HL Deb 16 December 1920 vol 39 cc371-92
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, although it is irregular I believe it would be to the convenience of your Lordships' House if the Government could make some announcement as to the course of business to-morrow, so that noble Lords may know the order in which business will be taken.

On Question, whether the words proposed shall be here inserted?—

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 43.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I think it is so important that this House should maintain its ancient tradition that it has no Rules that as a new precedent this is not to be despised. I think it is new. Nevertheless in the interests of general convenience, perhaps your Lordships will permit a very short discussion upon the matter raised. I am informed that the points which still remain to be discussed between the two Houses on the Government of Ireland Bill have been very much reduced in number as a result of the decisions taken in the House of Commons to-day, and, therefore, unless there is a strong objection or behalf of noble Lords who are interested in the Agriculture Bill, I should myself be prepared to assent to the wish that the Irish matter be disposed of first, and with the object of making it certain that the course of this Bill would not be unduly interfered with, it would be possible for the House to sit at half-past two if noble Lords would be prepared to do so. That would give half an hour.

The only observation I would make upon that is—I am taking the House most frankly into my confidence—that the Government Whips have only been sent out for three o'clock, and therefore I should trust to the honour of noble Lords to see that no Division was challenged before three o'clock. Under these circumstances, and being persuaded that the Irish question—although, of course, it will require discussion because two or three substantial points remain—will not really impinge greatly upon the time available for the discussion of the Agricultural Bill, I should myself, on behalf of the Government, welcome the decision, if your Lordships were disposed to take the same view, that precedence might be given in these circumstances to the Irish Bill to-morrow. I should do that very much more heartily if I was sure, and I think I am, that your Lordships were prepared to sit for a considerable time to-night to deal with agriculture. We are in no way inferior to the House of Commons, and I am informed that the House of Commons is sitting till about two o'clock, and I would entreat your Lordships, though I will not promise to stay the whole time, to exhibit a striking instance of endurance.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

May I ask the noble and learned Lord if we are taking the Scottish Housing Bill to-morrow?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I suppose we shall be guided by our experience.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Not till after this Bill?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Certainly not. The noble Duke will no doubt wait till we have disposed of other matters.

THE DURE OF ATHOLL

had on the Paper an Amendment at the end of para- graph (f), to insert the following new paragraph ("or (g) accommodation lands or grass parks let to butchers, cattle-dealers and the like, whose business or calling is not primarily agricultural or pastoral.")

The noble Duke said: The noble Lord in charge of the Bill is most anxious, I understand, to have a logical point, and I think what I am asking is perfectly logical and is also practical. 1 am not at all desirous of detaining your Lordships any longer if the House is prepared to accept that Amendment as I think may possibly be the case. It has already appeared in Scottish Bills. The object of the Amendment is perfectly clear because the avowed object of Clause 8 is to give the tenant security for his capital sunk in the land. In the case of this accommodation land and these grass parks tenants have no capital sunk in the land at all, nor is there any question of the tenant being turned out of his hearth and home. Therefore I fail to see why these lands should be included in the Bill.

These lands are always situated on the outskirts of towns and are purely accommodation lands, the tenants are yearly or for even shorter periods. It would be absurd that they should be given the same security of tenure as others or that they should be given a reward which they do not deserve at the end of their tenancy. If you are going to give all the tenants of these accommodation lands—auctioneers and people of that sort—security of tenure. I think it will raise extraordinarily difficult points in every district around every village. It has not been asked for, it is not wanted, and there seems to be no reason at all in equity or necessity for putting it into the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has asked me to put "fishermen" into the Amendment because in many cases these lands are used by fishermen for drying their nets. I beg, therefore, to move the Amendment as altered.

