asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is now prepared to lay on the Table Papers relating to the Berlin Conference, and whether he is also prepared to lay on the Table Papers in reference to Unionist movements in Eastern Roumelia and Bulgaria; and, further, whether he has yet received any communication from the Russian Government authorizing Her Majesty's Government to lay on the Table communications which had passed between the Russian Government and them in reference to the introduction of Russian officers and munitions of war and arms into Bulgaria?

Sir, it is desirable in foreign Questions, especially in those concerning communications with foreign Governments, that Notice should be given of them. If the hon. Member will give Notice of his Question it will be more convenient. In regard to his first Question, I hope, as we have the consent of the Russian Government, that the Papers will be laid on the Table very shortly indeed.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any truth in the report which appears in some of the morning papers of a mutiny of a regiment in the Island of Cyprus?

My attention has been drawn to the report which has appeared in one of the papers that there has been a mutiny or some sort of disturbance; but we have received no information whatever with regard to it at the Foreign Office. If there had been anything serious, I could hardly suppose we should not have received a telegram.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that he has received a deputation of Ulster Members on the subject of the Irish Land Commission; and, if so, whether he will be ready to receive a deputation from Members representing other parts of Ireland in reference to the same question?

Sir, I certainly saw some Members from Ulster to-day, and they talked to me about the Land Commission; but I informed them, what I should inform any other deputation, that, after very careful consideration, the Government thought it right to abide by the appointment they made, which I hope will appear in the Gazette to-day.

, in consequence of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, gave Notice that on Monday he would ask him, Whether he would consider the advisability of withdrawing the Commission on the Irish Land Question, the composition of which had proved itself unsatisfactory to the representatives of all sections of public opinion in Ireland.

I think I may answer that Question at once. The Government will certainly not withdraw the Commission.

said, he hoped to proceed with Supply on the Education Estimates and with the Employers' Liability Bill on Tuesday, and the Government proposed to take the Savings Banks Bill and the Post Office Money Order Bill on Wednesday.

asked the Prime Minister, Whether he would give him any facilities for bringing on his Motion with regard to Sir Bartle Frere?

On Monday I hope to give an answer to the hon. Baronet.

rose to address the House, when—

rose to Order. The noble Lord had already exhausted his right of addressing the House on the second reading of this Bill, by making a Motion for the adjournment of the debate, which had been negatived.

The Motion for the adjournment of the debate having been negatived, the noble Lord, according to the strict Rules of debate, is not in Order.

, in resuming the debate, explained that on the previous night he had voted with the minority for the adjournment of the debate, and, for almost the first time in his life, he believed, had gone into a different Lobby from that of the Prime Minister. His reason for adopting that course was, because he thought the right hon. Gentleman, having been necessarily absent during a considerable portion of the debate, could hardly be aware of how many Members there were on both sides of the House desirous to speak on this question. He could not help thinking that there had been a great deal of begging the question, respecting the damage actually done by hares and rabbits, and of the feeling which there was in the country on this subject. The number of Petitions from England was exceedingly small, and many of them from places totally uninterested in the actual question of the farmers' interests. The question was essentially a Scotch question. The killing of ground game was, in his opinion, best in the hands of the tenant; and that principle he not only consistently advocated in his Parliamentary speeches, but gave practical effect to on estates with which he was identified as trustee, where, almost without exception, in letting the shooting the ground game was left with the tenant. The Bill they were considering was exceedingly crude in its construction, and was probably drawn by a man who never saw a hare or a rabbit—who knew nothing about country sport or country habits, and handed it to his right hon. and learned Friend, who certainly did know something about both of them. It was no part of his business to discuss the Bill, as it might be made under such Amendments as had been suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), but what it involved as brought in by Her Majesty's Government. It would seem that his right hon. and learned Friend brought the Bill down to the House without having sufficiently digested its details. As to the evidence given before the Game Committee, it was a singularly unfortunate one for the right hon. and learned Gentleman; because, although there were witnesses examined who said they were in favour of the inalienable right, they said they were, at the same time, for the preservation of winged game, whereas this Bill was not for that object. Under this Bill as it stood there could be no preservation of the winged game. The Bill had a curious pedigree. Formerly introduced by Mr. Loch, it was taken up by Mr. M'Combie, and the circumstance was significant that a much larger proportion of Scotch farmers had signed Petitions for the Bill compared with English farmers. In fact, evidence from the agricultural interest in England and Wales, in support of the Bill, was almost entirely wanting. He would admit that the Bill might be regarded with considerable interest by farmers. He was asked a question about hares and rabbits by his constituents; and he told them he did not think the doctrine of inalienable right would serve them so well as the doctrine of compensation. He recollected his paying to a farmer 100 per cent more than the rent for damage done by game, and no system sooner brought the attention of the landlord to the over-preservation of ground game. But he had since kept a much less stock of ground game; and he believed the doctrine of compensation would carry the destruction of hares and rabbits a great deal further than the Bill before the House. It was an utter disappointment to him to find that the great talents of his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary were brought to bear on the destruction of hares and rabbits, instead of on those things which would permanently benefit the farmer. What the farmers asked for was a share in local government, an alteration in the system of taxation; they asked that a portion of the new taxes should fall on the landlords; they asked that they should be secured their investments in manures and food—capital which they put into the soil, and which they risked under a system of short tenure and liability to death. If the Bill was passed as it stood, it would prevent the farms landlords had in their hands for the past few years from being let, and especially those in the neighbourhood of coverts and game preserves would be kept out of the market, and shooting landlords would be induced to place their tenants on the shortest notice possible. It was at once a crude and cruel Bill. The man who owned land had either bought or inherited it. He himself had bought most of the land he held. The Government came down on him and said— "You have bought and paid for it, and we are going to hand over a part of the advantages you enjoy to somebody else, who has neither bought nor paid for it." Supposing he invested his money in land at 2½ per cent, or at any other rate of interest, why did he put his money in land? Principally because he was fond of his gun and liked to shoot, like many others did. If that were not so, he did not know what they invested in land for, unless it was to look over it. Was not this power to deal with the tenant one of those compensations for the difference between the lower and the higher rate of investment?—if not, what were they? He had a letter from a gentleman, who, two years ago, took a large tract of country for a term of years, which involved a total rent of £8,000, and who took it because he had the shooting over the estate. That Bill, however, would deprive him of more than half the inducement for which he had removed his family and taken that estate. Various practical difficulties would arise in dealing with that question. In his district they were heavily rated by the assessment for the shootings. The Bill would take away the advantage of that portion of the assessment; and he doubted whether the tenants would be benefited if the amount for which the game was rated were struck out of the assessment, especially when compensation for ground game damage was paid to the tenant. He could not for a moment believe that the tenant farmers of this country were not in a position to contract freely. The Home Secretary had been most unfortunate in the illustrations he had given of existing interferences with contract. The Truck Act was passed in 1836 or 1837 to meet a state of things which required a drastic remedy. Poor men were kept out of their wages and paid in poor provisions at great cost; and, therefore, the Truck Act was brought in. But he believed that the day was not far distant when the working classes, whose power was growing, and who were fast becoming able to take care of themselves, would sweep away many of those interferences with contract. In many large industries there was no Truck Act, and could master and man deal honestly together? He did not hesitate to say that arrangements could be made by which the earned money could be spent in a manner equivalent to 10 per cent advance in wages. With regard to the position of the farmer, in respect both to intelligence and to wealth, he took a different view from that of the advocates of grandmotherly legislation. He agreed with a high authority who said that all legislation beyond the point which stimulated self-reliance among the people must become mischievous and pernicious to the last degree. In conclusion, he was decidedly in favour of making it absolute law that all damage done by hares and rabbits should be paid for by the landlord, who asked that those animals should be protected; and he believed that in that way ground game would be better kept down than by the present Bill.

