asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in anticipation of the extra demand for screw steamers for carrying grain during the coming winter, in consequence of the bad harvest prospect in this country, the Government would bring in a short Bill this Session for rendering it necessary for all steamers constructed with a double bottom for water ballast to have their stability tested, and a certificate given allowing them, if found safe, to carry grain or seed cargoes; also that no steamer or sailing ships be allowed to carry grain or seed without proper and efficient protection and precautions be provided by compartments and shifting boards, and when necessary a portion of the grain or seed be carried in bags; also that owners of steamers and sailing ships be required to fill up and return to the Board of Trade a form stating the maximum depth to which they propose to load their vessels; and, also that the attention of the Board of Trade surveyors be specially directed to seeing that steamers' engine and boiler and bunker space openings are efficiently protected from the sea, and that they have substantial and thoroughly efficient steering gear?

Sir, the Government have no intention of introducing a Bill drafted according to the terms of the Question put to me by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will give precedence over the Government Orders of the Day to the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment (No. 2) Bill, which was introduced by the honourable Member for Derby, and which stands for Second Reading on Thursday next?

Sir, I will answer frankly and, I hope, fairly, the inquiry of the hon. Gentleman. Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to give precedence to the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby on Thursday next, and for two reasons. In the first place, they could not support that Bill, because, however excellent its motives, it is their opinion that the tendency of that measure, if it were carried, would be to aggravate the evils it affects to remedy; and, secondly, because the Bill would lead, from its very character and the important principles which it involves, to a protracted discussion, which would require time, the want of which has obliged Her Majesty's Ministers to relinquish for the present the Bill they themselves brought forward this year. What, in their opinion, is required at this moment is a temporary measure—a short and temporary measure—which will give more rapid and direct action to the Government in the way of stopping unseaworthy ships, and a measure having that effect will almost immediately be introduced by the President of the Board of Trade. When I say a temporary measure, I mean a measure limited in its operation to one year—first, because the measure may involve powers which the House may not choose to grant to a Ministry for a permanent measure; and, secondly, because a temporary measure, or measure for one year will be a material guarantee for the introduction, at the earliest possible opportunity next Session, of a per- manent measure on the subject. Now, with regard to the measure of the hon. Member for Derby, I can answer for the Government—that is to say, if I have then the general conduct of affairs in this House—he shall have every fair opportunity of bringing his views before the House and the country. I will take care that the two measures—that of the Government and that of the hon. Member for Derby—shall be introduced simultaneously; that their true principles shall at the same time be brought under the consideration of the House; and I doubt not that with the adequate time and thought which the House will then enjoy and be able to afford we shall come to conclusions advantageous to the public welfare.

said, that he might be excused if he should ask the Prime Minister or the President of the Board of Trade if he could promise that the Bill which was to be brought in tomorrow would be introduced at an hour which would afford time for an adequate statement on the subject? He put the Question because it would materially affect the course which would be taken on Thursday.

Sir, if we can get the control of the time to-morrow, of course I will make arrangements with a view to meet the wishes of the hon. Gentleman; but any arrangement I can make will of course depend on the indulgence of the House. We shall do our utmost to bring forward the Bill at a time when there can be a fair expression of opinion; but I must appeal to the indulgence of the House for that purpose.

Following up the Question of the hon. Member, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman when he proposes to make the Motion for taking Tuesdays and Wednesdays?

There is a Motion on the Paper for this evening to that effect.

I have no right to ask the Question I am about to do, and I will not press it if the right hon. Gentleman says that he is unable to answer me; but it will be very convenient if he informs the House what business he intends to proceed with to-morrow in case the House place at his disposal—as I think, considering the advanced period of the Session, there is very little doubt they will—Tuesdays and Wednesdays for the remainder of the Session?

Really I have not had that presumption so far to count upon the indulgence of the House as to regulate the Business of the House in advance. If the permission for which we have asked is granted, we propose to proceed to-morrow with the measure which has already much occupied us, and will again occupy us to-day—the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill. If that measure is concluded in Committee to-night we shall make an arrangement which I hope, on the whole, may be satisfactory; but in our present uncertain state I cannot say anything definite.

inquired when the Government would propose the Motion that for the remainder of the Session Tuesdays and Wednesdays should be at their disposal? Would it be done at 9 o'clock to-night, or at 2 or 3 o'clock to-morrow morning? [Cries of "Now! "]

With the general permission of the House a Motion of this kind, relating to the Business of the House, can be made now; and if it is the pleasure of the House that the Motion should be put at once, I will at once put it.

then moved that Government Orders of the Day shall have precedence on Tuesdays and Wednesdays for the remainder of the Session.

said, some of his Colleagues attended on the previous evening to make a strong representation against taking away that day week on account of a Notice of Motion given by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) for that day. They asked that Tuesday next should be excepted from the Motion. The Under Secretary for India informed him on Monday that the Government did not intend to take that Tuesday in view of his hon. and learned Friend's Motion. As regarded his own Motion in reference to the Guikwar of Baroda, he complained strongly that he was only in- formed of the alteration of the intentions of the Government on the preceding evening. Several hon. Members had left town under the impression that the debate on India, which had been fixed for that day, could not possibly come on. He asked the Government not to take that day week from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick, who had a very strong question to raise on that day as to the conduct by the Government of Irish Business throughout the Session. He made no further complaint about his own question.

