LAND TENURE BILL.

HL Deb 19 December 1906 vol 167 cc1417-64

Amendments reported (according to order).

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON)

I believe that at this stage of the Bill it is not usual to postpone the title, and therefore I will move to leave out of the title of the Bill the words "Land Tenure" and to insert the words "Agricultural Holdings."

Amendment moved—

"In page 1, to leave out the words 'the Tenure of Land,' and insert the words 'Agricultural Holdings."—(Earl Carrington.)

Amendment agreed to.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

moved to amend sub-section 1 of Clause 1 by inserting a proviso that the sum payable to the tenant as compensation for improvements should in no case exceed the fair value of the labour expended or the outlay incurred by him. He said that he made the Motion in order to ascertain the view of the Government as to the effect of the omission of the words in the former Act reserving to the landlord the increased value due to the inherent capabilities of the soil. Upon what basis was the value to the tenant to be assessed? He was rather afraid that on the last occasion when he spoke upon this point he misled the House by suggesting a supposititious case, and he apologised for having done so. He would put another case which he thought would make perfectly clear the point to which he desired to have an answer from the Government. Suppose that tenant A had spent £5 in putting on the land a particular manure, and B spent the same amount upon his land. The land of A perhaps would respond more readily than that of B. Suppose the land of A responded to the extent of 4 per cent., and the land of B 2 per cent. Each of these tenants spent the same amount of money upon his holding. Were they to receive compensation in proportion to the amount of their own expenditure—which he thought was fair, and which would be the effect of his Amendment—or were they to receive compensation according to the benefit which the land had received from their action? He submitted that the inherent capabilities of the soil—the power that a particular piece of land had of responding to certain treatment—was not a matter for which the tenant was entitled to compensation. He was afraid that as the Bill now stood, unless some such words as he had suggested were inserted, this matter would be left in doubt, and he could not help thinking that the matter was of such importance that it ought to be very clearly laid down. He begged to move, the insertion of the words of which he had given notice.

Amendment moved—

"In page 1, line 18, after the word 'tenant,' to insert the words, 'such sum shall in no case exceed the fair value of the labour expended or the outlay incurred by the outgoing tenant."—(The Duke of Northumberland.)

EARL CARRINGTON

I will do the best I can to explain the objects of the Government in regard to this clause. In the case put by the noble Duke of tenants A and B, he says one pays 4 per cent. and the other 2 per cent.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

The two tenants spend the same amount, but the return of one is 4 per cent. and the return of the other is only 2 per cent.

EARL CARRINGTON

The two tenants spend the same amount, and the return in one case is 4 per cent., and in the other 2 per cent. The noble Duke asks whether the compensation should be paid on the expenditure of these two tenants or on the value of the improvement to the incoming tenant. The basis is the value of the improvement to the incoming tenant and the compensation will be such an amount as fairly represents that value. There is in the old Act a provision that what is justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil shall not be taken into account. The value is to be measured not merely by the labour expended, but also by the skill and experience brought to bear on the work, and the success or otherwise of the improvements. If the proper manures, for instance, are used, and skilfully put on the land, the cost might be the same as if unsuitable artificial manures were improperly applied, and yet, according to the noble Duke, both those tenants will receive the same compensation.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

No, no.

EARL CARRINGTON

The compensation should be paid not upon the expenditure, but upon the value of the improvement to the incoming tenant. I have done my best to explain the point to the noble Duke, and I hope he is satisfied with my explanation.

*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

I quite appreciate the point which has been raised, but I am afraid that the words proposed by the noble Duke do not carry out what he desires to establish. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill was quite right in saying that the measure of compensation in all the Agricultural Holdings Acts has been the value of the improvement to the incoming tenant, and not what the tenant has expended upon that improvement. That seems to me to be the only fair basis on which it can be calculated. A man might spend a great deal of money upon things which would be absolutely useless to the incoming tenant, and why should he receive that money back again as compensation? On the other hand, if the compensation to the out-going tenant is limited by the words suggested by the noble Duke, the result will be that if the improvement is worth a great deal more to the incoming tenant than the outgoing tenant has expended upon it the latter will not be fairly compensated for his expenditure and labour. If a tenant makes a mistake in regard to the improvements he makes, or if they were badly designed and badly executed he will suffer accordingly. On the other hand, if the improvements are well done the tenant will gain, and surely that is fair. The noble Duke desires to establish the principle that the tenant shall not receive anything due to the inherent capabilities of the soil. I happen to be, in some sense, the author of those words, because I remember when the original Act was being discussed in the House of Commons many years ago the President of the Board of Agriculture of that day used these words as showing in his opinion what the tenant could not be allowed to claim for, and I asked him to insert them in the Bill, which he did. So far as I have been able to ascertain in my part of England, valuers have never been able to understand these words, so that they have been practically without any effect, and I do not think any interest will be damnified by their omission.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

Under the circumstances I will not press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL CARRINGTON

I desire to move the omission of the words "any custom or." My technical advisers are of opinion that this Amendment is both desirable and necessary.

Amendment moved—

"In page 1, line 22, to leave out the words 'any custom or,' and to insert the word, 'the"—(Earl Carrington.)

Amendment agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

I now propose to leave out the words "to be determined by" in order to insert the words "referred to." This is simply a drafting Amendment drawn to meet a suggestion made by Lord Camperdown.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 1, lines 22 and 23, to leave out the words 'to be determined by,' and insert the words 'referred to."—(Earl Carrington.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments proposed—

"In page 2, line 7, to leave out the word 'section,' and to insert the word 'subsection."

"In page 2, lines 10 to 13, to leave out sub-section (3) and to insert the words '(3) The following rule shall be substituted for rule (10) in Part I. of the Second Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900:—The arbitrator shall, on the application of either party, specify the amount awarded in respect of any particular improvement or any particular matter the subject of the award, and the award shall fix a day not sooner than one month or later than two months after the delivery of the award for the payment of the money awarded as compensation, costs, or otherwise, and shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries."—(Earl Carrington.)

Amendments agreed to.

THE EARL OF KINTORE

moved an Amendment to enable a landlord who is obliged by ill-health to live away from his property to give his tenant permission in writing to kill game coming from preserves abutting on his farm, in lieu of paying compensation for damage done by the game. His Amendment was intended to provide against possible hardship which he was confident that the Minister for Agriculture did not desire to inflict. The clause provided that— Where the tenant has sustained damage to his crops from game the right to kill and take which is vested neither in him nor in anyone claiming under him other than the landlord, he shall be entitled to compensation from his landlord for such damage. To illustrate what he meant he would take the care of a tenant who farmed some fields liable to damage from game crossing from a neighbouring owner's land. The landlord, being compelled to live away from home on account of ill-health, might empower his tenant to protect his crops by killing and taking the game causing the damage. If his information was correct, as the clause now stood, that landlord might nevertheless be held liable for damages. He did not think that his noble friend intended this, and he hoped he would accept this Amendment. He begged to move.

Amendment moved—

"In page 2, line 16, after the word 'landlord' to insert the words 'and which the tenant has not permission in writing to kill.'" (The Earl of Kintore.)

EARL CARRINGTON

I shall be very pleased to accept this Amendment.

*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

If the noble Earl will look at the Bill he will find that the words are "kill or take."

EARL CARRINGTON

If that is so they have slipped in by mistake, and I must ask the House to allow it to read "kill and take."

*LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGH

said the words "or take" were put in deliberately. He believed the words were to be found in the Ground Game Act, and surely this measure ought to be on all fours with that Act. It was quite a different thing "to kill and take" from "to kill or take." A man might take without killing and in that way get off.

EARL CARRINGTON

I must ask the House to allow me to retain the words "kill and take." The draughtsman says the words ought to be "kill and take."

