asked the Member for the London University, as one of the Trustees of the British Museum, Whether any decision has been taken with respect to lighting the Museum so as to enable it to remain open to the public until 10 o'clock every week day throughout the year, in accordance with the very numerously signed requisition which was forwarded to the Trustees at the close of last Session?

Sir, the Trustees have, on various occasions, given the question of opening the British Museum in the evening their very anxious consideration. The immense value of the collection renders the danger of fire and other risks contingent on opening at night peculiarly serious. Moreover, they have been advised that the use of gas would be very injurious to many parts of the collection. The same objections, however, do not apply, or apply with much less force to the electric light, and, subject of course to security being taken for the safety of the building and its contents, and on satisfactory arrangements being made with reference to electric lighting in the district, the Trustees will be prepared to apply to Government for the funds necessary to enable them to open portions of the Museum in the evening. In doing so, they trust they will be acting in accordance with the wishes of Parliament.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that the Board of Guardians at Brighton are, in contravention of the instructions of the Local Government Board, prosecuting persons who refuse to have their children vaccinated, time after time for the same child, and that within the last few days several distraints upon their goods in such cases have taken place; and, whether he proposes to take any steps in the mattter?

Sir, the Board have no information at present as to the facts. They have communicated with the Guardians, and are informed by them that they are unable, at the present moment, to furnish the required information owing to the temporary absence on sick leave of the vaccination officer whose official records are not immediately accessible. The Board have forwarded to the Guardians a copy of the letter, which was addressed to the Guardians of the Evesham Union, setting forth the considerations which ought, in the Board's opinion, to be weighed by the Guardians in determining the question of repeated prosecution under the Vaccination Acts.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether any decision has been arrived at with respect to the inclosure in Regent's Park; and, if so, whether he will state the same to the House?

Sir, the subject of the inclosure of Regent's Park, which from a time before the throwing open of the Park has been reserved for the exclusive use of the lessees of the Crown houses in the neighbourhood and others, has occupied my attention for some months past, and I have been very anxious to throw open as much as possible of it to the public, especially as the inclosure cuts off access to the Park by the public for a long distance. The Law Officers to whom the question of right was referred, held that although the lessees had no certain legal rights to its continued reservation, yet that a private owner in the position of the Crown would be acting in bad faith if he were to deprive the lessees of their privilege. In this view, the Government considered that it was a subject for a compromise, and it became my duty to negotiate with the lessees. I am glad to say that I have now come to terms with them which I consider will be very favourable to the public. Under this arrangement nearly half of the inclosure will be thrown into the Park. A new entrance to the Park will be made at Clarence Gate, and a broad strip of ornamental garden will be open to the public from this gate by the side of the lake as far as Hanover Gate. On the other hand, two separate parts of the inclosure will be reserved, as heretofore, for the lessees, and will be secured to them for the remainder of their leases. At the same time, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests were instructed to negotiate with the lessees of the villas within the precincts of Regent's Park in respect of certain other plots of land not legally parts of the Park, but the property of the Crown, and let to these villa holders. They have come to an arrangement by which considerable parts of this land, amounting in the whole to 14 acres, and, indeed, so much of it as would not detract from the value of the villas, will be thrown into the Park upon terms that the villa holders will pay the same rent for the residue as they had hitherto paid for the whole, and that they will have these residues secured to them for the remainder of their leases. Under these arrangements more than about 20 acres will be added to Regent's Park, which I need hardly say will be very much to the interest of the public.

At the termination of the leases will the existing extra land also be thrown into the Park?

The whole subject will be re-opened at the end of the leases.

asked the Postmaster General, If he will be good enough to consider the advisability of establishing a cheaper rate for telegrams sent from the Country to London (or any other populous place having two or more postal deliveries during the day) subject to the condition that such telegrams shall not be specially delivered, but shall be sent to their address, by the earliest available postal delivery of letters.

Sir, very careful consideration has been given to the proposal contained in the Question of the hon. Member. The saving in consequence of sending a telegram by post in towns instead of delivering it by messenger would not be more than one penny, and this being the case I do not think it would be desirable to depart from the principle which, in my opinion, is very important, of maintaining uniformity of charge.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, If he is in a position to make any statement to the House with reference to the architectural treatment of the West front of Westminster Hall; whether any plans or elevations have been prepared for this work; and, if so, if he will be good enough to place them in the Library of the House; and, in the event of no plans having been prepared, if he will undertake that no contract shall be signed, or works undertaken, until a reasonable opportunity shall have been afforded to the House of examining and criticizing the proposed plans?

Mr. Pearson, the eminent architect, in whose hands I have placed the restoration of all the west front of Westminster Hall has not as yet made any report upon it. He is engaged upon a careful examination of the building, and an investigation of all the old plans and drawings of the building which can be found. It is nearly certain that a cloister existed along the west side of the Hall and under the flying buttresses, and it may be desirable to replace this. I will undertake, however, that no building of such kind, or any other kind, will be commenced until the plans shall have been laid before the House, and an opportunity given of criticizing them; but this undertaking will not extend to the repair of the buttresses and of the walls of the building for which money has already been voted. This work will probably be begun, I will not say completed, during the Recess.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he can state approximately the cost to this Country of the Military occupation of Cyprus, the usual per-centage for ineffective charges being added?

Sir, the annual charge of the Force occupying Cyprus, including non-effective charge, may be taken as about £51,500. As, however, the Brittsh Army was not increased for the occupation of Cyprus, so, it is probable, that it would not be diminished should the garrison be withdrawn; consequently, the sum stated is rather an item of general military expenditure than a charge peculiarly for Cyprus.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the long interval which in some cases elapses between the examination of the working places in coal mines and the commencement of work by the miner; and, if he can take steps to provide that the examination prescribed by the Mines Regulation Act shall be made at as short an interval as possible before the miner enters his working place?

Sir, this matter has always been treated by the Inspectors as one of great importance. Recently, in consequence of representations made to the Secretary of State, a Circular has been addressed to them by his order, calling upon them to ascertain and report all those coal mines where a longer interval than two hours is allowed to elapse between the inspection of the working-places and the commencement of work by the miners. There is no reason, however, to suppose that the cases in which this interval is exceeded are otherwise than rare. On receipt of the Reports, the Secretary of State will be in a position to judge what further steps may be required.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have complained to the Government of Japan of the restrictions imposed on the importation of drugs and chemicals into that Country?

My Predecessor stated, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend on the 6th of November last, that Her Majesty's Government were not aware that there had been any interference with the importation of drugs and other chemicals into Japan other than medicinal opium. No cause has arisen for any complaint since the date of that reply.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that the agent of the estate of the Endowed School Commissioners, near Dungannon, served one hundred and forty ejectments for a year's rent on the estate tenants; whether most of these had been obliged to claim the benefit of the Arrears Act; whether the ejectments were served with the knowledge and consent of the Commissioners; whether, on a portion of the tenants effecting a settlement, they were obliged to pay costs; and, whether he will inquire if most of the costs went to the agent, as solicitor; if so, whether he will recommend the Commissioners to remit them; and if he will take the opinion of the Commissioners as to whether it is usual on estates where the agent is not an attorney to servo ejectments for a year's rent?

Sir, I have received a Report from the Commissioners of Endowed Schools, from which it appears that they gave their agent discretion to serve ejectments upon tenants able to pay their rent, but refusing to do so. Acting upon that authority, the agent served 98 ejectments without further communication with the Commissioners. Forty-six of the tenants processed had taken advantage of the Arrears Act. There appears to be no doubt that many well able to pay their rents were deliberately holding back. As a matter of course some costs had to be paid when a settlement was effected; but the tenants appear to have been most leniently dealt with in this respect. The agent is quite willing that another solicitor should be employed in these matters; but this would involve far greater expense to any tenants against whom the Commissioners might find it necessary to take proceedings. It has more than once been suggested to the tenants that another solicitor should be employed, but they have invariably requested that this might not be done. I see no reason why I should make such a communication to the Commissioners as is suggested in the last paragraph.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can give the House any information as to the negotiations with regard to the Congo?

Sir, I am not in a position to make any statement on this subject; but my hon. Friend will understand that there is no intention of withdrawing from the pledges given by the Prime Minister in regard to this subject.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any expression of opinion has been received from the Australian Colonies with respect to the proposed arrangement with M. Lesseps?

Sir, the Premier of Queensland, who, with all his virtues, does not seem from our previous experience to have the virtue of knowing how to wait, has telegraphed to the Agent General to the effect that great dissatisfaction is felt at the Government proposal in the matter of the Suez Canal. No other Colony has expressed any opinion in the matter.

I wish to ask how long the hon. Gentleman considers that the Premier of Queensland should have waited before he telegraphed?

He should have waited until he received some information as to the details and bearing of the scheme.

Has any information as to the details of the scheme been sent to Her Majesty's Colonies?

No, Sir; not officially.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, What precautions have been taken to secure that loans of money advanced to tenants in Ireland for the improvements of their holdings are applied to the purposes for which they have been lent; whether he is aware that such moneys have in some cases been used for the purchase of cattle; and, whether it is held that the acquisition of stock for a farm is an improvement within the meaning of the Acts authorising advances to tenants?

Sir, very great attention has been paid to the point referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place, the borrowers have to enter into a bond, with two solvent sureties, for the proper application of the money. Then the loans are advanced in five instalments, and none of these after the first may be paid until the local Inspector certifies that the previous one has been expended in a proper manner, and full value given for its amount. The Board of Works are satisfied that work has in every case been done to the full amount of the money advanced. The suggestion that loans have been used for the purchase of cattle is founded, I believe, on idle gossip. Perhaps I may be allowed to refer the right hon. Gentleman to the last annual Report of the Board of Works, in which considerable space is devoted to this subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the vessels of the Euphrates and Tigris Steamship Company have been prevented plying on the Tigris in violation of the Treaty?

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the protest by Her Majesty's Government in consequence of the "Khalifeh" and "Medjidieh" not being permitted by the Turkish Government to land their upward cargo and parcel mails at Bagdad, has produced any result; and, if not, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take other steps for the protection of British and Asiatic trade by way of the Tigris and Euphrates?

I propose, Sir, to answer this Question and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford at the same time. It is true, as I stated on Friday last, that the vessels of the Tigris and Euphrates Steamship Company have been prevented plying on the Tigris. Strong representations have been made to the Sublime Porte, and an answer is shortly expected, upon the character of which the further action of Her Majesty's Government must depend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of the serious casualties constantly occurring in mines, and of the defective organisation existing for the rescue of sufferers in those disasters, he will give favourable consideration to the plan proposed by Mr. Alan Bagot, in a pamphlet published by him, for the establishment of life brigades in each mining district; and, whether he will, through the mining inspectors, submit Mr. Bagot's scheme to the proprietors of mines, with a view to an examination of its feasibility, and its general adoption if found feasible?

Sir, the pamphlet apparently referred to by the hon. Member has not been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State; but it was laid before the Royal Commissioners for Accidents in Mines, and they had the further advantage of examining Mr. Bagot personally in reference thereto. The Commissioners have not seen their way, apparently, to make any recommendation in regard to Mr. Bagot's proposals. The system which they viewed with most favour was the establishment of life-saving stations and rescue parties in connection with the Fleuss apparatus; and circulars have been issued by the Inspectors to the various owners throughout the country, commending the subject to their particular notice. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to have a copy of the circular and memorandum referred to?

asked Mr. Attorney General, Which are the Statutes at present in force that:—

"If any persons are combined for the purpose of promising, and shall promise, directly or indirectly, any personal or pecuniary advantage to any elector or electors on account of his or their voting, or abstaining from voting, for any designated candidate or candidates; or if any persons are combined to cause any elector or electors reasonably to expect, that he or they will avoid any personal disadvantage on account of his or their voting, or abstaining from voting, for any designated candidate or candidates, such persons so combined and so acting for the said purpose or purposes shall individually be guilty of a corrupt practice, and shall be subject to all penalties relating to such an offence? "

I am not quite sure that I am able fully to appreciate the motives of the Question of my hon. Friend. I think he will find such offences will be met by the Act 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, sections 73 to 75.

asked the Secretary of State for War, When the Order may be expected directing the training of Militia recruits optionally on enlistment at the brigade centre, or under the old system of preliminary drill at the regimental head quarters?