I must ask the permission of the House, as I have already spoken, to make an explanation in answer to the hon. Member for Louth. If the hon. Member thinks himself personally aggrieved, I will give his feelings every consideration; but I was under the impression that, considering the state of the Public Business, he did not intend to bring forward his Motion. If there has been any misapprehension on that subject I shall do everything possible to recognize his claim. But with regard to his other remarks, in which he referred to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, and in which he attempted to extract a promise from the Government, I think I can assure him that, with the well-known opportunities of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, and the openings which the various stages of the Appropriation Grant will afford him, that hon. and learned Member will have no difficulty about his Motion. I acknowledge the general courtesy of the hon. Member for Louth, and if there has been any misapprehension about his Motion I shall certainly make an arrangement.

said, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed in the absence of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), whose Bill with reference to Monastic and Conventual Institutions stood first for Wednesday week on the Orders of the Day. In fact, he did not think it would be quite fair to do so in his absence.

said, that his Bill for the closing of public houses on Sundays in England was the First Order for tomorrow. It dealt with a subject of great interest to the country; but at this advanced period of the Session, and having regard to the quantity of Business still before the House, he would be quite prepared to give up his position to the right hon. Gentleman for the purpose of facilitating the introduction of the Government Merchant Shipping Bill, in the hope that he would be able to bring forward his Bill early next Session.

said, the hon. Member for Louth was much indebted to the Prime Minister for the courteous manner in which he had spoken of him; but the complaint of his hon. Friend was not the way in which he himself had been treated, but that the Irish Members should be deprived of Tuesday next for the discussion of an important question affecting the interests of Ireland. There were many Irish Members who believed that the House of Commons could never effectually legislate for Ireland, and the hon. and learned Member for Limerick had put a Motion on the Paper directly raising that question. It was now proposed, at a time when there were very few Irish Members present, that another course be taken, which would prevent that Motion from being brought forward. The Notice of the Government was for the Evening Sitting, and several Irish Members were prepared to speak upon it. They were not, however, present now, and were unprepared for this change in the Government arrangements. He would appeal to the Government to allow the matter to stand over until those Irish Members could be present who were able and willing to speak on the subject. If not, then let the Irish Members have Tuesday next.

thought, as the conversation had disclosed differences of opinion among the Members present, the question had better be deferred until it was reached in ordinary course, in justice to many Members who were now absent.

said, so many questions had been put to him with reference to the Motion standing in his name in relation to Monastic and Conventual Institutions, that he felt the question of the Order of Business ought not to be decided, except at the time appointed in the Notice Paper. He, therefore, moved the adjournment of the debate.

I believe I am principally responsible for the proposition which has been made by the Secretary to the Treasury. It had occurred to me, after the answer which had been given, that it would be inconvenient that the proposition should be made perhaps at half-past 2 o'clock in the morning. I therefore suggested, as a preferable course, that the Motion should be made now. It is one to which I cannot conceive there can be any serious opposition. It is a usual and almost invariable course that at this period the whole time of the House should be placed at the disposal of the Government; and certainly the state of Public Business at present is not such as to induce the House to depart from the usual practice. I think, however, the House has some reason to complain of the mode in which the question has been brought forward by the Government. If the Motion had been put down for this morning, hon. Members would have known what to expect, and it would undoubtedly have been the most convenient course. We appear to have a choice of evils—either to take it now without Notice, or another evening when few Members will be present. If objection is entertained to the Motion being made now, and if it is felt to be preferable that it should be adjourned, I shall offer no opposition to that course: I had hoped, however, that on making it the Government would be able to have stated what their intentions were with regard to the use of the time they ask for. I still think it would be extremely convenient that we should know what the Business to-morrow will be in the event of the Committee on the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill being concluded this evening. If it is intended that the Bill to be introduced by the President of the Board of Trade is to be brought in early to-morrow and the discussion to be taken on the introduction of the Bill, it is important, and indeed essential, that it should be known, and that the statement of the fact should not be postponed until late to-night. Many hon. Members are absent, and some who would wish to take part in the discussion are not in London and would not be able to return if the announcement were not made until to-night. It therefore seems to me it is of the greatest importance that we should know whether it is intended formally to introduce the Bill to-morrow and to postpone the discussion until the second reading, or, if not, that the question should come on at once, when a discussion on the question can be raised.

It is always my disinclination to bring forward a Motion of this kind except in concurrence with the general feeling of the House. It was my impression that the Motion would come on to-day; but I should have been glad to have the opinion of the House when it would be most convenient to take the discussion on the second reading. If the boon I ask be granted, we will go into Supply to-morrow, and at a certain reasonable time report Progress, in order that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade may introduce his measure at a proper time. I think myself it would be more convenient if the discussion were to be taken on the second reading; but, of course, I only mention that for the convenience of the House. In that event we should continue Supply for a longer time than usual. But I think it would be more useful and convenient to allow hon. Gentlemen full opportunity of considering the Bill, and the second reading must come on early in consequence of the advanced period of the Session. In making these observations, I always assume that we conclude the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill to-night. If not, we will continue the discussion to-morrow. I am in the hands of the House; but I was under the impression that it was the feeling of a large majority of the House that the Motion with respect to Tuesdays and Wednesdays should be taken to-night.

