Page images

"Or where it is executed after the tenant has given or received notice to quit, unless it is executed with the previous consent in writing of the landlord."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 (Restrictions as to third class).

On Motion of Mr. GOLDSMID, Amendment made in page 4, line 14, by inserting the word " ascertaining," in lieu of the word" ascertained."

COLONEL DYOTT proposed, in page 4, line 15, after " class," to leave out to the end of the clause, and insert

"The tenant shall not be entitled to compensation in respect of outlay for the purposes enumerated, unless he has given not more than twenty-one and not less than seven days' previous notice in writing to the landlord or his agent of his intention to make such outlay, specifying the probable quantity and description of arti

ficial manure proposed to be applied, and the quantity and description of artificial food proposed to be consumed during the last year of the tenancy, and has obtained the concurrence

of the landlord."

MR. MARK STEWART hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not press this Amendment. It would be destructive, if carried, of all incentive to high farming.

Amendment negatived.

MR. HUNT, in pursuance of an understanding with the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), brought up in manuscript an Amendment, which he moved as an addition to the clause. It was as follows:

"And there shall be deducted the value of the

manure that would have been produced by the consumption on the holding of any hay, straw, roots, or green crop sold off the holding within the last two years or other less time that the tenancy has endured."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, who took exception to the Amendment being produced in manuscript, and in the absence of the hon. Member for Berkshire, contended that it would open up a very difficult question for valuers ["No!"-namely, the quantity of manure which might have been produced by a particular quantity of hay, &c. Whatever hon. Gentlemen might say, that certainly appeared to him to be a peculiarly difficult question to solve. He suggested that the consideration of the Amendment should be postponed until the bringing up of the Report.

which was carried out on every wellmanaged farm. He believed it would commend itself to incoming tenants.

MR. FLOYER said, the principle proposed by the Government was only that

MR. GOLDSMID did not believe any such difficulty as that imagined by the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford would arise. Permission to sell hay was nearly always given on the condition that an equivalent amount of manure should be brought to the farm. The hon. Member pointed out that Clause 6, which was already passed, would require some alteration in order to accord with the Amendment now proposed.

tion of these infinitely small matters MR. TORR objected to the introducinto the Bill. He believed them to be impracticable, and was convinced that they would defeat the object of the Bill.

SIR JOSEPH BAILEY felt that if the

Amendment had not been proposed by the Government, he, in common with every other landlord throughout the country, would have been obliged to contract imself out of the Act.

MR. CLARE READ was decidedly of opinion that a man who sold off all his hay ought not to receive compensation for manure which he might bring back. His duty was to consume his hay on his farm. As for the fears of the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford, he would say that if a valuer could not tell the manurial value of a ton of hay, he would not be able to tell the manurial value of a ton of cake. The matter was one from which no difficulty was experienced in practice.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL did not think that a tenant who sold hay, the produce of his holding, and brought home manure, purchased with the proceeds, should be entitled to receive compensation for it.

MR. MELDON thought the proposed Amendment would be a direct breach of contract. It was endeavoured by the Government to make the country believe that they were going to do something for them.

COLONEL BRISE did not think the Amendment of the Government necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

amended, stand part of the Bill?" On Question, "That the Clause, as

MR. WHITWELL moved its omission. Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:-Ayes 177; Noes 76: Majority 101. Clause ordered to stand part of the


Clause 12 (Deductions from compensation for taxes, rent, &c.), and Clause 13 (Set off of benefit to tenant) agreed to.

Landlord's compensation. Clause 14 (Landlord's title to compensation.)

SIR HENRY JAMES moved the omission of the clause. He said, that this was the first of the procedure clauses in the Bill, and if his Amendment were agreed to no fewer than 16 clauses would be got rid of, besides shortening the discussion in Committee by many hours. The clause would entitle a landlord to proceed under the Bill where a tenant committed waste, or broke a covenant or other agreement connected with the contract of tenancy. Now, that would give a wide scope of claim by the landlord under the Bill, and he would be enabled to raise many nice questions which there was no proper tribunal to try. Why should this exceptional privilege be given to the landlord, instead of leaving him to resort to the ordinary tribunals? The landlord could claim under the Bill, even when the tenant made no claim against him, and no statute of limitation would bar the claim. Further, the tribunal constituted under the Bill had no power to determine many of the questions that might be raised; because it was provided that it could only determine the amount of compensation and the time when it was to be paid. If appeal was to be allowed to the County Court Judge on the subject of amount, why should they not send before a legal tribunal, in the first instance, questions as to breach of covenant and committal of waste? Under the clause as it stood power of appeal was only given to the landlord and not to the tenant, while, should it remain unaltered, a most expensive and objectionable mode of procedure would be established.

