I have to move the resolution standing in my name. I should like to explain that, although it has rather a formidable appearance, it is in accordance with custom, and the House will understand that even if it passes it will be entirely in the hands of the Committee to say on what days they will meet and how long they will sit. There is no intention to ask the Committee to suffer any undue strain either of time or attention; but a heavy Bill has to be dealt with, and, having regard to the late period of the session and the universal desire that this Bill or something like it should be passed, I hope that the House will assent to the motion. I may point out that so far we have only had three sittings, and each only lasted about two and a half hours. We have got through but very few clauses, and though I do not think there will be any necessity for very frequent sittings or undue debate, I do suggest it should be put in the power of the Committee to sit more frequently and longer if they so desire.

On what day will the Committee next sit?

It will sit on Thursday, and I want to make it possible for it to sit on Friday if it will consent to do so.

Is this motion, which is of the kind usually made by the Chairman of the Committee, proposed with the consent of the Committee?

said the right hon. Gentleman had rather suggested that members of the Committee who had taken great interest in the Bill has obstructed its progress. Now, for his part he ventured to say that they, like himself, desired to see the Bill passed in the best possible form. It must be apparent to everybody on the Committee that it contained a great many points which the right hon. Gentleman himself had not even considered until the Committee sat. He was not suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman was in any way to blame for that, for, as they knew, the Bill had come down from the House of Lords, which had taken six years to produce it. The right hon. Gentleman now suggested that more time should be given to the Bill, and that the Committee should sit oftener. They had so far only held three sittings, each of them lasting rather over two and a half hours, and he did not think it could be denied that, they had made considerable progress. This motion had been made without the Committee being consulted and having an opportunity of stating whether or not they desired it. He for one strongly protested against it. Under it power was taken to sit on Saturdays, although he hoped it was not the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to do that. In order to make it quite clear, however, he would move as an Amendment to insert after "every day," "except Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays during the sitting of the House, but not later than half-past three."

Is it in order for an individual member of a Committee without consulting that Committee to move such a resolution as this?

Is it not the fact that a Committee appointed by this House is a foreign body sitting outside, and of the proceedings of which this House has no knowledge until it receives its Report? Is it not the case that the House can only be properly informed of the proceedings of a Committee through its chairman?

The motion is one for which there are precedents. It is in order for the Government dealing with a Government Bill to put down a motion of this kind without consulting the Chairman of the Committee. It is quite true that a motion is frequently made at the very commencement of the sitting of the House, and without notice, to enable a Committee to prolong its sitting, and that I do not put it from the Chair unless it is moved by the Chairman or some Member specially designated by him. But that only applies to motions made at that time, and of which no notice has been given. But this is a motion by the Government in respect of a Government Bill. Notice was given of it, and it is in order.

seconded the Amendment. He did not entirely agree with all said by the hon. Member who moved it, as he would like also to exclude Wednesdays, for the very good reason that the Public Accounts Committee, of which he was a member, met on that day, and obviously he could not be in two places at the same time. He wished, further, to add his testimony to what was said by the hon. Member for South-west Manchester, that there had been absolutely no obstruction and no long speeches. The divisions had been very close: in one the Government had been beaten, and in several cases they had only had a majority of two. The divisions had not been taken on party lines. The Bill had proved to be one of most extraordinary complication, and it required, if he might repeat a famous phrase, a "few men of common sense" to give it very careful consideration. Although ten clauses had been passed, the most contentious points had been reserved for the Report stage. If the motion of the right hon. Gentleman were carried, the only thing he could do would be to absent himself entirely from the Committee, and devote his energies to the Report stage. He had put down Amendments which he did not intend to be obstructive, but which he believed to be important, and he would move them some time, with a view to improving the administration of joint stock companies. He had given up the directorship of one of the two very important companies with which he was connected, in order to assist in passing a satisfactory Bill.

The form of the Amendment would be improved if it were put as follows—

"To leave out the words 'every day' in order to insert 'on Mondays and Fridays until half-past Three o'clock.'"

I will accept that form.

The hon. Member made one statement which I wish at once to contradict. I do not think he has been present at all the meetings.

I was prevented by urgent business from attending yesterday's meeting, but I have been present at the others.

