HC Deb 27 July 1875 vol 226 cc102-13

Clause 16 (Compensation agreed or settled by reference).

MR. OSBORNEMORGAN (for Mr. JACKSON)

moved, in page 5, line 10, to leave out "if in any case," to end of clause. The object of the clause, he contended, was to oust and repudiate altogether the action of the ordinary Courts of Common Law by making arbitration in every case compulsory. If the Government would substitute "may" for "shall" he should be content, otherwise he should persist in his Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

believed his hon. and learned Friend's object was to get rid of arbitration altogether, which was one of the main principles of the Bill. The Committee had already decided that compensation should be given, and if they did away with arbitration it would be only putting the parties to great expense and delay.

SIR HENRY JAMES

believed that the reference to arbitration provided by the clause would be more expensive than an appeal to the ordinary tribunals. As, however, the Committee had already substantially adopted the clause he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Amendment to a division. They had better apply themselves rather to improving the clauses than make futile attempts to get rid of them altogether.

MR. MELDON

said, that they had had some experience of Ireland under the Land Act of these references, and landlords and tenants were unanimously in favour of Courts of Arbitration, and getting rid altogether of the County Courts.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17 (Appointment of referee or referees and umpire).

COLONEL DYOTT

moved, in page 5, line 13, to leave out from "as follows," to end of sub-sections. His object, he said, was not to interfere in any way with arbitration; but if the parties concurred, the question in dispute might be disposed of by one referee, and so get rid of the County Courts altogether.

MR. GOLDSMID

said, before that Question was put he should like to move an Amendment which, properly speaking, came before that of the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield. His opinion was that landlords and tenants ought to be left to agree among themselves on this point, and that there was no necessity for appointing a new Court of Arbitration, as was suggested by the Bill. He believed that all the machinery of arbitration was already provided by the Lands Clauses Act, and for that reason he should move to strike out the whole of the sub-sections, leaving the clause to read, "Where there is a reference under this Act, a referee, or two referees and an umpire, shall be appointed."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

also thought it would be better to leave the parties to settle disputes among themselves, rather than to provide such an elaborate machinery of appeal as was proposed by the Bill.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, it was all very well to talk of leaving parties to agree among themselves. He himself knew of instances in which both parties to a dispute agreed to refer all matters in difference to arbitration, but could not agree as to how the umpire was to be appointed. The sub-sections of the clause would entirely remove that difficulty.

MR. CAWLEY

said, some provision must be made for the appointment of an umpire where the referees did not agree, otherwise arbitrations would constantly break down.

MR. GREGORY

advised the Government to agree to strike out all those subsections, and to introduce a reference to Common Law procedure, so as to make the clause run thus:—"Where there is a reference under this Act referees and an umpire shall be appointed under the Common Law Procedure Act." That, he thought, would meet the whole difficulty of the case, as the machinery of the latter Act was sufficient to meet all disputes without creating an entirely new legal tribunal.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that if this latter suggestion was agreed to a great many Amendments would be got rid of, and the progress of the Bill immensely facilitated.

MR. HUNT

opposed the suggestion, on the ground that if it were adopted farmers would have to deal with two Acts of Parliament instead of one. That would simply lead to trouble and mystification. What the farmers wanted was to have the whole law on the subject embraced within the four corners of a single Bill, and not to be puzzled and distracted by having to turn from one Act to another. Should the parties wish to adopt the Common Law Procedure Act they would be able to do so by agreement.

MR. RODWELL

admitted that the Common Law Procedure Act contained very much the same terms as those of the specific clauses to which the Amendment applied; but thought it better that people should have the provisions before them in an easily comprehended form than that they should have to be referred to the complicated sections of the Act in question.

Amendment (Colonel Dyott), by leave, withdrawn.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

thought that the arbitration provisions in the Bill ought to be made as simple and perfect as possible, and he supported the adoption of the procedure under the Common Law Procedure Act.

MR. MELDON

observed, that a great objection to the provisions of the Common Law Procedure Act being adopted was that in nearly every case they would necessitate the removal of the claim to the Superior Courts at Westminster, and thus entail great expense.

MR. HERSCHELL

suggested that the best course would be to adopt, as the system of arbitration, and the mode of checking it, the system already provided by law, which had worked well in every case in which it had been in operation.

MR. E. STANHOPE

thought the plan proposed by the Government was the best, especially in cases of small claims for compensation, as it was far the cheapest and simplest.

MR. CAWLEY

was of opinion that it would be absurd to allow the appointment of the umpire to rest with the Judges of the Superior Courts.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

pointed out that in the Bill as it stood there was no power to obtain compensation under any other reference than that contained in this clause.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, it had been stated over and over again that it was the intention of the Government, in order to put the matter beyond all question, to provide in a future part of the Bill that it should be in the power of the parties to make such agreements.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, they had been told in the early part of the Sitting that the Government hoped to get through the Bill to-night; but whenever objection was taken to any of the clauses the Committee was referred to Amendments which the Government intended to introduce, but which somehow or other never got on the Paper. He did not think that was a fair way to treat the Committee. He thought that the state of the Business was not such as to warrant the Government in encumbering the Bill with provisions setting up a new system of procedure, when there was already a well-considered system under the Common Law Procedure Act.

