MR. DISRAELI 179 



principle. There were expectations of a second reading 

 debate in the House of Commons, but owing to the sudden 

 illness of Mr. Howard the Bill was withdrawn. 



The question of land tenure occupied a prominent position 

 in 1S74. When dissolving Parliament Mr. Gladstone said 

 that laws relating to the occupation of land, as well as laws 

 connected with the transfer and the descent of landed pro- 

 perty, would require the prompt attention of the new House 

 of Commons. Mr. Disraeli, in addressing the electors at 

 Newport Pagnell, on 5th February, made the " Questions " 

 issued by the Chamber a text for a statement of his views. 

 He said : 



" I am asked if I will vote for the Landlord and Tenant Bill, 

 or for a measure securing to occupiers compensation for the 

 unexhausted value of their improvements. This is a subject 

 the importance of which cannot be exaggerated. When Mr. 

 Read gave notice of his Bill last year I called my friends together 

 and expressed to them my views upon the subject, and I recom- 

 mended my friends to support the principle of that measure. 

 There was great unanimity upon the subject, we reserving to 

 ourselves every suggestion which I think would improve or perfect 

 it." 



And when, on 19th June, Mr. Seely moved in the House to 

 the effect that the Government should introduce with as 

 little delay as possible a measure for giving security for 

 tenants' capital, the Premier said : 



" The question is one which deserves the attention of a Ministry, 

 and if we remain on these benches a sufficient time to afford us 

 an opportunity of fulfilling our engagement, we shall give to this 

 subject the consideration which I believe it merits. In fact, 

 it is one which we have already considered. And this being a 

 measure which much interested members, particularly on this 

 side of the House, and which previously engaged our attention 

 during the late Parliament, it is one which we neither wished to 

 avoid considering, nor, had we wished, could have avoided con- 

 sidering. The question of compensation in the cultivation of 

 the soil has now occupied the attention of the country for a con- 

 siderable period. I am still of opinion that if we do not seek 

 after the impossible if we do not attempt to force men into 

 agreements which human nature recoils from, such as have been 

 embodied in the Bill which has been so often referred to there 

 are some grounds upon which a very general concurrence might 

 be anticipated, and that the general principle that for unexhausted 