said, that if the Sunday Closing Bill came to be discussed to-morrow it would occupy the entire day. The hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Wilson) had only consented to withdraw for the present the second reading in order to facilitate progress with the measures of the Government; but he by no means understood him to express any willingness to retire the Bill in favour of any private Member.

said, he thought it would be most convenient to settle the question now, and to decide what was going to be done on Wednesday. The Votes to be taken in Supply were of great interest, and were in four different classes, which would attract, as it were, four different sets of Members.

said, that the proceedings of that day would induce people outside to think that Government was still pursuing that fatal policy which had brought it into disgrace with the country. What hon. Members on that side of the House particularly desired to ascertain was, whether the Bill relating to the Merchant Shipping, to be introduced on Wednesday, was to be brought on at such a time as to enable hon. Members to discuss it? He asked the right hon. Gentleman not to give the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill precedence over a Bill which involved the lives of many persons.

thought the proposal of the Government a reasonable one. The question was, whether the public welfare was to be sacrificed to the interests of private Members?

said, that in the event of the House going into Supply on Wednesday they would proceed with the postponed Civil Service Estimates, Class III., and the remaining Estimates in Class IV., and then report Progress, in order to enable the President of the Board of Trade to introduce his Bill relating to unseaworthy ships.

asked when the Navy Estimates would be taken?

asked the Prime Minister to fix an hour for the introduction of the Merchant Shipping Bill. It should be brought forward when there would be ample opportunity to discuss both its principle and its provisions. Pour o'clock ought to be the latest hour for its introduction.

deprecated any further waste of the public time in pursuing this discussion. He hoped they would now come to a decision on the Motion with respect to allowing Government Orders of the Day for the remainder of the Session to have precedence on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. He hoped the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill would be got through that day. If that were done, then they could go on to-morrow with Supply, and continue until about half-past 4 o'clock, when his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade could introduce his Bill.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he has any objection to state to the House the reasons for the dismissal of Jane Han-Ion, late nurse in the Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Dundrum; and, whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Report of the Inspector of Lunatic Asylums to the Lord Lieutenant relative to the escape of Margaret Aberton from that Asylum?

, in reply, said, that owing to the escape of Margaret Aberton from the asylum the matter was inquired into by the Inspector of Lunatic Asylums, who reported that the nurse, Jane Hanlon, had been guilty of great negligence and improper conduct in the discharge of the duties of the office. Accordingly, he recommended her dismissal, which was carried into effect. The Inspector's Report could not be laid on the Table, because such documents were always considered confidential.

moved that the House do now adjourn. He said that he did so on account of what had just occurred, and of the division which had just taken place. He was not about further to allude to the subject of that division than by saying that the Members present in the House had, by anticipating the decision of a question at that Morning Sitting, which stood for the evening on the Notice Paper, the Notice having been given by the Government, established a precedent of action not only totally at variance with the practice of the House, but which, if further acted upon, must prove destructive of the House itself, as a deliberative and legislative Assembly. It was manifest that if the Business appointed at one Sitting was to be taken by anticipation at a previous Sitting, no Members, except those who might happen accidentally to be present, could have any effective voice in the decision of that Business, however important. It was manifest that any faction might usurp the authority of the House, in the absence of the great body of the Members of the House, by very easily preconcerted action. He should not waste more words in remonstrance upon what had been done; but with reference to the decision of the Members then present in the House in respect of the taking the Tuesdays and Wednesdays from the unofficial Members of the House and their Business, and appropriating those days to the Business of the Government, he wished to observe that the Monastic and Conventual Institutions Bill, of which he had charge, stood for Wednesday the 4th of August; that appointment was now, of course, superseded by the action of the Government in the House. He (Mr. Newdegate) might now mention that it had not been his intention to press the second reading of that Bill; but on being asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) to withdraw that Bill, in order to facilitate the attendance of the Irish Members at the O'Connell Centenary, in Dublin, he declined to give an answer, because he did not choose to be counted as a supporter of what he understood was to be an Ultramontane demonstration. By the course Her Majesty's Ministers had now pursued, they had become promoters of the O'Connell demonstration. After what had occurred, it was difficult to imagine what further interference with the due order and regular procedure of the House might not be proposed; and his chief object in having moved the adjournment was to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it was the intention of the Government, by proposing the Resolutions of 1869 with respect to Amendments on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply or Committee of Ways and Means, or by any other Resolutions, to preclude the Members of this House from submitting such subjects as may appear to them important for the consideration of the House during the remainder of the Session?

seconded the Motion.

said, there was no such intention, nor had any proposal been submitted which trenched on the privileges of private Members, unless there was a general concurrence of the House in its favour. There was, however, one remarkable characteristic of the present Session—that the privilege of bringing forward Motions on going into Committee of Supply and Committee of Ways and Means, which was to a certain degree regulated and restricted by previous Administrations, was not so curtailed by the present Government, who throughout the Session had proposed no such arrangement. He was rather surprised, therefore, that his hon. Friend should impute to the Government a design of such a character. He hoped that now, when time was so valuable and when every minute might be said to be golden, his hon. Friend would not persist in the Motion.

