said that, unfortunately, the Navy Estimates would not be able to be taken on Friday next, as the Memorandum which had been promised would not be ready. The Home Office and Local Government Board Votes would therefore be taken on that day, and the Leader of the House would put down the Navy Estimates at the earliest possible date.

said that on the previous night the First Lord of the Treasury had stated that this Bill was of an urgent nature, but for the life of him he could not understand in what way its urgency was such as to justify its being put in front of the Agricultural Holdings Bill. It was a measure usually brought in towards the end of the session, and, indeed, usually ran along with the Appropriation Bill. The Government might have reasons of their own for wishing to press the Bill on, but certainly the reasons had nothing to do with the Bill itself. The present Bill differed from previous Bills in that it nominated the Public Works Loan Commissioners, who held office for five years. The list was practically the same as before; it containing only two changes, the new Commissioners being Horace Alfred Damer Seymour and Colonel Lock wood. Why should an English Member, Colonel Lock wood, be put in the place of a. Scotch representative, Lord Napier? He should also like to be informed what duties these Commissioners performed. How often did they meet? For all the House knew, they never met at all. As Parlia- ment was here asked to reappoint certain people for a further five years, some information should be given as to their attendances in the past. Another point upon which the House was entitled to information was as to the extent Parliament exercised any effective control over the giving out of these moneys. This was a most important Department, as it was necessary to see that the security was good when a loan was advanced, as otherwise large amounts of money had to be written off. This should be a real business Department, and the House wanted to know that these names wore not merely ornamental, but that the men were giving their attention to the work in a businesslike way. With regard to the sums to-be written off also this was a most important Bill. If such a Bill was brought forward and allowed to pass without discussion, what would be the result? The Department lending the money would find they had nothing more to do than to put a schedule to a Bill, and the Secretary to the Treasury would get it slipped through the House after midnight without discussion, with the result that the Commissioners would find it an extremely simple thing to write off debts that were a little troublesome to them. No explanation whatever was given why these amounts were to be written off; the House was simply asked to agree, and at five minutes to twelve an attempt was made to rush the Bill through. He would not take each of the items, but there was one in regard to which certainly some explanation should be given. Under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885, a man named Fitzgerald got a loan of £3,000 from the Irish Land Commission. The amount repaid was only £200 9s. 10d., and the House was now asked to remit £2,799 10s. 2d. That was a big order, especially without a single word of explanation. Other sums proportionately heavy were also to be written off. There was a man named Lambert who borrowed £500, repaid £182 0s. 10d., and the House was asked to write off £317 19s. 2d. Again no explanation was given, and the Commissioners were given the idea that they could put anything they liked in these schedules, that there would be no supervision, and that nobody would call them into question. Public money should not be allowed to be written off in that way. 'The Department should feel that there was a supervision exercised, and that the Government might be challenged with regard to any particular case. The total effect of Part 1 of the schedule was that loans had been granted to the extent of £2,1710s.7d., of which only £541 17s. 8d. had been repaid, and the House was asked to write off £1,512 17s. l0d. It was no wonder borrowers in Ireland did not pay the money. He would be perfectly astonished if it wore otherwise, when such lists could be seen year by year, showing that borrowers could get the whole or two-thirds and so on written off. There was one case in connection with the Fishery Board for Scotland. The sum advanced was £114; the amount repaid and realised by sale of the boat was £90 7s. fid.; all that was asked to be written off was £23 12s. 6d. Loans for fishing boats were always precarious, as a storm might arise and the boats be lost or the men drowned; but, notwithstanding that, there was only this one case of £23 12s. fid., and five men wore concerned in that. Therefore, so far1 as Scotland was concerned, there was nothing unreasonable in the loans; but what was to be thought of a case in which only £200 was repaid out of £3,000? It was not in the interest of the Treasury that this writing off of loans should be allowed to pass perfunctorily through the House, and he intended that it should not. He warned the Secretary to the Treasury that when the Bill got into Committee an explanation would be required of each individual item, and every one of the items should be thoroughly probed to the bottom, so the right hon. Gentleman could get his material ready. Owing to the circumstances under which the Bill was put forward on the previous evening the hon. Member for East Mayo had lost his right to speak on the Second Reading, and in order to restore to the hon. Member his right to speak he would move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

This, is not the first time I have directed attention to the form of this Bill, and the point to which I desire specially to direct attention is the practice of putting into the schedule long lists of arrears which are to be written off without any item of information being given as to the character of the arrears or as to the reasons for writing them off. There are many cases in which unanswerable reasons exist for writing off the amounts, but we do not know which are those cases. There is a new principle introduced in the second part of the schedule. The practice in previous Bills has been to put in a list of the items to be written off, but wherever those items were large in amount they were always loans to public authorities. Where there were arrears to be written off in the case of private individuals they wore always either of extremely long standing or small in amount. The first item in the schedule is that of Giles Eyre Lambert, who obtained £500, and is to have £317 19s. 2d. written off. The period of that loan is 1847, and one might naturally conclude the time had come when that should be written off as a bad debt. But you have here the case of a gentleman named Fitzgerald, who borrowed under the Purchase Act of 1885 the sum of £3,000. He could borrow under that Act for no other purpose than that of buying a large valuable holding which the inspectors of the Land Commission must have certified as being ample and good security for the loan. Now, at the end of fifteen years, we are asked to forgive this gentleman £2,799.

The. hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. We do not forgive the debt; we simply write it off as an asset of the Local Loans Fund; the debt is still recoverable.

That, indeed, is a new and extraordinary principle. What is the hurry for writing off Mr. Fitzgerald's debt? I really think after that answer we are entitled to some explanation. We want to know why a man who has borrowed so large a sum on presumable excellent security at so recent a date is to have this amount written off. This is an enormously important question, because millions have been lent on precisely this sort of security, and the process is going; on at the rate of about £2,000,000 a year. If this debt is recoverable and there is a prospect of getting it, why should it be written off? What has become of the holding? By the terms of the Act of 1885 the holding must have been worth much more than the amount advanced. The principle of the Act is that there must be a margin, and £3,000, according to the principle of the Act, ought not to have been lent on a holding worth less than about £5,000 to the tenant. We are therefore entitled to assume that the loan is secure, and we want a full explanation of this matter.

The question raised is a most important one, and the case referred to by the hon. Member for East Mayo is one of the most extraordinary I have ever seen. First of all, there is a sum of £3,000 advanced, there is only £200 repaid, and we are asked to write off the remainder. Surely we are entitled to have some explanation of such a transaction. If we assume that not more than two-thirds of the value of the security would be advanced, that means that the holding would be worth about £4,000. It is now discovered that owing to overvaluation or some other reason that £3,000 is represented by no asset at all and although the amount may be recoverable as a personal debt, the Treasury have come to the conclusion that it is no good, and it is to be practically, though not nominally, wiped out in this way. There ought to be some explanation. We should not be called upon year by year to get up and say, "Can you explain the ease of James Collins or Michael O'Brien?" The House of Commons does not lend itself to that sort of thing. There ought to be a report sent to the House of Commons every year before the Bill is read a second time, each individual trans action being explained, and if any explanation was not satisfactory we could bring it up when the Bill was considered. The possibility is that these things will go on increasing, and there is a great deal in the point as to the change in the character of the debt we are asked to wipe off. Up to the present we have been asked to wipe off debts for public works, by which we may assume some good has been done, even though the locality may not be rich enough to repay the sum advanced by the Treasury. But here we are asked to wipe out debts incurred in the interests of private individuals in different parts of the kingdom. That, I think, makes it all the more necessary that a report should be made in regard to this matter. There is one local point to which I desire to call attention. I find amongst the Commissioners every part of the United Kingdom represented except Wales. I think the right hon. Gentleman might consent to Wales also being represented on this Hoard. When the matter was brought forward on a previous occasion the objection was that the number of Commissioners was limited. But this is an Act of Parliament, it is not merely an administrative Act, and if the right hon. Gentleman consents he can easily increase the number of Commissioners by one. There is not one of the present Commissioners to whom I object, but certainly there should be one representative of the Principality, one very good reason being that there is not a part of the country which receives less from the Local Loans Fund than the Principality of Wales; and I am sure there is no part of the country which deserves more from the fund. A great deal could be done to restore the fishing industry in that part of the country, and that is a very important industry from an Imperial point of view. The Navy used to draw some of its best men from that part of the country in the past, but it does nothing of the kind at present. The industry is dying out, and we have constantly asked the Treasury to assist us by loan or by grant to develop the fishing industry, but without success. Wales ought to have one representative at least to see that fair play is done to that part of the coast, and I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will not consent to increase the number by one, and that one to be a Welsh. Member—it does not matter from which side of the House he comes.

