(Reference of matters in dispute to arbitra

tion.)

"Where, under any contract of tenancy in writing entered into after the commencement of this Act, any matters in dispute may, by the terms of such contract, be referred to arbitration, then, unless such contract shall otherwise specially direct, a referee or referees and umpire, with the same powers, shall be appointed in the same manner; and such arbitration shall proceed under the same conditions, and be subject to the same provisions, as to the recovery of money, awarded costs, and rights of appeal, as is enacted in regard to a reference proceeding

under this Act."

MR. HUNT had no objection to the clause.

SIR HENRY JAMES thought the clause was a most objectionable one.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SEELY moved to insert, after Clause 43, the following Clause:—

(Notice to quit cottage holding.) "43A. Every agricultural labourer or farm servant who occupies either as a tenant or as a servant a house, garden, or other holding from or under his employer, or the landlord of his employer, or from or under any tenant or subtenant of his employer, shall be entitled, notwithstanding any determination of his service, to continue to occupy such house, garden, or holding until the expiration of two months' notice to quit. Such notice may be given at any time, and shall operate as a revocation of any previous notice.

This section shall not apply to a person who occupies under a contract of tenancy or service made before the passing of this Act, but, upon the termination of a week, month, or other term for which any such contract is made, any continuation or renewal of the contract shall be deemed to be a new contract for the purposes this section.

of

He observed, that when they had given the farmer a 12 months' notice to quit they ought to give the labourer at least

a two months' notice.

New Clause (Mr. Seely,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

SIR WALTER BARTTELOT opposed the clause. He had known a case where a friend of his had given employment all through the winter to a number of agricultural labourers who, when the harvest came, went off to another district

a shilling or two more, leaving him in the lurch with respect to the harvest which they ought to have stayed and reaped. The former, instead of turning them out of their cottages, as he was provoked to do, took them on again and gave them work during the next winter; but there was no one could say he had not just reasons for taking the opposite course.

that in such cases as that they were It could not surely be held entitled to two months' notice before leaving their cottages. Besides, if the landlord was to give two months' notice to the labourer, the labourer should be required to give two months' notice to the landlord, and he doubted whether that would be generally acceptable to the labourers.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, that this was the first time in the course of this Bill in which it was proposed to recognize the labourers as part of the landed interest. He thought the labourers ought to have some security as well as the occupiers, and he protested against the doctrine that the employers had any vested right to the labour of their servants.

The agricultural la

bourer did not stand in the same position as the labourer in towns; and when the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the labourer was bound to reap the harvest-["No, no!"]-why, the hon. and gallant Gentleman said-" You will surely not give two months' notice to a man who does not consent to reap the harvest at a lower rate of wages than he could get elsewhere." If the agricultural labourer was to be placed in the position which hon. Gentlemen opposite advocated, he was no better off than he had never been stated in so plain a form was five centuries ago. That doctrine before. If hon. Gentlemen respected the sacred principle of freedom of contract in their own cases, they ought to allow the agricultural labourer to get his extra shilling if he was able to do so. the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) The principle laid down in the clause of was one which was calculated to attach the labourer to the soil, and whether he occupied more than two acres or not he ought not to be refused the same security that was to be given to the larger occupier. He hoped the hon. Member for Lincoln would divide, in order that the Committee might escape the disgrace of

MR. J. S. HARDY suggested that the Amendment could not be put, as it was inconsistent with some of the clauses which had already been passed.

THE CHAIRMAN said, that was so, and that it must be very considerably altered before it could be put.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT replied that the principle of the clause, which was that the agricultural labourer should not be the only person whose interests in connection with the land should be unrecognized in the Bill, might be affirmed by the Committee, and that the details could be settled at a future ⚫ stage.

MR. RODWELL thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had gone out of his way to teach hon. Gentlemen connected with land their duty to agricultural labourers. His remarks had shown a want of familiarity with agricultural matters. His hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter Barttelot) had never argued that the agricultural labourers were to be treated as a lot of serfs. The point was, that agricultural operations ought to be carried on by labourers who got their houses because they were labourers, and that they should not, in time of need, desert their employers. The cry on the other side of the House had been "Increase the produce of the soil." But how was that to be done without the assistance of farm labourers? He thought two months' notice too long a period, and that it would be better to limit the time to one month. He trusted the Government would not accept the Amendment, but would modify it so as to secure to the tillers of the soil that security to which they were entitled with respect to the labourers whom they employed.