MR. JACKSON supported the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend. Without going into the more technical questions which had been raised, and regarding this question from a landowning point of view, he considered that the Government's clauses were dangerous, as they would take these matters

from under the cognizance of the ordinary Courts of the land and create a special tribunal less competent to deal with them. No doubt arbitration was the best way of settling disputes of the character which would arise under this Bill, but he preferred arbitration chosen by the parties to arbitration forced upon them in derogation of legal rights. The best way to prevent litigation was to give facilities for enforcing legal rights, and as the result of the. Bill would after all be the creation of legal rights expressed in money value, the best way of arriving at what the law was, would be to let the questions of law be tried by the Courts. The common sense of the parties would find the way to assess the amount. But under this Bill there would be no means by which doubtful points of law could be taken as a matter of right before the Superior Courts of Law. He doubted whether under the Bill a landlord and tenant could agree to take any case to the ordinary tribunals, and he certainly thought that was a matter which deserved the attention of the House and the Government.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he fully admitted the importance of the matters referred to by his hon. and learned Friends; but he hoped that the Committee would give its attention to the particular subject under consideration, which was whether the 14th clause should be retained or not. It appeared to him that the clause was one to which no reasonable objection could be taken. It was not a clause of procedure, but of definition. It defined that which was to be the subject of procedure. It would enable a landlord who had a claim against his tenant at the end of the tenancy, arising from breach of contract or otherwise, to set off such claim, as far as it went, against any claim for compensation which the tenant might have against him. He thought it was only right that the landlord should have such a power, and the referees after investigating the case would make the award either in favour of the landlord or tenant. The question how far the tribunal constituted by the Bill was a satisfactory one would arise under a subsequent clause.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT maintained that if the tenant had committed a breach of covenant, the landlord might

proceed against him quite independently, | clause went much further than was conand use the machinery of this Act for that sistent with the object of the Bill. breach of covenant; but there was no similar provision on behalf of the tenant. This clause had, he thought, found its way into the Bill by mistake. There was scarcely anything a tenant could do that might not be regarded as waste at common law, and if the landlord was to have the means of proceeding against the tenant with respect to waste, it was necessary that the term should be fined in the Bill. It was evident that the draftsman of the Bill did not understand the meaning of the word "waste be retained. in law, which included an improvement which altered the condition of the property.

MR. HUNT thought that if the clause stood alone, it might bear the interpretation put upon it by the noble Marquess; but it was to be read in conjunction with the other provisions of the Bill, and especially Clause 15, which dealt with the notice of intended claims. However, if the present words were not satisfactory, the Government would be prede-pared to make the necessary amendment in the Bill at its next stage. In the meantime, he hoped the clause would

[ocr errors]

MR. STORER objected to the means afforded for inflicting injury upon the tenant farmer, especially through the means of petti-fogging attorneys. There were many improvements which tenant farmers might make, and which they would make, which were not included in the Bill.

MR. DISRAELI said, that the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford had complained that the draftsman had not afforded a proper definition of waste; but he thought sufficient definition had been given during the progress of the Bill in "another place" in such matters as diminishing the letting value of the holding, causing or permitting land to be neglected, damaging the timber, injuring pasture, neglecting outfalls and water courses, neglecting the repair of roads, and other matters of a similar kind. He thought these heads comprised what might be called a definition, and therefore the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman did

SIR HENRY JAMES said, the words agreed upon in the House of Lords did not form a definition of the general term "waste," but were only a limitation of it.

He quite agreed with the Prime Minister that any properly constituted Court should construe what waste was; but under the clause, that was not left to a properly constituted Court, but to three country surveyors to determine. MR. MUNTZ regretted more than ever that he had not been brought up a professional man, for he could see in this Bill such ample prospects of litigation as would make this land of ours, hitherto prosperous and happy, a hell upon earth. Why were we to deviate in this matter from the common law which had hitherto answered perfectly well? Why put landlord and tenant in such a position by the Bill that they would contract themselves out of it as the only way of avoiding litigation? The best friends of the landlords were the tenant farmers, yet the Bill was doing much to destroy the amicable relations which had hitherto existed between them.

VISCOUNT GALWAY approved of the

out any further definition of what was waste, there was not any adequate Court that could not at once settle the question. THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON said, that the highest legal authorities might be able to define what waste was; but what would be the position of the unfortunate tenant against whom the landlord brought a charge of waste? Probably a great deal of time would be saved if the Government would agree to omit the clause, and consider what better words might be introduced. He thought the object of the right hon. Gentleman had not been carried into effect by the clause. He considered that the

not appear to be well founded. With-clause, and would much prefer valuers
who understood agricultural matters to
Judges at Westminster, who possibly
did not know wheat from barley. The
anxiety of the hon. and learned Member
for Taunton (Sir Henry James) to get
the matter into the hands of the lawyers
reminded him of the farmer's song—
"If you're fond of pure vexation

And long procrastination,
You're just in the situation

To enjoy your suit at law."

Sir William Harcourt

Question put, "That the Clause, as
amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:-Ayes 194;
Noes 106: Majority 88.
Clause agreed to.


Clause 15 (Notice of intended claim.) MR. MARK STEWART (for Sir JOHN KENNAWAY) moved, in page 4, line 39, to insert the words "one month at least," before the termination of his tenancy, in reference to the notice to be given by a tenant claiming compensa-lieve


SIR HENRY JAMES said, the hon. Member must be under a complete misapprehension in suggesting this altera


MR. HUNT said, that communication would have previously been made on the amount of claims, and therefore it was not unreasonable that the tenant should give a month's notice.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. GOLDSMID moved to report Progress, calling attention to the fact that there were 40 other Orders, the first of which was the Militia Bill.