wished to take the earliest opportunity of rising to protest, so far as he might reasonably do, against the apparent discourtesy—not to use too strong a term—which had been shown towards his noble Friend (Lord John Manners), who had moved the adjournment of the debate yesterday. The Rules of the House had been somewhat sharply applied to his noble Friend, and, without any previous intimation, he had been deprived of the opportunity of making the speech which he had intended to deliver. If the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had now been in his place, he should have reminded that hon. Gentleman that if Members on that—the Opposition—side were to act in the same spirit as had been manifested towards his noble Friend, something in the nature of obstruction might have been provoked, and the adjournment of the debate might have been again moved, when his noble Friend would have had an opportunity of expressing his opinions. But they were not anxious that there should be otherwise than a fair discussion in a business-like spirit of the Bill before the House. He confessed that when he rose last night to urge the expediency of adjourning the debate, he did so because a considerable interval had elapsed since the Home Secretary had spoken on the measure, and because the debate ought not to close until they had heard the opinions of, at least, some Member of the Cabinet on a subject of such importance. He felt himself absolutely free to speak on the main question, for, so far as his constituents were concerned, he had received no communications whatever from the farmers, and very few from landowners, and those who were ordinarily held to be preservers of game. It was admitted, on all hands, that there was, and had been, a substantial grievance in the over-preservation of game; and they might also admit that a real grievance was felt, especially in regard to the letting of the game over the head of the tenant to some third party. Although there were many things in that Bill which might be disliked, he must say he had no sympathy with those who, against all warning, and against the obvious feeling of the times, had—he cared not whether from indifference, from excessive love of sport or love of game, or from any other cause—by over-preservation and the letting of game, brought that evil—if the Bill was an evil—not only on themselves, but on those who had not sinned in that respect. No doubt, it was perfectly clear that where a farmer was overweighted by a heavy head of game the loss must be sustained by himself or by the landlord, and, to that extent, the Preamble of the Bill was justified. For his own part, he would prefer to see this evil dealt with rather by means of compensation than by a declaration in an Act of the tenant's inalienable right to the game hitherto the property of the landlord. So far as compensation was concerned, he spoke with great diffidence, because he knew it had been held by many competent authorities that it was practically impossible to determine what the rate of compensation should be. He believed, however, there was not any great difficulty in arriving at the proper value; and he could not admit that there was any impossibility in the question of determining the compensation, which must necessarily, as it were, drive the Government to the somewhat harsh course proposed, as the only course by which to save the people from suffering disaster. It had been said, with great truth, that freedom of contract had been repeatedly interfered with by the House, and many questions had been quoted to show that this was so; but, for the most part—he thought without an exception—he would remind the House, the limitation of freedom of contract had been so much between two parties as with reference to the third party. This had been the case with regard to merchant shipping and in mines. A great deal had been said about rabbits, and he was perfectly aware that very large amounts were paid for the sale of rabbits. He could not help thinking that this was one of the questions in which the laws of supply and demand would adjust themselves. There had been rumours that Government at a later stage meant to exclude uncultivated land from this Bill. If they did not do so, it was quite obvious that there were many parts in the North of England and Scotland where the shooting rights represented a greater value than the total of the other rights, and if the Bill went into Committee it would be almost indispensable that some reservation should be made. Where the agricultural tenant possessed a small part, he should be, in some respects, subordinate to the shooting tenant or owner who occupied his ground for the sake of that which produced by far the greater proportion of its value. He thought, from the turn the debate had taken, the real question now before the House was whether the existing state of the Game Laws was satisfactory. If it was understood that this was the proposition, then he thought there would be a general disposition to allow the second reading of the Bill to pass without a division; and he could not help thinking that in so doing, and in reserving observations for points of detail, they would be doing that which was more satisfactory to their own consciences and also advance the Business of the House. But if the Bill was to be forced down their throats without change or Amendments, and if none of those limitations such as he had mentioned, and as had been put forward, many from behind the right hon. Gentleman, were inserted—if the Bill was to be taken exactly as it stood, then, for himself and many who thought with him, there would be nothing for it but to offer to the Bill all the opposition that the Forms of the House would permit. It was quite a different thing making these concessions as a matter of agreement, and having them forced upon them by a hard-and-fast line giving an inalienable right. He thought that if the Government was prepared to accept a moderate and reasonable Amendment, the House would be very generally disposed to read the Bill a second time.

said, he entirely agreed with the remarks which fell from the right hon. and gallant Member who had just spoken with regard to what he thought was a discourtesy to the noble Lord opposite. From the position which the noble Lord had occupied, and also from the important constituency which he represented, the House would have been very glad to hear the noble Lord. With regard to the proceedings of the previous night, he was one of those who were anxious at that period of the Session, and on this subject, to assist the Government to proceed with its Business. If he had spoken last night he intended to allude to some observations which fell from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand), who had pleaded the strong points against the Bill in a clear, able, and comprehensive manner before the House. From many of the hon. Gentleman's opinions he entirely dissented. In consequence of the excellent speech which fell from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. J. Howard), with whose opinions le entirely agreed, he thought, seeing he was desirous to support the Government, his wisest course would be to resist the temptation to follow the remarks the hon. Member made. He would merely say that the Bill, in his opinion, was founded on the principles of common sense and justice. He could not but think that if it passed into law it would improve the relations between landlord and tenant. He also believed it would tend to diminish ground game, and thus to reduce poaching, which had often brought young men to a career of misery and crime. He congratulated the Home Secretary on the very general support which his Bill had received. It had been supported, with few exceptions, by a large number of Members on both sides of the House. He believed it would prove a settlement of what had long been felt to be a difficult and a vexed question, which, if not soon settled, would, he feared, lead to a dangerous agitation. He hoped sincerely the Government would be able to pass the measure.

said, he belonged to that much abused class of landlords against whom it appeared every man's hand was turned, while the Government led the attack. He believed that something was required to be done; but what was proposed by this Bill would neither please the landlords nor the tenants. The landlords were rather a persecuted class at that moment. It was determined the other day that they should have no rent, and now the Government decided they should have no amusement. There were many hon. Members on both sides of the House who, although they did not like this Bill any more than he did, were going to vote for it, not because they liked it— they hated it—but because they were afraid of their constituents. They were afraid of their seats; but he would tell those hon. Members, if they held their seats on so frail a tenure, they were not worth many years' purchase. He did not believe that a compromise with wrong would save them. He had no such fear of his constituents. He knew they would not think the worse of him for speaking his opinions boldly on this subject, although some of them might disagree with him. He hated speaking even more than he hated this Bill; but he felt bound to express his opinion on this Bill, and if it went to a division he should vote against it. All he possessed was derived from land—the rents of tenant farmers. He could not, therefore, be opposed to the interests of tenant farmers. This Bill would not promote their interests any more than those of landlords. The tenant, it was said, might leave the land; but the tenant had his remedy now. There never was a time when it was more unfair to bring forward this subject. As long as the farms to be let were many and the tenants seeking them were few, the tenants were masters of the situation. He thought it absurd to call in the Legislature to regulate free contract between two grown men, as if the landlords were all rogues and the tenants all fools. He gave both credit for a good deal more common sense. For himself, he should not be afraid if a Royal Commission were appointed to examine his tenants. His practice was to give his tenants all the rabbits, with which they were perfectly content; and he gave compensation for whatever damage was done by hares. He had never found any difficulty in the matter. This Bill was an unjust interference with property, and he did not know where it would stop. It would be so much waste paper unless it was accompanied by fixity of tenure, and he did not suppose the present Government were prepared to go so far as that. The Farmers' Alliance which supported this Bill did not represent the tenant farmers. The programme of the Alliance was "farms rent free, landlords to do the repairs, and tenants to have the shooting." In 1872 it was said there were only 12 bad landlords in England. It appeared to him the Government were reversing the case of the ancient city which was to be saved from destruction if 10 righteous men were found in it; they were, in fact, dooming to destruction the great body of landlords because there were only 12 sinners among them. In conclusion, he thought the proper remedy in this case would be to increase the facilities to tenant farmers to obtain compensation for damage done by ground game, which, he found, made everything smooth on his estate.

said, as he belonged to the persecuted class described by his hon. Friend, and as he took a somewhat different view of this measure, he desired to say a few words on the subject. He hoped the conclusion would be arrived at which had been suggester by his right hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Stanley), for, although many of the House objected to many of the details of the Bill still they might so far recognize the necessity for dealing with a question which had now been many years in existence, and which undoubtedly called for redress, as to allow the Bill to be read a second time without a division. As he listened to the speech of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), he could not help wishing that some tenant farmers in his county had such a landlord to deal with—the views of the hon. Member were so exceedingly liberal and so much the reverse of what most farmers were accustomed to; and it was much to be desired that the question had long ago been settled by such arrangements as the humanity of the hon. Member had suggested. But, unfortunately, he knew it to be the case, as most landlords did, that not only was the compensation awarded to tenants very inadequate, but that it was most difficult—he might almost say impossible—to assess the compensation fairly due to a tenant for the injuries he sustained owing to the over-preservation of ground game. He was himself a large farmer, and had also some tenant farmers with whom he had various arrangements with respect to the game; and one thing had conclusively forced itself upon his mind —namely, that providing compensation alone was not a practical way of dealing with the question. He should like to read a very short note he had received a day or two ago from his nearest neighbour in the county, who enjoyed the somewhat rare position, indeed, of being a large yeoman farmer, holding and occupying his own land, on which, however, he had been accustomed to let the shooting. He had asked him to state his views with respect to the Bill, and he wrote as follows:—

"I think the Hares and Rabbits Bill will not alter the position of landlord and tenant but a very little. If it does become law, then it will be very much a question of contract. I do not for a moment think that extermination would be the effect—rather the other way. At the same time, I must say very considerable damage is done without fair compensation being made in many cases, which, probably, is the chief advantage tenant farmers will derive, for they will have the remedy in their own hands."

He would now direct the attention of the House to what really had been at the bottom of this troublesome question. He was old enough to remember the time when there were none of these differences between landlord and tenant as to the preservation of game. He had learnt to shoot with a single-barrelled gun with a flint lock when there were a certain number of hares and rabbits, but nothing like the number now to be found. Then came double-barrelled guns, and they were followed by breech-loaders, and then they had increased facilities for bringing down, sporting tenants from London, which gave rise to a desire to preserve game for sale. It was a remarkable fact that 50 years ago the sale of game was not legal. When hon. Members talked of the sin of interfering with freedom of contract, he asked what could be a greater interference with the right of contract and with freedom of action than to tell the landlord that he must not sell his game? Yet that had been the law for centuries. He read, the other day, a passage in a letter from the Duke of Wellington, in which he deprecated in the strongest way what he called the impropriety of allowing any man the right to sell his game. Well; but the legalizing of the sale of game, the improvement in guns to which he had referred, and the increased facilities of communication had given a new and increased value to sporting rights, and also to that custom which he believed to have been greatly abused—that of letting the shooting over the tenants' heads. He had read very carefully the evidence given before the Committee in 1872, and there was no single point on which the witnesses were more unanimous than they were as to that practice of letting the shooting over the heads of the tenants. He would read one extract only from the evidence, and it was from that of Colonel Robertson, the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire— and no gentlemen in the county were better able to form a fair or impartial opinion on the question than were the class to which Colonel Robertson belonged. He was asked—

"Is there much game let to gentlemen not tenants of the land? "

And he replied—

"Too much of it; too many coverts are let to extraneous people, who come from all parts of the country, mostly from London, who do not care one single pin about the farmer or his crops. If you could do away with that there would be no complaint about the game."