It was at the last meeting that the question arose of more frequent sittings. It is not accurate to say that all the important points have been reserved for the Report stage. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton if I am not correct in that. At the last meeting considerable dissatisfaction was expressed in more than one quarter at the short time the Committee had to work. It was suggested that the Committee should sit longer on that particular day, but there were some dissentients, and at last the Chairman said he would go down to the House and ask for liberty to sit. I then stated I would call further attention to the matter and move a resolution on the subject. Subsequently I consulted my hon. friend the Chairman of the Committee as to the best course to pursue, and he expressed his own readiness to come down and move the resolution now under debate. I said I did not think it was necessary that he should do so. It has now been moved in the usual form. I need hardly say I shall not ask the Committee to consent to meet on Saturdays, nor will it be invited to meet at any day or hour which would be inconvenient to the great bulk of the members. But it might sometimes sit till four or five o'clock, and perhaps meet on one or two extra days, so that it may get through its work, and report the Bill to the House in time to enable it to consider the various important questions involved. It is most desirable that we should make a strong endeavour to pass this Bill, which has been before Parliament four or five years.

May I point out that this motion is purely a permissive one, and when it is passed it will still be in the hands of the Committee to decide when and how long it shall sit. I should be extremely sorry to see the labour spent on this Bill thrown away for the sake of having one or two additional meetings of the Committee.

As a member of the Committee who has taken some little interest in the Bill, I venture to express a hope that the motion of the right, hon. Gentleman will be accepted. Some members of the Committee have, at considerable personal inconvenience, made a point of attending the meetings, and it has been not a little disappointing to find what an extremely small amount of time has been at our disposal. When only one or two matters have been discussed the hands of the clock have approached three, and the time has arrived for adjourning. If the motion is carried, the Committee will still be able to arrange its own meetings and consult its own convenience.

Do I understand that the Amendment as now worded will exclude Wednesdays?

Yes.

It is very important that members of the Public Accounts Committee should be present at the meetings of that body, and therefore I hope the House will agree to the exclusion of Wednesdays. I cannot comprehend the right hon. Gentleman coming down here otherwise than as the mouthpiece of the Committee; unless he is so his action strikes at the very root of the constitutional power of the Committee. If you are to say that a Committee is to be in the hands of any Member of the Government, and that any proposition, however wild, novel, or unexpected, may be brought forward by him simply because he happens to sit upon the Committee, you strike at the root of the authority and power of that Committee. It seems to be clear that in this instance the Committee has not been consulted. If it had been, then I conceive it was the duty of the Chairman, and not of an incidental member of the Government who happens to be on it, to act as its mouthpiece here. It behaves the House to deal very carefully with this matter. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his motion. I think he has done this thing without reflection, and here is an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to make a graceful concession and to state that he will accept the Amendment.

I feel it my duty to express my concurrence with what has fallen from the Members for West Wolverhampton and South Leeds, and I would also endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Hampstead that there is great need on the Committee for men of common sense. I would ask the House to deal with this matter in a common-sense way and not wander into any of the constitutional bypaths suggested by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. The hon. Member said that there was only one member of Her Majesty's Government upon that Committee; but I would remind him that upon that Committee there will be found the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and the Secretary to the Local Government Board. I think that is a very fair complement of Government representatives. This motion is really to enable the Committee to do what it likes. Under the rules of the House the moment the bell is heard tingling, whatever the Committee are doing, they have to stop. A Committee which assembles at twelve o'clock to rise at three, with an adjournment for half an hour for lunch, has not much time for business. The Committee come to the House and ask to be emancipated from this position, leaving the matter entirely in the hands of the Committee. My experience of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the Chairman of the Committee makes me absolutely certain that no measure will be passed by the Committee to interfere with the convenience of Members, or with Avednesdays or Saturdays. What we want to be able to do is to meet at eleven if we choose, or go on till five, in order to get through the work which the House has given us to do. I wish to ask another question, and it is whether this Bill is to be passed or not? A large number of hon. Members would have liked to have seen the Companies Bill made somewhat stronger; but, speaking with some knowledge of rejecting a Bill one session in the hope of a stronger measure being brought forward in the next session, I think a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and this is a very good Bill as far as it goes. Hon. Members will have an opportunity of considering the measure when it comes down from the Committee. In the meantime the Committee stage must be got through, and it cannot be got through in the limited time which is placed at the disposal of the Committee this session. I think it would be a very great pity and would strike a very serious blow at these Committees if, after a large number of Members had devoted their time and attention to endeavouring to pass a Bill, that Bill should be thrown over at the end of the session and all their labour wasted. I shall support the motion of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade.

