asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the accident which happened at the coal-pit known as Gornel Wood on the 3rd February 1872, at which pit it is alleged that after the part known as Crowns End fell in men were sent to work, and a man named Eli Jones was drowned, and four others escaped with great difficulty; whether, in the report of the mines inspector, any negligence was attributed to the manager in sending the men to work under such circumstances; and, whether the mines inspector, or any officer under the Government, has now power to control such matters, and prevent men being set to work in pits where there is manifest danger to life?

in reply, said, that his attention had not been called to the accident in question until he had seen the Notice of the hon. Gentleman on the Paper. This was an accident which had happened long before he had the honour of taking the office which he now held, and the Question of the hon. Member did not afford sufficient information to enable him to ascertain the circumstances without considerable trouble. In the first place, the hon. Gentleman was wrong in the main part of his Question; he was wrong in stating that four persons were injured besides the man who was killed, for there were only three injured. The hon. Gentleman was also wrong in stating that the man was drowned, for he was killed by a fall of earth; and he was wrong in implying that the man lost his life in consequence of something which had happened before, for it was a slip of earth which caused his death. The accident occurred on the 3rd of February, 1872, and he had a Report from the Inspector, in which he said that from all he could see on his inspection the subsidence of the earth, the primary cause which led to the accident, was beyond human control. As to whether the Mines Inspector or any officer of Government had power to control such matters and prevent men being set to work in pits where there was manifest danger to life, the hon. Member himself had precisely the same sources of information which he had—namely, the Coal Mines Regulation Act; and if he would be good enough to look to the 46th section of the Act and to the General Rule No. 6, Section 5, he would find all the powers that he knew of.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, as the Indian Budget accounts are now printed, and appear to show an expenditure of two millions over receipts, he can name a day for the discussion of this important Budget?

Sir, I am afraid that the hon. Member has confused three separate years' accounts. The Budget Estimate to be presented will be for 1875–6, and in that Estimate there will be a surplus of revenue over ordinary expenditure of upwards of £500,000. It is perfectly true that upon the accounts of the two preceding years, 1873–4 and 1874–5, which are not Budget accounts, but actual and regular accounts, there is a deficit of upwards of £2,000,000 over the ordinary revenue. But last year that deficit was estimated at upwards of £3,500,000. We are therefore £1,500,000 better off than we anticipated. As I am unable to control Public Business, it is impossible to fix definitely a day at present for the Indian Financial Statement, but as soon as the progress of other Government measures permits a day to be fixed upon I shall be glad to give that information so that hon. Gentlemen who take an interest in the matter may make their arrangements accordingly.

, in moving to insert words making the clause applicable to breaches of contract by others than workmen, said: The object of my Amendment is to make this clause applicable, not only to a breach of contract on the part of a workman, but also on the part of any other person who has a contract, the non-fulfilment of which may deprive a community of a supply of gas or water. I would remind hon. Members that since this clause passed through Committee in its present form, a great change has taken place in the policy of the Government with reference to the Bill now under consideration. So strong was the feeling of the House in favour of the Amendment of the right hon. Member for London University (Mr. Lowe), and so evident was it that any measure which dealt with working men in a different or harsher manner than that in which it dealt with other members of the community would not be looked upon as a settlement of what has been called the labour question, that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary came down to this House last week with the important intimation that he was prepared to repeal the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and virtually to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Member for London University by inserting a clause which, while dealing effectively with those offences against which the Criminal Law Amendment Act was directed, cannot hurt the feelings of any working man, for it applies not to workmen specially, but to any person. I beg to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon adopting a course which I believe will give general satisfaction, and in the same spirit I ask hon. Members not to weaken in any way the operation of this clause, but by adopting my Amendment, to take away from it the character of class legislation which it at present possesses. The object of the clause is to prevent the inhabitants of a city or town being suddenly deprived of a supply of gas or water, and with this view you propose to deal exceptionally with working men. By passing the Employers and Workmen Bill, you have told them that, in any other contract of service, a breach of such contract shall not be dealt with criminally, but in this particular instance it shall be held as criminal. I do not object to this, but I would ask hon. Members—why deal with one kind of contract in this exceptional manner? If the object is to ensure a regular supply of gas and water, why not apply the same legislation to all who are connected with the providing of that supply? Why not embrace contracts of maintenance and contracts for materials as well as contracts of service? It has already been pointed out that the non-fulfilment of a contract to supply coals might interfere with a supply of gas as much as the refusal on the part of a workman to put coals into a retort; and let me point out that in the event of the main supply pipe bursting, and the tradesman who had contracted to maintain such pipes refusing to make the necessary repairs, the consequence, so far as regards the supply of gas, might be as injurious as if the gas had never been made, and yet this tradesman cannot be fined or imprisoned, while a working man, employed directly by the gas company, for refusing to do precisely the same thing, may be thrown into prison. It may be said, and I think justly, that such breaches of contract of maintenance or for materials are not likely to occur. If so, there is less difficulty in making this clause of general application, so that the law shall be enforced impartially against workmen or other persons who may be guilty of the offences of which this Bill takes cognizance.

said, that this question had already been discussed in Committee, and he would not now refer to it at any length. He demurred to the statement that this clause simply affected working men. By the striking out of the word "workmen" and the substitution of the word "person," it affected not working men alone, but the manager, the head of the staff, and any person who was employed in whatever capacity by a gas or water company or corporation. The clause as it already stood involved a great extension of the Criminal Law, and he could not agree, as the hon. Member proposed, to apply it to all contracts. He maintained, however, that it was an unfair interpretation to say that the clause affected the working classes only.

regretted that the Committee had not made the clause perfectly equal as between employers and employed, and that the clause had not been applied to the companies and the contractors as well as the workmen.

had always heard that a company had neither a body to be kicked, nor a soul to be damned. He did not see, therefore, how the clause could be applied to companies.

said, that as a matter of fact companies had been indicted and punished.