Sir, the Order will be issued very shortly, and will take effect from the 1st of September.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Ryan, the shorthand writer to the Land Commissioners, acting for Mr. Gallagher, who was generally requested by them to have notes taken in appeal and other cases, is in receipt of any salary while discharging these duties; and, if so, from what source such salary is paid?

Sir, neither Mr. Ryan nor Mr. Gallagher receive any salary for this duty. Payment is made to Mr. Gallagher for each day upon which he, or some one deputed by him, attends to report, and for transcript of notes when required. The payment is made by the Commissioners out of their Parliamentary Vote.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, now that the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade on Lighthouse Illuminants has been dissolved, What steps he proposes to take to determine the question as to whether oil, gas, or electricity is the best Lighthouse Illuminant?

asked the President of the Board of Trade, now that the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade on Lighthouse Illuminants has been dissolved, What steps he proposes to take to settle the question as to whether gas, oil, or electricity is the best illuminant for lighthouses?

Sir, the best answer will be found in the additional Correspondence on the subject of Lighthouse Illuminants which I have laid upon the Table, and which I hope will be in the hands of Members in a short time. The three lighthouse authorities, in consequence of the retirement from the experiments of the Irish Board, are again apart, and I have no longer any hope of bringing them into unanimous agreement. Under these circumstances the Committee has been dissolved, and the Lighthouse Boards have been informed that they will be left to put forward their own proposals, and the Board of Trade will endeavour to meet their individual wishes, subject, of course, to general considerations of expense and efficiency. If, for their own information, the Trinity House and the Commissioners of Northern Lights, or either of those Boards, should desire to carry out any comparative experiments on the best form of light, &c., the Board of Trade will be prepared to sanction any reasonable expenditure for the purpose, and also for such scientific assistance as the two Boards, or either of them, may desire to obtain; but the whole responsibility of the choice of scientific advisers and of the course of the experiments will be left to the lighthouse authorities.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the interest payable on loans already made to Tramways will be reduced in the same way as those to Railways?

Yes, Sir; two tramway loans already made will be treated in the same way as existing railway loans.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If the Government intend to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission as to the Lower Bann Navigation in that the Board of Navigation Trustees should be abolished, and the works dealt with solely in the interest of the drainage of the country?

Sir, I fully explained the intentions of the Government on this subject in reply to a Question on the 4th instant. But I may point out that the recommendation which my hon. and gallant Friend quotes was conditional on the approval of the counties who contributed to these works. As the Grand Juries of these counties (Antrim and Derry) have so far declined to approve the proposal, the recommendation falls to the ground for the present.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that a police but is about being erected at Kilmoors, near Lisdoonvarna, county Clare; if so, at whose cost; will the police proposed to be stationed there be charged to the locality; and, if he will state what are the reasons which have induced the authorities to take this step?

Sir, it has been thought desirable to remove a police station from Moanreal to Kilmoors, as it is more required in the latter place. The men are a part of the ordinary county force, and will not be charged to the locality.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in the recent official inquiry at the Westminster Workhouse into the conduct of the master, it was elicited that the matron had sent from time to time to the master's office a list of wines and spirits, presumably ordered by the medical officer, but which had never been ordered by him, nor supplied to the sick; whether the master's clerk made entry in the medical officer's portion of the book of such orders; whether this was admitted by him at the close of his evidence at such inquiry; and, whether the Department has come to any decision in consequence of such proceedngs?

Sir, according to the evidence at the inquiry the matron gave out to the nurses the stimulants which they stated had been ordered by the medical officer, and a statement of the total quantity so given out by the matron was delivered by her to the master's clerk. There was no direct evidence of any deficiency in the stock of stimulants, or that the stimulants actually issued by the matron had not been supplied to the sick. It appeared that on some occasions, when the master's clerk found that the total supplied by the matron was in excess of the quantity entered in the medical relief book as ordered, entries were made in the medical officer's portion of the medical relief book, sometimes by the master's clerk and sometimes by a pauper inmate who assisted with the books, to cause the quantities to correspond. With the large number of sick in this workhouse errors may have occurred, and entries which would have been correct as to one pauper may have been made against the name of another. It was admitted by the master's clerk that during the 18 months up to Michaelmas, 1882, in about 30 cases, such entries, which related to a few gills each, had been made by the inmate or himself. He alleges that he was not aware at the time the entries were made that the medical officer had not given orders to the nurses in these cases, although there was no entry in the medical officer's portion of the book, the usual practice being that the pauper inmate inserted the medical officer's orders according to lists supplied to him by the nurses, or according to verbal directions from the medical officer. These facts were elicited in connection with an inquiry instituted by the Board into certain complaints preferred against the master of the workhouse. The master's clerk is entirely under the control of the Guardians, and they can therefore dismiss him without any reference to the Board. The Board have communicated to the Guardians the evidence of the witnesses on the subject.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a summons heard before Captain Hatchell, R.M. at the Glin (county Limerick) petty sessions, on July the 12th, as to which a number of fishermen were fined for trespassing on a passage to the beach; whether he is aware that the case made for the fishermen was that they only passed over a fence erected a few years ago by the landlord, to bar a public right of passage to an important salmon fishery, which right of way the fisherman had until then enjoyed, and which was recognized by the Board of Works at the time of the erection of the Fishery Pier in 1876, when the passage was left open; whether the magistrates allowed the landlord to controvert the defendants' case by reference to documentary proof of his title; whether they undertook to decide for themselves the question of title thus raised, and, notwithstanding the protest of the defendants' solicitor, declined to make the fines of an amount that would entitle the defendants to appeal to the Supreme Courts; and, whether magistrates are warranted by Law in ruling summarily an important public dispute as to title?

, in reply, said, his attention had been drawn to this matter only by the Question of the hon. Member. He would, therefore, ask him to postpone it, though he might say there was nothing to be gained by inquiry. The matter was one over which neither he nor the Government had any control. If the magistrates had done wrong, which he was very far from asserting, the aggrieved person had a legal remedy.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Have the Government received any communications from Foreign Governments upon the subject of the arrangements between Her Majesty's Government and M. de Lesseps?

Sir, the only communication received from a foreign Government since the conclusion of the arrangement referred to by my right hon. Friend has been in a note addressed to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by the Turkish Ambassador, in which his Excellency states that he has been instructed to inform Her Majesty's Government that any modification or extension of the privileges granted to M. de Lesseps must receive the sanction of the Sultan before it can be earned out.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with respect to the Paper Egypt, No. 12, 1883, can the "instructions" alluded to in the first paragraph of that paper be laid before Parliament?

No, Sir; the preliminary instructions alluded to cannot be presented, because they were mainly verbal. The instructions on which the negotiation was based are set out in the Report of the Suez Canal Director already laid on the Table.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the observations of Mr. Justice Hawkins, in charging the grand jury at Durham on the 16th instant, to the effect that he regretted that the details of the Criminal Appeal Bill had been kept secret from the judges, and that in his opinion the Bill was uncalled for and unnecessary; whether it is the fact, as stated by that learned judge, that the details of the Bill have been kept secret from Her Majesty's judges; and, if he can state whether any, and, if any, how many, of the twenty-two judges, who under the Bill will be members of the Court of Criminal Appeal, have been made acquainted with and have expressed their approbation of the details of the Bill?

I have seen a newspaper report of a statement by Mr. Justice Hawkins to the effect mentioned in the Question. I trust there has been some misunderstanding of what actually fell from that learned Judge. But, even if he is correctly reported, I think the House will agree with me that I ought to avoid anything in the shape of a retort upon one of Her Majesty's Judges. I must, however, say that if my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport means to suggest that a Bill effecting a legal reform ought not to be introduced into this House by the Government without a copy of it being sent to all the Judges in order that their approval may be obtained before the Bill is proceeded with, I must, in the public interests, entirely dissent from such a view. I must equally dissent from the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend that, because a Bill is not sent to all the Judges, therefore it is kept secret from them. I have already stated three times in this House that I did send copies of the Criminal Appeal Bill to certain Judges, among others to the Chief Justice, and to my former Answers I must refer the hon. and learned Member for the information he seeks.

I wish to explain that the word "secret," which the hon. and learned Gentleman imputes to mo, was used by the learned Judge in his complaint of the conduct of the Attorney General.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, How the officers and the crew of the "Victoria and Albert" Yacht will be employed whilst this vessel is being repaired; and, what it is contemplated to do with the "Enchantress "Yacht when the arrangement is carried out by which the "Osborne" Yacht will be at the disposal of the Lords of the Admiralty?

Sir, I had given an undertaking to the House that the repairs of the Victoriaand Albert should not be commenced until the House had expressed its opinion on the subject. Pending that decision, no special arrangement has been made as to the employment of the officers and crew; but the matter is now under consideration. I may say that the crew, so far as not required for Hex-Majesty's service in connection with the tenders and boats, are employed on other duties at Portsmouth. The question of allotting the yachts at the disposal of the Admiralty will not arise until the Victoria anal Albert is again completed for use; but, of course, some new arrangement will have then to be made.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether any additional ships of war have been sent to Madagascar in addition to the "Dryad" and "Dragon," now off Tamatave; whether he will communicate to the House the telegrams received from Madagascar since June 30th; and, what steps are being taken by the Government to protect British subjects and property in Madagascar?

Sir, in answer to the hon. Member's first Question, I have to say that no additional ships of war have been sent to Madagascar. In answer to his second Question, the Government do not think it desirable that the telegrams which have been received should be communicated to the House pending the receipt of the despatches now on their way, of which those telegrams are only a summary. A general statement, however, has already been made of the contents of the telegrams. As to the third Question, Commander Johnstone, of the Dryad, received the usual instructions regarding the protection of British lives and property, and we have no reason to believe that, in any way, he has failed in his duty.

Can the hon. Member say if any further ships has been sent to the Mauritius?

I have answered the Question as it stood on the Paper. If the hon. Gentleman wants any further information, perhaps he will give Notice of it.

asked Mr. Attorney General, On what clause or statement in the Suez Canal Concession or Statutes the Government rely, in support of their opinion that the loan of £8,000,000, proposed now to be made to the Suez Canal Company, will rank pari passu with the other and prior obligations of the Company?

Sir, if the hon. Gentleman will refer to the Statutes of the Suez Canal Company, which, as he knows, are dated January 5, 1856, he will find that by Article 62, paragraph 2, all loans of the Company rank for payment next after the working expenses of the Company; and I presume that the proposed loan will rank with all other loans.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the £4,000,000 expended in 1875 by Lord Beaconsfield in buying the Khedive's shares receive five per cent. from the Egyptian Government, as against the three and a quarter per cent. at which the £4,000,000 was obtained by the British Government; whether the shares thus purchased are now worth more than double the £4,000,000 given for them; whether, in 1894, the shares thus bought by Lord Beaconsfield will participate equally with the other shares in the full profits of the Company, and whether, in 37 years from the date of purchase, the whole principal sum of £4,000,000 will be recouped by the difference between the three and a quarter per cent. paid and the five per cent. received; whether, under the new proposal, the £8,000,000 to be advanced by the British Government is to receive any share in the profits of the Canal; and, whether it is proposed to increase the number of English Directors on the Suez Canal Board?

Sir, the Questions of the hon. Gentleman are really an argument; but I will, out of courtesy to him, reply to them as to matters of fact. The Answer to the first Question is that the shares carry 5 per cent. paid by the Egyptian Government, until 1894, and that the money required to purchase them was raised at 3½ percent. The Answer to the second Question is, that no shares with the coupons cut off are quoted, and the hon. Member has the same facilities that I have for estimating what their value would be were they in the market. The Answer to the third Question is, that the difference between 5 and 3½ per cent interest will recoup the principal in 36 years—that is, in 29 years from the present time. The Answer to the fourth Question is, that by lending £8,000,000 at 3¼ per cent interest instead of leaving that amount to be borrowed by the Company in the market, we shall improve the dividend on the share capital, and, as we hold four-ninths of that capital, carrying dividends from 1894, we shall in this respect be gainers. Our commerce will also gain by the more rapid reduction of the transit dues, following the improved dividend. In reply to the last Question, I have to say that it is not part of the provisional agreement that the number of the English Directors should be increased.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that the English Directors of the Suez Canal Company will, by the new agreement, continue to be in a minority on the Board of that Company, what provision, if any, has been made for preventing the finances of the Company being so manipulated as to keep the profits below twenty-one per cent., and thereby avoid the remission, provided for in paragraph 3 of the agreement, of half the pilotage dues, which press so heavily on British trade, such trade being about eighty per cent. of the whole of the trade passing through the Canal?

Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that inasmuch as the shareholders, the founders, the holders of the 15 per cent profits purchased from the Egyptian Government, the Directors, and the employés are all interested in the dividends being as high as possible; and inasmuch as the accounts are yearly audited by auditors appointed by the shareholders, and are from day to day under the eye of the resident English Director in Paris, I am satisfied that there is ample security against the fraud which the hon. Member anticipates.

Might I be allowed to explain that I did not intend to attribute fraud. What I wished to convey was, that as the English are mainly interested in the reduction of the pilotage, and the French are mainly interested in the profits, I wish to know what safeguards there are in the agreement to prevent putting, for instance, to the capital account expenses incurred on machinery, so as to enable the Company to keep the profits just below the 21 per cent required for the reduction of the pilotage dues?

Sir, my Answer really met that inquiry. I said that everybody concerned was interested in as high a dividend being paid as possible, and there were other safeguards which I mentioned. On the other point raised by the hon. Member, I would remind him that there was a famous case a good many years ago in which a Scotch Company declared dividends below what were earned, and that was proved, and the Directors were convicted of fraud, and very severely punished.

May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is any clause in this agreement by which the pilotage, having been once reduced, can be again augmented?

No, Sir; the clause as to increases of rate refers to the transit charge.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What was the date of the opinion of the Law Officers with reference to the alleged exclusive rights of M. de Lesseps and the Suez Canal Company, or either of them, by virtue of the concessions under which the Canal was made?

In answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have to say that I understand it to be a general rule, and one which, for many reasons, must be acted upon, not to make public any information respecting the advice given by the Law Officers of the Crown to the Government. If once the door is opened so as to admit inquiry as to the Law Officers' opinion, even to the extent of giving the date now sought for, I think that oftentimes such great inconvenience would arise that I must ask to be excused from answering the Question.

I am well aware of the rules respecting the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown. I have not asked for that opinion, though the Prime Minister rested his case upon it to a large extent; but I have a right to ask—and I shall ask again to-morrow—whether the date of the opinion was antecedent to the instructions given by the Secretary of State to the British Directors of the Suez Canal, or after they had entered on the inquiries, or after they had closed them?

asked the Secretary of State for War, Why the Evidence taken before the Committee to inquire into the Royal Hospitals at Chelsea and Kilmainham has not been printed with the Report, and when it will be forthcoming?

Sir, the evidence in question is voluminous, and extremely technical. As the Committee, in their Report, go fully into the facts brought out in the evidence, I considered that the public interest in the evidence would probably be insufficient to justify the cost of printing and distributing it to Members.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay upon the Table the Report of the honourable and learned Member for Cambridge, who attended, as assessor representing the Home Office, the inquiry into the recent disaster at Sunderland?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether it may be understood from paragraph 63 of the Second Report of the Public Accounts Committee, that a Stock Valuation Account of Warlike Stores, giving detail of those condemned, broken up, or sold, and the amount realised by their sale, as well as their value when new, will in future be laid before the House with the Army Estimates; and, whether he will state the value of warlike stores issued annually on payment according to the rates in the "Priced Vocabulary;" and what is the annual amount derived from per-centages charged to purchasers upon the Vocabulary rates?

Sir, the question of the preparation of a stock valuation account is a very difficult one, and is now under the consideration of a small Committee at the War Office. If and when completed the valuation account will be laid before Parliament, either with the Estimates, or as a separate Return. The value of warlike stores issued on repayment according to the rates in the priced vocabulary, including percentages, appears annually in the Army Appropriation Account.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, When the Tramways (Ireland) Bill will be printed?

Sir, this Bill is not yet settled. Various points connected with it are under the consideration of different Departments; but I fear I cannot say when they will be settled.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If the sluices in the Shannon are now in a fit state to deal with the summer floods?

I have every reason to believe that the Shannon sluices are now ready for the floods whenever they may come; but the hon. and gallant Member has not given sufficient Notice to enable me to obtain from Dublin an explicit assurance to this effect.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that the Naval and Military Forces of the Crown at Hong Kong have hitherto been accustomed to avail themselves of the ministrations of the Church of England there in buildings which have been provided by individual members of the community in consideration of the Grant made for the maintenance of public worship; and, whether, having regard to these facts, and to the necessity of making some provision for the spiritual wants of the Garrison, and, further, to the strong feeling which has been expressed in a petition presented to the Governor, and signed by many persons of all classes and creeds at Hong Kong against the withdrawal of the Grant, Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to reconsider their proposal for its withdrawal?

Sir, the buildings referred to were only partially provided by private efforts. The Colonial Government contributed no less than two-thirds of the estimated cost. The question which had to be decided in 1881 was a choice between concurrent endowment and disendowment, as the Roman Catholics, who are in a majority among the Christians at Hong Kong, started the subject, and complained of the inequality of their treatment. After carefully perusing the representations of the petitioners referred to, the Secretary of State does not feel justified in reversing the decision arrived at and announced by his Predecessor two years ago.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, after the withdrawal of the Government Grant in aid of Church services in Hong Kong, the Military authorities will have further claim to the use of the Cathedral for church parades; and, if not, whether due provision has been made for the holding of garrison Protestant Church services elsewhere?

Sir, the cathedral is vested in trustees. In the Army Estimates £510 is provided for the pay of officiating clergy, and $500 is annually contributed to the expenses of the building. We have every reason to believe that in the future, as in the past, the building will be open to the troops; but the amount of military contribution may, perhaps, when the time arrives, have to be further considered.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, seeing there is now no Legislative Council in Malta by whom the new constituency can be divided into constituencies, the Secretary of State has sent any instructions to the Governor to make such a division, or if it is necessary that the new election should take place under the old system?

Sir, the only instructions sent on the subject are in paragraph 8 of Lord Derby's despatch of the 8th of March, which has been laid before Parliament. In this despatch the Secretary of State states that Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to recommend Her Majesty to assent to an ordinance establishing suitable arrangements for the division of the Island into constituencies which could not legally be effected by the Letters Patent. The first election of the new Legislative Council must necessarily, therefore, be under the old system.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact, as stated in "Reynolds' Newspaper,"—

"That out of 90,000 officers and men 8,319 Courts Martial were held," that "the sum total of the Courts Martial and minor punishments number 139,753, or an average of an offence and a-half to every man in the service," and that "the Footguards offences outnumber those of the rest of the Army;"

and, if so, whether he will suggest to the Commander in Chief the desirability of marking his disapproval by removing the Footguards from London, and replacing them by some well-conducted Regiment of the Line?

Sir, if noncommissioned officers and men be substituted for officers and men in the second line of the Question, the figures quoted in its first paragraph are correct. As regards the second paragraph, the offences in the Foot Guards do not out-number or nearly approach those of the rest of the Army. The courts martial in the Foot Guards were only 57 per 1,000, against 94 per 1,000 for the rest of the Army at home; but with reference to minor punishments for trivial offences, the rate in the Foot Guards exceeded considerably that for the other corps. This is probably due to the different character of service in the Metropolis, which involves many temptations, to which other corps are not subjected.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether it is a fact, as stated in the press, that the tender of the Dublin Steam Packet Company, for the conveyance of the mails between Holyhead and Kingstown, has been accepted by the Treasury; whether the tenders of the London and North Western Company are identical with those formerly accepted by the Treasury and abandoned; and, whether he will state the period for which the tender of the Dublin Steam Packet Company has been accepted, and say when full particulars will be laid before Parliament?

No decision, Sir, has yet been arrived at. I can only repeat the assurance I have already given, that as soon as a decision has been come to there shall be no delay in laying it before the House.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the words of the Concession from Said Pacha to M. Lesseps, made on the 30th November 1854, are—

"Nous avons donné a notre ami M. Ferdinand de Lesseps pouvoir exclusif a l'effet de constituer et diriger une Compagnie Universelle pour le percement de I'Isthme de Suez, I'exploitation d'un passage propre a la grande navigation," &c.;

and, whether he understood the Law officers of the Crown to convey anything more than that, in their opinion, an exclusive privilege had been conferred on Monsieur Ferdinand de Lesseps, for the term of his natural life, to form and to preside over a Company for the above purposes?

In answer to the Question of my hon. Friend, I have to state that the privileges referred to in the Question do not, according to our view, determine with the life of M. de Lesseps, but pass to the Company formed by him.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will lay upon the Table the instructions given by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the British Suez Canal Directors referred to in the first paragraph of their report; if he will inform the House whether the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, on the question of the exclusive concession to M. de Lesseps, was asked for and obtained prior or subsequent to the conversations between the British Directors and the President and Vice President of the Suez Canal Company, which, in the second paragraph of their report, the British Directors state resulted in so near an approximation between the views of Her Majesty's Government and those of the President and Vice President of the Suez Canal Company; and, if he could state what were the points of difference which the British Directors, in the fourth paragraph of their report, state remained to be removed at the time of the visit of the Messrs. do Lesseps to London?

Sir, to answer the first part of the Question would require a comparison of dates, and I am afraid that I am not able at the moment to do that. I understood that the Question was practically answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but if I am mistaken I will put myself in a position to answer hereafter. With regard to the last part of the Question, in respect to the points of difference which the British Directors, in the 4th part of their Report, stated remained to be removed at the time of the visit of M. de Lesseps, I do not think it would be possible to give those details. But my right hon. Friend would be able to answer that Question with more authority than I could. I do not think it would be possible to give the details of a long and complicated communication in answer to a Question, although the substance of them might be brought out in debate.

said, he would repeat the last part of the Question tomorrow.

asked, Whether Her Majesty's Government would lay upon the Table a Memorandum containing the reasons which induced Her Majesty's Government to come to the conclusion that M. de Lesseps and his Company had an exclusive concession?

It appears to me that to do that would be virtually to produce the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. We are prepared to defend that opinion if need be; but we cannot produce it.

In most Blue Books despatches sent to the British Ambassadors embody the opinions of the Law Officers, though they were not given as such. I would ask whether Her Majesty's Government refuse to give the House the reasons why they came to the conclusion to which I refer?

We shall not refuse to give to the House any reasons; but this is a Question of a somewhat novel kind, and I am not prepared at a moment's notice to establish a precedent for the production of an official document.

wished to know whether the Prime Minister saw the same objection to laying before the House the case which was submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown?

That is a course which, as far as I understand, would be still more unsatisfactory.

I beg to ask whether any Protocols of these conversations and negotiations with M. de Lesseps and his son have been kept; and, if so, whether, as we have been informed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Instructions were verbal, those Protocols will be presented to the House?

No, Sir; there are no Protocols, no records of those conversations, which were conducted in the usual manner, and not in the form usual in the case of an International Congress.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether anything has passed, during the recent negotiations, as to who is to be the successor to M. Ferdinand de Lesseps, as President of the Suez Canal Company?

Sir, nothing has passed during the recent negotiations as to the question who is to be the successor of M. Ferdinand de Lesseps as President of the Canal Company.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can now name a day for submitting the provisional agreement with the Suez Canal Company to the judgment of the House?