He read the other day a passage in the report of a trial which furnished a strong illustration of that point. It would be admitted that where the landlord kept the shooting in his own hands, and did not over-preserve, no difficulty arose. Indeed, in his own case he was told that if the Bill passed he would probably have more hares than he now had; but, not being a keen sportsman, he did not care about that. The case to which he had referred was that of "Loftus v . Wolseley." It seemed that the defendant in that case had let the shooting of some thousands of acres; but when the tenant came to the land he found the tenants killing all the rabbits, the defendant having allowed his tenants the privilege of doing so—a privilege which they were exercising with a vengeance. Well, the plaintiff brought his action, and it turned out that the tenants had an absolute right of shooting rabbits, and in the result the plaintiff recovered £300 damages. That was a strong case in proof of the statement he had made, that, as a general rule, when the landlord was reasonable and moderate, and did not preserve an extravagant head of game, no difficulty arose as between the landlord and his tenants. But then came the question—What was the best way of dealing with this question? His hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand), who had been very properly complimented on his able speech, and whose Amendment was the hinge on which the question turned, wanted to exclude hares and rabbits from the Game Laws altogether. He entirely disagreed with that proposal, and for this reason—if hares and rabbits were taken out of the Game Laws, one of three things would happen, either that class of game would be exterminated, which would be a most mischievous and absurd thing—absurd, for only two years ago they passed a Bill to provide for the increase of hares in Ireland—poaching would greatly increase, or a very strict Trespass Law would have to be enacted. He did not want any one of these three things to happen. Well, then, what other way was there of dealing with the question except in some such way as that provided by the Bill? That, of course, involved an interference with the rights of property; he then had to invent some intelligible theory which would satisfy his judgment while agreeing to that interference with the rights of property; and he thought he could do so. He certainly could not do so on the ground which had been put forward that the landlord and the tenant did not stand on equal terms; nor on the ground stated by his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, that land was a monopoly. He should like his right hon. and learned Friend to give the House a definition of a monopoly in land; and he should like, too, to see the Home Secretary under cross-examination for half-an-hour by some astute lawyer, who would turn him inside out as to what he meant by it. Why, there were millions and millions worth of land in the market. He was sure he was within the mark when he said that any day in the week there was £10,000,000 worth of land in the market. Of course, all property was the monopoly of those who owned it. That was a truism; but to say that land in the abstract was a monopoly was, he believed, contrary to the fact, and incapable of being maintained in argument. He could not, therefore, base his theory on that ground. Nor could he go on what was called the food theory, because that would allow the State to regulate the nature and amount of the food to be grown or raised, which would be an interference with the land and with the freedom of the occupier. The ground on which he based his theory was that it was contrary to public policy for any man to let a farm to one person for the purpose of producing as much in the way of crops and as much cattle as possible, and then to let it the next day to somebody else for a purpose not only different, but absolutely destructive of it. On public grounds, as a matter of policy, it was not expedient for the State to sanction or to give force to a secondary purpose which would altogether infringe the first. It was on that ground he rested his theory and could support the Bill. It was, as he said, contrary to public policy to allow a landowner to let a farm one day for one purpose, and next day for another purpose which defeated the first. That was not the time to allude to the details of the Bill; but he hoped that the result of the discussion would be the passing of a measure which would secure harmony between landlord and tenant, and lead to a satisfactory settlement of that long vexed question.

said, that he would state very shortly his reasons for supporting the second reading of the Bill. He desired that Amendments should be introduced into it; but he understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary was prepared to give consideration to Amendments proposed from either side of the House. It had been said that many Members were afraid of their constituents, and would, for that reason, vote in favour of the Bill. But he supported it, not because he was afraid of his constituents, but because there was a strong wish expressed on the subject on the part of those whom he represented. He represented an agricultural borough; and his constituents, many of whom were farm labourers, were strongly in favour of the Bill. He would vote for the second reading, on the ground that there was an admitted grievance, the existence of which was recognized by the Committee which sat in 1872-3. What was the remedy for that grievance? He had given the subject his best consideration, and he did not think it would be met by simply taking hares and rabbits out of the Game Laws. He thought the difficulties of making such an alteration in the law had hardly been realized. The late Mr. Ward Hunt had expressed very clearly these difficulties, and shown that a new Trespass Law would be necessary. The second remedy which had been proposed was compensation for damage; the result of that would be litigation, with all the concomitant expense of employing lawyers, referees, and surveyors. Well, if it were desired to destroy all good feeling between landlord and tenant, the best way was to plunge them into a law suit. And, in truth, the remedy was hardly fair to the tenant, who would be obliged either to go to law with his landlord or pocket the loss. It was probable that he would pocket the loss. Even if the landlord were prepared to pay compensation, there would be arbitration, and even in arbitrations it was found necessary to employ counsel, referees, and valuers, and in that way a large sum was very soon spent. The third remedy was contained in the Bill, which he would support with such limitations as might make it a more efficient and useful measure.

Sir, when the hon. Member opposite rose to support this Bill, he said he had the courage of his opinions. I also have the courage of my opinions, as I intend to oppose the Bill of the Government; and I was anxious last night that the debate should be adjourned for the purpose of giving me an opportunity of stating my reasons for pursuing that course. As this debate goes on, I am at a loss to know, from the speeches of those who support the Bill, what is the object of it. Some tell us that its object is to protect the crops of the tenant farmer from the ravages of hares and rabbits, by reducing their numbers. Others have brought forward numerous instances of proprietors who have given the concurrent rights to their tenants to kill hares and rabbits, and that they have far more of these animals on their farms than their neighbours. The one has tried to prove that it is a ground game destroying Bill; the other that it is a ground game preserving Bill. The introduction of this Bill is evidence of a desire on the part of the Government to deal with questions affecting agriculture, and to try to remedy some of those evils which are the subject of complaint of tenant farmers. As was mentioned by the right hon. And learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, on introducing the Bill, the principle of it is not new, though exceptional—in fact, it may be stated that Bills identical in principle, and differing very little in detail from the one now before us, have been several times discussed in the House within the last 10 years. About 15 years ago, the damage done by game was considered such a grievance that the first meeting of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, which was then established, was devoted to a discussion of the subject, and a resolution was unanimously passed that the best remedy for the grievance was to strike hares and rabbits out of the game list. This was considered a fair compromise between those who advocated the repeal of the Game Laws and those who did not go so far. It also took into account the cases of the tenant farmer, the landlord, and the public. The withdrawal of all legal protection from hares and rabbits—in other words, the regarding them as vermin—would certainly have abated the nuisance of their over-preservation, done away with the complaints of tenant farmers, and reduced that category of crime from the infringement of the Game Laws, which is at present considered a disgrace in our criminal statistics. I was requested to introduce a Bill on the subject, the main principle of it being the striking of hares and rabbits out of the game list. And I may remark that though it has been stated that this remedy was contrary to the interests of the tenant farmers, it was proposed and carried unanimously, at an influential representative meeting of tenant farmers. In the first Session of the Parliament of 1868, another Game Bill was introduced by the late Mr. Loch, which entirely altered the state of affairs by destroying that unanimity which hitherto prevailed among Game Law reformers. This Bill gave a concurrent and inalienable right to the tenant farmer to kill hares and rabbits on the farm occupied by him. Such was the dissension produced among Game Law reformers by the introduction of this Bill, that it was said, "an enemy has done this." A sop was thrown to the tenant farmers by giving them the right to do with the hares and rabbits as they thought proper, which was readily seized by those of them partial to sport. And on a discussion in the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, where unanimity prevailed before on the Game Question, three parties were formed—one for the total abolition of the Game Laws, a second for striking hares and rabbits out of the game lists, and a third for giving an inalienable and concurrent right to the tenant to kill these animals, a majority being obtained for each of these proposals at different meetings. Year after year, Bills were introduced into this House, containing the two diverse proposals for dealing with ground game, till at last the subject of the Game Laws was referred to a Select Committee in 1872. That Committee, having heard evidence for two years, reported, by a majority of 11 to 7, that rabbits should be struck out of the game lists, by 10 to 8 that hares should be retained in the lists, and against the inalienable rights to tenants by 13 to 6. The frequent discussions in Parliament on the Game Question opened the eyes of many proprietors to the damage done by ground game on their estates, and induced them to be more liberal to their tenants in giving them permission to destroy hares and rabbits. The result has been that complaint has not been so numerous on this subject as formerly. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr.J. Howard) stated that, while he disapproved of the principle of this Bill, and voted against it in the Game Law Committee of 1873, he would support it now in the altered circumstances of the country. Altered in what respect? In as far as owing to the great foreign competition to which the British farmer is now subjected, every obstacle to his making the most of his farm should be removed. I am one of those who have, before these times of severe competition came upon us, advocated the removal of these legislative obstacles, and the granting of liberal covenants to the tenants. But I maintain that, as regards the principle of this Bill—namely, the preventing of landlords and tenants making any contracts they think proper—the tenants are in a far more advantageous position for asking and receiving favourable conditions to themselves than they were some years ago. The principal reason given for the introduction of this Bill is, that so great was the competition for farms in this country that they were powerless in making a bargain for themselves on entering a farm. Such was the case before 1873, when there were so many offerers for a farm out of lease, at exorbitant rents, that the landlord had little difficulty in exacting any condition about game or other subjects he thought proper. Times, however, are now changed, and instead of there being a large excess of offerers for farms, there are hundreds of farms in want of tenants, and winch landlords would be too glad to let on terms favourable to tenants. Though these rent changes, caused by bad harvests and emigration mainly, have put it in the power of tenants to make more favourable contracts forthemselves, and though the damage done by ground game has considerably diminished, still it must be admitted that the exceptional cases of over-preservation of game are sufficiently numerous to cause complaints from tenants, and are often a source of bad feeling between landlord and tenant. It is therefore necessary to find some remedy for this evil. The principle of the Bill before the House, which seeks to cure the evil, is identical with that of the late Mr. Loch's Bill, which proposed to give a concurrent and inalienable right to the tenant, and which was rejected by this House by a large majority when the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was formerly First Lord of the Treasury, whose Government opposed it. I have never heard any good reason given for the adoption of this exceptional legislation as regards ground game, and I have always opposed it. I am not one of those who object to interference with freedom of contract in every case. On the contrary, I am of opinion that there are often strong reasons why this interference should be allowed for the public good, and there are special reasons why there should be this interference in land contract, more than in other property: but in resorting to such exceptional legislation, we should take several circumstances into consideration, such as—1. Is the extent of the evil so great as to justify this exceptional legislation? 2. Could no other means be adopted which would be equally efficacious in remedying the evil? 3. Would it be efficient in accomplishing the object? 4. Would it, if efficient in checking one evil, cause no injustice otherwise, or produce another evil quite as great? 5. Would it be for the public good? While applying these tests where this exceptional legislation is to be adopted, every case should be judged of by itself in its special circumstances. Is the extent of the evil so great as to justify exceptional legislation? Is it an increasing or a diminishing evil? Let Mr. C. S. Read, a good judge of the circumstances, answer the first question. He said, when a witness before the Committee—

