I beg to move that the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment (No. 2) Bill be fixed for second reading on Thursday next.

I give Notice that on Wednesday next, I will move for leave to introduce a Bill to make provision for giving further powers to the Board of Trade for stopping Un-seaworthy Ships.

To-morrow, at 2 o'clock, I will ask the Prime Minister, if he will give precedence over the other Orders of the Day to the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment (No. 2) Bill, which has been introduced by the hon. Member for Derby, and which will stand for second reading on Thursday next.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can hold out any confident hope to the House and to the country that the treaties of commerce between this country and France, Italy, and Austria, two of which are shortly shortly about to lapse, will be renewed, and on terms equally favourable to this country as the expiring treaties?

Sir, the French treaty expires in June, 1877, if denounced. The Austrian expires in December, 1876, if denounced. The Italian will expire June, 1876, and has been denounced. As to France and Austria, no denunciation has been made. The time, therefore, has not arrived when it is expedient to make any public announcement upon the subject. As to Italy, negotiations are going on with respect to the Treaty, and no efforts shall be wanting on our part to bring them to a satisfactory conclusion. Many influential Members on both sides of the House are aware that Her Majesty's Government are giving the subject serious and anxious consideration, and they are also aware that the views of many commercial bodies in this country have been communicated to my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office. I need not say that Her Majesty's Government will continue to use every effort to base our commercial relations with all foreign countries on sound principles.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he can state why it is that while clerks connected with several of the Irish Public Offices and other officials belonging to the Irish branch of the Civil Service have been placed on a footing of equality with those in a corresponding position in England, the district inspectors of national schools in Ireland have not been placed in the same position as to salary and allowances with those in England, in accordance with a Resolution of the House of Commons of the 4th July, 1873, recommending the same?

Sir, in consequence of the Resolution of the House of Commons in July, 1873, referred to by the hon. Member, a Departmental Committee was appointed by the late Government to inquire into the case of various officials belonging to the Irish branch of the Civil Service. In that inquiry the Treasury was represented, and also the Departments on which the inquiry was held, and the result has been a very considerable improvement in the position of various parties employed in the Irish Civil Service. I am quite aware that there are some eases in which parties holding nominally the same position as officers in England have not been placed on precisely the same footing; and Inspectors of Schools are in that class. Although the name of the office is the same in both countries, there is a difference in the position of the officer and his duties; but the position of these Inspectors has been very considerably improved. There were three classes under the old system. The first class had a salary commencing at £450 and rising by £10 yearly to £500. The salary now commences at £500 and rises by £15 per annum to £600 a-year. The second and third classes have had a similar increase; and the position of these classes has also been very much improved as to their allowances for travelling and personal expenses.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If any decision has been arrived at as to the pay of adjutants of Yeomanry and Volunteers?

, in reply, said, that the Commission on the pay of adjutants of the Yeomanry had completed its Report, although all the Members had not yet signed it. The question of their pay would, therefore, soon be ripe for consideration. As to adjutants of Volunteers, some questions as to certain Brigade Depôt arrangements were still pending, and their case must therefore stand over for some time longer.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any officer who considers a vessel overladen has power to detain such vessel pending the receipt of instructions from the Board of Trade?

Sir, the Board of Trade officers have not power to detain any ship. They report to the Board of Trade, and the Customs' officers detain by directions from the Board of Trade. It is proposed to institute a higher class of Board of Trade surveyors at the principal ports; and I hope the Bill which I have given Notice of for Wednesday will give the requisite powers.

asked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, On what system the 81-ton guns are to be rifled, and what nature of projectiles are to be used; whether he will state to the House the greatest and next greatest number of battering charges which have been fired from any 35-ton or 38-ton gun rifled on the Woolwich system, without requiring repairs (including re-venting); whether it is a fact that the process of re-venting cannot be performed on board ships at sea in the presence of an enemy; whether he is aware that although the stock of projectiles on board ship may be replenished at a distant seat of war, guns of 35 tons or 81 tons weight cannot be replaced without sending the ship home; and, whether he can state to the House, that it has been shown by actual experiment or otherwise, that our heaviest guns can stand such a practical test as they might be put to in war time; and, if they have not been so tested, if he would explain why?