MR. MUNDELLA observed, that the clause was proposed by an hon. Gentleman who was a large and practical and liberal landowner, and who had brought under his (Mr. Mundella's) notice how cruelly the power of landlords was sometimes exercised in limiting a labourer's notice to five days, and how cruelly the law was worked to screw down the wages of the labourer. They had in all the clauses protected the farmers who might have to provide for themselves new

Sir William Harcourt

MR. BERESFORD HOPE ventured to address to the Committee a few words in order to raise the question out of the pompous heroics of previous speakers. As a landed proprietor he had done his best for the dwellings of his labourers. He could not help agreeing with the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Rodwell), that the occupation of a cottage by a labourer was not an occupation pure and simple, but a return for special services rendered to his employer. Was it consistent with the order of things that there should be one law of tenure for the cottager, when the cottage he lived in was on the land where he worked, and another law of tenure when he happened to lodge elsewhere?

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN appealed to the Government to adopt the clause in some modified form. În case they refused to do so, he should support the clause on the broad ground that the agricultural labourers ought not to be excluded from the benefits which the measure was supposed to be about to confer. He deprecated any division by which it would be made to appear that one side of the House cared more for the agricultural labourer than the other. He was a considerable owner of cottages himself, and every one of his cottagers were entitled to six months' notice just as much as the farmers. He should be ashamed-and he believed the feeling to be general-to turn a labourer's family out at a week's notice. The labourer loved his home just as much as the farmer or the landlord-he had the feelings of a human being, and they ought to be respected. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) thought it had better be left to the Government to modify the clause, and he earnestly pressed them to do so before the Report, and by accepting its principle now, avoid a division.

MR. HUNT fully sympathized with the expression of opinion that the agricultural labourers ought not to be so situated, as regarded their holdings, that they would be obliged to accept lower wages than they would otherwise have to accept; and he thought that was the general feeling of the Committee. But

the practical question was, could they do any service to the labourers in rural districts. With regard to farm servants who had charge of stock, unless when they quitted their occupation they also left their houses, it would often be found impossible to find a residence for their successors. Therefore, two months' notice would not be desirable. He quite agreed that all the servants on the farm ought not to hold their cottages merely

at the will of the farmer. That would be a most undesirable state of things.

MR. MACDONALD expressed the hope that the Committee would divide on the principle involved, so that agricultural labourers could not be turned out of their cottages at the whim of their landlords at a moment's notice.

MR. CHAPLIN said, that hon. Members opposite did not seem able to perceive the distinction between the agricultural labourer and the farm servant. The labourers received weekly wages, had weekly hire, and lived in habitations provided by themselves, while the farm servants were engaged for particular services, which they were bound to fulfil, and which were necessary for the production of the food consumed by the people, and their cottages were built for them. There was, however, very little distinction between the farm servant and the domestic servant. This was a Bill to deal with agricultural holdings, and if anything were wanted to improve the position of the agricultural labourer, let hon. Members opposite bring in a Bill, and it would receive the candid consideration of Members on the Ministerial side of the House.

SIR HENRY JAMES said, if the Committee divided it would be on the principle of the Bill, and not on the question of one or two months' notice.

MR. STEPHEN CAVE said, he had a large number of labourers' cottages, and he had done his best to make them as good as he could, giving gardens to each. But he let these cottages not as an employer of labour, but as a landlord. He thought it better, generally speaking, to keep them in his own hands than to let them get into the hands of the farmers. But under the proposed clause he would have no security for his rent. He would be, in fact, obliged to allow a tenant to remain for two months drawing no money, and therefore certain to leave without paying a shilling. This

VOL. CCXXVI. [THIRD SERIES.]

was from a landlord's point of view. But would any hon. Member opposite keep a coachman in his rooms over a stable, who refused to drive his carriage or take care of his horses? and what difference in principle was there between the man who looked after carriage horses, and the man who looked after farm horses? Question put.

The Committee divided: - Ayes 85; Noes 170: Majority 85.

MR. SEELY moved, after Clause 43, to insert the following clause :

(Compensation for crops and improvements on cottage holdings.)

"43B. Every agricultural labourer or farm servant who occupies either as a tenant or as a servant a garden or other holding (whether attached to a house or not) from or under his employer, or the landlord of his employer, or any tenant or sub-tenant of his employer, shall upon his ceasing to occupy such garden or holdployer or other landlord in respect of ing be entitled to compensation from his em

a. Any unexhausted improvements made by him in or on the soil of the garden or holding by manure, tillage, or otherwise; and

b. The value of any seed or growing and immature crops, roots, or vegetables planted or paid for by him and not removed by him.

