asked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether it is yet decided on what system the 81-ton gun now being made is to be rifled, and what nature of projectile is to be used; and, whether it is the case, that no 35-ton gun has fired 100 rounds of battering charges without requiring repairs; and, if so, whether he would recommend the First Lord of the Admiralty to order some such practical test as would represent the work these guns might be called upon to perform in war time at a distance from the arsenal, to be carried out on board one of Her Majesty's ships, in order that the endurance of these guns may be tried under conditions such as they are intended to meet, before constructing very much larger guns on the same principle, and placing them afloat, as is intended in the "Inflexible," at a cost of half a million sterling?

, in reply, said, the system on which the 81-ton gun was to be rifled and the nature of the projectile had already been decided upon. The 35-ton gun had fired over 100 rounds without any repair being apparently required, although, in one instance, the gun had to be re-vented. The Secretary of State for War was quite satisfied with the practical test which the heavy guns had undergone and were undergoing; and there seemed to be no reason for recommending any special test of the nature mentioned in the hon. and gallant Members Question.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that the senior Captain of the North Tipperary Light Infantry Regiment of Militia was absent from the training of the regiment in the year 1874 upon a sick certificate; whether in this year, having applied for sick leave, a medical board was asked for to report upon his fitness for service, and that pursuant to its report he was ordered to join his regiment forthwith; and, whether he has declined to do so; and, if so, is he still retained on the list of Captains of the North Tipperary Regiment?

, in reply, said, it was true that the person referred to was absent from the training of the regiment. The Medical Board reported that he was fit for service, and he was ordered to join his regiment; but it appeared that the medical report was not made in sufficiently explicit terms. The officer in question still said he was unable to attend to the training, and the Medical Board had been ordered to make another report on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the report of an inquest held on Monday July 19th, before Dr. Hardwicke, Coroner for Central Middlesex, and Dr. Danford Thomas, his deputy, on the body of Emma Jane Plain, aged nine months, when the jury returned the following verdict:—

"That Emma Jane Plain died from the mortal effects of diarrhœa, and that such death was from natural causes; but the jury desire to draw attention to the fact that the deceased received medical treatment at a dispensary in Copenhagen Street, where medicines were administered by an irresponsible unqualified medical practitioner. The jury further wish to add that a dispensary under unqualified medical men, and under the management of irresponsible persons, must be fraught with danger to the community."

Whether it is legal for such unqualified persons to administer medicines and visit patients as the proprietor of the dispensary in Copenhagen Street admits having done; and, whether some steps should not be taken to prevent the poor being imposed upon by such persons?

, in reply, said, Ms attention had been called to the inquest in this unfortunate case. The law in regard to this matter was much discussed at the time of passing the Medical Acts, and the law now was, that if an unqualified person held out in any form or shape that he was a qualified practitioner, then he was liable to punishment, otherwise not. The subject was one which came within the province of the Lord President of the Council, and he (Mr. Cross) would bring it to his attention, so that he might consider the whole case.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to the recommendation contained in the Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries (presented on the 3rd July) that a cutter or steamboat should be attached to their department to enable its heads to enforce the present Fishery Laws, and to further develop the fisheries; and, if he intends to give effect to this recommendation?

, in reply, said, his attention had been called to the recommendation referred to. The same subject was brought under his notice last summer, and he made inquiries into it then. It appeared that assistance was invariably given by the Admiralty on the requisition of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries whenever they required the assistance of a gunboat for the prosecution of any inquiry connected with the fisheries. But, considering all the circumstances, it did not appear to him that any necessity had been shown for the attendance of a gunboat, except in special circumstances. In the present Report the Inspectors had given fresh and different reasons why permanent assistance should be given. He would make further inquiries into the matter, and if it appeared necessary to do so, he would communicate with the First Lord of the Admiralty on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for War, To state to the House what is the quantity of gunpowder usually stored in the Hyde Park magazine; and, what precautions are used during its transport through the metropolis?

, in reply, said, that he was rather glad to relieve the minds of certain timid riders and drivers from the dread of being blown up in passing the magazine in Hyde Park. That magazine had never any store of gunpowder in it at all, except in the shape of small arms ammunition, and it had been proved by most careful experiments that that kind of ammunition would not blow up én masse, and if one cartridge exploded it would not necessarily affect the others. It was, therefore, not considered necessary to take any special precautions. The removal of the cartridges to the magazine was always accompanied by an escort.

asked the right hon. Gentleman to state what number of cartridges were stored there?

said, it was 1,500,000.

asked the Government to explain distinctly the reasons why they had assented to what was unquestionably the most important change in the Bill since it left the House of Lords? As this clause came from the Upper House the occupiers of land were to be entitled to a particular term of years for each class of improvements, but now that term was to be a maximum, and so much less than the term might be given, but not more. The clause was a definition of unexhausted improvements, and a great many of the articles in Class I would not be exhausted in 20 years. The making of bridges and construction of buildings would not be exhausted in that time, although upon the face of the Bill these improvements would be deemed to be then exhausted. Such a provision would lay the foundation of future discontent. If a tenant erected substantial buildings which were in good order at the end of 20 years, and if he received no compensation for them, he would feel it to be rather hard. If what was meant was that, although the improvement had not been exhausted, the tenant had been sufficiently remunerated, then why did they not say so, and, instead of calling it a Bill to secure compensation for unexhausted improvements, call it a tenants' remuneration Bill, which was a very different thing?

said, his hon. and learned Friend was not very accurate in the history which he had given of the clause. The Amendment, so far from being a change in the Bill as it came down from the House of Lords, was rather a return to the Bill as it was first brought into the House. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT said, he meant since the Bill had been read a second time.] Exception was taken to the letting value as the basis of compensation, and the change which had been, in consequence, made in the Bill interfered with its elasticity as regarded the term of years during which improvements continued unexhausted. The Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wilson) would make the term of years not a fixed and certain term, but a maximum term within which there should be a certain elasticity. The period of 20 years had been agreed upon as the measure of the term for which improvements were to be considered unexhausted, the object being not to burden the remainderman to a greater extent than was necessary. His hon. and learned Friend observed that good and substantial buildings might be unexhausted at the end of 20 years; but it was not likely that a tenant could erect any buildings to last more than 20 years, without a special agreement with the landlord, giving him compensation for his outlay beyond the terms of this Bill. His hon. and learned Friend appeared in the character of "the farmers' friend," but he (Mr. Hunt) must point out that the farmers' friends, as repre- sented in the Central Chamber of Agriculture, asked for 20 years' compensation.