, in reply, said, that complete answers would involve too much detail, and would also lead him into scientific controversy which had better be carried on outside the House. It was from no want of courtesy, but with a view to save the time of the House that he gave brief Answers to somewhat unusual Questions, which were more fit to be put to men of science and constructors and manufacturers of heavy guns than in that House. The system on which the 81-ton gun was to be rifled was the present, or Woolwich system. Heavy guns were not fired continuously with battering charges, and he could not say what was the greatest number of charges ever fired from any 35 or 81-ton gun without requiring repairs. The process of re-venting could be performed at sea if required. A reserve of heavy guns was maintained at their stations abroad to meet casualties in the fleets, and therefore the ships need not be sent home. The tests to which their heavy guns were subjected and the experiments made showed that they would stand the practical tests of war.

gave Notice, that in consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the noble Lord's reply as to the battering charges, he would move in Committee of Supply on the Naval Estimates, that it was undesirable to proceed with the Inflexible or any ship carrying 81-ton or other heavy guns, until those guns had been subjected to a trial such as they might reasonably be expected to undergo in war.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the conduct of an officer of the Board of Trade was in accordance with the twelfth section of "The Merchant Shipping Act, 1873," when he demanded of and took from the master of the barque "Stanley" of Sunderland, his sailing register in July, 1874, when the said master was in the act of preparing his vessel for the survey and repair under the superintendence of Lloyd's surveyors?

Sir, the Stanley sailed from Sunderland in July last, and, having struck on a rock off Filey, ran back into the Tyne. The Board of Trade surveyor inspected her, and reported that she was unfit to go to sea without repair. Having reason to believe that she was about to be patched up and sent for repairs to Sunderland, he reported this, and the Board of Trade detained her. Instead of putting a Customs officer on board, the Collector of Customs, for the convenience of the owner and to save expense, obtained her certificate of registry, and held it while she was being repaired under Lloyd's surveyors. The Board of Trade surveyor did not interfere, but reported when repairs were sufficiently well done, upon which the certificate of registry was returned. All fees and expenses were remitted, and she went to sea again. The House will therefore see that the real facts of the case are the reverse of what is implied by the statement which the hon. Member has received, and which has remained about a fortnight on our Notice Paper.

said, in consequence of the hon. Baronet's Answer, he should take an early opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the question, simply to put the House right in respect to the facts of the case, and to show that since the Question had been on the Paper there had been four counts out.