Amendment agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

I have now to move a series of Amendments intended to make the procedure perfectly clear. Their object is to secure prompt notice to the landlord of damage done, thus removing any difficulty as to the tenant's position in the case of damage, and generally to clear up any ambiguity in the clause. As amended, the clause will read— (2) The amount of compensation payable under this section shall, in default of agreement made after the damage has been suffered, be determined by arbitration, but no compensation shall be recoverable under this section unless notice in writing of the damage is given to the landlord as soon as may be after the damage was first observed by the tenant and a reasonable opportunity is given to the landlord to inspect the damages, (a) In the ease of damage to a growing crop before the crop is begun to be reaped, raised, or consumed; (b) In the case of damage to a crop reaped or raised, before it is begun to be removed from the land—and unless notice in writing of the claim together with the particulars thereof, is given to the landlord within one month after the expiration of the calendar year, or such other period of twelve months as by agreement between the landlord and tenant may be substituted therefore in respect of which the claim is made. (3) Where the landlord proves that, under a contract of tenancy any compensation for damage by game is payable by him, or that in fixing the rent to be paid under such contract allowance in respect of such damage to an agreed amount was expressly made, the arbitrator shall make such deduction from the compensation which would otherwise be payable under this section as may appear just. Provided that in the case of a contract of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act, such a deduction as aforesaid shall be made, whether the allowance was to an agreed amount or not, and whether the allowance was expressly made or not, and for the purposes of this proviso a tenancy from year to year current at the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to continue until the first day on which either the landlord or the tenant could, the one by giving notice to the other immediately after the commencement of this Act cause the tenancy to determine. (4) Where the right to kill or take the game is vested in some person other than the landlord the landlord shall be entitled to be indemnified by such other person against all claims for compensation under this section. By these Amendments we secure prompt notice of damage and remove any difficulty as to the tenant's position in the case of damage done within three weeks and the one week specified in paragraphs (a) and (b). Any ambiguity as to the meaning of the word "year" is also cleared up. I sincerely hope that the House will regard these Amendments as making for clearness and simplicity. If the House will permit me I will make these Amendments en bloc.

Amendments moved—

"In page 2, line 26, to leave out the words 'claim for compensation' and insect the word 'damage."

"In page 2, line 28, after the word 'and' to insert the words 'a reasonable opportunity is given to the landlord to inspect the damage."

"In page 2, lines 29 and 30, to leave out the words 'at least three weeks."

"In page 2, line 30, to leave out from the word 'is' to the word 'and' in line 33, and insert the words 'begun to be reaped, raised, or consumed."

In part 2, lines 34 and 35, to leave out the words 'at least one week."

"In page 2, line 35, after the word 'is' to insert the words 'begun to be."

"In page 2, line 36, to leave out the words 'written particulars of the claim are' and insert the words 'notice in writing of the claim, together with the particulars thereof, is."

"In page 2, line 37, to leave out the word 'year' and insert the words 'calendar year, or such other period of twelve months as by agreement between the landlord and tenant may be substituted therefor."

"In page 2, lines 40 and 41, to leave out the words 'whether made before or after the commencement of this Act."—(Earl Carrington.)

Amendments agreed to.

Amendments moved—

"In page, 3 line 14, to leave out the word 'or' and insert the word 'and.'—(Earl Carrington.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 3, lines 23 and 24, to leave out the words 'produced upon the holding."

"In line 25, after the word 'land' to insert the words 'on his holding."—(Earl Carrington.)

*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

asked how could a tenant cultivate any land which was not on his holding?

EARL CARRINGTON

said the provision related to arable land on his holding. An Amendment was inserted the other day which, by accident, was not recorded, but which had the same effect as this one. He had inserted the words "arable land on his holding" so as to make it clear that it did not include pasture land. The insertion of these words now made the matter quite clear.

Amendment agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

I desire to move an Amendment to Clause 3 (freedom of cropping and disposal of produce), omitting the qualifying words "generally recognised in the district as good husbandry in respect of land of a like character." I venture to submit this Amendment instead of the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Balfour of Burleigh. The noble Lord proposes to leave out the same words, but he wishes to insert in lieu thereof the words "consistent with the principles of good husbandry." The words of the noble Lord are better than those originally inserted in Committee, but they are open to the same objection in principle. The object of the clause is to give the tenant, not merely freedom to crop as other people are cropping, but freedom to crop subject only to the condition that there shall be no injury to the holding. Subject to this condition we desire to encourage initiative and enterprise on the part of the tenant. Good husbandry is not a fixed and stereotyped thing, and what may be regarded as inconsistent with the principle of good husbandry at one time and in one particular part of the country may come to be regarded as quite consistent with those principles at a later date. With great respect, therefore, I ask the House to consider this matter from our point of view and accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved—

"In page 3, lines 25 and 26, to leave out the words 'generally recognised in the district as good husbandry in respect of land of a like character."—(Earl Carrington.)

*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

said the House would recollect that the words which he proposed to leave out were inserted during the Committee stage of the Bill. The words he now proposed were then on the Paper, but he withdrew his Amendment, and the House substituted an Amendment standing in the name of Lord Penrhyn. If their Lordships would look at the early words of the clause they would see that it read "notwithstanding any custom of the country." Then the clause went on to provide that the tenant should have the full right to practise any system "generally recognised in the district." That was really the custom of the country. Those words were wholly inconsistent the one with the other, and to that extent he submitted that the words of the clause were not suitable. The noble Earl agreed with him as to the words which ought to be deleted, but after that point their harmony ceased, because he considered it important that words should be inserted limiting the freedom of the tenant, not, indeed, in that which was good, but in that which was bad. Without some such safeguard as he proposed landlords in his own part of the country would run the risk of serious deterioration of their property. He could not tell the House how strongly he felt on this point. They ought to provide this very small and reasonable limitation to the immense amount of freedom which the noble Earl proposed to give to the tenant. They would part for a year with the whole control of their laid. The bargains between landlord and tenant were being interfered with, and he did not think it was asking too much to lay down that cropping should be done consistently with the principles of good husbandry. He begged to move his Amendment.

Amendment moved—

"In page 3, lines 25 and 26, to leave out the words 'generally recognised in the district as good husbandry in respect of land of a like character' and insert the words 'consistent with the principles of good husbandry."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

THE EARL OF DENBIGH

hoped the noble Earl would consent to the insertion of the words "consistent with the principles of good husbandry." It was the original Amendment suggested on the Committee stage, and he thought the Government would find it very difficult to offer any sound objection to it. The proposal made it clear to the tenant that he had to cultivate his land consistently with the principles of good husbandry, and he hoped the House would decide to insert those words.

*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

The noble Earl opposite says the words in the Bill are objectionable because they appear to limit freedom of cropping and discourage enterprise on the part of the tenant which may lead him to try experiments which might be of real ultimate benefit to agriculture as well as to his own holding. I very much sympathise with that view, and I am very glad that Lord Balfour has moved to substitute these words. I do not think the two sides of the House are very far apart on this point. The noble Earl in resisting this Amendment said "a tenant ought not to do anything which would have an injurious effect on the permanent interest of the holding." I think those were his words. Really, if those words were put into the clause they would have precisely the same effect as the words proposed by my noble friend.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said he did not see how the Government could object to these words. He did not think their fathers were such fools as some people took them to be in this matter, and if their Lordships inquired why in the past there had been ridges and furrows and so on they would find very good reasons for that system of cultivation. One well known authority held that they could cultivate eight, ten, or twenty white crops one after the other without doing the land any harm. Without going any further into that question, even that might be considered to be consistent with the rules of good husbandry. He hoped the noble Earl would see his way to insert those words.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

If my noble friend presses his Amendment I think he might leave out the reference to principles.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

No.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Surely the words "consistent with good husbandry" would be sufficient. I cannot see what the noble Lord means by a reference to the principles of good husbandry, because I am not aware of any place where a definition of those principles is to be found.

*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

said the reason why he put in those words was that they formed an expression which was well understood in Scotland. If it was not likely to carry weight in England he was in the hands of the House, but it was clearly understood by everybody in Scotland.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

I am in favour of giving the largest possible freedom to the tenant in this matter. I believe that if you want to have the best cultivation of your land you had better treat the tenant as you would treat any other person investing his capital in any other industry, and give him as much freedom in the management of his own business as you possibly can. It seems to me that that is a very legitimate and a very wise proposition, and I should very much regret the introduction of any words which would tend to restrict the tenant in this matter. Of course it is necessary to take precautions to protect the landlord from any injury or loss. I do not know whether your Lordships have noticed the words which provide that the tenant "shall make suitable and adequate provision to protect the holding from injury or deterioration."

Those were the words suggested by the noble Viscount opposite, and as they appear in an earlier part of the clause, I should have thought they would have had the effect desired by the noble Viscount without unnecessarily interfering with freedom of cropping.

On Question, "That the words 'generally recognised in the district as good husbandry in respect of land of a like character,' stand part of the Bill," resolved in the negative.

On Question, "That the words 'consistent with the principles of good husbandry' be there inserted," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 22.