The hon. Member for Carnarvon has made two suggestions, and I quite agree with what he said in regard to each of them. He first suggested that the House should have more information with regard to the debts that are written off, and an explanation of the reasons for taking that course. That is a very reasonable suggestion, and I will undertake that in future there shall be laid before the House, if possible before the Bill is brought on for Second Reading, a complete statement showing our position with regard to the various items. The hon. Member also asked me with reference to the appointment of a distinctly Welsh Commissioner. Although the number of Commissioners is not actually limited, as a matter of fact it has always been exactly the same, about sixteen, I think. I am told there would be some objection to increasing that number; but I have boon in communication with the Commissioners, who are to a great extent in sympathy with the suggestion of the hon. Member, and I have every reason to believe that should a vacancy occur they would be very glad to consider the suggestion he has made—that a Commissioner representing Wales should be placed upon the list. As the hon. Member knows, the names come before Parliament only once every five years, but any vacancies which occur during that period are filled by the Commissioners themselves. Therefore, their agreement that a Welsh member might very well be appointed is one which they will probably have an opportunity of carrying into effect. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark is, I think, a little unreasonable. He complains, first, that we brought on the Bill at live minutes to twelve at night: and then he complains that we set it down as first Order for to-day. It is, therefore, a little difficult to see what would satisfy him, but I will do my best to facilitate matters by giving an answer to the points he has raised. He asks, in the first place, where is the urgency for this Bill. The hon. Member takes a considerable interest in the needs of various localities, and he must know that we are constantly receiving applications from local authorities for loans; but as the powers of last year are exhausted, those loans cannot be granted until this Bill is passed, it is, therefore, in the interest not so much of the Treasury as of the local authorities that we are pressing this Hill. The hon. Gentleman then raised several points which are really Committee points rather than matters to be discussed on the Second Reading, and as he has promised to call my attention to a great many of these points in Committee, perhaps I ought to give him the opportunity to raise them twice over. There is, however, one important case, but it is not one of remiss: on. There seems to be an idea on the part of the hon. Member for East Mayo, and even on the part of such a financier as the hon. Gentleman opposite, that we are actually wiping off' these debts. We are doing nothing of the kind; we are simply writing them off as assets of the Local Loans Fund. That does not by any means mean that they are not recoverable, or that we shall not do our best to recover them. As matter of fact, within the last ten years a large number of these loans which have been written off as assets of the Local Loans Fund have been recovered and paid into the Exchequer.

To what amount?

I think between.£12,000 and £15,000 during the last ten years.

And how much was remitted during that period?

I really cannot carry all these figures in my head. I ought to mention the particular case of Fitzgerald, which has been referred to. It is. not a recent loan at all; it was considerably before 1889 when he fell into arrear with his annual payments. What has happened is this. We could find no purchaser of the land for several years, and now it has been leased by the Land Commission for a period of twenty years at £58 a year, which, I am told, is the full letting value of the land. That being so, is it fair to the Local Loans Fund, or the local authorities who desire to borrow from that fund, that that money should be lying idle? It is, therefore, being wiped off the assets of the fund; but we have the security, and meanwhile are getting the rent. Directly the farm can be sold, the whole of the proceeds will be paid into the Exchequer. This is distinctly a case where we have every prospect of recovering, at any rate, a large portion of the loan. The only other point raised by the hon. Member was the complaint that there wore more Irish than Scotch loans remitted. I should have thought that was rather complimentary than otherwise to his country, but be seemed bitterly to complain that Scotchmen did not borrow money and then find themselves unable to repay it. I really cannot enter into the frame of mind of the hon. Member. I think Scot- land is to be congratulated on the fact that it does pay up its debts.

Make Ireland pay up also.

We do our best to make Ireland pay up. If the hon. Member wishes us to be even more hard than we are upon Irish borrowers, I must confess I do not take so hard a view of the case as he does. But when he supposes we are remitting these loans, we are doing nothing of the sort; and with regard to a large number, we are recovering certain amounts of the sums so written off.

While I very much appreciate the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman has replied to the hon. Member for Carnarvon, I must say that no argument has been advanced why the number of Commissioners should be confined to sixteen. We are not very anxious to wait for dead men's shoes; moreover, we want a representative appointed by the House of Commons, and there is no reason whatever why Wales should not have one representative on the Board.

I feel under an obligation to hon. Members for directing attention to this Bill. I have watched these Public Works Loans Bills and Bills of a kindred character, and I have discovered that year after year there are debts written off without any explanation whatever or cause shown. I have long thought it a very unsatisfactory condition of affairs, and I rejoice to hear the statement just made by my right hon. friend that that system should come to an end. I certainly think it would be in the public interest that debts should not be written off so long as they may fairly be regarded as recoverable. The wiping off of a debt of this kind shows a certain Amount of carelessness in the advance, and that carelessness ought to be, I will not say rebuked, but carefully watched by the House of Commons. I am sure that although we have important business before us the time has not been wasted in this short discussion of a question which, in principle if not in figures, is one of very great importance.

It is very essential that when accounts are written off in this way some explanation should be given. In municipal life every precaution is taken before accounts are written off, and the same should be done with regard to a Government Department. It was, therefore, an extraordinary piece of policy on the part of the Government to move this Bill at five minutes to twelve last night when such large amounts of money are involved. I quite agree that it is very unfair that Wales should be excluded from having a Commissioner, because when loans are applied for by a local authority the local knowledge of any particular Commissioner must always carry great weight with the other Commissioners. Wales is therefore entitled to have a representative, and I hope that in Committee the hon. Member for Canarvon will move the addition of a gentleman from Wales. The point I wish particularly to raise is, that the Secretary to the Treasury has not fully explained the mode of writing off these accounts. The right hon. Gentleman said there was a probability of the amounts being recovered hereafter. This Bill, like all other Bills of the Government, requires reference to two or three other Acts of Parliament before it can be understood, and Section 3 of the Bill refers to Section 15 of the principal Act of 1887. There I find that the mode of preventing loss to the Exchequer is a most extraordinary one, and one which is very unfair upon those local authorities and private individuals who do pay their debts to the Exchequer. In Section 11 it states that there was a sum estimated at £12,000,000, or thereabouts, which had been lost to the Exchequer through the non payment by local authorities and individuals of the principal of local loans. How are these losses met? They are met by a restitution fund. Under Sub-section 1 of Section 11 of the Act of 1887 the Local Loans Fund has to set aside every year £130,000 in quarterly instalments, to be paid to the credit of the National Debt Commissioners, to prevent the National Debt Commissioners suffering any loss by the non-repayment of these loans. This is very unfair to the local authorities who do pay their debts, because if the Local Loans Fund can afford to set aside £130,000 a year, these sums ought to be enforced and the amount go towards the reduction of the interest charged to the local authorities. I referred last night to the case which has been brought up to-day. I should like to know whether in the Report we are to have we shall be told how much this man Fitzgerald received more than he ought to have received on this farm. That is really the point.