At the risk of wandering into one of those constitutional by-paths alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, I would like to call attention to the ordinary method of procedure. The right hon. Gentleman wants every Standing Committee to be the custodian of its own movements, to sit when it likes and where it likes. I must remind hon. Members that the House has always itself laid down a general rule upon this question which it has only varied under special circumstances. The service of the House, after you, Mr. Speaker, have taken the Chair, has always had precedence over all other business, and I do protest against the doctrine being laid down that the service of the House itself is to be put aside, and that hon. Members are to be called upon to perform dual services upstairs and down at the same time. The way to get over the difficulty is that the Committee should sit at a reasonable hour which suits the convenience of the Members, but they should not be permitted by the House to sit after 3.30. I think that to sit after that time would be running counter to all precedent, and it is not merely rod tape, but it simply means that the service of the House itself stands forward as our first consideration. I venture to suggest that 3.30 of the clock should be the limit.

As a humble member of the Standing Committee I wish to point out that the question is not so much whether the Bill is to pass or not, as was asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, but whether the Bill is to be passed with or without adequate discussion. It is impossible for this Bill to be passed with adequate discussion if you call the Committee together to discuss the Bill when the busiest members of it are engaged elsewhere. They will not attend then, and the measure will be discussed in a very perfunctory manner. What is the meaning of all this hurry? I never saw the motion of the right hon. Gentleman until I came down to the House today, and nobody ever suspected that such a motion was going to be made. One might assume from this hurry that the existence of the Government was at stake, and that the Government would inflict upon the country the calamity of going out of office if the Bill were not passed. It is a most contentious and difficult Bill, and it is impossible not to admire the ingenuity and skill with which the Committee have discussed every line and word of the clauses of the Bill already dealt with. I think the House should have an almost perfect Bill brought before it. It is really of little importance whether the Bill is passed this year or next year, for it does not virtually affect the business of the country. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has shown the slightest reason for the extraordinary course which he has taken.

As a member of this Committee, I wish to say that I share the expression of regret made by my hon. friend that this matter was not mentioned when the Committee was sitting because if it had been so mentioned an opportunity would have been given of making a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill which I may be permitted to make now, and which would tend to save time. It is that he should confer with those members of the Committee who put down acceptable Amendments on the Paper with a view to reducing the amount of discussion that goes on in connection with them. During the past three sittings we have been discussing Amendment after Amendment and voting them down, and after they have been discussed and rejected the right hon. Gentleman has more than once accepted some Amendment which has stood on the Paper the whole time. If those Amendments had been accepted in the first instance, all the discussion which preceded them would have been rendered unnecessary. There is a strong disposition to put the Bill forward as rapidly as possible, but if quick progress is to be made, useless discussion must be avoided, and the acceptance of reasonable Amendments, to which no real objection exists, should be promptly notified.

As Chairman of the Committee I desire to say a word or two to remove any misapprehension that may exist as to my own position in this matter. The fact is that at several sittings of the Committee there has been a desire manifested to make progress with the Bill if necessary during the time when the House is sitting. This, was especially so at the last meeting, at the conclusion of which I signified to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that I was perfectly willing to move in the House for leave for the Committee to sit during the sittings of the House. The right hon. Gentleman kindly expressed his readiness, to make such a motion himself, and that is the motion which I anticipated would be on the Paper. When I saw the actual terms of the motion this morning for the first time, I was very much surprised. The right hon. Gentleman has informed me, since I entered the House this afternoon, that he was informed at the Table that this was the usual motion made upon occasions of this kind; and under those circumstances I presume that I should myself have had to make a motion in the same terms. It appears to me, however, that those terms are a great deal too wide. I could not comply with them myself. I am bound, for instance, to be on Wednesdays in the Chair in the Public Accounts Committee, and it would be impossible for me to be in the Chair of the Standing Committee on that day. The difficulty might, perhaps, be got over by means of an Emergency Chairman, under the arrangements which members of the Chairman's Panel make among themselves; but that is not desirable. It appears to me that a motion asking for leave to sit while the House is sitting is all that is necessary. The Committee already have the power to meet at eleven or twelve o'clock. It also has power to meet on a Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, or Friday, and last week the Committee did sit on Tuesday instead of the usual Monday, and the same divergence from the usual practice could be exercised by the Committee at its discretion. I think, therefore, that a, motion for leave to sit while the House is sitting would meet all the requirements of the case. The reason I rose to explain was lost some hon. Members of the Committee should think that I was in any way wanting in my duty to the Committee, or in the respect which is due to it.

After what has fallen from the hon. Member who is the Chair man of the Committee, I am quite prepared to ask the leave of the House to amend the motion in the direction indicated. I understood that a motion would be made leaving it entirely in the hands of the Committee, to adopt whatever course they chose. I am quite prepared to move my motion in the form suggested.

I understand that the hon. Member wishes to withdraw his Amendment, and that the motion should be amended by leaving out all the words after "sit" in order to insert "during the sitting of the House."