MR. DISRAELI opposed the Motion, which he hoped would be withdrawn until this clause had been disposed of.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.


AMENDMENT (re-committed) BILL. (Mr. Secretary Hardy, The Judge Advocate, Mr. Stanley.)

[Progress 19th July.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

Clause 50 (Her Majesty may accept voluntary offers of Militia to serve in the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Malta, and Gibraltar).

such liability shall be entered on their original enlistment paper."

MR. DISRAELI said, he would, with the permission of the House, take the Bill at a Morning Sitting to-morrow at 2 o'clock; and, as the evening Paper was virtually empty, he trusted that the Com-of mittee would pursue their labours upon the Bill at the Sitting at 9 o'clock.

MR. HAYTER moved, in page 14, at end of clause, to add the words

"Provided always, That in case of European War, the Militia shall be liable for active or foreign service, within the limits of Europe, and


The hon. Member said, the main object of the clause was to extend the service of the Militia to Malta and Gibraltar. He proposed that the clause should be extended so as to enable the Militia to rethe Regular troops in garrisoning Antwerp or other towns in the event of a European war. During the last great war the plan adopted was to take driblets of men from the various regiments of

Militia. In three cases known to him Militia officers had obtained 100 men from Militia regiments for the Line, and obtained commissions in Line regiments as a reward. This system was very unpopular among the colonels of Militia, because they lost men at the very time when they were required for active service. The proper plan of proceeding was to call upon the entire regiments of Militia. He had received a considerable number of communications, giving the opinions of commanding officers of regiments to show that his Amendment would not militate against enlistments for Militia regiments.

COLONEL GILPIN said, that was one of the most extraordinary proposals ever made, and, if the Ballot were enforced for the Militia, would place the Militia in a worse position than the Regulars, who would be enlisted voluntarily. He had regarded the Notice of the Amendment as a joke.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR said, the resort to the Ballot in the case

the Militia was a source of difficulty when, in time of war, it was desired to send the Militia abroad. But the proposal was no doubt made by his hon. and gallant Friend to authorize the Militia to volunteer their services, of which there were many precedents in the history of the Militia. At the same time, he regretted that the Bill had not been sent to a Select Committee, as he felt persuaded that in that case a great deal of valuable information would have been obtained with respect to the Militia, and many useful alterations would then have been introduced into the present Bill based on the experience of former years, and found on record in some of the Acts

which this Bill proposed to do away


COLONEL EGERTON LEIGH thought the Militia should continue a Home force, ready to volunteer for foreign

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

79 Offences against the Person

{COMMONS} Act Amendment Bill.


service when necessity required it, with- | rants dealing with every question conout being under a contract to do so. nected with the pay, pensions, clothing, arming, drilling, organization, and officering of the Force, and unless those Regulations were annually placed before Parliament and printed, it would be very difficult for any Member or for any one outside the War Office to ascertain what were the Orders affecting this great Force. But he hoped that the Secretary of State would consider those points and cause an annual compilation of all Regulations, including the Laws to Acts of Parliament to be made and made available for purchase by all who desired to know about the Militia. He was confident that consideration would be given, and would therefore withdraw the Amendment.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY gave the utmost credit to his hon. and gallant Friend opposite for the goodness of his motive in proposing his Amendment; but he would point out that it was perfectly incongruous, and would not be in harmony with the general spirit of the clause. Its effect would be that the Militia would be absolutely compelled to serve abroad in the event of a European war, whereas they would not be liable unless they volunteered to garrison the British colonial possessions. Besides, the new system of cadres had put the Army on a different footing, and until the experiment had been tried more - fully it would be injurious to adopt this Amendment.

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 65 to 86, inclusive, agreed to. Clause 87 (Power to Her Majesty to regulate the Militia by warrants and regulations, &c.).

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR moved an Amendment specifying that annual Returns of Warrants, Orders, and Regulations relating to the Militia should be laid before Parliament. That provision was now the more necessary, seeing that the course now followed in respect to the Militia was entirely at variance with the practice of former times. That practice required all the Regulations connected with the Militia to form part of the Act, or Regulations were appended to the Act, so that the entire law affecting that Force was publicly known and could be referred to in one or more Acts, readily procurable by everyone. Now the law vested in the Secretary of State the fullest thority to issue Regulations and War


Colonel Egerton Leigh

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.


SIR HENRY HAVELOCK moved a new clause, enabling the Secretary of State for War to enlist from the respective Militias raised in England, Scotland, and Ireland, a number of men which should not exceed at any one time one-third part of the respective quotas of the Militia now for the time being fixed by law to be raised therein respectively. This would raise the Reserve from 30,000 to 40,000.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY, admitting the importance of the question of the Militia Reserves, expressed a hope that he would not be called upon to adopt the proposed clause in the present Bill, but leave the matter in his hands to deal with it next Session.

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK withdrew his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

(Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. Attorney General,
Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)


Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment of Second Reading [14th June] read, and discharged.

Bill withdrawn.

« PreviousContinue »