"Taking England throughout, tenants have no cause to complain in the very great majority of cases. While there is just cause of complaint, it is exceptional, certainly."

As regards the second question—whether the evil was increasing—we have the evidence of Mr. Begg, from Sutherlandshire, who stated that a change is taking place in favour of the tenant in granting less restrictive game clauses in leases, particularly with regard to the reservation of hares and rabbits. It is well known that, as I have said before, the discussions in this House, public opinion, and the refusal of tenants to sign such obnoxious game clauses, have been gradually abating the evil. But I do not argue that it is unnecessary to make any change or amendment in the law— my conduct in this House proves the contrary. This brings me to speak of what I call the second test—namely, could no other means be adopted which would prove equally efficacious? My efforts have been for years devoted in this House to making some amendment in the law which is the cause of the evil. The main cause of the evil is the protection afforded by the law to hares and rabbits, which destroy the tenant's crops. One would have thought that the simple course to pursue would have been to withdraw that protection from these animals. That would be a true statesmanlike measure, and would render unnecessary any exceptional legislation. 80 long as that protection is maintained, I consider that the Legislature is guilty of encouraging the damage done to the tenant's crops by these animals. Two objections are made to this suggestion of striking hares and rabbits out of the game lists. The one is that it will encourage the trespassing on the tenant's crops. Those who make this objection forget that it is not proposed to repeal the Game Laws, but only that part of them referring to hares and rabbits, and if anyone were found trespassing on a field with a gun or with poaching instruments, he could be apprehended on suspicion of being in pursuit of game, and he would require to prove that he was not. I believe that in Scotland the Law of Trespass, combined with the Game Laws, that would still be in force, is sufficient to protect the crops of the tenants from such poachers; but if not, it would certainly be better to make an alteration in the Trespass Law to accomplish this than to pass an inefficient exceptional law. I may take notice here of an objection made by the Home Secretary that at the French Revolution in 1848 the same thing was tried in France, Germany, and other countries, but had to be given up, because it led to the extirpation of all wild animals, and to the great annoyance of proprietors and tenants. The right hon. Gentleman overlooked the fact that it was the whole Game Laws that were repealed, and not merely the legal protection given to hares and rabbits. His argument would have been good against those Bills and Resolutions introduced by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) for the total abolition of the Game Laws, but not for what we propose—the striking of hares from the game list. The second objection made to this proposal is that the tenants are so dependent upon their landlords that even if hares and rabbits were struck out of the game lists, the landlords would prohibit their destroying them. This objection tells two ways, for if the tenants are so dependent as to come under an obligation not to destroy these animals, the same state of dependence would make them come under an obligation to their landlords not to exercise the rights which this Bill would give them were it to become law, and thus the Bill would prove quite inoperative. But I question much if the Common Law would sanction such an agreement between a landlord and tenant to preserve hares and rabbits, after they were removed from the game list, to such an extent as that they would become a nuisance to their neighbours. The law would prohibit two men from agreeing to preserve any wild animals unprotected by law, if that preservation proved a nuisance to their neighbours. The protection of the law being withdrawn from hares and rabbits, they would be reduced to the same category as rats or other vermin, and be subjected to the operation of the same laws. This proposal commends itself as being far better adapted than the present Bill for accomplishing the object aimed at. It introduces no new or exceptional principle, but simply proposes to amend the law which is the cause of the evil. And if the Common Law alluded to above were not sufficient to prevent landlord and tenant making an agreement which would be detrimental to the tenant, the aid of the Statute Law might be brought in to effect that object. But there is another mode by which the evil might be remedied more easily and more effectually. The Common Law in Scotland allows the tenant to destroy any excess of game on his farm, if there is no agreement to the contrary. The difficulty was to determine what was excess of game. Three years ago an Act was passed for Scotland, providing that when the game was reserved the landlord was obliged to insert in the lease such a sum as might be agreed on between him and the tenant to indicate what they considered the damage done by a moderate amount of game. All above that sum would indicate the damage done by an excess of game, for which the tenant would be entitled to compensation. It is said that no tenant will ask for such compensation. There is no proof of this. On the contrary, I have known tenants ask for compensation for damage done by rabbits, even when they had come under an agreement to allow the landlord to preserve them to an unlimited extent. But I have no objections that the tenant should have the alternative in his power of destroying the excess of ground game if compensation were not readily given. The third test I would apply to the principle of the Bill is its efficiency. "Would it accomplish the objects aimed at? The Home Secretary said, in introducing the Bill, that it proposed to do what every good and considerate landlord has done already—namely, to give the tenant right to protect his crops against ground game. The Bill, therefore, is not required for such a landlord. But, on the contrary, it will place him in a worse position. It will place him at the mercy of a cantankerous or ill-dispositioned tenant, who, by persistently exercising his right at all times, and in all ways, will deprive the landlord of all sport over his estate. Where there are no leases the Bill will prove a dead letter, for if a landlord wishes to have the right of destroying hares and rabbits in his own hands, he can come to an understanding with his tenant that the relations of landlord and tenant will be maintained between them, so long as the tenant does not exercise the right conferred on him by the Bill; but if the tenant insist on exercising this right, they must part company. The Bill in such a case will prove quite abortive unless you extend its principle and prohibit a tenant from being disturbed in his holding—in other words, unless you give him fixity of tenure. It is because I disapprove of such encouragement being given to tenants to break their agreements, and because I am of opinion that you must extend this principle before this Bill can be of any use, that I am not prepared to vote for its second reading. What will be the effect where it is the custom to have leases? To give satisfaction it will be necessary to make provisions in the Bill, by compensation or otherwise, so that it may apply to existing leases, otherwise it will be worse than useless for some years to come. But when any new engagements are made in the letting of farms, and the landlord desires to retain in his own hands the right of destroying the hares and rabbits, he will make such condition as will be necessary to protect himself from the non-fulfilment of his engagement by the tenant. In other words, he may not give a lease at all, or he may make breaks in it, so that it may terminate, if he think proper, every third or fifth year; or he may stipulate as to the amount of rent to be paid if the tenant adheres or not to the understanding between them about the ground game; or he may impose such other conditions as will be quite intelligible to the tenant. The late Mr. Stephenson, editor of The North British Agriculturist , a practical farmer himself, and with all the sympathies of the tenant farmer, always objected to this principle being introduced into a Bill dealing with ground game, because he said that he felt sure that the tenant's position would not be improved, as he would have to submit to worse conditions and endure worse evils than those connected with game. To show that I do not over-state the case when I say that the effects of the passing of the Bill will be to prevent the giving or shortening of leases in Scotland, I may state that I have been informed that since the agitation on the Game Question commenced, on some extensive estates a clause is now inserted in the leases insisting on the termination of the lease if any such measure as this should pass. I think that I have said enough to prove that in most cases the Bill, if passed, would prove quite inoperative and inefficient. And, besides, it would deprive the tenant of all rights to compensation for damage to his crops, all ground of complaint against the landlord for over-preservation of game, and all cause of appeal to the Legislature for amendment of the law. 4th. Would the Bill, if passed, cause as much injustice or produce as great evil as that which it was passed to remedy? I have shown that the considerate landlord will be placed in a worse position, that the condition of the tenant will not be improved—on the contrary, will be made worse—that leases will be done away with, that the relations between landlord and tenant will not be less embittered, that the people will be demoralized by encouraging, I may say compelling, them to evade the law, making illegal contracts, thus losing all respect for the law. The law will he more honoured in the breach than in the observance. If such be the results of the passing of the Bill, as I feel certain they will be, it cannot be for the public good that it be passed. I have said nothing of the very serious effect it will have on the prosperity of the North of Scotland, as that has been referred to by hon. Members who represent the Northern counties. Nor have I referred to the encouragement that will be given to poaching, by allowing the agents of the occupier to kill ground game, under which clause the most notorious poacher in the district employed by him may scour the farms, shooting everything that comes before him. The objection made to striking hares and rabbits out of the game lists is that it would encourage poaching; but here we have a Bill affording every facility for poaching, allowing the poacher to pursue his calling without risk of being challenged—in other words, legalizing poaching. A Select Committee of this House sat for two years taking evidence on this question, and after due deliberation, and for reasons mentioned, by a large majority decided against the principle of this Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, ignoring the Report of the Committee, told the House what the Report ought to have been, not what it was. The right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted Mr. C. S. Read, and appeared to bring forward his opinion as a strong argument in favour of the Bill. He correctly read Mr. Read's evidence, who declared that the Chamber of Agriculture was in favour of striking hares and rabbits out of the game list, and then making any contract in these animals illegal. This is what my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh (Mr. A. Elliot) contends for, and what I think would make a more statesmanlike proposal to meet the objections of those who maintain that poaching will be encouraged by making ground game vermin. It might be enacted that anyone found trespassing on any farm, without the leave of the landlord or the tenant of that farm, would be deemed to be in pursuit of game. I shall now quote the opinions of some of those gentlemen who gave evidence before the Committee, and who expressed their opinion in this House and elsewhere on this subject. When the principle of this Bill, as contained in the late Mr. Loch's Bill, was last discussed in this House, we had a clear expression of opinion from Lord Young, who was then Lord Advocate in the Liberal Government, at the head of which was the present Prime Minister. Lord Young characterized the leading clause in the Bill as a clause disabling men of the greatest intelligence—men perfectly able to conduct their own affairs, and to manage business of great importance—from entering into such contracts with their landlords as they pleased. While admitting the competency of Parliament to place restraints upon the freedom of contract, he was not satisfied that the case in question—that of landlords letting their farms and of tenants taking them—was a case in which the Legislature was called on to interfere. Sheriff Barclay, who has the largest experience of any Sheriff in Scotland, and has long acted as Judge in the agricultural county of Perth, said before the Committee—

