AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND)
BILL.-[Lords.]

CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, these circumstances is, that under the said, he had received such a Memorial. Bill action on the part either of the It came before him in connection with a landlord or the tenant to maintain for proposal of the Local Board of Sheer- themselves the right of free contract, or ness to construct an esplanade on a in order to exempt themselves from its portion of the sea wall repairable by operation, is necessary, and that this the War Office. The War Office natu- action must be taken within the very rally objected to repair that portion of limited period of two months after the the wall which they were not liable to statute comes into operation. It is most repair, but which should be done by important that that should be clearly other parties, and the matter was still understood throughout the country. under consideration, and he was waiting Well, Sir, there are certain omissions for another communication from the from the Bill, which I endeavoured to Local Board. supply; with this object, I moved a clause, by which the manure made upon the farm would have been declared to be the property of the tenant, and this manure is the chief instrument for the fertilization of the farm. I am, therefore, of opinion that if, at the conclusion of his tenancy, the tenant is found to have provided a store of manure, he ought to be compensated for any provision in that form which he may leave upon the holding for the future cultivation of the farm. Unfortunately, however, as I think, the House by a small majority rejected that Amendment; I regret this the more, because it appears to me that the Bill in some of its provisions points in the opposite direction. It seems to point towards the manure being the absolute property of the landlord; and my experience tells me, that under these conditions this will be found a void inheritance-void, that is, of the elements necessary for the future cultivation of the farm. But there is another provision omitted from the Bill, which I ventured to suggest to the House, but which the House did not accept. There is no power under this Bill, although it extends the period of notice to quit to double the former period; from six months to a year, which in practice, from the use of fixed dates for quitting, may become two years; there is no power, I say, under the Bill for the landlord to enter for the purpose of preventing waste; waste, that is, on the part of the tenant, in case of his death on the part of his executors. Now, I hold that "prevention is better than cure; and although we have provided penalties against waste, the experience of those who are intimately and practically acquainted with the management of landed estates, as I have been repeatedly assured, is that this omission of all power of entry after notice to quit is a serious defect in the Bill. There is

MR. NEWDEGATE: I understand, Sir, that the Lords' Amendments are merely formal, and having supported this Bill throughout, as containing a principle which I have long desired to see enacted by Parliament; that principle being the reversal of the hitherto presumption of law, which was against compensation to tenants for unexhausted improvements, I am anxious to make one or two observations. I have long thought that, in the present state of agriculture, justice demands that the principle of the law should favour a claim for compensation for his improvements on the part of the tenant, owing to the extent to which improvements in agriculture have been carried during the last 40 years, and by reason of the large amount of capital which it has become necessary for the tenant to employ in order to effect these improvements. But I own that I do not view the frame of this Bill without some apprehension; and I think it highly important, for the sake of the good understanding which has hitherto existed between the landlords and tenantry of England, that the operation of this Bill should at once be explained and understood. I do not intend to attempt that task myself on the present occasion; but having been friendly for so many years to the principle of this Bill, I wish to point to one or two circumstances connected with its framing and to one or two matters connected with its probable operation. The Bill is an "enabling" Bill. The Bill is a "permissive" Bill; but, at the same time, its permissive character is qualified by two circumstances; and the first of

also an objection, which was raised the Bill thus passed the House of Lords, by the hon. Member for East Sussex notwithstanding the recommendations (Mr. Gregory), that the provisions of made by their Select Committee in 1873. this Bill, where it extends to saddle I will not further detain the House than the estate with a charge for compensa- to say that this is eminently a measure tion for unexhausted improvements, in exposition of which, to the public some of them possibly of a very costly and to the unlearned, it is most denature, are such that they may entail sirable that a digest should be prepared serious difficulties and future litigation by some competent lawyer-after the among remainder interests and incum- manner of the summary digest of tesbrancers. I cannot think that adequate tamentary law-which, as produced by provision has been made in this respect; the late Lord St. Leonards, has conand in proof of that opinion I will read ferred such benefits upon the country. to the House the Resolutions of the Se- I have ventured to offer these few oblect Committee of the House of Lords on servations to the House as the result of the improvement of land, the recom- some knowledge of the relations and mendations adopted by that Commit- feelings of the agricultural community tee at the close of the Session of 1873. and the requirements of the landed This was a very competent Com- interest; and, because I believe, as the mittee, presided over by the Mar- period of two months only is given for quess of Salisbury, and its Report the permissive action of this Bill, after has been communicated to this House- it comes into operation, it is essential "1. Limited owners, with the consent of that the agricultural and landowning trustees, shall be empowered to spend trust community-indeed, all persons who are money upon the improvement of their estates, interested in the land-should at once on redeemable mortgage. be made aware of the provisions of this measure, and of the need of prompt action, as well as caution, in deciding either to accept in full or in part, or to reject the operation of this Bill.

"2. Limited owners may charge their estates with improvements; the charge to be redeemable within a period exceeding by ten years the owner's expectation of life; so that no such term may in any case be less than twenty-five years, or more than forty."

"3. [And this is very important.] An improvement to be charged as above, with consent of trustees, on certificate from a surveyor approved by the Inclosure Commissioners or the Court of Chancery, that it is beneficial to the estate, and that the works have been properly carried out."