Imprisoned?

Not imprisoned, but fined.

said, the matter stood thus—When any person employed in what the right hon. Gentleman called "service" should wilfully and maliciously break his contract of service, &c., he should be liable to be punished; but if a person made a contract other than that of service, with exactly the same person, and then did exactly the same thing—that was, maliciously broke the contract—that person was not to be punished criminally at all. The question was made entirely to depend on the contract of service. The person was to have no punishment at all, unless he was under a particular kind of contract of service. The right hon. Gentleman did this in a Bill of which he had said the leading principle was to abolish all distinctions as regarded criminality between contracts of service and contracts not of service. He must say he felt himself humiliated, as a Member of that House, that it should be in the power of a majority to pass such a law as that.

said, that under this clause an employer might break a contract wilfully and maliciously, and yet he was to go scot-free; whereas a workman, clerk, underlooker, or any person under contract of service, was to be punished. That would be a most unequal and unjust enactment.

asked what would be the use of omitting the word "service" in order to bring in a company, against whom the clause could not be enforced by imprisonment? There was now a perfect remedy against gas companies, who were liable to heavy penalties, so that it was idle to say the workman was placed at a disadvantage.

said, it was a mistake to suppose that the clause applied only to companies. It contained the word "contractor," and it would allow him to break his contract with impunity, because it was not a contract of service. He might have contracted to supply a town with gas at 4s. per thousand, and he might say, "Unless you give me 5s. I will turn off the gas." This clause would not punish him, and yet it would punish a workman for a smaller act, resulting in less serious consequences. He did not know how to reconcile the clause with the professions of a desire to deal equally with all classes. To do that we must punish alike all who broke contracts.

said, he could well understand why the right hon. Member for the London University should feel "humiliated;" but there was an obvious distinction between contracts of personal service and other contracts which could be enforced by penalties or special damages.

said, the clause applied exclusively to persons who were employed, and it did not apply to employers, contractors, companies, or municipal authorities. It would not, for instance, reach a tradesman who contracted to supply gas-pipes or to repair them.

moved, in page 2, line 36, to omit the words "of service." He said that as the clause originally stood the words were, "Where an employer or a workman wilfully and maliciously breaks a contract of service." Now, there the clause evidently applied both to employer and employed. In Committee, however, the word "person" was substituted for "employer or workman." It now, therefore, stood that any one so breaking "a contract of service" would be liable to punishment under the clause. This seemed to give the clause a one-sided application, while surely if a contract was maliciously and wilfully broken, in such a manner as to endanger property or even life, the person so acting should be liable to punishment, whether he was the employer or employed. He moved, therefore, to omit the words "of service."

supported the Amendment, and expressed a hope that it would be accepted by the Home Secretary.

said, he must decline to assent to the Amendment, which proposed to extend the operation of the Bill to contracts other than of service. The question had been discussed and decided when the House was in Committee on the Bill.

moved an Amendment to leave out from "abstain from doing" to the end of the clause, and to insert—

"Shall persistently follow such other person about, or hide any property owned or used by such other person, or deprive him of the use thereof, or with one or more persons follow such person in a disorderly manner, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months."

If the Amendment were adopted the result would be that the clause would be confined to two classes of offences, rattening and persistently following. All the other offences it now proposed to deal with were already the subject of criminal enactment, and it was undesirable that the same offence should be punishable under two statutes. He should not trouble the House by taking a division, but if the Government did not accept the Amendment he would leave the responsibility on their shoulders.

protested against the clause standing in its present shape.

was in favour of the alteration of the clause in the manner proposed. He believed it would be very difficult to draw an indictment under the clause, and then it would remain for the Judge to determine what the offence was, and to direct the jury accordingly. The prisoner, moreover, would be deprived of his appeal against a summary conviction.

objected, as he had done previously, to the clause as being too vague in its terms.

observed that the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had been thoroughly thrashed out in Committee, and therefore it was unnecessary for him to do more than say that he could not accept the proposed Amendment. He hoped that the right hon. Member for the University of London would not feel "humiliated" by a portion of his words haying been adopted in the clause as it now stood.

thought that there was nothing dangerous in the clause except the words "seriously annoyed," for which he suggested that the words "unjustifiably annoyed" should be substituted.

repeated what he had said in the former discussion, although it had then been challenged, that the clause created a new offence in giving power to A to prosecute B for threatening C. The right hon. Gentleman said that the clause was intended to protect workmen against workmen, but that was Parliamentary hypocrisy. It was intended really to give the master again the power taken away from him by the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

said, that in the part of the country of which he had the honour to be a Representative there was not the smallest sympathy with the captious criticism of hon. Gentlemen opposite upon the Bill. On the contrary, there was in every part of the port of Liverpool, on both sides of the Mersey, and in South-west Lancashire generally, a feeling of the greatest satisfaction that the settlement of these difficult questions should have fallen to a Gentleman who was so much one of themselves as the Home Secretary.