Are we to understand that the Committee will have power to sit on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays if they choose? I think it is well that the matter should be made plain.

We are now merely giving a kind of instruction to the Committee that they should consider the propriety of sitting on other days beyond what is usual.

I desire on behalf of a great number of Members to state how much we appreciate the efforts of the President of the Board of Trade to push this matter forward. It is a common-sense arrangement, especially in view of the fact that we are getting to the end of the session.

I should like to ask if the President of the Board of Trade has had the approval of the Chairman of the Committee in the motion he has made, because I read in the report of the last meeting of the Committee that, with reference to the suggestion that the Committee should sit longer and more frequently—

"Mr. Ritchie expressed himself as very willing, and even anxious, that this should be done, but, on the Chairman's proposing to ask leave of the House for the Committee to sit till a later hour, the proposition met with strong indications of dissent. The Chairman said that, in view of the pronounced opposition, the thing could not he done."

I think it is a pity that the Chairman of the Committee is not here to explain.

The hon. Gentleman will be surprised to learn that the Chairman is here and has spoken in this discussion. He stated that he and I had arranged that a motion should be made, though not the particular motion on the Paper.

I am quite sure this discussion would not have arisen to-day if we had known of the intention of the right hon. Gentleman in the Committee.

The clause I have to move is to provide for compensation to a tenant who is compelled to vacate his holding under circumstances that cannot be described as his-own fault. My object is that we should take an important step in what should be the direction of this type of legislation— namely, to give more encouragement and a greater degree of security to farmers who have improved their land and discharged their duties to the landowners, and to discourage farmers who have not carried out that policy and who have deteriorated the land. The clause which I have placed on the Paper has been before the House on previous occasions. It was considered very fully by the Welsh Land Commission, and I should like to remind hon. Members who have read the Reports of that Commission that both the Majority and Minority Reports express their assent in explicit terms to the precise wording of this clause. I wish to draw attention to that fact because I desire to give as much authority as I can to the form of the proposal. The object of the clause is to deal with certain cases which can be easily enumerated. In the first place we have capricious evictions by landowners. The most familiar cases arise with regard to the use by the tenant of the legislative rights which have been given him under the Ground Game Act. I have a number of cases where farmers have received notice to quit because they have exercised these rights, and the object of the clause is to provide that where a tenant farmer is capriciously evicted the same principle of compensation shall be applied as is applied where a person is deprived of a valuable interest in any other form of real estate. What the clause asserts is that where a tenant is dispossessed of his holding without sufficient reason he shall have an allowance which would cover the loss of his trade connection, goodwill, and other losses of that kind. In addition to those cases of capricious eviction the House will remember that the Welsh Land Commission especially drew attention to the hardship inflicted on tenants on estates where the ownership passed by sale, inheritance, or bankruptcy. Very great hardship occurs under the existing law, because the tenants have to decide practically at once whether they will accept a higher scale of rents and retain their holding, or whether they will submit to a very considerable loss. I should like to quote the evidence of one very able witness before the Agricultural Commission, who, I believe, is a strong supporter of the Government in Northumberland. I refer to Mr. Wilkinson. He said that the tenant has insufficient security and was often compelled to accept an unjust and unreasonable rent rather than leave the farm and suffer loss. He states—

"I think the tenant should be protected from an arbitrary notice to quit by being allowed compensation for disturbance. We want to be able to deal with our landlords on equal terms, and not for them to be able to say Sign that agreement or quit the farm.' We are tired of that sort of thing in the North, and we say that we are entitled to compensation for loss sustained in that way."

