MR. GREGORY said, he was about to have made some such proposition as that suggested by the noble Marquess. It appeared to him they were mixing up this question of the remainderman in a manner which was not necessary.

MR. RODWELL said, he had not heard a better mode of dealing with the question than by the adoption of his Amendment, to the effect that where the landlord was not, at the time of the consent given to the execution of the improvement, absolute owner of the holding for his own benefit.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT maintained that the Amendment which the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire intended to move on the 34th clause would effect this object.

MR. PELL said, he was unable to see how, when the life-owner occupied a large portion of the estate himself, the remainderman could be protected, except by such a provision as this clause contained.

MR. GOLDSMID thought the suggestion of the noble Marquess would meet the difficulty.

COLONEL MURE said, the remainderman only came in incidentally. A landlord occupying his own land would not come under the clause at all.

but

Question put, "That the words so' stand part of the Clause." The Committee divided:-Ayes 193; Noes 131 Majority 62.

MR. RODWELL moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 22, after "that" to insert

"where the landlord was not, at the time of the consent given to the execution of the improvement, absolute owner of the holding for his own benefit."

MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON thought it would be an improvement to add the following words at the end of the Amendment:-" Or where the consent of the remainderman has not been obtained." He would move that the said Amendment be so amended.

MR. RODWELL said, he could not see that any difficulty would arise in that case.

SIR HENRY JAMES feared that they were legislating too hastily, without considering the effect of their Amendments. Many landlords would not like their tenants to know the real facts of the case.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he would give the observations of his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir Henry James) his best consideration, and he had no doubt that the Interpretation Clause could be so amended as to meet the difficulty which had been suggested.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT observed, that the objection made was not directed to the Interpretation Clause; it had reference to that under consideration, and was one of principle. It related to the absolute ownership. Whereever there was a mortgage, the provisions of the Bill would be rendered imperative by this Amendment.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN said, he did not see how it was possible to frame an Interpretation Clause to meet the necessities of case. No amendment could make the landlord the absolute owner of the estate.

MR. GOLDSMID said, there were often as many as 10 or 12 remaindermen, and it would be very difficult to get the consent of all of them.

MR. KNIGHT thought that the tenant ought to be satisfied with the personal security of the landlord.

Amendment to said proposed Amendment negatived.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. RODWELL then moved in page 3, line 26, after the word "holding,' the insertion of the words—

"The amount of tenant's compensation, in respect of an improvement of the second class, shall be the sum properly laid out by the tenant on the improvement, with the deduction of a proportionate part thereof for each year while the tenancy endures after the year of tenancy in which the outlay is made and while the improvement continues unexhausted."

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL moved to amend the said proposed Amendment

"shall be such proportion of the sum properly laid out by the tenant on the improvement as fairly represents the unexhausted value thereof to a succeeding occupier."

In reply to Sir THOMAS ACLAND,

MR. HUNT said, the Government could not give the exact words, but it was their intention by the clause to allow great latitude to the landlord and tenant to make agreements, provided the interest of the remainderman was properly guarded.

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN remarked that the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) was precisely the same as that propounded by the Prime Minister on a subsequent clause. The benefit from an improvement did not always result in the first or even in the second year, and instead of drawing a hard-and-fast line, it should be left to the valuers to determine the value of the improvement to the incoming tenant.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT remarked that but little benefit was derived from boning or chalking land for the first two or three years, and that therefore it would be unfair in assessing the amount of compensation to charge the outgoing tenant for a larger proportion of benefit from such improvements

than he had received.

MR. MONK said, that to reckon the proportion at the same amount for each year would not be fair, because some manures were of little use till the second year.

MR. CLARE READ said, that the effect of such improvements so far from increasing as time went on was only too transient. He thought the interest of the tenant would be sufficiently protected by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge.

MR. RODWELL thought his proposal had the merit of being the simpler of the two, and that the good results of the measure would be in proportion to the simplicity of its provisions.

Amendment to said proposed Amendment negatived.

Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Sir George Campbell

Clause 8 (Tenant's compensation for third class).

MR. DISRAELI said, he proposed to move a re-construction of the clause in a manner upon which he thought there was general agreement upon both sides of the House. The clause provided tenant's compensation of the third class. It seemed to be the general opinion that the manurial value remaining to the incoming tenant was the most satisfactory test which could be applied; and he would accordingly move an Amendment, making the clause stand thus—

"The amount of the tenant's compensation, in respect of an improvement of the third class, shall (subject to the provisions of this Act) be such proportion of the sum properly laid out by the tenant on the improvement as fairly represents the manurial value thereof to an incoming tenant."

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN

believed the Amendment would very much simplify the matter and save a great deal of discussion. He would only make a verbal criticism. It seemed to him the word "manurial" was hardly admissible, inasmuch as although intelligible it was not English.

MR. KNIGHT expressed his regret that part of the Bill was handed over to the valuers, and contended that there was nothing more difficult to ascertain than the manurial value. In his opinion there ought to be some competent authority, such as the Inclosure Commissioners, who should make an analysis of different manurial values and fix some authorized manurial value.

VISCOUNT GALWAY said, he would like to do away with values altogether, if possible.

MR. R. E. PLUNKETT felt some difficulty as to "manurial value-what did the adjective mean? It would be possible to put upon it great varieties of meaning. Adam Smith said that nations were directed, governed, and "manured," by three sorts of persons. Of course, if the First Lord of the Treasury, who was so great a literary authority, vouched for the word "manurial," and would undertake the parentage of this unusual adjective, he had no more to say; but, if not, he hoped the phrase "value of manures" would be accepted by the House.