Amendment moved—

Page 15, lines 11, at end insert the following new paragraph:— ("or(g) accommodation lands or grass parks or other grass lands let to or used by butchers, cattle-dealers, dairymen, fishermen, and the like, whose business or calling is not primarily agricultural or pastoral.")—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD HASTINGS

I withdrew a similar Amendment in favour of that moved by the noble Duke, but I should like to add these words at the end: "also grass lands customarily let on annual lettings" because the words put down by the noble Duke would not cover such things as marsh lands which are commonly let in many parts of England by auction annually. I should like to support the Amendment with the addition of those words.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I am not quite certain what the position of the Government is with regard to the Amendment, but so far as my Amendment is concerned it could be drafted in any other way, and I am prepared to take any wording which is agreed.

LORD LOVAT

I cannot see the object of including fishermen in the Amendment and I think it would be most inadvisable to do so. But I am quite in sympathy with the other objects of the Amendment because it involves no hardship on the people who use these lands.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

Unless the Government particularly wish it I would ask them to keep in fishermen, because I have been advised by two noble Lords who are experts that that is necessary, and they have asked me to put it in.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

There appears to be some slight difference of opinion between noble Lords who are in favour of this Amendment, which raises the point which Lord Hastings had previously brought forward. As I understand the proposal it is that no compensation for disturbance shall be paid in respect of accommodation lands or grass parks let to persons whose business or calling is not primarily agricultural or pastoral. It may be that the customs in Scotland are not the same as in England as regards the letting of grazing rights to butchers, but I confess I had assumed them in their main features to be similar. In England the common arrangement is to let the grazing, but not the land itself, to a butcher or grazier for a period usually less than twelve months, but seldom, if ever, more than twelve months. I have never in my experience known a case of letting for more than twelve months. In such a case the butcher or grazier is not a tenant of the land at all, and, if he were a tenant, his tenancy would come to an end, with no notice to quit, at the expiration of the period for which the grazing rights of the land were let to him. Of course, no case under this Amendments would arise in that contingency.

But on the other hand, a butcher or grazier might take land in the ordinary way—and I should think that would arise also in Scotland—on a yearly tenancy for the purpose of his business, very likely for the purpose of finishing his cattle, or keeping them pending their slaughter or disposal, more than for the purpose of farming the grass land. But if he does that surely his loss by eviction from the farm would be as great as that of any other tenant. It must be so in the cases I put to the noble Duke. And I cannot see why in such a case he should not receive compensation for disturbance when his tenancy is determined by his landlord.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

He has got "flying" stock. It is quite a different thing. He has got no residence in the land. There are two or three butchers, and it is put up to the highest bidder, and one of them takes it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

He is either a tenant of the land or he is not a tenant of the land. Supposing he has taken the grass land in the ordinary way on a yearly tenancy for the purpose of his business. Surely his loss might be very serious, even in the case supposed by the noble Duke, and I cannot understand why in that case he should not receive compensation for disturbance when his tenancy is determined by the landlord.

I am informed that, as far as England is concerned, there is no necessity at all for this Amendment, and this particular Amendment could in no case be accepted. The words "the like" are not words of art and could not be reasonably construed in the Courts. If the noble Duke is of opinion that there is a special case as regards Scotland and will bring up some more appropriate words on Report, the Government is not the least averse from considering it. They are clearly of opinion that no special case exists as regards England.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

The words used are taken from the Small Holders Scotland Act 1911.

THE L0RD CHANCELLOR

My noble friend Lord Lee is most anxious to acquaint himself with the special case of Scotland, and if noble Lords from Scotland will make him acquainted with that special case before the Report stage, he will consider it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CLINTON: moved at the end of subsection (6) to insert the following new subsection— () Where notice to quit is given by the landlord in order to resume possession of the holding for a specific purpose, such purpose having been expressly provided for and the notice being given in pursuance of a provision in that behalf contained in a contract of tenancy entered into prior to the twentieth day of May one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment excepts certain cases from the Bill. Not the hard cases with which we have lately dealt, but the ordinary business cases which occur where an estate adjoins a developing town. Farms are there let on the understanding that certain numbers are taken off as required for building purposes, and the fact that compensation will have to be paid might to sonic extent retard the development of such towns. I am asking your Lordships to omit those cases in which such arrangements have already been made in the lease.