Sir, I must ask the indulgence of the House for two or three minutes while I make a few observations by way of personal explanation. It will be in the recollection of the House that on Thursday last I answered certain Questions, put to me by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis), relative to the imprisonment in Winchester Gaol, under an order of the County Court Judge, of a man named William Smallbone, and of his subsequent release from prison by an order of Baron Huddleston. I have this morning received a letter from that learned Judge, who appears to consider that not only did my answers unfairly reflect upon him, but that my statement of facts, so far as it had reference to the proceedings before him, was essentially inaccurate. I need hardly state that my high esteem and respect for Baron Huddleston would at all times prevent my intentionally expressing, either in this House or elsewhere, except under a pressure of duty which certainly does not exist in the present case, any opinion reflecting upon the performance of his judicial duties; and I do not think that the words which I used, and which are accurately reported in The Times of last Friday, can be considered as haying that effect. The learned Judge appears to be under the impression that I charged him with forgetfulness of the Debtors Act of 1869. The inaccurate reports in some other newspapers may have led him to that conclusion, but I am sure that upon reference to what I said it will be clear that my expression, "Judge, Registrar, counsel, and solicitors were apparently forgetful of the provisions of the Debtors Act of 1869," had reference to the County Court Judge who committed the man to prison, and not to the learned Judge who released him from it. My further observation that the mistake was not discovered when the parties were before Baron Huddleston had reference to the legal advisers of Smallbone, who, according to the information afforded to me, were asking for his release, not upon the ground that the order for his committal was illegal, but that he was an old man, ill, and unable to pay. That such was the impression which it was my intention to convey, is, I think clear from the context. But, however that may be, I should not be acting consistently with my own views of what is right were I not at once, and unreservedly, to say that, if any observations of mine were so made as to cause pain or annoyance to Baron Huddleston, I extremely regret it. That learned Judge, however, further complains that my statement was inaccurate in so far as I said that Smallbone had been released by him from prison on the ground of old age, ill-health, and inability to pay. He informs me in his letter that the Act of Parliament of 1869 was referred to in the proceedings before him, and all its provisions carefully discussed, and that very little was said as to the man's age, health, or inability to pay, and he adds that he discharged the man on the ground of the illegality of his imprisonment and the irregularity of his committal, and upon no other grounds, and that the other circumstances did not in any way affect his judgment. Sir, I of course accept the statement of the learned Judge, though it entirely contradicts the information which had been given to me, and I again express my regret that I should have been misinformed and thus led into mistake. I must. Sir, however, remind the House that the subject-matter of the Questions of the hon. Member for Londonderry was one in no way under the cognizance of the Attorney General; that the County Court Judges are in no way responsible to him for their conduct; and that he possesses no means of investigating any cases, or alleged cases, of mistake or error of judgment on their part. A gentleman connected with the legal department of the Treasury, and of great experience, procured for me, at the request of the Lord Chancellor, the information upon which I answered the Questions of the hon. Member, and into the accuracy of such information I had no means of inquiring, even if I had had any reason to doubt it. Inquiry will, of course, now be made into the cause of the inaccuracy of the information so procured as to the proceedings before the Judge in Chambers.

moved, as an Amendment, the omission in page 3, lines 19 and 20, of the words "with a deduction of one-twentieth," and the insertion of the words "so far as it adds to the letting value of the holding at the determination of the tenancy." The Bill, as it stood, was not on a satisfactory footing with respect to compensation for unexhausted improvements, for, as had been admitted by hon. Member after hon. Member, even on the Ministerial side of the House, the measure did not secure to the tenant such compensation, but only the value, less an arbitrary deduction which in 20 years would absorb the whole. No division had taken place upon the subject, and he therefore wished to give the Committee an opportunity of asserting the principle that the landlord should be made to pay for the value which the tenant left in the holding. He denied that there was any probability of conspiracies between a limited owner and a tenant to defraud the remainderman by pretended improvements, and he held that the provision regarding "letting value" was amply sufficient to protect the latter.

said, that the question raised by the Amendment had been discussed the other day. So far as he could see, the hon. Baronet was opposed to any limitation of compensation. The Committee, however, were of opinion that there ought to be some limitation. He hoped they would not sanction an Amendment which was opposed to the principle of the Bill.

said, he preferred the proposal of the Bill to that of his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy, and hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, inasmuch as it introduced the principle of "letting value" which would involve points difficult for the referees to decide.

moved, in page 3, line 22, after "made," to leave out to the end of the clause and insert—

"Provided that compensation shall he pay-able only where the outlay is of such a nature, and has been executed and maintained in such a manner, that the benefit of it, if any, will he reaped either wholly or in part by the succeeding tenant whether owner or occupier."

objected both to the merits and to the time of the Amendment, and pointed out that the paragraph now under consideration was eon-fined to "first-class" improvements, in consequence of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell) to strike out the second class. The Proviso, therefore, of the hon. Baronet was not required.

asked if the Government had consented to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire, restricting the operation of the clause to limited owners?

said, he had so expressed himself.

said, he was in favour of some such Proviso, as he did not think it right that the real owner should suffer from the follies and crotchets of his predecessor.

said, he would not object to withdraw his Amendment.

