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provisions setting up a new system of pro Amendment (Colonel Dyott), by leave, cedure, when there was already a well withdrawn.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. MR. MELDON observed, that a great objection to the provisions of the Common 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. 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 he shall be named by the county court judge, but should a demand made by one party that 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." 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" were 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 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, community as Courts for the recovery of it had been stated over and over again debt, and their unnecessary introduction that it was the intention of the Govern-into the Bill would not tend to make ment, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. He hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw the Amendment he had proposed in order that the Government might pre-moved, in page 5, line 28, to leave out pare 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. 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 Amendments, by leave, withdrawn. "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 Question put, "That the words The Committee divided:-Ayes 229; 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 "appoints" 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, In page 7, to leave out from the word " permitted," 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 ob jected 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 Government would introduce Amendments in It was very the Interpretation Clause. 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, "That those words be there inserted." The Committee divided:-Ayes 188; Noes 124: Majority 64. MR. WHITWELL then proposed to amend the clause so as to secure that the award should be general in its character, and that the tenant would not have to particularize his improvements. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL pointed out that the Committee had already decided 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-HUĞESSEŃ 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 a previous clause. Now, 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. The House resumed its Sitting at Judge on 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 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, |