said, he hoped they would not bandy words from one side of the House to the other, as to who were or who were not "farmers friends." With regard to the Amendment, he thought, in the first place, that the whole clause was unnecessary, and that the matter might well be left to the referees and umpire to decide how much of the improvement remained unexhausted. But if the clause were to stand, the argument of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) was logically just, that there should be no limit as against the tenant. A building might be put up which would only last 10 or 12 years—in that case the landlord was safe under the Amendment, but if one was put up which lasted 25 years, the tenant had no protection. But looking at the matter as a practical man, no doubt in the vast majority of cases no such buildings would be put up save under special agreement. Then, without saying a word against the class of valuers from whom the referees would be chosen, they were generally farmers themselves or connected with farmers, and as their leaning would be rather towards the tenant than the landlord, the former would generally get a full term allowed him. Moreover, if the consent of the landlord was to be necessary to these improvements, that consent might be refused if the charge upon the estate was to be for an indefinite period, and therefore they might, by allowing it to be so, prevent those very improvements which they wished to encourage. He therefore preferred the Amendment endorsed by the Government, and if there was to be restriction at all, he would rather have it in the form of this Amendment, which he would presently use as an argument why one of his own ought to be adopted.

suggested that the clause would be more rational if it declared that the claim for compensation for an improvement, rather than the improvement itself, should be deemed to be exhausted.

said, that improvements which would not be exhausted in 20 years were rarely made without substantial co-operation on the part of the landlord, who often found the material when the tenant found the labour.

said, that, on the contrary, he had known a tenant at his own expense lay out more than he would recoup in 20 years.

said, that though hon. Members opposite were taunted with not being the "farmers' friends," they took the same view as Mr. Pusey, who he presumed was entitled to that character. He wished to know whether the hon. and learned Attorney General had formed any opinion as to how the rights of the tenants under the Emblements Act would be affected by this clause?

said, that it did not appear to him that the law of emblements had anything to do with the particular question under the consideration of the Committee, which was simply as to the respective periods during which improvements of the several classes were, for the purpose of ascertaining compensation, to be deemed as continuing unexhausted. The object of the Amendment was to carry out the strongly-expressed feeling of the House, and to fix a maximum number of years, beyond which the arbitrator could not in any case go, but leaving it to him to determine the proper period, within that limit, in each case as it arose.

protested against the statement that the change had been made in consequence of the strongly-expressed feeling of the House. The Government were conducting the Business in a manner which suggested that they were confounding what had taken place at meetings of the supporters of the Government with what had been done in the House, where the question had not been discussed. The First Minister had announced the withdrawal when bringing down the measure from the other House.

contended that it was purely a question of drafting.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 9, after "Act," to insert "and in the absence of any special agreement as hereinafter provided for." They had now got a Bill embodying the Lincolnshire principle, which had worked well for three generations. He had taken the words of his Amendment from Mr. Pusey's Bills on tenants' compensation. All those Bills contained a main proposition and an alternative one. The main proposition was, that the tenants should be reimbursed, and that the outlay should be divided over a series of years. Mr. Pusey's alternative proposition was, that persons who wished to make special agreements with their tenants under the Act should be allowed to do so. The present Bill adopted Mr. Pusey's main proposition; but the alternative proposition was, that if landlords wished to make a special agreement with their tenants they should be left out of the Act. Now he contended that there ought to be two sets of special agreements, one outside the Act, and another to meet cases in which the landlords were ready to give their tenants a Schedule with a fair compensation, but not to be thereby left out of the Act. If the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for West Suffolk (Colonel Wilson) had not been carried, Lincolnshire would have been out of the Act. The House had by a majority of four to one decided against the compulsory principle; but if the Bill passed in its present shape all his friends whom he had consulted intended to contract themselves out of the Act, except, indeed, his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty.

said, he did not think that the words proposed would, if inserted, add to the force or effect of the Bill. If such, however, were the case, it would be necessary that corresponding words should be added to other clauses. He would suggest that they should wait till they came to consider Clause 45, when the whole question could be discussed, and if the Committee were of opinion that additional words were required to give effect to the intention of his hon. Friend, they could be added in that clause, and any corresponding Amendments in other clauses could be made on the Report.

said, that he proposal was one the principle of which he had more than once advocated within the last three weeks. The power of contracting out was the defect which would make the Bill waste paper. He held in his hand a notice to quit, which had been served on 100 farmers in anticipation of its passing.

, while deprecating any alteration of the clause in the direction of contracts, considered the Amendment worthy of support, so far as it enabled persons to bring themselves within the operation of the Act.

hoped that the suggestion of the hon. and learned Attorney General would be acted upon, and that the Amendment would not be pressed.

said, that the statement of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Knight) to the effect that the friends he had spoken to intended to contract themselves out of the Act, was quite in accordance with his own experience. Even some noble Lords who had voted for the Bill in "another place" had made similar statements. It was worthy of consideration whether they were not dealing with the subject in a somewhat unscriptural manner—by laying upon other people's shoulders burdens too heavy to be borne, and not being themselves willing to touch them with the tip of their finger; while it might be that the First Lord of the Admiralty would be the one righteous man found among them.

considered the statement made by the hon. and learned Attorney General satisfactory as far as it went; but the question of contracting out of the Bill was too important to be lightly passed over, and he thought they ought to have some definite assurance from the Government as to the alteration they proposed to make in Clause 45. As there was a reference in another clause to agreements outside the Bill, he wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government so to alter the 45th clause as to give agreements entered into between landlords and tenants equal force with the provisions of this Bill?