Amendment moved— page 15, line 11, after ("seeds") insert the said words.—(Lord Clinton.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The same objection applies to this Amendment as applied to Lord Selborne's. It is an exception to the general rule and the Government do not feel it possible to make these exceptions.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BLEDISLOEmoved, at the end of subsection (6), to insert the following new paragraph— (g) If the land has been sublet without the consent of the landlord, provided that such consent has not been unreasonably withheld.

The noble Lord said: This is to provide for the case of sub-letting. The clause is intended to provide compensation for a person who is disturbed in his holding, but there seems no reason to provide compensation for a man who is not there. In some cases one man takes several allotments and then sublets, the original allotment holder making a profit rental. That clearly is a case in which the landlord should not be mulcted.

Amendment moved— page 15, line 11, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This was the subject-matter of a previous Amendment which stood in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor— page 15, line 11, at end insert (g) if the land has been sublet I observed that my noble and learned friend was not in his place, and I suspect that he became aware that it was not really an Amendment which, on consideration, could be supported.

LORD BLEDISLOE

The noble Lord had to retire to bed, I am told.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

As I understand, the proposal is that compensation for disturbance shall not be payable if the land has been sub-let. I suppose this refers to the case of sub-letting a whole-farm, because the noble Lord would be involved in very great absurdity if it referred to the sub-letting of a small fraction of a farm.

Therefore, the substance must be concerned with the hypothesis that a whole farm is sub-let. Compared with the noble Lord I am a child in these matters, but I am informed that the sub-letting of a whole farm is extraordinarily rare. My own small experience in dealing with the law teaches me that most contracts of tenancy in eases of this kind expressly prohibit the sub-letting of a holding. It is obvious that when a landlord lets a particular farm an element, which determines his selection is the personal element. The noble Lord will tell me if I am wrong, but I believe it to be almost unknown to sub-let a whole farm.

LORD BLEDISLOE

Quite frankly, I have not in mind the sub-letting of a whole farm.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Then we are dealing merely with the sub-letting of parts of a farm. Here, again I feel a great disadvantage When I consider the experience of the noble Lord, but I should have supposed that you nearly always find the sub-letting of comparatively small pieces or of allotments, is for the accommodation of a neighbour. In these circumstances I should have thought it was hardly worth while inserting an exception in this case. Had it been proved that it was common to sub-let a whole farm I agree at once that the argument against compensation would be very strong, but the noble Lord knows as well as I do that, where you get the sub-letting of a farm, in nine cases out of ten it is a small concession in favour of the movement towards allotments, or some trifling relaxation of the strict law of the tenancy to accommodate a neighbour. No sufficient case is made out for relaxation in this case. As the noble Lord candidly admits that he is not dealing with the subletting of a whole farm, I do not think he is able to make a sufficient case to exclude compensation here.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I have known of cases on my own property where the sub-letting has been because the tenant has been short of money, and other cases where it is because he has been incapable of managing the farm. I think it is not quite so rare as my noble friend opposite thinks.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am wondering why the noble and learned Lord resists the Amendment. It is of very slight operation, yet so evidently fair on the face of it that one would have thought he would have accepted it. I do not profess to be so familiar with the Bill as my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, but I cannot help thinking the noble and learned Lord has forgotten Clause 9 which deals with allotments.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

No, I have not forgotten it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I ought not to have thought the noble Lord had forgotten anything. I am sure he very seldom does forget. But in the case of allotments a whole allotment might very easily be sub-let, and in that case the Amendment of my noble friend would apply.

