The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1883-08-11 00:00:00

THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.

In the ROUSH OF LORDS, Aug 7, Lord Carlingford moved
the second reading of the Agricultural Holdings (England)
Bill.

The Earl of Wemyss declared the Bill to be neither MOTO
nor less than a bid for the farmers, and moved an amend-
ment declining to sanction 41 Bill which in agricultural
tenancies forbade free contract in the future and brake it
the past, thus destroying the foundation upon which alone
agricultural trade, and commerce could securely rest.
The Duke of Argyll denied that the Bill overrode free con-
tract, and considered that it was on the whole a reasonable
and moderate compromise. The exceptional protection
which it gave the farmer was justified by the fact that
agriculture was the only industry in which the capital of
one man was invested in the property of another.
The Duke of Richmond and Gordon accepted the main
proposals of the Bill, but regretted that it had been neces-
sary to depart from the principle of freedom of contract.
Lord Bramwell thought the Bill unnecessary and likely to
promote litigation.
The Earl of Carnarvon feared that one result of the Bill
would be to impair the friendly relations existing between
landlord and tenant, but it was sometimes necessary to
choose between two evils.
The Earl of Kimberley spoke in support of the measure.
Lord Salisbury did not anticipate that by passing this Bill
they would be leading to any worse legislation in the same
direction. It would not hurt the landlords much, or affect
any of their just rights. One result of it would be that
landlords would take more land into their own cul-
tivation, and another would be the raising of rents,
so that a reduced rent should not be turned by the
valuer into a fine upon the landlord. He would not
advise the rejection of the messure, because he was con-
vinced that if the harm it would do was little, the good it
would do would be absolutely none.
The Amendment was negatived by 55 to 9, and the Bill was
read a second time.
Their lordships rose at twenty-five minutes past nine
o'clock.

In the HoursE or Commoics, Mr. D. Peddle gave notice
that, early next Session, he would bring forward a Motion
lit favour of the dmastablishment of the Scotch Church.
THE NATIONAL DEBT BILL

In moving the second reading of the National Debt Bill,
Mr. Childers explained that it proposed to subetitete for the
terminable annuities, which would expire in 1885. new
terminable annuities for a period of 25 years A fresh
annuity would also be created in order to extinguish about
£70,000,060 of stock held by the Court of Chancery and
the National Debt Commissioners on account of
the savings banks, and the general result of these
operations in conjunction with the action of the new sinking
fund would be to extinguish in the twenty years £173,000,000
of debt without adding anything to the annual charge upon
the taxpayer. The right hon. gentleman warned the House
that the rejection of the measure would be regarded by the
country and the financial world as an indication that the
House was indifferent to the reduction of debt.
Sir S. Northc le, while admitting that terminable annuities
must form a part of any scheme for the reduction of debt,
greatly doubted whether the particular method proposed
was the best that could be adopted, and whether it was not
open to the accusation of being "too clever by half. He
regretted that the measure, for which there was no urgency,
should be pressed forward at a time when it could not be
properly discussed, and thought it would be better if more
time were given the House to consider its proposals.
Mr. Gladstons described the measure as being intended to
strengthen and fortify the new sinking fund which Sir S.
Northcote had himself created, and therefore elaimed his
support for it. It involved no fresh approifriations of public
money, and initiated no new system, but merely continued
that by which alone any seusib'e impression bad been made
upon the national debt during the last seventy years.
The discussion was continued by Mr. M. Henry, who con-
tended that the public did not understand the measure,
which was one in favour of great capitalists and bankers.
He moved an amendment to the effect that, the national
debt having been reduced during the last three years by
upwards of 4,20,000,000, the present generation of British
taxpayers are entitled to some relief from their burdens.
Mr. Anderson seconded the amendment, and Mr. Hubbard
urged that it was impossible for a measure of such com-
plexity and magnitude to be satisfactorily dealt with at that
late period of the Session.
Mr. Illingworth, Mr. Ecroyd. and Sir j. hilienna sup-
ported the amendment while Mr. W. Fowler and Sir J.
Lubbock speke in favour of the Bill.
Mr. W. H. Smith observed that the only proper mode of
reducing debt was by applying the surplus of each year's
income over expenditure, and he thought the House was
justified in asking that the Bill should be postponed until a
period when it could be adequately considered.
After some further discussion, the second reading was car-
ried on a division by 149 to 95.
The House afterwards adjourned.