, having obtained the answer he required, said, he would withdraw the Motion.

moved, in page 5, line 10, to leave out "if in any case," to end of clause. The object of the clause, he contended, was to oust and repudiate altogether the action of the ordinary Courts of Common Law by making arbitration in every case compulsory. If the Government would substitute "may" for "shall" he should be content, otherwise he should persist in his Amendment.

believed his hon. and learned Friend's object was to get rid of arbitration altogether, which was one of the main principles of the Bill. The Committee had already decided that compensation should be given, and if they did away with arbitration it would be only putting the parties to great expense and delay.

believed that the reference to arbitration provided by the clause would be more expensive than an appeal to the ordinary tribunals. As, however, the Committee had already substantially adopted the clause he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Amendment to a division. They had better apply themselves rather to improving the clauses than make futile attempts to get rid of them altogether.

said, that they had had some experience of Ireland under the Land Act of these references, and landlords and tenants were unanimously in favour of Courts of Arbitration, and getting rid altogether of the County Courts.

moved, in page 5, line 13, to leave out from "as follows," to end of sub-sections. His object, he said, was not to interfere in any way with arbitration; but if the parties concurred, the question in dispute might be disposed of by one referee, and so get rid of the County Courts altogether.

said, before that Question was put he should like to move an Amendment which, properly speaking, came before that of the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield. His opinion was that landlords and tenants ought to be left to agree among themselves on this point, and that there was no necessity for appointing a new Court of Arbitration, as was suggested by the Bill. He believed that all the machinery of arbitration was already provided by the Lands Clauses Act, and for that reason he should move to strike out the whole of the sub-sections, leaving the clause to read, "Where there is a reference under this Act, a referee, or two referees and an umpire, shall be appointed."

also thought it would be better to leave the parties to settle disputes among themselves, rather than to provide such an elaborate machinery of appeal as was proposed by the Bill.

said, it was all very well to talk of leaving parties to agree among themselves. He himself knew of instances in which both parties to a dispute agreed to refer all matters in difference to arbitration, but could not agree as to how the umpire was to be appointed. The sub-sections of the clause would entirely remove that difficulty.

said, some provision must be made for the appointment of an umpire where the referees did not agree, otherwise arbitrations would constantly break down.

advised the Government to agree to strike out all those subsections, and to introduce a reference to Common Law procedure, so as to make the clause run thus:—"Where there is a reference under this Act referees and an umpire shall be appointed under the Common Law Procedure Act." That, he thought, would meet the whole difficulty of the case, as the machinery of the latter Act was sufficient to meet all disputes without creating an entirely new legal tribunal.

said, that if this latter suggestion was agreed to a great many Amendments would be got rid of, and the progress of the Bill immensely facilitated.

opposed the suggestion, on the ground that if it were adopted farmers would have to deal with two Acts of Parliament instead of one. That would simply lead to trouble and mystification. What the farmers wanted was to have the whole law on the subject embraced within the four corners of a single Bill, and not to be puzzled and distracted by having to turn from one Act to another. Should the parties wish to adopt the Common Law Procedure Act they would be able to do so by agreement.

admitted that the Common Law Procedure Act contained very much the same terms as those of the specific clauses to which the Amendment applied; but thought it better that people should have the provisions before them in an easily comprehended form than that they should have to be referred to the complicated sections of the Act in question.

thought that the arbitration provisions in the Bill ought to be made as simple and perfect as possible, and he supported the adoption of the procedure under the Common Law Procedure Act.

observed, that a great objection to the provisions of the Common Law Procedure Act being adopted was that in nearly every case they would necessitate the removal of the claim to the Superior Courts at Westminster, and thus entail great expense.

suggested that the best course would be to adopt, as the system of arbitration, and the mode of checking it, the system already provided by law, which had worked well in every case in which it had been in operation.

thought the plan proposed by the Government was the best, especially in cases of small claims for compensation, as it was far the cheapest and simplest.

was of opinion that it would be absurd to allow the appointment of the umpire to rest with the Judges of the Superior Courts.

pointed out that in the Bill as it stood there was no power to obtain compensation under any other reference than that contained in this clause.

said, it had been stated over and over again that it was the intention of the Government, in order to put the matter beyond all question, to provide in a future part of the Bill that it should be in the power of the parties to make such agreements.

said, they had been told in the early part of the Sitting that the Government hoped to get through the Bill to-night; but whenever objection was taken to any of the clauses the Committee was referred to Amendments which the Government intended to introduce, but which somehow or other never got on the Paper. He did not think that was a fair way to treat the Committee. He thought that the state of the Business was not such as to warrant the Government in encumbering the Bill with provisions setting up a new system of procedure, when there was already a well-considered system under the Common Law Procedure Act.

moved, in page 5, line 21, after "referee," to add—

"And either party on so appointing a referee may stipulate that should an umpire he required he shall be named by the county court judge, but should a demand made by one party that the umpire shall be named by the county court judge be objected to, the objecting party may require that he shall he named by the Inclosure Commissioners, and such nomination by the Inclosure Commissioners shall be final."