said, one result of the Amendment would be to prevent this general Act from being more stringent than the Criminal Law Amendment Act. He sympathized with that object, but could not vote for his hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, which proceeded to strike out the words inserted at the instance of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lowe) with regard to serious annoyance, and would so get rid of any means of preventing picketing. There had been an honourable understanding on this point, and any such Amendment should have been brought forward at an earlier period.

thought the Home Secretary should have little difficulty in altering the clause so as to make it command the respect of the Judges, which in its present shape could hardly be expected. As the words "seriously to annoy" were obviously meant to prevent rattening and picketing, why not confine it to those offences? Under the Bill even practical joking might become an object of criminal prosecution. He should certainly insist on a division unless the Government modified the clause.

reminded the House that we lived in days of combinations of all sorts, and acts which were innocent in themselves became criminal if done in combination for unlawful objects.

moved an Amendment, the object of which was to make the Act applicable to seamen. He argued that the working classes afloat had as much right to have their interests equally protected with the working classes on shore. Yet there had always been, and would continue to be, a great discrepancy between the position of these two sections of the same class if the Bill under consideration were passed as it stood. The workman on shore not only had his health guarded, but also his political liberties and privileges, whereas the sailor was subject to an exceptional law, which operated towards him most unjustly. The sailor, for instance, was liable in many cases to summary arrest and a long term of imprisonment for refusing to proceed to sea in his ship, although, rightly considered, that act was a mere breach of contract, for which the working man on shore would be lightly punished. That was an anomaly which ought at once to be rectified. For his part he could not see why owners should be allowed to exercise the arbitrary powers with which they were endowed as long as a vessel was in British waters, where the ordinary course of the law could be appealed to. Sailors were in this respect very hardly treated. Within the last two years seven gas stokers and five cabinet-makers only had been imprisoned for breach of contract, and their case had been the subject of leaders in the newspapers and had excited all England from one end to the other, whereas within exactly the same period no fewer than 1,096 sailors had been arrested without warrant and cast into gaol for refusing to sail in particular ships. What rendered this injustice all the more severe was the fact that in most cases the ships in which the seamen refused to sail had been proved, by subsequent experience, to be unseaworthy. He knew of one case where a sailor asked to be released from his contract because his ship was not seaworthy. His request was refused, but he preferred to go to gaol rather than run the risk of going to sea; and his fears were fully realized, for the vessel went down with her crew. He could mention many such cases. In one instance a ship had been surveyed and certain things were ordered to be done. The owner refused. The report of the surveyor was that "the ship in her present condition was utterly unfit to go to sea with human life on board;" but it was sent to sea notwithstanding. The sailors found the ship so leaky that they went ashore at Deal or Sandwich, and the owner who refused to execute the repairs ordered, sent these men to gaol for 10 or 11 weeks. Another crew was put on board, the vessel went to sea, and never was heard of afterwards. Was it right that English subjects should be sent to gaol because they refused to go to sea in a vessel they believed to be in a condition perilous to human life? What was the case of the Wimbledon of Cardiff? They were very ready to commit at Cardiff; perhaps more committals occurred at Cardiff than at Liverpool. The crew of the Wimbledon were sent to gaol for 10 weeks. A second crew were brought before the magistrate; they were ordered either to go to sea or to gaol. One half of the crew went to sea, the other half preferred to go to prison. A third crew were brought up, and they were sent to gaol also. In a few days a portion of a fourth crew was brought up. By this time the magistrates began to think there must be something in the complaints of the men, and they ordered the vessel to be surveyed. But before this could be made, the captain took the ship to sea, and she was lost; yet the men who had refused to go in her were compelled to serve out their time in prison. Nor was that all that was to be said upon the point. He had ascertained that out of 497 vessels ordered to be detained by the Board of Trade on account of alleged un-seaworthiness, only 15 had actually been found to be seaworthy. Further, it might be mentioned that on the 3rd of this month there were no fewer than 2,654 vessels which had lost their character and forfeited their class, the owners of which were yet able to send their crews to gaol for refusing to go to sea in un-seaworthy or overladen ships. And how were some of these ships loaded? Why, the Thornbury went out recently with a crew of between 20 and 30 men. She was only 957 tons net register, and yet she was allowed to depart with a cargo of 2,122 tons, only to go to the bottom the second day after she had departed. The brother of one of those who were lost in the ship wrote to him (Mr. Plimsoll) that his brother had told him on the eve of sailing that the ship was not safe, and that his only reason for not leaving her was his fear of being imprisoned. In that way we drove men to their death by laws which had no justification, for whatever necessity there might be for strengthening the hands of a captain at sea, the ordinary law was sufficient when he was at home. The Board of Trade in their Return admitted seizing 48 vessels for overloading, and said that in no case did they find the allegation unfounded; but that number of cases afforded no indication of the extent of the evil, because, from a very deficient list of the vessels that left our ports, he had selected—omitting all doubtful cases and all cases of moderate overloading—no fewer than 662 cases of excessive overloading since the 28th of July last year.

informed the hon. Member that he failed to see the relevancy of these statements on the overloading of ships to the clause under consideration. The hon. Member appeared to be discussing the Merchant Shipping Bill.