The whole clause turns on the fact that the man who puts most into the land is the man who is least protected under the existing law, and the greater a tenant's stake is in the improvements he has carried out the weaker is his position with regard to the whole question of bargaining as to rent. I will not in the least disguise that the main object of the clause is to put the tenant farmer into a position of greater strength in order that he may be able to bargain, with a reasonable chance of success, for a fair rent. This, of course, may be met with the familiar retort that the tenant farmers have been masters of the situation, and have dictated the rents of all the farms in England during the last ten or fifteen years. I absolutely traverse that contention. It is true only of derelict, broken-down, and worthless farms, which go begging in the market, and for which a tenant farmer or anybody else can make any terms they please. But in regard to highly cultivated farms to which men had devoted their capital and energy for years, making the land the bank in which they invested the savings of their lives, the tenants are in a position of great weakness, and they have not been able to transfer the economic loss of the depression from themselves to the landlord. One of the sub-commissioners of the Royal Commission, Mr. Wilson Fox, who cannot be accused of a lack of friendliness to landlords, and was also a man of great ability and fairness of mind, gave us figures of large farms of various types, most of them of high quality, in the county of Lincoln. Those figures showed that the rents of eleven of these farms during the period of depression were between forty and fifty times the net profit obtained by the farmers. I allude to that in order to show that during the period of depression farmers, so far from being able to obtain a reasonable reduction of rent, which would put them in the position of having, as the Income Tax assessment assumes, a profit of half or even a third of the rent, had their profit reduced to a fifth, a seventh, and even a thirtieth or a fiftieth part of the rent. I therefore say that there is no force in the contention that the farmers have been able to dictate their own terms. On the ground of strengthening their position and of enabling them to deal fairly with rent I beg to move this clause, which goes to this effect, that where the farmer is dispossessed, not through his own fault—I do not wish to protect any farmer who behaves wrongly either as regards rent or covenants— we should have applied the same principle as to allowance, or compensation, which is observed in dispossessing every other class of persons in the land, or in our social arrangements. He is to be compensated for loss of trade interest, business connection, and all the rest of the loss caused by removal.

I hope the House will not read this clause a second time. The hon. Member has told the House that the principle of compensation for disturbance was recommended by the Welsh Land Commission, but he has not told the House that this question was most carefully inquired into by the Royal Commission on which he himself sat, and in the Report issued by that Royal Commission it was stated that while some witnesses had argued in favour of that proposition the whole question had been carefully investigated, and that the Royal Commission were distinctly opposed to the principles of the proposal. Apart from the finding of that Commission, I may say that if ever there was a time when a proposal of that kind could be justified, that time no longer exists. It is possible that in the days of very great agricultural prosperity, and when, no doubt, the opportunities of the tenant for guarding his own interests or for selecting his own position were not so good as now, there wore cases of hardship. But I believe that there have been fewer cases of injustice and hardship to a farmer who expends his capital in improvements, than in the history of any other negotiation in the country. It is said that the tenant farmer is capriciously evicted. No doubt there have boon such cases and they may arise again; but everybody knows that at the present day the great object of the owner of land is to encourage the tenant farmer to remain in occupation of his holding, and to farm it on the best terms. I do not believe, therefore, that there is any justification for a proposal of this kind. In the first place, as the Bill stands a principle is laid down which can easily be acted upon both by the landlord and the tenant, and which gives to the tenant a right to secure payment for that which he leaves on the land, the benefit of which will be reaped by somebody else. The Bill provides the machinery for that. But if you open up the question of compensation suggested by the hon. Gentleman you will render the task of the arbitrators one of immense difficulty, and present a certain vista of litigation between the landlord and the tenant. It would introduce a principle which would be vexatious to the landlord, of no good to the tenant, and it is one which would deter landlords from entering into arrangements with their tenants which might be beneficial to both. On all grounds, therefore, I hope the House will not accept a proposal of this kind. I quite understand the motive of the hon. Gentleman. He believes that legislation ought to interfere more than at present with the position of landlord and tenant. Some people believe that the relations between landlord and tenant will never be satisfactory until the whole question of rent is decided by some public tribunal, and not, as now, by private arrangement between owner and occupier. The Government, who are responsible for this Bill, have no sympathy with views of that kind. They believe, on the contrary, that the adoption of such views would be prejudicial to the interests of tenants, and result in the absolute ruin of the agricultural interest as a whole. We are told that poor tenant farmers cannot make bargains which would protect their own interests. I have lived among tenant farmers all my life, and have come in contact with them in all parts of the United Kingdom, and I am inclined to believe that the statement of the incapacity of the farmer to look after his own interests would not be made so readily at an agricultural gathering. The farmers themselves would be the first to show that they were well able to manage their own affairs, and to resent the imputation that they are either very weak or very foolish. I believe that farmers are not likely to be capriciously evicted unless they adopt the principles of the Irish Land Acts about fixity of tenure, free sale, and compensation for disturbance, with all their mischievousness. The only safe policy for the House to adopt is to adhere to the; principles embodied in the Bill.

