Sir, on the subject of the Suez Canal the House will expect from me more than a dry statement of intentions on the present occasion, particularly as there has been nothing, down to the present time, said by the Government in this House, except—I believe I am strictly accurate in saying — within the scope and limits of Questions which have been addressed to us. I have now to state the course which the Government intend to take with regard to the Suez Canal Provisional Agreement; and it will be expected from me, almost as a matter of course, that I should state the main considerations which have guided the Government in arriving at their conclusion. In the first place, I should wish to remind the House of the origin of this transaction. The great success of the Suez Canal had naturally brought about a state of things in which, for a very considerable time, there has been pressure for an increase of accommodation and of facilities for traffic; and the Government. being regularly represented in the bedy of the Directors of the Suez Canal, have been in the habit, from time to time, of instructing their Directors on the subject of points which were to be raised in the meetings which took place in Paris. But these instructions for a considerable time, although they touched upon matters of importance, were instructions given to our Directors. It was in the course of the present spring that the matter took a larger form; and, upon what I may call urgent and pressing applications from bedies of very great importance in this country, the Government was led to take into consideration the question of associating itself more directly in these proceedings, and, in fact, of entering upon negotiations with a view to a distinct Agreement between themselves and M. do Lesseps. The turning point in this matter may be said to have been upon the 26th of April. Reported in the newspapers on the 27th are the proceedings of two deputations, or at least of a double deputation, which had an interview with Lord Granville at the Foreign Office. Ono of the deputations was headed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), on the part of the Associated Chambers of Commerce of the country. The other deputation represented the Chambers of Shipping, and was headed by Mr. Laing. The deputation headed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester summed up the form of its requests in an application for negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the present Suez Canal Company. After describing the other movements which were of a more extensive character, my hon. Friend is reported to have said—

"The Chambers of Commerce do not go so far as that; but they urge that endeavours should be made to see whether something could not be done through the Canal Company, who at present almost ignore the position which British influence should hold."

The other deputation did go beyond the scope of the deputation from the Chambers of Commerce, and Mr. Laing did two things on the part of the shipping interest. In the first place, he repeated what my hon. Friend had said in urging the Government to consider the necessity of taking measures to increase the facilities of transit through Egypt; and then he separately and distinctly called the attention of the Government to the advantages attending an alternative route from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, not speaking of the Isthmus of Suez in particular, but of the necessity of communication between the two seas. Now, Sir, that deputation consisted a serious event, and gave a remarked expression to the wishes of the commercial community in this country. In fact, the account of its proceedings was no sooner published than it attracted the attention of the heads of the administration of the Canal in Paris. This report appeared on the 27th of April, and so early as the 30th of April overtures from M. de Lesseps were made known to the Government, tending to open those negotiations which had been suggested by my lion. Friend. It was not long after receiving those overtures — I am not sure whether we know of the exact date, but on the 10th or 12th of May, about 10 days afterwards—that the Government came distinctly into the field, and contemplated those negotiations which terminated in the present Agreement. Sir, it was not without a sense that we were undertaking a serious matter, and I may say a matter lying, perhaps, outside the ordinary attributions of a Government. It is obvious that various objections may be taken at the outset to the conducting of transactions of this kind through the hands of a Government. The immediate commercial considerations belonging to a very complicated and difficult question are apt, when they come into the hands of a Government—necessarily apt, and from no blame to anyone, but almost as a matter of course—to become mixed up with considerations of political Party, and these considerations may increase considerably and materially the difficulties of handling such subjects in a satisfactory manner. Further than this, in many instances—and in the present instance in a very peculiar degree—undoubtedly the handling of subjects of this kind in association with the political character which attaches to an Administration, was a matter of great importance, and requiring the utmost delicacy in the forms of proceeding, on account of international interests, and, possibly, even the international irritation which any miscarriage in such proceedings might tend to bring about. However, Sir, looking at the matter as carefully as we could, we thought it our duty to become, as far as we could, the organs and agents of what we felt to be a legitimate desire and demand on the part of the commercial community of this country; but satisfying them, and, I may likewise say, covering ourselves with the condition under which we prosecuted this business—namely, the condition that we should not attempt to close any question on our own authority, or to commit either Parliament or the country to more than receiving an account of what we might propose and might be inclined to recommend after our communications with the Suez Canal Company had been brought to a completion. Under these circumstances, and with that intention to take counsel of Parliament and of the country—an intention which was declared, I think by myself, at a very early date, in answer to Questions put to me from this (the Ministerial) side of the House—we felt that we could take no other course than to frame a Provisional Agreement, embedying our views in that Agreement, and thereupon inviting the judgment which Parliament and the country might be disposed to pronounce. So an Agreement was framed. It was, of course, an Agreement in which on the one side we gave and on the other side we obtained. I think that both what was given and what was obtained were very considerable; and in endeavouring to state briefly and roughly what was done both on the one side and on the other, I shall speak, as far as my intention is to speak, with an absolue impartiality, and with an entire absence on the present occasion of any expression which could give to the statement I am now making anything of a polemical character. What was obtained by the Agreement was, on the one hand, a very large increase of accommodation through a double Canal—presuming the proper assents to the plan to be obtained; and that to be brought about in the shortest possible period. On the other hand, a great reduction of rates, coincident with a corresponding and large increase in the dividends of the Company. Both these events—the augmentation of tonnage, so as to produce, in the first place, an augmentation of dividend; and, in the second place, the diminution of rates—being events which—such has been the prosperity of the Canal—were really, tbeugh not within the immediate prospect, to be contemplated as separated from us by no great distance of time. The House will not understand that I can pretend to give them anything more than a rough estimate on this subject. But what we compute is that, in a limited number of years, the tonnage of the Canal, which is now about 6,000,000, will reach 12,000,000; and when it has reached 12,000,000 tons, then the dividends of the Company will have been raised by that amount of traffic to such a point that the reduction of rates will amount to a removal of the burden on the shipping passing through the Canal exceeding £1,000,000 annually; and evidently that is a very considerable matter. I should say, also, that although we have not made it a capital object in our negotiations to attempt to give a great numerical force on the Board of Direction to English Directors, yet we think arrangements were made which would have led to a very considerable increase in the practical influence of Englishmen over the government and the administration of the Canal. Now, Sir, these are the three points, of which the first two are great ones, and the third is secondary. On the other hand, what was given by us is tolerably well known to the House. It consists, in our view, mainly of two points—first, that a large sum of money was to be lent at the lowest rate at which we could give it, so as to be in a position of covering ourselves, and a loan such as that was to be considered as a great pecuniary gift to the Canal Company. It was nothing else. It was not a case of dealing with a Company which could not berrow for itself. We had a Company with its Shares at several hundreds per cent premium, and which does not require absolutely the assistance of anybedy in order to enable it to berrow money; but, on the other hand, it would not be in the power of the Company to berrow at the low rate of interest at which we offer the money. Besides that which we have given to the Company—and I am bound to say I am cognizant of the fact that there has been a feeling in some quarters in the country and in the House that objection to some extent lies to this large exten- sion of pecuniary relations with the Canal Company, and I put that clown, wishing to state fairly as far as I can what lies for and what against the Agreement now beforo the House—the other very important consideration, which I do not at all disguise the weight of, is the prolongation of whatever exclusive right was conferred upon M. de Lesseps by the original Concession. That is certainly a considerable portion of the price, and is in itself a considerable price for the large advantages, both in accommodation and in rates of passage, which this Agreement would have secured to this country. Well, Sir, of course, the question which the House and the country had to consider, and which the country had to consider before the House, upon the bare skeleton form of that Agreement, was whether the equivalents obtained for what we gave were sufficient. It was a case of quid pro quo, and the question was, whether the quo was werth the quid, and fairly balanced the case. I do not pretend to argue the matter as if it were a thing capable of demonstration. In the view of every candid man it is a question of probable opinion. It does not admit of high, and beld, and sweeping statements; or, at least, if it does, that is not the way in which we think ourselves at all justified in dealing with it. We have admitted, and felt these to be questions fairly arguable from the first. We have done the best we could. We think that the advantages which we have gained by the Agreement are large advantages. On the other hand, it is for the House to consider whether they are themselves worth what we propose should be paid for them. Well, then, Sir, comes the question, which I must now briefly describe, of the actual position in which we stand towards M. de Lesseps and the Company, and I may almost say towards the French nation; because the House is well aware — bearing in mind the previous history of this question, on which it is needless for me to go back in detail—how much this is not merely a question between certain trading interests on the one side, and a Company in possession of certain privileges on the other; it is likewise a grave question between the English nation and the French nation. These two great nations have, happily, been allied for long time, and I trust we shall never do anything to weaken or endanger that alliance. It has been our duty to ascertain on what ground we stood in Paris with respect to this Agreement. There has been no bend to submit between the parties, but the Agreement was drawn in contemplation of its being submitted to Parliament; and in order that there might be no misapprehension on the one side or the other we instructed Sir Rivers Wilson, on Thursday, to go over to Paris, not for the purpose, as has been supposed —not unnaturally—of re-opening this and that point of the negotiations, but in order to ascertain whether the field was perfectly clear and free before us—the Government—there was no question at all about the freedom of Parliament and the country—so that we might give an entirely unbiassed consideration to the grave question now presented to us. I held in my hand a letter from Sir Rivers -Wilson, in which he recounts to us the experience that he had in Paris, and the nature of his communications with the Canal Company. I should say, besides the letter addressed to us, there is also an important letter from M. do Lesseps, addressed to myself, He has done me the honour of writing me a letter, conceived, as might be expected from him, with very great sagacity, and, at the same time, in terms of the utmost frankness and friendliness as regards the present negotiations, and, in effect, coming, I think, to the same purpose as the letter of Sir Rivers Wilson, which I am now about to quote. Both the letter of Sir Rivers Wilson and the letter of M. de Lesseps will at once be laid on the Table of the House, together with some other Papers, which will give the House a full, and, I hope, a satisfactory and sufficient view of this case. I do not think I can describe the present situation more accurately than by reading to the House the substance of Sir Rivers Wilson's letter. It is dated the 21st of July—

"Upon communication to the MM. de Lesseps of the object of my coming to Paris, they stated in the most friendly terms that they thoroughly understood the situation, and that, so far as they were concerned, they regarded us as in no way bound, under the existing circumstances, to press the Agreement on Parliament. There were, however, two parts of it."

This introduces a new but interesting question, to which I invite the particular attention of the House—

"The spontaneous adoption of which, not. withstanding the abandonment of the Agreement—if such should be decided upon—they announced their determination to propose to their shareholders. In the first place, immediate measures would be taken so that a second Canal during the greater part of its length might be rapidly constructed within the limits of the land already conceded, although they might at the proper time have to apply to the Egyptian Government for additional ground where the present width was insufficient. Secondly, the proposed. reduction of dues pari passu with the increased profits would be maintained."

But I must tell the House that, although this is perfectly accurate, yet too broad a conclusion might be drawn from it—

"As to all the other arrangements contemplated in the Agreement, both sides would be free. Her Majesty's Government would be thus under no obligation to use their good offices to obtain for the Company the extension of the Concession beyond 1968, or any other privileges. The capital required for the Second Canal would be raised as the Company might determine, either by the issue pro ratâ of more shares, in which operation England would have the option of subscribing in respect of her 176,602 shares, or by way of debentures, with the like option."

