the agricultural classes would not be deceived by this weak and useless legislation. MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING observed, that the farmers did not care about the Bill, and said that, in his opinion, it would be a total failure. Many of the Members of the Government and their supporters had been returned in the expectation that their interests would be properly cared for; but, as had been already observed, they would find the measure to be a delusion and a sham. MR. D. DAVIES thought the Bill could not be looked upon except as a landlord's measure. As a landlord, he should adopt it with pleasure, for the reason that it would save him £1,000 a-year; and as most of his tenants were Conservative, they could not object to his accepting and acting upon a Bill passed by the present Government. MR. NEWDEGATE thought the fact that the hon. Member intended voluntarily to accept the principle of the Bill was a strong argument in its favour. MR. COWPER - TEMPLE protested against the clause on the ground that it carried the principle of freedom too far by permitting parties to agreements to contract themselves out of the principle of the Bill. He was convinced that the measure would not meet the desires of the country, or satisfy the large body of tenant farmers. MR. M'LAGAN thought landlords and tenants should be left perfectly free to contract with each other as they thought proper, provided that the agreements entered into did not deprive the tenants of the compensation for improvements which they were entitled to receive. MR. MELDON wished, before this clause passed, to enter his protest against the permissive character of the Bill, which would result in new contracts all over the country, short leases, and all kinds of restrictions upon the tenant far mers. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 46 (Application of Act as regards current and future tenancies.) MR. DISRAELI moved the omission of the clause. SIR WALTER BARTTELOT said, that as he understood the Government intended to withdraw this clause and put another in its place, he would reserve an Amendment he had on the Paper till the new clause was before the Committee. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT objected to the course which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take, contending that the amended clause which he was about to submit to the consideration of the Committee was totally different in principle from that contained in the Bill as sanctioned by the House of Lords, and that under its operation notices would be showered upon tenants by their landlords to the effect that they would do none of those things which it had been over and over again declared should be done in the interest of the nation. The adoption of such a course could have only one result-to produce a feeling of rankling discontent in the minds of the tenants, and to breed anything but friendly relations between them and their landlords. The principle embodied in the Amendment of the Prime Minister was, in short, in his opinion, one which was most injurious and insulting to the tenant farmers of England. MR. CHAPLIN said, that if he thought anything like compulsion was necessary or desirable for the purpose of giving real security to tenants, he should not oppose its adoption. He could not assume, however, that tenants were so totally blind to their own interests, or landlords so unfair as the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to suppose. Compensation to the tenant, he might add, would in future be based on the provisions of the present Bill, or upon agreements which must be offered to him by the landlord, if he chose to throw the Bill aside, suited to the respective localities throughout the country. The fears of the hon. and learned Gentleman were totally without foundation, for he believed that this Bill, so far from being received with dissatisfaction, would prove beneficial to tenant farmers throughout the length and breadth of England. MR. WHITWELL hoped the Govern- | for his own benefit, no charge shall be made on ment would accept the Amendment. the holding, under this Act, by virtue of the agreement, greater than or different from the charge which might have been made thereon, under this Act, in the absence of the agree MR. RODWELL hoped the Amendment would not be adopted, as it would lead to inextricable confusion in the casement." of allotments and garden grounds. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT did not think many allotments would be five acres in extent; in his opinion, the Amendment ought to be adopted by the Committee. MR. HUNT said, the limitation put in this clause was intended to apply to allotments, as it was thought great disputes would arise between the outgoing and incoming tenants. If the Committee liked to reduce it below five acres he had no objection. MR. A. MILLS said, he was ready to move the reduction of the limitation from five acres to two. MR. HUNT said, that if it was the general wish that two acres should be substituted for five, he should not object to the change. SIR ARTHUR MONCK said, he would accept the proposition to substitute two acres. Amendment, as amended, agreed to. MR. KNIGHT considered that some words should be introduced in reference to the agreement as to money, and said by Mr. Pusey's clause it was agreed that if anything was to be done, the money consideration should be agreed upon. He moved the insertion of words taken from Mr. Pusey's clause to follow after the word "procedure," which would so amend the clause as to carry out his object. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, the words were unnecessary, as the clause would in its then form effect all the hon. Member required. Amendment negatived. the ܝ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL proposed to add after the word "different words " on principle." THE ATTORNEY GENERAL considered the introduction of the words unnecessary. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause read a second time and ordered to be added to the Bill. MR. DISRAELI moved, instead of Clause 46, to insert the following Clause 49 (General saving of rights) Clause:agreed to. Postponed Clauses. (Application of Act to future tenancies.) "A. This Act shall apply to every contract of tenancy beginning after the commencement of this Act, unless, in any case, the landlord and tenant agree in writing, in the contract of pro-tenancy, or otherwise, that this Act, or any part or provision of this Act, shall not apply to the contract; and, in that case, this Act, or the part or provision thereof to which that agreement refers (as the case may be), shall not apply to the contract." Clause 4 (Interpretation). THE ATTORNEY GENERAL mised to place upon the Paper his definition of the words "absolute owner,' so that they might be discussed on the Report. Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to. MR. DISRAELI moved to insert, after Clause 45, the following Clause: (Adoption of parts of Act by agreement.) "A landlord and tenant, whether the landlord is absolute owner of the holding for his own benefit or not, may, in any agreement in writing relating to the holding, adopt by reference any of the provisions of this Act respecting procedure or any other matter, without adopting all the provisions of this Act; and any provision so adopted shall have effect in connection with the agreement accordingly; but where, at the time of the making of the agreement, the landlord was not absolute owner of the holding Clause read a second time and ordered to be added to the Bill. MR. DISRAELI then moved, instead of Clause 46, to insert the following Clause : (Application of Act to existing tenancies.) "B. In any case of a contract of tenancy from year to year or at will, current at the commencement of this Act, this Act shall not apply to the contract, if within two months after the commencement of this Act the landlord or the tenant gives notice in writing to the other to the effect that he (the person giving the notice) desires that the existing contract of tenancy between them shall remain unaffected by this Act, or by any part or provision thereof referred to in the notice, but such a notice shall be re vocable by writing; and in the absence of any such notice, or on revocation of every such notice, this Act shall apply to the contract. "In every other case of a contract of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act, this Act shall not apply to the contract." On Motion, "That the clause be read a second time," SIR GEORGE JENKINSON rose to move an Amendment which he said had been unanimously approved last week except by the Government, but which, it was understood, should be deferred till a later stage of the Bill-namely, at the clause now under consideration. He held that contracts written or printed between persons of full age should be sacred, that legislation ought to be not retrospective but prospective, and ought not to give to either party either more or less than they had contracted for. The Bill drawn up by the Central Chamber of Agriculture contained words identical with his ownnamely, "Nothing in this Act shall interfere with any lease or agreement made before the passing of this Act." The Bill ought, he thought, to do in a straightforward manner that which it was now proposed to do by a side-wind, and the onus ought not to be placed upon either party of serving a written notice that the tenant should not come under the operation of the Bill. He begged, therefore, to move the insertion in the first line of the clause after the word "contract," of the words "written or printed." MR. HUNT said, this matter was one of considerable difficulty. In the case of a lease there was a certain term during which the tenant had security for his investments; but in the case of a tenancy from year to year he had not this security, and there was no fixed time at which the landlord and tenant could be brought together to decide whether they would come under the provisions of the Act. It therefore seemed necessary to provide that the Act should apply to such cases, unless within two months notice was given that it was not to affect the holding. This would present the disagreeable necessity which would otherwise be felt of serving notice to quit. MR. PELL hoped the Government would adhere to the clause as it stood, seeing that they had hitherto maintained, without wavering, the right of freedom of contract. SIR WALTER BARTTELOT thought the proposal of the Government was & considerable improvement upon the Bill as it had stood previously. MR. DODSON was of opinion that the proposed Amendment in the clause was well worthy of consideration. It seemed to him that where written agreements had been entered into, those agreements should be left untouched, and therefore he was in favour of the Amendment in the clause. MR. NEWDEGATE hoped that the Amendment in the clause would not be pressed. He thought that the new clause as proposed by the Government would give vitality to the Bill, which without it would be a useless performance. Amendment negatived. Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill. MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON moved the insertion of the following clause, after Clause 10: (When outlay on an improvement is not to be taken into account.) "No outlay or any improvement in the second class, commenced after notice to quit has been served on the tenant, shall be taken into account, unless it is necessary for the profitable occupation of the land." Clause agreed to and ordered to stand part of the Bill. MR. STORER moved, after Clause 13, page 4, to insert the following Clause :(Tenants' compensation for damage by game and rabbits.) 66 Where the landlord reserves the right of shooting over any holding, and the tenant thereof sustains injury from damage done by game or rabbits to corn, root or other crops, he shall be entitled to obtain on the determination of the tenancy compensation in respect thereof, subject and according to the provisions of this Act." MR. HUNT said, that his hon. Friend thought that there ought to be a limitation in certain cases, and he should be very happy to consider the objection of Committee which had considered this his hon. Friend; but he had sat upon a subject during two years, and he was afraid that if they went into the subject afresh it might occupy a still longer period. SIR HENRY JAMES thought that compensation for an excessive quantity of ground game might well be set against waste by the tenant. Clause, by leave, withdrawn, MR. PELL moved, after Clause 32, to | to reap there, because they were offered insert the following Clause: (Reference of matters in dispute to arbitra tion.) "Where, under any contract of tenancy in writing entered into after the commencement of this Act, any matters in dispute may, by the terms of such contract, be referred to arbitration, then, unless such contract shall otherwise specially direct, a referee or referees and umpire, with the same powers, shall be appointed in the same manner; and such arbitration shall proceed under the same conditions, and be subject to the same provisions, as to the recovery money, awarded costs, and rights of appeal, as is enacted in regard to a reference proceeding under this Act." of MR. HUNT had no objection to the clause. SIR HENRY JAMES thought the clause was a most objectionable one. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. MR. SEELY moved to insert, after Clause 43, the following Clause : (Notice to quit cottage holding.) "43A. Every agricultural labourer or farm servant who occupies either as a tenant or as a servant a house, garden, or other holding from or under his employer, or the landlord of his employer, or from or under any tenant or subtenant of his employer, shall be entitled, notwithstanding any determination of his service, to continue to occupy such house, garden, or holding until the expiration of two months' notice to quit. Such notice may be given at any time, and shall operate as a revocation of any previous notice. This section shall not apply to a person who occupies under a contract of tenancy or service made before the passing of this Act, but, upon the termination of a week, month, or other term for which any such contract is made, any continuation or renewal of the contract shall be deemed to be a new contract for the purposes of this section. He observed, that when they had given the farmer a 12 months' notice to quit they ought to give the labourer at least a two months' notice. New Clause (Mr. Seely,)-brought up, and read the first time. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time." SIR WALTER BARTTELOT opposed the clause. He had known a case where a friend of his had given employment all through the winter to a number of agricultural labourers who, when the harvest came, went off to another district a shilling or two more, leaving him in the lurch with respect to the harvest which they ought to have stayed and reaped. The former, instead of turning them out of their cottages, as he was provoked to do, took them on again and gave them work during the next winter; but there was no one could say he had not just reasons for taking the opposite course. that in such cases as that they were It could not surely be held entitled to two months' notice before leaving their cottages. Besides, if the landlord was to give two months' notice to the labourer, the labourer should be required to give two months' notice to the landlord, and he doubted whether that would be generally acceptable to the labourers. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, that this was the first time in the course of this Bill in which it was proposed to recognize the labourers as part of the landed interest. He thought the labourers ought to have some security as well as the occupiers, and he protested against the doctrine that the employers had any vested right to the labour of their servants. The agricultural labourer did not stand in the same position as the labourer in towns; and when the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the labourer was bound to reap the harvest-["No, no!"]