When I saw this new clause on the Order Paper I did not entertain any very sanguine hopes that the right hon. Gentleman would accept it; but I cannot help expressing my regret that he has not been able to do so. He has told the House that this clause was not recommended by the Royal Commission on Agriculture. In that the right hon. Gentleman is quite correct; but I think that he is incorrect when he goes on to say that the farming class do not desire to have the proposal contained in this clause. When this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, there is nothing, I am sure, which will give the tenant farmers of the country more widespread disappointment than the absence of a clause of this kind. I quite appreciate that in several instances agricultural associations in different parts of the country have passed resolutions expressing satisfaction with the proposals of the Government as embodied in this Bill. But I repeat that when the great body of farmers get face to face with the actual accomplishment of the Government, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that they will be very much disappointed. The expectations held out to them during the course of the last general election were of a very different kind from those embodied in this Bill. I do not think any hon. Gentleman will venture to dispute that. My hon. friend in moving the new clause told the House that a proposal of this kind was very much required in Wales. The recommendations of the Welsh Land Commission, which did not seem to me to be received by the right hon. the President of the Board of Agriculture with the respect which they deserve, contained a proposal that tenants should receive compensation for capricious eviction from their holdings. That was a recommendation not of a mere majority of the members of the Commission, but was arrived at unanimously. Mr. Sebohm, Lord Kenyon, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea, were all agreed that, on the evidence put before the Commission, an unanswerable case had been made out for compensation for capricious eviction. On behalf of my constituents, therefore, I think this clause should be adopted. The President of the Board of Agriculture has told us that this proposal is not required by the farmers of England at all. It may be that that is true. I do not pretend to have a complete knowledge of the farmers of England, but I am entitled to speak with some knowledge of the farmers in my own part of the country, among whom I have lived all my life, and I maintain that nothing is more urgently required by them than that they should have compensation for capricious eviction. There is no suggestion in this clause that a farmer who left his holding on his own account would have any compensation except that which is given by the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883. All that is proposed is that if the farmer is compulsory evicted he shall be compensated. It is only fair and right that when a man is turned out of his holding at the mere caprice of his landlord, not because he is a bad farmer, not because he is letting his land deteriorate, not because he has allowed his buildings to become dilapidated, but because he has had some i petty quarrel with his landlord about the county council election or something that has taken place in the parish, he should receive compensation. The right hon. Gentleman says that such a state of things as that does not arise in England. That may or may not be, although I do not agree with him, because it does arise in Wales—I do not think these cases arise so frequently as they used, but they undoubtedly do arise—and when a man is turned out of his holding in that way he should have some compensation for the trouble and expense to which he is put, for which this Bill gives no compensation. This is a small Bill, which does not introduce any new feature into the agricultural law, and deals rather with the machinery of the law than with anything else. But if this clause, and it is not a revolutionary clause by any means, be accepted, it will to some extent give the tenant farmer some security of tenure. He would occupy a position of greater stability if his landlord knew that if he gave him notice in a fit of caprice he would have to pay for it. It is not the better class of landlord who gives his tenant notice in a fit of caprice. If this amendment is accepted it will operate to some extent in favour of security of tenure, because if the landlord knew that, if he gave his tenant notice to quit for an insufficient reason, a tenant who had formed well and carried out all the terms of his agreement, but who had displeased his landlord—if the landlord knew that if he gave that man notice to quit for an insufficient reason he would have to pay, over and above that which the law allows, some compensation for disturbance, it would prevent him from taking such a stop. I daresay in some parts of England such legislation is quite unnecessary; but I am speaking for a class of people for whom it is necessary, and the Welsh Land Commission has reported in favour of such legislation. Under these circumstances, if my hon. friend goes to a division, I shall be happy to support him.

said, so long as the hon. Member for West Carmarthenshire confined his remarks to the Welsh aspect of this question, it was beyond his light to criticise them. He had not looked at the Celtic side of the matter. From the position taken up by the hon. Gentleman one would imagine that a person had a right to hire another person's land, and that then, in defiance of the owner, he could claim compensation on receiving notice to quit. That was a principle which, so far as he was aware, had never been laid down by any Commission which had ever sat. The representative agricultural bodies of the country had wisely declined to lend themselves to any such revolutionary doctrine. There might be here and there a farmers' club which advocated it, but the great representative agricultural bodies of the country did not. The House would do well to reject the Amendment, and support the proposition that a man has a right to let his farm to anyone he thinks fit, in accordance with the law, and to terminate the tenancy when he thinks fit, in accordance also with the law.