MR. WHITWELL believed that these valuations would really be settlements as between neighbours,

MR. NEWDEGATE said, he had heard of so many errors made by valuers that he thought it desirable not to trust too much to them. He would ask the Prime Minister in all good faith whether he meant to attach to the word "manurial" anything beyond " productiveness" in an agricultural sense. He concluded, however, that there must be some extra meaning to the word.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON agreed that the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Wilts (Sir George Jenkinson) relegated the Bill to a considerable extent to valuers. Practically it would be found most convenient for the landlord and tenant to make their own agreements and lay down a scale with regard to manurial value; but what the Committee wanted to know, and did not yet know, was how far landlords and tenants under those agreements would continue under the provisions of the Bill? He admitted, however, that this Amendment was an improvement.

MR. GOLDNEY believed that the 16th section, under which the landlord and tenant might agree as to the amount, mode, and time of compensation, without contracting themselves out of the Bill, sufficiently answered the remarks of the noble Lord.

COLONEL BRISE thanked the Government for the Amendment.

MR. WELBY pointed out that the word "manurial was in common use in agricultural discussions as well as in existing agreements.

MR. DISRAELI said, that if the word “manurial” had not yet become English, it was likely soon to become so, after all the remarks that had been made about it. To prevent any difficulty, as it was unnecessary, he would propose to leave it out of the clause, and to retain simply "the value thereof."

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON observed, it was only fair that honour should be given to whom honour was due. The Committee had, by a large majority, rejected the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for North Devonshire, and a great deal of time had been spent over this matter of compensation for improvements; but he would leave it to the Committee to say what was the difference in effect between his hon. Friend's proposal and what had been agreed to.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 9 (Consent of landlord for first class).

COLONEL DYOTT moved, in page 4, line 7, after "first," to insert " or of the second." His object was that the consent of the landlord should be given to improvements of the second class, as well as of the first.

MR. HUNT hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would not press the Amendment. As the improvements of the second class stood upon a different footing from those of the first, it would create obstruction and very unneces sarily hamper the action of the tenant. If it were carried, a tenant could not lay dawn half-a-dozen loads of clay without writing to his landlord.

MR. NEWDEGATE said, he did not see the value of giving notice to the landlord of improvements, if he were not to have any notice of their application. Some of those were very large, amounting to £10, £12, or £20 per acre, and the tenant, after he had received notice to quit, might enter upon them. He knew lands upon which bones had no effect, and others upon which marling was carried to such an extent as to positively destroy the production. He also knew lands upon which the application of chalk was deleterious. As the Bill stood, the only check that the land

MR. HUNT said, that as the Amendment dealt with the subject-matter of the third class of improvement, the words could have no other meaning than that which his right hon. Friend had in

view.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to. On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be agreed to?"

VOL. CCXXVI. [THIRD SERIES.]

difference arose directly after Lady Day, that would practically amount to two years. It would be far simpler to say that the landlord's consent should be requisite, than to place him in the invidious position of enforcing his notice to quit. He should support the Amendment.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, the object of the notice was to give the landlord the right to see that the work

D

MR. ASSHETON considered the landlord should have some control over the improvements included in the second class, as he had in the case of the improvements of the first class. In many instances he was a better judge than the tenant of the necessity of such improvements. Besides that, he was the person who would have ultimately to pay for them.

MR. HUNT pointed out that the landlord could, if he desired, contract that second-class improvements should have his written consent.

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN said, the proposed restriction could subject the tenant to restrictions which would make farming impracticable, would be intolerable to the tenant farmers, and render the Act unpopular. Anyone possessed of agricultural experience would know that, in practice, it would be most vexatious and annoying to require that no tenant could put a load of chalk on his land without "the written consent of his landlord."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CHAPLIN moved, in page 4, line 7, after " class," to insert "or of the second class when it is made after he has given or received notice to quit." A considerable sum of money would, in some cases, be spent for which the landlord was responsible, and there was nothing unreasonable in giving him the power of saying whether that expenditure should be incurred. In cases where notice to quit had been given, some provision should be made enabling the landlord to put a stop to improvements from which the tenant could not possibly benefit.

MR. HUNT said, that the Amendment would come in better at the end of the 10th clause.

MR. HUNT said, that the Amendment would render it necessary for the landlord to keep watch over every farm to see what the tenant was doing. While he was attending to his Parliamentary duties in London, one of his tenants in Northamptonshire might be executing improvements of which he knew nothing. Every landlord would require the eyes of Argus, if this Amendment were agreed to.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON moved, in page 4, line 8, to add at the end of the clause the words

"and unless at the expiration of the tenancy the improvement is either in substantial repair, good working order, or condition of growth."

MR. HUNT did not see any objection to the adoption of the Amendment.

MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN pointed out that these were precisely the points which the valuers would have to consider, and hoped the Government would re-consider their decision.

MR. M'LAGAN also trusted that the Government would not accept the Amendment, as it would amount, in his opinion, to simple confiscation of the tenant's property.

MR. CHAPLIN approved of the proposed Amendment.

SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE saw no harm in the introduction of these words.

MR. JACKSON thought they were not inconsistent with the spirit of the Bill.

SIR HENRY JAMES, after an allusion to the thin appearance of the benches, remarked, that although they might not be able to defeat the power of the Government, and also the influence of the landlords, on whichever side of the House they sat, yet they could make apparent the effect of this Amend

fiscation. The Amendment had reference to permanent improvements under Class I, upon which the tenant with the consent of his landlord might have spent hundreds of pounds, and yet if the valuer at the expiration of the tenancy should determine that the buildings were not in substantial repair, the tenant's property in them was confiscated. ["No, no!"] The effect of the Amendment