merely wished to enforce his argument by these statistics. He would tell the House what sort of people exercised these arbitrary powers. They were not respectable and well-known shipowners, with large numbers of vessels, and who had been in business many years without loss of ships or life. He was preparing a list of good shipowners, and also a list of those whose losses were so numerous and dreadful, and in whose ships so many men went to death; and he should be glad to submit this information to the House on a future occasion. In the 12 months ending June last year, 6,927 men were drowned, and all the evidence showed that these fatalities might have been prevented. Were men sent to gaol by the Allan Line, the Cunard Company, the Peninsular and Oriental Company, Smith's, Brocklebank's, George Thompson, junr., George Holt, the National Line, the Cape Mail, or the Royal Mail Line? Yet, if loss or inconvenience were to be guarded against, surely protection was most needed by those who carried mails under heavy penalties. The Cunard Company had 49 steamers and a large number of sailing vessels, and yet in 12 years they had not sent 10 seamen to gaol. Who, then, were the men who sent these seamen to prison? They were the owners of coffin ships, ship-knackers, people who, as he had recently stated in that House, insured their ships for £36,000 when they were worth only £ 15,000—people who systematically overloaded their ships primarily to earn more freight, but sometimes—he declared it with shame and sorrow—to get from the insurers money for the ship. Not only was there great loss of life, but intense suffering was endured by the men before they died. This had not always been so. The position of seamen had become infinitely worse since the present permanent officials of the Board of Trade had had the management of the Mercantile Marine committed to their care. A Committee appointed in 1839 to inquire into the causes of loss of life at sea had detailed many dreadful instances of dreadful suffering, and recommended that no deck loads should be carried in timber-laden vessels from North America.—["Order!"]

pointed out that the question of deck loading had no reference whatever to the Bill before the House.

was aware of the difficulty with which he had to deal, but he would be extremely obliged if the House would listen to matters which were of enormous interest.

said, it was competent for the hon. Member to address the House on any matter relevant to the clause under consideration.

wished to give reasons for extending the operation of this Bill to seamen. In 1843 a Committee confirmed the legislation adopted in 1839, and in 1853 it was re-enacted; but in 1862, with scarcely a word of explanation, the prohibition of deck loading was swept away and the requirement that ships should be built in compartments was withdrawn. The case of the seamen had become so much worse during the last few years, that unless the House could be induced to come to the rescue he did not know what would be the consequences, and he therefore now proposed his Amendment.

said, no one could listen to the hon. Member for Derby without interest and instruction, for the hon. Gentleman had paid so much attention to this matter, and was so thoroughly in earnest, that he always spoke with authority on the subject. So far as he (Mr. Cross) was individually concerned, he was aware of the state of the relations between sailors and their masters, and in some cases he should be glad to see relief afforded to them, but he must put it to the House whether some Notice should not have been given of this Amendment. The Bill had been before the House and the country for a great number of weeks, and yet no Notice had been given, and if these words were struck out, and every ship-owner and sailor throughout the country found next day that the House had dealt with the matter in a hurry, instead of promoting peace and goodwill, it would produce a great deal of consternation and bitterness. If it were in his power to do so, this was a case in which he should do most justice to feelings by moving the Previous Question. This was not a proper opportunity for discussing the matter. Supposing he had intended to deal with it, he (Mr. Cross) should have taken the trouble to ascertain the views both of owners and sailors, but as these matters were dealt with by a Department under the presidency of another Member of the Government, he had not presumed to interfere. He hoped the House would not be led away into this question, but would reserve it to a more suitable time, instead of interrupting the progress of this Bill.

argued that the whole of the provisions of the Bill were entirely inapplicable to the sea service, and urged the House to reject the Amendment.

remarked that this was a Bill of Pains and Penalties, inflicting a number of punishments. It was applicable to the whole of Her Majesty's subjects, including the Members of that House. There was but one class to whom it was not applicable—namely, seamen and apprentices in the sea service, and the hon. Member for Derby proposed to benefit that class by depriving them of that exemption and by making them liable to its provisions.

recommended the hon. Member not to press his Amendment, but stated that when the Merchant Shipping Bill was again under consideration he would move the omission of the penal clauses, with the object of placing seamen on a footing with other classes of the community.

joined in the request that the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) would not press his Motion to a division. In cases where seamen laboured under conditions as between employers and employed, similar to those under which other classes of workmen laboured, the same legislation which was thought right for others should equally be applied to sailors. It might be desirable for the House to consider what those conditions were, and wherein the work performed by sailors differed from that performed by other classes of the community. Ordinary breach of contract on the part of seamen might be broadly classed under one or other of three separate heads, which he would ask the Home Secretary to consider. Sailors actually at sea who failed in their contracts, or who deserted abroad, were under exceptional conditions, and he (Mr. Mac Iver) feared that it was necessary to treat such cases with exceptional legislation. The safety of life and property depended in such cases on seamen being compelled to fulfil their contracts, and therefore he did not think the provisions of the Home Secretary's Bill could reasonably be applied to such cases as those. Nor could the measure be fairly applied to the second class of offences—namely, those breaches of contract where sailors in British ports received money in advance and then failed to join their ships. That was not an ordinary breach of contract, and he thought it might fairly be dealt with exceptionally. But a much larger class of cases was where sailors, without receiving an advance of wages, and often without really intending to fail in their contracts, simply omitted to go on board to fulfil their agreements. Of course, this involved no more substantial loss to the ship-owner than was involved to other employers of labour whose workmen failed in their contracts; and, surely, sailors in such cases ought not to be treated with exceptional severity. He asked the House to remember what were, unfortunately, the conditions of a sailor's life. Many of them, without family ties, were specially liable to temptation; and the mistaken Board of Trade legislation of recent years had, however well intended, done much to degrade the sailor. Why was it that exceptional legislation was necessary? Was it because the Board of Trade had failed in its duty with reference to the inspection of vessels? He had no desire to detain the House, but he felt that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Derby was not the right way to deal with the question. They had, however, a right to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, on the part of the Government, to consider it. The existing law was unsatisfactory, and he hoped his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, if he could not at present remove those evils, would at least do nothing to perpetuate them. Surely sailors, having by the nature of their calling scarcely a voice in the representation of the country, should receive the utmost consideration of hon. Members. He left their case in the hands of the Home Secretary, feeling confident that he would do that which was right.