"The amount of such compensation shall, in case of dispute, be settled by a referee, but only one referee shall be appointed for this purpose, and, if the parties cannot agree upon a referee, he shall be appointed, on the application of either party, by the judge of the County Court. made not less than seven days before the person "A claim for such compensation must be making the claim ceases to occupy the garden

or holding to which the claim relates.

"This section shall not apply to a person who occupies under a contract of tenancy or service made before the passing of this Act, but upon the termination of a week, month, or other term for which any such contract is made, any continuation or renewal of the contract shall be deemed to be a new contract for the purposes of

this section."

New Clause (Mr. Seely,)-brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

The Committee divided:-Ayes 94 Noes 150: Majority 56.

MR. M'LAGAN moved the following clause :

(Farm buildings in certain cases to become property of tenants.)

shall erect any farm building, either detached If any tenant, after the passing of this Act, or otherwise, or put up any other building, engine, machinery, or other matters, either for

+ H 4

agricultural purposes, or for the purposes of trade and agriculture, and for which he shall not, under the provisions of this Act, be entitled to compensation, or which shall not have been erected or put up in pursuance of some obligation in that behalf, then all such buildings, machinery, or other matters, shall be the property of such tenants, and shall be removable by him in all respects as if the same were fixtures of trade by law or custom removable by the tenant; and the law now in force as regards fixtures of trade removable by a tenant shall apply to all such matters, notwithstanding the same may consist of separate buildings, or that the same or some part thereof may be built in or permanently fixed in the soil, so as the tenant making any such removal do not in any wise injure the land or buildings belonging to the landlord, or otherwise do put the same in like

plight or condition, or as good plight or condi

tion as the same were in before the erection of any such thing so removed: Provided nevertheless, That no tenant shall under the provision last aforesaid be entitled to remove any such matter or thing aforesaid without first giving to the landlord or his agent one month's previous notice in writing of his intention so to do; and thereupon it shall be lawful for the said landlord or his agent on his authority to elect that such matters or things so proposed to be removed shall be considered as if they were improvements of the first class under this Act; and thereupon the rights to remove the same shall cease, and the same belong to the landlord, and the value thereof shall be ascertained and paid for and recovered under the provisions of this Act in all respects as if the same were improvements of the first class as by this Act defined."

New Clause (Mr. M'Lagan,)-brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

The Committee divided: Noes 146: Majority 61.

-Ayes 85;

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT moved the following clause :

(Tenant's compensation for breach of covenant.)

"When a landlord commits a breach of cove

nant or other agreement or custom connected with the contract of tenancy, the tenant shall be entitled to obtain, on the determination of the tenancy, compensation in respect thereof, subject and according to the provisions of this Act." The landlord was entitled to compensation from the tenant in case the tenant committed waste or broke covenants, and in this respect landlord and tenant should be placed in the same position.

Clause added to the Bill. MR. FAWCETT (for Sir HARCOURT JOHNSTONE) moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following clause :

(Compensation for damage by game.) "In every contract of tenancy made or arising

Mr. M'Lagan

after the commencement of this Act, where the landlord reserves a right of shooting over the holding, there shall be implied an agreement by the landlord to compensate the tenant for damage done during each year of the tenancy by the game, hares, or rabbits in respect of which the right is reserved, if notice in writing of the amount claimed for damage have been given to the landlord in the case of damage to corn before the first day of August, and in the case of damage to root crops before the first day of February in each year.

"The amount of compensation shall be determined by two referees to be appointed, one by the landlord, and the other by the tenant, or by an umpire to be named by those referees."

New Clause (Mr. Fawcett,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, he should like to hear the hon. Member for Leicestershire's (Mr. Pell) opinions on the subject. It would enable the hon. Gentleman, at any rate, to give one vote in favour of the tenant farmers of England. He hoped the Government would give some explanation why the tenant should not have compensation for injury done to his crops by rabbits

and

game.

MR. D. DAVIES thought that it was for the interest of landlords that there

should be some such clause as this in the Bill.

MR. HUNT said, he had already spoken on the proposal of the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire (Mr. Storer), and he made it a rule never to say the same thing twice if he could help it. He could only repeat that, if they were going into the question of game, the rest of the year-not to speak of the rest of the Session-would not suffice. As to rabbits, he would merely recommend landlords to do what he did himselfnamely, allow the tenants to kill the rabbits which they found on their own farms.

MR. ROUND said, he could not vote for the new clause, as proposed by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett). It was too important a ques

tion to be dealt with in one clause at the end of the Session. He was in favour of compensation for damage done by game, and hoped to see a measure brought in by the Government at the commencement of the next Session. The hon. Member for Hackney made