Then comes the qualification to which I referred—

"It is my duty to observe that the former course,"—that is, the issue of shares—"would have the obvious effect of retarding the fall in the rate of dues."

Well, Sir, I think that exactly explains to the House, first, the position in which the Government are placed—the position of undoubted freedom in which they are placed—to consider the question without prejudice; and, secondly, the intentions of the heads of the Canal Company, which, according to all experience, we may safely say means the Canal Company itself', for every practical purpose, in ease the Agreement is not persevered with. Well, Sir, that being so, we have to consider what our position is with regard to this Agreement. It is obviously an Agreement which, in order to be satisfactory, must meet with general acceptance. I do not mean unanimous acceptance — that could hardly be expected—but it must meet with general acceptance. To force an Agreement of that kind, and to make an appeal to the confidence of a generous Parliament, and, on political grounds, to obtain the acceptance of a commercial arrangement, not in itself wholly satisfactory to those who were adopting it, would have been, I think, a course in which we should have abused the patience and indulgence of the House, and would have departed from our public duty. Now, the first reception of this Agreement by the trading interests of the country—short as the time is since it was produced, it has already gone through two distinct stages—was undoubtedly of a very condemnatory kind. I may say the language held was that of vehement condemnation on the part of a very large portion of those organs of opinion which at once expressed themselves. There has been a material change, as everyone will see, within the second stage. ["No, no!"] I will keep my word to hon. Gentleman and the House, and I will not intentionally make any partial or one-sided statement. But nobedy can deny that there has been a change when it is found that within the last week a large number of representations have reached us from very important centres indeed—from London, Newcastle, Hartlepool—I think—and from Liverpool, and from a variety of other quarters; and I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Monk), who represents the Associated Chambers of Commerce, has himself substantially joined on their part in similar representations, which do not hold the language of condemnation, but in which they think that probably something better might be done, and which, therefore, recommend that more time be taken in order to see what may be done. Now that is the only distinction I mean to draw; and I entirely feel that both those who condemn and those who ask for time are alike in the position of ono requiring and the other advising us not to persevere with this Agreement under the circumstances now existing. We intend, then, not to ask Parliament to give its sanction to this Agreement; for the reasons at some of which I have already glanced. The first of them is, undoubtedly, that there is not that general and harmonious concurrence which, as we think, in a case of this kind—international as well as commercial—was requisite in order to justify its acceptance. the second is the demand for time, to which I have already referred, and with respect to which I may as well explain that there has been a general demand for time, with a general view that more time might lead to an improved arrangement. Sometimes a general demand for time is accompanied with a specific recommendation, and in many cases with a recommendation that a Royal Commission should be issued to examine into the question; a proposition upon which, although I might, perhaps, quote some precedents, I do not intend to give any opinion at all at the present moment; I merely mention it as an indication of the present state of things. A still belder suggestion is made by some—yet not a novel suggestion, though undoubtedly one of a very wide scope, involving a great variety of points for consideration—that is, that the proper and ultimate arrangement of this great sea passage between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea can only be found when the Canal, instead of being the property of any private Company whatever, or belonging to any nation whatever, shall be placed under the management of an International Commission. ["Oh, oh!"] I shall not enter into that. I do not presume to give any opinion. There is a great deal that has to be said upon it, both in regard to its difficulties and importance. These are the topics which have been brought beforo us by that portion of the expressions of commercial opinion which have, in general terms, or in more specific terms, pleaded for more time. There is another consideration which I think has weighed with us more conclusively, if possible, even than those to which I have already referred. Viewing the actual state of things—viewing the language which has been held, the claims which have been made, the arguments put forward, and, in fact, those views to which the case naturally of itself must incline on the ono side and the other, we are advisedly of opinion that upon interests and grounds much higher than those which relate to matters decided within these walls—much higher than the interests of any Party or any Government—a hostile issue, founded upon an Agreement of this kind, standing in the relation to international policy which it occupies, could not possibly take place without the production of very serious mischief. I hope I am not partial in this statement, for my opinion is, that the contentions on both sides might probably be found mischievous to the interests of this country. I think that, on the one side, claims would be made which unquestionably would be thought to be, and felt to be—whether right or not—of an irritating character; and which would tend to the raising of questions in foreign countries—not only in one foreign country, although in one foreign country especially—that would not be conducive to the maintenance of those cordial relations of goodwill and amity which it is one of our main duties to uphold. Those claims have been made on the parr of those who are the opponents of the Agreement; but when I ask what contentions the supporters of the Agreement would make in answer to these claims, I feel that the tendency of our arguments on a hostile issue thus raised would rather weaken than strengthen the position of this country in any future communications on the subject—and that not with reference to this or that argument in particular, but on the broad consideration of the nature of the issue. Without going further into the details—I will not attempt to go into details—I could easily explain more fully to the House what I mean. They know what has been said and what has been contended for in this country within the last fortnight. They know, perhaps, the effect that has been produced elsewhere. I need not touch upon any of the particulars of the case. I only refer to them to lead the House to believe that we are very serious in our conviction that the probable effect of a discussion taken in connection with a hostile issue raised on the present Agreement would not be favourable to good international relations. I think I have stated to the House in outline the general grounds upon which we have acted; but I should not have fulfilled my duty without saying a few more words with respect to the position of the Government itself. They bind nobedy but the Government; but I do not think that the Government, after the frank and cordial treatment which all along it has experienced in these negotiations, would be warranted in dismissing this subject without a few words on the point I am about to mention. We think it our duty to do justice, as far as lies in our power, to this great Canal Company, and to its eminent, sagacious, and energetic projectors. We do not conceal from ourselves, and we will endeavour, if we can, to make it known and felt in the English world, that they have claims upon us—not claims to the sacrifice of a valuable interest, but claims to respect and honour; that they have conferred a vast benefit upon mankind; that they have conferred it by immense labours, in the midst of great dangers, amid unparalleled difficulties—and these unparalleled difficulties, unhappily, in some respects, due to the unfortunate action of this country in former times. We must also disclaim, on our own part, all community of sentiment with those who seem to us virtually to assert a sort of English dominion over the waterway of the Isthmus; and we must make it known that we, at least, will not be parties to employing influence which may attach, and justly attach, to our temporary and exceptional position in Egypt, for the purpose of procuring any invasion or any abatement of any right lawfully enjoyed. And lastly, Sir, still recollecting, still taking it to be berne in mind that I am speaking for ourselves, and not presuming to bind any but ourselves, I wish to announce that we cannot undertake to do any act inconsistent with the acknowledgment, indubitable and sacred in our eyes, that the Canal has been made for the benefit of all nations at large, and that the rights connected with it are matters of common European interest. I will not trouble the House with any further statement. I will only say this—that, as I have already stated, Papers will be at once presented. I close this statement, although it has been of some length, without making any Motion. I have no idea whether there will be a disposition to raise at the present moment any discussion or not. I can conceive it possible; but, on the other hand, I can conceive that, as important matters which are new have been laid before the House in some portions of my explanation, there may be a desire to take time, and to see the documents to which I have referred, and I have only to add in that case that if and when the disposition to discuss this matter or to discuss the conduct of the Government arises, we shall give every facility in our power for such a discussion.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I cannot help taking notice, in the first instance, of the words with which the Prime Minister has closed his observations. He said that if it should be the desire of the House to bring about a more formal discussion of this proposal, the Government will consider themselves bound to provide a proper and convenient day for the purpose. I think it absolutely essential that, in some form or other, the House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on this very important question. We had it brought before us not very long ago, but in a form which appeared to render it certain that the proposal and the Provisional Agreement to which the Government have become parties would be laid before this House for its consideration, and that the verdict of the House would be taken upon it. When Notice of the proposal was given to the House, and when we had a day or two to think about it, I gave Notice of my own intention to move the rejection of the proposal; and I should have been prepared, if it had been submitted to us in the regular way, upon several grounds, to contend that the proposal was one which it was not the duty of this House to accept. That, of course, has become unnecessary now; because the Government, exercising, as I think, a very wise discretion, have determined, at all events for the present, to withdraw that Agreement from the action and supervision of Parliament, and, as I understand, for the present, have no intention of taking any further steps with respect to the matter to which it relates. At the same time, there have been several indications in passages of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which make me feel somewhat uneasy as to what the action of the Government may hereafter be in this matter; and I am decidedly of opinion that we ought not to allow an opportunity which might be taken now in an informal manner, or in a more formal manner when we have the Papers before us, and when a formulated Motion can be submitted, to escape from discussing the very grave questions which have been raised by the Agreement to which we are referring. I cannot myself, even now, thoroughly understand what are those very grave circumstances to which reference has been rather mysteriously made this evening. We have heard much from time to time of matters in the background of an alarming national character, which, undoubtedly, are very serious if they mean anything. But if we look at this Agreement, and the circumstances before us, and the course of proceedings, I confess I cannot understand how, unless by some extraordinary mismanagement, the matter can have been brought into such a shape as to raise consequences and issues of any serious moment. It seems to me that the matter, though of a large and important character, was of an exceeding simple character. Representations have been made to Her Majesty's Government to use their influence to see what could be done towards the improvement of our communications with the East and the Suez Canal; and the Government, as the right hon. Gentleman tells us, were dealing as Directors, so to speak, with their co-Directors, the Directors of the Canal Company. They were dealing with them to see if they could arrive at any arrangement by which those facilities could be given. So far as I can understand, there is nothing of an international character about it—nothing between one Government and another. It has been an arrangement—an attempted arrangement—between the various parties interested in the direction of the Canal. We ourselves have an interest in the Canal as large shareholders, and these transactions may be considered as a sort of arrangement or discussion taking place in camerâ as it were a sort of Board meeting. The arrangement was made, and when submitted to the public here it was certainly not received as an entirely satisfactory arrangement. On the other hand, we were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when speaking to a deputation, that this was a matter on which there was no pressure on the other side, and that we were prej ud ging M. de Lesseps; and, therefore, if the arrangement was one such as that, it does not appear to me that there is anything which need raise these monstrous consequences. I certainly should be ex tremely sorry if anything should occur which could possibly give umbrage or cause any ill-feeling—and at present I cannot understand how it could be—between the two countries. I should be extremely sorry if any offence is unnecessarily given to M. de Lesseps and the promoters of that great undertaking. No one can go beyond myself in admiration of the character and energy and werk of M. de Lesseps. he is a gentleman whose friendship I have enjoyed for many years, for whom I have the highest respect, and to whom, I am satisfied, every respect is due. But that is no reason why we should give in to exorbitant demands. There is one point which was not very prominent in the speech of the Prime Mi- nister, but which was the real core of the whole matter, on which it is essential we should have a complete understanding, at some period by-and-bye—I mean, of course, the question of the limit of the Concession to M. do Lesseps. I do not wish, at the present moment, to enter into that question. It is one of a very delicate character, which requires careful discussion, and which I do not think could be discussed upon a question like the adjournment of the debate or anything of that kind. I only note it as being a particular point to which attention must be given. All the other advantages, either given on the one side or the other, are advantages that may be discussed, and weighed, and considered; but I do hold that it is our duty to take care that we do not, and that the Government, acting for us, don ot, commit the country to any admission which the country is not prepared to commend. If the argument is conducted properly, temperately, and in a manner which will show that we have no desire, except that of securing our own just rights, and not only our own rights, but the rights of all nations who are interested, I think if the discussion is conducted in the spirit in which it ought to be discussed, it cannot be productive of harm, it ought not to be productive of offence, and it can and may be productive of great good. I wish to point out that though England has an enormous stake and interest in the Canal, because of her large shipping and great use of the Canal, yet that the question is one which affects all other nations also, and that we have no right, by any action of ours, to give colour to any claim which claim we might not be prepared to admit, but which might have our support against other nations. I glance at that in order to show that the privileges of M. de Lesseps and the Company are a question between England and the Company, and a question that ought to be considered, and a question affecting the commerce of all maritime nations. Just on the same principle as that on which Lord Granville, in 1872, when we had disputes with the Company on another matter, laid down the principle that we could not agree that the Company should be the judges or interpreters of their own Concession; so we say here the Company ought not to be the sole judges. And we should be extremely careful not to give colour to those claims beyond what the claims can be proved to be. I throw out those matters for consideration. My own impression is, that the proper time for a fair discussion will be when we have the Papers before us, and when we are in a position to formulate some Motion or to raise a question which could be raised upon them. I hope we will not be led into an irregular discussion at this moment. But I, myself, am of opinion that the matter cannot rest here; that there must be a discussion; and I am most anxious that, for the convenience of all parties, it should be of a most formal and regular character.