said, he could not help remembering with satisfaction his prophecy on the second reading, that the Government, in bringing forward this Bill, would find that it entailed dealing with other questions regarding land, and notably with the laws of entail and settlement. He remarked that if the Amendment was to be withdrawn he should move that the latter part of the clause be omitted to afford the Government an opportunity of explaining its effect. It introduced the letting value principle, against which he had already protested, and would create consequent difficulty and confusion.

thought the whole difficulty might be met if the Government would agree to leave out the word "letting." Then all that would have to be determined was, whether the value of the property had been increased by the improvements.

said, the phrase "letting value" had been introduced simply for the protection of the remainderman. Even although the word was left out, the value of the land would still have to be determined by the number of years' purchase it was worth, which was tantamount to its letting value.

contended that if the words were retained the interests of the tenant would be sacrificed to the law of entail and settlement.

said, that it had now been admitted that the law of entail and settlement stood in the way of the landlord and tenant making agreements for an improved cultivation of the soil—a point which he had always asserted. Formerly this question of value was a claim to the outgoing tenant; now it was a limitation upon him; but in either case the same difficulties would arise. There would be new valuations, the arbitrators would be puzzled, and endless complications would arise. Moreover, he could not see how the letting value could work under limitation.

said, the words objected to applied to all limited estates. He believed that they would form a prudent check, and that the only practical result would be that they would prevent improvident investments and rash speculations.

said, the Bill would create a new right on behalf of the tenant, and, as he understood, the objection of the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford was that this right did not go far enough, inasmuch as it did not alike attach to the tenant who held under an absolute owner and to the tenant who held under a limited owner.

said, that he had consulted with the farmers in his own neighbourhood, and found that they did not believe in the letting value a bit. They were satisfied as long as they could work out their own outlay by a term of years, and the idea of importing letting value into the Bill had been from the beginning a perfect absurdity.

thought it would be by far the most convenient course to leave out these words altogether. It was not unlikely that the question of the remainderman would crop up again in certain clauses of the Bill, and therefore he considered it would be better for the Government to introduce a clause for the protection of the remainderman instead of inserting it incidentally.

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

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

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

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

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

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

moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 22, after "that" to insert—

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

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

asked how the Amendment would operate in cases where a mortgage in fee existed on the property?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

moved to amend the said proposed Amendment by inserting after the words "the amount of the tenant's compensation in respect of an improvement of the second class" the words—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thanked the Government for the Amendment.

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

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

said, that manurial value was the very essence of the clause, and therefore the word "manurial" ought not to be struck out.

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

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

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

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

said, he did not see the value of giving notice to the landlord of improvements, if he were not to have any notice of their application. Some of those were very large, amounting to £10, £12, or £20 per acre, and the tenant, after he had received notice to quit, might enter upon them. He knew lands upon which bones had no effect, and others upon which marling was carried to such an extent as to positively destroy the production. He also knew lands upon which the application of chalk was deleterious. As the Bill stood, the only check that the landlord had was a notice to quit, and if a difference arose directly after Lady Day, that would practically amount to two years. It would be far simpler to say that the landlord's consent should be requisite, than to place him in the invidious position of enforcing his notice to quit. He should support the Amendment.

said, the object of the notice was to give the landlord the right to see that the work was rightly done, and that the tenant should not put on cinders and charge for hones.

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

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

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

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

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

said, he would postpone it accordingly.

moved, in page 4, lines 7 and 8, to leave out from "unless "to" landlord "inclusive, and insert—

"prohibited in writing by the landlord, or made in contravention of a contract in writing not to make such improvement."

opposed the Amendment.

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

moved, in page 4, line 8, to add at the end of the clause the words—

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

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

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

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

approved of the proposed Amendment.

saw no harm in the introduction of these words.