said, he understood the proposal of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Mr. Knight) to be that if the landlord and tenant were anxious to avail themselves of the provisions of the Bill to a certain extent only, or wished to define more clearly than the Bill did for what improvements compensation should be given, they should have the right to enter into such an agreement, and still be able to use the machinery of the Bill in other respects. It was the wish of the Government, in framing the 45th clause, to give landlords and tenants such a power; and, if the clause did not go far enough in that direction, he should be happy to amend it so as to ensure the attainment of that object. Not only ought parties to be allowed to contract themselves entirely out of the Bill, but they should be permitted to make special agreements within it so as to entitle them to all the advantages which the machinery of the Bill could afford them.

inquired whether the parties entering into special agreements outside the Bill would in such cases have the advantages of Clauses 34, 35, and 36, the most valuable part of it, and be enabled, under these special agreements, to charge the inheritance?

hoped that Her Majesty's Government would not give any pledge as to amending a clause until the clause was reached. Although he believed that 99 landlords out of 100 would contract themselves out of the Bill, he considered it a most valuable measure, because, in future, tenants throughout the country would enjoy security either under it or under specific agreements adapted to their wants or the circumstances of their particular locality, and based upon the principles laid down in the Bill. It was ludicrous, therefore, to suppose that the tenant farmers of England were so blind to their own interests that they would deprive themselves of the advantages they would possess under the Bill.

said, he should like to know precisely what was to be done with the 45th clause before they parted with the Amendment?

said, he thought that the promise which had been made by his right hon. Friend ought to satisfy the Committee. There was no difficulty in understanding what the hon. Member for West Worcestershire wanted. His object was to give the parties the option of using the machinery of the Bill or not; but although it might be right to allow the landlord and tenant to enter into such contracts as they might think fit, excluding wholly or in part the provisions of the Bill, it would not, in his opinion, be right to confer upon them power to charge the inheritance by virtue of contracts which were entirely beyond the scope of the Bill.

moved an Amendment, the object of which was to extend the term during which compensation should be given for improvements in the second class from seven years to ten years. He called attention to the evidence given before the Select Committee in 1848 on "agricultural customs," wherein witnesses declared that chalking and marling were improvements not exhausted in seven years, some giving ten, and some as much as 20 years, as the period at which they had themselves seen the effects of such improvements. As they were now only fixing a maximum, this could be no injury to landlords, and it would be a graceful concession to tenant-farmers. Moreover, the Farmers' Club had earnestly pressed for this concession.

admitted that there was room for difference of opinion as to the length of time the benefit of these improvements lasted, but the Central Chamber of Agriculture had taken seven years, and he thought it a very fair maximum.

said, that when the time to be fixed by the valuers was governed by the words "not exceeding," they might make the clause more elastic. Agriculture was a rapidly progressive science, and every encouragement should be given to scientific farming and the application of more capital.

thought they were taking a great deal of care of the outgoing and very little of the incoming tenant.

admitted that the Central Chamber of Agriculture was an important body, but he did not think the Bill they had put forward could be quoted as strong evidence in that House. The farmers on the Eastern side of England attached a good deal of importance to this point.

said, the Lincolnshire Chamber of Agriculture and some other bodies advocated this extension of time, and in the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Bead) in conjunction with Mr. Howard, 10 years were allowed for durable improvements. As the result of the Amend- ment already accepted by the Government would be to make the number of years stated the maximum number, there need be no hesitation in making this concession.

said, there was considerable difference between the Schedule in this Bill and the Schedule in Mr. Howard's Bill of 1873. A good many of the improvements mentioned in the latter were taken out of the second and put in the first class in this Bill.

said, some of these improvements did not begin to tell for two or three years. On moorland, for instance, liming did not tell until after three years.

believed that a seven years term would be a proper allowance for lime laid on pasture land, and four years on arable land.

said, his experience was that the liming of lands was exhausted in about seven years, while marling lasted ten years. There could be no harm in allowing that maximum.

hoped the Government would not give way by accepting the Amendment.

said, that there was danger in legislating for England according to the customs of any particular county. Legislation on this subject was sure after a time to be made compulsory, and he respectfully warned his brother landlords in that House that if they did not now act in a generous and liberal manner they would not only have this Bill hereafter made compulsory, but probably a much stronger one substituted for it. Talking of different counties, in Kent the chalk was brought from a distance down to the clay lands and much expense incurred in the process.

was inclined to think there was sound sense in the Amendment. He thought the Government might very well accept it seeing that they had already accepted that of the hon. and gallant Member for West Suffolk. In some cases seven years would not exhaust the advantage gained, and as the allowance to be made would rest with the arbitrators, there was no reason why the Amendment should not be accepted.

hoped, after the Amendment which had been already adopted, the Government would be disposed to accept the one before the Committee.

, on the other hand, expressed a hope the Government would resist the Amendment.

said, that the Bill as it stood, provided compensation for improvements in the third class, which calculated according to the two years' scale, would be, in the case of artificial manures, half as much again, and of feeding stuffs three times as much again as was now paid by the Lincolnshire custom, which many people thought too much. He would take a farm of 500 acres, on which the compensation under the Lincolnshire custom would be £625, but under the Bill as it now stood the compensation would amount to £1,500. If they did not take great care they would be creating a tenant-right so exceedingly heavy that it would be almost impossible for an incoming tenant to pay it. It would simplify matters very much if the Government would adopt his proposal, which he put under three heads—manures, cake, and feeding stuffs not produced on the farm, and on this scale—for artificial manures, the whole sum properly laid out by last year's tenant; for cake one-half of the sum properly laid out during the last year, subject to no restriction; and for feeding stuffs not produced on the holding, he would give such proportion not exceeding one-half as had been properly laid out, which would fairly represent at the termination of the tenancy the manurial value to the incoming tenant. With this view he would move as an Amendment, in page 3, line 15, the omission of "two years," and the insertion of "one year."

said, he sympathized with the intention of the Amendment, and quite admitted that his hon. Friend was right in his anxiety not to make the burden too heavy upon the incoming tenant. But what they had to consider was, whether one year would really satisfy the justice of the claims in all cases, and the Government had arrived at the conclusion that it would not, especially in the case of a Lady-Day tenancy. There was a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the wording of the 8th clause, and it was, that the taking the outlay simply, even with a deduction of the profit which the tenant himself had derived, was too excessive a mode of dealing with the question in regard to third-class improvements. Various Amendments on the Paper were to the effect that manurial value should be taken, and, after great consideration, the Government had come to the conclusion that that was a just view. In this clause he proposed to insert the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot) for including hay, and on the same principle he would add seeds; so that the last paragraph would read thus—

"Where it is of the third class, the end of two years, or the taking of a crop of corn, seed, hay, or potatoes (whichever first happens)."