moved that the Amendment should be amended by striking out "County Court Judge," leaving the appointment of umpire to the Inclosure Commissioners. The latter alternative, however, would not necessarily be involved even if the words "County Court Judge" were struck out. In his opinion, where questions of mere law were concerned, such as the determining whether an award was valid under the provisions of the Act—what costs should be given, and other points of law, the County Court might be employed as the cheapest Law Court accessible to the farmers. But he objected to giving to the County Court Judge the appointment of referees and umpires, or of deciding upon points which could only be properly decided by practical agriculturists. The County Courts were mainly known to the agricultural community as Courts for the recovery of debt, and their unnecessary introduction into the Bill would not tend to make it popular. The County Court Judge would probably know little of the farmers, though he might be a friend of many of the landlords, which, however unjustly, might expose his appointments to suspicion. Besides, an appeal was to be given to the County Court Judge, and if the clause stood as it was, this would be an appeal against the decision of his own nominee. In 99 cases out of 100 the umpire would be appointed by the referees, and where another authority was necessary, the Inclosure Commissioners would be the best, for, having continual land transactions in every county, they could at once lay their hands upon the best practical valuers to appoint as referees or umpires.

agreed in the opinion that appeals from the appointment of umpire by the referees would be rare; but the Government were prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Knight), that if one of the parties had an objection to the appointment made by the County Court Judge a reference might be made to the Inclosure Commissioners. He hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw the Amendment he had proposed in order that the Government might prepare a form of words which could be more conveniently inserted. He did not approve of the proposal to leave out the County Court Judge, because very few farmers would know where to find the Inclosure Commissioners.

regretted to hear that the Government were willing to allow the ultimate nomination of the umpire to rest with the Inclosure Commissioners. They knew something of the Commissioners in that House, and had practically suspended their action for six years in reference to inclosures because it was not such as Parliament could approve. The whole pith of the Bill was the umpire, and he protested against this serious change, which would shake the confidence of tenant farmers in the measure.

said, the arrangements made by the Inclosure Commissioners as regarded the improvement of the tracts of open country surrounding Exmoor had given perfect satisfaction to the proprietors and farmers. Their work had been well done, and most beneficially to the working classes. Large tracts of common land, where no one was employed formerly, now employed many labourers at much increased wages. On one occasion the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) got the Inclosure Commissioners before a Select Committee and bullied them, as he (Mr. Knight) thought, without any reason whatever. The hon. and learned Gentleman told the Committee that he was fond of galloping over commons, and he objected to their being inclosed, as that prevented his galloping. He (Mr. Knight) felt that no public officers had more fully earned the confidence of the public than the Inclosure Commissioners.

said, he intended to take the sense of the Committee on the question of the County Court Judge, and it would save some trouble if the matter were settled at once.

thought that if the right hon. Gentleman intended to divide the Committee on the County Court Judge he had better do so on a direct Motion, and not an Amendment upon an Amendment.

moved, in page 5, line 28, to leave out "seven," and insert "fourteen."

moved, in line 31, to leave out "the County Court," and insert "the Inclosure Commissioners."

moved, in page 6, line 40, leave out from "appoints" to end of clause.

moved that for the word—

"The mode and extent in and to which each improvement of the first or of the second class adds to the letting value of the holding "—

"In the case of an improvement of the first class, where the landlord was not at the time of giving consent to the execution there of absolute owner for his own benefit, the extent to which the improvement adds to the letting value of the holding."

objected to the use of the words "absolute owner" in the Amendment. The words had no meaning, inasmuch as a landowner who had a mortgage on his estate or a settlement of any kind could not be described as an absolute owner, and there was not a gentleman in England possessed of property for four or five years who had not some such settlement upon it.

observed, that the term "absolute owner" had already been considered in the course of the discussions on the Bill; and the Interpretation Clause had been postponed for the express purpose of having a proper form of words prepared, by which it should be accurately defined.

suggested that the insertion of these words should be postponed till the Report.

said, that they were proposed in consequence of an Amendment already inserted in the clause.

observed, that not one owner of an estate in five was an absolute owner.

said, if not one owner in five were an absolute owner, the hon. and learned Member must know what constituted an absolute owner. The Committee had accepted the words.

remarked that the words were accepted on the understanding that the Government would introduce Amendments in the Interpretation Clause. It was very extraordinary that a Bill of that kind should be hurried on upon the assurance that Amendments would be inserted which the Committee had not yet even seen.

said, the words "absolute owner" were objected to before, and the Committee decided not to entertain the objection.

appealed to the Government to postpone the words "absolute owner" until after their meaning had been defined.

said, that when he proposed an Amendment which did not appear on the Paper, the Government stated that they could not form an opinion as to its character merely by having it read offhand; but the Committee was called on by the Government to do so now, as this Amendment had not appeared on the Paper.

observed, that the difference was, that the Government were responsible for the Bill, while the hon. Gentleman was not.

said, that was unconstitutional doctrine.

remarked, that he would not like to be responsible for much that was contained in the Bill; but, at the same time, when it had passed through Committee, every Member of the Committee would be responsible if no objection were raised.

observed that, at all events, the Government would be responsible for what they recommended.

then proposed to amend the clause so as to secure that the award should be general in its character, and that the tenant would not have to particularize his improvements.

pointed out that the Committee had already decided that the award should be made in detail, and not in the lump.