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

, after an allusion to the thin appearance of the benches, remarked, that although they might not be able to defeat the power of the Government, and also the influence of the landlords, on whichever side of the House they sat, yet they could make apparent the effect of this Amendment, which was nothing more than confiscation. The Amendment had reference to permanent improvements under Class I, upon which the tenant with the consent of his landlord might have spent hundreds of pounds, and yet if the valuer at the expiration of the tenancy should determine that the buildings were not in substantial repair, the tenant's property in them was confiscated. ["No, no!"] The effect of the Amendment would be that if the tiles were off a building it would become the property of the landlord without any compensation being paid to the tenant.

said, that if the valuers knew anything about their business they would not because a few pounds' worth of tiles were off confiscate the tenant's property in the improvement. He thought, however, that the words of the Amendment were a little too strong, and suggested the substitution of "tenantable" for "substantial," and the omission of "condition of growth." He would propose an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to that effect.

said, he was under the impression that the words proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Cheshire were unnecessary, and therefore objectionable, because in the case of improvements for which the written consent of the landlord was necessary, the latter would guard himself by making all the proposed stipulations for himself. The term "substantial repair" was rather too strong, and he would suggest to his hon. Friend that he should withdraw his Amendment, and leave it to the Government, with the assistance of their legal Advisers, to see whether other words might not be introduced later on which would effect the object he had in view.

moved, in page 4, line 8, at the end of the clause, to add—

"And unless he has within one year of the completion of the improvement deposited with the landlord or his agent vouchers of the various items of the outlay which he has incurred."

thought that the adoption of the words would be productive of very little good, as it would be difficult to prove the claims.

was against raising difficulties in the way of effecting permanent improvements to be executed with the consent of the landlord. He considered that it would be for the interest of the landlord to leave as much liberty as possible to the tenant.

thought that the introduction of the words proposed would lead to uncertainty.

thought it would be most unfair to take those vouchers out of the hands of the tenant, and expressed a hope that the Amendment would be withdrawn.

proposed to add the following words at the end of the clause:—

"Nor unless, within six months after a completion thereof, he has given to the landlord a written statement of the amount expended in the execution of the said improvement."

considered that the words were unfair and unnecessary. The landlord would have no difficulty in ascertaining how much money had been spent, and would make his agreement accordingly.

hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment, because the landlord could stipulate what kind of agreement he would have.

moved to substitute "three months" for "21 days," as one of the limits within which a tenant might give notice that he intended to execute improvements of the second class.

supported the Amendment, as he was in favour of reasonable time being given for such a purpose, and 21 days would often be totally inadequate.

, in opposing the Amendment, said, he could not see any necessity for the existence of the clause itself.

said, that the object was that the landlord might have notice of what was going to be done, and might not be kept long in suspense. He thought six weeks on the one hand, and a fortnight on the other might be substituted for 21 and seven days respectively, as proposed in the clause, and would propose an Amendment accordingly.

proposed, in page 4, line 15, after "class," to leave out to the end of the clause, and insert—

"The tenant shall not be entitled to compensation in respect of outlay for the purposes enumerated, unless he has given not more than twenty-one and not less than seven days' previous notice in writing to the landlord or his agent of his intention to make such outlay, specifying the probable quantity and description of artificial manure proposed to be applied, and the quantity and description of artificial food proposed to be consumed during the last year of the tenancy, and has obtained the concurrence of the landlord."

hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not press this Amendment. It would be destructive, if carried, of all incentive to high farming.

, in pursuance of an understanding with the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), brought up in manuscript an Amendment, which he moved as an addition to the clause. It was as follows:—

"And there shall be deducted the value of the manure that would have been produced by the consumption on the holding of any hay, straw, roots, or green crop sold off the holding within the last two years or other less time that the tenancy has endured."