said, that when the hon. Member for Derby saw two or three Bills going through the House, professing to be intended to ameliorate the condition of the working class, it was natural he should take exception to the clause that appeared in each of them excluding seamen from the operation of the measures. He was one of those who was glad the Merchant Shipping Bill had not been changed, as some interested people hoped, and many more feared, it would be, and when they reached it he would certainly give his support to the hon. Member for Derby.

moved to leave out "provisions" in line 23 inclusive, and insert—

"Every person found liable on conviction to pay any penalty under this Act shall be liable, in default of payment within a time to be fixed on conviction, to be imprisoned for a term to be also fixed therein, not exceeding two months, or until such penalty shall be sooner paid, and the conviction and warrant may be in the form of No. 3 of Schedule K."

explained that the object of the Amendment was to adapt the Summary Procedure Act of 1864 to the Scotch legal system.

moved to insert in page 1, line 11, after the word "Ireland," the words—

"Nor shall it extend to any holding in England or Wales in respect of which a written agreement is in existence between the landlord and his tenant at the date of the commencement of this Act."

One objection that might be made to his proposition was that many of these agreements were old-fashioned, but he did not know that this was a fault. He contended that when once you opened the door to tampering with existing contracts it was impossible to say what injury might result. If a vote were taken on the Amendment he should claim the votes of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford City and of the right hon. Gentleman who sat for the University of London. Every one who had a regard for the rights of property should object to such a tampering with old agreements. He objected to put upon landlords the invidious odium which was sought to be imposed upon them—namely, that they had the power to contract themselves out of the Bill. Why should the attempt be made to disturb the relations existing between old tenants and landlords, when from generation to generation—in many cases for centuries—farms had been in the hands of the same families. Was it to be supposed that Parliament could lay down one particular rule which could be successfully applied all over England. There were two classes of cases—one of them of tenants who held under written contract, and the other of tenants who did not hold under any contract whatever, but simply a verbal agreement; and he did not know of any cases of hardship on tenants calling for special legislation except in two cases—one, in which the tenant, not having any agreement, had improved his land, and in which his landlord turned him out and took possession of the land without giving him any compensation; and the other where an estate was sold, or changed ownership, and the purchaser or new owner raised the rent, and as the tenant did not agree to accept the terms turned him out. One short clause would cure all that. There were good landlords as well as bad, but it was no sufficient reason, because such a measure as the present was required for the latter, that the former should be even indirectly injuriously affected by it. He had heard that a Member of the Cabinet had expressed an opinion to the effect that the Amendment was not necessary, as it merely expressed the meaning and intention of the Government. If that were so, there could not, he thought, be any objection to that meaning and intention being clearly expressed; but when he turned to Clause 46 he found a provision which enabled any landlord who so desired to free himself from—or, as the phrase was, to contract himself out of—the provisions of the Bill. That clause involved a great principle, and forced a very invidious necessity on a good landlord who gave his tenants fair agreements, by putting on him the odium of serving a notice on his tenants that they were not to participate in the advantages of this Bill, and it was to avoid this unfair and disagreeable necessity that he was anxious to have it plainly stated that existing agreements should be upheld.

thought the Committee would agree that the Amendment of his hon. Friend was not germane to the clause in connection with which it was sought to be introduced. This clause referred to territorial extent, and not to question of tenancies, and it seemed objectionable to introduce the Amendment as proposed. But he thought that not only was the Amendment not germane to the clause, but that it would be indiscreet to force such an opinion upon the Committee. He could not believe that such a course was prudent or proper. The opinion of hon. Members, and even of the hon. Baronet himself, might be modified in the course of the passage of the Bill through Committee. However important the Amendment might be, and, no doubt, it was an important one, it was not germane to a clause providing that this Act should not extend to Scotland or Ireland. If the Amendment were moved at all, it might be better moved at another stage of the Bill. Irrespective of the objection he had stated, the Amendment was so worded that it did not limit the duration of the agreements to which it referred, and he hoped it would not be pressed.

said, he trusted that one result of this discussion would be to put the Bill with reference to existing agreements into a reasonable shape, because unless, that were done, it would give rise to difficulties and heart-burnings among agriculturists of all classes. It would, however, be better to discuss this matter at the end than at the beginning.