"A tenant should have an inalienable right to have compensation for damage done by game, but not an inalienable and concurrent right to kill ground game.

Mr. Purves, tenant of from 800 to 900 arable acres, and from 30,000 to 40,000 acres of pasture in the counties of Caithness and Sutherland, also a witness before the Committee, thought that the inalienable right to hares and rabbits would not do any good to tenants if granted. He was of opinion that there is no alienable right that can be given to the tenant which a landlord could not over-ride. He thought that all class laws should be abolished, and landlords and tenants left to make their own bargains, always providing that they do not contract to injure anyone else. Mr. Dunbar, also from Caithness, said that he would give a concurrent right to the tenant to kill hares and rabbits, but would allow the tenant to give up the right to the landlord. Again, Mr. Peacock, a farmer near Ripon, said the law would be of no avail in the case of a yearly tenancy. He did not see why it should not be evaded, nor much use in the Legislature interfering with contracts about game between landlord and tenant. Such legislation might be injurious rather than advantageous to the tenant. There would be a great difficulty in carrying it out. In certain cases it might diminish any tendency to give leases. Much has been said of the favour with which this Bill is regarded by the farmers in Scotland. I wish, therefore, to give the opinion of one whose words still speak, though his voice is hushed —a friend of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—one of the very few farmers who advocated the repeal of the Corn Laws 40 years ago, who was always in the front row of political and agricultural progress, one of the most skilful and successful of Scotland's farmers, and a man distinguished alike for shrewdness and modesty of character. So highly did the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) consider him as the exponent and representative of the views and feelings of the tenant farmers that he brought him forward as a tenant farmer representative to contest East Aberdeenshire in opposition to the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Alexander Gordon) who now represents that division of the county. I need hardly say that I refer to the late Mr. Hope of Fenton Barns. When discussing Mr. Loch's Bill, Mr. Hope said that the clause giving power to the tenant to kill game on his farm, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, was an immoral clause. He did not think that it was the duty of the Legislature to override private bargains in any way, unless these bargains were for an immoral purpose. If he promised to preserve hares and rabbits, he would consider himself bound to act up to that obligation. He did not think the farmers of Scotland were so weak and imbecile that they required to go, hat in hand, to the Legislature to ask them to protect them from their own acts. Again, Mr. Goodlet, who holds a prominent position among the farmers of Scotland, said that, supposing the Bill passed, and he made a bargain with his landlord to preserve hares and rabbits, if he were an honest man he would keep his bargain, notwithstanding such an Act of Parliament. I feel convinced that if the farmers gave due consideration to the question, and saw what would be the effects of this Bill, they would adopt the sentiments of these two distinguished members of their profession. I give the Government full credit for their anxiety to settle this question; but I fear that if the Bill be passed it will prove quite inoperative, and fail in accomplishing the objects aimed at. I feel certain that the tenant farmers who are expressing their approval of it at present will be disappointed when it is passed. They will find that what they expect to be a fish will turn out a serpent. I do not intend to vote for the second reading of the Bill, because I believe that it will be of no use unless the exceptional principle involved in it be extended; and, as I have already shown that present circumstances do not warrant this exceptional legislation, I am the more anxious to do nothing now which may be used against me if an extension of the principle be afterwards determined on. I shall not, however, vote for any Amendment in Committee which will make the Bill less favourable to the tenant. I cannot but express my regret that they have thought proper to bring forward this Bill before laying before the House their promised legislation on Land Law reform, for such legislation may have rendered this Bill unnecessary.

said, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when introducing the Bill, made allusions to expressions of the Chambers of Agriculture on this subject. Those Chambers, he was sorry to say, had been ridiculed by more than one hon. Member. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment last night made some very unjust remarks as to the position and opinions of those Chambers. The hon. Member said that a few memorials had been presented from those Chambers, but that he regarded them, not as representing tenant farmers, but as the mouthpieces of a few discontented agitators among the farming class. Now, he (Mr. Duckham) was instrumental in establishing those Chambers, and he repelled any imputation cast upon himself or his Colleagues. When he came forward as a Parliamentary candidate he was urged by his constituents to say something on the Game Question; but he had omitted saying anything on that subject in any of his addresses lest it should be said he had been instrumental in setting class against class. A great deal had been said with respect to freedom of contract; but those who had entered into contracts in very many parts of the country full well knew the deception that had been practised upon them after doing so. They could not estimate the damage that was done by hares and rabbits, and if that Bill was passed it would be a great boon to the agriculturist. The local rates and the Imperial taxes suffered in consequence of the depreciation caused by the over-preservation of game, with the attendant destruction of crops, because the land was let at a lower rent than it ought to be under a different system. Property had its duties as well as its rights, and he wished those who talked of freedom of contract to remember that the freedom of contract they claimed involved the confiscation, and, in many cases, the destruction, of the property of the tenant. It reduced the value of the holding, and decreased its produce. It was unjust to the nation to destroy the fertility of the soil, and then to spend millions of wealth in procuring food produced in other countries. A very large number of farms were now to let; and among the various causes which led to that state of things was the Over-preservation of game. He was satisfied there were few tenant farmers in England, especially in his own county, who would not be pleased to see their landlords having a fair day's sport and making good bags; but when it came to holding battues and sending vast quantities of game to the poulterers, the case was very different, and the farmers viewed such things with hatred and disgust. The letting of the game to a third party, and the introduction of that third party upon the scene, had been attended with great and bitter complaint. He admitted that over-preservation was not carried on so much as it used to be, and that many landlords were becoming ashamed of the practice they had adopted with such perseverance and such ingenuity. But too many cases of that kind still existed; and he, therefore, hoped that the Government would not seek to reduce the powers of that Bill in the manner which some hon. Members had suggested. In reply to the prophecy that if the Bill were passed there would be no more fox-hunting, because the foxes would be left nothing to feed upon, he could assure the House that it was where gamekeepers abounded that the least number of foxes were to be found.