said, that having had considerable experience in matters of arbitration, he felt bound to say that great hindrance would be thrown in the way of the arbitrators by this clause. If the clause was intended for the protection of the farmer, he would come off very badly indeed. He begged to move the omission of the clause.

considered that in appointing an arbitrator you must assume that he was competent and that his award would be fair and reasonable, and legislation should proceed upon this footing.

feared that the practical working of the clause would be found very difficult. One effect would be that practical valuers of repute, being called upon to do so many things which they had never had to do before, would decline the task, or if they undertook it, as their work would be so much greater, they would charge more, and the expense of valuations, to landlord and tenant, would be much increased.

thought that was one of the most useful clauses in the Bill, and one that was necessary for the protection both of the incoming tenant and the owner. It was quite proper that the arbitrator should state all the specific facts required by the clause, instead of only giving a general lump sum, which would throw an air of mystery over the matter.

expressed a hope that the Government would re-consider the clause before bringing up the Report. Under every disputed claim for compensation the tenant might compel the landlord to produce his title, and the difficulties arising from such production would be very great.

moved, in page 7, line 21, to leave out from "other" to end of clause; in line 23, after "costs," insert "mentioned in this clause."

objected to the clause, as requiring further consideration than could now be given to it, and he, therefore, moved that it be postponed.

said, the clause simply related to awards, and he thought might be at once disposed of; but he was in the hands of the Committee.

observed, that there ought to be some control over the arbitrator, and this could only be effected by permitting the award to be made a rule of Court. He thought it would be better to postpone the clause until the Committee should determine whether or no there was to be a system of appeal.

was of opinion that cases of appeal, under the provisions of this Bill, ought, as in all other cases of award, to be referred to the Superior Courts.

moved Amendments having for their object the making the award of the umpire final in all cases without reference to the Law Courts. With great deference to his legal Friends, he thought the less the farmers had to do with law in these matters the better.

moved to omit the following words at the commencement of the clause:—

"Where the award is valid, and the sum claimed by neither party for compensation exceeds fifty pounds, the award shall he final. Where the award is not valid, either party, and."

thought that the object of his hon. and learned Friend would be gained by adopting the Amendment of which he had given Notice—namely, to leave out merely the words, "where the award is not valid, either party, and." Committee report Progress; to sit again this day. It being now Seven of the clock the House suspended its Sitting.

said, that upon this part of the clause would arise the question whether the appeal should or not be to the County Court Judge.

objected to the appeal being to the County Court Judge. Such an appeal, from its cheapness, would lead to much litigation; and he should therefore prefer that the appeal should be to a higher tribunal. To effect his object he moved to omit the words "to the judge of the county court."

said, that the appeal to the County Court would be the cheapest and readiest form of appeal, and it appeared to him, as a lawyer, to be the best; it was, however, for those hon. Members who were more conversant with agricultural matters than he was to state what objections there were to the proposal of the Government.

supported the appeal to the County Court, where the case could be speedily decided; whereas if the appeal were to be to a tribunal in London, it would operate very hardly upon the farmers.

maintained that there should be no appeal at all from the decision of the referees.

thought that all matters of fact should be left with the valuers, who, being conversant with agricultural details, would be more competent to deal with them than County Court Judges, and that on matters of law there should be an appeal to a Superior Court at once. He suggested that the appeal to the County Court should be done away with.

thought that if this was the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire, he should have supported his (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen's) proposal to get rid of the County Court Judge on a previous clause. Now, however, that the Committee had decided that the County Court Judges should be brought into the Bill, the proper course would be to let them determine questions of law only.

suggested that the decision of the referees or umpires should be final as to all matters of fact and as to the amount of compensation; but that on points of law an appeal should lie to the County Court, which the Government thought would be the cheapest, most accessible, and most expeditious tribunal.

thought that if there was to be an appeal from the referees or the umpires, it would be preferable that it should be given to the County Court.

said, the question of law, which would arise in nearly every case, would be whether or not the landowner was the absolute owner of his estate, and the County Court Judge was a most undesirable person to have to decide such a question. He thought it would be better to take appeals on such questions at once to a Court of Law.

remarked that he attached no importance to the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford with reference to the absolute owner. After what had been said by the First Lord of the Admiralty, he did not desire to press his Amendment

moved, in page 8, line 1, after "court," to leave out to end of clause, and insert—

"1, on the ground that the award is invalid; 2, that compensation has been awarded to which the party claiming was not entitled; 3, or that the amount of compensation was not correct; and the County Court Judge shall hear and determine the said appeal, or, in his discretion, remit the case to be reheard as to the whole or any part thereof by the referee or referees or umpire."

suggested the addition of the following words to the Amendment:—"With such directions as he may think fit."

moved an Amendment, that the decision of the Judge of the County Court should be final, except either party should request him to state a case on a question of law or a rejection or admission of evidence for the Judge of the High Court of Justice.

moved, in page 8, line 14, after "recoverable," to insert, "upon order made by the Judge of the County Court," that it should be enforced, otherwise there was no guarantee that the document handed to the bailiffs of the County Court to be enforced was a genuine document.

moved, in page 8, line 41, after "Act," to insert, "for an improvement of the first class." There was a great difference in the character of the improvements comprehended severally under the first, second, and third classes, and, in his opinion, there could be no reason for charging the holding with improvements not of the first class.