Four times its value.

The hon. Member for East Mayo says he had four times its value. If that is the case, I ask how is it possible for these tenant farmers who become the owners of their land under the Purchase Act to pay the interest and principal on that same land? In the schedule of loans by the Com- missioners of Public Works, Ireland, there is a total amount advanced of £2,171, of which only £541 has been repaid, so that there is a loss, for the time being, to the Exchequer or the Local Loans Fund of £1,512. I think we are entitled to receive from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some information as to the state of this restitution fund, and whether the amount is equal to meeting the losses which the National Debt Commissioners are bound to suffer under this system. In any ease, we were justified in opposing this Bill last night and to-day, and if the hon. Member goes to a division I shall go into the Lobby with him as a protest against the action of the Government in bringing this matter forward in the manner they have.

In his incomplete explanation of the Bill, the Secretary to the Treasury has spoilt his own arguments altogether. The right hon. Gentleman said the Treasury were now receiving from the estate to which reference has been made a vent of a little under £60 a year. If, however, £00 a year is the full value of the farm, how in the name of reason came a loan of £3,000 to be advanced upon it? That is about fifty years purchase; so that, on the face of it, either the right hon. Gentleman's explanation is incomplete, or it is proved that very great rashness was shown in advancing the money. I hope some further explanation will be given on this point, because if that is the way in which these loans are made it is very clear there will have to be a great many of these cases in the future in which amounts will have to be written off. I strongly support the contention that Wales should have a representative on the Commission. The right hon. Gentleman has given a sort of promise with regard to the matter, but it would be much more satisfactory to the Welsh Members if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to add the name of a Welsh Commissioner at once instead of waiting until such time as a vacancy occurs.

I rise to support the appeal made by the hon. Member for Carnarvon. At the present moment it is most desirable that some special attention should be paid to the claims of Wales, and that there should be on the Commission some gentleman who thoroughly understands the needs of the Principality. Quite recently the county of Monmouth has been called upon to find its own lunatic asylum, and the counties linked with it in the past—Brecon and Radnor—have had to provide similar institutions for themselves. They have made application to the Public Works Loans Board for a grant of money for this purpose, and, although it has been allowed in the case of Brecon, it has been refused in the case of Radnorshire. I hope the decision is not a final one, because I think that when two counties similarly situated make such an application they should be treated as nearly equally as possible, and equitably as well. I am not going to make any complaint as to the rate of interest claimed by the Public Works Loans Board, because I am perfectly well aware that that rate has recently been raised, but I do ask that the claims of Radnorshire should be considered by that Board and by the Treasury; and I may add that there is a feeling that, hitherto, they have not been acceded to simply because Wales has no direct representative on the Board.

I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will speak on this matter, and will promise that the very reasonable demands put forward by some of my colleagues from Wales shall be conceded. The hon. Member who has just spoken has pointed out that certain Welsh demands had been refused. Perhaps the refusal has been just; but I think Wales can scarcely be expected to consider that its claims are fairly listened to when it is realised that of the sixteen Commissioners not one has any connection with the Principality. I understand that the only reason given by the Secretary to the Treasury for not appointing a Welsh Commissioner is that the body of Commissioners has always consisted of sixteen members. But sixteen is not a mystic number; it is no better than any other number; and I do not think that it is fair that the Government should put us in the position of having on another stage of this Bill to object in turn to each of the gentlemen nominated. We have no wish to prolong this debate, and we are perfectly ready to let the Bill go through at once if the right hon. Gentleman will give us a pledge that he will either get one of the gentlemen nominated to withdraw in the interests of someone from Wales, or that he will add another member to the Board. Considering the fact that the Commissioners have at their disposal a sum of six millions sterling from England and Scotland, and of eight hundred thousand pounds from Ireland, I do think the right hon. Gentleman might make the concession for which we are asking.

The House must remember that these Commissioners are unpaid, and I think that both the House and the country are deeply indebted to them for the important work they perform. I entirely agree with what has fallen from the Members for Wales that there ought to be among the Commissioners one who is acquainted with that part of the United Kingdom, and I will see them on the subject before the Bill reaches the Committee stage, with a view to their appointing someone. The hon. Member for Stockton is entirely mistaken with regard to the restitution fund. The hon. Member objected to that fund on the ground that it is unfair to make existing and new borrowers pay old debts. In 1897 the same view occurred to me, and at my instance Parliament abolished the restitution fund altogether, making provision for the application of the surplus income of the Local Loans Fund so as to provide against default. Every year the accounts of the Local Loans Fund are presented to Parliament, and I think they show that the result has been by no means unsatisfactory.

said he thought the House was entitled to much more information than was given in the schedule of this Bill. It was a remark able fact that absolutely no information was forthcoming with regard to Irish loans beyond the mere name of the borrower. In the case of Scotch loans they were told the district in which the loan was granted, and he ventured to assert that they ought to have in all cases full information as to the circumstances under which the money was advanced Now, with regard to the case of Mr. Fitzgerald—

Order, order! I would remind the hon. Member that these minute details are more profitably discussed in Committee, and not on the motion for the Second Reading.

said his object in mentioning them was to enable the Minister in charge of the Bill to obtain the necessary information by the time the Committee stage was reached. He thought he was entitled to ask why a sum of £3,000 was advanced upon a farm the annual rent of which was £58.

I will undertake that full information shall be laid before the House before the Committee stage is reached.

said that, so far as he could sec, this particular transaction must result in a loss of at least £2,000. The tenant got no advantage whatever from the money advanced. The landlord had pocketed it, and yet the tenant was liable to have proceedings taken against him and to be made a bankrupt. He hoped that in future, in regard to Irish loans at any rate, they would be informed not only of the amount of the loan but of the name of the borrower, and of the district in which he lived. Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman had promised to give that, he thought the best thing they could do was to conclude the discussion.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