said, he could not help thinking that although the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham) was supposed to be one of those practically acquainted with the subject and its bearing on the interest of the tenant farmer, his speech, as regarded the question of legislation, was much less practical than the speech of the hon. Member who preceded him. The speech of the hon. Member for Herefordshire was a mere declamation against landlords and the Game Laws, and went rather in favour of poachers than in the direction of practically benefiting the farmers. He ventured to think that Bill would not be of such benefit to the farmers as some supposed. In regard to the poacher, it was possible, as the Mover of the Amendment had said, that, in some respects, the law was too harsh. But it was proved before the Committee which sat on the subject that the crimes which game gave rise to were not quite so intense in their character as poaching of another kind which arose under the Salmon Laws. Why did the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), and others, take up the case of poachers in regard to game, and never take up the case of the poachers in regard to salmon? The only explanation he could conceive was that the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) fished, but did not shoot. Passing, however, from the poacher, he came to the question of practical benefit to the tenant. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan) appeared before the House as an essentially practical man on this question, for he had legislated upon it. The Home Secretary had not yet got quite so far. Practically, the legislation of the hon. Member rested upon the principle of compensation. It put the tenant in the best possible position for making a bargain; and if the landlord departed from the bargain he was cast in expenses. That had been found to work well in Scotland, and the Home Secretary would have done well, before bringing in his Bill, to consider how far the principle of compensation for damage to crops by game might be resorted to. He did not stand there—far from it—to advocate excessive game preservation. He agreed with those who said that game preservation led to great evils; but he did not think his right hon. and learned Friend took the right way to deal with it. His right hon. and learned Friend had a very difficult task to perform when he brought in that Bill. He listened with great interest to his speech. It was the first he delivered since accepting Office, and he desired to see how he performed a difficult task. His right hon. and learned Friend had to satisfy the landlords in that House that it was a right thing to take from them rights which they had from time immemorial; that was what this Bill practically did. Then, he had to satisfy the representatives of a free people that it was desirable to take away from them the right of free contract. He had to satisfy the farmers that it was desirable, in the interests of public policy, to place them, full-grown farmers, in the same category with women, lunatics, and infants. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke in what he might call his best form. Did he base the Bill on a national policy of food for the people? Far from it. No doubt, in the Preamble of the Bill, something was said about good husbandry, and possibly his right hon. and learned Friend might have casually said something about the food of the people; but from the beginning to the end of the speech his right hon. Friend devoted himself to the interest of the farmer in every possible form. He began with the farmer, he ended with the farmer, all through he spoke of the farmer. "This is a great day for the farmer." "The 10th of June would never be forgotten by the farmer." He (Lord Elcho) was not disputing it; but he wished to show that the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was all for the farmer and not for the public interest. The Bill was not a reform of the Game Laws; that was what was wanted; that was what the Committee recommended after sitting for two years; but the only thing the right hon. and learned Gentleman took out of the Report of the Committee was the very thing the Committee did not recommend, leaving absolutely aside untouched the seven or eight recommendations which were very valuable. His right hon. and learned Friend said the concessions to the tenant farmer should not be ungracious; the tenant farmer should no longer have a sense of social humiliation. Why, they all had a sense of humiliation when they were buying something for which two or three people were bidding. The remedy adopted was that which was required by the noisy section of the farmers who controlled the Chamber of Agriculture; but the Bill did not remedy that which the mass of the farmers required. The Home Secretary said he had a Parliamentary case. Yes, he had. It was the case of the Government honouring bills hastily drawn by their supporters in the counties during the late General Election. As to any question of public policy, they heard nothing about it—it was farmer, farmer, always farmer. It was a Bill to diminish hares and rabbits; but it did not follow that they would decrease. Was there a clause in the Bill which would prevent the land being smothered with hares and rabbits? No; nor was there anything to give the security so much wanted to the tenant of a non-preserving proprietor whose land bordered that of a proprietor who preserved heavily. There was no security whatever given by the Bill to the tenant in those circumstances, and it could not be pretended that the measure was brought before the House either as a matter of public policy or as a food question. Having done away with all restrictive legislation on the importation of food, Parliament was now asked to adopt a principle which, if logically carried out, would lead them to regulate wages, and even the prices of agricultural machinery. But the main effect of the Bill was this—that it did away with the freedom of contract, and it was to that he wished to direct the attention of the House. The Duke of Argyll said "freedom of contract was the salt of human society." He would like to quote to the House the opinion of a Liberal lawyer on that subject. Sir George Jessel, Master of the Rolls, who was Liberal enough even for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, said, in giving judgment on a case that came before him—

"It must not be forgotten that you are not to extend arbitrarily the rule that a contract is void when it is contrary to public policy, because, if there is one thing more than another which public policy requires, it is that men of full age and competent understanding should have the utmost liberty of contracting, and that contracts, when entered into freely and voluntarily, should be held sacred and enforced by the Courts of Justice."

It was not for the purpose of doing away with freedom of contract that Sir George Jessel and other Judges and Courts existed, but for the purpose of enforcing contract; and any Minister incurred a serious responsibility who asked that House to depart from what was the basis of all agreement and understanding in a free country. ["Railways!"] Great privileges were given to railways, and they undertook to do certain things which they were bound to do in consideration of those privileges. That case did not apply at all. When a Minister asked the House to depart from that paramount public policy of freedom of contract they required some stronger reasons. But the argument of the Home Secretary had been blown to shivers by the Lord Advocate in speaking on Mr. Loch's Bill in 1871, which was in substance the original of this measure. The law of England only threw its shield around the weak, lunatics, children, and dumb animals, which, as Mr. Mill said, were as helpless as children. They must, therefore, show some strong reason for extending that principle of protection to the relative position of landlord and tenant. It was for landlords and tenants they were proposing to legislate. "Were they really going to violate the principle they had hitherto held sacred—the principle of freedom of contract—on the ground that the representatives of their class were incapable of making a bargain? It was a reductio ad absurdum. Really, this Bill was a new instance of what he heard the late Sir George Scourfield call "grandmotherly" legislation, an expression which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary soon after adopted and brought out seemingly as original. It was the Bill of Mr. George Loch galvanized into temporary life, for it never would become a statute. It was a monster—he meant something out of the ordinary course—something previously unknown to the law. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would give them a precedent for his "inalienable" right in law. The only inalienable right in England was the right of liberty, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was doing his best to get rid of. He had received a letter on this subject from a most eminent Scotch lawyer, who did not wish his name mentioned, for he was a "strong Liberal," and did not wish to be known as denouncing a measure brought in by the Liberal Government. He said—

"I have been puzzling my brains, but I am unable to remember any inalienable right of property in law. Liberty is inalienable, but that cannot be spoken of as property. The proposed legislation appears to me singular in these three points—first, it takes away a right against the owner's will; secondly, it confers a right which may not be desired; and, thirdly, it makes the right so conferred inalienable."

In regard to the first of those three points, there was no precedent unaccompanied by compensation. As to the creation of an inalienable right in the terms and the views of those who generally spoke on behalf of the tenant, he had one or two matters which he wished to bring under the consideration of the House. He saw in his place the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), who supported the present Bill. He owned that he was astonished when he heard the hon. Gentleman express his intention to vote for the Bill. He thought he must have been in a dream for many years past, for he recollected once sitting on a Select Committee with his hon. Friend on this question. His hon. Friend prepared a draft Report of his own; but the Committee did not adopt it. In that Report his hon. Friend said he could not recommend any such legislative proposal as this. It was for the hon. Gentleman to reconcile his conduct in 1880 with his Report in 1873. What had produced the change he knew not. On the previous day, the hon. Member said that the Dissolution had had a great deal to do with this question. Therefore, it was possible that his hon. Friend's conversion was a conversion in the face of immediate dissolution. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan) had quoted the views of Mr. Holt. He would not follow his hon. Friend's example, but would cite a valuable passage from the Report of the Agricultural Chamber of Scotland for the year 1869. True it was now 1880, and they had travelled fast since 1889; but there was not much difference with reference to this question. The hon. Member for Forfar (Mr. J. W. Barclay) said they had taken a leaf out of the Irish book; but before the Irish lesson had been taken this was what the Committee of the Agricultural Chamber of Scotland said on the subject now under discussion—

"Henceforth all contracts between parties for the reservation of game should be illegal; but even with that condition your Committee do not think that the position of the farmer would be much, if at all, improved, for proprietors would endeavour to reserve exclusive privileges to themselves."

It was clear that the opinion of the Chamber of Agriculture was that the Bill would produce a demoralizing effect upon both landlords and tenants, and that the provisions of the Bill would be disregarded. Would the Bill have ever been brought in, he asked, if the position of landlords and tenants as to votes was reversed? He dared the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say it would. They knew it would not. Now that it was brought in, would it succeed if it passed? It would not, for it would be evaded in every possible way. At present the Bill was not necessary, because there were 40 farms vacant for one farmer who wanted a farm. If there was a return of the good old times, as they all hoped there would be, the landlord would make what conditions he chose, and by hook or by crook he would enforce those conditions, and do his utmost to treat the Bill as so much waste paper. The measure had this bad feature—that not only was it a violation of the sound principle of freedom of contract, not only did it resuscitate an abortion, and not only would it fail in the object the Government had in view, but it would demoralize the country. If there was one thing more desirable than another in legislation, it was that those who had the conduct of affairs of State should so legislate as that the laws they passed would command ready and willing obedience. The right hon. Gentleman assumed that all men would readily obey this law if the Bill became law, even if they considered it unjust and an infringement of the universal rights of property; but that showed how little the right hon. Gentleman understood human nature. He (Lord Elcho) ventured to think that the effect would be that men would endeavour to evade the law, and that, where self-interest came into play, the law would be disregarded. He thought he could show that that was likely to be the case, and that on authority which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary must respect. It was contained in a letter he had received dated the 16th of June last, and dealt with the question how far legislation of this sort was in the interest of the State, and was likely to conduce to order and public morality; and the writer said—

"All who desire the law to be respected must object to the Hares and Rabbits Bill becoming law. It brings the law into contempt when it can be evaded and broken with impunity, and that will be the case with the hares and rabbits proposal. It will be treated as all laws are which are out of agreement with the convictions, feelings, and customs of those whom they affect. What landowner will feel himself bound by a law which interferes with his freedom of contract, and which justice and fair dealing do not require him to observe?"