CONTENTS.
Northumberland, D.	Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)	Dunboyne, L.
Portland, D.	Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Forester, L.
Wellington, D.	Waldegrave, E.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.)
	Wicklow, E.	Hastings, L.
Cholmondeley, M.	Yarborough, E.	Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount Earl.)
Lansdowne, M.
Salisbury, M.	Falkland, V.	Kinnaird, L.
	Halifax, V.	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Albemarle, E.	Hill, V.	Lawrence, L.
Brownlow, E.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-more.)	Lovat, L.
Camperdown, E. [Teller.]		Macnaghten, L.
Cathcart, E.	St. Aldwyn, V.	Middleton, L.
Cawdor, E.		Mowbray, L.
Clarendon, E.	Addington, L.	North, L.
Dartrey, E.	Ardilaun, L.	Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)
Denbigh, E.	Armstrong, L.	Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)
Devon, E.	Avebury, L.	Rayleigh, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Balfour, L. [Teller.]	Saltoun, L.
	Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)	Sanderson, L.
Feversham, E.	Barnard, L.	Sandys, L.
Fortescue, E.	Barrymore, L.	Seaton, L.
Gainsborough, E.	Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Harewood, E.	Belper, L.	Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)
Harrowby, E.	Borthwiuk, L.
Jersey, E.	Braye, L.	Stalbridge, L
Lauderdale, E.	Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Mayo, E.	Clinton, L.	Templemore, E.
Morley, E.	Clonbrock, L.	Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Morton, E.	Colchester, L.	Zouche of Haryngyworth, L.
Plymouth, E.	Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)
Shaftesbury, E.	De Mauley, L.
Stanhope, E.	Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

NOT-CONTENTS.
Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Portsmouth, E.	Glantawe, L.
		Grimthorpe, L.
Crewe, E. (L. President.)	Boston, L.	Hamilton of Dalzell, L.
	Colebrooke, L.	Haversham, L.
Ripon, M. [L. Privy Seal.)	Denman, L. (Teller.]	Overtoun, L.
	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)	Sandhurst, L.
Beauchamp, E.		Stanley of Alderley, L.
Carrington, E.	Eversley, L.	Tweedmouth, L.
Chesterfield, E. (Teller.]	Fitzmaurice, L.	Weardale, L.

LORD CLINTON

said he had an Amendment on the Paper to insert the words "suitable manures having." He thought that some such words as these were necessary to make good the loss which the soil must sustain by the selling off of produce which it had always been the custom and good practice to consume upon the farm. Since he had placed this Amendment on the Paper he had received a communication from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, informing him that he appreciated the reason and point of his Amendment, and stating that he had himself placed some words on the Paper which would meet the case. He had consulted his friends on the point, and they agreed that the words suggested would suit their purpose equally well, and under those circumstances he would not move his Amendment.

Amendments moved—

"In page 3, line 32, after the word 'full' to insert the word 'equivalent."

"In page 3, line 33, after the word 'value' to insert the words 'to the holding."—(Earl Carrington.)

Amendments agreed to.

LORD SALTOUN

said he had an Amendment on the Paper to insert after the word "holding" the words, "to the same effect and with the like enduring benefit to the land as if such produce had been consumed on the holding." He wished to acknowledge the courtesy of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill in communicating with him in reference to his Amendment, and as the point had been met he would not move.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

moved an Amendment providing not only for the return to the holding of the full equivalent manurial value of the crops removed from the holding in contravention of the custom, contract, or agreement, but that "in either of such cases the tenant shall, if required, notify in writing to the landlord the provision so made or to be made." His Amendment stated clearly what the adequate provision was that had to be made to prevent the deterioration of the holding from cross cropping, and it also made clear what was to be returned to the holding from the crops which were sold off. He thought it was very desirable that the landlord should be informed in some way what provision was going to be made for these purposes.

Amendment moved—

"In page 3, line 34, after the word 'agreement' to insert the words 'and in either of such cases the tenant shall, if required, notify in writing to the landlord the provision so made or to be made."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

EARL CARRINGTON

I am afraid I must resist this Amendment because it places on the tenant, especially in the case of the smaller men, an obligation which it is quite impossible for them to discharge. If the Amendment is passed it will lead to a good deal of friction and misunderstanding. I think that the tenant ought to be trusted to cultivate his holding subject to the safeguards provided in the Bill, which in my opinion, are quite adequate.

LORD SALTOUN

asked what "adequate provision" meant. It seemed to him that the whole of the noble Earl's intentions in this Bill were to protect the farmer and give him every facility against the landlord. He did not seem to consider the position of the landlord at all. There were such things as bad tenants, and there were difficulties in the way of getting rid of them. What was sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander, and he should like the noble Earl to point out in this Bill anything which would show what adequate provision meant.

Amendment negatived.

LORD CLINTON

moved an Amendment providing that the provisions of the clause should not apply— (a) In the case of a lease for nineteen years or longer duration as respects the last three years before the expiration thereof; or (b) in any other case as respects the year before the tenant quits the holding, or any period after he has given or received notice to quit, which results in his quitting the holding. Their Lordships would remember that when the Bill was in Committee, an Amendment was moved to provide that sub-section (1) should not apply to the last four years of any tenancy, and it was generally agreed that that provision went further than its mover intended. Leases of four years and under would have entirely escaped the provisions of that sub-section, and leases of five, six, or seven years would have been very little affected. The Amendment was originally proposed in the interests of long lease such as they had in Scotland. He hoped the noble Earl would consider the words he had proposed were suitable to meet the case. It was obvious that this clause gave very large powers to the tenant. If those powers were misused for a year only the landlord could get rid of his tenant without much harm being done, but if a tenant had a nineteen years lease he might work very considerable damage before his lease could be brought to a termination. The Amendment was not only in the interests of the landowner but also in the interests of the incoming tenants. Their Lordships knew perfectly well the exceedingly difficult position the incoming tenant was in if he took a farm in a bad state of cultivation. He believed that three years, although not a very long time, might be sufficient for the tenant to put his farm in something like order. He hoped the noble Earl would see fit to accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved—

"In page 3, line 35, to leave out from the word 'apply' to the word 'tenancy' and insert; '(a) In the case of a lease for nineteen years of longer duration as respects the last three years before the expiration thereof; or (b) in any other case as respects the year before the tenant quits the holding, or any period after he has given or received notice to quit, which results in his quitting the holding."—(Lord Clinton.)

EARL CARRINGTON

said he very much regretted that it was absolutely impossible for him to accept the Amendment as it touched one of the vital parts of the Bill. It would deprive the tenant of his freedom of cropping during the last three years of his lease, and in view of the safeguards provided against the injury or deterioration of the holding he did not think that the Amendment was in any way necessary. He would ask the Committee just to look at the clause as it stood— Notwithstanding any custom of the country or the provisions of any contract of tenancy or agreement, and so on— The landlord is entitled to recover damages in respect of any injury or to obtain an injunction restraining the exercise of his rights, and so on. This applied, as their Lordships would see from the words he had read, to all tenancies under the Act. And what did this Amendment propose to do? It proposed, for the last three years of a nineteen years' lease to prevent the tenant cropping as he liked. They were told that in a great many cases these nineteen years leases were determinable, or broken, as he believed the expression was, at the end of seven or fourteen years. What would be the result of this? A lease of nineteen years would be broken at the end of seven years, and after the first four years the tenant would not know whether he might crop as he liked in order to make the best of his holding, or whether he would be obliged to crop according to the, he was almost going to say, penal conditions of old days. The thing could not possibly work. He must make a firm stand upon this. If the Amendment was pressed, as he supposed it would be, he must take the sense of the House on the subject.

LORD SALTOUN

pointed out that the noble Earl was entirely wrong; this Amendment did not apply to any break. It did not apply to the last three years with a break of seven, or ten, or any other number of years; it merely applied to the nineteen years, or the twenty-one years as in England. It was not meant only for Scotland; it was meant for England also. And he would point out to the noble Earl that those in Scotland who had leases were at the present moment, under the present Bill, in a much worse condition than their English friends who had yearly leases. There was not the slightest doubt that if an English landlord had a quarrel with one of his tenants, and wished to get rid of him, he could do so by paying him one year's rent. But with these Scottish leases they were in a very different position. A man might destroy his farm, but they could not turn him out; he was there for nineteen years, and during the last years of his lease he could leave that farm in a very bad state, unless there was some restriction during the last few years requiring him to put the farm into some sort of rotation. Let them consider for one moment. If the farm was let down and left, the tenant might say, "It is not worth my while keeping this farm unless you give it to me for a very much reduced rent," If the landlord replied "No," whether paid compensation or not, the tenant would go, and the landlord must either take that farm into his own hand, and go through a complete course of cropping, and put it in proper order before he could let it again, or else let it at a very much reduced rent. On the other hand, if he let it at a very much reduced rent, the tenant might keep it for a certain number of years. They must remember that one of the conditions of this Bill was that nineteen years leases would cease, twenty-one years leases would cease, and the tenure would be from year to year after the present leases had expired. A tenant would offer a very much reduced rent because the farm was left in bad repair. He would keep it for a few years, and then leave it, and he would go to the landlord and say "I have put this farm into excellent order; you must compensate me for what I have done." The landlord was in a hopeless position; he would have to pay. That meant compensation for what the other man had lost for them. There was absolutely no equality about it; the landlord was done either way. He earnestly hoped that Lord Clinton would press the Amendment to a division. If carried, it would result in benefit not only to Scottish landowners, but to landowners all over the kingdom.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