LORD BLEDISLOE

At this time of night I do not propose to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in subsection (7), to leave out "reduced by." The noble Duke said: I admit that this applies rather more to Scotland than to England. In Scotland the multiple farmer is very unpopular, certainly among farm labourers and shepherds. But beyond that it is maintained that as a rule when a man has several farms, a farm is not looked after so well nor cultivated so well, nor does it employ as much labour. Therefore probably in the interests of agricultural production there should not be these multiple farms. This question was raised in another place, and they came to a decision there that he was not to get the same compensation as the man who simply had one farm. The way in which it is put in the clause is that the landowner would have to show that the man had not suffered this loss. He would not have access to his books or anything of that kind It is impossible for the landlord to prove that, and my Amendment is not to alter the compensation in any way but simply to put the onus of proof on the tenant who has several other farms to show what loss he has, and not on the landowner to show he has not suffered loss, which of course it would be impossible for him to do. I think this is a reasonable Amendment, and in reality it is carrying out what was intended very much better than as it is in the Bill at the present time.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 16, leave out ("reduced by").—(The Duke of Baccleuch.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If the noble Duke will follow me, as far as I understand it the clause as amended, if his wishes were assented to, would run as follows— In any case where a tenant holds two or more holdings, whether from the same landlord or different landlords, and receives notice to quit one or more but not all of the holdings, the compensation for disturbance in respect of the holding or holdings shall be such amount as is shown to the satisfaction of the arbitrator to represent the loss attributable to the notice to quit notwithstanding the continuance in possession by the tenant of the other holding or holdings, but shall not in any case exceed the amount which would but for this subsection have been payable under subsection (5) of this section. I think that is the effect of the series of Amendments standing in the name of the noble Duke.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

Yes.

LORD CHANCELLOR

I suppose the object is merely to alter the onus of proof in the event of the tenant remaining in occupation of other land. It follows that a landlord who gave notice to quit the holding has to prove that the compensation should be reduced on account of the tenant having other land, which in many cases he would hold from another landlord. I should not have thought that was unreasonable. The landlord prima facie should be liable for the result of his notice to quit, and any reduction of the compensation which is payable by him is surely somewhat in the nature of a windfall.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

To the to tenant.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

To the landlord. It is a reduction of the compensation paid, and it is due to the fortunate circumstance that the tenant holds other land. The objection to the noble Duke's Amendment is that it really does more than alter the onus of proof. It alters the whole basis of the compensation for disturbance, and limits it to the proved loss that is attributable to the quitting. That is not the effect of subsection (5), which has already received the assent of the House, and is as follows— The compensation payable under this section shall be a sum representing such loss or expense directly attributable to the quitting of the holding at the tenant may unavoidably incur upon or in connection with the sale or removal of his household goods, implements of husbandry, fixtures, farm produce or farm stock," and so forth. That after all is by no means the same as this Amendment would introduce. The Amendment, besides shifting the onus, would really destroy the effect of subsection (5).

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I do not think that is the case. It is already restricted in another place to quitting. I think mine is a reasonable Amendment, and I am very much astonished that the noble and learned lord is not able to accept it. I do not think there is any alteration made except as to the onus of proof.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

At least I am on firm ground when I say that the result of the Amendment will be to alter the basis of compensation for disturbance, in this respect that it limits it to the proved loss attributable to the quilting. That is not the effect of subsection (5).