The writer asked what tenant would feel himself bound by a law which brought him into conflict with his landlord, and pointed out that there was this peculiarity in the Bill—that it was not prohibitory. It declared void certain agreements if they were made; but there was no penalty, no punishment provided, and he added—

"The Bill is a direct invitation to fraud, and will give rise to plenty of all sorts of schemes of evasion."

By whom was that letter written? It was written by one of the most able, outspoken, sensible, and distinguished of those who now administered justice—Lord Justice Bramwell. That was the kind of legislation which, on behalf of the Government, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to the House. He wished to say one word as to the sporting aspect of the question. No one was fonder of sporting than he was; but he did not think hares and rabbits necessary for sport. The best shooting he had ever had was on an estate in the Eastern Counties, where, one year, in four days four guns had killed over 1,500 driven partridges, and not a single hare. He was not in favour of the over-preservation of hares and rabbits. He held in his hand written proof of that fact, for, two years ago, he induced his father to put into his leases a clause which was, in principle, absolutely this Bill. [ A laugh. ] Yes, but with conditions which the Bill did not contain. The right hon. Gentleman's Bill contained no guarantees or safeguards. It simply took away from the owner his rights and handed them over to the tenant. On the grounds of sporting he objected to the Bill. If there was one relationship more pleasing than another in this country, it was when the landlord and his tenants were on good terms with each other. He ventured to predict that if they passed the Bill, that would become impossible for the future. Jealousy of every kind would take the place of good feeling, and the social condition would be so changed as to make the relationship of which he had spoken intolerable. The odds were that while in many cases the landlords would agree with their tenants, in many other cases the landlords would take the land for sporting purposes into their hands. If they examined the Bill, they would not find one clause, letter, or line, which would prevent the farmers and landlords agreeing together to smother the land with game. On the other hand, the landlords, rather than submit to so hateful a state of things as the Bill would establish, might resolve to acquire possession of the farms themselves; and then they would witness this state of things—they would have hares increasing and farmers decreasing. He had spoken strongly against the Bill because he believed it was founded on a vicious principle. The right hon. Gentleman might, of course, succeed in passing the Bill. If he did, there was nothing but submission for those who had fought the battle and lost it. All they could then do was to bow their heads before the right hon. Gentleman, as he had humbly bowed his head before his constituents at Oxford, and, imitating the Christian spirit which pervaded his last word to that constituency, to humbly say—"Good night, God bless you." Freedom of contract was true Liberalism; but legislation such as this Bill contained was spurious Liberalism. It was Liberalism "running heel." The tendency of the Liberalism of the present day was to leave the broad and well-trodden highway of British freedom, and follow the slippery bye-paths of Continental Socialism. He would, as bearing upon this, give the House the benefit of a quotation from a carefully written essay on Modern Socialism. It was written a few years after the system initiated by the present Prime Minister in 1865 came into play. The writer said—

"Unlike the Socialists of former days, the Socialists of the day place their reliance on State intervention. This growing tendency to rely on the State is fraught with greater mischief in England than in any Continental country. In the presence of the temptation, Party statesmen may accept a doctrine and pursue a policy against which, if their judgment was unbiassed, they would be the first to protest against. This is a peril which hangs over the country."

Those words came from the pen of a Gentleman who held high office in the present Government, and who was responsible for the teaching of political economy in the University of Cambridge. He alluded to the Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett). Having read that passage, he asked the House to consider how imminent was the peril which hung over the country when there were introduced before the House of Commons two such measures as the Irish Compensation Bill and the measure now under discussion.

Sir, in listening to the eloquent and prophetic speech of my noble Friend, I could not help being reminded of the line with which we are all familiar, that the victorious cause pleased the gods, but the cause of the vanquished was that of Cato. It is quite evident that my noble Friend despairs of that great and sacred cause, of which he is the consecrated Archimandrite, the cause of freedom of contract. The whole of his indignation, happily, does not descend upon me, because there are other criminals equally great. I think one who would have to bear a portion of it is the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), and another is the hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Pell). As to the principle of freedom of contract, upon which my noble Friend has dilated, I would call his attention to the fact that there are four Bills upon the Table of the House which interfere with that principle. Three of those Bills came from the Conservative Benches. What becomes of the noble Lord's statement that interference with freedom of contract is a wicked heresy of the Liberal and Communistic Party? Now, the Conservative Party brought in a Bill called the Agricultural Holdings Bill. Some of us thought that Bill was not likely to work; and, in fact, by the sacred principle of freedom of contract, it was made perfectly useless. I am afraid I was guilty of using the phrase he has ascribed to me of "sham legislation." I was replied to by the late Prime Minister, who said it was only vulgar and ignorant persons who could entertain such an opinion as that. No doubt, I and my hon. Friends are vulgar. But there were, on the other side of the House, some hon. Gentlemen who are neither vulgar nor ignorant, and they have come to the same conclusion this Session; and, finding that the farmers were dissatisfied, and being convinced that the Agricultural Holdings Bill was sham legislation so long as the sacred principle of freedom of contract exists, two Bills had been brought in to amend that Act—one by the hon. Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill), who certainly is neither vulgar nor ignorant; and the other by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), who may be ignorant, but certainly is not vulgar. These hon. Gentlemen are convinced that the Agricultural Holdings Act cannot be made a real working measure except by violation of the sacred principle of freedom of contract, of which we have heard so much. Then another Bill on the subject of game and trespass has been introduced as a rival Bill to that of the Government. That was introduced by a right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench last night, and it says that—

"The occupier of land shall not be deprived of his right except by a contract made in accordance with the provisions of this Act."

Therefore, the late Secretary to the Treasury's idea of freedom of contract is to lay down in an Act of Parliament the only contract which shall be made with respect to game; and there is not a line in his Bill which is not an absolute violation of the principle of freedom of contract. There is another name on the back of that Bill, for which I have even more respect than for the late Secretary to the Treasury, and that is a near Relative of my own, the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Harcourt). When I see my elder brother's name on the back of a Bill violating the sacred principle of freedom of contract, all I can say is, that though the hand is the hand of Esau, the voice is the voice of Jacob. As regards the violation of freedom of contract, there is no difference between the Bill of my honoured Relative, the Member for Oxfordshire, and that of the late Member for the City of Oxford. I do not wonder, therefore, that the noble Lord makes this pathetic lamentation over the evil prospects of the sacred principles of freedom of contract. Why, his forces are deserting him. The hon. Member for Lincolnshire, the ex-Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Leicester, the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, have all abandoned the standard; and, last of all, the once faithful Central Chamber of Agriculture in Scotland have proved unfaithful too. No wonder the noble Lord stands up, or rather lies down, to deplore their loss. I have some apologies to make to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand), who seems to have taken amiss a phrase of mine about the Amendment before the House, and he says it is un-Parliamentary to call an Amendment insincere. Well, you may call an Amendment insincere, as you call a Bill immoral. It what Mrs. Malaprop called a "derangement of epitaphs." But I want to ask about this Amendment. My hon. Friend is sincere, no doubt; but I want .to know whether his allies on the other side of the House will be sincere in their support of the Amendment? He wants the recommendations of the Committee of 1873 carried out. Do hon. Members opposite? That would involve the practical repeal of the Poaching Prevention Act, one of the worst Acts ever passed. If hon. Gentlemen want that, I shall be happy to give them a very early opportunity of carrying out that recommendation. My hon. Friend has said truly that this is not a complete dealing with the Game Laws. There was not time to deal with so great a question this Session; but I hope that in a future Session there will be, and then, no doubt, the recommendations of the Committee of 1873 will form part of a Bill. The main thing in the Amendment of my hon. Friend is to take hares and rabbits out of the Game List. Is that what hon. Members who are going to support the Amendment want? He complains that I do not go far enough; but that is not the nature of the complaint we have heard from my noble Friend, or from other hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from that side of the House. My noble Friend said, "Why have you not considered compensation?" We have considered compensation. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell)—and no man has greater experience of these matters—said compensation was a farce, and would not work. I know the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire (Mr. M'Lagan) is enamoured of compensation, but that is because he is the author of a compensation Bill. But if there is one thing which I have heard from every person representing Scotland more than another it is that that piece of legislation known by the name of M'Lagan's Bill has been a total and complete practical failure, and it is the knowledge of the absolute failure of that experiment which is one of the reasons why the Government know that the principle of compensation would not remedy this evil. My hon. Friend says, have compensation for injury by an adjoining owner, and with that I quite agree; and when the Game Laws come to be amended I hope it will receive the support of the other side of the House. My hon. Friend says his Amendment would not interfere with freedom of contract. Of course it would not, because it would destroy the whole subject-matter of the contract. He, no doubt, is sincere in that desire; but are hon. Gentlemen opposite? His remedy is like that of a man who finds a wound in his leg, and who, instead of trying to heal it, proposes to cut it off altogether. He says the State ought to exterminate hares and rabbits; but are hon. Gentlemen opposite going to support that principle in voting for his Amendment? It is an Amendment which will bring trespassers all over the farm. That is the way hares and rabbits will be abolished, and there will be but one man on the farm who may not touch them, and that is the farmer. Freedom of contract is to be permitted to operate; the landowner forbids him to kill hares and rabbits, and how are they to be killed, then, but by the poacher? No doubt, he would not be called the poacher then; he would be an "unauthorized trespasser." The latter part of my hon. Friend's speech seemed totally inconsistent with all the professions of its earlier part. He read a letter from a farmer, who said he used to be able to let the shooting on his farm for £100 a-year, and that if this Bill became law he could do it no more. Would he be able to let his shooting for £100, under the Amendment of my hon. Friend, when everybody can go and enjoy the hares and rabbits except the farmer? Then he talks of confiscation. It is extraordinary how readily my hon. Friend has learned the high Conservative vocabulary. He says the Bill will destroy the letting value of shooting. It may in some degree; but I should like to know whether he who denounced the confiscation of the Bill could improve the letting value—

said, he did not use the word confiscation. It occurred in a letter which he had read from a clergyman.