entirely concurred in the objects and principle of the Bill, but contended that legislation should not abrogate contracts entered into by persons with their eyes open. Many existing agreements had been drawn up with great care and pains, with the express object of avoiding subsequent legislation that might interfere with arrangements which both parties preferred to make for themselves. While, therefore, he thought that the Amendment might be proposed at a more convenient time, he hoped the Government would see their way to accept the principle contained in it.

was disposed to concur in the Amendment if it were proposed in its proper place, seeing that the effect of the Bill would be to put an end to existing agreements of yearly tenancies—a result exceeding undesirable both to landlord and tenant. The question was one of very great importance, and it was desirable that the Committee should, at this early stage of the Bill, know what were the intentions of the Government in reference to the question.

denied that the Bill would put an end to every agreement; it only gave the tenant the advantage of going to the landlord for compensation for the usual acts of husbandry and unexhausted improvements, instead of leaving him to his remedy at law or to go to the incoming tenant. The Bill also gave a simple remedy by arbitration, instead of driving a man into a Court of Law; and it provided that a tenant's remedy should lie against the person who was in actual possession of the land. For want of such a provision a tenant at the late Assizes at Salisbury had been non-suited, the land having changed hands, and his claim to compensation being ignored both by the late and present landlord.

said, that, with some knowledge of the wishes of the farmers in his county, he did not believe that, on the whole, they wanted the Bill at all. At all events, existing agreements, drawn up with the greatest possible care, should not be altered in this summary way. Inequitable agreements might exist, but, on the whole, landlords only desired to do what was was fair to their tenants. Such a provision was likely to cause heartburnings and annoyances, and he could hardly conceive a more unwise act on the part of a Conservative Government than to propose this harassing legislation.

thought that the progress of the Bill would depend greatly upon what was done in this question, and he joined in the appeal which had been made to the Government to give the Committee some information as to their views.

said, that, before the Government gave the explanation for which they were asked, he wished to express a hope that the hon. Baronet would not persist in his Amendment. He deprecated any interference with freedom of contract, maintaining the absolute right of landlord and tenant to enter into what agreements they pleased. He should feel no delicacy or difficulty in contracting himself out of the Bill, and there were some cases in which, in justice to the tenant for life, he should feel called upon to do so. In any case he protested against having freedom of contract restricted. The principal object of the Bill, as far as regarded compensation to tenants for a certain class of improvements, was to reverse the presumption at present in favour of the landlord and give it to the tenant. The reason for that was very simple. In former times, when tenants were a very poor class, and lived from hand to mouth, they put nothing into the land except what they expected the next crop to return. Then it was fair that what was in the land should belong to the landlord. But the presumption now was, that what was put into the soil ought to belong to the tenant. There were, however, many agreements of old standing in which that presumption was not at all recognized. In that respect the operation of old leases would, in many cases, be inequitable and unjust to the tenant, and would have to be amended by the landlord. He himself had at this moment a farm which had been leased for 14 years, and which the tenant was about to quit. Under the terms of the lease the tenant would have no claim to compensation for expenses for cake, but it was only fair that compensation should be made for it. Such an agreement would have to be supplemented by another agreement, or by legislation of this kind. He did think, however, as matter of form, that the present part of the Bill was not the best place to introduce this Amendment, and that the Amendment could be made more properly on the 46th clause. Therefore, though he would be happy to go with his hon. Friend at the proper time, he trusted he would withdraw the Amendment for the present.

hoped his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government would make some statement to the Committee on this most important question. As most people knew, four-fifths of the land of this country was held upon yearly agreements, many of which in various parts of England were considered better than any lease, and had gone on for hundreds of years from generation to generation. It would be a most unwise and injudicious thing if, as it were by a stroke of the pen, this Bill was to upset these arrangements. Knowing as he did the feeling of the agricultural classes in this country, he was sure that nothing would tend to facilitate the passing of the Bill so much as a declaration by his right hon. Friend that he did not intend in any way to interfere with those agreements which had now existed so long.

said, he was sorry he could not yield to the appeals which had been made to him on both sides to make a declaration on a particular point involved in the Amendment. The House had accepted the principle of the Bill which was now in Committee, and it only remained to discuss the clauses. It would be not only unusual, but inconvenient to give a crude and almost abstract opinion, which might be misunderstood, upon points raised by hon. Gentlemen; whereas, if they were considered in relation to the language of a future clause, they could then be critically examined, and effect given to the views expressed. He certainly did not expect from any clause in the Bill the consequences anticipated by his hon. Friend the Member for North Wilts. It would be quite possible, as the Committee proceeded, to prevent any wholesale issue of notices to quit. They must, however, go on cautiously, if they wished to carry the Bill, which, from the manner in which the second reading was agreed to, he presumed there was a sincere desire on both sides of the House to do. ["No, no!"] If not, he was at a loss to understand why they had agreed to the second reading? When his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter Barttelot) told the Committee that four-fifths of the tenants of England held on yearly agreements, and were in the position of yearly tenants, that was an observation which cut both ways, and a very interesting inference might be drawn from that statistical fact. He trusted the Committee would come to a decision on the Amendment; and he confidently anticipated, if they proceeded, that the inconveniences apprehended, if not removed entirely, would be largely mitigated; and that, without forfeiting the object which it was proposed to accomplish by the Bill.