thought the experience of Earl Carrington was chiefly English. He wondered whether it had occurred to him to go to the Scottish Office and ask how this clause would work in Scotland. He was bound to say that judging from their experience of the amount of help which the Scottish Office had given in regard to this Bill, which, as they knew, was to be applied to Scotland, he did not think it would have done him much good even had he gone there. He greatly doubted whether at the Scottish Office they really knew anything about Scottish agriculture at the present time. At all events with regard to this Bill, which was a Bill drawn for England and extended to Scotland, the Scottish Office had not done one single thing to make it applicable to Scotland and to introduce the necessary Amendments for that purpose. He would point out to the noble Earl what he was doing. He was saying that this clause was not to apply for one year to a tenancy of any sort or kind, whether it was a yearly tenancy, whether it was a lease for nineteen years, or of any other duration. What was that except to put the man who let his land for nineteen years in an inferior position to the man who let his land for one year? What would be the result of that in Scotland? It would be to do away with nineteen year leases. Any man in future who let his land for nineteen years, whatever arrangements he might make with his tenant with regard to cropping or any thing else, would know that such arrangements were useless. If he let his land for nineteen years he was hung up for nineteen years, whereas if he only let it for one year, as his noble, friend Lord Clinton had pointed out, he could get rid of his tenant if he had cropped his land badly, at the end of one year. He had no doubt that the noble Earl thought he was doing a great deal for the interest of the tenant. He was certain that he had not a tenant himself who would wish to see this Bill passed, and he did not believe the tenants generally in Scotland wanted it for one moment. They had told the noble Earl, with regard to the clause for compensation, that they thought it was perfectly inapplicable to Scotland. The Bill was to be applied to Scotland, but it was not applicable to that country, and the result was that they would do away with nineteen year leases in Scotland. No doubt there were people in the House of Commons—and there might be some of their Lordships—who thought that that meant nothing. If they went to Scotland, and knew anything about Scotland, he was sure they would know that the Scottish tenants did not think so, and if no difference were made between yearly leases and yearly tenancies in Scotland all he could say was that he believed most sincerely it would produce a most prejudicial effect upon Scottish agriculture, and when he said Scottish agriculture he meant from the point of view of the tenant.

*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIG

said that the difficulty they, as Scottish landowners, were in arose from the fact that the Bill was drafted for England and not for Scotland. It was drafted hurriedly, no doubt, and by people who knew nothing about the conditions prevailing in Scotland with regard to land tenure. He would like very much to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, when the Government determined to take up this Bill, they realised that it would apply also to Scotland, and that it would have such prejudicial effect upon the Scottish system of nineteen-years leases.

*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

said that they on the Opposition side had often expressed their appreciation of the way in which the noble Earl (Earl Carrington) had met their proposals with regard to this Bill. He was sorry, therefore, that he had not shown any reciprocal appreciation of their endeavours to meet his views. He was sure that the clause a proposed by his noble friend Lord Clinton was a great improvement on the words in the Bill. The terms of the clause, as amended in Committee, were very much wider not only because four years were substituted for three, but also because they would apply to all leases, and, as his noble friend had said, would practically enable any person who gave a lease of four years to contract himself out of the application of the clause. His noble friend (Lord Clinton), desiring to be fair to the tenants, and to facilitate the working of the clause, had made this proposal to their Lordships. He did not think that, as a rule. English landlords gave anything like nineteen years leases, and therefore it was a proposal rather for Scotland than for England. As an English landlord, if it would meet the wishes of His Majesty's Government he was quite willing to see this proposal applied solely to Scotland. It was the Scottish agricultural system that required it, and he believed the desire for it was by no means confined to landlords, but would be found among tenants as well. He hoped that Earl Carrington would con- sider the matter from the Scottish point of view, at any rate, before the Bill became law.

EARL CARRINGTON

said that of course he did not pretend to be a Scotchman, but he did pay a certain amount of deference and respect to the feelings of Scotsmen, and he would like to draw the attention of the House to the summer conference of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture and associated societies held in June, 1906. He had the honour of seeing the Scottish farmers in Edinburgh, and, as the Earl of Camperdown had said, he thought it was a good rule that, generally speaking, people should be allowed to manage their own affairs in their own place. He would therefore refer to the discussion of these Caledonians on the 15th June. Clause 4 of the Bill was discussed by them, and none of those present—most of whom had leases—put any amendment at all to the resolution of the chairman, who, he supposed, was also a Scotsman. The chairman at that meeting said to his brother Scotsmen— Well, there is no amendment to this resolution, so that I may take it that Clause 4 is unanimously approved of. Those hard-headed men unanimously approved of Clause 4 as it stood in the old Bill, and under those circumstances he thought he was perfectly justified in sticking to his guns, and he would certainly take the sense of the House—either on this point or on his own Amendment which brought it back again to the original form that these Scottish people approved of—that it should be limited to one year only.

On Question, after a division had been challenged, but not persisted in, Amendments agreed to.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

moved to leave out sub-section (5), which had been inserted on the motion of the Earl of Wemyss. He thought that on reconsideration the House would agree that this sub-section was impracticable and of no real utility to the landlord. Very few farmers could comply with it, and it affected a most numerous class who would be unable to do what was required. There was no reason why the landlord and tenant should not agree to adopt the proposal for arrangement contained in the Bill. These were matters which, he would respectfully submit to the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss), should be the subject of agreement instead of statutory obligation. He thought that that was a distinction which the noble Earl would be the first to see and to appreciate, and therefore he hoped he might be permitted to leave out Sub-section (5).

Amendment moved—

"In page 4, lines 20 to 29, to leave out sub-section (5)."—(Earl Carrington.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

May I ask the noble Earl why, if he objects to this sub-section now, he accepted it on a previous occasion?

*THE EARL OF WEMYSS

said he would leave the matter in the hands of the House. Their Lordships had approved of it when he ventured to move it. It was not his own idea, but was suggested to him by responsible persons and it was accepted. He had pointed out on a former occasion that it would be a very good thing, and that it would have a beneficial educational effect; it would teach the farmers to keep their books and their accounts properly. He would now be content with repeating that, and would leave the matter in their Lordships' hands.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

*THE EARL OF WEMYSS

moved to leave out the fourth clause. He objected very strongly to the Government's interfering with the management of private property. He had held that view through a long Parliamentary life; he had stood by it on the Irish Land Bill of 1870, and again in 1881; also on the Agricultural Holdings Bill in another House and in other ways. He did not see, provided that the landlord and tenant did nothing immoral in the management of their estate, that the Government should have anything to do with it. Of course there were few landlords and a great many tenants, and one could understand that there might be a Parliamentary reason for the part of the tenant being taken up by the Government. Passing that by, however, this Bill was not originally the Bill of the Government; it was one of those many Bills that, ever since the necessity of getting a First Reading in the other House was done away with by Mr. Disraeli, had flooded the House of Commons, and led to confusion. He wanted to know on what principle the Government up these Bills. It was very interesting for one to know the secrets of the Cabinet so far. He had his own idea on the subject, and that was that there was a small Committee of the Cabinet which looked through these Bills; that they took up any likely Bill, and asked themselves, "Does this interfere with contracts? If so, we will star it, and take it up. Does this Bill transfer property rights from the real owner to the tenant or to some other person? If it does, then we will star it." Lastly, and this was a very large order and covered the whole field, they inquired, "Is this a Bill conceived upon the old Liberal principles of the greatest happiness of the greatest number—of voters?" If the Bill satisfied any or all of those conditions, it was starred. He would not say that the present measure was a star of the first magnitude; but that it would become so, if they did not take care, he was perfectly certain. The Front Opposition Bench appeared to be satisfied with certain changes that had been made in the Bill. Any changes that he had seen made did not touch the evil of the Bill—the crux of the Bill—which was in the beginning of the fourth clause. Let them read the advertisements of the different clauses which appeared at the back of the Bill. In the case of the present Bill they would see that it embraced the principle of compensation for disturbance. Anybody who had paid attention to the Irish Land Bill knew pretty well what that meant, and what it might grow to. It meant tenant right; in the long run it meant dual ownership. That was an evil principle, and he would point out for their Lordships' consideration that it began thirty-six years ago in the Irish Land Act, which gave compensation for disturbance. That Act was an exceptional measure. He had before him the words of Mr. Gladstone when he brought in that Bill, and he might say of Mr. Gladstone's legislation that he looked upon him—as they would say in Scotland—as the "old Adam" of all evil modern legislation, for it all dated from the Irish Land Act. What did Mr. Gladstone say? Did he see in the future any probability of this legislation coming to England and Scotland? Far from it. He said, when he introduced his Irish Land Bill of 1870— The Bill is a measure wholly and absolutely exceptional. We look upon it as an exceptional Irish measure. Nay, more, we hope the time may come when, instead of being extended to England and Scotland, the provisions of this Bill may no longer be necessary in Ireland. That was the opinion of Mr. Gladstone when he brought the Irish Land Bill forward in 1870. Now let them trace the history of that Bill. What had it ended in? They had had the Land Bill of 1881, and it had ended in the expropriation of the Irish landlords. He had met, in the autumn, an Irish landlord who was a great devolutionist, who said to him with a twinkle in his eye, "I have got rid of all my property. He (the Earl of Wemyss) said, "Have you? What have you done about your place and the surrounding grounds?" "Oh! that is mine for ever," was the answer; to which he had responded, "Yes! till they want it." That was the state of things in Ireland. Now he had told them how all this came from the nest-egg of the Irish Land Act of 1870. Did they wish to import into England and Scotland this same thing, If so, let them vote for this clause and vote against his Motion. He hoped their Lordships, warned by the history of Ireland, would take time by the forelock and prevent evil which would otherwise be felt for generations to come; and in that hope, and in the hope that he would have some support (and he would divide if he even had a teller), he would move the rejection of this Clause No. 4.