It was also proposed that Clause 8 should be amended by the insertion of the following words—

"The amount of the tenant's compensation in respect of improvements 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."

That would extend to the whole of the three classes of the improvements, and the rest of the clause would be omitted.

congratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon the proposed change in the 8th clause. He thought it would meet the common-sense view of the case, and get rid of a great many difficult details.

preferred the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lincolnshire.

concurred entirely with the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) as to the effect of the clause, but he was afraid that making it one year instead of two would not remove the difficulty. It would not prevent controversy as to which field the manure had been put upon, and they would have to identify the land.

was unable to see the force of the criticism of his hon. and learned Friend.

said, the excellent Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman in the 8th clause would accomplish all he had been striving for, and would make a wonderful improvement in the Bill.

disapproved of manurial valuation, and thought if they adopted the Lincolnshire custom the clause would be as perfect as it could be made.

believed the question was one which had better be left to referees and umpires who could decide what was really the manurial value.

considered the Amendment proposed by the Government a very proper solution of the difficulty.

said, the difference between this proposal and that which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) was about to substitute for Clause 8 was not very great. It was whether the compensation for manurial value of the third class should be given for one year's application or two. He felt satisfied that if compensation were allowed for two years, such a discretion would be given to the valuers that tenant-right might become a much heavier burden than it ought to be.

said, a tenant-right existed in his county (Sussex) which was a great deal older than that of Lincolnshire. The difference was that the Lincolnshire tenant-right was a very sensible and good one, and that the Sussex tenant-right was a very bad one. Looking at all the circumstances, he believed with the hon. Gentleman who proposed the Amendment, that compensation for manurial value should be given for one year only.

said, the probability was, as matters were tending, that the tenant would get no compensation at all.

recommended the House to abide by the clause.

agreed that, after a crop of corn had been taken, it was most difficult to say what the manurial value was. At the same time there were certain manures, such as rape-cake and greaves, which were certainly not exhausted in one year. After full consideration, he preferred the proposal made by the Government in the Bill to that of his hon. Friend.

said, the object of his Amendment was of immense importance in his opinion; but, as there was so much diversity of opinion expressed about it, he would consent to withdraw it, and so save the Committee the trouble of dividing.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 15, to leave out all the words after the words "two years" to the end of the clause. The effect of the clause as it now stood would be to deprive a tenant who raised a crop of corn or potatoes off any part of his farm of all right to compensation, and this, he thought, would in many cases inflict hardship on the outgoing tenant.

said, that he thought the term of "two years" might be left without additional words, as had been the terms of 20 and 7 years respectively in the other classes, and the details left to the referees, words being inserted to direct them to ascertain what amount of unexhausted value remained for the incoming tenant. He urged the hon. Member to persevere in his Amendment.

observed, that in eases of difficulty it would be better to give the doubt in favour of the incoming tenant. He hoped the Committee would adopt the clause as it stood.

expressed a hope that the Committee would not consent to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire. In West Sussex they had bought up all the old customs, and it was now sought by this Amendment to bring them back again. About two years ago he purchased a farm of 190 acres, and had to pay on a valuation a sum of £978. How could a tenant entering upon the land on such terms hope to make anything out of it? In the case he referred to, he extinguished the custom, bearing the loss himself.

was in a position to affirm what his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter Barttelot) had said as to the hardship of the custom referred to upon an incoming tenant. One of his farms fell in some time since, and the valuation was so oppressive to the succeeding tenant that he at once extinguished the custom by purchase.

moved in page 3, line 16, after "corn" to insert "seed" and "hay," so as to provide that an improvement should be deemed exhausted where it was of the third class, at the end of two years, or the taking of a crop of corn, seed, hay, or potatoes.

asked for some explanation of what was intended by the term "seed?"

said, it might include turnip seed, and every kind of agricultural seed that exhausted land.

inquired whether it might include clover seed?

suggested that the Government should consider this classification before the Report. It would not be easy to prepare a complete list of "exhausting crops." Many had not been mentioned a all—as, for example, horse-radish and onions. Whole fields of these were grown, and they greatly exhausted the land.

said, they would do well to stop at crops, and say, "any crops to which manure is supplied" ought to be taken into consideration by the valuer, because it would be unwise to specify some crops and leave out others.

had put the Amendment down, as he thought it a very important one. He would also say some seeds exhausted the land much more than other seeds.

approved of the suggestion that a general power should be given to the valuer.

suggested that a crop of teazles should be added.

said "seed or hay," if inserted, would not meet the difficulty; for there was a score of other crops he could mention, such as chickory, flax, and mustard, all of which should be considered, and as it was hardly possible to specify all the crops, why not say, after the word "taking," "any existing crop from land to which manure made or purchased during the last year shall have been applied? "

thought it would be better to stop at the word "crops," instead of attempting to particularize what those crops were.

believed that the word "seed" would include the crops which had been mentioned, except teazles.

said, the landlord would not be doing his duty either to himself or his tenant if he did not bar the growing of particular crops.

suggested that, as it was impossible to insert all the crops, the Committee had better trust to the Government to get out of the difficulty in the best way they could on the Report.

thought it was hardly fair to get the landlord out of the difficulty when he could get out of it himself.

asked why the Committee should insert the words at all. Crops of Kohl Rabi and cabbages exhausted land more than anything else.