said, he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, in hoping that the Committee would come to a decision on this Amendment, because that was certainly not the most convenient time for that purpose. It was evident that the view of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wilts would receive a great deal of support on both sides, but he would hardly raise the question fairly if he persisted in dividing on this occasion. No doubt, the subject merited full discussion, and he was quite surprised that the Government had not made up their minds on the question. The Committee would have a further opportunity of considering the question before they reached the 46th clause, and before then he would recommend hon. Members to obtain from the Government some information as to the extent of the operation the clause might have. He did not understand the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter Barttelot) to say that four-fifths of the land of England was held under yearly tenancies, but that a very large portion of it was held under tenancies which would be affected by this Amendment. [Sir WALTER BARTTELOT: Hear, hear!] Could the Government give an estimate of the number of holdings which would be affected by it? His own opinion was that a large proportion of the soil of England would be excluded by the Amendment from the operation of the Bill. Nor did he think that would be a matter to be regretted, as the Bill was an extremely imperfect measure. He was sorry the Government had not taken the advice which had been given them to consider the subject. If they had put it off for another year, he felt convinced they would have produced a much more satisfactory measure.

expressed his concurrence generally in the views taken by the hon. Baronet (Sir George Jenkinson).

thought the Committee required, before proceeding, the information which the Government, although pressed to do so, were unwilling to give them until they got to the 46th clause, which would altogether disturb the relations between landlords and tenants.

charged the hon. Gentleman with inconsistency, inasmuch as on the previous evening his complaint against the Bill was that it did not go far enough in the way of that disturbance which he now deprecated.

said, his firm belief was that a large proportion—in fact, a great majority—both of landlords and tenants wished to be let alone, and if the proposal of the hon. Baronet was likely to give effect to their wishes it would go a great way. When it was said that freedom of contract was to be the basis on which they were to proceed, how could that be the case, if people were not to have the power of making their bargains? The feeling in that part of the world in which he lived was this—people wished to be let alone, and did not want the bother of having to make fresh bargains, and he believed that was pretty generally the case throughout the country. The times were not bad for the tenants, and when that was the case, anything which brought about a general looking into of everything was not desired by them. He hoped the Government would either accept the proposal of the hon. Baronet, or in some way make it clear that people who were satisfied would not be meddled with.

said, it appeared to him that there was a very simple way out of the difficulty. If he was in Order in doing so, he should be prepared to move the postponement of the consideration of all the clauses up to Clause 46, so that they might really know what they were about.

said, the hon. and learned Member would not be in Order in making such a proposal, until the point before the Committee was decided, and then he would have to move that each clause, as it was proposed, should be postponed.

urged that if exceptions were to be made in favour of leases, they should be also made with regard to other agreements. He hoped the hon. Baronet would withdraw his Amendment until they know what were to be the exceptions in the case of regular leases.

said, he was satisfied with having elicited the opinion of the House, and would withdraw the Amendment till a more convenient stage of the Bill.

moved that the clause be postponed until the Committee had an opportunity of considering Clause 46.

I can only look upon this Motion as conceived in a spirit of the greatest hostility to the measure, and with a determination not to give it a fair hearing. Her Majesty's Government will give the Motion their entire opposition. I would look upon the division as conclusive of the opinion of the House on the Bill.

hoped the hon. and learned Member would not persevere with his Amendment.

called attention to the circumstance that, besides the marginal note of this clause, "Tenant's title to compensation," it was preceded by a heading," Tenant's Compensation for Improvements," and he asked the Chairman whether that heading was part of the Bill.

said, it was of the nature of a marginal note, which was no part of a Bill.

asked whether the promoters of a Bill could insert a heading over which the House had no control? This heading seemed to embody a principle to which he could not agree.

again said, that a title was of the nature of a marginal note, which was shown in this case by identity. ["No, no!"] The Committee could take cognizance only of what the clause proposed to enact. If the clause were amended so that the title became inaccurate, then it could be altered by those having charge of the Bill. If the hon. Member objected to the word "improvements" he should propose to strike it out of the clause.

pointed out that the words in the title to this section of the Bill virtually formed an interpretation clause for several of the subsequent clauses.

said, he had known cases of doubtful construction of Acts of Parliament in which Courts had been influenced by the subdivision of the Act into parts by means of such headings, and therefore it was important that the House should have some control over them.

said, that if the clause were amended the heading could be altered on the Report.

contended that if the heading could be altered on the Report it could be amended in Committee. These headings were put in by the draftsman, who, as they were told last night, acted upon the strict orders of the Government, and this heading embodied a principle he desired to oppose.

supported the ruling of the Chairman that the heading of the clause was no more part of the Bill than the marginal note or the figures numbering the lines on each page. It was simply inserted by the draftsman as a kind of index, and was supposed to be for the convenience of hon. Members. When a Bill was passed those who had charge of it could re-arrange and re-number its clauses if they thought it desirable to do so.

contended that if a heading was no part of a Bill it had no business there.

, in rising to propose an Amendment of which he had given Notice, said, he did not like the Bill, but he would deal fairly by it.

, interposing, said, that, following the ruling of the Chairman, he should, in the heading of the clause—namely, "Tenant's Compensation for Improvements," propose to strike out the words "for improvements."

said, that the point of Order to which the discussion had been directed was as to whether the Committee could strike out or amend the words of the heading of the clause, and he had ruled that it was not competent for them to deal with that line either by excision or Amendment.

said, the 5th clause was as follows:—

"Where, after the commencement of this Act, a tenant executes on his holding an improvement adding to the letting value thereof, he shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of this Act, to obtain, on the determination of the the tenancy, compensation in respect of improvement."