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Surely there is something in this. Another place tried to put it right, and what my noble friend is trying to do is to improve the words arrived at in another place. The case is this. If a man loses his only farm he loses his only home. If the multiple farmer has to quit one of his holdings he does not necessarily lose his home. By the Bill the onus is put on the owner of proving that owing to the possession of other farms the tenant does not suffer the loss that he claims to have suffered. Surely it is almost impossible for any owner to prove that, because the other farm may not be his at all. All that my noble friend does is to suggest that the farmer should prove to the satisfaction of the arbitrator that although he has got another home yet that he has lost more than the owner says he has.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I adhere entirely to my own opinion, and I venture to think still that if Lord Selborne will read to-morrow what I have said, and will consider it in relation to the terms of the Bill, he will assent to the view which I have stated. But Lord Selborne is a friend of the Bill and he has great experience of these matters; and if he entertains a doubt it is sufficient for me to say that the matter shall be most carefully considered before the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BLEDISLOEmoved, at the end of subsection 7, to insert "after taking into account the amount of the capital and labour normally employed by the tenant on the agricultural land in his occupation."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is an instruction to the arbitrator to take into account, in assessing compensation in the case of the multiple farmer, whether he has sufficient capital or employs sufficient capital and therefore labour for the large area of land that he is farming in a multiple way. My defence of this proposal is that it is entirely in the interest of increased food production, because one has to confess that there are a considerable number of multiple farmers in this country who are farming much larger areas of land than their capital justifies them in taking, with the result that much of the land is under-populated in the matter of live stock. I think one of the reasons why both our cattle and sheep in this country are to-day so much less in number than the land ought to carry is that so many farmers are trying to carry on farming on large areas of land for which their capital is wholly insufficient. They forget that where as before the war something like £10 an acre was a reasonable amount of capital for a mixed farm, it requires to-day at least £20 an acre and in some cases £30 an acre. In the best interests of food production I should like to see the noble Lord hit these multiple farmers a deal harder than he does hit them in the Bill in the interests of those who are prepared to step into their shoes. put more capital in, and get greatly enhanced production.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 20, at end insert. ("after taking into account the amount of the capital and labour normally employed by the tenant on the agricultural land in his occupation").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The subsection to which these words are proposed to be added deals with the very involved case of what is known as the multiple farmer. These words were not introduced into the Bill without great discussion between those who represent—and I think have a right to speak on behalf of—the landowning interest and the tenant farmers. It is very difficult for the arbitrator to arrive at a proper compensation in a case where a tenant is evicted front one farm but remains in occupation of another. I cannot help thinking that if the arbitrator is in terms directed to take into account the amount of capital and labour normally employed by the tenant on the land in his occupation he would find his problem one of almost insurmountable difficulty. There is a great danger in these Bills in giving excessive direction to an arbitrator. Unless it is quite clear he is excluded by the terms of the reference to him from giving consideration to these matters, I assure my noble friend, speaking with great experience of these matters, that there is a great risk, and I hope the noble Lord will think it is not a wise proposal that he makes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 25, leave out ("twenty-eight days") and insert ("six weeks").—(The Earl of Selborne.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

We were under the impression, in framing this, that twenty-eight days was sufficient. But I do not think it is a point I should like to oppose if my noble friend prefers six weeks.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD FORESTERmoved, at the end of subsection (9), to insert "provided that in any such arbitration either party may appeal on any question of law or fact against the decision of the arbitrator to the judge of the county court."

The noble Lord said: I am certain that the majority of these arbitrators will be men in whom we can place every reliance, but in case either party thinks he is wronged by the arbitrator I think they ought to be allowed to appeal to the Judge of the County Court on any question of law or fact. Under the Second Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, they are allowed to appeal on a point of law, but not on a point of fact, and I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will see fit to accept my Amendment, which safeguards the rights of either party if they think themselves wronged by the arbitrator.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 34, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Forester.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Everyone, I think, must sympathise with the object the noble Lord has so clearly explained, but we must distinguish between appeals on points of law and appeals on points of fact. There is already an appeal by way of a statement of a ease for the opinion of the County Court on any question of law, and the noble Lord's object is completely safeguarded in that regard. But we are dealing with a very different matter when we come to appeals on questions of fact. We here enter upon a subject-matter which is very familiar. It is contrary to all procedure, all convenience and all reasonableness that you should allow an appeal on facts from the decision of the arbitrator to the County Court. We have always treated the arbitrator in these matters as exactly in the same position as in the case of workmen's compensation, and to allow an appeal from him on fact would mean re- opening the whole matter and re-hearing it. These arbitrators are very carefully selected and there must be finality on questions of fact. Questions of law are capable of much argument and can be taken from court to court, but questions of fact once settled by the arbitrator cannot be reopened.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

had on the Paper an Amendment after subsection (9) to insert a new subsection. The noble Earl said: The Government accepted an Amendment to Clause 4 which was moved by Lord Phillimore exactly to the same effect as that which stands on the Paper in my name. But in response to a suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Lee, Lord Phillimore made certain alterations in the wording. I propose to move my Amendment exactly in the form in which the Government accepted that Amendment. Nobody ever let the land round his house except on the Duplication that he wanted to resume possession of it when he could without having to pay a fine. No tenant has ever taken such land without that understanding, and I move, therefore, that such land "be omitted.