said he had to move the omission of the words requiring that the arbitration should, in the first place, be in accordance with any agreement between landlord and tenant, and in default of and subject to any such agreement in accordance with the provisions of the Act. He said that the effect of striking out these words would be that they would revert to the provisions of the existing Act as to procedure. The present Bill adopted the phraseology of Section 8 of the Act of 1883, in so far as the landlord and tenant wore enabled to agree as to the amount, time, and mode of payment of compensation for any improvement. But it went on to add that if they did not so agree the difference should be settled by arbitration in accordance with provisions, if any, in that behalf in any agreement between landlord and tenant: but in default of, and subject to, any such provision, by arbitration under this Act, in accordance with the provisions set out in the second schedule of the Act. It would therefore be seen that another stage was introduced into these proceedings in this clause, in the form in which it now stood, and the tenant would be shut out from the arbitration procedure set forth in the schedule of the Bill. He did not himself think that there was anything in the wording of the Act to prevent a wholly unreasonable method of settling the differences between the two parties being set up by such an agreement as was indicated; neither could he trace any check to prevent the parties agreeing to appoint an arbitrator years beforehand to settle all questions which might arise between them. He had put down this Amendment in order that the House might know exactly what it was doing in passing this particular piece of legislation. It was most important it should be fully realised that, while the chief merit of the Bill was that it un doubtedly simplified the procedure for settling differences between the two parties by means of a single arbitrator, and thereby affording a clearer, cheaper, and shorter process, and one less calculated to lead to friction between the parties, vet having set up this admirable machinery, it was by these words proposed to place in the hands of the landlords and their agents an almost irresistible weapon which they could use if they wished, and if they were so arbitrarily inclined, to deprive the tenants of all the advantages they might derive from adopting the procedure laid down in this Act. He wished to remove one misconception which arose in a short discussion at the Council of the Central Chamber of Agriculture on the previous clay on this question. He wished to make it plain that he did not in the least propose to interfere, nor would there be any interference if his Amendment were carried, with the reasonable power of contracting out as regarded settlements of claims for compensation for improvements, as already provided in the existing Act. That Act provided for a perfectly reasonable and most desirable exercise of freedom of contract between the parties in cases where a tenant was taking an improving lease of land. If his Amendment were carried the parties in such a case would still retain absolute freedom to agree on matters of that kind, provided, of course, that the agreement was reasonable and fair. What be objected to, however, was the power they were creating under this Bill of giving the landlord or his agent the right to set up their own particular form of arbitration, and to appoint their own particular arbitrator, and to say to the tenant, "You must accept your lease or agreement subject to our conditions." He ventured to say that it would cause profound disappointment to many farmers in this country if a provision of this kind were allowed to remain in the Bill. The whole object of this legislation was to supersede and clear away what was inoperative and unsatisfactory in the old Act. That Act had proved a source of friction and difficulty between the parties. This Bill, he repeated, had for its chief merit that it set up a cheaper, simpler, and clearer machinery, and a serious responsibility would lie upon the Government if it placed in the hands of the landlords power to contract themselves out from the use of that machinery He thoroughly recognised the desirability of retaining Clause 5 of the old Act, which enabled the landlord and tenant to agree, either at the beginning or during the course of the tenancy, on the amount, time, and mode of payment of compensation for any improvement that might be claimed for. But he also made a strong claim for the maintenance of the most absolute freedom on the part of the tenant, where a dispute had arisen, to have recourse, at the close of his tenancy, if he saw fit, to the machinery which this Bill provided, and he submitted that the tenant ought not to be shut out from it by an agreement which might have been entered into years before, under circumstances and conditions in which he could not possibly contemplate the position he found himself placed in at the end of the tenancy. It seemed to him that this was the most undesirable course to adopt with regard to both new and old tenants. What would happen if the words were left in, in the case of tenants who had invested a large amount of capital in carrying out improvements upon their holdings, on the security of a tenancy from year to year? They had, of course, a large stake in the land, and if they wished to retain their holdings they would, in many cases, be placed in the position of having to choose between signing an agreement of this kind and surrendering their farms. He had heard that already agreements were being entered into which excluded tenants from the benefits of this Bill. He ventured to say that a tenant in such a position would have a very inadequate power to resist the imposition upon him of a course of procedure which might be very prejudicial to his interests. It might very probably be objected to this Amendment that by Section 55 of the Act of 1883 it was provided that the rights of the tenant should not he contracted out. But he would draw attention to the fact that that section only protected the rights of the tenant as regarded the claiming of compensation in respect of any improvement, and it did not protect in any way the right of the tenant to take advantage of the procedure under the Act. He was well aware it might be contended that they were now trying to amalgamate and bring together all claims that might arise under agreements and custom under the provisions of the Act. That was eminently desirable, and those who had followed cases in the courts of law know perfectly well that great hardship and injustice had been caused by inability to enforce claims by reason of the undue limitation of the law. It was claimed for this Bill that it would enable the tenant to exercise his own choice with regard to procedure as to whether he would claim under custom or under the provisions of the Act or under a special agreement. But that was no answer to the argument he had laid before the House. It might be said that the power of contracting out might be limited to a certain extent by the inclusion of claims set up under custom or special agreement. But that did not remove the main objection which he had to this sub-section, which placed it in the power of landlords to set up another procedure for settling the claims of their tenants, and for determining in their own favour. He thought that would be most prejudicial to the working of the Act, and would cause grievous disappointment among the farmers of this country. Under these circumstances he begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right in assuming that the words as they stand in the Bill do give priority to any arrangement entered into between landlord and tenant with regard to the way in which these matters should be settled, and that, I take it, is the simple issue between the hon. Member and those who think with him and the Government. We have shown by this Bill that we believe in the arbitration system, but we also hold most strongly that the parties should be free, if they so desire, to make any arrangement they please for the settlement of any difficulty that may arise. There is only one possible alternative to that coarse. If it is not to be adopted we must make the procedure of arbitration compulsory in all cases. The hon. Gentleman tells the House that there are cases where landlords are trying to contract out of the Act in a way which is extremely injurious to the tenant. I do not deny that there may be cases of hardship here and there. But I think that even in this matter, as in others, the percentage of such cases in regard to contracts affecting agricultural tenancies will be found to be much smaller than in contracts affecting other industries. Does the hon. Gentleman seriously ask the House of Commons to compel the vast majority of owners and occupiers, who are anxious and willing to make their own arrangements, to come under the Bill, simply because in a limited number of cases injustice has been done, or may be done in the future. I resist the Amendment because I think it would be unwise thus to trammel both landlord and tenant, and I resist it also in the interests of the tenants themselves, because I believe that they value quite as highly as the owner of the land, and as hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, the right and privilege of making their own arrangements. I do not believe that they are so incapable of making arrangements as the hon. Member seems to suggest.

Under Sub-section 5 they retain that power.

No; that is another matter altogether. If the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is carried it will make arbitration compulsory whenever any difficulty arises. What this Bill does in the words which the hon. Gentleman wishes to strike out is to leave it to the owner and occupier to settle any difficulty that may arise by that form of arbitration which they themselves select. We are told that a tenant farmer may enter into some agreement for a form of arbitration which would be unjust. I confess I have my doubts as to the existence of any very large number of those cases. But if they do exist I believe we may remedy them not by passing a compulsory enactment of this kind, but by teaching farmers to study their own interests when entering upon a holding, and to see for themselves that they do so under conditions which afford them a reasonable prospect of success. We must teach them not to rely too much upon Acts of Parliament. The less we interfere with the relations between landlord and tenant the better it is for both parties, and that being my belief I ask the House to reject the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.

said he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman, by the speech he had just delivered, had shown any great confidence in the efficacy of the remedies he pro- posed in the Bill. The clause as it stood was a direction to the landlords that they should devise a separate scheme of arbitration rather than have recourse to the system of arbitration provided by the Bill. Now, that was evidence of very little confidence in the merits of that arbitration system. If there was any merit in this Bill at all, it was supposed to be in the process of arbitration set up in the second schedule, and yet it was proposed that any private agreement should have priority over that system. Surely it was only right they should secure to the tenants the benefits of the procedure set up by the Bill. With regard to the suggestion that the tenants should be careful in entering into agreements of this sort, surely the right hon. Gentleman know it was a common practice to have estate rules on all large estates. In those rules an average system of arbitration was provided for, which limited the rights of the tenants, and undoubtedly care would be taken in the future to prevent tenants enjoying the benefits intended to be conferred by this Bill. He had already heard of several estates in which new rules had been introduced more or less limiting the statutory rights of the tenant, and they might depend upon it that that system of limitation would be continued unless the words with which the Amendment of his hon. friend dealt were struck out of the clause.

said he was very glad that his right hon. friend had so stoutly resisted the Amendment. The hon. Member for East Northamptonshire had been trying to frighten the agricultural interest by suggesting that unfair agreements would be imposed on the tenants by the landlords. But that was a bogey of the hon. Gentleman's own imagination, for the interests of both landlord and tenant were completely adverse to any such proceeding. This Bill was undoubtedly a step in advance. It provided that in default of any agreement between the parties interested a certain form of arbitration procedure should be adopted. Under the old Act of 1883 such a provision did not exist, and therefore this Bill was clearly an extension of the principle of arbitration. He thought the right hon. Gentleman very correctly stated the position when he suggested that they should encourage the tenants themselves to sec that they did not enter into agreements which wove calculated to preclude them from making a fair living. He thought the right hon. Gentleman acted wisely in opposing the Amendment.

said he did not think the last speaker was quite correct in saying that the danger apprehended by the Member for East Northamptonshire was a more bogey of his own imagination, because the President of the Board of Agriculture had himself admitted that there might be cases of hardship under the provisions of this particular Bill.