Now, there is no such provision as this contained in this Bill.

"4. That where the limited owner acts with the consent of the tenant-in-tail, being of full age, the certificate of a surveyor may be dispensed with, unless refused by incumbrancers after notice given; and the repayment of charge may be spread over a period of forty years." But there are no such precautions in this Bill; no precautions for giving notice to the parties interested, either in remainder or as incumbrancers.

"5. Trustees to have liberty to defend the inheritance either at law or in Parliament, with leave of the Court of Chancery first obtained, and to be allowed to charge on the estate costs approved by the Court."

Now, the provisions of this Bill not only do not include any precautions of this kind, but they absolutely preclude appeal from the decisions of the County Court, a provision not likely satisfactorily to settle complicated questions connected with real property; and yet

Mr. Newdegate

Lords Amendments agreed to.

EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.
REPORT.

Resolution [9th August] reported.

MR. FAWCETT said, that after carefully considering the statement of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for India and the discussion which took place on it, he never was more convinced than he now was that there were many things connected with the finances of India which particularly required careful investigation. He thought they ought to receive more precise information in the next Financial Statement. The

question of expenditure was of very great importance. If they were told what the Extraordinary Expenditure was they should also be told what the Extraordinary Receipts were. The accounts also were deficient in this-that whilst they showed what the increase of the Revenue was, they did not show whether that increase was real or only nominal. If the occasion permitted it, he could show that in one instance where the Revenue had increased, the cost of collecting it

"That this House, considering it important that it should devote an adequate amount of attention to Indian affairs, is of opinion that it

is desirable that Public Business should be arranged, so that it will not be necessary to postpone the Indian Budget until almost the

close of the Session."

had increased in a greater proportion. | Fawcett) had asked him whether the He wished to know whether the increase increase of the Army expenditure was of the Army expenditure was due to any due to any action of the War Office? action on the part of the War Office. There were two items of increase which He gave Notice that next Session, with were rendered necessary in consequence the view of securing an earlier and a of certain alterations made at the War more complete discussion of the Indian Office-one of which was the increase of Budget, he should move, on the earliest the pay of officers of Artillery, who had possible day, the following Resolu- by a Royal Warrant been promoted to tion:the rank of major; and the other was a small addition to the pay of privates, necessary in consequence of certain alterations made by Lord Cardwell. He stated the other night the reasons why the Budget was brought on so late; and though, no doubt, it was somewhat unfortunate that it should be the last Business which the Government transacted, yet its postponement this year had been attended with this advantage, that he had been able to receive a forecast of the Public Works expenditure. The discussion turned mainly upon that expenditure, and had the Budget been brought forward earlier in the Session, they would not have had the information of which they were able to avail themselves the other night. He thought that inconvenience arose from postponing observations upon a variety of Indian topics until the Financial Statement was made, when it was almost impossible to reply accurately to the obervations which were made. He hoped, therefore, that another year hon. Members who wished to call attention to Indian matters which were not connected with finance would do so apart from the Budget; and then the discussion upon Indian Finance could be more satisfactorily conducted.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER said, he would admit that it was desirable, if it could be conveniently done, that the Indian Budget should be discussed earlier in the Session; but, still, he thought that the inconvenience arising from the present course of proceeding was exaggerated. The complaint as to the lateness at which the Indian Budget was brought on was made against every Administration; in fact, it might be called an annual growl. The only object in having the discussion earlier was, that there might be a full House; but he was afraid that could not be secured, because the affairs of India were not administered by the House, but by the Indian Council, and public functionaries, and because the Indian Budget was only brought forward for discussion, without any decision being come to upon it.

But

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR thought it only right and just that the affairs of India should be discussed when there was a full attendance of hon. Members. There was a vast population of India which took a deep interest in this discussion, and these matters ought to be reviewed earlier in the Session. as the Legislature of England had seen fit to set aside the East India Company, which had acquired India, and had for so many years administered the Government of India, it was incumbent on the Legislature to provide for the discussion to which the new Government ought to be subjected, by finding time for doing so. And as regarded the duties entrusted to the Council of India, it was only just that the Parliament which created these duties should ascertain how they were fulfilled.

Resolution agreed to.

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON
BILL.

CONSIDERATION

OF LORDS AMENDMENTS. ADJOURNED DEBATE.

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [5th July], “That the Amendments made by the Lords to the Offences against the Person Bill be now taken into Consideration."

Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.

Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendments considered.
MR. CHARLEY said, that one of

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON said, the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. the Amendments of the Lords was a

purely technical one, and he should the Amendment to which this House hath dismove to agree to it. As the Bill agreed: Mr. CHARLEY, Mr. CAWLEY, Sir GEORGE BOWYER, Mr. MELLOR, Mr. WHIToriginally stood, the age at which pro- WELL, Mr. MARLING, Mr. DYKE, and Mr. Rowtection was given to young girls was 14, LAND WINN:-To withdraw immediately; Three but at the suggestion of the right hon. to be the quorum. and learned Recorder of London 13 was inserted instead. The Lords, however,