I will not detain the House more than a few moments, but I should like to point out that the Bill, so far as Wales is concerned, does not go to the root of the evil, and on another occasion it will be the duty of the Welsh Members to lay their views before the House in a different form. With regard to the Bill now before us, I should not like the discussion on this clause to terminate without cordially supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire. With regard to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Thanet, who admitted that he had never dived into the Celtic fringe in this matter, if that be so, we cordially forgive him for the remarks he has made. This sub-clause is the result of recommendations made, after exhaustive inquiries, by the Welsh Land Commission, and the feeling of the country is very strong upon it. I live in a country where the land question looms large, and I have no hesitation in saying that if this clause were passed it would meet with a very large force of public approval, and be the means of amending this Bill, so far as Wales is concerned, in a very substantial manner.

said he was scarcely prepared to give the clause his support if it went to a division, but as a Scotch Member he felt that there were circumstances under which a clause of this description would be to the interest of the tenants. He quite agreed that cases of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member opposite were not so common now as formerly, though there could be no doubt that they did arise even now. The right hon. Member for Thanet seemed to claim a right for the landlords to let land at their pleasure, and then to evict tenants as they pleased, and that this was a Bill to interfere with that which the landlords have a right to do. This clause did not interfere on behalf of the tenant farmer, but in the interests of the nation at large. The Bill provided compensation for improvements; but the Committee ought to go further if agriculture was to be a prosperous occupation They ought to give to the tenant security of tenure, and if the farmer invested his money on other people's land he ought to know that he was secure from the curious freaks of temper of the landlord, and therefore some equitable arrangement of this kind ought to be made. he supported the broad principle, but was afraid he could not support the Amendment to the extent of voting for it on a division.

I support the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire. If the clause is passed it will be regarded by Welsh farmers as an extremely valuable addition to the Bill. Formerly, when a rich man purchased an estate, he bought not only the land and the buildings upon the land, but in addition to that he bought the consciences—the political consciences, at all events—of the tenants of the soil. We have in the past seen a great deal too much oppression both in religious and political life in consequence of the enormous powers which the landlord possessed, and which, directly or indirectly, he could exercise. That power has seldom been exercised directly, but for every single eviction that has taken place hundreds of people have been terrorised. I am glad to bear my testimony that that state of things has very largely improved in England and Wales in recent years. I should be sorry to say that anything of the kind I have described has been of a general character. What we ask is that the tenants should be placed beyond the reach of fear in this respect, and that a man's politics and religion should have absolutely nothing to do with the tenure or cultivation of the land. If this clause were passed I believe the effect would be that the tenant would feel himself to be what I am sure every hon. Member in this House (except, perhaps, the hon. Member for Thanet) would wish him to be—a really independent man, owning no allegiance to the owner of the soil in regard to religion or politics because of the relationship between them as landlord and tenant. Have I not laid down a fair proposition? Is there any Member of the House who would venture to dispute that? What my hon. friend proposes to do by the clause is to assure to the tenant a position that would put him outside the reach of fear. I hope the Government may see their way to accept this clause, believing that, in Wales at all events, it would be accepted by the tenants as giving them protection to which they are entitled.

said he had to express his pleasure that the Government had been unable to accept the clause, which involved a principle going far beyond the limits of the Bill, and illustrated very well the point at which it was necessary to draw the line. The Amendment introduced the principle of divided ownership. No such principle was recognised in the Bill, at all events he hoped it was not recognised. The principle of the Bill, as he understood it, was that whore a tenant added to the value of the landlord's property he should be compensated for that, but the principle of the Amendment was that the tenant should acquire a right in the property, and that he was to come into possession of the landlord's right. It was clear that if they once admitted that principle they would adopt the whole Irish land system. The moment the tenant got in as a partner in the ownership of a farm, then he had a right to sell that farm. The Government would have to come down and settle the relationship between them as regards fair rents, and every detail in the management which was characteristic of the Irish land system. [An HON. MEMBER: Why not?] he would give an illustration. It had been said that the landlord might use his power vexatiously. Almost all rights of property of any kind whatever might be used vexatiously. The hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs had spoken of intimidation in religious matters, but the same thing might occur in other avocations. A banker or solicitor who had lent money to various small shopkeepers might exercise an improper influence over his debtors. They could not prevent people who had not a free choice from being subject to the influence of others. The essence of freedom was to have a free choice. It should be recognised that this Amendment proceeded wholly on a different principle from that embodied in the Bill. He hoped that they would be careful to maintain on this occasion the great im- propriety of divided ownership. The true remedy for the grievance was a healthy public opinion. In England intimidation would never be tolerated. They would resent it vigorously, and if English landlords endeavoured to coerce their tenantry, they would speedily find that to be so.

said he could not conceive how anybody who understood the agricultural position of the country could have drafted such a clause as this. It was altogether on the wrong lines, as any man of common sense would see. He thought it would be unfair to interfere too much between landlord and tenant. What would be the end of it? The tenant would, no doubt, put before the arbitrator every single point in a long term of tenancy, and all that would lead to lawyers' bills; and if there was one thing that a farmer disliked extremely it was to pay such bills. The tenant would have enormous bills to pay if this clause was carried out, and he would be continually arbitrating with the

said it was all very well to speak of cases of capricious eviction, but he believed such eases hardly ever occurred.