pointed out the difficulty into which Government had brought the House by persisting in definitions of various "exhaustive" crops instead of using general words and leaving the matter to be settled by the valuers. He hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Pell) who had spoken for and voted against a recent Amendment would this time have the courage of his opinions, and speak and vote the same way.

proposed, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 16, to insert after "corn," "or any exhausting crop from land to which manures made or purchased during the last year shall have been applied."

said, he could not accept the words proposed, but he would be ready to agree to the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Heygate) to insert the words "or other exhausting crop."

expressed his regret that more than half-an-hour had been wasted before the Government would concede, as they had now done, the point for which he had all along been contending.

moved an Amendment to provide that the amount of the tenant's compensation for improvements of the first class should be the sum laid out so far as it added to the letting value; and that in the second and third class it should be the sum laid out so far as unexhausted and of value to a succeeding occupier. He said the Government had accepted the principle of the Amendment for the third class, and why should they not do so in respect of the other two classes?

said, it was true they had adopted it partially for the third class, which affected mainly the incoming tenant; but the other two classes affected the landlord, and were therefore dealt with differently. As the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rodwell) had an Amendment on the Paper which distinguished between each class of improvements, he would suggest to the hon. Member to postpone his Amendment until such time as the other was considered.

acquiesced in the suggestion.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 18, to leave out "or of the second." In the previous discussion he understood from the Government that the limit of "letting value" was only introduced into the Bill to preserve the rights of the remainderman. But the present clause, as it now stood, dealt with the first and second classes in the same way—

"So that the amount of the compensation shall not in any case exceed a capital sum fairly representing the addition of which the improvement, as far as it is unexhausted at the determi- nation of the tenancy, then makes to the value value of the holding."

He now proposed an Amendment separating the first class from the second. The first class were essentially landlords' improvements extending over a considerable time. The second were tenants' improvements, and the subjects of compensation in which, in many cases, the landlord did not interfere at all. The restriction, therefore of "the letting value of the holding" was unnecessary in the first class, except in cases where the landlord was only the limited owner. He proposed to remove the second-class improvements, which extended over a short period, altogether out of the operation of the "letting value" restriction.

said, that the proposed Amendment was consistent with the scope of the Bill. It was, however, important that the remainderman should be protected, as it would be obviously unjust that a landlord and tenant should have it in their power to execute some considerable improvement, and charge it upon the inheritance, if the remainderman reaped no benefit from it. He was, therefore, prepared to accept the hon. and learned Member's Amendments when the Committee came to them. The present was a verbal Amendment to open the door to the ulterior and important one he had in view, to which he (Mr. Hunt) not object.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, lines 19 and 20, to omit the words "a deduction of one-twentieth," and substitute "as far as it addds to the letting value of the holding at the determination of the tenancy."

expressed a hope that before the Committee was resumed on Monday, the Government would place on the Paper the Amendments which they proposed to insert in Clause 45.

said, he did not know whether it was possible to put them in the Paper that evening. He was afraid it was not, but he would put them in the Paper as soon as possible.

said, he was afraid they would not reach the clause on Monday.

said, he was afraid not, unless, indeed, the noble Lord gave them his assistance.

, in rising to call attention to the Reports of the En- closure Commissioners; and to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the schemes of enclosure mentioned in such Reports should he proceeded with,"

said, there was before Parliament a Bill for improving the supply of the food of the people, and the subject to which he now called attention had an intimate connection with that measure. The question really was whether we were to enclose the waste lands of the country? According to the Report of a Commission, there were something like 1,000,000 acres of land in this country fit for enclosure and cultivation. In 1845 an Act was passed constituting the Enclosure Commission, a body to whom all applications for enclosures were to be addressed, and who decided upon the conditions. The Commissioners, from that date down to the year 1869, exercised their functions with satisfaction to the public and credit to themselves. During that period they sanctioned enclosures to the extent of something like 620,000 acres, which had been brought into cultivation; but, on the other hand, within 20 years, owing to the growth of towns and the extension of railways and other public works, there had been a decrease in the productive area of the country of about 700,000 acres. But for the operation of the Act of 1845, the country would have been deprived of a food-producing area to the extent of the 620,000 acres to which he had referred. In 1869 the operations of the Commissioners received a sudden check. Exception was then taken to their Reports in regard to two particular commons; one in the county of Somerset, the other in the county of Surrey. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had, no doubt, done good by preventing certain enclosures to which public attention had been called; but he had carried his objections to the in-closure of commons, in some instances, almost to a Quixotic length. Objection, however, was taken in the two cases to which he had alluded, that the Commissioners had not allotted sufficient space for the recreation of the public, or for the labouring poor of the district. The Act of 1845 provided that where the parish had a population of 10,000, the area allotted for recreation should be 10 acres, and so on down to four acres for a population of 2,000. It also gave the Commissioners a discretion as to the allotments to the labouring poor. Each case ought to depend on its own merits, and not be governed by a hard and fast rule. A Committee was appointed to consider the Reports of the Commissioners and their operations generally, and the consequence was, that the two enclosures to which he had adverted were specifically stopped, and certain others were allowed to go on. In 1871, a General Enclosure Bill was brought in, and an attempt was made to lay down certain rules and regulations under which enclosures should be made. It was referred to a Select Committee, and when it came out, it provided that allotments might be made for the poor to the extent of one-tenth of all commons enclosed. It also made provision as to places of recreation, but the Bill was not further proceeded with, and the matter remained in this unsatisfactory position to the present time. These unenclosed commons differed very much in character. Some were on mountainous land, and others on flat ground in the neighbourhood of towns. From the Report of the Commissioners, it appeared that there were ready no less than 34 schemes of enclosure, embracing 83,000 acres, and that many of these schemes had waited five or six years for the sanction of Parliament. The Commissioners stated, moreover, as he had before observed, that there was something like 1,000,000 of acres in this country, at present unused, which might be turned to profitable purposes of agriculture. It seemed they were now discouraging applications for enclosure—and well they might, considering the discouragement which had been received from Parliament. He did not say that these schemes ought to be approved. All that he asked was that each of the 34 schemes should be considered individually, and that they should not lay down a hard-and-fast line that there should be no more enclosures. Let there be allotments for the labouring poor, and also for recreation; and he was quite sure that the lords of the manor were anxious that there should be reasonable provision in that way. He must say that he was astonished when Gentlemen who professed to be social reformers set themselves against further enclosures of commons, which might be made available for the production of food for the people. Take one case in point, which was reported upon by the Commissioners—namely, that of Rinell, in the fertile vale of York—where there was a common of 1,200 acres that might be beneficially enclosed for the production of food. He remembered that Swaffham Heath, a number of years ago, was a coursing ground, and that he had shot over it. He saw it lately covered with corn; so that a tract of waste ground, that was thronged with hares and rabbits, was now converted into fruitful fields. In conclusion, the hon. Member expressed a hope that Government would next Session propose some scheme which would have the effect of giving to the population the benefit of some portion of the 1,000,000 acres which were now lying waste. He begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