Amendment (Mr. Goldsmid) negatived.

MR. KNIGHT

moved, in page 5, line 21, after "referee," to add— And either party on so appointing a referee may stipulate that should an umpire he required he shall be named by the county court judge, but should a demand made by one party that the umpire shall be named by the county court judge be objected to, the objecting party may require that he shall he named by the Inclosure Commissioners, and such nomination by the Inclosure Commissioners shall be final.

MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN

moved that the Amendment should be amended by striking out "County Court Judge," leaving the appointment of umpire to the Inclosure Commissioners. The latter alternative, however, would not necessarily be involved even if the words "County Court Judge" were struck out. In his opinion, where questions of mere law were concerned, such as the determining whether an award was valid under the provisions of the Act—what costs should be given, and other points of law, the County Court might be employed as the cheapest Law Court accessible to the farmers. But he objected to giving to the County Court Judge the appointment of referees and umpires, or of deciding upon points which could only be properly decided by practical agriculturists. The County Courts were mainly known to the agricultural community as Courts for the recovery of debt, and their unnecessary introduction into the Bill would not tend to make it popular. The County Court Judge would probably know little of the farmers, though he might be a friend of many of the landlords, which, however unjustly, might expose his appointments to suspicion. Besides, an appeal was to be given to the County Court Judge, and if the clause stood as it was, this would be an appeal against the decision of his own nominee. In 99 cases out of 100 the umpire would be appointed by the referees, and where another authority was necessary, the Inclosure Commissioners would be the best, for, having continual land transactions in every county, they could at once lay their hands upon the best practical valuers to appoint as referees or umpires.

MR. HUNT

agreed in the opinion that appeals from the appointment of umpire by the referees would be rare; but the Government were prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Knight), that if one of the parties had an objection to the appointment made by the County Court Judge a reference might be made to the Inclosure Commissioners. He hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw the Amendment he had proposed in order that the Government might prepare a form of words which could be more conveniently inserted. He did not approve of the proposal to leave out the County Court Judge, because very few farmers would know where to find the Inclosure Commissioners.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

regretted to hear that the Government were willing to allow the ultimate nomination of the umpire to rest with the Inclosure Commissioners. They knew something of the Commissioners in that House, and had practically suspended their action for six years in reference to inclosures because it was not such as Parliament could approve. The whole pith of the Bill was the umpire, and he protested against this serious change, which would shake the confidence of tenant farmers in the measure.

MR. KNIGHT

said, the arrangements made by the Inclosure Commissioners as regarded the improvement of the tracts of open country surrounding Exmoor had given perfect satisfaction to the proprietors and farmers. Their work had been well done, and most beneficially to the working classes. Large tracts of common land, where no one was employed formerly, now employed many labourers at much increased wages. On one occasion the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) got the Inclosure Commissioners before a Select Committee and bullied them, as he (Mr. Knight) thought, without any reason whatever. The hon. and learned Gentleman told the Committee that he was fond of galloping over commons, and he objected to their being inclosed, as that prevented his galloping. He (Mr. Knight) felt that no public officers had more fully earned the confidence of the public than the Inclosure Commissioners.

MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN

said, he intended to take the sense of the Committee on the question of the County Court Judge, and it would save some trouble if the matter were settled at once.

SIR THOMAS ACLAND

thought that if the right hon. Gentleman intended to divide the Committee on the County Court Judge he had better do so on a direct Motion, and not an Amendment upon an Amendment.

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN

moved, in page 5, line 28, to leave out "seven," and insert "fourteen."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN

moved, in line 31, to leave out "the County Court," and insert "the Inclosure Commissioners."

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 31, to leave out the words "County Court," in order to insert the words "Inclosure Commissioners."—(Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen.)

Question put, "That the words 'County Court' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 229; Noes 81: Majority 148.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18 (Mode of submission to reference) agreed to.

Clauses 19 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 23 (Reference to any award by umpire).

SIR HENRY JAMES

moved, in page 6, line 40, leave out from "appoints" to end of clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24 (Award to give particulars).

MR. HUNT

moved that for the word— The mode and extent in and to which each improvement of the first or of the second class adds to the letting value of the holding "— (that being one of the points required to be specified), the following should be substituted:— In the case of an improvement of the first class, where the landlord was not at the time of giving consent to the execution there of absolute owner for his own benefit, the extent to which the improvement adds to the letting value of the holding. The right hon. Gentleman explained that this Amendment was a consequential one, rendered necessary by that of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell), relating to the same subject, which had already been adopted.

Amendment proposed, In page 7, to leave out from the word "permitted," in line 6, to the word "holding," in line 9, inclusive, in order to insert the words "In the case of an improvement of the first class, where the landlord was not at the time of the consent given to the execution thereof absolute owner of the holding for his own benefit, the extent to which the improvement adds to the letting value of the holding."—(Mr. Hunt.)