, who took exception to the Amendment being produced in manuscript, and in the absence of the hon. Member for Berkshire, contended that it would open up a very difficult question for valuers—["No!"]—namely, the quantity of manure which might have been produced by a particular quantity of hay, &c. Whatever hon. Gentlemen might say, that certainly appeared to him to be a peculiarly difficult question to solve. He suggested that the consideration of the Amendment should be postponed until the bringing up of the Report.

said, the principle proposed by the Government was only that which was carried out on every well-managed farm. He believed it would commend itself to incoming tenants.

did not believe any such difficulty as that imagined by the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford would arise. Permission to sell hay was nearly always given on the condition that an equivalent amount of manure should be brought to the farm. The hon. Member pointed out that Clause 6, which was already passed, would require some alteration in order to accord with the Amendment now proposed.

objected to the introduction of these infinitely small matters into the Bill. He believed them to be impracticable, and was convinced that they would defeat the object of the Bill.

felt that if the Amendment had not been proposed by the Government, he, in common with every other landlord throughout the country, would have been obliged to contract imself out of the Act.

was decidedly of opinion that a man who sold off all his hay ought not to receive compensation for manure which he might bring back. His duty was to consume his hay on his farm. As for the fears of the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford, he would say that if a valuer could not tell the manurial value of a ton of hay, he would not be able to tell the manurial value of a ton of cake. The matter was one from which no difficulty was experienced in practice.

did not think that a tenant who sold hay, the produce of his holding, and brought home manure, purchased with the proceeds, should be entitled to receive compensation for it.

thought the proposed Amendment would be a direct breach of contract. It was endeavoured by the Government to make the country believe that they were going to do something for them.

did not think the Amendment of the Government necessary.

moved its omission. Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"

moved the omission of the clause. He said, that this was the first of the procedure clauses in the Bill, and if his Amendment were agreed to no fewer than 16 clauses would be got rid of, besides shortening the discussion in Committee by many hours. The clause would entitle a landlord to proceed under the Bill where a tenant committed waste, or broke a covenant or other agreement connected with the contract of tenancy. Now, that would give a wide scope of claim by the landlord under the Bill, and he would be enabled to raise many nice questions which there was no proper tribunal to try. Why should this exceptional privilege be given to the landlord, instead of leaving him to resort to the ordinary tribunals? The landlord could claim under the Bill, even when the tenant made no claim against him, and no statute of limitation would bar the claim. Further, the tribunal constituted under the Bill had no power to determine many of the questions that might be raised; because it was provided that it could only determine the amount of compensation and the time when it was to be paid. If appeal was to be allowed to the County Court Judge on the subject of amount, why should they not send before a legal tribunal, in the first instance, questions as to breach of covenant and committal of waste? Under the clause as it stood power of appeal was only given to the landlord and not to the tenant, while, should it remain unaltered, a most expensive and objectionable mode of procedure would be established.

supported the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend. Without going into the more technical questions which had been raised, and regarding this question from a landowning point of view, he considered that the Government's clauses were dangerous, as they would take these matters from under the cognizance of the ordinary Courts of the land and create a special tribunal less competent to deal with them. No doubt arbitration was the best way of settling disputes of the character which would arise under this Bill, but he preferred arbitration chosen by the parties to arbitration forced upon them in derogation of legal rights. The best way to prevent litigation was to give facilities for enforcing legal rights, and as the result of the Bill would after all be the creation of legal rights expressed in money value, the best way of arriving at what the law was, would be to let the questions of law be tried by the Courts. The common sense of the parties would find the way to assess the amount. But under this Bill there would be no means by which doubtful points of law could be taken as a matter of right before the Superior Courts of Law. He doubted whether under the Bill a landlord and tenant could agree to take any case to the ordinary tribunals, and he certainly thought that was a matter which deserved the attention of the House and the Government.

said, he fully admitted the importance of the matters referred to by his hon. and learned Friends; but he hoped that the Committee would give its attention to the particular subject under consideration, which was whether the 14th clause should be retained or not. It appeared to him that the clause was one to which no reasonable objection could be taken. It was not a clause of procedure, but of definition. It defined that which was to be the subject of procedure. It would enable a landlord who had a claim against his tenant at the end of the tenancy, arising from breach of contract or otherwise, to set off such claim, as far as it went, against any claim for compensation which the tenant might have against him. He thought it was only right that the landlord should have such a power, and the referees after investigating the case would make the award either in favour of the landlord or tenant. The question how far the tribunal constituted by the Bill was a satisfactory one would arise under a subsequent clause.