opposed the Amendment. The hon. Member would see, on reflection, that in some cases—such as that of the incumbent of a benefice who let the glebe farm, but had no personalty of his own. If he died or left, the tenant had no remedy, if the improvement could not be charged upon the holding. The law did not recognize the incoming tenant, who could only deal with his predecessor through the landlord.

observed, that it would be no security to the tenant to charge for these improvements, but the advantage would be to the landlord in case the tenant should leave before his time had run out.

thought the provision would be a great security to the tenant.

asked, whether or no a tenant for life occupying a farm might obtain from the County Court a charge on the holding?

said, that by a subsequent clause it was provided that if the landlord, under such circumstances, ceased to be so, the charge fell through.

had also a question to ask the Attorney General. Suppose a tenant for life had not contracted himself out of the Bill, and his tenant went on accumulating improvements under the second class for which the consent of the landlord was not necessary, and the tenant for life died after two years, what security had the tenant against the next man?

made no reply.

moved an Amendment, with the view of meeting an objection taken by the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford (Sir William Harcourt). The clause said—

"The Court shall have power, on proof of the payment, to make an order charging the holding with repayment of the amount paid,"

"On being satisfied of the observance in good faith of the conditions precedent thereto imposed by the Act."

said, that this Amendment would merely get rid of the difficulty by evading it.

held that it introduced a reasonable and proper precaution.

moved to add to the Amendment the words—

"And that such payment did not exceed in amount the value of the improvement actually made by the tenant."

thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kildare an infinitely bettor and more intelligible one than that of the First Lord of the Admiralty.

remarked that it did not go so far as his proposal.

said, they were imposing on the County Court Judge duties which he could not perform. He thought the whole clause simply absurd.

protested against the assumption that the landlord and tenant would conspire to defraud the remainderman.

moved, in page 9, line 29, after "tenant," to insert—

"Provided, That in case of the landlord being a limited owner no such order shall be made by the Court unless upon such notice being given as is mentioned in the concluding part of the foregoing section."

had no objection to the insertion of the proviso, because he hoped the Committee would, on the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire, strike out the clause.

moved to leave out the clause.

hoped the hon. Gentleman would explain the reasons which had induced the Government to accede to the Amendment.

said, the clause provided that, under certain circumstances, the compensation to the tenant was to be paid by instalments; but, as the tenant would in most cases want the money immediately in order that he might take another farm, he thought it desirable that the clause should be omitted.

thought that it was for the benefit of the tenant that the clause should be retained, else he would have no chance of obtaining compensation from an impecunious landlord.

wished to know from the authors of the Bill why they agreed to omit Clause 7?

said, the clause was not in the original Bill, but had been inserted in it on the Motion of the Lord Chancellor of the late Government. He was unable to defend it.

complained that there was not some better understanding between those who had charge of the Bill in the House of Lords and those who had charge of it here. The former agreed to the clause and the others agreed to take it out.

inquired whether it was not necessary first to obtain the consent of the Crown to such a provision?

said, that the assent of the Crown had been already obtained.

moved an Amendment to the effect that two years' notice should be substituted for one, as proposed by the clause. He made the proposal with diffidence, but it was one that had met with favour with the Farmers Club and other agricultural bodies, and its acceptance would be hailed by tenant farmers generally as an earnest of the sincerity of the House in desiring to give increased security of tenure. He reminded the Prime Minister that he himself had once made a similar proposal.

objected to the Amendment, because he regarded it as a most grave interference with the tenure of the greater part of the land of this country—namely, with yearly holdings.

supported the Amendment, as without it the Bill would be of a revolutionary character.

moved, in page 12, line 12, after the word "same," to insert "unless the year of tenancy shall have commenced in the months of April or May." He said, that when a farm was to be vacated the sooner the tenancy came to an end the better it was for the farm, for the outgoing tenant himself, for the incoming tenant, and for the general consumer. He had always felt the strongest objection to a 12 months' notice to quit, but had deferred to the representations made to him as to the feelings of the tenant farmers. In the parts of the country with which he was acquainted a Michaelmas entry was the rule, and a Lady Day or May Day entry the exception, and the object of his Amendment was, instead of omitting the clause, to obtain the exemption of those holdings which were held on Lady Day or May Day entries. A Michaelmas holding differed very much from those entered upon in the Spring. One of the chief operations was the cleaning of the land and preparing it for the crops, and under such a holding it mattered little whether the notice was six or 12 months. With a Lady Day entry and six months' notice, however, it was the incoming tenant who performed that operation. He might be told that people might contract themselves out of the Bill. That remark applied to his own proposal also; but he protested against accepting anything as permissive which he should reject as compulsory. There was one golden rule in that House, which was to let well alone. In the county which he had the honour to represent—and there was none which had attained a higher position in agriculture—every farm, without exception, was let on a Lady Day entry, and with a six months' notice to quit. That system they believed to be an excellent one. But if this clause remained unaltered, that custom, from which so much advantage was derived, would be overridden. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would be able to accept his Amendment; if not, he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the Committee upon it.

expressed a hope that the Committee would not accept the Amendment, which was one of the most unjust and unfair that could possibly be conceived as regarded the interest of the tenant farmers.