told the hon. Gentleman that, by the Forms of the House, his Amendment could not put.

regretted that the Committee which sat in 1869 had their inquiries limited to only one portion of the subject—that was, the quantity of enclosed land which had been given to the labouring poor. He had long been of opinion that a full inquiry into the operation of the Enclosure Act of 1846 would be most useful. The commoners had more interest in this matter than even the lords of the manors. There was no doubt there were two different sorts of enclosures—one of which was suburban, and the other consisting of large tracts of land in the North of England and in South Wales. He believed that in that part of the country which he represented (Radnorshire), the commoners were to a man in favour of enclosure. Indeed, the general feeling in South Wales was favourable to the enclosure of these extensive waste lands. Much local crime resulted from them. They encouraged sheep stealing, from the difficulty of tracing the offenders; and the disputes to which they gave rise led to bad feeling, and caused many aggravated assaults. As the waste lands had become enclosed, crime had greatly diminished. There were no people so much interested in these enclosures as the small freeholder. He had rights in common with the large farmers, but the law of the strongest prevailed, and he was at their mercy. The large farmers kept three or four "fighting shepherds," who drove off the sheep of the small freeholders. Diseases among sheep also were often spread in consequence of the sheep of so many different persons being turned out upon one large common. At the last General Election he owed his seat to the interest taken in this subject more than to anything else, for the small freeholders voted for him against the late Government, who had stopped these enclosures. Although, by the Forms of the House, the Amendment could not be put, he trusted that the Home Secretary would hold out the hope that the Government would early next Session deal with a subject of such great importance.

said, that the Select Committee of 1869 made many important recommendations, the last but not least of which was that further enclosures should be suspended until the Act had been passed to give effect to their views. They also pointed out that Enclosure Bills required the constant attention of the House. It appeared that out of 368,000 acres of land enclosed only 2,223 acres had been allotted to the poor, and not more than 1,742 for recreation grounds; so that enclosures had not greatly ameliorated the condition or promoted the comfort of the poor. There were reasons why the principle of the Enclosure Act should now be re-considered for the present circumstances were very different. In 1845 the protective system existed, and the Legislature believed that it was for the public interest to promote the enclosure of land for the food supply of the people. We now drew upon other countries for our supplies, and the health and recreation of the public might receive a large amount of consideration.

said, that, in considering the question of enclosures there were two opposite interests which required to be dealt with with the greatest delicacy, these were the interests of the public and the interests of proprietors, and no doubt a great deal of land had been enclosed by which the public had benefited, while much had been enclosed without proper consideration for the interests of the public, as opposed to those who claimed to have proprietary rights. The Select Committee of 1868 found that the public interests had not been fully considered, and upon the whole he thought that they were amply justified in recommending that further enclosures should not be carried on until the whole system of enclosure law had been re-considered, and some broad line had been laid down upon which enclosures should be effected. The outcome of the feeling which prevailed upon the subject was that Committees had recommended that it was desirable no further enclosure should be sanctioned until the general law had been fully considered. He hoped his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would give the House an assurance that an opportunity would be afforded them of fully considering that general law. The question was one of enormous interest to the public, and if Her Majesty's Government undertook to deal with it they would, he believed, receive support at both sides of the House. At the hands of his right hon. Friend he had no doubt the subject would be dealt with in a large and comprehensive manner; and if his right hon. Friend applied to the question that broadness of principle which had been brought to bear upon other questions, he was certain that when a General Enclosure Bill was brought forward the House would have reason to be satisfied with the measure.

said, he was surprised at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sandwich, when he recalled that although that right hon. Gentleman, when Under Secretary for the Home Department, had had ample opportunity of carrying out the recommendations of the Select Committee, he had, nevertheless, failed to do so, from not having, as he (Sir Walter Barttelot) thought the courage of his opinions. [Mr. KNATCH-BULL-HUGESSEN: No. Yes. The right hon. Gentleman, in the nature of his office, must necessarily have had the Enclosure Bills brought before him. He believed the right hon. Gentleman had considered the subject, and had not arrived at a just or right conclusion with respect to it. At any rate, the Government of which he was a Member had an opportunity of dealing with the question, and had signally failed to do so. They were, in fact, afraid to undertake the task, because of the opposition of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), then Member for Brighton. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), who succeeded the right hon. Gentleman at the Home Office, also feared to grapple with it. What were the facts? The Committee to which reference had been made, as a fair compromise, recommended that, in most cases, one-tenth of the enclosed land should, on the whole, be the proportion reserved for the poor—a large and liberal allowance, in his opinion. Why, then, was not a Bill brought in by the late Government? The reason was because great opposition to the measure came from below the Gangway, and up to the present moment nothing had been done, though the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) was of opinion, at the time, that the Report of the Committee was a very fair and satisfactory one. There was the framework for a satisfactory measure, and he commended it to the consideration of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had spoken of a right which he said the public had in these enclosures, but he had not told the House what that right was. The right hon. Gentleman was a large owner of property, and he (Sir Walter Barttelot) wished that he would get up and explain what right the public had in these enclosures. He did not deny that there was a moral obligation on the part of the owners to do something in favour of the public, and he, for one, was prepared to fulfil that obligation; but he wished to have the right of the public in these waste lands more clearly defined, and that was a matter which, as he had said, the right hon. Gentleman had never taken the trouble to explain. What he wished to point out was, that where the authorities of large towns were anxious to obtain possession of these unenclosed lands, they might have them by paying a fair and moderate price for them, and the whole difficulty would then be got rid of. [Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Pay whom?] Why, pay those to whom the land belonged—the lord of the manor and the commoners, without whose assent the enclosure could not be made, and who, he was sure, would make a considerable sacrifice in favour of the public. He was quite ready to admit that there was a great difference between the case of commons in the neighbourhood of the great circles of industry and the case of those which lay in the open country; but still, if there was a piece of vacant land in any of those towns, the property of the corporation or of an individual, they, or he, got the best price they could for it as building ground, and he did not see why they should not be made to pay for those rights which they wished to obtain over open and unenclosed lands beyond the borough boundary. Then there was ample protection in the fact that two-thirds of the commoners, with the lord of the manor, must give their assent before land could be enclosed. With respect to commons not situated near large towns, the right hon. Gentleman would not say that such commons ought not to be enclosed. [Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGES-SEN observed that he had said that in certain localities they ought to be enclosed.] All he advocated was the system recommended by the Committee, and on which the Bill was founded. There were many enclosures which would be of great advantage to different towns, and it was an unfair thing, where they would be of advantage to a district, to say they should not be enclosed. In many cases it would be for the interest of towns, and of all parties concerned, that the arrangements which had been recommended, and for which provisional orders had been granted, should be carried out.