Principiis obsta; and he asked their Lordships also to remember that splendid French saying, "Fais ce que doit advienne que pourra," and to act upon it.

Amendment moved—

"In page 4, line 30, to leave out from beginning of clause to 'by' in line 32."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)

EARL CARRINGTON

said he really had heard with great regret the determination of the noble Earl to move to omit this clause. They had listened to his speech with the greatest pleasure, as they always did, but he was bound to say that the subject of the speech was really to his mind a grievous one. He talked about the evils of the Bill. What were the evils of the Bill? The main evil of the Bill was, the noble Earl had said, compensation for disturbance, and he had gone on to say that that meant tenant right and dual ownership. There was no tenant right within the four corners of the Bill.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

I beg your pardon. Compensation for disturbance is tenant right.

EARL CARRINGTON

I deny it.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

Absolutely.

EARL CARRINGTON

said that compensation for disturbance did not mean tenant right, and there was no such thing in the whole of the Bill. They could not twist anything in the Bill into dual ownership. What was the idea of the noble Earl's speech? It was the old idea of hundreds of years ago: "All that is on the earth is mine, and all that is under the earth is mine, and if you do no leave all my property as I wish, and as I tell you, I give you notice to quit. Never mind how long you have been on the property—out you go, and you are not to have any compensation." He would honestly admit that if he lived under the noble Earl, or if he lived under any Member of their Lordship's House, he would have no fear, and he would not have any wish that a Bill of this sort should be brought before their Lordships. But unfortunately things were not in that happy condition that their Lordships would nave them believe. He did not wish to make a Second Reading speech but he thought it was only courteous to the noble Earl to put clearly before the House the view of the Government, not only on the omission of this clause, but on the various other proposals which they would have in a moment or two to discuss upon Clause 4. Perhaps it would save time if he said a word or two on the whole question. The Bill was passed in the House of Commons by large majorities, and they gave great concessions. The Government had gone as far as they could go, as he had said before. In his endeavours to meet the wishes of the Opposition he had strained the loyalty of the Liberal and Radical Party almost to breaking point. A hundred and fifty of them went into the Division Lobby against him, and he could not find it in his heart to blame them, for, had he been a county Member of the House of Commons, he thought he would have done the same thing. That Bill came up to their Lordships' House, and passed a Second Reading without a division; and he had submitted, and would do so again, that the agricultural opinion all over great Britain was favourable to the Bill.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

No, no.

EARL CARRINGTON

said he was perfectly certain in his own mind that the great majority of those who had agricultural interests, and of the tenant farmers, was in favour of the Bill. He had quoted on a former occasion the words of Lord Helmsley, and he was told, and perhaps properly told, that the opinion of a young Member of another House ought to have no effect upon their Lordships' House. But he might be permitted to bring forward the opinion of a well known Member of their Lordships' House, a kinsman of his own, who had very large property in Lincolnshire, and also in Scotland, who was not a Liberal, and who, he believed, disliked and opposed the Bill as much as any Member of their Lordships' House could possibly do. But what did he say? Lord An caster was speaking a few days ago at Grantham, at a meeting of the Conservatives of the Stamford division. Their Lordships knew that Lord An caster was one of the longest-headed of men, and a man whose opinion was worth having. He had a very large property in Scotland as well as in England, and there was not one word in his speech in support of taking the Scottish leases out of the Bill. What did he say? He disliked the Bill, and he gave his reasons why he was opposed to it. But he also said— However, they had got to accept it and to make the best of it. That was what it had come to. He only trusted that the hopes of those who brought in the Bill would come to pass, and that it might do good and have a favourable impression on agriculture. If their anticipations came to pass it would be good for the tenants and good for the labourers— and so on. Lord An caster accepted the Bill, and he was prepared to accept it as it stood. What was the proposal now before them? It was practically to penalise the leaseholders who, as a rule, were the best tenants that their Lordships or any other landlords had, and gave the landlord the greatest security. They were the men who stuck to the estate—the men who had confidence in their landlord and were ready to stand by him. And the advantages of this Bill were given to whom? To the man who had a yearly tenancy, and who could go, sometimes in six months, sometimes in twelve months, and clear out altogether. What was the Scottish attitude with regard to this Bill? The whole of the Members of Parliament for Scotland were unanimous in its favour, and after all one must remember that there was such a place as the House of Commons, and that persons in the House of Commons were elected by the suffrages of their fellow citizens, and that, if they did not represent the feelings of their fellow-citizens at the next election they would lose their seats. All these Scottish Members of Parliament were unanimously in favour of the Bill, and that, to his mind, was conclusive evidence that Scotland, as a country, was favourable to it. And besides that, there was the increasing disposition of the Scottish Chamber to accept the clause they had now before them. He asked their Lordships, was it wise to make a leasehold tenancy less attractive in the tenants' eyes by withholding from the leaseholders rights and privileges which they had very generously given to other tenants? He implored them to do a generous thing, and to do it in a generous manner. Let them treat all their tenants alike, or what would the country say? The country would say that a hardship and an injustice had been done to the best representatives of a hard-working, honourable, and industrious class of men. He thought it would save the time of the House to express what the feelings of the Government were on this point—that they could not give way as regarded the leaseholders; that they could not exempt them from the benefits of the Bill.

*THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

said that, in rising to support the Amendment, he might tell the House that he was one of those who, notwithstanding what had fallen from the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture, thought that this Bill contained a certain amount of dual ownership. In the sixth clause it was provided that if a tenant claimed for certain improvements, and gave notice to the landlord, and the landlord was not prepared to carry them out, the tenant should be able to do so and then come down upon the landlord to pay the expenses. That was really giving the tenant leave to deal with another man's property, and of course that amounted to dual ownership. He had always been in favour of making every concession to the tenant farmers of the country. He thought he knew something of them. They were an industrious, a loyal and a patriotic class, and he had always thought that Parliament should do all it could to meet their views. There were some parts of this Bill with which he must say he agreed. He thought it was quite fair that they should give compensation for unexhausted improvements. It was quite fair that they should give compensation for any damage or injury done by game or in any other way. It was quite fair that they should give a certain freedom of cropping, and not be too restrictive in their agreements in that respect. But when they came to this fourth clause, he quite agreed with the Earl of Wemyss that it was a new departure, which introduced a principle first originated in Ireland in the Land Act of 1870. It tended to a certain fixity of tenure. The noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, who was once a member of a Conservative Ministry, seemed to doubt, in what he said the other night, that this clause included fixity of tenure. It did not say so in so many words, but if they hedged it round with every kind of obstruction, if they made it impose a great expense upon the landlord—an unknown, indefinite expense—they would make him afraid; of making any change, though it might be most desirable in the interest of the estate. His opinion was that that almost amounted to fixity of tenure. It was in that direction at all events. It was not fair or just that a landlord should be exposed to unknown and indefinite expenditure, as he might be under this clause, and therefore he agreed with his noble friend and cordially supported the Amendment. They should, in his opinion, reject this clause, which he considered was out side the general principle of the Bill, and which would be dangerous in its effect. It would tend to introduce friction between landlord and tenant. The relations between landlord and tenant were now most satisfactory. They had settled down into a state of harmony and goodwill, and to pass any clause which disturbed that harmony and good feeling was, in his opinion, contrary to the interests of the country and inimical to the interests of agriculture.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN)

said that the Amendment, if carried, would be a death blow to the Bill, and he thought that fact must be appreciated by every noble Lord who had spoken. He could only say that this clause was regarded by the Government as a vital part of the Bill and, if it were thrown out now, it would prove to have been rather a cruel kindness to have given the Bill a Second Reading. He trusted their Lordships would not, at this stage, destroy an essential part of the Bill.