In moving the now clause which stands under my name I desire very shortly to explain to the House the purposes this clause has in view. Among the agricultural tenants of Scotland by far the largest proportion are men whose buildings have been erected by the capitalists who own the property, the tenants themselves having no interest in and making no claim for the buildings. There are a second class, well known to this House, namely, crofters, in the Highland districts of Scotland, whose interests in their holdings have been regulated by the Crofters Acts. What I want to bring to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill and of the House is that there is a third class, not a very numerous class in Scotland as a whole, though somewhat numerous in my own constituency. This class stand in a different relation, and under this Bill I cannot see that they will receive any protection whatever. The Government, no doubt desire to cover every agriculturalist, whether he is large or small in his occupation; whether protected by legal documents or trusting to the feudal estates and the customs of those estates, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to look with favour upon such a clause as this. I would not seek his approval of the words if I could secure his approval of the principle, so that this class of men who are crofters, but not in the crofting districts, should, in case of removal, have the power of coming into the benefits of this measure, and at least have the opportunity of proving before the tribunal created under this Bill whether or not the improvements on their farms are of their own creation; so that, as I believe they have in morals, they may also have in law, a protection for their property in these matters. In my own constituency cases arise rather under estate management. Many of the estates erect buildings from A to Z, but there are other estates where the buildings are left to the creation of the crofter himself, and very often they have been erected by previous generations. Whilst I would pay every tribute of regard to the management of these large estates and the sanctity of contract maintained between proprietor and crofter, in nearly every case the danger becomes almost alarming when those old estates pass into the hands of new men, or under the management of lawyers, who take a sharper, harsher, and more strictly legal point of view. All I ask is that this Bill shall not pass through the House without allowing these men, who are undoubtedly the creators of their own improvements, and whose position is now respected on the estates where they live, should not suffer the danger in strange hands of being unprotected by the law while the law is in process of amendment. No claim is made by the man on whose behalf I am now speaking for any compensation for anything created by the capital of the proprietor. All he asks is that property of his own creation, whether it is in the reclamation of land or in the building of houses, should become matter for investigation before the tribunal created by this Bill. It is easy to see that in an old-fashioned arrangement, such as the one I have described, there might be claims put forward by the landlord which would to some extent nullify the claims of the tenant for his improvements. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. New clause—

"That in the case of crofters or cottars in Scotland, as defined in the Crofters (Scotland) Holdings Acts, 1886, 1887, and 1888 (whose holdings are situated in parishes or counties to which these Acts do not apply), such improvements as are set forth in Part 1 of the First Schedule of the Act, which may have been executed or paid for by the crofter or his predecessor in the same family whilst under no written obligation to the landlord to make them, and prior to the passing of this Act, and which will add to the letting value of the holding, shall be compensated for on his leaving the holding, under the procedure provided in this Act, but for such improvements executed after the passing of this Act consent of the landlord will be required."—(Mr. Gordon.)

—brought up, and read the first time.

I hope my hon. friend will not press this clause, because it seems to be moved under a misapprehension. The object he seeks is to include within the benefits of this Bill those crofters or cottars in Scotland who do not come under the Crofters Act, which is limited to particular counties, to which benefits have been given on account of particular circumstances. My hon. friend suggests in the case of these crofters that they shall be treated as if they had obtained consent, and that only in future shall they require to obtain consent. I am not in the position to speak of tenants in a similar position to crofters, though they are not under the Crofters Act. It may be true that there are individual cases of hardship, but it would be impossible to apply this measure to a limited portion of the kingdom. Not only this, but it would be extremely unfair to attempt to do anything of the kind. I submit that the proper course for my hon. friend to take is not to seek to graft on to this Bill a proposal dealing with these people, but endeavour to bring the crofters for whom he pleads under the Crofters' Holdings Acts.

The right hon. Gentleman has, I am sorry to say, given but small encouragement to my hon. friend in regard to the clause he has laid before the House. The two main arguments of the right hon. Gentleman have been (1) that my hon. friend's clause merely dealt with a few individual cases in Scotland— with regard to which argument I shall have a word or two to say in a moment; and (2) he contended that the Government could not be expected to deal with cases of special hardship. If any Government come before this House and lay on the Table a Bill which is to alter the condition of agricultural tenancies, they ought to endeavour to meet all special cases of hardship as well as all general cases. This Bill, as it stands, endeavours to meet a hardship analogous to that of the crofters in the case of the market gardeners, who are provided for in the schedule.