It was in a pathetic letter from a clergyman, who complained that he would not be able to let his shooting. I should advise that clergyman to leave off letting his game. It would be on the whole a better thing than letting my hon. Friend air his opinions on the subject of confiscation. My idea of confiscation is this, that when a man has obtained a full and fair rent for his farm, for the agricultural value of the land, if lie then seeks to obtain a few hundreds more, at the expense of the farmer, by letting the right to the destruction of his crops to another person, that is confiscation. It is that species of confiscation that this Bill is intended to prevent. Instead of letting to another man the right to eat up the crops of the tenant, it would be as fair and much less injurious if the landowner gave that man the right to go into the fields and take every tenth sheaf of corn, for, at least, the farmer would know what he was going to lose. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud says that under this Bill the landlord will come in at one gate and the tenant will come in at the other and disturb the game, and you will have no sport. But under my hon. Friend's Amendment what will happen? It will not be the farmer at one gate, it will be everybody coming in through every gap—and then he asks hon. Gentlemen opposite, on the ground of sport, to support such an Amendment as that. My noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) says this is only an ineffectual Bill. I think, if that had been the case, it would have been received with more cordiality; and that the opposition it has been met with has been rather because it is supposed that it will be an effectual Bill. I should do great injustice to the House and to the Bill if I were now to argue again the question of freedom of contract. The real truth is, that every regulation in a complicated state of society, as was well said in the very able speech of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. Fowler), is necessarily an interference with freedom of contract. My noble Friend, in returning home, takes a cab in Palace Yard; and the cabman, if he recognizes him, says, "I know you are a great friend of freedom of contract, and I will take you home to St. James's Place for £5. These are my terms in the midst of a thunderstorm." My noble Friend would answer him, and justly, "Freedom of contract? Why, you are a cabman—it is not for the likes of you. Parliament has said you shall take me to St. James's Place for a shilling, and, if you do not, I will have you up for 40 shillings." If my noble Friend objected to these terms, the cabman might still say to him, as the noble Lord himself has said, "Why, are you such a baby that two full-grown men cannot stand in Palace Yard and make their own bargain?" My noble Friend says that this Act may be evaded. So it may. All laws may be evaded. This Bill will not prevent contracts being 'made; but there are many contracts made which the law would not enforce. There is a meeting—which may, perhaps, account for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin)—on the estate of the Duke of Richmond and Gordon at this moment. There are many contracts being made there, which are, no doubt, very honourable contracts, hut which the law will not enforce. Why is it that they are not enforced by law? [An hon. MEMBER: Because they are immoral.] No, not immoral; but because the State does not consider that bets on liorse races are things which so much concern the good of society that it will provide Courts of Law to enforce them. And I will answer my noble Friend's quotation from Baron Bram well by one from Lord Justice James, to whom I was talking the other day, and who authorized me to say what he said to me—namely, that the fact is there are many of these contracts which may be made very properly; but if they are contracts not for the good of society, we will not find a Judge or a jury to enforce them. That is the case with bets—and, in my opinion, it should be so, too, with regard to hares and rabbits. Well, there are the foxes. I do not think the foxes will suffer from this Bill. My noble Friend the President of the Council (Earl Spencer) told me that on a great part of his estate the tenants had the hares and rabbits to do what they liked with, and that it was exactly upon these parts of his estate where they were certain to find a fox. I remember a time when a Bill for one of the most important railways in the West Riding of Yorkshire was thrown out five Sessions in succession because it was thought that it would interfere with the Grantham Hunt. Parliament at length passed the Bill, and I believe that the hunt still flourishes. I have been appealed to on the subject of Amendments. All I can say is, that if this Bill has been introduced in rather a bare shape without the limitations which I freely admit it is susceptible of, it is because the Government desired to see upon the Paper, when the Bill went into Committee, the view of Members on both sides as to the limitations which persons of experience in that matter might desire to bring under the consideration of the House. I said from the first, as I say now, with reference to the Scotch moors, that that is a case in which the evil does not exist to the same extent as elsewhere, and which requires to be, and can be, dealt with in Committee; and so on many other points. Some hon. Members have said that this is a Bill that farmers do not want. Well, I think that, after the speeches of the hon. Members for Cambridgeshire and Leicestershire, we had sufficient testimony upon, that subject. The real truth is, everybody knows the farmers do want this Bill. The hon. Member for Stroud said there were not many Petitions; but the resolutions of the Chambers of Agriculture of the counties of England in its favour are in the Home Office, and if this Bill is thrown out I can promise the House that they will have plenty of Petitions from the farmers upon the subject. After the very interesting and instructive debate we have had, I hope the House will allow us to take the stage of the second reading and to go into Committee, where the details of the measure may be fully and fairly considered.

There is much in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman which I think is open to answer, and it would be easy to examine and discuss a great deal that he has said with regard to the great question of freedom of contract; but, on the present occasion, I feel that we are, to a certain extent, owing to the lateness of the hour, deprived of freedom of further discussion. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, that it is desirable, if possible, that we should come to a conclusion upon this stage of the Bill to-day; and we must do so within the few minutes that have yet to elapse. Therefore, if I abstain from entering into a discussion of many of the propositions laid down by the Secretary of State, it must not be understood that I assent to them, because I am prepared, if I had time, to raise objections to several of them. But I wish, to go back to the position in which we stood yesterday. In the very able speech with which the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) opened the discussion, he laid before us his objections to the principle of the measure that was proposed by the Government; and he, at the same time, gave his reasons for another course which he was prepared to recommend. But he stated that, though he moved the Amendment of which, he had given Notice, he would leave it in the hands of the House to consider whether it was desirable that that Motion should be pressed to a division. Now, Sir, I think that, after the discussion we have heard, the House will be generally of opinion that it would be the better course that the hon. Gentleman should not press his Motion to a division; but that we should be allowed to take the second reading of the Bill, subject to this reservation in our own minds, that we must be prepared fully to discuss in Committee the various proposals which will have to be laid before us. It is not quite possible for us to accept off-hand the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stroud. In so far as that Amendment is one which expresses dissatisfaction with the proposals of Her Majesty's Government, I, for one, —and, I believe, a great many others—would be prepared to go with the hon. Gentleman in saying that the course proposed in the Government Bill is one which is not well suited to attain its object; which, in some respects, goes a great deal too far, and in others does not go far enough; and that it is a course which we could not assent to. On the other hand, if we were called upon to affirm the Resolution of the hon. Member for Stroud as it stands, I think we should find it necessary to in troduceseveral modifications, and that we should really discuss the matter very much better upon the clauses or Amendments moved in Committee than we should do upon the Resolution so submitted to us. Now, I imagine our position is very much this—it is very like the position in which we stood when the Government introduced their Employers' Liability Bill. Upon the occasion of the second reading of that Bill, the Prime Minister told us that, by the second reading, the Government hardly understood the House to pledge itself more than this—that the present state of the law was not satisfactory, and that further protection against accidents was required in the case of workmen. I understand that, by agreeing to the second reading of this Bill, we pledge ourselves to little more than this—that the present state of the law is not satisfactory; that further measures are required for the promotion of good husbandry, and the better security of the capital and labour invested by the occupier of land in the cultivation of the soil, and for the better protection of the crops from injury and loss by ground game, Beyond that, as to the method to be adopted, I think the House ought to hold itself quite free. If we are now expected to pronounce a distinct and definite opinion upon the Bill, including the different provisions which it contains, it would be impossible to come to a conclusion to-day, for it would be necessary to have a longer time for debate. But, understanding, as I do, that we are entirely free to discuss the various proposals that will be brought before us in Committee, I, for one, am of opinion that the best course to take will be to allow the Bill now to be read a second time.

said, he wished to reciprocate the good humour of the speech of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and frankly to accept his explanation of the use of the word "insincere"—that he intended to apply it not to the Mover, but to the Amendment. He (Mr. Brand) thought the House would be thoroughly satisfied with this discussion. Hon. Members who defended this interference with freedom of contract defended it on the ground that the tenant was not in a position to make a bargain with his landlord. He took objection to that, because he saw very clearly that that principle might be taken much further than this Bill, and that it would be perfectly impossible for the House to refuse the demands of the farmers if they came.

I must point out to the hon. Member that he is not entitled to a reply.

explained, that, if he had transgressed the Rule of the House, it was through ignorance and not on purpose. He would respond to the appeals made to him not only by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but by the Secretary to the Admiralty and the Home Secretary, and ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

The House suspended its Sitting at a quarter before Seven of the clock.

The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,

House adjourned at five minutes after Nine o'clock till Monday next.