*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

said he would only trouble the House with one or two observations, because he had already on more than one occasion expressed his view. He agreed with what the noble and learned Lord had just said to their Lordships, that if they had desired to expunge this clause from the Bill they ought to have rejected the Bill on the Second Reading. It was undoubtedly one of the most important provisions in the Bill, and having passed this Bill through Committee, and having made considerable Amendments in the clause, which certainly made it more favourable or, at least, less unfair, to the landlord than in its previous shape, he did not see how they could, consistently with what they had already done, reject the clause on Report. He had always asked himself, in considering the clause, not so much whether it would have any very great effect, as what harm it would do? It was very carefully guarded in its present form. The words at the commencement of the clause he thought really freed it from the objection of the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, that it gave fixity of tenure, or could be described as fining a landlord heavily for doing something which would be consistent with the proper management of his estate. But as the noble Earl (Lord Carrington) had accepted Amendments excluding the operation of the clause, in in certain cases, limiting the amount of compensation, allowing the landlord to obtain a valuation of the stock, implements, and produce which the tenant would have to sell or remove on quitting the holding before sale or removal took place, and constituting a tribunal at the option of either party in the county court for the better and more just carrying out of the clause, he hoped their Lordships would not accept the Motion of his noble friend Lord Wemyss, but would agree to the clause as it now stood.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

trusted that on such an important question, really touching the whole nature of the Bill, their Lordships would excuse a few words from him even at that late hour. He was sorry he could not agree with the noble Lord, Viscount St. Aldwyn. The noble Viscount asked what harm this clause would do. It would do this harm—it would establish a precedent. Leaving out other parts of the clause which might be commented upon, it for the first time enacted that when an agreement had been made with a man for a certain number of years, and that number of years was terminated, the landlord at the end of the agreement was not to be at liberty to do as he liked, but, under certain penalties, the tenure must be renewed for a certain term. That was an entirely new principle in English land law, and, with all due respect to the noble Viscount, he must say it was idle to ask what it did. It established a precedent, and he did not see how they could get out of it. The harm of establishing a precedent was this, and they had seen it in past legislation over and over again. The first establishment of a precedent was never important—it was always very small, and it was always recommended because it was so small. Then when a very much greater invasion of good principle was introduced at a later stage in the history of the country, and they objected to it, they were told, "Oh, it is no use your objecting now; you gave up that principle long ago." Therefore he thought it was in the highest degree important that they should protest in the strongest manner against this introduction of a totally new principle in the land legislation of this country. The noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture had said that he listened to Lord Wemyss's speech with great delight. He (the Duke of Northumberland) was sorry he could not return the compliment with regard to the speech of the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture, because he accused them—or rather he did not accuse them, because he was good enough to exclude the House of Lords—but he accused the other landlords of England of wishing to keep to the stern old rule that everything was theirs upon the earth and below the earth. In the first place, that was not a very incorrect assertion of the rights of property, but if his words meant anything, they did mean that the landlords of England had used their power in an oppressive manner. With all due respect to the noble Lord, he considered that he had no ground for that charge, and although it was perfectly true that in every class there were certain political black sheep, he would like to remind him of one fact which he and those who had framed this measure had entirely forgotten, viz., that, as there were more tenants in the world than landlords, there were more black sheep among the tenants than there were among the landlords. In all this legislation there was not one single safeguard for the landlord against the tenant of the same value as there was for the tenant against the landlord. Before going further, he would return to this question of the new principle of not allowing a man at the conclusion for his agreement to re-let his land as he liked. He had to let it "according to the principles of good estate management." He would put a case. A man took a lease for ninety years. That lease expired. He received notice, and went, or was about to go, and the landlord intended to take that farm into hand, and to put, perhaps, his eldest son on it in order that he might learn farming. Some people thought that a very wise thing to do if the son was going to hold much property, but was it "good estate management"? He thought the young gentleman would very probably mismanage the farm—which was, indeed, partly the object of letting him farm, in order that he might make mistakes and learn by experience. But that, he imagined, would be an impossible process under this clause, unless large compensation was given to the outgoing tenant. If the noble Lord (Earl Carrington) thought that this Bill was really in favour of the tenants, he was making a very great mistake. He thought it should rather be called "The Annoyance of Good Tenants Bill." He could only repeat what he had ventured to say the other night, that every yearly agreement would have to be called in, and nothing was more disagreeable to a tenant than the suspicion that the terms under which he held would be modified in any way. Not only that, but in a great number of cases more than one name was mentioned in the agreement. In every one of those cases the landlord would have to call in all the agreements and expunge all the names but one, because otherwise, as the existence of two or three names in an agreement would form a partnership, there would be no conclusion of agreement at all unless that was done. What would be the consequence to the tenant? First of all, it would be against the traditions of many estates, and tenants were very fond of having their relations included in the agreement. He would like to know whether the Government had considered, or was aware, that if these names were not allowed to be put into the lease, tenants would be liable to increased death duties. He had about eighty-five such tenancies on his own estates, and when he called in those agreements, and put only one name in them, those tenants' families would have to pay death duties which they had never had to pay before. Did the noble Lord imagine that this Bill was going to be very popular under those circumstances? And what was going to be the case in small holdings? He saw that the other day the noble Lord had received a deputation from small holders, and had stated that he was very glad to encourage them. Did he think this Bill was going to encourage landlords to break up their farms into small holdings? Did he imagine for one moment that when all these complicated settlements had to take place with every tenant, landlords would wish to have more tenants than they could help on their land? Of course not. It was a direct discouragement to small tenancies, and, what was even worse, he thought it was a very great deterrent to small ownerships. He was told there were parts of the country already where small owners to some extent existed—they all knew that they were very few and far between—where the owners were aghast at the prospect of what would happen under this Bill. The way in which that worked was very plain. A man might be an able-bodied man, and have a son or two at home, and he got on in his small freehold very well. But he knew that: some day he would be gathered to his fathers, and that then his widow would probably have to let. What would be the prospect of a widow, who was not, generally, a very good person to manage business? What would be her condition when she had let her lands, and was face to face with all the conditions which the noble Lord had put into the Bill? It was a most retrogressive measure, and he thought that the noble Lord, Lord Wemyss, was perfectly justified in raising this question upon Clause 4, which was the essence, as had been confessed, of the Bill. He could not quite see the argument of the noble and learned Lord when he said that the whole essence of the Bill was in Clause 4. The whole mischief of the Bill was in Clause 4, or almost the whole of it. That, he admitted, but he should hardly have thought that a representative of His Majesty's Government would have said that in a Bill of some ten clauses the balance were of no value, and were not an improvement upon the present practice. Surely all these provisions in regard to game, cropping, and all the rest of it, were of some value in noble Lords' eyes, and they were not going to put the whole merit of the Bill into Clause 4. He was sorry to have detained their Lordships at that late hour upon a matter which he quite agreed was one rather for Second Reading than for Report; but as they had not been afforded an opportunity before of calling attention to the mischief of Clause 4, he thought they had every right to protest against it now.