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

objected to the use of the words "absolute owner" in the Amendment. The words had no meaning, inasmuch as a landowner who had a mortgage on his estate or a settlement of any kind could not be described as an absolute owner, and there was not a gentleman in England possessed of property for four or five years who had not some such settlement upon it.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

observed, that the term "absolute owner" had already been considered in the course of the discussions on the Bill; and the Interpretation Clause had been postponed for the express purpose of having a proper form of words prepared, by which it should be accurately defined.

MR. DODSON

suggested that the insertion of these words should be postponed till the Report.

MR. HUNT

said, that they were proposed in consequence of an Amendment already inserted in the clause.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

observed, that not one owner of an estate in five was an absolute owner.

MR. DISRAELI

said, if not one owner in five were an absolute owner, the hon. and learned Member must know what constituted an absolute owner. The Committee had accepted the words.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

remarked that the words were accepted on the understanding that the Government would introduce Amendments in the Interpretation Clause. It was very extraordinary that a Bill of that kind should be hurried on upon the assurance that Amendments would be inserted which the Committee had not yet even seen.

MR. HUNT

said, the words "absolute owner" were objected to before, and the Committee decided not to entertain the objection.

MR. DODSON

appealed to the Government to postpone the words "absolute owner" until after their meaning had been defined.

MR. GOLDSMID

said, that when he proposed an Amendment which did not appear on the Paper, the Government stated that they could not form an opinion as to its character merely by having it read offhand; but the Committee was called on by the Government to do so now, as this Amendment had not appeared on the Paper.

MR. HUNT

observed, that the difference was, that the Government were responsible for the Bill, while the hon. Gentleman was not.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that was unconstitutional doctrine.

MR. GOLDSMID

remarked, that he would not like to be responsible for much that was contained in the Bill; but, at the same time, when it had passed through Committee, every Member of the Committee would be responsible if no objection were raised.

MR. HUNT

observed that, at all events, the Government would be responsible for what they recommended.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 188; Noes 124: Majority 64.

MR. WHITWELL

then proposed to amend the clause so as to secure that the award should be general in its character, and that the tenant would not have to particularize his improvements.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

pointed out that the Committee had already decided that the award should be made in detail, and not in the lump.

Amendment negatived.

On Question, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill? "

MR. MUNDELLA

said, that having had considerable experience in matters of arbitration, he felt bound to say that great hindrance would be thrown in the way of the arbitrators by this clause. If the clause was intended for the protection of the farmer, he would come off very badly indeed. He begged to move the omission of the clause.

MR. GREGORY

considered that in appointing an arbitrator you must assume that he was competent and that his award would be fair and reasonable, and legislation should proceed upon this footing.

MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN

feared that the practical working of the clause would be found very difficult. One effect would be that practical valuers of repute, being called upon to do so many things which they had never had to do before, would decline the task, or if they undertook it, as their work would be so much greater, they would charge more, and the expense of valuations, to landlord and tenant, would be much increased.

MR. PELL

thought that was one of the most useful clauses in the Bill, and one that was necessary for the protection both of the incoming tenant and the owner. It was quite proper that the arbitrator should state all the specific facts required by the clause, instead of only giving a general lump sum, which would throw an air of mystery over the matter.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

expressed a hope that the Government would re-consider the clause before bringing up the Report. Under every disputed claim for compensation the tenant might compel the landlord to produce his title, and the difficulties arising from such production would be very great.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25 (Costs of reference).

SIR HENRY JAMES

moved, in page 7, line 21, to leave out from "other" to end of clause; in line 23, after "costs," insert "mentioned in this clause."

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26 (Day for payment) agreed to.

Clause 27 (Submission not to be removeable, &c.)

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

objected to the clause, as requiring further consideration than could now be given to it, and he, therefore, moved that it be postponed.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, the clause simply related to awards, and he thought might be at once disposed of; but he was in the hands of the Committee.

MR. HERSCHELL

observed, that there ought to be some control over the arbitrator, and this could only be effected by permitting the award to be made a rule of Court. He thought it would be better to postpone the clause until the Committee should determine whether or no there was to be a system of appeal.

MR. RODWELL

was of opinion that cases of appeal, under the provisions of this Bill, ought, as in all other cases of award, to be referred to the Superior Courts.

Clause postponed.

Clause 28 (Validity of award) postponed.

Clause 29 (Appeal to County Court).

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN

moved Amendments having for their object the making the award of the umpire final in all cases without reference to the Law Courts. With great deference to his legal Friends, he thought the less the farmers had to do with law in these matters the better.

After short discussion, Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

moved to omit the following words at the commencement of the clause:— Where the award is valid, and the sum claimed by neither party for compensation exceeds fifty pounds, the award shall he final. Where the award is not valid, either party, and.

SIR HENRY JAMES

thought that the object of his hon. and learned Friend would be gained by adopting the Amendment of which he had given Notice—namely, to leave out merely the words, "where the award is not valid, either party, and."

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

It being now Seven of the clock the House suspended its Sitting.

The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.