Amendment moved—

Page 15, line 34, after subsection (9) insert the following new subsection: ("() The expression 'holding' in this section shall not include any land which forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground or of any home farm attached to, and usually occupied with the mansion house, or any land adjoining the mansion house which is required for its protection or amenity and the compensation for disturbance payable in respect of a notice to quit given in respect of any such land shall be that which would have been payable under section eleven of the Act of 1908 if this Act had not been passed").—(The Earl of Selborne.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Surely the case is not quite on all fours with the previous Amendment of Lord Phillimore's. We were then dealing with the case of a mismanaged estate and the putting in of a receiver, but here we are dealing with a tenant who is a tenant in the ordinary way and who would be deprived of his compensation if he loses his tenancy, if Lord Selborne's Amendment were accepted. He deals with three different kinds of subjects. There is first the park. The usual practice in England, I think, is that, the land in the park is not let—the grazing is let, but not the land—and, therefore, the provisions of the Act would not apply in that case, because the tenant of the grazing would not be a tenant of the holding within the meaning of the Act. To that extent that case is, I think, excluded. Then there is the case of the garden or pleasure ground. It is hardly, I imagine, ever the case that a garden or pleasure ground is let to an agricultural tenant.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I know a case.

Several NOBLE LORDS

Oh, yes.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I have certainly never heard of a case myself. Then, with regard to the home farm. The home farm we have found, particularly in connection with the Small Holdings Acts, and indeed from one's own experience, is very frequently let for a period of years, just like any other farm. And therefore the tenant who is in occupation of it, and who is given notice to quit, really suffers exactly the same inconvenience and loss as the tenant of any other holding. This is one of the exceptions which, I know, your Lordships have sought to make in connection with this compensation, but I cannot think that this is one that is really defensible. The injury seems to be precisely the same to the tenant of a home farm as of any other holding, and I do not see consistently with the attitude that the Government has taken up with regard to this question of compensation, that I could possibly accept this Amendment.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

I hope that Lord Selborne will press this Amendment to a Division. Lord Lee says he did not know that land in a park was actually let to a farmer, but only the grazing. I have known numberless such cases where part of the park, or part of the land which usually forms part of the park, is actually in the yearly agreement, and it would be very difficult for an arbitrator to decide whether that is not part of the farm for which arbitration is sought. I myself have let park land on an annual tenancy, very often to oblige a farmer, knowing that I could resume possession of it on a year's notice.

LORD STRACHIE

I had a similar Amendment on the paper, and I can only support what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, that it is quite common practice, if a park happens to be large, to let off part of it as an annual tenancy. In the cases of comparatively small landowners, of which there are a large number in the county from which I come, it is a very common thing for the home farm to be part of the park, and very often every inch of land is let right op to the mansion house. There have been cases where a man owing to the heavy taxation has had to let his home farm. There is a precedent for this. Under the Small Holdings Act there is no power to take the home farm or park. It is protected, and if after being obliged to let his home farm a man must pay one year's rent it seems to me rather hard.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It used to be a common sarcasm, though an unjust one, against us in this House that we were only stirred to deep emotion on a question where parks or home farms were concerned. I always thought it most unjust. But I really think we should make a mistake if we voted on this question without a clear idea of what we are voting about. In the case of a park it is rarely the case that there is a tenant of the land itself. The land may be let out to grazing for a few months, or for the year, but not the land itself, and the provisions of the Bill would not apply to ninety-nine cases out of a hundred. The garden or pleasure ground is hardly ever let to an agricultural tenant.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

In the prevailing poverty it is quite a common thing. I know of three or four cases.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

There are thousands of gardens and pleasure grounds and the mere fact that the noble Earl knows of three or four cases does not mean that the practice is becoming at all Common. If you take the whole of the gardens of England the proportion of those let to tenants is extremely small; but if there is a large number of these cases they should be dealt with.