said, that in Hants the Michaelmas tenancy prevailed, and that it was found to act just and fair to both parties, and he objected to a tenant being turned out at a six months' notice, which would materially affect the value of his stock, and not give him sufficient time to find another holding.

said, the tenants attached more importance to this part of the Bill than to any other portion of it, and he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment. He should prefer to see the whole clause omitted from the Bill.

said, it was no hardship that a tenant should only have six months' notice. The incoming tenant would recompense him for his clearing the land, and a six months' notice was equally beneficial for the tenant as for the landlord.

said, no landlord who had a good tenant would think of getting rid of him, and it was now proposed that a bad tenant, who was deteriorating the land, and lessening the supply of food, should be able to pursue that course six months longer.

said, it would be better to omit the clause. The six months' notice was only required for the purpose of getting rid of a bad tenant. He should vote against the clause.

said, the Committee appeared to be legislating on the assumption that every landlord was a good one, but their object should be to meet the difficulty where both were bad. A good tenant would be compensated, and a bad one would have to pay his landlord for his neglect, and surely that met the difficulty. A tenant required a longer notice to quit under the new system of farming now in use than formerly. He considered a year's notice a fair and reasonable proposition, and believed that it would cripple the farmers if the term of notice was reduced to six months.

observed, that the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), who had, among other hon. Members, given the Committee the benefit of their views on this question, represented a county which was distinguished by having perhaps the greatest agriculturist in the United Kingdom. He referred to Mr. Hope, of Fenton Barns, and his tenancy had been terminated. It would be of great advantage to the Committee if the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Head), whom he saw sitting on the Treasury Bench, would inform them of the opinion of the tenant farmers upon this subject. He understood the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire to say that the tenant farmers did not desire the substitution of 12 months for six months; but he (Sir William Harcourt) had observed in the papers in the agricultural interest that the one thing which the farmers valued in this Bill more than anything else was the 12 months' notice to quit. If a man was turned out of his employment it was a great hardship not to allow him adequate time to find fresh employment for his capital. Most of the Amendments made in the Bill had been made in the interests of the landlords and not of the tenant farmers. He should have thought a proposal which had come down from the House of Lords would not have been objected to by the supporters of the Bill.

expressed a hope that the Government would not accede to the proposal to alter the clause. He denied that the Amendments made in the Bill were unfair to tenants; but admitted this would be so, as it would expose them to the caprice of a landlord. He did not need the six months' notice for his own protection, because he could claim compensation for waste or neglect.

was of opinion that the notice should be "six months" to all intents and purposes.

said, that the tenant farmers would be disappointed if in any cases they were deprived of the protection of the 12 months' notice, and hoped that the Government would retain the clause.

said, that the Bill, as it came from the other House, was a Bill which a landlord was very likely to contract himself out of, and the invidious duty was cast upon the House of Commons of protecting those who would not protect themselves. Hon. Members, however, had also to consider what the farmers would say, and were likely to be called to account by them for neglecting their interests. He should support the Amendment.

said, that if this Amendment passed there would be two great classes of tenancies—one with six and another with 12 months' notice. Upon matters of this kind the Government might always rely upon his vote, and he should therefore oppose the Amendment.

said, it was quite true, as the House had been once reminded by the right hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), that he was at one time in favour of a two years' notice to quit; but it would have been more ingenuous to have added that this notice was offered as an alternative for compensation for unexhausted improvements. Therefore, when the Government brought forward a measure which secured compensation for unexhausted improvements, he was perfectly free, on the subject of notice to quit, to take any course that he thought fit and best for the country. As far as regarded his original proposition of two years, his mind was a complete tabula rasa when, with much larger information derived from all parts of the country, and after ascertaining what was the predominant feeling of the country, he was called upon to consider the opinion of the other House as expressed in this Bill. In revising the relations of landlord and tenant, the other House had adopted 12 months' notice as a period more adapted to the circumstances of the present day than the period of six months; they had, after much reflection, and with a due sense of their responsibility, fixed upon this term, and he was not disposed to alter it now.

thought there had been on both sides a disposition to exaggerate the importance of the question. It would be quite a mistake to decide this question as if it were one between landlord and tenant; it was as much the interest of tenants to enter upon farms in a good state of cultivation as it was the interest of landlords they should do so. The only question was, which was the most convenient term? No doubt, the two years proposition was made with the object of securing the return of invested capital; that could not be secured by one year's notice, which, on the other hand, was too long to enable a bad tenant to take all he could and more than he ought. He could not see the advantage of the proposed Amendment, and thought, on the whole, that it would be better to adopt the clause as it stood in the Bill.

moved to amend the Amendment, by inserting the word February before April.

, with reference to the remarks of the Prime Minister, said, that if there was a predominant feeling in the country in favour of 12 months' notice, it was an uneducated feeling. He should take the sense of the Committee upon his Amendment.

said, the object of the Bill was to protect the incoming and the outgoing tenant, and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would adhere to the clause.

moved that the Chairman report Progress.

asked what would be the Business taken to-morrow?

said, he had proposed that, if the Committee on the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill had not concluded its labours to-night, the Bill should be resumed to-morrow, at half-past 4. Progress would be reported, in order that the Merchant Shipping Bill might be brought in.