Sir, the right hon. Gentleman is not unreasonably desirous to put an end to the suspense of the House upon a question of much public interest at the present moment, and we join with him in that feeling; but, at the same time, as to practically giving effect to his desire, we must have regard to the state of Business and the engagements under which we lie. I mean, with regard to the passing of the two Tenants' Compensation Bills through the stage of Committee in this House. Forming the best judgment we can as to the progress of these Bills, we do not think that they will extend beyond a certain number of days—not a very large number—but I think I had better not define more precisely, for fear that any date which I might name as the extreme limit should be taken for granted as the earliest possible day for finishing the discussion on these Bills. I think, however, that I can meet the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's Question by saying that I will state definitively on Monday the course which the Government propose to pursue with respect to the provisional agreement which has been entered into with M. de Lesseps. As, perhaps, this declaration, taken alone, may not be sufficient, and as there is an apprehension in some quarters, at any rate, that the House may be asked to consider this question at too late a period of the Session, I shall likewise give this assurance to the House—that in no case will we submit the proposition later than some day before the expiration of the present month.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, before the Heads of the Agreement referring to the second Suez Canal were signed, any communication was made to M. de Lesseps on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to the effect that it admitted his claim to the exclusive right of cutting a second Canal through the Isthmus of Suez, and whether, in fact, the negotiations with M. de Lesseps were throughout conducted on that basis?

That is a Question, Sir, with regard to which, I think, an explanation has been already given in "another place," but I will repeat it. No communications in the nature of information or engagement was made to M. de Lesseps in regard to his exclusive rights of cutting a second Canal. The description given by myself in this House, was given entirely as a matter of explanation to the House with respect to the opinions which we entertain, and the basis, therefore, on which we proceeded in the carrying on of the negotiations which we have had in hand. I may say, of course, that that was drawn from us by the strong objections taken to the plan, which plan was a plan essentially dependent upon the view which we had taken with regard to the privileges of M. de Lesseps.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is true, as stated in the "Times" of June 5th, that Mr. Plunkett, the Secretary of the British Embassy in Paris, attended the annual meeting of the Suez Canal Company on the 4th June "as representative of the English Government;" and, if so, what was the object of his so attending, and what instructions were given to him?

Sir, with respect to this Question I have made inquiry in the proper quarters, and in substance I believe I may say that Mr. Plunkett did so attend, and that he so attended under the arrangement made by the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues. Consequently, the right hon. Gentleman should be quite as well able to answer this Question as I am. There is nothing unusual, therefore, in the attendance. The question of the right of the country to be represented and to vote at the meetings was raised under the late Government at the time, or about the time, of the purchase of the shares in the Suez Canal, and an arrangement was made in 1877 whereby Her Majesty's Government are entitled, as shareholders, to the right of deliberation and vote, and, according to custom, they have been represented by the Secretaries of Embassy at Paris on the occasion of the general meeting.

Were there any instructions?

I am not aware of any special instructions. I feel confident that there were none; but, of course, that can be ascertained.

asked whether, as there was no register of shareholders of the Suez Canal Company, and the information as to the domicile of shareholders could, therefore, not be obtained from that source, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to obtain a copy of the list of the shareholders whose shares were deposited at the office of the Company prior to the last general meeting?

If the right hon. Gentleman gives me Notice of the exact information he requires I will see whether I can get it.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the reply of the President of the Council to the deputations from the English and Scotch Chambers of Agriculture and Farmers' Clubs on the 8th of May, namely, that—

"The statements and views of that weighty and representative assembly strongly deserved the attention and consideration not only of the department over which he had the honour to preside, but of Her Majesty's Government as a whole;"

whether the practical statements and facts adduced by Mr. Clare Read and other speakers have ever been considered by the whole Cabinet or by the Committee of Agriculture; and, whether the Vice President of the Council is a member of either of these important Committees of Her Majesty's Government?

What I have to say is, that the representations to which reference is made have been carefully considered by the Department responsible for agricultural affairs. With regard to the latter portion of the Question, my hon. Friend is not aware, perhaps, of the distinction, but there is no Vice President of the Privy Council. There is a Vice President of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education; he has nothing to do, in virtue of his office, with general Council business; but, incidentally, he has rendered very valuable services to the Veterinary Department of the Office.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, seeing the unsettled questions of importance yet to be dealt with by the Government on the Report stages of the Corrupt Practices Bill, the Government will fix an early day for taking that stage, so as to ensure the consideration of such questions by a fairly full House?

, in reply, said, this was a Question of some interest to the House, as it had reference to Public Business, and was a revival of the Question, in substance, which was previously put to him with regard to the precedence between the Corrupt Practices Bill and the Tenant's Compensation Bills. The Corrupt Practices Bill presenting so heavy a pièce de resistance, they felt it necessary to get through the difficult stage of the Bill, but the Question now was somewhat altered; and as it had been represented that the House of Lords, whose convenience ought to be considered, had a great interest in the Compensation Bills, whereas that was not the case with regard to the Corrupt Practices Bill, therefore, though he was desirous they should have the Report of the Corrupt Practices Bill considered by an adequately full House, he should not, at the present moment, bind the Government to take the Report upon the Bill before the Report on the Tenants' Compensation Bills. His impression, as at present advised, was that it might be the better course to take the Report on the Tenants' Compensation Bills before the Report on the Corrupt Practices Bill.

inquired whether the Attorney General would place the proposed Amendments to the Corrupt Practices Bill on the Table of the House?

I am engaged on them now, and they shall be in the hands of Members as soon as possible.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been drawn to the eighth section of "The Judicature Act, 1875," which provides that a judge of the Probate and Admiralty Division may be sent on circuit "so far as the state of business in the said division will admit;" whether any and what steps were taken to ascertain the state of business in that division before Mr. Justice Butt, one of the Judges of the said Division, was sent on circuit; whether before the said judge commenced his circuit the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice were informed that the pressure of work in the Admiralty Division during the whole of the year had been steady and continuous, and that there were enough Admiralty actions then ready for trial to keep one judge continuously employed till the Long Vacation; whether the postponing of decisions as to the succession to real and personal estate and of Admiralty causes does not necessarily lead to great inconvenience of suitors, and to an enormous increase in the cost of litigation, by the continuation of receiverships and temporary administration, and by the detention of ships and crews; and, whether, if at any future time a judge of the said division is sent on circuit, arrangements will be made by which some other judge of the High Court will be appointed to complete the work left unfinished by the judge of the Probate and Admiralty Division?

I am aware of the inconvenience caused by the absence of Mr. Justice Butt; but I am afraid it is an inconvenience shared by other Divisions of the High Court. The President, however, of the Division is still in town.

said, he would call attention to the subject, and move a Resolution.

I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, with respect to the telegram he has received from Queensland respecting the negotiations with M. de Lesseps, Whether he will lay it on the Table, or whether he can now give to the House its contents?

Sir, the telegram was sent to the Agent General, and not to the Government. It is in these terms—

"Government proposals re Suez Canal received here with intense dissatisfaction. In form Ministers."

gave Notice he would ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he would state the number and tonnage of the British ships passing through the Suez Canal in ballast; and, whether the reduction of 2½ francs per ton mentioned in the agreement would apply to ships carrying coal as ballast?

I will try to get the information by Monday.

said, that on going into Committee of Supply he should move—

"That, having in view the vast interests involved in the Suez Canal scheme, the late period of the Session, and the impossibility of furnishing to Members of this House in time such information as would qualify them to form a mature judgment on the proposed agreement, it is, in the opinion of this House, expedient to postpone its discussion until the reassembling of Parliament, and meanwhile to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire and report upon all the bearings of the question."

With reference to the statement that fell from the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, respecting the despatch which he said had been received from the Turkish Government, I beg to give Notice that I will ask him whether he has any objection to lay on the Table the Firman granted by the Sultan in 1873 to the Khedive, by which the Khedive was empowered to enter into all Commercial Treaties, and assent to all commercial undertakings, without referring them to the approval of the Porte?

I will endeavour to do so to-morrow.

inquired, Whether the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs could give the House any further information as to the spread of cholera in Cairo; and, whether it is true that all the troops had been removed from the town to the desert?

I think, Sir, that Questions as to the troops had better be addressed to the Secretary of State for War. In regard to the first Question, I regret to say that there can be no doubt the last accounts in regard to cholera are not at all of the same character as those that I was able to give on former occasions, when the Returns were undoubtedly comparatively favourable. The last in formation I have is from Mr. Cookson, of Alexandria. It is dated 19th July, and gives the following Returns:—

"Deaths from cholera, July 18, Damietta, 17; Mansourah, 38; Samannoud, 27; Chobar, 17; nine other villages, 36; Menzaleh, on 15th, 20; Cairo and Ghizeh, for 24 hours ending 8 a.m., on 18th, 65."

That, I am sorry to say, is a terrible increase.

With regard to the second part of the Question of the noble Lord (Lord Eustace Cecil), I may read to the House a telegram I hare received from Egypt in reply to one from the Adjutant General. The telegrams are as follows:—

"From Adjutant General to General Officer Commanding, Cairo, July 16, 1883.—In continuation of mine of 26th June, if cholera reaches Cairo consider the advisability of dispersing troops in the desert along Fresh Water Canal by detachments of quarter or half battalions. Have all your plans ready beforehand for carrying out whatever scheme you may determine upon after consultation with doctors."

"From General Officer Commanding in Egypt, Cairo, to Commander-in-Chief, Horse Guards (received July 17).—Yours 16th. Most undesirable to move troops under canvas until cholera becomes much more serious or until a case occurs among troops. Have all my plans ready; prepared to move under canvas instantly when necessary, first of all to desert near Helouan and Abasseyeh, and afterwards into more scattered camps along Sweet Water Canal. Doctors entirely concur."

There is another telegram, which runs as follows:—

"From General Officer Commanding, Cairo, July 18, 1883, to War Secretary (received July 18).—Health of troops Cairo very good; no special disease. At Alexandria not so satisfactory. Cornwall Regiment 15 per cent sick, chiefly fevers. Percentage of sick whole command 8, of which one-fourth venereal."

, in rising to move, in page 2, line 3, to leave out the words "improvement mentioned in the first Part of the Schedule hereto, and," and insert "erection or enlargement of buildings, and to making or improving roads or bridges," said, the object of the Amendment was to remove from the 1st Part of the Schedule all the improvements with the exception of the two named in the Amendment, with a view of placing them in the 2nd Part of the Schedule—that part in which notice alone to the landlord was required. The Committee would see that the 1st Part of the Schedule was entirely in favour of the landlord. It required the landlord's consent to have been given to all the improvements effected under it; and the list contained no less than 12 kinds of improvements, including the erection or enlargement of buildings, laying down permanent pasture, making or improving roads or bridges, making fences or gardens, planting hops or orchards, and reclaiming waste land. The 2nd Part of the Schedule required notice to be given by the tenant to the landlord, and it contained only one kind of improvement, although that was a very important one—namely, drainage. An hon. Member had given Notice of his intention to move that drainage should be taken from the 2nd Part of the Schedule and inserted in the 3rd; but his (Mr. Borlase's) contention was, that the improvements which made up the 1st Part of the Schedule ought to be taken from that Part and inserted in the 2nd. The principle on which he advocated this change was, that the fullest scope ought to be given to the tenant for the exercise of his judgment in dealing with the raw material which was under his hands. Should that judgment prove faulty, who could be so great a loser as himself? He thought, if the Amendment were carried, there should be inserted in the Bill a very strong clause to guard the landlord against the deterioration of his property. On the contrary, should the judgment of the tenant not prove faulty, and the end justified the course he had pursued in making the improvements, who ultimately would be so great a gainer as the landlord himself? He knew very well what the answer would be. The Committee would be told how very long a time it took to bring permanent pasture into being, and how long it took to render orchards, hop gardens, and similar improvements productive. His answer in that case would be, who was the greatest loser in consequence? It was not the landlord, because, during the whole of the time, he was receiving his rent; but it was the tenant, who, during that time, would have been obliged to deprive himself of the remuneration resulting from the improved cultivation of these particular parts of the soil which he was farming. He would say no more in regard to that part of the question; but he would go on to some of the other items included in the 1st Part of the Schedule—namely, the making of water meadows, or works of irrigation, and the improving and making of watercourses, ponds, wells, or reservoirs, or works for the supply of water for agricultural or domestic purposes. He could only repeat what he had said on the second reading of the Bill that he could not see on what principle, if drainage was placed among these improvements to which only notice was required, works of irrigation which were correlative and the converse of drainage, should not be placed under the same head. He knew the answer would be that it was owing to the fact that great expense might be incurred in structural works. But then, again, in proportion to the outlay the tenant was willing to incur would be the enterprize he would have to undertake; and, therefore, in his (Mr. Borlase's) opinion, the more satisfactory the results would be that would be gained in end. There was one other part of the Schedule to which he also wished to call attention—namely, the reclaiming of waste land. There were very few tenants who would be found ready or willing to reclaim waste land; but, at the same time, he thought they ought to have the fullest scope for the exercise of their judgment in so doing. There might be a part of the farm maintained for the purposes of sport. He thought that if the landlord wished to retain land for the purposes of sport, he ought to keep it in his own occupation, and not to make it part of the farm out of which another man had to derive his profit. The issue raised by the Amendment was distinctly an issue between the landlord and tenant; and, more than that, it was distinctly an issue between the question whether they should offer every inducement in their power to tenant farmers to improve their land, or whether they should allow things to remain exactly in the condition in which they were. He would conclude by quoting the opinion of one whose name would always be listened to with respect in that House—namely, Mr. John Stuart Mill. [Mr. WARTON: No, no!] Except, perhaps, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport. He would ask the landed proprietors in that House to remember—

