colonel Brise) looked upon the Bill as one for extending the Lincolnshire and other existing customs, and for meeting exceptional cases of hardship. He believed that the time had not yet come for compulsory measures. If, however, they were legislating only for some particular part of the country, or for the Eastern Counties only, then compulsory legislation, so far as the third class of improvements was concerned, would be no great injury to the owner, and of very great importance to the occupier. As to other improvements, however, such compulsion would be very unfair to the landlord in some cases. It would be unfair to the landlord, for instance, where he had bought up the custom, or where there had before been no custom in existence. He believed, upon the whole, that the Government had acted in the interests of the occupier in not giving way to many of the Amendments which had been brought forward.

LORD ELCHO accused the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) of departing from his principles as a political economist, in advocating compulsion versus freedom of contract.

MR. NEWDEGATE thanked Her Majesty's Government for having introduced the measure, and believed that, considering the improvements it had received in Committee, it would be of great benefit to the country. He would advise the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sandwich, "in good agricultural language," not to "hurry any man's cattle."

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:-Ayes 116; Noes 178: Majority 62.

House resumed.

powers to the Board of Trade for stopping Unseaworthy Ships. This measure the Government recommends to Parliament on the postponement of their larger and more complete measure for the amendment of the Merchant Shipping Acts. The House is aware that that complete measure proposed means for checking the overloading of ships; for making more definite the liability of shipowners in respect to loss of life and damage to property at sea; for consolidating, or, rather, codifying the provisions for discipline at sea; and for improving the mode of inquiry into casualties at sea.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) also introduced a Bill on this subject, but mainly on opposite principles-a Bill for supplementing the classification of ships by private registry offices, through the Government undertaking to complete the classification and periodical survey of all ships. I believe that the Government Bill was framed on the right principle. It was framed on the principle on which all our legislation has hitherto been based-namely, that of enforcing responsibility on those who conduct the Mercantile Marine service of this country to take all reasonable precaution or means in their power to protect the lives of those who are employed by them at sea. Unfortunately, the measure, by delay, has lacked time for thorough discussion and for passage through Parliament this Session, and it has had, consequently, to be postponed. I believe the Bill of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby-and in that opinion I shall I think be borne out by the great majority in this House-is based on wrong principles. ["No, no!"] Well, I merely wish to point out to Parliament the difference between the two Bills. That of the hon. Member for Derby attempted not only the punishment of offenders, but a needless and harassing Government constant inspection and warranty of all unclassed ships, and on the part of Government it actually

Committee report Progress; to sit undertook the conduct of the merchant again To-morrow.

UNSEAWORTHY SHIPS BILL.

LEAVE. FIRST READING.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, I rise to move for leave to introduce a

shipping itself; and, as I think, a Bill based on that principle, so far from securing life at sea, tends rather to a greater loss of life at sea, by removing the principal check of the liability of those who are conducting the service, and the responsibility of seeing to all

that scarcely any vessels have been stopped except on good grounds. Considering the great importance of stopping the great mercantile traffic of this country upon insufficient grounds, I think that the House will congratulate itself that the Acts passed in the interests of the lives of our fellow-subjects have been carried out with so much success for their object, and so little vexation to the well-conducted shipping interest. Of the 58 ships stopped on the ground of overloading, all of them had to be lightened of their cargoes. These are great powers, and they have been carefully acted on. At the same time, owing to the nature of the Acts, they have not been applicable to all emergencies, or adequate to all possible occasions; but they are capable of great expansion. What the Bill that I now ask the leave of the House to introduce seeks to do is to carry out still fur

practicable security from off their shoulders. I point out the different principles of the two Bills brought before Parliament this year for the purpose of showing that, while in the case of the Government Bill we were unable to proceed this Session, yet, considering the other Bill, we were unable to adopt it in lieu of the Government measure, because we believe that it proceeds on a wrong and dangerous principle. But there are measures which may be passed in the interim, and which may remain in force until the Government is able to pass more complete legislation on the subject. Measures may be taken which will have the effect of more effectually stopping, in the meantime, unseaworthy ships from going to sea. This is not the first time that we have attempted legislation with this object. We have passed many Acts already; and I may point out the stimulus which was given to legislation on the sub-ther the provisions of these Acts in the ject by the hon. Member for Derby only followed upon our first attempt to legislate in this direction. There are the Acts of 1871 and of 1873, which empower the Board of Trade, upon complaint, or upon their having any other means of believing that the ship going to sea is in an unseaworthy condition, to detain her for survey; there are also powers under those Acts enabling one-fourth of the crew of any ship to allege in defence of any one of their number who had deserted or absented himself from the ship, that the ship was unseaworthy and in a dangerous condition demanding survey. I can only say that these powers have been honestly carried out to the best ability of the Department. During the last two years the Board of Trade have stopped 558 ships under these powers upon the ground of want of survey and bad construction, and about 58 ships have been stopped on the ground of their being overloaded. Nobody doubts that unseaworthy ships are sent to sea; but what I want to point out to the credit of the Department, and, of course, to the satisfaction of Parliament, is, that such care has been taken in exercising the power under these Acts, that out of these 558 ships stopped on the ground of unseaworthiness, 515 were, on investigation, proved to have been unseaworthy, and others are now under investigation which may add to the number, showing

Sir Charles Adderley

particulars to which I have alluded; to strengthen the Executive by giving the Government the power of more rapid and direct action in this direction. The Bill proposes to enable the Government to appoint a sufficient number of officers forthwith, and from time to time, to detain unseaworthy ships-that is, ships in defective condition, or overloaded, or improperly loaded for the purpose of being surveyed, and not allowed to go to sea till set right, without waiting for authority from the Board of Trade, but immediately reporting. The House is aware that the Surveyors of the Board of Trade can only now report; upon which authority is sent down to the officers of Customs, and the proposal of the Bill is to give the Government the right to delegate such powers. The Bill is proposed only for one year, both on account of the strong powers asked for, and as a guarantee that the Government will lose no time next Session in legislating more completely on the subject. The Bill also proposes to allow onefourth of any crew to demand a survey of an alleged unseaworthy vessel without the preliminary of desertion, and without even the necessity of giving security for costs incident to the prosecution of the complaint, precautions, of course, being taken against frivolous or vexatious allegations. Now I hope these two provisions, which are the main provisions of the Bill, will be sufficient