Yes; I said there might be.

said that statement of the right hon. Gentleman was a complete answer to the assertion of the hon. Member for Holderness. Our system of legislation was to legislate not for the good, but for the bad; and he thought they ought to take care to provide a remedy as far as possible for all cases of possible grievances. Personally he was not very much afraid of private arrangements, and he would bitterly regret anything calculated to prevent amicable arrangements being come to between landlord and tenant, as they were constantly in all parts of the country. All his hon. friend desired was to maintain the status quo which would carry out exactly the principle approved of by the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that landlord and tenant should have power to agree between themselves as to the amount, time, and mode of payment of compensation, and that if they could not agree their differences should be settled by arbitration. He agreed with his hon. friend, and would support him in a division.

I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman has, to some extent, unconsciously, no doubt, magnified the scope of my hon. friend's Amendment, and may accordingly have misled some hon. Members as to its exact application. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to he under the impression that if this Amendment were adopted it would put an end altogether to private agreements between landlords and tenants. Of course it would have no such effect. Landlords and tenants would be quite as much at liberty to make their own private agreements if this Amendment were carried, as they would be if the clause stands as it is. The whole effect of the Amendment would be that where the landlord and tenant failed to come to an absolute agreement as to the amount, mode, and time of payment, recourse should be had to the machinery of arbitration proposed to be set up. Such cases would be comparatively rare, and, therefore, the scope of my hon. friend's Amendment is very limited indeed, because the words in the clause are conjunctive, not disjunctive, and it is only where the parties are unable to agree that recourse would be had to arbitration. On the face of it the clause proposes a fair arrangement. It is seemingly fair to say that the landlord and tenant may agree if they like as to the amount, mode, and time of payment, and that in that event the arbitrator is bound by the provisions of that agreement. That seems more or less fair, but when it is taken into consideration that in many cases the landlord is in a superior position, and can dictate to the tenant, the effect of the clause will be that the landlord will be given power, if he chooses, to contract himself out of the provisions of the Act which we are taking such pains to pass in a perfect condition, and which we all hope will do some good to the agriculturists of the country, it is not stated in any clause of the Bill that the landlord or the tenant may contract himself out, but the landlord is empowered to make any private agreement he chooses, and in that event the machinery of the Act shall be of no effect, and the arbitrator must have regard simply and solely to the terms of that private agreement.

Oh, no! It is provided that the compensation to be given by the landlord to the tenant must reach the standard laid down in the Act as amended by this Bill.

.: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation; but in point of fact it comes to this: that, as far as arbitration is concerned, the landlord and tenant can, if they choose, practically contract themselves out of the Act; and the result will be, as the right hon. Gentleman very fairly says -although he will not admit that there will be cases of injustice-that there may be cases in which in justice may ensue.

Hear, hear!

Is it beyond any reasonable doubt that such cases will occur? The land legislation which this House has passed has been based entirely on the inability of tenants and landlords to make what would be regarded by men of common sense as fair agreements, because the position of the tenants has been such, not only in England but in the north

The point raised by the Amendment standing in my name is very simple and specific, and one to which "the tenant farmers have, in their various gatherings, attached exceptional importance. It is that the time over which a landlord shall be entitled to set up a counterclaim for acts of waste or breaches of covenant committed by the tenant, which is now restricted by the existing Act to four years, should be restricted to two years before the determination of the tenancy. I wish to lay concisely before the House the grounds upon which I move this Amendment. It has been felt in the Chambers of Agriculture, and in the reports of their committees, which have been laid by deputation and otherwise before the right hon. Gentleman, that it is desirable, in the interest of both parties, that there should be a time limit to these counterclaims for waste or breaches of covenant. I will at once say that if the right hon. Gentleman objects to the insertion of this Amendment at this particular point, it is quite immaterial to me at what point in the Bill it is inserted. I especially base the case for my Amendment upon the Report signed by the majority of the Royal Commission on Agriculture, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. At the close of the chapter of the Report dealing with proposed amendments, there is a summary of recommendations, and the sixteenth of these recommendations is—

"We recommend that the period in respect of which the landlord may consider claim for acts of waste or breaches of covenant under Section 6 of the Act, should be limited in all tenancies from year to year, to a period of two years."

Objection may be taken to the form of my Amendment, by saying that the recommendation of the Royal Commission only concerns tenancies from year to year. The majority of tenancies in England are from year to year, but this would not have application to Scotch tenancies. That is a matter which the right hon. Gentleman may perfectly easily deal with in some other portion of the Bill, by some form of limitation of this provision. What I insist on is that, after having considered the evidence of a great number of witnesses, the Royal Commission did arrive at the conclusion that in respect of all tenancies from year to year, the landlord's counterclaim should be limited to two years. Now the argument for this is very simple. In estate management it would be far better that acts of waste should be checked at the earliest possible moment. It would also simplify procedure in arbitrations under the Act. If the Bill is left in its present form the landlord or his agent may ransack the distant past to set up a counterclaim for various dilapidations, which the landlord or his agent might have long since checked. The Amendment has the unanimous support of the Chambers of Agriculture, and the hon. Member for North Hampshire supported it upstairs. So far as I understand, the arguments against it are only two: first, that it was desirable to increase rather than diminish the inducements to landlords to come under the Bill; and, second, that the Statute of Limitations would operate to check these counterclaims if they were carried beyond the limits that would make them outrageous I concede that the Statute of Limitations would check counterclaims going beyond six years, but it would not be fair to the tenant to allow the landlord to spring upon him a counterclaim for transactions going back six years, which ought to have been checked long before.

The hon. Gentleman says that the Royal Commission recommended that in the case of tenants from year to year the limitation placed on the landlord's power to recover for acts of waste and breaches of covenant should be two years; but the Royal Commission had not, in making the recommendation, got before them, as the Government have since had, a general reform and amendment of the law in order to make the position of tenants more satisfactory. This proposal is one which conflicts at once with the amendment of the law which we ask the House to adopt. The hon. Gentleman said that the landlord might ransack the records of a farm for an unlimited period in order to set up a counterclaim for waste and broaches of covenants, but the Statute of Limitations would limit the landlord's power to do so to a period of only six years.

Twenty years in the case of leases.

That does not interfere with my argument. The landlord is restricted in the recovery of his rights by the Statute of Limitations, and consequently what you do under this Bill, unless you take away from him the statutory right he now enjoys, would merely affect the manner in which he obtains redress. If the hon. Gentleman's Amendment were accepted the result would be that the landlord would claim under the Act for waste for a period of two years, but would still retain his right to claim for the further period of four years at common law. That would involve a dual procedure. The object of the Government in providing this machinery, and also in giving the landlord, for the first time, the power of bringing all his claims into a single arbitration, is, that all the differences between landlord and tenant may be embraced in one settlement. We believe it to be to the advantage of both landlord and tenant to have a complete statement of the case on each side. Hitherto there has been necessarily no knowledge on the part of the tenant, in a settlement under the Agricultural Tenants' Compensation Act, of the claims that the landlord might in tend, to make at common law. If the procedure provided in the Bill be availed of by the landlord, he will be able to make a full claim before the arbitrator, and the tenant and arbitrator will know what that full claim amounts to If the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman were to be adopted, this procedure would be materially interfered with, because the landlord would only claim under the Act for two years, while he would have an action at common law for four years more or longer. I ask the House not to adopt the Amendment, not because I do not share the opinion of the Royal Commission, but because, generally speaking, the landlord should exercise his lights as against his tenants during the tenancy, and not allow them to accumulate until the end of it. In the interests of good husbandry, and in those of the tenant and landlord, it is desirable that the landlord or his agent should know what is being done by the tenant, and if he believes that there is waste going on, or breaches of covenants taking place, he should step in and stop them, or let the tenant know that he means to recover in respect of them.

