HC Deb 11 August 1875 vol 226 cc861-4
MR. NEWDEGATE

I understand, Sir, that the Lords' Amendments are merely formal, and having supported this Bill throughout, as containing a principle which I have long desired to see enacted by Parliament; that principle being the reversal of the hitherto presumption of law, which was against compensation to tenants for unexhausted improvements, I am anxious to make one or two observations. I have long thought that, in the present state of agriculture, justice demands that the principle of the law should favour a claim for compensation for his improvements on the part of the tenant, owing to the extent to which improvements in agriculture have been carried during the last 40 years, and by reason of the large amount of capital which it has become necessary for the tenant to employ in order to effect these improvements. But I own that I do not view the frame of this Bill without some apprehension; and I think it highly important, for the sake of the good understanding which has hitherto existed between the landlords and tenantry of England, that the operation of this Bill should at once be explained and understood. I do not intend to attempt that task myself on the present occasion; but having been friendly for so many years to the principle of this Bill, I wish to point to one or two circumstances connected with its framing and to one or two matters connected with its probable operation. The Bill is an "enabling" Bill. The Bill is a "permissive" Bill; but, at the same time, its permissive character is qualified by two circumstances; and the first of these circumstances is, that under the Bill action on the part either of the landlord or the tenant to maintain for themselves the right of free contract, or in order to exempt themselves from its operation, is necessary, and that this action must be taken within the very limited period of two months after the statute comes into operation. It is most important that that should be clearly understood throughout the country. Well, Sir, there are certain omissions from the Bill, which I endeavoured to supply; with this object, I moved a clause, by which the manure made upon the farm would have been declared to be the property of the tenant, and this manure is the chief instrument for the fertilization of the farm. I am, therefore, of opinion that if, at the conclusion of his tenancy, the tenant is found to have provided a store of manure, he ought to be compensated for any provision in that form which he may leave upon the holding for the future cultivation of the farm. Unfortunately, however, as I think, the House by a small majority rejected that Amendment; I regret this the more, because it appears to me that the Bill in some of its provisions points in the opposite direction. It seems to point towards the manure being the absolute property of the landlord; and my experience tells me, that under these conditions this will be found a void inheritance—void, that is, of the elements necessary for the future cultivation of the farm. But there is another provision omitted from the Bill, which I ventured to suggest to the House, but which the House did not accept. There is no power under this Bill, although it extends the period of notice to quit to double the former period; from six months to a year, which in practice, from the use of fixed dates for quitting, may become two years; there is no power, I say, under the Bill for the landlord to enter for the purpose of preventing waste; waste, that is, on the part of the tenant, in case of his death on the part of his executors. Now, I hold that "prevention is better than cure; "and although we have provided penalties against waste, the experience of those who are intimately and practically acquainted with the management of landed estates, as I have been repeatedly assured, is that this omission of all power of entry after notice to quit is a serious defect in the Bill, There is also an objection, which was raised by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), that the provisions of this Bill, where it extends to saddle the estate with a charge for compensation for unexhausted improvements, some of them possibly of a very costly nature, are such that they may entail serious difficulties and future litigation among remainder interests and incumbrancers. I cannot think that adequate provision has been made in this respect; and in proof of that opinion I will read to the House the Resolutions of the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the improvement of land, the recommendations adopted by that Committee at the close of the Session of 1873. This was a very competent Committee, presided over by the Marquess of Salisbury, and its Report has been communicated to this House—

  1. "1. Limited owners, with the consent of trustees, shall he empowered to spend trust mo upon the improvement of their estates, on redeemable mortgage.
  2. "2. Limited owners may charge their estates with improvements; the charge to redeem-able within a period exceeding by ten years the owner's expectation of life; so that no such term may in any case he less than twenty-five years, or more than forty."
  3. "3. [And this is very important.] An improvement to he charged as above, with consent of trustees, on certificate from a surveyor approved by the Inclosure Commissioners or the Court of Chancery, that it is beneficial to the estate, and that the works have been properly carried out."
Now, there is no such provision as this contained in this Bill.

"4. That where the limited owner acts with the consent of the tenant-in-tail, being of full age, the certificate of a surveyor may be dispensed with, unless refused by incumbrancers after notice given; and the repayment of charge may be spread over a period of forty years."

But there are no such precautions in this Bill; no precautions for giving notice to the parties interested, either in remainder or as incumbrancers.

"5. Trustees to have liberty to defend the inheritance either at law or in Parliament, with leave of the Court of Chancery first obtained, and to he allowed to charge on the estate costs approved by the Court."

Now, the provisions of this Bill not only do not include any precautions of this kind, but they absolutely preclude appeal from the decisions of the County Court, a provision not likely satisfactorily to settle complicated questions connected with real property; and yet the Bill thus passed the House of Lords, notwithstanding the recommendations made by their Select Committee in 1873. I will not further detain the House than to say that this is eminently a measure in exposition of which, to the public and to the unlearned, it is most desirable that a digest should be prepared by some competent lawyer—after the manner of the summary digest of testamentary law—which, as produced by the late Lord St. Leonards, has conferred such benefits upon the country, I have ventured to offer these few observations to the House as the result of some knowledge of the relations and feelings of the agricultural community and the requirements of the landed interest; and, because I believe, as the period of two months only is given for the permissive action of this Bill, after it comes into operation, it is essential that the agricultural and landowning community—indeed, all persons who are interested in the land—should at once be made aware of the provisions of this measure, and of the need of prompt action, as well as caution, in deciding either to accept in full or in part, or to reject the operation of this Bill.

Lords Amendments agreed to.