"That they are the only class who have a claim to a share in the distribution of produce through the ownership of something which neither they nor anyone else have produced; "

and, remembering that, he would ask them whether they ought not to give the fullest margin which it was in their power to give for the exercise of the free and unrestricted judgment of the producer? He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name upon the Paper.

said, the Amendment of the hon. Member proposed to transfer at once all the items from the first part of the Schedule and insert them in the second, except two which related to the erection or improvement of buildings, and to making or improving roads or bridges. In making this proposition he thought the hon. Member was somewhat anticipating the discussion which would occur later on when the Committee reached the Schedule. The effect of the proposition appeared to be to transfer from the domain of the landlord certain improvements which were in the nature of permanent improvements, and to hand them over to the tenant. If the Amendment were passed it would be no longer possible for the landlord to make an agreement to impose any restriction whatever with respect to the improvement of his estate, and the farm would pass completely and solely under the control of the tenant. This was one of a series of Amendments the hon. Member had placed on the Paper, which would convert the Bill from a Compensation Bill into a Land Tenure Bill. He thought it was hardly necessary that he should enter at length into the subject; but he should like to illustrate it by the particular case mentioned by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard) the other night. The hon. Member spoke of a matter which he said he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) knew nothing about, although he resided in the county of Kent—namely, the cultivation of hops. He believed the hon. Member was right in saying that there was a condition in every lease or tenancy that the tenant should only cultivate a certain proportion of hops. The reason of this was that it had been found by experience that after a good hop season the tenant felt inclined to enter more largely into the cultivation of hops, and to devote a much larger portion of the land to that species of cultivation than was considered expedient in the interest of good farming. Therefore, it had been found desirable to restrict the amount of cultivation which the tenant should undertake; but if the present Amendment were passed it would at once upset the control of the landlord over the matter, and the tenant would be able to devote as much of the farm as he thought proper to the cultivation of hops, without its being possible for the landlord to make any restriction as to the quantity. The same argument might be applied to other matters. But, as he had already said, the Amendment anticipated certain questions, which would be more properly discussed when they came to the Schedule. When they reached the Schedule it would be for the Committee to consider what improvements would be properly included in the first and second parts of it; but it was inconsistent with the general object of the Bill to discuss these matters now.

said, he hoped that his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment, especially as the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had given him an opportunity of bringing it forward upon the Schedule; and if it were insisted upon it would certainly give the tenant an unfair advantage, especially in regard to the reclamation of land. For instance, the tenant might reclaim land which was being preserved for antiquarian purposes.

said, that, after the remarks of the Chief Commissioner of Works, he would withdraw the Amendment until they came to the Schedule.

said, he wished to correct a remark which had fallen from the Chief Commissioner of Works. He had not said yesterday that the Chief Commissioner of Works knew nothing of hop cultivation or of the county of Kent. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the tenant farmers of the Kingdom were not in the habit of making permanent improvements; and he had reminded the right hon. Gentleman that he lived in the midst of a hop district where most of the permanent improvements were made by the tenants. In regard to the Amendment, he thought the hon. Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Borlase) would act wisely in postponing it until the Schedule came on for consideration.

, in moving to amend the clause by leaving out the words "in writing," in line 5, said, in a very few words he could explain the object of the Amendment. He thought that there might be a consent between the landlord and tenant which a Court or arbitrator would hold to be good, without its necessarily being required to be in writing. He was quite sure that the Committee would not wish the landlord and tenant to be treated, in regard to contracts or agreements, upon any worse terms than those which existed between strangers. As between strangers, every contract was good without being in writing unless it came within the Statute of Frauds. Now, the Statute of Frauds was an old Statute, which had existed for the last 100 years with regard to all contracts; and he ventured to think that they should not, as between landlord and tenant, extend the requirements of that Statute. What should be required, even without the agreement being in writing as between landlord and tenant, was that fair compensation should be given for improvements of this nature. He was quite sure he would have the Solicitor General with him when he said that, under the Statute of Frauds, a claim could be made for money paid when the act done was within the knowledge of the person who shared in the advantage, although he might not have given his consent in writing. For instance, where goods to the amount of £10 were supplied by a vendor to a purchaser, the purchaser would not be liable unless part of the goods were received by him; but if money had been paid by the purchaser, or any part of the goods had been received by him, then, without any contract in writing, there was liability upon the part of the purchaser, or rather of the contractor, to pay the person with whom he had contracted. He ventured to think that it was exactly the same case between the landlord and tenant in regard to improvements made upon the landlord's property. There would have been work done by the tenant with the knowledge of the landlord. That work would have been done if the whole of his Amendment was carried out with the consent and knowledge of the landlord; and he failed to see why that which would be a binding contract between two strangers should cease to be a contract because it was between a landlord and tenant. While he said that there should be no requirement for a contract to be in writing, he proposed to add at the end of the clause words which he thought would prevent any possibility of a claim being made upon the landlord which the landlord would not in effect have ratified. He had inserted a Proviso at the end of the clause which was really part of the Amendment, to require that in order to entitle the tenant to compensation he must show, to the satisfaction of the Court or arbitrator, "that such improvement was in fact made with the assent thereto, or approval of, the landlord." What was the position the tenant was in? He might have spoken to his landlord, and there were very many estates on which the work would not be done in that absolute close business way in which it would be done on large estates. For instance, an application was made by the tenant to the landlord that certain works should be allowed to be done. The landlord gave no written consent; but he stood by and saw the work being done. He thereby consented to it and approved of it. And now let him show the hardship there would be in pinning the tenant to the requirement that the consent of the landlord should be in writing. The tenant and the landlord agreed that certain works should be done. No writing passed; but the tenant knew perfectly well that the landlord would compensate him for that work. Unfortunately, before the tenant had been compensated for the work so done the landlord died. Everybody about knew that the landlord had recognized the claim, and would have compensated the tenant. He (Mr. Staveley Hill) was speaking now of an instance that was absolutely within his own knowledge. The landlord died, and the tenant made his claim upon the executors. The executors were quite willing to pay it; but they found that they could not do so because there was no contract in writing. That would be the case here. Under ordinary circumstances between two contracting parties no such difficulty would have occurred; but the man who had performed the work would go to the executors and say—"This contract was entered into, and you know very well that I can prove that it was." The executors would at once recognize the claim, and it would be paid. Then, why should they put the tenant and the contractor upon a different footing? He contended that they ought not to put a tenant on a worse footing than any other contracting party; but if they passed the clause as it stood they would compel the executor of the landlord, or any other person representing him in his absence, to say—"We cannot recognize that claim, although we know the work was done and the claim fully admitted; and we know, further, that it is a claim that you have a right to make in justice. Nevertheless we cannot recognize it because the Statute says it should be in writing." It was quite certain that it was a claim which any tenant in England would have a right to make; and to require, before the tenant should be able to obtain compensation, that the consent of the landlord should be given in writing would permit many acts of injustice to be done. He begged to move the omission of the words "in writing."

said, he must oppose the Amendment. He had had some experience in regard to questions which might arise between a landlord and tenant; and it had been his invariable rule never to enter into a bargain without exchanging some writing or other—either a letter or some memorandum of agreement. He thought that nothing would be more detrimental to the interests of both parties than to leave them at liberty to make an open bargain of the kind contemplated. It was a course which could only end in litigation. The contract might extend over a period of 10 or 20 years; and at the end of the tenancy the representative of the landlord would be called upon to recognize it, on the simple assertion of the tenant that the landlord had seen what was going on, and, having consented to it, he was liable to pay compensation. The tenant would say—"Whatever the improvement might have been worth, it was done by me; you raised no objection to it, and I claim compensation." The mere fact of the landlord having seen it would be held to be equivalent to his having given consent to it. He opposed the proposition, because he believed it would tend to make matters much worse than they were now, and he hoped it would not be pressed.

said, he had listened attentively to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for West Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill). He thought no stronger evidence could be given to the Committee to show the necessity of retaining these words than the very case the hon. and learned Member had put. The hon. and learned Member had adduced an instance of the possibility of the death of the landlord, in which case it would be necessary to go to the executors. But the hon. and learned Gentleman forgot that the tenant was also liable to die, as well as the landlord; and, in that case, a consent in writing would be essential before the tenant's representative could maintain his claim. Therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman, in making the proposal, was not acting as the friend of the tenant, but of the landlord. The adoption of the Amendment would enable an unjust man to get rid of a claim of which there was no evidence in writing.

said, he gathered that the hon. and learned Member did not intend his proposal to apply to past improvements. In regard to future improvements, he (Mr. J. W. Barclay) thought it would be very unfortunate for the tenant, who might be drawn into litigation in order to establish his claim. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether the word "landlord" included the landlord's agent, and whether an agent consenting to an improvement would bind the landlord? Looking at the definition of the word "landlord" at the end of the Bill, he did not think that the matter was perfectly clear; and he desired that all the clauses of the measure should be perfectly clear, in order that the tenant might know how he was going to be affected.

hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would act in conformity with the wish of the Committee and withdraw the Amendment. In regard to the point which had just been raised by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), he did not think that any words were necessary in order to give greater security to the tenant; but, if the Committee thought that additional words were necessary, he had no objection, in line 5, after the word "landlord," to insert the words "or his agent."

said, that, if necessary, he would raise the objection on the Definition Clause.

said, he was afraid that that might not be so convenient a course. It would be better to deal with the matter in the present clause.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not been able to give him any reason why the landlord and tenant should be placed in any different position from an ordinary contracting party; but as it was evident that the feeling of the Committee was against him he would withdraw the Amendment.

said, he was afraid that so wide an Amendment might be open to a dangerous interpretation. Would it include what was ordinarily called in Scotland the factor, or land agent, or some person who had no special authority to act for the landlord, except as regarded the collection of rents? He did not think that a collector of rents would be a fit person to have authority to bind the landlord in the case of improvements.

said, the words "by himself or by his agent duly authorized in that behalf" were the ordinary legal words that were adopted in England, at all events.

said, he objected to the words being sprung upon the Committee. They ought to know clearly what they were going to consent to. Was every collector of rents to be an agent duly authorized to give this permission, or was he not? If a collector was not, then what document or appointment was to be required in order to make him an agent "duly authorized in that behalf?" It appeared to him that they were laying traps for landlords in every direction, and for the tenants also. He strongly objected to put in the Bill the words "duly authorized in that behalf," unless they explained what they meant by duly authorized. He was satisfied that before the Bill had been long in operation lawsuits would rise at the expiration of every lease. Surely, as the landlord was the person really interested in the land, he should be the person to give his permission, and he only. Nothing could be easier than to go to the landlord. If the agent recommended an improvement, he would surely go at once to the landlord and get his signature to it.

said, he hoped that the Committee would assent to the words proposed by the Government. It was desirable to make everything as clear as they could; and the landlord, or the landlord's agent, was a perfectly-understood term.

also supported the Amendment, and said, that, in addition to the proposed words being the most appropriate that could be used, the Amendment was entirely in favour of the tenant. He would be able to deal either with his landlord's permanent agent, or with any person the landlord might authorize for this particular purpose.