I think my hon. friend would be well advised to with- draw this Amendment or to re-draft it; because, although there is a good dead in the argument he used as applied to tenancies from year to year, it is quite clear that harm would be done in the case of other tenancies. It is quite true that the Royal Commission did advise the limitation of the landlords claim in respect of waste to two years where the tenancy was from year to year, and the reason was obvious. Because in tenancies of that description it was always within the landlord's power to put an end to the tenancy at the termination of the year, and if he allows the waste to go on from year to year he has only himself to blame for the result. But the scope of the Amendment is not limited to tenancies from year to year. There are many other tenancies affected by the Bill—for instance, those in Scotland, which are generally for a period of nineteen years—and in tenancies of that description it is perfectly obvious that the landlord would have no power over the tenant, although he might be wasting the land for many years. Unless my hon. friend limits the application of his Amendment strictly to tenancies from year to year, I shall feel compelled to go into the Lobby against it.

said that under this Amendment the notices might be sent in a halfpenny wrapper, and they all knew that documents in such wrappers often went wrong or were lost.

said that he had an Amendment on the Paper to the effect that the landlord should, before the determination of the tenancy, send in writing to the tenant a claim in respect of any waste or breach of covenant, pro-vided that the landlord should have the power, within twenty-eight days after the determination of the tenancy, to amend his claim in respect to dilapidations to buildings occurring after the claim had been delivered. His object was that each should claim exactly what he believed due to him, and to do away with counterclaims in consequence of first claims. He had tried to pass the Amendment upstairs, but the Committee were against him. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had proposed this Amendment, that the claims should be put in not later than seven days after the appointment of the arbitrator. That was a very important concession, and he thought that under the circumstances it was very fair to both parties, and it had been accepted at a meeting of the Chamber of Agriculture the day before.

was obliged to differ from the hon. Member for North Hampshire. The view of the farmers in the East Hiding was that the old plan was better—that the tenant should make his claim, and that afterwards the landlord should make his so-called counterclaim. He had moved an Amendment in that direction upstairs, but the Committee took an unfavourable view of it. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was a sort of compromise between the extreme view held by the hon. Member for North Hampshire and that held by himself, and he supposed that, although he believed it would have been better had the old plan been adhered to, he must accept what he could get.

did not think the Amendment would amount to very much in practice, because the first subsection of the clause premised that the landlord and the tenant would first of all meet and endeavour to come to some agreement as to compensation. He believed that valuers would be present and take part in these deliberations, and that it would be only after they failed to come to an agreement that the arbitrator would be appointed. The Amendment, however, seemed to encourage them to go on with arbitration instead of by preliminary agreement.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is mistaken in his view. There is no prohibition of a friendly discussion between the landlord or his agent and the tenant to settle their differences, as in- deed they do in a great majority of cases. But where that is not done, and differences of opinion arise as to the particular value of particular improvements, or otherwise, then the arbitrator is called in to decide. The effect of this Amendment is to compel the landlord to bring in his claim within seven days after the appointment of the arbitrator, and it would simply prevent delay.

said that this Amendment would effect one very serious alteration of the law. The right hon. Gentleman might not be aware of a decision of the Courts four or five years ago, under the principal Act, to the effect that the landlord might have a set-off against the tenant, but could not recover a sum that would overtop the claim of the tenant. It was perfectly clear that under this Amendment the landlord could recover the whole of his counterclaim.

That is undoubtedly the whole scheme of the Bill. Our object is to abolish the present law by which the landlord can put in a claim as a set-off under the principal Act, but he likewise enjoys his power at common law to claim and recover in many other matters. What we seek here is to induce the landlord to bring all his claims into one procedure, and not to have a dual arbitration—one under the Act, and the other at common law.

, in moving the next Amendment standing in his name, said he was very anxious, in consequence of very strong representations which he had received from the country, that the right hon. Gentleman should state exactly what the course of the procedure would be in reference to arbitration. The sub-section, as it now stood, he thought, was fantastic. It said, "An arbitration shall, unless the parties otherwise agree, be by a single arbitrator." That was to say, either party might force the other to have a single arbitrator. The law hitherto, except in the Scotch Act of 1889, was that if either party objected to a single arbitrator t here would be two arbitrators together with an umpire. This was provided for both in the principal Act, and in the Arbitration Act of 1889.

If my hon. and gallant friend will excuse me, the section in the Arbitration Act makes provision for various cases. First, if the parties do not agree to a single arbitrator they apply to the court to appoint one; and then there is the other case where two arbitrators are appointed with an umpire.

said he was obliged to the Attorney General for his correction. He thought that it would be much more simple and English to go back to the Act of 1889, and say that a single arbitrator might be appointed, but if the parties did not concur, then the two arbitrators with an umpire should be appointed. He did not think that the question of expense would come in, because he could not conceive of any case in which each of the parties was not assisted from the first by a valuer. He was strongly in favour of a single arbitrator where both parties concurred, but he thought it would be very hard, if one of them wished to have two arbitrators and an umpire, that the Act should prevent it. He begged to move his Amendment.

I am afraid my hon. and gallant friend has got confused as to the operation of the Act. The Arbitration Act of 1889 adopts the principle of a single arbitrator, and the section to which the attention of the House has been called merely provides the necessary machinery for the appointment of an arbitrator or the appointment of two arbitrators and an umpire in the event of their being required. What my hon. friend suggests is that the proposal of the Bill that where the arbitration procedure is adopted the presumption shall be in favour of a single arbitrator. The parties, as I have previously pointed out, have full power to act according to agreement, and if they desire to have two arbitrators they duplicate the procedure; but the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners is that there should be one arbitrator. My hon. friend appears to be confused in his mind as to the duties of an arbitrator. If either party chooses to be advised by a skilled adviser they are entitled to employ him either before or after the arbitrator is appointed. The system my hon. friend advocates has long ago been dealt with, because it really amounts to this, that under the system of two valuers and an umpire they appoint an equitable judge who occupies the position of a single arbitrator. But those who do not require skilled advice can go before a single arbitrator and state their case and rely upon his position to secure fair treatment. There is, therefore, absolute freedom for the parties either to proceed on their own powers or the powers of their skilled advisers. All we say is that the court to which these cases come should be presided over by a single arbitrator who would hear and decide the case, rather than a court composed of two arbitrators with an umpire selected by them. It is self-evident that the new machinery tends not only in the direction of efficiency, but also of economy, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will not persist in a proposal which would only be destructive to a part of the Bill which only tends to cheapen the machinery.