I do not wish to prolong the discussion; I merely wish to ask—["Order!"]

If the hon. Member confines himself to the Question he is in Order.

I merely wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether we are to understand, now that this proposal is being withdrawn from the consideration of the House, that Her Majesty's Government propose to continue negotiations with the President of the Canal Company, and to take into consideration the various questions of international interests?

We certainly do not contemplate any immediate action of any kind upon the instant when we are retiring from this Agreement. It would be our duty, and I think my lion. Friend will feel with me, to inform ourselves as fully as we can of the views entertained by those who are mainly interested, and who are competent to judge the matter, before we go further into the question.

I shall confine myself to a Question to the Prime Minister. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he will call the attention of Sir Rivers Wilson and of the Directors nominated by the British Government to the Agreement of 1866, by which the Canal Company is precluded, on physical grounds, from making a second Canal; and, that being the case, whether it is not necessary at once to enter into the discussion proposed in this House, so that the English Directors may be at once directed as to what course they are to take?

The tone of public feeling having now subsided with regard to the Agreement made by the Govern- ment, I would ask the Prime Minister this Question—Whether he has received communication from nay Chamber of Commerce in India, or in the Colonies, expressing satisfaction with that Agreement?

I think I may say that Sir Rivers Wilson and the English Directors are perfectly cognizant of all the matters on which my hon. Friend wishes us to communicate to them. But, of course, it will be the duty of the English Government, when such questions as have been referred to are brought by the Governors of the Canal Company before that Company for consideration, to instruct our Directors as to the course they are to take. In regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), I cannot recollect the contents of all the communications I have received on the subject. Some of them have been favourable, and many of them have been unfavourable; and I think Notice should be given of a Question.

I wish to ask the Prime Minister, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that very grave complaints have for a long time past been made by those engaged in the use of the Canal as to the difficulties alleged to be placed in the way of British commerce by the action of the Company; and, whether demands have not been made for a more effectual representation of British interests upon the Board of Directors, which it is contended as at present constituted does not afford adequate protection to the interests of British commerce?

Yes, Sir; I am perfectly aware that there has been complaints as to the management of the Canal and as to difficulties experienced in the transaction of business; but not, so far as I know, has any one-sided partiality been exhibited against British commerce. I know nothing of that; but the methods of management, we think, should be improved. I may say I think that is probably quite true, and that it is by no means confined to the Suez Canal, because our methods of managing business are not quite the same as on the Continent; and wherever we go we are apt to think that we can just a little improve the arrangements. Undoubtedly it is quite true that an important part of the desires of the shipping interest of this country has been the increase of the British weight o r numbers on the Directorate.

I ought to explain that I did not refer to any suggestion respecting an increase in the number of British Directors, but to the demand for a more efficient representation of British interests upon the part of those intrusted with that duty.

May I ask when the Papers to which the right hon. Gentleman referred will be circulated? What is the earliest possible day that they will be put in the possession of this House?

The Papers will be pressed forward with the utmost possible expedition. The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps put a Question to my noble Friend (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice); and I have no doubt he will make inquiry and put himself in a condition to answer.

I would ask the right ben. Gentleman whether we may distinctly understand that no steps will be taken by the Canal Company with reference to the commencement of a second Canal until the English Directors have an opportunity of ascertaining the views of Her Majesty's Government upon the subject?

I apprehend, Sir, that that is absolutely involved in the nature of the constitution of the Canal Company.

I presume these Papers may be laid on the Table to-night.

The two Papers to which I have already referred are quite ready to be presented. I know Lord Granville desires to produce other Papers; but I will not pledge myself with regard to the latter.

It is material to the issue that we should have the Papers, and at this late period of the Session there should be no delay.

I will make every effort to push the Papers on.

What are the Papers?

Due notice will be taken of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford North-cote), and of his desire that despatch should be considered. If he waives some portion of detailed information, despatch will be facilitated.

I hope the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will be able to tell the House now what are the Papers, in addition to those mentioned by the First Lord of the Treasury, that we are to expect. The noble Lord must know what these Papers are, and I think the House should know what they are, in order that we may see whether it is desirable to raise a discussion on this question, and that we should have it as soon as possible.

The Papers consist of certain correspondence. I do not think it is at all usual to be asked to state beforehand the details of the Papers which are about to be immediately presented; and I think the House will see that I am showing proper respect to the House when I once more assure it that every effort will be made to lay these Papers and circulate them within the shortest possible time.

Can the noble Lord inform us whether these Papers have any relation whatever to negotiations that have been going on in Paris for the last three months?

That question has already been answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who stated that they were the material for those negotiations.

Has it not been stated by the Government, over and over again, that all the information that the House would require on this subject has already been put before it? And I would like to know in that case what use there can be in delaying these Papers now?

I am not aware, Sir, that any such assertion has been made.

I hope the noble Lord does not share the saying of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies as to being "all in the dark" with respect to the Suez Canal. We really want information, and if there is further information to come, I think it would be quite possible to state the general character of the Papers that are to be presented. Our object is to bring this matter as soon as possible to an issue; and I am sure the Prime Minister must feel that it cannot be desirable to keep the matter dragging on. The right hon. Gentleman told us the other day that he would not bring for- ward any Motion in regard to the matter later than the last day of this month, and I wish to ask whether that agreement holds with regard to the altered state of things?

I have given an indication of my desire to facilitate the bringing forward of any Motion that it might be desired to bring forward. It is very difficult for me now to bind the discretion of hon. Members of this House as to the time when they may desire to do it. If it is desired, there can be no difficulty in laying on the Table at once this Paper and the Paper of Sir Rivers Wilson, the main portion of which I read. I know that Lord Granville has a desire to add some Papers, and it is not for me in his absence to make' a covenant that that should be done.

said, the Committee would remember that just before the close of the last Sitting he ventured to propose this Amendment; and he did so because, as the Bill now stood, it was open to the landlord and tenant, in any case in which they might desire to do so, to make between themselves an agreement for fair and reasonable compensation; and, on that agreement being made, they would be excluded from the Bill. But what might then happen under the Bill as it stood at present? Why, after having made such an agreement, no landlord or tenant would be able to tell whether, at the determination of the tenancy, the agreement would be held by those who would have to settle the matter to be an agreement which was valid between the parties; and they were thus reduced to this absurd position — that two persons would be permitted by law to make an agreement between themselves; but they would be left absolutely in the dark as to the effect of that agreement, and how far it would bind themselves, or their successors, when it came to be interpreted. He did not think that was a position which could be considered at all satisfactory by the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill; and, therefore, he proposed that the machinery which the right hon. Gentleman sought to bring into operation at the determination of the tenancy should be brought into operation by the two parties, if they so desired it, at the commencement; or, in other words, that the section of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875 which dealt with the appointment of an umpire should, if the landlord and tenant so chose, apply at once, and that some impartial person of recognized standing and experience in the neighbourhood should be selected, to whom the agreement which it was desired to make should be submitted, and that person should pronounce whether, according to the light of his experience and knowledge, the agreement was in accordance with the agricultural re- quirements of the district, and provided fair and reasonable compensation as intended by the Bill. he believed that such a provision as this would relieve persons who desired to enter into these agreements from the apprehensions to which he had alluded as to the future validity of such documents; and he was convinced that it would save a very largo amount of expensive and objectionable litigation between the parties. He had, therefore, proposed this Proviso; and if the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could not accept it precisely as it stood, he trusted that some change might be made in the Bill, which, at all events, would have the same general effect.

said, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would be able to see their way to accept either this Amendment, or something of the same kind, because it was framed as much in the interests of the tenant as of the landlord. No one could accuse him (Sir Alexander Gordon) of moving in any direction against the interests of the tenant, and the present agreement was so reasonable that he could not understand why the Government should oppose it. Its object was only to prevent such an absurdity as this—that an agreement might be made in 1880 which might be deemed a perfectly fair and reasonable agreement; but in 1890 or 1920 that same agreement might be held to be unreasonable. The present Amendment was more in favour of the tenant than of the landlord; because the landlord's wealth, and consequent ability to employ clever lawyers, would give him a great advantage over the tenant in endeavouring, to establish the unreasonableness of a particular agreement; and the landlord, too, might be able to carry his point by the production of documents drawn up in former years, to which the tenant might not have access, and which lie might be altogether unable to meet. Under these circumstances, he earnestly hoped that the Government would accept the principle of the Amendment.

ventured to express quite a different hope. What was the object of the Amendment? It was simply to set aside the provisions of the Bill. If the Bill was a just one, and adapted to the circumstances of the country, why should it not apply universally? The Amendment was objectionable, and its purpose was simply to keep the tenant in the grasp of the landlord. he hoped that the whole of the 2nd Schedule would be rejected. The Government had brought all this upon themselves by introducing this permissive, or semi-permissive, clause. The Bill ought to be passed without any such permissive provisions, for which there could be no necessity at all if the measure were framed on just lines.