said, he thought that the tenant might find that if the landlord employed an agent or a representative connected with some other part of the business of the estate, unless he gave such agent authority under his hand to bind him to an agreement to give compensation to the tenant for improvements, the tenant, after obtaining the agent's authority, and believing it to be the authority of the landlord, might find, after all, when he came to claim compensation, that he had not got the landlord's authority.

said, he did not think that would be possible.

wished to put a question to the Solicitor General. In the case of a dispute, would it be possible for a landlord to maintain that he had not authorized his agent to agree to the erection of a building, or to any other improvement which came under the words of the Schedule?

said, the clause would not mean that a man must be authorized as agent to give consent to every particular transaction. There would be many cases in which the agent would be obviously a general agent. Obviously the agent would be the person to do the work that would ordinarily be done. On the other hand, the landlord might have an agent who was an agent for certain purposes only, and nobody would dream of confounding such an agent with an agent empowered to give a consent of this sort. An agent might simply be a rent collector, and in that case all the details in regard to the management of the property would have to be settled by the landlord. No Court would decide that an agent of that character could have given a consent that would bind the landlord.

asked if it would be competent for the landlord, if a case of difficulty arose, to plead that he did not authorize the agent? He gathered from the Solicitor General that the agent might be either a fully-authorized agent, or an agent authorized to collect rents and do certain things. Everyone practically acquainted with the management of estates knew that the agent possessed an almost plenary power, and that no tenant could call in question the act or power of an ordinary agent. It appeared to him (Mr. James Howard) that if they were to insert the words "in that behalf," the landlord, in the case of a dispute arising, might plead that he never authorized the agent to agree to such terms. If there was any doubt on the subject, it would be better to omit the words "in that behalf," and stop short at the words "duly authorized agent."

suggested that, instead of inserting the words "in that behalf," the Committee should insert the words "legally authorized agent." In that case every improvement must receive the approval of the landlord, or of an agent who would have power to sanction the improvement. He thought an Amendment to that effect would clear up all doubt. As the matter now stood, it was argued that the words "in that behalf" would impose an obligation to obtain the consent in writing of the landlord or the agent to show that the improvement was duly authorized.

I may point out to the hon. Member that, before putting the words he suggests, it would be necessary to strike out or to insert other words. As the Amendment now stands, it is to insert, after the words "unless the landlord," the words "or his agent duly authorized in that behalf." The hon. Member proposes to strike out the words "in that behalf," and to insert the words "legally authorized agent," which would not read.

said, he thought it was hardly worth while to have a protracted discussion upon the Amendment. He believed that the words "his legally authorized agent," and the words "his agent duly authorized in that behalf," amounted to the same thing; but, personally, he preferred the Amendment as he had proposed it.

remarked, that the words "in that behalf" seemed to apply to a single and individual case. He thought the other language would be safer.

said, he was astonished to hear a conversation of that character in a place of business like the House of Commons. They all professed to be anxious to get rid of the Bill, and yet they were wasting their time with such discussions as this. Any lawyer in the House, or anyone else, who had any knowledge of business whatever, must know that the introduction of these words was altogether unnecessary. The landlord, as the law stood, was, just as any other person would be, bound by the acts of his agent; but the right hon. Gentleman had good-naturedly consented to the insertion of words which were really unnecessary, and which it was now argued tended to make the matter more obscure. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard), as a man of business, knew very well that if he were unable to write, being ill in bed, and got a friend to sign the hon. Member's name to a promissory note for him, the signature to that note would be held to be his, and that he would be bound by it. It was true that the hon. Member, when he got well, might, as it was insinuated that a landlord might, repudiate the authority of his friend to sign. But as he (Mr. Bulwer) would be sorry to suggest that the hon. Member would do any such thing, so the hon. Member might also give landlords the credit of being not less honest than himself. They were wasting time in discussing questions that were not at all likely to arise.

said, the Solicitor General had told the Committee that an agent of a landlord might have the authority to collect rents, and do the general business of the estates, without being authorized to grant tenants compensation for improvements.

said, he hoped that after what bad fallen from several Members of the Committee the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy would reconsider his good nature in agreeing to the insertion of these words in the clause, and would, at all events, wait until the Report to consider whether it was necessary for the purposes of the Bill that they should be inserted. He ventured to think that the Bill, as it stood, carried out all that was actually desired, and the introduction of these words had not only wasted a good deal of the time of the Committee, but had complicated the discussion.

said, he had risen to make the same remark as the hon. Baronet opposite. The proposal now before the Committee was either a very important one, or it was of no importance at all; and, therefore, the consideration of it had better be deferred until the Report stage of the Bill.

said, he was ready to meet the Committee in any way that was possible. He wished to know, therefore, whether it was the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendment should be postponed until the Report? [Cries of "Yes!" and "No!"]

said, he rose for the purpose of making a suggestion. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Bulwer) seemed to imagine that he (Mr. J. Howard) had raised this point; but it had been raised long before he touched this question. The words he would suggest were—"Or his reputed agent."

said, he wished to suggest a drafting Amendment. The words of the clause were—

"Compensation under this Act shall not be payable in respect of any improvement mentioned in the second part of the Schedule hereto."

His only object was to simplify the Bill, instead of repeating unnecessary words over and over again. He thought the word "drainage" would meet all that was required.

said, he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press the Amendment. He thought the words of the clause as they stood were better than they would be if the Amendment were adopted. As it would be necessary to consider the Schedule by-and-bye, if any Amendment were required it could be proposed then.

said, he did not attach much importance to the Amendment; and he would, therefore, withdraw it.

said, he now rose to move an Amendment which he had placed on the Notice Paper yesterday in deference to the view which had been expressed by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He begged to move that the words "mentioned in the second part of the Schedule hereto, and executed after the commencement of this Act," be omitted. His right hon. Friend proposed yesterday that the same question which was then raised should Be postponed until they reached this portion of Clause 4. Since yesterday the Committee had made considerable progress, and they had just passed a clause which required the consent of the landlord in regard to improvements contained in the 1st Part of the Schedule. In regard to the 1st Part of the Schedule, it was held that there was a certain class of improvements which fell rightly and legitimately within the province of the landlord; and the object of the Amendment was to include within that part of the Schedule all works in connection with drainage. In his opinion, the 2nd Part of the Schedule was an anomalous one. It seemed to him that there was no work which more properly fell within the province of the landlord to carry out than drainage; and he thought he would be able to show in a few words that the Amendment ought to recommend itself, not only to landlords, but to tenants. Anyone who had had anything to do with drainage would be aware that works of that kind could not only be misapplied, but that they were a matter which required the exercise of a very delicate judgment. Drainage was a matter which distinctly came under the words used by his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, when his right hon. Friend said that there was a certain class of work which might deteriorate the character of the holding. Not only might the drainage affect the character of the holding, but it might affect very materially something else in which the landlord had certainly a deep interest—namely, the character of the estate altogether. That being so, he could perceive no work in respect to which it was more essential that the judgment and desire of the landlord should have the chief voice. The hon. Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Borlase), in speaking a short time ago on the 3rd clause, drew attention to the fact that works of irrigation were included in that clause; and the argument of the hon. Member was that irrigation works should be brought under the clause dealing with the 2nd Part of the Schedule. His (Mr. Cartwright's) argument was that, as the Committee had passed the 1st Part of the Schedule, it stood to reason that the 2nd Part, relating not to works of irrigation, but to drainage, should be brought within the same category of improvements. What were the terms of this anomalous part of the Schedule? They were these—that in default of an agreement with the landlord, or from an unwillingness on the part of the landlord to execute the improvement himself, and charging the tenant interest upon the outlay incurred, the work could be done by the tenant after giving notice to the landlord of his intention to do so. If the landlord, who ought, as he contended, to have a primary voice in the matter, differed from the tenant as to the propriety of executing the work, all that the tenant had to do was to give the landlord notice that he intended to execute the works; and, after having done so, he would be at full liberty to carry them out. He thought that was a very hard provision as far as the landlord was concerned. There was another point to which he desired to call attention. Since he had first put the Amendment down upon the Paper, an Amendment had been carried by his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), which affected all the operations which could be carried out against the will, and without the consent, of the landlord. They had heard from the Solicitor General that it would also affect drainage works; and if the tenant carried out drainage works, the compensation, as it now stood under the Amendment of his hon. Friend, could only be paid to the tenant in regard to his outlay, and not in regard to the results of that outlay. It was, therefore, of importance, not only to the landlord, but also to the tenant, that a complete understanding should be come to in regard to the present clause. It certainly stood at present in a most anomalous position. It was admitted that drainage was a work in which the landlord had a great interest, because the tenant could not carry it out without giving notice to the landlord; and yet, on the other hand, after having given notice to the landlord, and the landlord having refused his consent, the tenant was empowered to carry it out in accordance with his own judgment, without any control on the part of the landlord. He begged to submit his Amendment, and he trusted that the Committee would agree to it.

said, that he felt bound to take upon himself some responsibility for this clause, because hon. Members would remember that in the Bill which he had introduced, and in which the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham) and the hon. and gallant Member for West Gloucestershire (Colonel Kingscote), and several other hon. Members had been associated, there was a clause which enabled the tenant to get the drainage done on his farm, if the landlord would not undertake to do it himself, and which provided that the tenant should be compensated for the improvements thus executed. That Bill had been before the House for some time, and he believed there was no provision contained in it which had given so much satisfaction to the tenant and the country generally as that clause. The object of the clause was to enable the tenant to secure that his farm should be properly drained, and that was of the utmost importance wherever it was intended to place sheep upon it. For such a purpose, unless the land was properly drained, it would be worthless. He admitted that the matter was one of great importance to the landlord; and if the landlord desired to look after the drainage himself and pay for it, it was only fair that he should be allowed to do so. He presumed that most landlords would always prefer to do drainage themselves; but if there were landlords who were disinclined to do so, then it was desirable that the tenant should have power to have the land drained on his own responsibility. In regard to the clause itself, he was not prepared to say that the precise form it assumed was the best, or whether the tenant should have the power of executing the work altogether on his own responsibility. The Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright) was, however, to strike out drainage works from this part of the Bill. He (Sir Thomas Acland) strongly objected to that proposal, and he hoped that his hon. Friend would not press it.

said, he wished to point out to the Committee the effect of the Amendment. It seemed to introduce a kind of general provision with regard to all improvements contained in the three Parts of the Schedule. The object of the hon. Member was to treat differently one or more improvements which were contained in the first part of the Schedule. He (Mr. Warton) would submit that the Amendment would not do that. The hon. Member struck out certain words in the first part of the clause; but he left in the words "any improvement," which would have the effect of preventing the hon. Member from carrying out the object he had in view.

said, that what he understood the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright) to mean by his Amendment was really and practically to leave this Clause 4 out of the Bill altogether; and, therefore, the question raised by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. War-ton) would not arise, because, if this Amendment were carried, the subsequent Amendment of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire would be to leave the clause out as an unnecessary clause, the drainage being transferred from this Part of the Schedule to the 1st Part of the Schedule, in regard to which the consent of the landlord was required. He desired to say one or two words in support of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire. He had not taken much part in the debate hitherto, but he possessed some knowledge of farming, and had a little land on his hands in his part of the country; but he did not know anything which required more care and attention than this particular question of drainage. It was desirable, before they attempted to drain, that they should be thoroughly acquainted with every field and its staple of produce. Nothing would cause more alarm than to allow a tenant, on taking a farm, to compel the landlord, in order that the tenant might carry out some fad of his own, to execute extensive drainage works, which might probably involve an entire change in the characteristic features of that part of the estate. There was another point he would ask the House to consider. Even supposing the drainage to be properly carried out by the tenant, nothing would be easier than to prevent it from having a salutary effect. Suppose, for instance, that the tenant fell out with his landlord and gave a year's notice to quit. Now, the whole of the drainage of the farm would really depend on the maintenance of the out-falls; and if the out-falls were allowed to get out of order, or to become choked up, the drains would burst and become practically useless. But that might not take place all at once; there might be a dry season, and in that case it might not take place during the time that the notice to quit was running, although for the greater portion of the time the whole of the out-falls might be neglected and the drains stopped up. If a heavy fall of rain came, the drains would burst; but if the valuator were brought upon the land to assess the value of the improvement in a dry month, he would defy that valuator to be able to detect where the drainage was defective, and to tell what damage had really been done. The tenant would go out taking with him the full value of the improvement, which in itself would be practically useless either to the landlord or the incoming tenant. He made this statement, because he knew that circumstances of that kind had occurred in his own neighbourhood. He had known tenant farmers to neglect these works. The landlord, however, could not go upon the land and make provision for the proper maintenance of the out-falls so as to preserve the integrity of the drainage, and he had known farmers to receive compensation at the end of their tenancy, and the real condition of the drains not to be found out until some months afterwards. He mentioned this fact as one thing which ought to enter into the consideration of the Committee. He was quite certain that very few farmers at the present day would have sufficient knowledge of the staple of the land, when they took a farm, to be immediately able to decide whether they ought to drain deep or shallow. The landlord, however, or his agent, would, know the history of the land and its capabilities. A farmer might come in imagining that drainage would cure all evils, and he would be able to insist, under this part of the Schedule, upon the land being drained according to his ideas. If the landlord was not able to execute the work, then the tenant under the Bill would have the power to do it himself, and the results which he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had predicted would very often ensue. He did not think that that was the intention of the Government, and he was quite certain that in these days of agriculture no one who knew anything about farming would be likely to resist the tenant in his anxiety to drain, provided that he did it in a proper manner.