maintained that if the tenant had committed a breach of covenant, the landlord might proceed against him quite independently, and use the machinery of this Act for that breach of covenant; but there was no similar provision on behalf of the tenant. This clause had, he thought, found its way into the Bill by mistake. There was scarcely anything a tenant could do that might not be regarded as waste at common law, and if the landlord was to have the means of proceeding against the tenant with respect to waste, it was necessary that the term should be defined in the Bill. It was evident that the draftsman of the Bill did not understand the meaning of the word "waste" in law, which included an improvement which altered the condition of the property.

objected to the means afforded for inflicting injury upon the tenant farmer, especially through the means of petti-fogging attorneys. There were many improvements which tenant farmers might make, and which they would make, which were not included in the Bill.

said, that the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford had complained that the draftsman had not afforded a proper definition of waste; but he thought sufficient definition had been given during the progress of the Bill in "another place" in such matters as diminishing the letting value of the holding, causing or permitting land to be neglected, damaging the timber, injuring pasture, neglecting outfalls and water courses, neglecting the repair of roads, and other matters of a similar kind. He thought these heads comprised what might be called a definition, and therefore the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman did not appear to be well founded. Without any further definition of what was waste, there was not any adequate Court that could not at once settle the question.

said, that the highest legal authorities might be able to define what waste was; but what would be the position of the unfortunate tenant against whom the landlord brought a charge of waste? Probably a great deal of time would be saved if the Government would agree to omit the clause, and consider what better words might be introduced. He thought the object of the right hon. Gentleman had not been carried into effect by the clause. He considered that the clause went much further than was consistent with the object of the Bill.

thought that if the clause stood alone, it might bear the interpretation put upon it by the noble Marquess; but it was to be read in conjunction with the other provisions of the Bill, and especially Clause 15, which dealt with the notice of intended claims. How-over, if the present words were not satisfactory, the Government would be prepared to make the necessary amendment in the Bill at its next stage. In the meantime, he hoped the clause would be retained.

said, the words agreed upon in the House of Lords did not form a definition of the general term "waste," but were only a limitation of it. He quite agreed with the Prime Minister that any properly constituted Court should construe what waste was; but under the clause, that was not left to a properly constituted Court, but to three country surveyors to determine.

regretted more than ever that he had not been brought up a professional man, for he could see in this Bill such ample prospects of litigation as would make this land of ours, hitherto prosperous and happy, a hell upon earth. Why were we to deviate in this matter from the common law which had hitherto answered perfectly well? Why put landlord and tenant in such a position by the Bill that they would contract themselves out of it as the only way of avoiding litigation? The best friends of the landlords were the tenant farmers, yet the Bill was doing much to destroy the amicable relations which had hitherto existed between them.

approved of the clause, and would much prefer valuers who understood agricultural matters to Judges at Westminster, who possibly did not know wheat from barley. The anxiety of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) to get the matter into the hands of the lawyers reminded him of the farmer's song—

"If you' re fond of pure vexation

And long procrastination,

You' re just in the situation

To enjoy your suit at law."

moved, in page 4, line 39, to insert the words "one month at least," before the termination of his tenancy, in reference to the notice to be given by a tenant claiming compensation.

said, the hon. Member must be under a complete misapprehension in suggesting this alteration.

said, that communication would have previously been made on the amount of claims, and therefore it was not unreasonable that the tenant should give a month's notice.

moved to report Progress, calling attention to the fact that there were 40 other Orders, the first of which was the Militia Bill.

opposed the Motion, which he hoped would be withdrawn until this clause had been disposed of.

said, he would, with the permission of the House, take the Bill at a Morning Sitting to-morrow at 2 o'clock; and, as the evening Paper was virtually empty, he trusted that the Committee would pursue their labours upon the Bill at the Sitting at 9 o'clock.

moved, in page 14, at end of clause, to add the words—

"Provided always, That in case of European War, the Militia shall he liable for active or foreign service, within the limits of Europe, and such liability shall he entered on their original enlistment paper."