said, he hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment, which seemed to him to be the natural, and necessary, and logical consequence of the clause as it already stood. They had deliberately abandoned the old principle of the safe simplicity of contract—a good old-fashioned principle, as the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had called it; but though they had rejected that principle in favour of an exceedingly doubt- ful theory, and had deprived the two interested parties, the owner and the occupier, of the opportunity of binding themselves according to their own free will, and of making any valid agreement, they had yet admitted that a valid agreement might be made., if it were subject to the assent of third parties—to the approval of some Court of Arbitration. But as the Bill stood, however generous might be the stipulations which the landlord might make with his tenant as to compensation, that landlord could never be entirely sure, until the determination of the tenancy, that those stipulations would not be protested against as unreasonable by some cantankerous and grasping tenant, and that the agreement might not have to be revised and settled according to the progressive views or Procrustean theories of some future agitator or some future Land League. They had not only abelished freedom of contract—they had emasculated the very meaning of contract. This Amendment, in a great measure, removed that blot, for it enabled the contracting parties to refer the matter to a properly-appointed arbitrator; and, if he approved, the agreement would become a binding legal document beyond the power of appeal. He hoped very much that the Committee would agree to the Amendment, and would thus make the Bill a beneficent measure, and by minimizing the opportunities of litigation, would help to make it a measure acceptable to the tenant farmers.

said, he beped his right hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson) would not listen to the counsels which had been given to him, for he looked with great suspicion, indeed, upon any power given under this clause to allow landlords and tenants to contract themselves out of the Bill. The measure proposed to enact certain provisions; but the object of this Amendment was to give an opportunity to landlords and tenants to make agreements outside the Bill, and, in fact, to render the Bill, so far as those agreements were concerned, void. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had urged some arguments in favour of the right of individual contract; and, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman considered that freedom of contract was a matter between landlord and tenant which ought not to be interfered with. No doubt, that was the opinion of many hon. Gentlemen opposite; but it was not the intention of this Bill. There would have been no necessity for any such Bill if there had been any actual freedom of contract between landlord and tenant; and the reason why they were legislating at all in this matter was that it had been practically found that the tenants were not able to make free contracts, but were compelled to accept disadvantageous terms. That was the justification for this Bill—if they were not to get rid of what was wrongly called freedom of contract they might just as well tear the Bill up. They should try to make the Bill a strong Bill, or else they should waste no more time over it. The fact was that the Bill was a very weak one—so weak that it would give no satisfaction, and yet hon. Gentlemen were persistently trying to make it still weaker than it was at present. They had succeeded in watering it down to some extent; but, still, they were anxious to put in this Proviso. Under the arrangement contemplated by the Bill, when landlord and tenant came together they could only agree to terms under which a certain compensation should be paid for improvements; but it was expressly provided that the terms should. be fair and reasonable terms. Now lion. Gentlemen wanted to get out of that. At the last Sitting of the Committee various expedients were suggested with that object, and this was another of them. It was proposed that the landlord, or the landlord's agent, and tenant should come to au agreement, under which the tenant was to do certain things for a certain compensation, and then they were to go before an umpire to get his seal to that arrangement. Was it to be supposed. that the umpire would trouble himself in the matter? No. He would put his seal to the agreement as a matter of course, because the tenant would be a consenting party, for the tenant could not be other than a consenting party. Hon. Gentlemen might say—"Oh! but in the present state of agriculture the tenant can hold his own." He (Mr. Rylands) had known numbers of instances in his own neighbourhood where the tenant had been obliged to accept terms which, if he had had any independence of action, he would certainly have refused. The Amendment gave an opportunity for arrangements to be made which would entirely defeat the clause.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had not paid much attention either to the Bill or to the Amendment, or he would not have made one statement, that an agent would probably be appointed as umpire.

explained that he had said nothing of the sort. What he had said was that the agent and the tenant would come to terms, and then they would submit those terms for confirmation to the umpire.

To an agent?

No; to au umpire.

said, he was quite ready to accept that explanation; but he had understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the umpire would probably be an agent.

No; I did not say so.

observed, that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard) had told them that the Amendment would set the Bill aside. He (Mr. Chaplin) entirely disputed that assertion. That was not the object of the Amendment. How could it set the Bill aside? It was merely an Amendment under which, at the beginning of the tenancy, when an agreement was entered upon, that agreement might be submitted to arbitration, so that, at the end of the tenancy, there should be no possible dispute about it. If agreements were to be permitted at all, it was desirable that they should be bonâ fide and valid agreements. What was the use of entering into an agreement if, at the end of 10 years, it was to be upset altogether as an unreasonable bargain? And how was the matter to be remedied except by some such provision as this? It was all very well for the hon. Member for Bedfordshire to talk about the Amendment upsetting the Bill; but he did not produce one word or shred of argument in support of that view. The Amendment proposed that any agreement that might be entered into should be submitted to an umpire under the procedure of the Act of 1875. Did the hon. Member recollect what that was; because if he would take the trouble to study the clauses relating to procedure in that Act he would not entertain the opinion he had now expressed. As to the agree- ments which were proposed under the present Bill, he (Mr. Chaplin) was bound to say that he hailed that part of the Bill with great satisfaction; and when they had gone so far as to bring landlord and tenant together, and had got them to sit down at a table in order to discuss the terms of an agreement, the tenant would only have himself to blame if he were unable to make terms which were satisfactory to himself, when it was remembered that the great difficulty of the present day was for a landlord to get a tenant, and not for a tenant to get a farm. It was ridiculous, under such circumstances, to say that tenants were forced into bargains which were unfair. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had said that this was an attempt to weaken the Bill. It was nothing of the kind, nor was any such attempt made at the last Sitting of the Committee. What occurred then was this—that an Amendment was moved by his hon. Friend and Colleague the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope), with the view of positively strengthening the Bill in the interests of the tenant; and so much was that the case that the words which his hon. Friend moved to insert were positively words taken out of the draft of the Bill prepared by the Farmers' Alliance. What, then, became of the statements that they were attempting to weaken and set aside the Bill? There was not a shadow of justification for such language. All that was desired by this Amendment was that when agreements were entered into and were sanctioned under the Bill they should be valid agreements; that both parties should know exactly how they stood; and that the agreements should, under all circumstances, be binding.

said, that if they were to accept the views of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down there was no necessity for the Bill at all, for the tenants were entirely able to protect themselves in all contracts with their landlords. If that were so, there was no need for legislation at all. But he (Mr. Dodson) wished to call the hon. Gentleman's attention to one circumstance; and, no doubt, if he were wrong, the hon. Gentleman would correct him. He believed the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) himself brought in a Bill on this subject last year—a Bill in which there was a pro- vision similar to the one now before them—namely, that when landlord and tenant entered into an agreement they should be able to obtain an anticipatory decision as to its validity. But, unless he (Mr. Dodson) were much mistaken, the hon. Member omitted that Proviso from the Bill he had introduced this year, and he presumed that he had good reason for doing so; and, that being the case, he trusted that the lion. Gentleman would now support him in resisting the present Amendment. This was a Bill to provide that, for certain improvements, the tenant should be entitled to compensation; and there had been further introduced into it a provision which gave power to landlord and tenant to make an agreement, on fair and reasonable terms, for compensation; but the condition for admitting that substituted compensation was that the compensation was bonâ fide and adequate. It was to be reasonable, and its reasonableness was to be decided by an independent authority at the close of the tenancy. But if they put in this anticipatory decision before the contract of tenancy was entered into, what would be the effect of it? Why, it would simply be a transparent way of contracting out of the Act altogether. If the matter was to be settled by a third party, who would not necessarily have all the facts before him—for, of course, all the questions of fact would not be raised—and this third party's sanction was to be held to make it a good bargain, there would be no security whatever against a merely nominal or nugatory compensation being substituted for that contained in the Bill. He would say nothing of the fact that he believed there was no precedent whatever for taking an anticipatory decision of this kind upon a document; he would only observe that, however that might be, he could not accept this Amendment, which would merely have the effect of loosening that which it was the object of the Bill to bind.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had just observed that there was no precedent for this Amendment. The fact was that the Bill itself was without precedent—the whole measure introduced entirely novel principles into their English legislation; and it was not surprising, therefore, that some attempt should be made to add machinery to meet the new state of the case. But he wished to say a word or two in answer to an observation which had been made by his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Rylands). His hon. Friend had said—"You must have one fixed contract of law in these transactions, or else you will defeat the object of the Bill." If his hon. Friend had been arguing against the 6th clause altogether, he (Mr. Balfour) would have understood the relevancy of the observation, because the 6th clause, whether passed in the form in which it was introduced by the Government, or in the form into which it was sought to be amended, was a clause which admitted agreements other than those contemplated by the rest of the Bill, so that the right hon. Gentleman should have restrained himself, and refrained from giving vent to those remarks which he had just made. The right hon. Gentleman who bad charge of the Bill had said—"You cannot trust to the umpire for seeing that the contract would be made a fair contract." But the whole Bill depended for its operation upon umpires. The right hon. Gentleman said—"You cannot trust to an umpire giving a fair decision; you must leave it to the Courts of Law." But everything in the Bill was to be decided by an umpire—all the compensation which the tenant was to get from the landlord, and, in fact, everything in the Bill, rested with umpires; and he (Mr. Balfour) was quite unable to understand why an umpire should be competent to say exactly what was the value of an improvement, but should not be competent to say whether an agreement was fair or unfair. If that was the view of the Government, why did not the right hon. Gentleman cut out umpires altogether, and leave the independent Courts of Law to be the sole tribunal before which questions arising under the Bill were. to be decided? If he did not do that, there was no force whatever in his contention. He (Mr. Balfour) hoped his right ben. Friend would press this Amendment to a Division, and he could not help thinking that it would obtain the support of many hon. Members.

said, that the observations of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken rested on a misapprehension. There was no discredit to an umpire in saying that it was unsafe to leave this matter to him, because other important matters were left to him; but it was one thing for a man to decide a question when two parties were before him having a difference to settle, and each was interested in putting before him all the facts, so that his view of the matter might be properly presented in all its strength; but it was quite a different thing for two parties who had no difference to put in an agreement made between them, and to give only imperfect information, or no information at all, in regard to it. In the latter case, it was quite beside the mark to say that the umpire would be a competent judge. That was one strong objection to the Amendment, which, if passed, would afford the simplest possible means to enable people to contract themselves out of the Bill.

said, he was entirely unable to agree with the reasons which had been given against the Amendment. There was no reason for supposing for an instant that the Amendment was moved with the view of enabling people to contract themselves out of the Bill by entering into individual agreements. He did not believe there was any such intention. The real intention of the Amendment was to prevent landlord and tenant from living in a fool's paradise for 20 years or more, believing that an agreement between them was valid, when at the end of the time it might possibly be held by a Court of Law not to be a fair and reasonable one. But, despite that expression of his feeling, and the fact that he supported an Amendment of this nature in previous Sessions, he had come to the conclusion that he was unable to support the present Amendment, though for reasons of a very different and distinct nature from those which had been put forward on the Ministerial side of the House. His reason for being unable to concur in the Amendment was that, after due deliberation, he had come to the conclusion that it contained what was no slight element of danger which had not been entirely foreseen. What was it that it proposed? Why, that the terms of the agreement were to be referred for the decision of an umpire. As that umpire was to have clearly before him the whole of the agreement, it would be impossible to withdraw from him any one item which formed any part of it. Every clause must be before him; and, as one of the essential facts of the agreement, the question of rent must be before him. The question of rent could not he absolutely withdrawn. It was an integral portion of the agreement. The umpire might not be called on to say whether it was a fair rent or not; but it was not inconceivable that he might take the matter of rent into consideration; and though there might be no intention whatever on the part of either landlord or tenant to introduce that question, it might be brought in by a side wind. The umpire had it before him, and—if not in the first instance—it might gradually lead to decisions in matters of rent, as well as in other matters that were not now contemplated. It was for that reason that—while he was quite alive to the difficulty in which the Bill would land them, especially as leaving in doubt every written agreement entered into by mutual consent—he was unable to give his support to the Amendment.