-why, the hon. and gallant Gentleman said-" You will surely not give two months' notice to a man who does not consent to reap the harvest at a lower rate of wages than he could get elsewhere." If the agricultural labourer was to be placed in the position which hon. Gentlemen opposite advocated, he was no better off than he had never been stated in so plain a form was five centuries ago. That doctrine before. If hon. Gentlemen respected the sacred principle of freedom of contract in their own cases, they ought to allow the agricultural labourer to get his extra shilling if he was able to do so. the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) The principle laid down in the clause of was one which was calculated to attach the labourer to the soil, and whether he occupied more than two acres or not he ought not to be refused the same security that was to be given to the larger occupier. He hoped the hon. Member for Lincoln would divide, in order that the Committee might escape the disgrace of passing a Bill which would be silent with reference to the agricultural labourer, and treat him as a man who had an interest in the development of the soil. MR. J. S. HARDY suggested that the Amendment could not be put, as it was inconsistent with some of the clauses which had already been passed. THE CHAIRMAN said, that was so, and that it must be very considerably altered before it could be put. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT replied that the principle of the clause, which was that the agricultural labourer should not be the only person whose interests in connection with the land should be unrecognized in the Bill, might be affirmed by the Committee, and that the details could be settled at a future stage. MR. RODWELL thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had gone out of his way to teach hon. Gentlemen connected with land their duty to agricultural labourers. His remarks had shown a want of familiarity with agricultural matters. His hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter Barttelot) had never argued that the agricultural labourers were to be treated as a lot of serfs. The point was, that agricultural operations ought to be carried on by labourers who got their houses because they were labourers, and that they should not, in time of need, desert their employers. The cry on the other side of the House had been "Increase the produce of the soil." But how was that to be done without the assistance of farm labourers? He thought two months' notice too long a period, and that it would be better to limit the time to one month. He trusted the Government would not accept the Amendment, but would modify it so as to secure to the tillers of the soil that security to which they were entitled with respect to the labourers whom they employed. homes; and it was also right that the labourers should have time when required to find themselves new homes. He hoped the Committee would agree to the clause. MR. BERESFORD HOPE ventured to address to the Committee a few words in order to raise the question out of the pompous heroics of previous speakers. As a landed proprietor he had done his best for the dwellings of his labourers. He could not help agreeing with the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Rodwell), that the occupation of a cottage by a labourer was not an occupation pure and simple, but a return for special services rendered to his employer. Was it consistent with the order of things that there should be one law of tenure for the cottager, when the cottage he lived in was on the land where he worked, and another law of tenure when he happened to lodge elsewhere? MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN appealed to the Government to adopt the clause in some modified form. În case they refused to do so, he should support the clause on the broad ground that the agricultural labourers ought not to be excluded from the benefits which the measure was supposed to be about to confer. He deprecated any division by which it would be made to appear that one side of the House cared more for the agricultural labourer than the other. He was a considerable owner of cottages himself, and every one of his cottagers were entitled to six months' notice just as much as the farmers. He should be ashamed-and he believed the feeling to be general-to turn a labourer's family out at a week's notice. The labourer loved his home just as much as the farmer or the landlord-he had the feelings of a human being, and they ought to be respected. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) thought it had better be left to the Government to MR. MUNDELLA observed, that the modify the clause, and he earnestly clause was proposed by an hon. Gentle-pressed them to do so before the Report, man who was a large and practical and and by accepting its principle now, avoid liberal landowner, and who had brought a division. under his (Mr. Mundella's) notice how cruelly the power of landlords was sometimes exercised in limiting a labourer's notice to five days, and how cruelly the law was worked to screw down the wages of the labourer. They had in all the clauses protected the farmers who might have to provide for themselves new MR. HUNT fully sympathized with the expression of opinion that the agricultural labourers ought not to be so situated, as regarded their holdings, that they would be obliged to accept lower wages than they would otherwise have to accept; and he thought that was the general feeling of the Committee. But |