LORD BARNARD

said he could not vote for the exclusion of the clause. He was perfectly convinced, after making considerable inquiries upon the subject, that there was a strong feeling on the part of agricultural tenants that in some cases they were unduly displaced. He was not going to follow the noble Duke into the details of the clause. The question before the House was whether, on the general principle, tenants should have any compensation in the event of being dispossessed without sufficient reason. As far as his own estates were concerned—although his experience was not limited to one county, but extended over several counties in England—there I was no reason for complaint on the part of tenants at all. But from inquiries he had ascertained that here and there—particularly in the midland counties—cases of the kind did now and then occur, and if that was so he considered that in the interests of the farming community generally it was only right that tenants should be protected against such treatment. Therefore, if the noble Lord pressed the matter to a division, he should certainly vote against him.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

trusted that the Committee would be guided by the noble Viscount (Viscount St. Aldwyn), and not vote against the clause. He did not pretend that he had any great admiration for it, nor did he attach much credence to the statement of the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture, who had said that the clause was earnestly desired by the agricultural community. There had no doubt been an agitation of a kind going on lately in the country, but it was what he should call a one-man agitation, personally conducted by the noble Earl himself. But what they were face to face with was the fact that their Lordships' House had passed the Second Reading of this Bill, and that as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had told them just now, this clause was really the central clause of the Bill, and there could be no doubt whatever that its rejection meant the failure of the Bill. Speaking quite frankly, he would be very sorry indeed to see the death of this Bill laid at their Lordships' door. He thought the clause, bad as it was, was much more innocuous than many noble Lords supposed. It had certainly become very much more innocuous since the Bill had been before their Lordships' House. He thought, for example, the noble Duke who had addressed their Lordships so earnestly just now was sincere in his belief that one effect would be to oblige the landlord to renew a tenancy at its expiration. As he understood the clause, the question of compensation only arose on the tenant's quitting his holding. Therefore, that to which the landlord was exposed was not a liability to be compelled to renew the tenancy, but a liability to pay a certain amount of compensation in a very extreme case, which most of their lordships believed would arise very infrequently indeed.

LORD SALTOUN

wished to ask Earl Carrington one question. He had said that the clause did not include tenant right or dual ownership. Did it relate to fixity of tenure or continuity of tenure?

EARL CARRINGTON

Continuity of tenure.

On Question, "That the words pro posed to be left out stand part of the

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON

said that the next Amendment extended over several paragraphs, and as it was practically a drafting Amendment it might be the pleasure of the House to take it en bloc.

Amendment moved—

"In line 4, after the word 'stock,' to insert the words 'on or used in connection with the holding,' and also to insert the words 'Provided that no compensation under this section shall be payable—(a) unless the tenant has given to the landlord a reasonable opportunity of making a valuation of such goods, implements, produce, and stock as aforesaid; or (b) unless the tenant has, within two months after he has received notice to quit or a refusal to grant a renewal of the tenancy as the case may be, given to the landlord notice in writing of his intention to claim compensation under this clause," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 76; Not-Contents, 18.

CONTENTS.
Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Stanhope, E.	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)
	Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)
Crewe, E. (L. President).	Waldegrave, E.	Emly, L.
	Yarborough, E.	Eversley, L.
Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)		Fitzmaurice, L.
Cholmondeley, M.	Churchill, V.	Glantawe, L.
Lansdowne, M.	Halifax, V.	Grimthorpe, L.
Salisbury, M.	Hill, V.	Hamilton of Dalzell, L.
	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-more.)	Haversham, L.
Beauchamp, E.		Kinnaird, L.
Camperdown, E.	St. Aldwyn, V.	Lawrence, L.
Carrington, E.		Lovat, L.
Cawdor, E.	Addington, L.	Monkswell, L.
Chesterfield, E. (Teller.]	Armstrong, L.	Newton, L.
Chichester, E.	Balfour, L.	North, L.
Clarendon, E.	Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)	Overtoun, L.
Craven, E.	Barnard, L.	Pirrie, L.
Denbigh, E.	Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Reay, L.
Dundonald, E.	Belper, L.	Sanderson, L.
Fortescue, L.	Borthwick, L.	Sandhurst, L.
Gainsborough, E.	Boston, L.	Sandys, L.
Harewood, E.	Braye, L.	Seaton, L.
Harrowby, E.	Castletown, L.	Stalbridge, L.
Jersey, E.	Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Stanley, of Alderley, L.
Morley, E.	Colebrooke, L.	Tweedmouth, L.
Plymouth, E.	Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)	Weardale, L.
Portsmouth. E.	Denman, L, [Teller.]	Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
Shaftesbury, E.	Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

NOT-CONTENTS.
Northumberland, D.	Falkland, V.	Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)
		Saltoun, L.
Cathcart, E.	Avebury, L.	Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)
Dartrey, E	Clinton, L.	Stewart, of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.) [Teller.]
Devon, E.	Forester, L.
Feversham, E.	Hastings, L.	Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.) [Teller.]
Morton, E.	Middleton, L.
	Mowbray, L.

section; or (c) where the tenant with whom a contract of tenancy was made has died within three months before the date of the notice to quit, or in the case of a lease for years before the refusal to grant a renewal; or (d) if the claim for compensation is not made within three months after the time at which the tenant quits the holding."—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

said that he had an Amendment upon the Paper which he did not now desire to move, except as regards its last sentence, which might come in after the word "holding" in sub-section (d) of the Amendment just moved by Earl Carrington. The words he proposed were— Unless notice of intention to make such a claim shall be given to the landlord not less than three months before the determination or expiration of the tenancy, and unless full particulars of such claim shall be delivered to the landlord within one month. He thought that was only carrying out more fully the noble Lord's intention.

*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

did not think the words would come in properly where the noble Duke proposed them. They must be very careful what they were doing, as that was the last opportunity they would have of amending the Bill. Paragraph (d) limited the time within which a claim might be made after the tenant had quitted his holding, but what the noble Duke wished was that particulars should be sent in long before that.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

said that if the noble Viscount (Viscount St. Aldwyn), would look at his Amendment he would see that it was really the noble Lord's Amendment, except so far as the last words were concerned.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

"Within one month" of what?

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

Within one month after the three months.

EARL CARRINGTON

thought the noble Duke's point was met by subsection (b), which required the tenant to give notice in writing of his intention to claim compensation. He hoped the noble Duke would not press his Amendment, as he thought it would be hard upon the tenant.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

was afraid he was rather irregular to speak so often upon the Report stage, but he would like to remind the noble Earl that there was nothing particularly legal in his Amendment, but it was merely directed to securing that the landlord should have full particulars of the claim. Surely that was a proper thing for the landlord to have.

EARL CARRINGTON

said he honestly thought the landlord was properly protected, and he again expressed the hope that the noble Duke would not press the Amendment.

The Duke of Northumberland.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

Very well; I will not press it.

*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

moved to insert a new paragraph:— (e) In the case of leases for fourteen or more years current at the passing of this Act.' He said that in Committee words were inserted providing that this section should not apply to leases of nineteen years or longer in duration. He thought that on consideration their Lordships might be of opinion that that went too far, because it would exclude all future leases from the clause as well as existing leases. He had ventured to submit to their Lordships that leases were really in a different position, not only in other parts of the Bill, but also in this clause, from the ordinary year to year tenancy. When two persons entered into a lease—a lease at any rate for nineteen years—each party knew very well that he was entering into an agreement which would in the ordinary course of things be subject to revision or reconsideration at the end of nineteen years, and therefore the suggestion that there would be a capricious determination of the tenancy at that time as there might be in the case of a yearly tenancy, could hardly be said to apply, at any rate in the case of leases made before the passing of this Act. Neither landlord nor tenant could have imagined that there would be a law passed which would prevent a revision of the agreement at the end of the nineteen years. Both parties in the future could take care of themselves. If His Majesty's Government desired to suggest to the landlords—as they did suggest by this Bill—that they should substitute a yearly tenancy for a lease, they could do so; and if the parties preferred a lease notwithstanding that, they could enter into a lease, knowing quite well what might happen at the end of it. Therefore, he had prepared this new paragraph omitting from the operation of this clause only leases for fourteen years or more current at the passing of this Act. He hoped the noble Lord would see that at any rate it was a considerable improvement from his point of view upon the words as they now stood in the Bill—that it was in fact a concession to meet the objections which he had raised to the excluding of leases from the clause, and yet an attempt, as he did not think could be denied, to do justice in the case of existing leases. He begged to move.

Amendment moved— To insert the following now paragraph: '(e) in the case of leases for fourteen or more years current at the passing of this Act.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

EARL CARRINGTON

quite agreed that it was a concession, and an attempt to do justice to existing leases, but he very deeply regretted that it was absolutely impossible for the Government to accept it. He had already said what he had to say on the question of leaseholders being exempted from the benefits of the Act, and he did not now wish to intrude longer on the time of the House. He hoped the noble Viscount would not think it discourteous in him not to reply to his argument at length. He had already stated his objections, and would therefore content himself with making the very strongest protest in his power against the proposal. He was absolutely in the hands of the House, but he hoped his protest would be taken with a view to save the trouble of going to a division.