said, he entirely agreed with the remarks which had been made that the mode in which the drainage was carried on might materially affect the character of the estate. It was therefore desirable that they should not confer too much power on the tenant in regard to the execution of drainage works against the will and consent of the landlord, who was, in almost all cases, the person most interested, and whose interest was identical with that of the country—namely, that the drainage might be well and permanently done.

said, if it was intended that the clause should apply to farms held under leases, he was strongly in favour of drainage being made one of those improvements which could not be effected without the landlord's consent.

said, he had risen thus early in the discussion of the Amendment, because it would be convenient that there should be a clear view taken of the contents of the clause. The clause, no doubt, would apply to leases equally with year to year agreements, which were, in law, the same as leases; but it would apply not to current, but to future leases. A suggestion had been made as to the importance of the owner having a voice in the execution of drainage, and with that Her Majesty's Government entirely agreed; but as he had explained on the second reading, the reason why drainage was put under the clause was, that it constituted an improvement of very general interest, the execution of which it was desirable to facilitate and promote as much as possible. For that reason they had given the tenant the power to give notice to the landlord that he proposed to drain; but the owner thereupon had the option either of draining the land himself and charging interest upon the outlay to the tenant, or of agreeing with the tenant as to the terms on which the drainage should be carried out. That arrangement left to the owner the fullest liberty of providing in what way the estate should be drained; and it was only in cases in which the landlord refused to act reasonably and consistently in the matter that it was left to the tenant to carry out the work. If the tenant were so foolish as to set about the draining of land, whether it required to be drained or not, and executed in consequence work of little or no utility, he would receive little or no compensation; he carried out the work, therefore, at his own risk. It was in this way that the clause carried out the object of the Bill in reference to this particular improvement of drainage.

said, the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to be aware of the fact that there might be cases where the landlord would be injured by the tenant doing the drainage, or by his doing it himself. He knew some property in a Welsh county, the value of which principally arose from its being used for sporting purposes. There were upon it two duck bogs, which enabled the owner to get a high rent for the residence. Now, it would be hard that the owner should be obliged to drain this land when he did not want to drain it, or, as an alternative, keep it in hand when an agricultural tenant was willing to take it in its present condition.

said, the hon. Member had certainly put an extreme case, and he would like to know whether there might not be very hard cases on the other side? Was it not one of the objects of this legislation generally that a man should be allowed to improve as much as he could the land; and had they not heard a great deal with regard to the necessity of drainage, and that it should be encouraged in every possible way. Now, it appeared to him that there were many estates on which drainage had not been carried out, on account of the special position of the landowner; either the estates were encumbered or the landlord was crotchetty; and so against the general interest—against the interest of the tenant, and against the ultimate interest of the landlord—the land was not drained at all. He understood that it was to meet the last case that drainage was put into the 2nd Part of the Schedule, not for the sole purpose of allowing the tenants to do the drainage themselves, but in order that they might, in the exceptional case referred to, be enabled to do it. Where compensation was not to be paid until the tenant quitted the holding, he would have to make the first outlay himself, and to bear that pecuniary burden during the remainder of his tenancy. That appeared to him to be a check on the tenant's going in for drainage, that was not likely to be successful, because if the tenant drained foolishly and unwisely, there would be no compensation, and he would have to bear the penalty himself. No doubt hard cases might arise under the clause; but it appeared to him that more injurious cases would arise if it were withdrawn. Under the circumstances, and admitting there was some correctness on the side of hon. Members who objected to the clause, he trusted Her Majesty's Government would stand by the Bill, and allow the clause to remain unaltered.

said, it was alleged that the tenants did not understand drainage; but he would like to know what class of persons understood the subject better than those who had been brought up on clay soils? As a general rule, he was sure that the tenants knew much more about drainage than the landlords. What had happened in his own county? Hundreds of acres in Suffolk had been drained by the landlords on a bad system, which would have to be drained again. He contended that with regard to drainage, no restriction whatever ought to be placed on the tenant, because drainage was most essential on all clay land throughout the Kingdom. He challenged anyone to tell him that the absence of drainage was compatible with good husbandry, and he asserted that the tenant who did not drain his land did not fulfil his covenants. Drainage was as absolutely necessary for fertility as manuring, and yet the clause proposed that the tenant should be obliged to go to the landlord for permission to drain the land. For his own part, he was opposed to the clause, and at the proper time he should be ready to move its omission, with the view of transferring drainage from the 2nd to the 3rd Part of the Schedule. All that was necessary was that the drainage should be done in a workmanlike manner, and then he thought the rest might be safely left to the tenant, who was undoubtedly entitled to compensation. In his own county, and in the county of Essex, it was the custom to pay the tenant for the drainage done by him, and he had never heard that the custom of allowing the tenant to drain had ever been abused in those counties.

said, there was no clause in the Bill to which the tenant farmers of England attached more importance than that now under consideration. It had been suggested by several hon. Gentlemen that tenants would want to begin draining without having had experience of the soil of their farms; but he would point out that when the landlord was in treaty with the tenant to take the farm he could make an agreement with him as to that matter; while the tenant would have an opportunity, at the same time, of insisting upon drainage being effected if he thought the farm required it; and if he afterwards gave notice in the manner prescribed by the Bill, the landlord could either carry out the drainage himself or make arrangement with the tenant to do it; or if he found that the tenant insisted on drainage of an undesirable character he could give him notice to quit. So that the only cases where the tenant could drain against the wish of the landlord would be where the landlord had made, and would make, no agreement on the subject, and yet where he did not object so much to what the tenant proposed as to prefer to give him notice; and if this power of giving notice would not operate as a protection when tenants were hard to get, he pointed out, on the other hand, that in bad seasons tenants were not very likely to have money to throw away in unprofitable operations; and although he admitted there was always some danger of speculative drainage being undertaken in the case of gentlemen tenants, who had, so to speak, more money than brains, yet he did not think that was a class likely to find undue favour in the eyes of valuers.

said, he could assure the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Biddell) that he would be the last man in the world to suggest that the tenant farmers in England were not the best authorities on the subject of the drainage of land. But his contention was that some tenants entering upon their tenancy in wet seasons were apt to think that drainage was absolutely necessary for the land. A tenant under that impression, and having no knowledge of the particular class of soil he had to deal with, would go to the landlord, who happened, perhaps, not to be in a position to find the money, and insist upon a system of drainage being carried out that was utterly unsuitable to the surrounding conditions.

said, the arguments of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Biddell) had reference to clay soils alone. He himself happened to live on a light soil; and with regard to many acres of his own land, in wet seasons friends had often expressed their surprise that the land was not drained; but he always told them to come and see it in a dry season, when they would find that drainage was quite unnecessary. The clause would be hard upon the tenant, because it would assist him in fooling away his money on unnecessary work; and it would be hard upon the landlord that the tenant should be allowed to upset a whole system of drainage that was perfectly suited to the estate, by adding a course here and another there, as his inexperience might suggest. It was all very well to say that the land-land could give notice to the tenant to quit; but landlords did not want that alternative, because, when they got a good man, they liked to keep him. He was quite sure that the clause would lead to cases of great hardship both to the landlord and the tenant, if it were passed in such a form as would allow the tenant to do what he thought proper in the matter of drainage.

said, there had been, no doubt, a good deal of folly in the minds of some farmers in the country on the subject of drainage which had caused their landlords anxiety and even alarm. With those landlords he entirely sympathized, and he hoped his career in that House would be a sufficient guarantee that he was not wanting in respect to that class when he said that he also recognized the great difficulty of this question. It was evident to him that the Government had bestowed the greatest pains on the consideration of the clause. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had given an intimation to the Committee that he would be prepared to accept an Amendment in the nature of that moved by the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), by which general control would be given to the landlord for those improvements of a more durable character, including drainage. He had himself placed a Notice on the Paper of a proposed addition to the clause, which provided that—

"Except as to feeding stuffs and manures, the tenant shall not he entitled to compensation for an improvement mentioned in the second or third part of the Schedule hereto, where, in the case of a tenancy from year to year, it is executed after the tenant has given or received notice to quit, unless it is executed with the previous consent in writing of the landlord."

To that he proposed to add the words—

"Or in the case of a lease for a term of years where three-fourths of the term has expired, unless it is executed with the previous consent in writing of the landlord."

It was his intention to support the clause in its present form, reserving to himself the right to take care that, so far as it related to existing leases, it should be amended. The effect of the clause had already been described, and it was scarcely necessary that he should go minutely into that again; but it was briefly this—that, in the first place, notice should be given to the landlord; after that notice was given the two parties might agree as to the terms on which the drainage should be done—that was to say, the landlord might do it himself and charge 5 per cent on the outlay to the tenant, and unless an agreement were arrived at the tenant might do the drainage. It was, therefore, perfectly clear that the tenant, under certain circumstances, might drain the land without the consent of the landlord. Nevertheless, it was his intention to support the clause on the conditions which he had stated to the Committee. No doubt a good many reasons had been given against retaining the clause in its present form. It was true that drainage was an improvement on which large sums of money might be expended; that it was an operation which extended often over a considerable period of time; and that it might be done badly, in the manner described by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down, "by the tenant fooling away his money." With regard, however, to this last indictment against the clause, he would remind the Committee that the 1st clause of the Bill provided that the tenant should not receive more than the value of the improvement to the incoming tenant; if the work were done badly the value to the incoming tenant would be small, and the tenant would receive a proportionately small compensation. But there were strong reasons in favour of the clause as it stood. Drainage, as a rule, was one of the most necessary operations which a tenant could perform, and it was absolutely necessary that that fundamental condition of successful farming except on dry soils should be fulfilled. If a tenant knew that the land was wet, and that it required draining, he would also know that it was desirable to drain it without loss of time, and to compel him to go to the landlord to get his consent before he put down a few drain pipes in the corner of a field was, in his opinion, an interference with farming to which he, for one, was not prepared to consent. He had always advocated as little interference as possible with tenants in the making of even still more considerable improvements, because he contended that in 99 cases out of 100 they would be done well in the interest of the tenant himself. There might, of course, be extreme cases where the work would be done badly or even foolishly, and then he thought some control should be given more than was contained in the Bill. That control, he believed, would be given in the most fitting manner by the adoption of the Amendment which he had described, and which he understood the Government were willing to accept; because, in extreme cases, it would be impossible for the landlord to protect himself by giving notice to quit. Moreover, when landlords had good tenants on their farms their desire was to keep them, and not get rid of them. For these reasons, and on the conditions stated to the Committee, he was prepared to support the clause as it stood.