, expressing satisfaction with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.

said he hoped that, after the remarks he had just made, the right hon. Gentleman would support the Amendment he now proposed to move, because that Amendment simply carried out the principle which the right hon. Gentleman had just enunciated. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out a few moments previously that the main object of the Bill before the House was that in the future the court should consist of a single arbitrator. All that this Amendment proposed was to insure that that should be the procedure, and that there should be no possibility of any other procedure being adopted. There was a great consensus of opinion throughout the country as to the cumbersome machinery of the old Act, but after what the right hon. Gentleman had said he did not think he need labour that point. There was another Bill before the House in which the principle of a single arbitrator was proposed without any appeal whatever, and although he did not intend to propose that such a clause should be put into this Bill, it certainly was an argument in favour of a single arbitrator. But if the clause as it now stood was incorporated in the Bill very little benefit would accrue, because the landlords would always endeavour to make such a provision in their agreements with the tenants that if a tenant desired to take advantage of the proceeding under the Bill he would be compelled to agree to two arbitrators. The object of his Amendment was to prevent that, and in moving the Amendment he was only endeavouring to fortify the Bill in the direction which the right hon. Gentleman thought would confer the greatest benefit on the rural community. He begged to move.

said he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment. The Government considered that the best form of arbitration was before one arbitrator, but it did not necessarily follow that that form ought to be made compulsory upon those who preferred another form of arbitration. All that the Government proposed was that where the parties did not otherwise agree there should be one arbitrator. He therefore hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

said the Amendment he now desired to move raised a question of considerable importance with reference to the right to appeal. The principle as at present laid down was that there should only be an appeal upon a question of law, but it had been pointed out that the only way in which an appeal might be taken on the schedule was upon a question of law and of fact as well. And as he read the Bill he gathered that at any point of the proceedings a party could go to the judge at the county court and ask him to intervene in the proceedings, which practically amounted to an appeal on a question of fact as well as law. From the county court there was an appeal to the High Court of England or the Court of Session of Scotland. The House had heard many explanations of how this Bill was to simplify and cheapen procedure; but if these appeals were allowed, instead of the cost being decreased there would be a very substantial increase. The object of his Amendment was to carry out the policy of the Bill as it had been set forth, which was to simplify and cheapen the procedure, and therefore he hoped it would be accepted. He begged to move.

said the point of the Amendment was that if a question of law arose out of an arbitration the decision of the county court judge should be final. The effect of this would be that there would be a great divergency of decisions, which surely was not desirable. One opinion would be held by one county court judge and one by another, and there would be no means of reconciling those opinions. The hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension as to what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture had said. It was impossible that the President of the Board of Agriculture should have said that the Bill gave a right of appeal on a question of fact, because the only question for appeal was to be a question of law. Of course to arrive at the question of law the question of fact must be entered into, but the arbitrator having found the question of fact, his decision was binding on the parties.

said it was desirable that questions of law should be settled once and for all. The county court judge was not to decide the law but to administer it, and if there was not an appeal to the High Court no settled decision would ever be arrived at. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the Amendment to re-duce the power of appeal so that the appeal could only be made to the county court or the Sheriff's Court, neither of which could give a decision which was binding.

, after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General, begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

said that if this Amendment were carried it would lead to a great modification in the Bill which was not desirable, and therefore he hoped it would not be pressed. He had no doubt the claims would be in writing. That would be in the usual course of business.

begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

said that the object of the Amendment which he now proposed to move was to render the clause inapplicable to Scotland. He felt considerable difficulty in discussing the matter in the absence of his Scotch friends, but it appeared to him that the Government were here introducing in Scotland a new body for administrative and legal purposes which at present had no locus standi there. New duties were being

assured the hon. Member that he was mistaken. Acts were being administered in Scotland by officials of the Board, by which landlords were enabled to improve their property under the control of the Board of Agriculture. Some of the most eminent and practical agriculturists in Scotland were acting as representatives of the Board, and they were carrying out their duties to the satisfaction of the community. The Government were therefore not introducing a great change of policy for the first time in respect of Scotland.

This motion has been made without a single word of explanation of the ground on which it has been made. I confess that I have waited for some time to see what course the Government were going to take on this motion, because it is in my experience perfectly unparalleled and unprecedented that in the course of any sitting of this House, when an important Government Bill is before the House, and is making rather slow progress, and with two pages of Amendments yet to be dealt with, a motion should be made for the adjournment of the proceedings until to-morrow without any justification whatever. I have never heard such a motion even submitted to the House, and it is certainly of an extraordinary character. That view is emphasised by the conduct of the Government, who have allowed the motion to be put to the House without the Minister in charge of the Bill giving us a word with reference to the motion. Why should we adjourn the proceedings on this Bill until to-morrow? Do the Government intend to drop or withdraw the Bill? Why are we stopping the Bill before the House in the middle of this important debate? I entirely fail to understand what the purpose of this motion is, and the only hint we have to guide us to the discovery of the reasons for this motion, and—what I attach a great deal more importance to—why the Government have received this motion on really an important matter, is the dark hint thrown out by the Leader of the House yesterday when he said he understood it would be inconvenient for some Members of the House to sit after four o'clock today, and accordingly he proposed to suspend the discussion of this Bill. I contend, if that be the position of the Government, that they are bound to make their own motion in the matter, and to explain to the House why they make it. I am not surprised, from one point of view, that they have adopted this extraordinary course of throwing out this hint yesterday and then running away from their own motion and getting a private Member to make it, because, if it be true, as I have heard it alleged, that the only reason for adjourning the debate is that certain Members of the House desire to attend a garden party, it is the first time in the history of the House of Commons that public business has been stopped to facilitate the attendance of Members at a garden party. We ought to know what we are doing. This is not the first occasion when hon. Members of this House in great numbers have desired to attend a garden party. We had a garden party and a great entertainment on the occasion of the Queen's Jubilee. The Government on that occasion, I believe, suffered a defeat, and that may be the explanation of their conduct to-day. But I maintain that this is a new departure in the history of the British House of Commons, and the least we are entitled to is some explanation from the Government in support of it. I might mention another occasion—a much more solemn occasion certainly than anyone can pretend the occasion is to-day — that was the occasion of a Royal wedding which took place during the sitting of the House, when something might have been said on due notice in support of adjournment. I can conceive a Minister advocating an adjournment of public business to suit the convenience of Members of the House on that occasion—a much more solemn occasion than a garden party (laughter). I do not see anything ludicrous in a Royal wedding. It will be in the memory of hon. Members present that on the occasion to which I allude no proposal was made to interrupt public business for the convenience of gentlemen who desired to attend, and that the public business of the country in the House of Commons went on without interruption. I again assert that, as far as my knowledge goes—certainly as far as my experience goes—the British House of Commons has never been adjourned or public business interrupted for the purpose of allowing Members of the House to attend a garden party, and that is what we are called upon to do to-day, as far as we can gather from the gossip of the lobbies, for the Minister responsible for the motion has not deigned to give us any information. It was the practice of the House for a great many years to adjourn on the day of a great national festivity—namely, Derby Day;, but a body of Members from the days since I first entered the House set themselves to abolish the practice as being a. great abuse, and after fifteen or twenty years opposition, that practice, I believe, has been completely abolished by general consent, and we no longer adjourn. But now we are to set up a new practice, and, I think, a much more far-reaching, extra-ordinary and indefensible practice. The Derby comes but once a year, but who can say how many garden parties we may have in a year? A principle is to be laid down and a precedent established to-day that we are to adjourn the House of Commons and stop public business for the convenience of gentlemen who wish to attend garden parties. Where are we to draw the line? Are you going to adjourn the House for every Minister who chooses to attend a garden party? [An HON. MEMBER: No.] Yes, I think we are entitled to know, before this precedent is established, where it is going to stop. If we adjourn the House to-day to enable hon. Members to attend a garden party at Buckingham Palace—I believe that is where it is to take place—why not adjourn for a garden party of the Prime-Minister? You might have a garden party in the country where it would be inconvenient for Members to attend while the House is sitting. The principle is vicious, and I say it is a bad precedent.. If the Government were resolved to form this totally new principle and to set up a precedent in this particular matter they ought to have given notice to the House. The proper time would have been question time yesterday, when the Minister in charge of this Bill could have got up in his place, and said frankly, "There is to be a Royal garden party, and we propose to adjourn the House of Commons to enable hon. Members to go to it." But a Minister gives a dark hint that it will be inconvenient for certain Members to-attend the House this afternoon. He does not withdraw the Bill or alter the business for the purpose of meeting the convenience of hon. Members. He announces that public business will be interrupted at a certain hour for the purpose of enabling hon. Members to go to some place, the nature of which he did not disclose. Instead of explaining the grounds on which the adjournment is asked, he allows a private Member to start up and make the motion. The course of procedure is utterly unprecedented in the history of the House.