said, he had certainly hoped that the second paragraph of this clause would have been eliminated from the Bill, and he yet trusted that it might be possible to get rid of it on Report. As to the Amendment which was before the Committee, he thought it would be wrong indeed if the Government yielded in their opposition to it, because the Bill provided for a fair and equitable arbitration, and that, he thought, was quite sufficient. It was well known by the farmers in England, and by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that the Bill was necessary to improve the relations between landlord and tenant, and to promote good husbandry; and now they were told practically that there was no necessity for the Bill, and that the farmers were able to make their own bargains. He said possibly they might in these times of severe depression; but let a change of seasons come, and then he maintained that there would be quite as much need for the measure as there had been before. The provision of the Act of 1875 which enabled landlords and tenants to contract themselves out of the Act had been the means of setting aside the object of that measure pretty generally throughout the Kingdom. Hon. Members were well aware of that fact; and he trusted that the experience gained from the manner in which the Act of 1875 had operated would have the effect of producing a measure that would be universally adopted.

pointed out that the hon. Member was addressing himself to the principle of the Bill.

said, he was making these observations for the purpose of showing that the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet was subversive of the principle of the Bill, and it was upon that ground that he strongly opposed it.

repudiated altogether the assumption of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) that the tenants could never make a fair agreement between the landlords and themselves. As he believed the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet would meet with the approval of the tenant farmers and their Representative Association, he should give it his support.

pointed out that all the subjects of the agreement might not be of a non-contentious character; and it would be impossible, under those circumstances, that they could all be pronounced upon by the umpire. It appeared to him that an Amendment of this kind would render the position of the Bill on which they were engaged nugatory, inasmuch as it would restore freedom of contract, where the intention was that it should be compulsory. For these reasons, he felt it his duty to oppose the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet.

said, it appeared to him that Gentlemen on the Front Bench first put arguments into the mouths of their opponents which they had never used, and then proceeded to knock them down. The desire of those who supported the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet was to save both landlord and tenant from litigation. The clause, as it stood, allowed them to make agreements; but it required that those agreements should afford the tenant fair and reasonable compensation; but whether any agreement fulfilled that condition or not could only be determined at the end of the tenancy. But what was the object of the right hon. Baronet? It was that, in view of the expensive and objectionable litigation which might then arise, the landlord and tenant should be enabled to keep out of such matters by making an agreement beforehand that provided for fair and reasonable com- pensation within the meaning of the clause. The argument of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard), in which he spoke of the tenants being in the grip of the landlords, had it been uttered by any other person, and in any other place than that House, he should have characterized as rubbish. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Bidden) laughed at the idea; and he was quite sure his hon. Friend had never been in the grip of a landlord, and never would be. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire said that neither the landlord nor the tenant would have any interest in having these matters settled by independent authority; but to that he replied that they would have a very great interest in it, if they wanted to keep out of the Law Courts and avoid the litigation which the clause, in its unamended form, would be likely to give rise to. The hon. Gentleman then said the landlord would be able to go to the umpire with a cut-and-dried agreement, and ask him to give it his imprimatur, and so bind the tenant. But he would not be able to do anything of the kind; for the person most interested in placing all the facts before the umpire would be the tenant, who had to look not to the landlord's interest, but to his own; and it was not to be supposed that he would be desirous of limiting his claims for compensation at the expiration of his tenancy. The tenant, as well as the landlord, therefore, in order to be safe, would place before the umpire all the facts of the case, so as to enable him to say whether the agreement provided for fair and reasonable compensation at the expiration of the tenancy. It would be in the interest of both parties, à fortiori in the interest of the tenant, to do so. He was not altogether able to appreciate the objection of the hon. Member for Mid Somerset (Mr. R. H. Paget), because this clause already provided for agreements being made so long as they gave fair and reasonable compensation to the tenant; and agreements made in the way now proposed, with a reference to an umpire, would stand in the same position, only their fairness would be determined before the tenancy bad commenced, instead of after it had come to an end. For his own part, he did not see how the amount of the rent would come in question more in the one case than in the other. For these reasons, he should give his support to the Proviso of the right hon. Baronet.

held that the Proviso was a necessary complement to the Bill, which could not work unless liberty was given to the landlord and tenant to come to an agreement that was fair and reasonable. He considered the Amendment to be much more in the interest of the tenant than the landlord, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adopt it.

wished to say a few words, not upon the merits of the question, but upon the view which the Solicitor General had taken of the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman had first described the Amendment as a complete sham; secondly, he assumed that the umpire would not be impartial; and, thirdly, that the tenant must be a fool. The object of the Amendment was to prevent a sham, not to create it; it was to prevent a tenant making an agreement with the landlord, which, at the end of his tenancy, he would declare to be unfair and unreasonable, and for that reason he should give it his support.

said, the object of the Bill was that when the tenant went out of his farm he should have just compensation secured to him. The question they had to consider was, whether, by any agreement which the landlord and the tenant could make today, that just compensation would be insured hereafter to the tenant? He thought the right hon. Baronet, on reconsideration, would see that his Amendment would do nothing of the sort. The Amendment spoke simply of a friendly reference to an umpire. But there was nothing to prevent a landlord saying he would let a farm on such-and-such conditions; further, that the agreement should go before an umpire, because, unless that was done, it could not be made a permanent contract, and compensation might afterwards be claimed; and, finally, that if the tenant could get the umpire to agree to the landlord's conditions, the tenant should have the farm; but that if he could not, the landlord would have to look after someone else. He believed that this sort of thing would be the rule, and that the proposal of the right ben. Baronet, if adopted, would end in being a sort of form to be gone through, with a view to give validity to contracts entered into to-day, that 20 years hence might be inadequate, in the then state of the farm and of agriculture, to secure to the tenant the benefit of this Bill, even where such was the object of the contracting parties. For these reasons, he did not think it would be wise, on the part of the Committee, to accept the Proviso.

said, he would ask the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke), and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, whether the rent would be taken into account in a matter of this kind? They were all agreed that the tenant should have fair and reasonable compensation; but the great question was, how the tenant was to get it? He had lately been reading a treatise of Sir John Lawes, and if the hon. Gentleman opposite would refer to it, he would see that there would be the utmost difficulty in any valuer coming to an agreement with regard to this clause. It was ono of the most difficult things for any person to arrive at a fair and just appraisement of the unexhausted value of improvements. The object was to have an agreement that would not have to go into a Court of Law. There should be something definite to guide the valuer in giving to the tenant that fair and reasonable compensation which they were all anxious he should have.

said, there was one thing which, in his opinion, made this Proviso necessary to the tenant, and that was its bearing upon the question of leases. He should be sorry to take any farm witbeut a lease, because he regarded a lease as a very valuable instrument for the tenant; but if the Proviso were not put into the Bill, he failed to see how any landlord could henceforward grant a lease, because at the end of the term some claim upon him might crop up on the part of the tenant. His hon. Friend below him (Mr. Rylands) said that the tenant, if the Proviso were adopted, would be at the mercy of the landlord, because the landlord would have an umpire of his own, so to speak; but he did not think that the tenants were so foolish as to make an agreement that was unfair to themselves. Again, he had known cases of tenants going to their landlords and saying that owing to the bad times they could not pay, where the landlord had given them not a reduction of rent, but so much feeding stuff, and other matters to help them along. But who would be likely to do that if the Bill passed in its present form, seeing that a man could afterwards come forward and claim compensation in the absence of a binding agreement? For these reasons, lie should support the Amendment of the right lion. Baronet.

asked whether the umpire would have power to amend the terms of the agreement? because, if not, it would be a mere waste of time to submit it to him.

said, the intention was that the landlord and tenant should take the agreement to the umpire, who, if he saw nothing unfair in it, would give it his sanction. All he proposed was that the landlord and tenant should be able to do precisely what they might do at the present moment, in arranging any other matter between them by voluntary agreement. A compulsory reference to arbitration would be altogether a different mater; but there was nothing compulsory in his proposal. He could not understand the position taken up by the Government in this matter. The clause provided that a voluntary agreement between the landlord and tenant might be entered into, and yet they objected to anything which would enable that voluntary agreement to be carried out. If two people went to au umpire, who, after having considered the facts of the case, came to the conclusion that the proposed agreement between them was fair, he ventured to say that that agreement ought to stand. If not, did the Government really mean that when two men had agreed to an agreement which gave compensation, one of the men or his representative, some 25 or 30 years hence, might dishonestly seek to set aside the agreement, and get some better terms?

said, he did not understand the arguments of the Treasury Bench. There were no conflicting facts in the case as he understood it, and he could not conceive what valid objection there could be to this proposal. The question was simply whether the scale of compensation was a fair and reasonable one or not; and the occupier, being a man acquainted with the agriculture of the district, knew perfectly whether the scale was reasonable or not. It was most desirable that they should endeavour, in every possible way, to avoid litigation; and in the belief that the Amendment would tend to decrease the possibilities of litigation he should support it.

, who had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out Subsection (a), said, he had no intention whatever of proposing this Amendment. It was originally his intention to propose to introduce a clause elsewhere; but he would not now do so. He considered the sub-section was fair as it stood; and he availed himself of the opportunity of saying that, as far as he was concerned, he meant to withdraw any opposition to the further progress of the Bill. He did so because the evident sense of the large majority of the Committee was against the views which he held, and he did not wish to take up the time of the Committee further by advocating his views.

begged to move to insert, after "has," in line 16, the words "by any particular agreement in writing." The 2nd section of Clause 5 provided that the Act should be set aside if a particular agreement be entered into. The object of the clause under discussion was that an umpire should be bound to take into consideration, in ascertaining the amount of compensation—

"Any benefit which the landlord has given or allowed to the tenant in consideration of the tenant executing the improvement."

To remedy the difficulties which the referees might have to encounter, he proposed to insert those words. Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 16, after the word "has," to insert the words "by any particular agreement in writing."—(Mr. James Howard.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment. If the benefit which the landlord had given or allowed consisted. of something done, the benefit would admit of being proved, and it would not be necessary that there should be an agreement in writing. This sub-section, moreover, was in the Agricultural Holdings Act, and he was not aware that any difficulty had arisen in consequence.

said, that the benefit must be either conferred by word of mouth, or by agreement. If it was by word of mouth, the referees would have to hear both sides of the question. The insertion of his words would clear up all ambiguity which might exist. He could not consent to withdraw his Amendment, because he foresaw difficulties which would have to be encountered. If it were necessary to introduce similar words in a former clause, surely it was just as necessary they should be inserted here. Question put, and negatived.

proposed, in page 3, line 18, at end of Sub-section (a), to insert—

"Any improvement agreed upon between the landlord and tenant to be carried out during the tenancy by the tenant and."