But we ought to be careful about the home farm. It is constantly let, and I know myself of case after case in which persons have been compelled to let the home farm who have never let it before. If the home farm is let upon the ordinary terms can we really on principle distinguish between the claims of such a tenant and an ordinary tenant. I think we should make a great mistake if we adopt that line. If there is a case to be met on the pleasure grounds—I confess I have some doubt—I hope on the question of the home farm we shall not let it be said that we attempted to assert the preferential position of the landlord over the tenant.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I am bound to say I cannot think that the noble and learned Lord has proved his ease. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that so far as gardens are concerned the practice of letting them has become very frequent and I should think it is likely to become more so. The number of people who can keep up a large garden is decreasing every year, and the same rule would no doubt apply to what is intended by the term "pleasure grounds." As regards the home farm I can quite understand that the noble and learned Lord is thinking of a case where people have given up the idea of farming at all, have parted, so far ahead as they can see, with what used to be the home farm, have let it as an ordinary farm, and have no idea of its ever being resumed. I can understand that in a case of that kind it might be a hardship if the tenant did not get the same benefit as all other tenants. But there must be a large number of other cases where the farm is let for a short period, perhaps during the temporary absence of the owner of the land and the country house, and in those cases there does not seem to be any real ground for placing a quite temporary tenant in the position of the regular farm tenants on the estate. The only effect of this enactment, if it were placed in the Bill, would be that people would not let home farms, except on eleven months' tenancies, and would probably lay down some part of the arable fields to bad grass and let the grazing on them in order not to incur the penalty which this clause would bring upon them. I trust, therefore, that the noble Lords in charge of the Bill will think again on the matter, and if they are obdurate I hope my noble friend will press his Amendment to a Division.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

We seem to have a good deal in common, and I do not know if we can reach an accommodation. As I read Lord Selborne's Amendment I think if we were to omit the words "or of any home farm"—to which we certainly should not agree without an adverse decision of the House—and then were to adapt Lord Phillimore's Amendment which the House has already adopted, which would involve the omission of "or near to"—

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I agree to that.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If the noble Earl thinks we have sufficiently met his wishes in that respect we should be willing to do this. Would that be agreeable?

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I do not want to commit myself against the, home farm, but if I accept the noble Lord's suggestion now I am free to move the home farm separately?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think the noble Earl must expect that we shall oppose it, but he is free to move it.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The Question is that the following new subsection, as altered, be here inserted— The expression 'holding' in this section shall not include any land which forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground attached to, and usually occupied with the mansion house, or any land adjoining I he mansion house which is required for its protection, amenity, or convenience, and the compensation for disturbance payable in respect of a notice to quit given in respect of any such land shall be that which would have been payable under section eleven of the Act of 1908 if this Act had not been passed.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHmoved, at the end of sub-section (10), to insert the following new sub-section— (1l) When determining for the purposes of this section what rent is properly payable in respect of a holding a which is held otherwise than on yearly tenancy, the arbitrator shall, failing agreement between the landlord and tenant, fix the period for which the tenancy is to be renewed.

The noble Duke said: Under the Bill the arbitrator has no power to give more than one year. In the case of Scotland the rent is fixed for five years, and whereas the tenant would have the option of leaving at the end of any one of the five years, the landlord is bound to carry out the five years. I do not see that there can be any objection to this Amendment, which is giving power to the arbitrator. I think it would lead to a great many advantages, because you would have a fixed term of years where it was desired, and the landowner would be very much more willing to lay out money in buildings. It especially affects Scotland because of these five years, during which the landowner is bound absolutely and the tenant is perfectly free. I think it is not only a fair and reasonable Amendment, but it is one which I feel quite certain would be to the advantage of agriculture generally. My Amendment not only gives power to the arbitrator to fix a longer period than one year, but he can, of course, if he thinks right, fix it for the one year. I am afraid I have not been very successful in what I have suggested this evening, but I hope that my noble friend opposite will be able to accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 15. line 39, at end insert the new subsection."—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I assure the noble Duke that anything he says is most carefully considered, and I am not at all sure that the noble Duke has not contributed already to the present structure of the Bill. But I think his present proposal is based on an entire misconception. If Clause 11 is retained when we come to that part of the Bill—I imagine that the noble Duke would support Clause 11—the position will hereafter be also in England and Wales that the leases will not automatically expire but will continue until duly determined by notice to quit.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