The hon. Gentleman has suggested that there has been concealment in this matter. I deny that there has been any concealment on the part of the Government in connection with the motion for the adjournment of the debate on the Agricultural Holdings Bill. He spoke of dark hints and obscure suggestions. There have been no dark hints and obscure suggestions. There was a plain statement made by me last night based upon a plain reason which was given. The hon. Gentleman says we are starting a new and dangerous precedent in cutting off an hour's discussion upon this Bill to-day. I do not stop to inquire, although I might if I were inclined to indulge in personalities, whether the hon. Member has constantly and anxiously laboured to prevent the unnecessary expenditure of the time of this House. Let me ask, as a plain matter of business, what is my duty when it comes to my knowledge that it would be extremely inconvenient to Members of the House, and detrimental to public business, that we should carry on the public discussion during the remaining hour. When that question is put to me I answer that clearly it is in the general interest that the motion should be made, and on account of that general interest I propose to support it. There is no principle or dangerous precedent there. How often, in obedience to the convenience of a few Members, have not Bills been delayed from one day to another where there was far less necessity for that course than in this case! It appears to me that we have got a plain, practical ground for the course we propose to pursue.

I wish to make a personal explanation. I moved the adjournment because I have the next two Amendments on the Paper—I think they are important; and I did it because I understood that it was known throughout the House that contentious business was to cease at a quarter past four. I know that hon. Members have left the House thinking that further debate on this Bill would at that hour cease. I certainly did not intend to raise any cause of dissension in the House.

Like the hon. Member for East Mayo, I. object to the adjournment of this debate.. There are one or two important measures which may not be discussed this session for want of time. The Leader of the House has stated once or twice that the adjournment is asked to-day to meet the convenience of Members. I think it is incumbent that he should tell us how many Members are going to the garden party. I had no knowledge that there was to be a garden party until a few minutes ago, when the adjournment of the debate was moved. I think the Gentlemen who are going to enjoy themselves at the garden party, if they have been privileged with a Royal invitation, might have allowed those of us who are not, to go on with business. With the majority the Government have, I do not think they need fear a decrease of that majority by forty or fifty Members. I wish the right hon. Gentleman to tell us how many Members have received invitations, and how many Members will have their convenience interfered with. On this side, those who object to the adjournment of the debate might give way and allow those Members to go if there be a sufficient staff left to carry on the business. Why should the convenience of fifty or sixty Members be allowed to place itself in supremacy over the business of the country? I submit that the Government need not fear to go on with this Bill, because the division list has shown that, oven when there has been a slight revolt on the part of the Government's followers, as happened last night on the question of the inherent capabilities of the soil, there has always been a sufficient majority to carry any Amendment the Government propose or to refuse any Amendment brought forward by an individual Member.

I join in the protest against the adjournment of the debate. The explanation of the hon. and learned Member seems to me a very peculiar one. It amounted to this: he has got some Amendments on the Paper, and he found that Members were leaving the House.

That was only a personal explanation on the part of the hon. Member. It is not material to the question before the House now.

I thought it was more than that, and entered into the debate, but I shall leave that point alone.

The hon. Member prefaced his remarks by stating that he rose to make a personal explanation.

I cannot help thinking that this is really a flagrant abuse of Parliament. It is a gross waste of the time of the House, which Mr. Gladstone used to call the national treasure. The right hon. Gentleman in his very ingenious speech tried to make out that he had to consult the convenience of Members of the House. That is quite true. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the number of Members who are going to the garden party is so large that it would materially affect the discussions in the House on this Bill? If the right hon. Gentleman had been able to show that, we will say, 200 or 300 Members were going to the garden party, then, of course, the business of the House would be practically stopped; but the chances are that only a small number of Gentlemen have received invitations to this garden party. Being a Royal party it will be, I presume, if one has to say so, select. [Laughter.] I do not think it at all follows, but I suppose in courtesy you have to say "select," and therefore the number will be small. [Laughter.] Yes, the number of Members who have received invitations, I am quite certain, will be a very small proportion of this House. The right hon. Gentleman's speech had no body in it, no substance in it, no point in it, unless he can show us that the number is so large as to materially affect the discussion of this Bill. If he had told us that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was desirous to go to the Royal garden party I should say that that would be a very considerable loss to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman does not look as if he were going to a garden party. I mean to say there is nothing in the right hon. Gentleman's latest speeches to show that exhaustion which, I take it, a garden party might help to remove. In fact, everything was going on smoothly. The Bill was not being obstructed. The Bill was being discussed, and although, an ignorant townsman, I had to grope my way along during the discussion, I was able to get gleams of light even from the right hon. Gentleman, as well as from Members on this side of the House. I would put it to the House calmly and fairly—hero we are in the midst of a Bill which deals with tenant rights and with the condition of farmers. We are constantly being told on the other side of the House that agriculture is the greatest industry. Now mark this: when we are dealing with the greatest industry in the country, when the right hon. Gentleman is telling us that they are fulfilling their election pledges, they suddenly break off in the middle of their work, just because there happens to be a gathering of Royal and other personages at Buckingham Palace. I say this solemnly, I say it earnestly, that no worse object lesson could be given to the workmen of this country than for this House, that is the mother of Parliaments, to be so frivolous, to be so vain, to have so little regard for the nation's business, as to go off at the first approach of Royalty. Why, the discussion of one clause of this Bill is worth all the garden parties you have in this country, and all the Royalties as well. [Cries of "Order, order! "]

The hon. Gentleman will withdraw the words "and all the Royalties as well." [Cries of "Withdraw!"]

I shall not withdraw for hon. Members opposite; but if the Speaker says it is not in order I shall withdraw at once.

I said it was not in order.

Then, of course, I at once withdraw. When I remember that the right hon. Gentleman in his place deliberately told us that he would not give us one hour to discuss the Children's Bill, a Bill affecting the vital interests of the people, and then that he can waste and squander an hour and a quarter on a useless visit to a useless garden party, then I say it is a shame that the working people of this country should be so treated.

I consider that hon. Gentlemen are wasting public time. This is an attempt to suspend the business of the House for a Court function. I think we are the representatives of the people and the trustees of the people. My hon. friend had the misfortune to be called to order. I will not make that mistake. I know perfectly well the rules of the House with reference to Royalty. You cannot refer, except in certain terms, to two Royal personages—the Queen and the Prince of Wales. You can speak as you like of other Royalties. I say that this House is forgetting its duty to the constituencies, and that it is behaving falsely to the trust placed in it, if it gives one moment of the public time to enable Members to go and masquerade in a place like Buckingham Palace. The Irish Members come here at great inconvenience, and we do not wish the business of the House adjourned for any Court function whatever. We have come here to discharge serious business. If the House of Commons is to suspend the vital business of the country for any State function it appears to me that this kingdom is like Rome on the eve of destruction.

The question is not the adjournment of the House. It is whether the proceedings on this Bill should be adjourned until to-morrow.

I suppose we will discuss the adjournment of the House later on. Having regard to the Bill before the House, which is ostensibly to make the lives of agricultural labourers happier, I really think that a motion for the adjournment of the debate is a waste of public time. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham will support the motion for the adjournment, and show how consistent he is in connection with the policy of "three acres and a cow."

rose to speak.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."