*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

hoped that Viscount St. Aldwyn would press his Amendment. He would rather see the Bill lost than that this Amendment should not be adhered to. He did not believe that there was any precedent whatever for such a proposal as that two men should make a bargain for a period of years, both knowing that it was to come to an end at a certain time, and that in the middle of the period there should be somebody coming along and saying, "You are to have privileges for which you have never bargained." There was not the smallest justification for such a proposal. He had himself voted for the retention of this clause. He had never given a vote with greater reluctance in his life, but he gave it because he thought, after their proceedings the other night, they were in honour committed, after having amended the clause, to keep it in the Bill. But he voted for it in the hope that at any rate they would receive some consideration in respect of the interference with their leases in Scotland which was set up by this clause. He had appealed to two noble Lords from Scotland a few moments ago—the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for the Colonies—and he had asked a question which he thought demanded an answer. He thought it was a fair and reasonable question, and he begged now to repeat it, and to ask whether, when the Government took up this private Bill, they realised the effect it would have on leases in Scotland, and resolved to break down the Scottish system of land tenure. The noble Earl, the President of the Board of Agriculture, had spoken about penalising the leaseholder. There was no penalty on the leaseholder. He got his full bargain carried out to the end of his term. He got everything he asked for, and had no right to expect more. He (Lord Balfour) held that the First Lord of the Admiralty had given their Lordships a practical promise to do something for the interest of leases. He had promised to introduce certain provisions which would especially meet the case of nineteen years leases. That promise was not even restricted to existing leases. It had a general effect, and he did not think he misinterpreted the noble Lord's intention in saying that when he made that promise he intended to apply it to all nineteen years leases, whether current now or current hereafter. The request before the House at the present moment was not made with regard to all nineteen years leases in the future, although he thought that might fairly be asked, but was merely to restrict the operation of the clause from applying to existing bargains. Not one single argument or reason had been advanced by the Government or their supporters against this very moderate proposal. The hour was so late that he would refrain from quoting speeches made in Scotland by the noble Earl himself, but the President of the Board of Agriculture had gone as far as he could possibly go towards admitting in Scotland that for the protection of the Scottish tenant this Bill and this clause, was not Required. They had heard about tenants being given notice in an unreasonable manner. He would like to ask whether, by parity of reasoning, the landlord to whom a tenant gave unreasonable notice ought not to have compensation for his tenant going away unreasonably. Why should there be a difference of that kind as between landlord and tenant? He was afraid some of his arguments were not being listened to by the noble Lords on the Front Ministerial Bench, who were continually conversing with each other. He was sorry to be insistent, but he did not think that noble Lords in England had the slightest idea of the way in which Scottish customs were being broken into by this measure. It was the most unjust thing he had ever known since he entered Parliament. He thought he was fairly entitled to ask why the tenant should be the favourite of the Government at the expense of the landlord. If the tenant gave capricious notice to the landlord, why should not the landlord have compensation? He confessed that he expected his suggestion to be ridiculed, and he did not make it with any hope of its being accepted. But if the tenant was to have compensation under certain circumstances he did not see why the landlord under corresponding circumstances on the other side should not also have compensation. He should certainly urge that this Amendment be inserted in the Bill, and, so far as he was concerned, if it was rejected in another place he would do his very utmost to insist upon it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

said he would make a third appeal to the noble Lord, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, as to whether, as a matter of courtesy, they would give him some reply to the Question which he had twice addressed to them.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said that so far as he was concerned he must admit that he had held out certain hopes, which he was authorised to do. For his part he thought it was a very reasonable proposal, but he was prepared to support the Government of which he was a Member, and therefore he should stand by the Government in this matter.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

said that the other Question, which was equally courteously put, was whether, when the Government resolved to take up this English private Member's Bill, they realised the serious inroads which it would make into the Scottish practice.

Consequential and drafting Amendments agreed to.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND,

in moving to insert in Clause 6, after the word "intention," the words "together with particulars of such repairs," said that a noble Lord had moved in Committee an Amendment to the effect that the tenants should furnish "plans of such repairs." His Majesty's Government resisted that, and, as he thought, very naturally, because he did not see how the tenant could be expected to give plans—indeed some of the work might not necessitate any plans at all. At the same time, he thought it desirable that the tenant should furnish particulars of repairs; and he trusted the Government would make no objection to that.

Amendment moved—

"In page 5, line 30, after the word 'intention,' to insert the words 'together with particulars of such repairs."—(The Duke of Northumberland.)

EARL CARRINGTON

I have no objection to that.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON,

in moving to leave out the word "at" and to insert the words "within one month," remarked that it was merely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved—

"In page 5, line 33, to leave out the word 'at,' and insert the words 'within one month."—(Earl Carrington.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said it was nothing of the kind. Lord Carrington was perhaps unaware that he had already accepted that suggestion in Committee; but, if he had any doubt about it, he would state what had been said. Lord Carrington had proposed to insert "one month," and he (the Ear of Camperdown) observed that he had no particular objection to "one month," but that he thought it rather a short time. Ultimately the noble Lord agreed to accept "three months"; and now the noble Lord, having accepted that, said that this was a mere drafting Amendment. Would the noble Lore explain what he meant?

EARL CARRINGTON

said that he would explain exactly what he meant The fact was that he had forgotten the incident, but, of course, he entirely accepted what the noble Earl had said.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

"In page 6, lines 5 and 6, to leave out the words, 'and in its application to Scotland on the first removal term day thereafter."—(Earl Carrington.)

*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Will the noble Lord explain this Amendment?

EARL CARRINGTON

explained that the Amendment was in accordance with Lord Saltoun's proposal, namely, to put off the date on which the Bill came into operation to November, 1909.

LORD SALTOUN

No.

EARL CARRINGTON

said the date was to be the 1st November, 1909—that was the first of the removal term days. He hoped the Amendment would not be objected to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

thought there was no objection to this Amendment, provided the noble Earl would assure the Committee that the year "1909" was to stand.

LORD SALTOUN

explained that he had not meant what was suggested by Earl Carrington. He meant the Whitsunday term, which was the first term; and he had mentioned it merely because it was a term day. But, if the noble Earl would accept "1909" as suggested by the Earl of Camperdown, he did not wish to oppose the Amendment

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

pointed out that Earl Carrington had accepted "1909" already.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

thought the House ought to have a distinct guarantee from the noble Earl that if they admitted the deletion of these two lines "1909" would be adhered to with all the strength of the Government in another place.

EARL CARRINGTON

said he had given a pledge to the noble Viscount that he accepted "1909," and he was prepared to stand by that pledge.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL CARRINGTON,

in moving the insertion of a new clause with special provisions as to Scotland, observed that he did so in redemption of a pledge given in another place to submit these matters for their Lordships' consideration. He had tried to get the Amendment moved by an independent Member, but had failed; and as the pledge was given in the other House, he now moved it himself. The House would probably consider that the Amendment raised, some important questions of principle, which at that time of night it was impossible adequately to discuss; but the pledge having been given, he stood by his word, and moved the Amendment.

Amendment moved—

"To insert as a new clause, In Scotland—(a) So much of the Ground Game Act, 1880, as limits the number or prescribes the classes of persons who may be authorised under that Act to kill or take ground game otherwise than with firearms shall be repealed; (b) Any agreement made after the commencement of this Act by which an incoming tenant undertakes to pay to the outgoing tenant any compensation payable to him for improvements shall be void."—(Earl Carrington.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said the House was entitled to ask Earl Carrington whether he made himself responsible for the proposed new clause. This was a Government Bill, and the noble Earl was the Minister in charge of it. He had always understood that a Minister who put a clause for-ward in a Government Bill made himself responsible for it. Was the noble Earl responsible for this clause? Because, if not, he would move to strike it out without any further conversation.

EARL CARRINGTON

said he had already told the House that a pledge had been given in another place, and he felt bound to move the insertion of the clause so that the matters contained therein might be submitted for consideration. He considered that if a pledge was given it ought to be carried out; and therefore he had put this Amendment on the Paper. The noble Lord was at perfect liberty to do whatever he pleased with regard to it.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

thought this was the most extraordinary thing he had ever heard of in connection with Ministerial responsibility. In the first place, a pledge was given somewhere else that some proposal was to be made in their Lordships' House with regard to a Bill which in the other House was a private Member's Bill. The noble Lord had endeavoured to get among his friends in their Lordships' House some person who would move the Amendment. He appeared to have been unsuccessful, but he now came forward and made, the proposal himself. In the first place he had told their Lordships he was responsible.

THE EARL OF CREWE

Surely at this time of night it is not worth while to pursue this matter much further. The noble Earl (Earl Carrington) has placed an Amendment on the Paper and he has intimated that on both sides of the House noble Lords may vote either for or against it as they please. Under the circumstances, I submit that to pursue the matter any further at this period of the evening would be a mere waste of time.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said that as he now understood that the Government were perfectly indifferent as to whether the proposed clause was inserted or not, he would vote against it.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Then (Standing Order No. 39 having been suspended): Bill read 3^a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.