He proposed to omit the word "executes," and insert "lays out money." He objected altogether to classing buildings, and chalkings, and the like with the ordinary processes of growing crops under the common word "improvement." This was not a technical objection, because he contended that scratching the ground and throwing in seed could not be considered as improvement; and it certainly was contrary to the practice of most good managers of property. The ordinary agreement made with a man was that he should "keep his farm in good heart and condition," and "good heart and condition" without manure was practically impossible. It was necessary, then, to draw a wide distinction between permanent improvement and that outlay of the tenant's own money on the landlord's property which was absolutely necessary to grow the crop. He would not go into the questions as to corn and turnips and the like, or even teazles, which certainly was the reductio ad absurdum of this sort of legislation; but it was impossible to grow a crop in 1875 unless last year there had been grown a crop of turnips or some other intermediate crop, and that could not be grown without manure. He maintatned that that was an entirely different thing, although adding to the value of the staple of the soil, to adding to the durable staple of the landlord's property.

said, it was necessary in legislation generally, and especially in legislation of a popular character, to use language that was generally understood. He maintained that in a Bill dealing with subject of this character the word "improvement" had been regularly adopted. The attention of the House was drawn very much a few years ago to a Bill which was introduced by an hon. Gentleman (Mr. Howard)—who was no longer a Member of that House—on this subject, and there the word "improvement" was used throughout, and there were also Schedules. Then, there was also a Bill drawn up on behalf of the Chambers of Agriculture, and in that Bill also the word "improvement" was the chief word upon which all the clauses turned as on a pivot, and there were likewise Schedules. Again, in the House of Lords last year a noble Marquess (the Marquess of Huntly) introduced a Bill of the same character as the present, and there the word "improvement" was that on which all the clauses depended, and there were also Schedules. He must say he thought the observation of the hon. Baronet ought not to influence the opinion of the Committee, and he trusted they would acknowledge that in introducing the word "improvements" and Schedules in the Bill, they had followed the usual course, and that which was sanctioned by authority.

thought it would be absurd for the House to say that a portion of the ordinary farming capital of the tenant was to be called an improvement in an Act of Parliament. He contended that there should be a distinction between permanent improvements, such as putting up new buildings and planting orchards, and those processes which were merely questions of proper farming. He should support the Amendment.

said, all the difficulties arising out of this clause was the result of its mixing two very different things under one term. The first class of improvements in the Bill ought to be separated altogether from Clauses 2 and 3. The first class were for improvements, whereas the operations specified in the second and third Schedules were those of a routine character. He hoped that the Amendment would be withdrawn.

said, that the discussion with respect to the meaning of the word "improvement" reminded him of a dictum of the First Lord of the Treasury, uttered in former days, with respect to the word "progress," then very fashionable. The right hon. Gentleman said—"Yes, progress; but is it progress to Paradise, or progress to the Devil?" The interpretations given of the word improvement in these days were almost as diverse as were those of the word progress. There were improvements to the estate, such as buildings which were understood to be of a permanent character; and there were also agricultural improvements, which consisted of works of a less expensive and durable character, such as the ordinary drainage, the use of artificial food, and the application of manures to the soil. His object, then, was to urge upon the Committee to separate what should be considered an improvement to the estate from what was a common agricultural improvement, and to do this in the classification contained in the clause. He had beside him the several Bills which were introduced by Mr. Pusey, in conjunction with Mr. Denison; and having been for five years in close communication with Mr. Pusey, as a member of the Publication Committee of the Protection Societies, up to the very period when the first Bill was brought in, few Members of the House had had the opportunity of more conversation with Mr. Pusey on this subject than he (Mr. Newdegate), and he felt quite certain that Mr. Pusey—indeed, it was proved by the tenour of his Bills—would have strictly adhered to the distinction which he was now endeavouring to illustrate: the distinction between that which was an improvement of the estate as reality, and that which was an improvement as it affected the immediate interest of the occupier. He wished, then, to suggest to the Committee during the few minutes that were left of the present Sitting that, if this distinction was to be observed, according to common practice and custom, the drainage of land which stood first in the category ought to be separated from improvements in buildings and the like. The word drainage stood first in the first column, and the first words in the adjoining column were—

"Making or improving of water-courses, ponds, wells, or reservoirs, or of works for supply of water for agricultural or domestic purposes."

This showed that drainage in the first column meant thorough or field drainage. Now, the ordinary period for compensating for thorough or field draining varied from five to seven years, and he held that they would completely contravene the experience of the whole country if they retained the words draining in the first class of what were called permanent improvements. So, likewise, in the case of laying down land in permanent pasture, seven years were the ordinary period for compensation for that process. Clearly, then, these two items, according to the practice of the country, ought to be taken out of the first class of things to be compensated for. To give compensation extending over 20 years would be excessive. It being now ten minutes to Seven of the clock, Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday. The House suspended its sitting at Seven of the clock.

rose to call the attention of the House to the Local and Imperial Taxation of the Country; and to move—

"That Local and Imperial Taxation, where their incidence is concurrent, should have a common basis of valuation and should be alike assessed upon the net rental or annual value of real property, and that Imperial Taxation, when levied upon industrial earnings should be subject to such an abatement as may equitably adjust the burthen thrown upon intelligence and skill as compared with property,"