said, that in the Committee to which reference had been made, very little assistance was received from the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Walter Barttelot), and it was owing to him and some other hon. Members who acted with him, that the proceedings were delayed so long that the Bill could not be proceeded with. In the following Session the same Bill was introduced by Lord Kimberley in the other House, and rejected on the third reading by the Conservative Party. The hon. and gallant Baronet, therefore, was not justified in saying that the late Government had not courage to carry out their own views, and signally failed in carrying their Bill. The hon. and gallant Baronet had spoken of that Bill as a very fair one. He was glad to hear him say so, but it was certainly the first time that he had done so. It proposed to deal differently with commons in the neighbourhood of large towns and those in rural districts. It was intended that the Metropolitan Commons Act should be extended to the case of other commons in the neighbourhood of large towns, and provision was made for the maintenance of such commons and the prevention of nuisances; and it was framed upon the idea that enclosure should not take place without the assent of Parliament. With regard to rural districts, where commons should in future be enclosed, it was proposed that a very much larger proportion should in future be devoted to recreative grounds and garden allotments. Many commons had been enclosed where enclosure was not justified, on the ground of benefit or convenience to the poorer classes, or in the interest of agriculture, but simply for the purpose of adding to gentlemen's parks and preserves, and therefore the Committee held that every case of enclosure ought to be inquired into by a Parliamentary Committee, even after it had been approved of by the Enclosure Commissioners. The only question now before the House was, whether they should recommend the Government that the schemes presented by the Enclosure Commissioners should be at once confirmed without waiting for a General Enclosure Act. He thought it would be unwise on the part of the Government to take any such step. Their wisest course would be to bring in a Bill to amend that Act, and if it was founded on a sound policy, he had no doubt it would meet with the approval of the House. He thought the hon. Member for East Sussex had exaggerated the amount of land which could be advantageously dealt with under a General Enclosure Bill, and that it did not amount to 1,000,000 acres.

explained that the Commissioners in their Report stated that more than 1,000,000 of acres were available.

said, that the most startling and incorrect statements were made with regard to the commons. These enclosures were facilitated and encouraged not by the great landowners, but by small common-holders. The public, in the sense in which it was used by hon. Gentlemen opposite, had very little right upon these commons. They had a right of crossing them, and in the case of commons near large towns, they might have acquired rights through small commoners not being able to maintain their rights. In such cases compensation ought to be paid to the small commoners. Nothing could be more unjust than to deprive owners, large or small, of their interest in commons out of consideration for assumed rights of the public.

referred to the late decision of the Master of the Bolls with reference to Epping Forest, as a proof that many large landowners were disposed to make unjust enclosures of commons. Every large town ought to have secured a good piece of common land for the use of its inhabitants, and in every city there ought to be a watchman to give warning of encroachments such as these which the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex and his Friends seemed desirous of having the power to make.

said, he should not like to see every acre of land enclosed, whether for the purpose of adding to already large estates or with a view to cultivation. Due regard ought to be paid to the agricultural poor in the neighbourhood of commons, and enclosures should be jealously watched so that the interests of these poor people should be protected. If there was anything that added to the beauty of a country, it was the commons; and the commons of England were amongst its greatest ornaments.

hoped the House would not accuse him of any want of disrespect if he declined to connect him-self or the Government to any particular course of action with regard to this matter. He was bound, however, to say that the Government were quite prepared to accept the legacy left them by their predecessors. For the purpose of testing the view of the House, he had advised the Government that a measure should be introduced, treating simply of matters to which there was no objection; but when he found that the feeling of the House was that the question should be dealt with in a more comprehensive spirit, he did not think it right to press the Bill. He hoped, however, before long to introduce a Bill which would in most respects carry out the views of the Enclosure Commissioners. He regretted that the Government had not been able this year to take up the matter. It was very pressing, and had engaged a large share of his attention, but, as he had said, be hoped before very long to remedy the evil. But the question was one which, when it came to be dealt with, would have to be dealt with upon broad principles. There was not the slightest doubt that enclosures would go on, if anyone chose to enclose. There was no reason why commoners and lords of the manor should not introduce Bills to enclose their commons if they saw fit to do so. The only effect which the existence of the Enclosure Commissioners had was to provide machinery by which the enclosures could be made at a cheaper rate. The law of the case was this—It was able to protect everyone in the possession of his own rights, whatever they were. Well, so long as people were content with their own rights the law would not interfere; but it was only when they claimed something else that Parliament had the right to interfere, and impose its own conditions. As to the food question, there were, no doubt, waste lands capable of producing more than they did at present, and legislation might effect something in this respect. The reports of the Enclosure Commissioners did not always afford ground for a satisfactory conclusion, and he thought it was a great hardship that the Minister who happened to be in office at the time should be compelled, simply on the recommendation of the Enclosure Commissioners, to take up Bills and push them through Parliament. He thought the Minister ought to be allowed to exercise his own judgment, and ought not to be dependent upon the ipse dixit of the Commissioners as to what was or was not for the interests of the public. The result of all the schemes passed since 1869 was as yet very small, and he cordially agreed with hon. Members that it was a matter which ought to be dealt with, and he would do so at the earliest possible moment.