said, he agreed that there should be a proper control exercised by the landlord in the matter of drainage. The hon. Member who had just spoken had referred to the Amendment standing in his name as giving that control; but he (Mr. M'Lagan) pointed out that it did not provide for control in the sense in which he understood the term. There were several matters which might be undertaken by the tenant that would have the effect of reducing the value of an estate. He would mention the case of a tenant who insisted that the landlord should drain the farm, and who, after six years, went to the landlord and said the drainage was worth nothing to him; at the end of wet seasons it was found to be worse than useless. He did not wish to see the clause struck out of the Bill altogether; but he wished to have a provision that before the operation of drainage was commenced there should be some controlling authority to see whether it would be of advantage to the estate that the drainage should be done. He agreed with the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) in his suggestion that some other improvements should be put into the 2nd Part of the Schedule; and he thought that those improvements should be effected in spite of the landlord—provided there was some controlling authority to see that it would be beneficial to the holding. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had looked at this question as not affecting the landlords, because, as he said, some of them were so cantankerous that they would not allow anything to be done in the way of drainage; but he would point out that the question must be looked at from a different point of view—namely, from that of its being beneficial to the country at large. He thought, as he had before stated, that they should bring in some independent authority in the matter of drainage, such as the Sheriff in Scotland, or an Inspector of the Enclosure Commissioners in England. Without some such controlling authority he believed the clause would be most prejudicial, and he intended to move an Amendment to it, that no compensation should be given to the tenant if it could be proved that the drainage had depreciated the value of the estate in general. He trusted that the Government would encourage the drainage of the land throughout the country, by giving effect to the suggestions of the hon. Members for Forfarshire and Staffordshire.

said, he should have been glad if the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had given his experience of the custom which prevailed in that county, because then he would have allayed the fears of the landowners in that House as to the abuse of the power of draining on the part of the tenant. For two generations it had been the custom in Lincolnshire for the tenant to drain without the consent of the landlord, and to claim compensation through experienced valuers in that county, and he was sure that the system had been in no case abused. There were other Members for the county of Lincolnshire in that House, and he was sure they would be able to corroborate his statement. The cases described by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) and the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) he regarded as purely hypothetical. As far as his own experience went, he had never known any such case of money being thrown away by tenants as they had pointed to; on the other hand, he could corroborate what had fallen from the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Biddell), that tenants, as a rule, knew a great deal more about drainage than the landlords, and that, having occupied farms upon clay land for years, they were better judges of what was necessary for their improvement in this respect than professional land agents. He had himself known a great deal of money to have been fooled away by these gentlemen coming down from London, and having the land drained to the depth of four feet, at intervals of 13 yards, in which case it was evident, for all the good it did to the land, that the money might as well have been thrown into the sea; but he never knew farmers make such mistakes; and, therefore, it need not be apprehended that the tenants would rush headlong into drainage works. With regard to out-falls, it was quite open to the landlords to keep the control of this matter in their own hands, and charge the tenant an annual sum for looking after them. He trusted the Government would not accept this Amendment.

said, he thought everyone on both sides of the House would see that whatever arrangement was arrived at in this matter some difficulty must arise. It was urged, on one side, that there must be compulsory power given to the tenant to effect drainage, because there were landlords so idiotic that, although their land would be improved, they declined to promote drainage. Those, of course, were rare cases; but he thought it a rarer case still that the tenant coming on to a farm should desire to apply to that farm a system of drainage that was not applicable to it. The landowners wanted security that the drainage, if carried out at all, should be done properly. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan) had suggested the appointment of some extraneous authority, either the Sheriff of the county or the Enclosure Commissioners, to look after and have control in this matter; but he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) thought the Committee would not agree to that proposal. His own view of a proper arrangement was that the landlord should be able freely to do the work himself if he objected to the mode of drainage which the tenant proposed; but he was not free to do that, because, under the Bill, he could only charge the tenant with 5 per cent for interest on the outlay, which was insufficient to repay him; and, therefore, if he were a poor man he might be obliged to leave the work to the tenant. He thought if they were to enable the landlord to charge such a percentage as that at which he could borrow money from the Enclosure Commissioners there would be no objection to the clause, because there would be no undue pressure placed by it on the landlord, in order to make him drain the land. The effect of the clause, in its present form, would be that a tenant, having entered upon a farm, might go to his landlord and say he wanted the farm drained in a particular manner; the landlord might reply that the mode of drainage proposed by the tenant was a wrong one; but the tenant might insist upon its being done, and the landlord would have to do it, and charge him 5 per cent interest upon the cost. As he had already pointed out, a poor landlord might be prevented from carrying out the drainage, and be obliged to hand it over to the tenant, who carried it out improperly. He thought there would be no difficulty in accepting the clause if the Government adopted the suggestion just made, by which means they would avoid the intervention of the extraneous authority advocated by the hon. Member for Linlithgow.

said, the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright) had addressed a pointed question to him, asking how it was, in view of a principle which he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had ventured on a former occasion to lay down, he could now support the clause before the Committee? The answer was that he supported the clause because he considered that drainage was not an improvement which altered the character of the holding; it seemed to him that drainage was so essential to good cultivation that it was not an alteration of the character of the holding in the sense in which he understood it.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the difference between drainage and irrigation?

said, drainage was practically necessary in almost every case; but irrigation was not. His reasons, therefore, for approving the clause were, in the first place, that drainage was not an improvement which altered the character of the holding; and, secondly, that it was an essential condition of good cultivation over the greater part of the country, although, no doubt, a large extent of land in the country was not under drainage. The hon. Member who had just spoken said that none but idiotic landlords had been neglectful of the drainage necessary on their land. He should be sorry to characterize the large number of landlords who objected to the drainage of their land as idiotic.

I spoke of a landlord as so idiotic as to prevent a tenant draining the land for him.

said, he had understood the hon. Gentleman otherwise. At all events, there was a large extent of land under cultivation which was not properly drained, the drainage of which it was believed would be of great advantage to the country; and it seemed hard, if the landlord were unable or unwilling to carry it out, that the tenant should not be allowed to do so. The object of the clause, then, was to give tenants the opportunity of doing the work themselves where the landlord refused or neglected to do it. It would only be in exceptional cases that the tenants would avail themselves of this liberty. He did not believe that the tenants would be likely to go in for drainage on a very large scale; he thought rather that the effect of the clause would be to compel landlords to enter closely into the consideration of this question, and to undertake the drainage themselves, and that the cases where the tenants themselves did the work would be where parts of the farms had been neglected, or where the system of drainage in existence had proved to be ineffectual. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard) had informed the Committee that in one part of Lincolnshire it was the custom for the tenants to drain without the consent of the landlord, and afterwards to claim compensation. As they had never heard that that custom had produced a bad effect, he regarded it as a strong argument in favour of the clause. Again, Mr. Clare Sewell Read had expressed a strong opinion that this power should be given to the tenant in the interest of agriculture. In conclusion, he expressed his belief that the clause would act in the main as a stimulant to the landlords undertaking the drainage, and that the tenants would do no more than supplement the work.

said, he should support the clause as it stood. He did not believe that the tenant was so anxious to lay out money on drainage unless he was driven to do it by the impossibility of getting the landlord to undertake it. He believed the clause would prove an inducement to the landlord to carry out drainage.

said, he wished to say one word as to the Lincolnshire custom referred to by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard), which without some explanation might lead to misunderstanding. It was true that there was a custom under which compensation was given to the tenant for drainage effected without the consent of the landlord; but he would point out to the Committee that that custom was liable to be overridden by agreement, and that it only had the force of law in the absence of an agreement. Certainly in Lincolnshire a large amount of drainage was done under the custom, and he was not aware that anything unsatisfactory had resulted from it.

said, this was one of the most important clauses in the Bill, although it was not at all exempt from difficulties. His own experience was that, in many cases, the landlord was too poor to drain, and his experience in that direction was not a small one. He knew a case of an estate in his district, which was likely to be taken over for farming purposes, and which was almost completely under water at that moment, where the farmer was only waiting for this Bill to pass in order to commence draining. The farmer had applied to the landlord to do the work, and he had told him to wait till this Bill passed, and then he would he able to do it himself. The hon. Member for Herefordshire (Sir Joseph Bailey) had suggested that the case might be met by making the tenant specify what he was going to do by way of drainage, so that a record might be kept of it. Now, he had himself placed upon the Paper an Amendment which he believed would carry out the suggestion of the hon. Member for Herefordshire, and which, if it were adopted, he believed would enable the clause to be passed with safety. He desired to see the clause passed in such a form that, while it would facilitate drainage, it would give some security to the landlord that damage should not be done to the estate by the drainage which the tenant was allowed to carry out.

said, he thought it would very much facilitate the passing of the clause if his right hon. Friend opposite would give an intimation of those Amendments and securities which he understood him to be prepared to embody in it. There was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), and the Amendment of the hon. Baronet who had just spoken, both of which deserved the serious consideration of the Government. He believed it would be apparent to anyone who was acquainted with farming operations that to let the tenant of his own will drain the land piecemeal when he did not know how the water was to be got rid of, and where other portions of the estate were drained under a good system, would be mischievous in the extreme. His hon. Friend proposed that there should be some proper specification of the work, and some means of showing to the landlord that the work would be properly done. The great fear in the case of tenants dealing with matters of this kind was that the work would be done badly and imperfectly; and he was sure that, unless some security were given to the landlord in that respect, the effect of the clause would be, in many instances, mischievous. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had spoken a good deal about the system of drainage in his county; but he would remind the Committee that there the tenant farmers were men of large capital, whereas they had to deal generally with the tenants throughout England, who, as a rule, had little or no capital at all. The remarks of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had a very material bearing upon this clause. The right hon. Gentleman opposite knew very well that the landlord, if he were obliged to borrow money to carry out drainage works, could not possibly obtain it at a rate which would allow him to charge the tenant the 5 per cent set down in the Bill. He would have to go to a Company and get the money wherewith to drain the land; and it was, therefore, in his own interest, as well as of that of the tenant, that he should be able to charge an adequate percentage. For that reason, he asked his right hon. Friend to deal with this question of percentage, and not to abide by the hard-and-fast line laid down in the clause. When landlords drained their own land they did not charge more than 5 or 6 per cent to the tenant; but, in the case of a landlord who had to borrow money for drainage purposes, it was very hard that he should not be allowed to charge the tenant the interest which he himself had to pay. He knew that, under certain circumstances, the tenants could drain, and had drained, remarkably well. On the other hand, he had known cases in which the money spent had been absolutely thrown away, and where the drainage was worth nothing, and when it would require something more than a good valuer to do justice between the landlord and tenant. He believed it was not difficult to find a solution of this small question, because they were anxious to do all that lay in their power in the interest of the tenant and in the interest of agriculture; and, therefore, he hoped his right hon. Friend would be able to give an assurance that security would be taken for the work of drainage being properly carried out.

said, it was placing him in rather a difficult position, at the commencement of a discussion upon a clause with respect to which there were a number of Amendments on the Paper, to call upon him to announce specifically what he was prepared to do with regard to the latter part of the clause. He believed that if he were to follow that course he should only be landing himself and the Committee in a series of discussions of considerable length. The Government were not prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright), which, in fact, raised the principle of the Bill. He had stated last night that he should, on Report, endeavour to bring up a clause which would meet the views of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). He could now only repeat that statement, the object of which was to show that it was the desire of the Government to do justice in this matter. With regard to the suggestion that there should be a specification of the manner in which the drainage was to be done, he would like very much to hear that question discussed at the proper time, his impression being that there would be no objection on the part of the Government to such an arrangement. With regard to the rate of interest, when they reached the Amendment dealing with that question he should be glad to hear the reasons in favour of the rate of interest being raised. The Government had inserted 5 per cent in the clause, because they believed it to be the usual rate charged by landlords to their tenants for work of this kind. However, he did not wish to anticipate the discussion on that question, which would come forward in due course. He would simply express the hope that the Committee might be allowed to divide on the Amendment now before them.

said, he should not have interposed in this discussion had it not been that his attention had been directed by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. A. J. Balfour) and the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) to a particular subject connected with the clause, with reference to which he himself had an Amendment on the Paper. He would not, however, import into the present discussion any remarks upon that Amendment. It seemed to him to be most essential that there should be some control on the part of the landlord over the drainage operations of the tenant; and as his Amendment would practically give that control to the landlord, he would say no more than that he should be prepared to support the clause provided that Amendment were accepted.