His Amendment was not provided for in the Bill. It was to meet the case where a landlord had covenanted with his tenant that, in consideration of certain rent, he should lay on the ground a certain quantity of manure, or do a certain amount of werk. Ono or twe agreements had been sent to him which appeared to him very fair; and he had put this Amendment down on the Paper, because he did not think it was provided for by the words—

"In respect of any improvement there shall be taken into account in reduction thereof."

Amendment proposed,

In page 3, line 18, at end of Sub-section (a), insert "any improvement agreed upon between the landlord and tenant to be carried out during the tenancy by the tenant and."—(Sir Joseph. Pease.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, he thought his hon. Friend would see that his words would hardly meet the object he had in view. A landlord had only to agree with the tenant to carry out the improvement without any consideration. If there was no consideration for it, the tenant was to be deprived of his compensation for improvements. If, by an arrangement between the landlord and tenant, the landlord had given or allowed the tenant any consideration in respect of his executing an improvement, then that was to be taken into account by the provision as it stood. What his hon. Friend proposed was that, though there was no benefit at all, the tenant was to get compensation.

said, his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General had entirely misapprehended the Amendment. If a landlord said to a man—"You shall have the farm for £250, instead of £300, if you lay on a certain amount of manure," this was not provided for in the previous clauses.

said, he should say that this was distinctly met by Subsection (a) of the clause.

said, he hoped that after the clear statement of the Solicitor General his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said, his Amendment was a little different, but proceeded precisely upon the same principle. It was adapted, however, to the circumstances of particular localities. In the neighbourhood where he happened to reside, and in a great many other parts of the country, farming operations nowadays were materially different to what they were a few years back; and in many dairy farms the milk, instead of being converted into cheese, was sent to London and elsewhere. Unless a certain amount of artificial manure was brought on a farm, unless a certain quantity of feeding stuff was expended on the land, it was found land, where this sale of milk on, returned very quickly to its normal state. The consequence had been that in nearly every case an arrangement had been entered into between the landlord and the tenant, that in consideration of a certain quantity either of manure or feeding stuff, and generally of beth, being brought on the farm in order to keep the land in a fit state to produce goods for the general benefit of the community, the tenant should receive the benefit of such permission, and be at liberty to sell off certain classes of produce usually consumed or converted on the farm. If a man entered into an agreement or contract to bring on the farm a certain amount of feeding stuff, and he did not carry it out, the landlord would have a right of action against him, and would be able to recover damages. He (Sir Gabriel Goldney) wanted it to be laid down that a valuer, in assessing the amount of compensation that a tenant was entitled to receive, should take into account any such agreement or covenant entered into between landlord and tenant. In justice and fairness that ought to be done, and he begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name. Amendment proposed,

In page 3, line 18, at end, to add—"Any agreement or covenant by the tenant for application of artificial manure, or for consumption on the holding of cake or other artificial feeding stuff, in consideration of the sale or removal by the tenant of the milk produced on the holding, and."—(Sir Gabriel Goldney.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

considered that the Amendment would weaken the force of the sub-section. It was unwise to specially mention an agreement or covenant of the nature described in the Amendment, to the exclusion of other agreements or covenants.

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper, to leave out, in page 3, line 21, "hay, straw, roots, or green." He thought there was a great risk of injustice being done to the tenant if the clause stood as it did at present. He would not move his Amendment now; but he intended to suggest a similar Amendment to the Scotch Bill.

moved to leave out, in page 3, line 21, "sold off," and insert "removed from." Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 21, to leave out the words "sold off," and insert the words "removed from."—(Mr. James Howard.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

said, he saw no objection to the proposal; but he thought it would be better to leave in the words "sold off," and add the words "removed from."

said, he did not think it was necessary to leave the words in the clause; but, still, he had no objection to their retention.

said, it appeared to him that the clause called upon the tenant to prove this against himself. How could evidence that any hay, straw, roots, or green crops were sold off the holding within the last two years of the tenancy, or other less time, for which the tenancy had endured, be obtained unless the farmer supplied the information himself? Such information would be used as a set-off against the farmer; therefore, he did not see how the clause would work in practice.

said, it worked every day on many farms in England.

said, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard) had stolen his Amendment. He was, however, very glad to support the hon. Member in the proposition he had now made. Question put, and agreed to.

moved to add,after the word "off," the words "or removed from." Amendment agreed to.

proposed to insert the same words in line 25. The clause would then read—

"Except as far as a proper return of manure to the holding has been made in respect of such produce sold or removed from."

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 25, after the words "sold off," to insert the words "or removed from."—(Mr. James Howard.) Amendment agreed to.

said, in the absence of the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Loder), who had an Amendment on the Paper, be would move it. He wished to insert, after the word "off," in page 3, line 25—

"Provided always, That no claim for compensation in respect of artificial manure; as between the outgoing and incoming tenant, or as between the outgoing tenant and the landlord, shall be sustainable unless the outgoing tenant shall produce and show to the valuators vouchers relating thereto, and also a certificate of analysis of such artificial manure made by a competent analyst, indicating its composition and value."

He regretted the absence of the hon. Member for Shoreham, as he was very experienced in farming. The hon. Member had been a very successful farmer, and he would, no doubt, have been able to give them some very valuable information on the subject of manuring land if he had been present. No doubt, importance was attached to this Amendment, otherwise it would not have been put on the Paper. Its object was to protect the incoming tenant and the landlord from fraud; it would also protect sitting tenants, inasmuch as the necessity of submitting manure to the test of analysis would deter fraudulent vendors of manures from offering spurious articles for sale. He was sorry to say there were many manures sold at a high price which were hardly werth the cost of carriage. The Amendment would prevent an incoming tenant from being the victim of a fraud perpetrated on an outgoing tenant, and would protect him from neglect on the part of the outgoing tenant to have the manures properly analyzed. Some kinds of manures were much more permanent than others. Some of them might be very good at the time; but no trace of them might remain in the soil after the lapse of a year or two years. Take benes, for instance. They would last but a season or twe, and the effect they would have upon the land would depend upon the kind of benes from which the dust had been made. Many manures of this kind produced different results, a greater result being produced by benes in a crude state than by old and dry benes. The effect of the Amendment would be that the incoming tenant would not pay for manures until, in addition to the vouchers, he had an analysis from a competent analyst, showing the strength and value of that for which he was to pay. He hoped the Government would not scrutinize this Amendment in the same captious spirit as they had scrutinized so many others which had come from that side of the House. Amendment proposed,

In page 3, line 25, after the word "off," to insert—"Provided always, That no claim for com- pensation in respect of artificial manure, as between the outgoing and incoming tenant, or as between the outgoing tenant and the landlord, shall be sustainable unless the outgoing tenant shall produce and show to the valuators vouchers relating thereto, and also a certificate of analysis of such artificial manure made by a competent analyst, indicating its composition and value."—(Mr. Werton.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, he could not accept the Amendment, because its effect was that the outgoing tenant was not to receive compensation for manures until he had proved their composition and value. It seemed devised for the special benefit of chemical analysts. Disputes would arise on this point, in which the landlord might, owing to his superior wealth, be in a better position than the tenant. The Amendment would work very hardly in the case of a tenant who had mislaid his vouchers, and it might have the effect of depriving him of the value of his improvements.

said, he thought the object the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Warton) had in view would be better met by an Amendment which he (Mr. Storer) had on the Paper to the Schedule—namely, in page 12, line 31, after "manure," to insert "of fully and generally recognized value." These words would be thoroughly well understood by valuers.

said, he would not press the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said, he had an Amendment to move here which was not on the Paper, and which related to a matter the Committee were very well acquainted with, inasmuch as a provision to this effect was contained in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875. This Proviso of Clause 6, Sub-section (b), dealt with rules for the guidance of the valuers in estimating the amount of compensation which should be given to an outgoing tenant for the manures used by him on his holding. Well, there was a section in the Act of 1875 which ran as follows:—

"The tenant shall not be entitled to compensation in respect of improvements of the third class, where after the execution thereof them has been taken from the portion of the holding on which the same was executed a crop of corn, potatoes, hay, or seed, or other exhausting crop."

That might be too stringent; but it would not be contended that compensation should be given after these crops to the same extent as it would be in the case where no such crops bad been grown. What he proposed to move on the lines of this Proviso in the Act of 1875 was to insert—

"In the case of compensation for manures or feeding stuffs"—

which would be governed by the previous words—

"there shall be taken into account in reduction thereof any crop of corn, potatoes, hay, seed, or other exhausting crop taken since the execution thereof from that portion of the holding on which the same has been executed."

He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not object to this as being unfair to either party. It seemed to him (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) perfectly fair to the outgoing tenant and the incoming tenant alike that this matter should be considered by the valuer. No doubt, in the majority of cases, it would be so considered; but he desired to make it clear that it must be considered, by inserting these words in the Bill. They should not leave the valuer to suppose that they thought the tenant ought to be compensated for the whole value of manures he might have used upon his land, when he had done his best to avail himself of the benefit of those manures by growing exhausting crops. Amendment proposed,

In page 3, line 26, insert new sub-section—"In the case of compensation for manures or feeding stuffs, any crop of corn, potatoes, hay, seed, or other exhausting crop taken since the execution thereof from that portion of the holding on which the same has been executed."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)

Question proposed, "That the new sub-section be there inserted."

said, that, in framing the Bill, they had carefully considered the directions which were given to the valuers under the rules laid down in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875, and they had deliberately decided upon leaving them out, this rule being amongst the number. They had laid down the principle that these improvements were to be paid for according to their value; and, having done that, they preferred to leave it to the common sense and practical experience of a competent valuer to say what the value was. No doubt, as had been pointed out, it was very often the case, at all events with many manures, that their value was fully realized or taken out by the growing of what was called an exhausting crop, such as hay, potatoes, or seed. These crops were generally supposed to exhaust whatever manures might be put on the land, altheugh he should be sorry to say that such was invariably the case. He would rather leave this matter to be decided by the practical experience of a valuer.

said, he merely proposed that exhausting crops should be taken into account in this matter.

said, that it was not necessary to put it into the Bill, for a valuer, if he were a competent man, would not fail to take it into account in arriving at the true value of the improvements. They would only be encumbering the Act of Parliament with unnecessary minutiœ by inserting this Amendment. It would simply be a piece of advice to the valuer as to how he was to carry out what was an obvious part of his duty.

said, he thought it was a mistake to insert Sub-section (b) in this Bill, as it instructed the valuer how to carry out the principle in the 1st clause. He thought it would have been better to leave the valuer to take his own view of the matter—it would. have been better for both parties. The sub-section had evidently been introduced with the intention of giving the valuer a bias against the outgoing tenant — that was to say, it was introduced as an instruction to the valuer to take care that lie did not give to the way-going tenant any more than he could possibly help. The present proposal was conceived in the same spirit. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) laid particular stress upon these matters, which went in reduction of the way-going tenant's proper compensation. If instructions of this kind were given to the valuer, surely it would only be right to give special instructions to the referees on the other side. If they were to take into account these exhausting crops, they should also be instructed to take into account special manures or things of that kind on the other side.