From year to year.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Very likely, from year to year. That being so, a landlord or tenant can require an arbitration as to what is to be the rent as from the next ensuing date at which the tenancy could have been determined by notice to quit given at the date of the demand for arbitration. I do not think the noble Duke had that in his mind.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEITH

Oh, yes.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It will effect it very much. Observe that the result of the arbitration will leave the contractual relations between the parties unaltered except that the rent from the date referred to will be raised or reduced. In Scotland the practice is to have certain breaks in the lease. Nobody knows that better than the noble Duke. At such breaks the alteration of rent would take effect. The length of the tenancy under the altered rent, would, of course, continue to be governed by the existing contract of tenancy. This Amendment really is not necessary.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I think my noble friend misunderstood me. When a lease comes to an end then it must, unless the landlord and tenant agree, be an annual tenancy. The object of this is to give the arbitrator power—I think it is a very reasonable provision—if he thinks right, to say that instead of it being an annual tenancy at a certain rent it shall be at a rent for the five years for the tenant in the same way as it is fixed for five years for the landlord in Scotland. I think it would be advantageous in the way of getting people to be more willing to provide buildings and other improvements for the holding.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am still of the same opinion that the Amendment of the noble Duke adds nothing for the reasons already given. At the same time I am bound to admit I do not think the noble Duke's Amendment does any harm; and if the noble Duke feels that he attains any additional safeguard by the concession, I certainly should not resist it. Every unnecessary clause inserted in a Bill gives considerable employment to the profession to which I used to belong.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, whether Clause 8 as amended shall stand part of the Bill?

THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE

I have been asked, on behalf of a large body of persons who believe that they will be placed in some difficulty under this Bill, to lay their case before the Government. There are some solicitors of considerable standing in the Midlands who have sent me the following statement of their case— Under the provisions of this Bill compensation is payable in respect of a notice given before or after the passing of this Act; and in many cases trustees have sold properties before the Bill was heard of and given notice to quit, some of which notices will not expire until after the Bill is passed. In many cases the trustees having no idea that, any such Bill would ever be introduced have disposed of the proceeds of sale among the beneficiaries, and will now be called upon to pay the compensation provided by the Bill and in many cases will be unable to obtain repayment from the persons who are entitled to the purchase money. The Bill being made retrospective in this particular way will work injustice among vendors and a request is made that the Bill should be amended either by striking out the retrospective clause or making it applicable only to cases where sales take place after the Bill was introduced. I know nothing of the case myself, but I have been asked to lay this before the noble Lord.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I hope the noble Marquess will give me an opportunity of considering the very complicated case of which he complains. If the noble Lord will be kind enough to trust me with the original letter or a copy of it I shall be pleased to look into the matter and give him an answer.

On Question, Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

May I ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether he proposes to continue the debate further to-night. It is by no means only a question of the convenience of your Lords-hips, but one has to think of the officials of the House upon whom a late sitting presses perhaps more hardly than upon us.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

We are most anxious, of course, to be considerate of those in attendance upon our convenience here, and equally anxious to attend to the convenience of your Lordships. We had hoped to get Clause 9 to-night, and we obviously shall be confronted with a considerable night's work to-morrow if we now go no further. At the same time your Lordships have been working since four o'clock, and if it is the sense of the House on the whole that we have made sufficient progress we shall not resist the adjournment of the debate.

House resumed, and to be again in Committee to-morrow.