considered the statement of the Home Secretary a most satisfactory one, and he hoped he would next year be able to introduce a comprehensive Bill. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman practically recognized the changed position of the country since the passing of the Enclosure Act in 1843, the importance of preserving open spaces for the health of our rapidly-increasing population, and the duty of placing obstacles in the way of enclosure and making those who demanded it prove their case. The information hitherto afforded by the Commissioners was insufficient to enable the Government and the House to form a judgment upon any particular case; but that was due to the strictly administrative character of the functions assigned to the Commissioners. The Home Secretary had invited lords of manors to enclose by means of private Bills; but the enclosures that were made by private Bills before 1843 were not carried out in such a way as to warrant a recurrence to that practice. He remembered a case in which it was proposed to enclose a common of 1,960 acres, and the Commissioners thought two acres of allotments and one acre of recreation ground sufficiently represented the rights of the public and the interests of the poor. He might quote numberless cases of the same kind. The last attempt to effect an enclosure by a private bill reached its third reading, but was then rejected, and in that it was proposed to enclose 6,900 acres, and out of that quantity of land only to allow five acres as recreation ground, and one acre as allotment gardens. The late Duke of Newcastle once said that 1,000,000 acres of common land had been enclosed before the Enclosure Act of 1843, and after a searching inquiry he had arrived at the conclusion that, without a single exception, no enclosure had taken place without great injury to the public, and that the interests of the poor were systematically ignored. Whether enclosures were attempted to be carried out by private or by public Acts, he believed the general feeling of the House to be that the principle laid down by a Select Committee would equally apply, namely—That it was inexpedient to sanction any further enclosures until the Enclosure Act had been amended. However powerful a Government might be, it would find it difficult to pass an Enclosure Act through the House unless it recognized the right of the public in the matter. There was a strong feeling throughout the country amongst men of every political party that these open spaces should be preserved.

said, he deprecated statements and discussions which were calculated to suggest the idea that large tracts of land were likely to be obtained for profitable cultivation by enclosures of wastes and commons. He had also to complain of the exaggerated statements frequently put forward with respect to enclosure schemes on the one side or the other, and in which they were held up as a great hardship upon the poor. One thing was certain that the persons who were desirous to have those waste lands enclosed would give any amount of land necessary for garden and recreation grounds for the poor.

wished to explain that he did not use the expression attributed to him by the hon. Member for Hackney, that he would early next Session bring in a Bill upon the subject. What he had said was, that it was a matter pressing for consideration, and that it should receive it.

called attention to the system of primary detention in the Metropolitan Police District, to the condition of the police cells, and the cells attached to the Courts of the stipendiary magistrates. Great alteration had been made of late years, he observed, in the condition of the convicted prisoners, but there had been no amelioration of the condition of those who were still assumed to be innocent. In 1873 73,857 persons were apprehended by the police in the London district, showing the necessity for considering the state and condition of the cells in which persons were often confined from 16 to 36 hours before the charges against them could be heard and dispossd of. The cells, as a rule, were very well kept and ventilated, but he thought the drunkards' cell could be improved by putting a ledge on which to rest the head, instead of having to he with the head on the floor, and he suggested that their number should be increased. The question of bail also was one that required consideration with a view to its enlargement. He was glad to find that assaults had greatly diminished which the Inspectors of police attributed to drunkenness from drinking the deleterious compounds that were formerly sold for spirits. Since the power of analyzation under the Licensing Act, from the sale of purer articles, these offences had very much diminished. He suggested that at Bow Street, where the cells were numerous, and not used, one should be fitted up as a medical cell, for the use of the medical officer. The cells connected with the police courts were very small and insufficient in number, and prisoners of all grades and ages were crowded into them until their cases came to be heard. There was another question as regarded the police which merited serious consideration. For a body of men numbering 10,000 it seemed to him that a Commissioner and two assistant Commissioners were quite inadequate. An army of 10,000 men in battalions of 1,000 would have at least 300 regimental officers, besides an efficient staff. Of late years there had been an appalling amount of undetected crime, and he maintained that in the police there ought to be a larger number of educated men of high character and position, and if that were the case there would be a vast difference in the amount of undetected crime.

thought that a great deal of obloquy had been thrown upon a large body of painstaking public servants. In 1873 a Committee of the Social Science Association went round the police cells of London and made a report upon them, in which they said that they did not require material alteration. Since that time considerable improvement had taken place in those cells. In June of this year some gentlemen connected with The Lancet visited the police cells in the metropolis and reported even more strongly in favour of the condition in which they found them. When the hon. and gallant Baronet gave Notice of his Question, he made a point himself of visiting these cells without any previous notice to the police authorities, and he could state that the praise given to them by the hon. and gallant Baronet was fully deserved. With regard to the police courts, he could not go so far as he did in saying that a large number of them were not sufficiently supplied with cells, because in the beginning of this year the Secretary of State ordered an inquiry to be made upon them by Dr. Bristowe, and he reported that, whilst with respect to three of them—Westminster, Bow Street, and Clerkenwell—much improvement was needed, the other 10 were sufficient for the number of prisoners confined in them. Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

resumed: He could find no ground for just complaint. The rules laid down were implicitly adhered to, and formed a sufficient safeguard against abuse. In case of necessity medical advice was always taken. If the hon. and gallant Baronet could point out any serious grievance connected with the detention of prisoners, he might rely that it would have the immediate consideration of the Home Office.