said, he thought a great deal was to be said in favour of the words of the Amendment, especially as the highest scientific authorities on farming in the country were agreed that the wisest thing for a tenant to do was only to put into his land as much manure as he could take out in his crop. These authorities were also quite agreed on this—that if there was one thing more difficult to ascertain and appraise the value of than another, it was the unexhausted value of manures. It was all very well to say that the valuers should exercise their judgment; but, to his mind, it was much more reasonable to say that experience and judgment should be used in pointing out that the value of manures was reduced by crops of an exhausting nature.

said, the reason for the introduction of this Proviso in the Act of 1875 did not apply to the present Bill, because, in the previous Act as to third-class improvements, the outgoing tenant was entitled to be paid for them if they had not been laid down more than two years previously. The present section committed the tenant to one year. The first thing the valuer would do in this matter would be to see what benefit the tenant had had, and what crops he had grown with the manures he had laid down.

said, the principle of the Amendment was, no doubt, sound; but what the operation of it would be was, to his mind, at any rate, very doubtful. In most cases the value of the manures, after these crops had been taken from the land, would, to the incoming tenant, be simply nil. He could not help thinking that if these words were introduced it would be a sort of indication to the valuer that there was to be a value attached to the manures after exhausting crops had been taken from the land, and that the valuer would be bound to imply that there was, at any rate, some value attaching to the improvement. As the Bill stood, in many cases they would know nothing at all about these manures as being of value to an incoming tenant; but if the Amendment were introduced, it would be taken by the valuer that value was contemplated as coming from these manures, but from which value some deduction on account of the exhausting crop had to be made.

said, the provision proposed would be quite fair in respect of tenants such as those described by the hon. Member for Mid Somersetshire (Mr. R. H. Paget), who farmed from hand to mouth; but it would be most unfair to tenants who maintained their holdings in the highest possible state of cultivation, and the manurial elements upon whose farms were not exhausted by one or twe crops. No one had shown more conclusively than Sir J. Bennet Lawes, who was one of the highest authorities in the world upon agricultural affairs, how the manurial elements were by a liberal application year after year stored up for many years. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] The hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon said "No!"

I did not say anything of the kind.

begged the hon. Baronet's pardon; but some ben. Member said "No." It was a fact, however, that Sir J. Bonnet Lewes had shown that manurial elements were stored up by liberal applications through many succeeding years. This proposal would operate against the very class of tenants it was the object of the Bill to benefit. Amendment negatived.

said, the next sub-section was in these words—

"Any sums due to the landlord in respect of rent or in respect of any waste committed or permitted by the tenant, or in respect of any breach of covenant or other agreement connected with the contract of tenancy committed by the tenant, also any taxes, rates, and tithe rentcharge due or becoming due in respect of the holding to which the tenant is liable as between him and the landlord."

He did not think this provision should be allowed to remain in the clause at all. As the Committee would see, the introduction of this section was an instruction to the referees to take those matters into consideration.

"In the ascertainment of the amount of the compensation under this Act payable to the tenant in respect of any improvement"

—that was to say, to take the matter contained in the sub-sections into account in reduction of the amount of compensation. Sub-section (c), however, dealt with the question of rent, taxes, rates, and tithe rentcharge, or waste committed by the tenant. He did not find in the Bill any power dealing with waste. The sub-section seemed to be a set-off against a tenant's claim for compensation; but the instruction at the beginning of the section was to the valuators to take into consideration certain matters under Sub-sections (a and b), such as liming and manuring. How were the valuators to take into account, in estimating the value of an improvement to an incoming tenant, the rent due to the landlord? In the Agricultural Holdings Act, according to which this Bill was drawn, Clause 18 gave the tenant a claim against the landlord for compensation, and there was also a section giving the landlord a claim against the tenant; but those sections were left out in the present Bill. Those sections of the Agricultural Holdings Act were intended to be repealed by this measure; and he would therefore suggest that this section (c) should be omitted. If the sub-section were left in it would be entirely confusing to the referees. He would therefore move its omission. If the referees were to act upon the subsection, they would not be able to give an award until they had decided what was the amount duo to the landlord, and what was the amount of waste in respect of breach of covenant or other agreement between the landlord and tenant, together with the other matters mentioned in the provision. The object of the clause was to give the landlords a set-off against tenants' claims; but the referees would have no power to deal with the questions referred to in the sub-section. Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 26, to leave out Sub-section (c).—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.) Question proposed, "That Sub-section (c) stand part of the Clause."

said, the objection taken by the hon. Member to this subsection was not, as he understood it, to the provision itself, but to placing these words in their present position in the clause. He was not sure that the hon. Member was not right in this respect; and he would undertake to consider the point, and if he found it desirable to divide the clause into two he would do so.

said, he wished to point out that Section 15 of the Agricultural Holdings Act provided that certain things were to be taken into account which were enumerated in this Bill in Sub-sections (a and b) of the present clause. Then Section 16 of the Agricultural Holdings Act went on to say that the compensation should be subjected to certain deductions; and then came in this Sub-section (c). Section 18 gave the tenant a right to make a demand against the landlord for any breach of covenant which was not covered by the Act. But the tenant, under this Bill, would have no power, except at Common Law, to claim such compensation. Section (d) of the present Bill said that in augmentation of the tenant's compensation should be considered sums due—

"In respect of a breach of covenant or other agreement connected with a contract of tenancy and committed by the landlord;"

but the measure did not give the referees power to say what the compensation should be; and that question, if the Bill stood as at present framed, would have to be decided by a Court of Law before the referees could add anything in respect of it to the compensation. There was no power in this Bill for a tenant to get compensation for a breach of covenant on the part of the landlord. [An hon. MEMBER: Yes; Sub-section (d).) Sub-section (d) only applied after the sum due was ascertained; but there was no power in time Bill to enable the tenant to ascertain the amount duo for breach of covenant on the part of the landlord, or to enable the landlord to ascertain the amount duo for breach of covenant on the part of the tenant. There was no power given for the referees to decide any claim.

said, it appeared to him that the objection taken by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) partook of a hyper-criticism. To his mind, the clause was quite intelligible, and would be perfectly werkable. The clause was that—

"In the ascertainment of the amount of the compensation under this Act payable to the tenant in respect of any improvement there shall be taken into account in reduction thereof," &c.

The clause did not say that there should only be taken into consideration matters reducing the compensation. Benefits allowed to the tenant and other reductions were considered, and matters were to be taken into account in augmentation of the tenant's compensation. The clause provided a double set-off, both as against the tenant's compensation and as against the landlord's claim to a set-off in respect of breach of covenant or other agreement connected with a contract of tenancy. Under the Agricultural Holdings Act there was a reference to two valuers, one to be chosen by either party, who might appoint an umpire. If they did not appoint an umpire, one could be appointed by the Land Commission on the application of either party, who would have full power to assess the sum. He (Mr. Gregory) did not see any difficulty in this matter; or, if difficulty there was, it was only in the matter of drafting the award. The referees would have full power to take all these matters into consideration; and he therefore could not see any possible ground for altering the clause, which seemed to him to be properly drawn. he had no doubt it would be found to werk satisfactorily.

said, ha did not think the hon. Gentleman thoroughly understood the point in the next clause. It was provided that the award should take certain things into account in dealing with the compensation, and should specify the improvements in respect of which it was awarded, the time at which they were executed, and the sum awarded in respect of each thing. It was clear that there could be no connection between these matters and the matters contained in this sub-section (c). The chalking of land, for instance, had to be taken into account. In ascertaining the compensation to be given in regard to chalking, were they to take into account breaches of contract, rent, taxes, rates, tithe rent-charge, and so on? Surely it was perfectly clear that these things could have nothing to do with the value of an improvement.

considered the clause very well drawn, and that it covered all that was likely to arise.

said, he thought it would be a pity to go on discussing the matter. He believed he saw what the hon. Member for Forfarshire was aiming at—namely, that in ascertaining the amount to be paid under this Act such and such things should be taken into account in fixing compensation. He had undertaken to consider the clause again.

understood that this clause was to be a settlement between landlord and tenant; and, therefore, the award should be made upon the footing of certain things being taken into account.

said, he did not see anything in this Bill giving the referees power to ascertain the amount claimed for waste by the landlord on the one hand, or, on the other hand, by the tenant.

said, it was intended to retain these powers, and that point would be dealt with hereafter.

said, that, so far as he could see, there was no question of compensation to the landlord by the tenant. Amendment negatived.

said, he should be sorry to see an Act passed through the House which would enable a landlord to recover the full amount of rent due, without the tenant being enabled to claim as a legal set-off the compensation provided by the Bill. It was no use giving compensation, and no power to recover but by action at law. He therefore proposed to insert words to meet that point. Amendment proposed,

In page 3, line 32, after the word "landlord," to insert the words "any sum due to the tenant as compensation under this Act shall be taken into account in reduction from the rent due."—(Mr. Duckham.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, that no power was given to the landlord to recover for breach of covenant, or in regard to waste; but he was left entirely to his action at law, although it was provided that, where a tenant claimed compensation, there should be a set-off against it any sum due to the owner for waste within the last four years.

said, the hon. Member had brought this question up before the Committee on Distress; and the point of the hon. Member, if he understood him rightly, was that while compensation might be due to a tenant by a landlord, nevertheless a landlord might distrain for the rent. The object of the hon. Member was to avoid the landlord being able by one process to recover rent the moment there was any money due; while the tenant, at the same time, had an item to set off, but which would not prevent the distress. He did not know what objections there were to the proposal; but he thought it was a clear way of putting the issue.

said, he thought that if that was the issue the question had better be reserved until the clauses on distress were reached. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said, the Amendment he had intended to move appeared to be covered by Sub-section (a) of this clause; but, before he withdrew it, he should like to have an explicit statement from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) as to whether that was so or not. The case he wished to draw attention to was that of a farm which had been let before the Act came into operation, on the distinct understanding that the farm should be worked up to an efficient state. Suppose a farm which, if in good condition, would have been worth £100 a-year, being in a wretched condition, was let at £70, on the condition that the tenant put it into good condition, and that he should then have no claim against the landlord, the tenant might yet claim compensation for his improvements, although he had already been paid for them by the reduced rent. Upon that point he should be glad to have some information; and another point was where, subsequently to the passing of the Act, a similar contract had been made in writing. Of course, if after such an agreement had been come to, the tenant should claim compensation for the whole of the improvements, he would be in the enviable position of performing the unparalleled feat of eating his cake and yet having it. If these points were covered by Sub-section (a) he would not move his Amendment.

said, that those points were covered by Sub-section (a). Amendment proposed,

In page 3, after line 32, to insert — "There shall not be taken into account any larger outlay during the last year of the tenancy than the average amount of the tenant's outlay for the like purposes during the three next preceding years of the tenancy, or other less number of years for which the tenancy has endured."—(Mr. Duckham.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, he hoped the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would be able to favourably consider this proposal. He had known a case in which a tenant, dying, left a flock of valuable sheep. The executors were naturally desirous of making as much money from the sheep as they could, and had spent large sums of money in artificial feeding-stuffs for them; while, on the other hand, they had so neglected the cultivation of the farm as to have left it in a very bad condition. That had been done without any desire to defraud the incoming tenant; but simply to realize the largest possible sum for the stock on the farm. lie thought there should be some safeguard, as was here proposed, for the incoming tenant and the landlord, so that the outgoing tenant should not be able to charge for expenditure far beyond the average, from which the incoming tenant or the landlord would receive no proportionate benefit.