said, that was one of the most extraordinary proposals ever made, and, if the Ballot were enforced for the Militia, would place the Militia in a worse position than the Regulars, who would be enlisted voluntarily. He had regarded the Notice of the Amendment as a joke.

said, the resort to the Ballot in the case of the Militia was a source of difficulty when, in time of war, it was desired to send the Militia abroad. But the proposal was no doubt made by his hon. and gallant Friend to authorize the Militia to volunteer their services, of which there were many precedents in the history of the Militia. At the same time, he regretted that the Bill had not been sent to a Select Committee, as he felt persuaded that in that case a great deal of valuable information would have been obtained with respect to the Militia, and many useful alterations would then have been introduced into the present Bill based on the experience of former years, and found on record in some of the Acts which this Bill proposed to do away with.

thought the Militia should continue a Home force, ready to volunteer for foreign service when necessity required it, without being under a contract to do so.

gave the utmost credit to his hon. and gallant Friend opposite for the goodness of his motive in proposing his Amendment; but he would point out that it was perfectly incongruous, and would not be in harmony with the general spirit of the clause. Its effect would be that the Militia would be absolutely compelled to serve abroad in the event of a European war, whereas they would not be liable unless they volunteered to garrison the British colonial possessions. Besides, the new system of cadres had put the Army on a different footing, and until the experiment had been tried more fully it would be injurious to adopt this Amendment.

moved an Amendment which would remove the trial of deserters from a military to a civil tribunal.

moved an Amendment specifying that annual Returns of Warrants, Orders, and Regulations relating to the Militia should be laid before Parliament. That provision was now the more necessary, seeing that the course now followed in respect to the Militia was entirely at variance with the practice of former times. That practice required all the Regulations connected with the Militia to form part of the Act, or Regulations were appended to the Act, so that the entire law affecting that Force was publicly known and could be referred to in one or more Acts, readily procurable by everyone. Now the law vested in the Secretary of State the fullest authority to issue Regulations and War- rants dealing with every question connected with the pay, pensions, clothing, arming, drilling, organization, and officering of the Force, and unless those Regulations were annually placed before Parliament and printed, it would be very difficult for any Member or for any one outside the War Office to ascertain what were the Orders affecting this great Force. But he hoped that the Secretary of State would consider those points and cause an annual compilation of all Regulations, including the Laws to Acts of Parliament to be made and made available for purchase by all who desired to know about the Militia. He was confident that consideration would be given, and would therefore withdraw the Amendment.

moved a new clause, enabling the Secretary of State for War to enlist from the respective Militias raised in England, Scotland, and Ireland, a number of men which should not exceed at any one time one-third part of the respective quotas of the Militia now for the time being fixed by law to be raised therein respectively. This would raise the Reserve from 30,000 to 40,000.

, admitting the importance of the question of the Militia Reserves, expressed a hope that he would not be called upon to adopt the proposed clause in the present Bill, but leave the matter in his hands to deal with it next Session.

withdrew his Amendment.

in moving that the House go into Committee that day three months said, that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had said that the object of the Government was to enable an additional Sheriff substitute to be appointed by Glasgow. No person was more sensible than he of the need there was in Glasgow for more judicial power, but he would remind the House that the application by Glasgow for a stipendiary magistrate had been refused by the Home Secretary. In other parts of the country there were Sheriffs substitute who had nothing to do, and he thought one of these should be employed, so that instead of increasing the expenses they should go towards economy. He would move the postponement of the Committee.

hoped the House would permit the Bill to be brought in. He admitted the judicial system of Scotland required revision, and said that the subject would engage the attention of the Lord Advocate and himself during the Recess.

also advocated the withdrawal of the opposition for the present, and to contest the proposals of the Government on the separate clauses of the Bill, and to this way he was quite prepared to give his cordial aid to his hon. Friend (Mr. Ramsay) in every stage of the Bill which was partial in its reforms, instead of being general for all Scotland.

suggested that the best way to save the time of the Government was to oppose Bills when they were introduced.