thought the Amendment very reasonable.

said, he was very much surprised that the ben. Member had moved this Amendment. It was essentially a landlord's provision; and it appeared to him to be inconsistent with the objects now in view in laying down value as the measure of compensation. This proposal would strengthen the landlord's contention that compensation for improvements was to be limited by outlay. Another reason why he considered the proposal unfortunate was that they had already decided not to hamper the valuers by laying down rules and restrictions in an Aot of Parliament. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, for the Government could not assent to it.

regarded this as a very valuable proposal. Undoubtedly it was fair; and he thought the objections of the right hon. Gentleman were greatly modified by the fact that an Amendment had been carried limiting compensation to outlay. He was bound to say, however, that he was very much surprised to see this Amendment in the name of the hon. Member; for he recollected that when that Amendment was carried the hon. Member was so overcome that he preached a sermon, in the most melancholy tones, on the injustice and wrong done to farmers. He was more delighted than he could express to find that the hon. Member had thought better of the matter. There ought to be some restriction of this kind; and he hoped the Government would agree to the proposal.

said, he would not press the Amendment.

said, that by the Agricultural Holdings Act a hardand-fast line was laid down that the compensation should be for a certain amount of manure consumed on the holding during the last year. It was evident that, if a large quantity was consumed, or more than was required, there was nothing to determine the amount except the outlay; and to meet that case a certain limitation was put into the Act. But here the case was quite different. The outgoing tenant was not to be compensated according to what he had consumed; but to the residue left to his successor. If he were under such a lease as was contemplated, he should charge the outgoing tenant with deterioration, because there would be a larger quantity of manure ou the ground than was good for the stock. He thought the position of the Government was thoroughly sound, and that there was no reason for such a restriction in the Bill.

said, he thought this a proper Amendment, which would commend itself to the outgoing tenant.

said, the effect of the Amendment would be that, if a tenant had not been in the habit of consuming oil-cake on the farm, it would prevent him using it after he had given or received notice to quit, even though it might be to his advantage and that of the incoming tenant. The outgoing tenant would not necessarily be compensated in proportion to the quantity of cake used; but only for such as left a residue for the benefit of the incoming tenant. The real purport of the Bill was, that a tenant farmer should find it to his advantage to keep the farm in good condition; and he hoped the principle would be maintained that whatever was done for the benefit of the incoming tenant should be paid for by valuation.

pointed out that the Amendment was opposed to the broad principle of the Bill, that the tenant should receive compensation for the unexhausted value of the manures to the new tenant.

suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and moved in an altered form, as, in its present form, it would affect all improvements in Schedule 3, which could not possibly be the intention of the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham).

said, the Amendment would have the effect of preventing a man beginning to farm better than he had done in the earlier part of the tenancy.

drew attention to the fact that the Amendment only applied to the last year of the tenancy, and that under the Act the tenant was to have a year's notice to quit. He put it to the Committee whether it was reasonable or right that a tenant under notice to quit should have the opportunity of building up a heavy charge against the incoming tenant? This was no question as between landlord and tenant; it was a question that had to do with the incoming tenants; and he said it was in the interest of those who took farms hereafter that the Committee should take care that the charges arising under the Bill were not unjust to them.

said, it was perfectly impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment as it stood, and he hoped the Committee would allow it to be withdrawn.

said, while he agreed with the object the hon. Member opposite had in view, he concurred in the suggestion that it should be withdrawn. Amendment negatived.

proposed to move the omission of Sub-section 3, in order to insert the Amendment standing in his name.

rose to Order. He pointed out that the subject-matter of the Amendment was compensation for disturbance, and asked whether the hon. Member was in Order in moving it?

said, he had considered the Amendment of the Member for Cavan, and arrived at the conclusion that it was not beyond the scope of the Bill.

said, the Amendment he was about to move embedied a principle contained in the Act which amended the law relating to Agricultural Holdings in Ireland. He submitted that its merit lay in the fact that it placed the tenant farmer in possession of a holding in a sounder position to deal with the landlord than that which he occupied in the present state of things. They had heard a great deal about freedom of contract in relation to the Agricultural Question; but he held that freedom of contract between the tenant farmer and the landlord was a thing that could not possibly exist. The usual time at which the landlords were likely to raise the rent was when farming was prosperous. They would certainly not be likely to raise it after a series of bad years, because then the rents would be tending to fall generally, and the landlords would be very anxious to keep the tenants on at the former rents; but in good years there was a tendency to believe that a prosperous state of things would continue for a considerable time, and it was under those circumstances that the landlords insisted on an increase of rent being paid to them. The position of the tenant, then, was that he must submit to an advance that might be fair so far as a single good year was concerned, but which would be more than was fair on an average of 10 years, because if he did not agree he would be obliged to sell his stock and implements at a loss. Thus it was that the tenant agreed to pay more than a fair average rent in good times, at, d when the bad times came he found himself embarrassed; and although in some cases landlords gave a reduction of rent, there were many cases in which no such reduction was given, and the consequence was that the tenant was ruined through having made an imprudent bargain with his landlord under pressure. He would remind the Committee that 30 years ago there was a considerable agitation in Ireland in relation to the land, and that the landlords at the time would not listen to the proposal that the tenant should be compensated for the visible improvements on the holding. But, although those landlords would not consent, their successors many years afterwards were forced to agree to larger terms; and he thought it no harm to say to the English landlords that the passing of a Bill like the present, which gave no substantial relief to the tenant farmer, would, in his opinion, only be an encouragement to agitation in Eng- land, and that, too, at no very remote day. He believed that the Amendment which he now begged to move would improve the Bill, and make it snore acceptable to the tenant farmers. Amendment proposed,

In page 3, after line 37, after the word "landlord," to insert the words—"(e.) When the tenant of any holding held by him under a yearly tenancy or on the expiration of a lease is disturbed in his holding by the act of his landlord, he shall be entitled to such compensation as the county court, judge of his district, in view of all the circumstances of the case, shall think just, subject to the scale of compensation hereinafter mentioned; when the rent is thirty pounds or under, a sum not exceeding seven years' rent; when the rent is abeve thirty pounds and not exceeding fifty pounds, a sum not exceeding five years' rent; when the sum is abeve fifty pounds and not exceeding one hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding four years' rent; when the sum is abeve one hundred pounds and not exceeding three hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding three years' rent; when the rent is above three hundred pounds and not exceeding five hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding two years' rent; when the rent is abeve five hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding one year's rent."—(Mr. Biggar.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, it was exceedingly thoughtful of the hon. Member for Cavan to endeavour to bring the English Laud Law up to the Irish standard; but the alteration was ono for which the English landlords were not prepared.

said, he could not support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan; but he thought the present a convenient opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to explain the difference between English and Irish tenants in relation to this question.

thought, on the other hand, it was quite unnecessary to enter into the explanation suggested by the hon. Member for Forfarshire. The Government would oppose the Amendment.

said, that his Amendment was taken in substance from an Act passed by the present Government; and if they gave no reasons for not accepting it, the tenant farmers would naturally conclude that they had no reasons to give, and in that way they would simply be playing into the hands of their political opponents. he should certainly divide the Committee on the Amendment, whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite supported it or not. Question put. The Committee divided: — Ayes 6; Noes 80: Majority 74. — (Div. List, No. 222.)

said, he had been told that the Amendment he was about to move was not within the purview of the Bill; but he trusted that in a very few words he should be able to convince the Committee that that was not the case. The Amendment had reference to the landlord having an original claim for waste committed, or permitted, by the tenant. He was aware there was no such provision in the Act of 1875; and yet in that Act there was a clause which went a long way in the same direction. It contained a provision by which the landlord, having a claim for waste on the part of the tenant, might put it against the tenant's claim for compensation. he understood that the present Bill was to be carried in the interest of good husbandry; it was said that it was in the interest of good husbandry that the tenant should be able to claim compensation for the improvements carried out on the holding. But was it not also in the interest of good husbandry, and in the interest of the country, that a clause should he introduced into the Bill which would be a check upon the tenant committing waste? They knew it was not likely that the landlord would get any actual payment by means of the clause which he proposed to introduce. The landlord had now power to sue the tenant for rent due in the Courts of Law; the result of the exercise of that power being almost invariably that even where the landlord obtained judgment for the amount of rent due to him with costs—the tenant generally being a man of straw—he got no money whatever, and had to pay the costs himself. It appeared to him that as the tenant was to I be entitled to compensation for improvements, the landlord also should be en-, titled to compensation for waste which took place by the default of the tenant. In 99 cases out of 100 he felt satisfied' that the landlord would get nothing out of the tenant if his Amendment were accepted by the Government; but, at the same time, he believed that it would have a material effect in preventing a tenant going in to commit that waste which it was the object of his Amendment to prevent. When they were considering a Bill of this kind, he thought they should have regard to the opinion of those whose interests they were there to represent and uphold; and he know no better way of making that opinion known than by referring to a Motion made by a tenant farmer sent up as the representative of his district in the Central Chamber of Agriculture. He moved to add to Clause 6 of the Bill the words—

"Provided, That the landlord shall have power to proceed by original claim, and not merely by way of counter claim."

That proposal, having been put before the representatives of the farming interestthroughout the country, was carried without any discussion, a fact which ' showed, whatever might be the idea of the Government concerning his proposal, that it was not in opposition to the wishes or ideas of justice entertained by the agriculturists of the country. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name. Amendment proposed,

In page 3, line 38, to insert "where a tenant commits or permits waste, or commits a breach of a covenant, or other agreement connected with the contract of tenancy, the landlord shall be entitled to obtain, on the determination of the tenancy, compensation in respect of the breach or waste, provided that."—(Viscount Folkestone.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, the Government could not accept the proposal of the noble Viscount, which was superfluous, if the intention was not to alter the existing law; because the landlord was, undoubtedly, already entitled to compensation from the tenant if he committed waste, or a breach of covenant or agreement, in connection with his contract of tenancy. The words of the Amendment were—"Where a tenant commits or permits waste." What was called permissive waste was not considered to apply to an ordinary tenancy from year to year. The effect, therefore, that he could see of the noble Viscount's Amendment would be in this respect to change the law, and change it in a serious manner by making a tenant from year to year liable for permissive waste. That would be a matter of far too wide a scope to deal with in an Amendment of this kind. The noble Viscount would see that, in reality, he gave the landlords nothing; but merely said that a landlord sbeuld have that which he had now. The noble Viscount would see, on reflection, that nothing would be gained to the landlord by the adoption of this Amendment.

said, that after what had been stated by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General he should ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, more especially as he saw further down on the Paper an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard), which contained the essence of what he wished to do by this clause. Perhaps the Government might be able to accept the principle of the Amendment of that hon. Gentleman. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.