§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 6 (Time in which improvement exhausted).
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 9, after the word "shall," to insert the words "not in any case."—(Colonel Wilson.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked the Government to explain distinctly the reasons why they had assented to what was unquestionably the most important change in the Bill since it left the House of Lords? As this clause came from the Upper House the occupiers of land were to be entitled to a particular term of years for each class of improvements, but now that term was to be a maximum, and so much less than the term might be given, but not more. The clause was a definition of unexhausted improvements, and a great many of the articles 1911 in Class I would not be exhausted in 20 years. The making of bridges and construction of buildings would not be exhausted in that time, although upon the face of the Bill these improvements would be deemed to be then exhausted. Such a provision would lay the foundation of future discontent. If a tenant erected substantial buildings which were in good order at the end of 20 years, and if he received no compensation for them, he would feel it to be rather hard. If what was meant was that, although the improvement had not been exhausted, the tenant had been sufficiently remunerated, then why did they not say so, and, instead of calling it a Bill to secure compensation for unexhausted improvements, call it a tenants' remuneration Bill, which was a very different thing?
§ MR. HUNTsaid, his hon. and learned Friend was not very accurate in the history which he had given of the clause. The Amendment, so far from being a change in the Bill as it came down from the House of Lords, was rather a return to the Bill as it was first brought into the House. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT said, he meant since the Bill had been read a second time.] Exception was taken to the letting value as the basis of compensation, and the change which had been, in consequence, made in the Bill interfered with its elasticity as regarded the term of years during which improvements continued unexhausted. The Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wilson) would make the term of years not a fixed and certain term, but a maximum term within which there should be a certain elasticity. The period of 20 years had been agreed upon as the measure of the term for which improvements were to be considered unexhausted, the object being not to burden the remainderman to a greater extent than was necessary. His hon. and learned Friend observed that good and substantial buildings might be unexhausted at the end of 20 years; but it was not likely that a tenant could erect any buildings to last more than 20 years, without a special agreement with the landlord, giving him compensation for his outlay beyond the terms of this Bill. His hon. and learned Friend appeared in the character of "the farmers' friend," but he (Mr. Hunt) must point out that the farmers' friends, as repre- 1912 sented in the Central Chamber of Agriculture, asked for 20 years' compensation.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he hoped they would not bandy words from one side of the House to the other, as to who were or who were not "farmers friends." With regard to the Amendment, he thought, in the first place, that the whole clause was unnecessary, and that the matter might well be left to the referees and umpire to decide how much of the improvement remained unexhausted. But if the clause were to stand, the argument of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) was logically just, that there should be no limit as against the tenant. A building might be put up which would only last 10 or 12 years—in that case the landlord was safe under the Amendment, but if one was put up which lasted 25 years, the tenant had no protection. But looking at the matter as a practical man, no doubt in the vast majority of cases no such buildings would be put up save under special agreement. Then, without saying a word against the class of valuers from whom the referees would be chosen, they were generally farmers themselves or connected with farmers, and as their leaning would be rather towards the tenant than the landlord, the former would generally get a full term allowed him. Moreover, if the consent of the landlord was to be necessary to these improvements, that consent might be refused if the charge upon the estate was to be for an indefinite period, and therefore they might, by allowing it to be so, prevent those very improvements which they wished to encourage. He therefore preferred the Amendment endorsed by the Government, and if there was to be restriction at all, he would rather have it in the form of this Amendment, which he would presently use as an argument why one of his own ought to be adopted.
MR. PAGETsuggested that the clause would be more rational if it declared that the claim for compensation for an improvement, rather than the improvement itself, should be deemed to be exhausted.
§ MR. PELLsaid, that improvements which would not be exhausted in 20 years were rarely made without substantial co-operation on the part of the 1913 landlord, who often found the material when the tenant found the labour.
§ MR. WELBYsaid, that, on the contrary, he had known a tenant at his own expense lay out more than he would recoup in 20 years.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that though hon. Members opposite were taunted with not being the "farmers' friends," they took the same view as Mr. Pusey, who he presumed was entitled to that character. He wished to know whether the hon. and learned Attorney General had formed any opinion as to how the rights of the tenants under the Emblements Act would be affected by this clause?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that it did not appear to him that the law of emblements had anything to do with the particular question under the consideration of the Committee, which was simply as to the respective periods during which improvements of the several classes were, for the purpose of ascertaining compensation, to be deemed as continuing unexhausted. The object of the Amendment was to carry out the strongly-expressed feeling of the House, and to fix a maximum number of years, beyond which the arbitrator could not in any case go, but leaving it to him to determine the proper period, within that limit, in each case as it arose.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTprotested against the statement that the change had been made in consequence of the strongly-expressed feeling of the House. The Government were conducting the Business in a manner which suggested that they were confounding what had taken place at meetings of the supporters of the Government with what had been done in the House, where the question had not been discussed. The First Minister had announced the withdrawal when bringing down the measure from the other House.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. KNIGHTmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 9, after "Act," to insert "and in the absence of any special agreement as hereinafter provided for." They had now got a Bill embodying the Lincolnshire principle, which had worked well for three generations. He had taken the words of his Amendment from Mr. Pusey's Bills on tenants' compensation. 1914 All those Bills contained a main proposition and an alternative one. The main proposition was, that the tenants should be reimbursed, and that the outlay should be divided over a series of years. Mr. Pusey's alternative proposition was, that persons who wished to make special agreements with their tenants under the Act should be allowed to do so. The present Bill adopted Mr. Pusey's main proposition; but the alternative proposition was, that if landlords wished to make a special agreement with their tenants they should be left out of the Act. Now he contended that there ought to be two sets of special agreements, one outside the Act, and another to meet cases in which the landlords were ready to give their tenants a Schedule with a fair compensation, but not to be thereby left out of the Act. If the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for West Suffolk (Colonel Wilson) had not been carried, Lincolnshire would have been out of the Act. The House had by a majority of four to one decided against the compulsory principle; but if the Bill passed in its present shape all his friends whom he had consulted intended to contract themselves out of the Act, except, indeed, his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he did not think that the words proposed would, if inserted, add to the force or effect of the Bill. If such, however, were the case, it would be necessary that corresponding words should be added to other clauses. He would suggest that they should wait till they came to consider Clause 45, when the whole question could be discussed, and if the Committee were of opinion that additional words were required to give effect to the intention of his hon. Friend, they could be added in that clause, and any corresponding Amendments in other clauses could be made on the Report.
§ SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, that he proposal was one the principle of which he had more than once advocated within the last three weeks. The power of contracting out was the defect which would make the Bill waste paper. He held in his hand a notice to quit, which had been served on 100 farmers in anticipation of its passing.
§ LORD ELCHO, while deprecating any alteration of the clause in the direction 1915 of contracts, considered the Amendment worthy of support, so far as it enabled persons to bring themselves within the operation of the Act.
MR. GOLDSMIDhoped that the suggestion of the hon. and learned Attorney General would be acted upon, and that the Amendment would not be pressed.
§ LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHsaid, that the statement of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Knight) to the effect that the friends he had spoken to intended to contract themselves out of the Act, was quite in accordance with his own experience. Even some noble Lords who had voted for the Bill in "another place" had made similar statements. It was worthy of consideration whether they were not dealing with the subject in a somewhat unscriptural manner—by laying upon other people's shoulders burdens too heavy to be borne, and not being themselves willing to touch them with the tip of their finger; while it might be that the First Lord of the Admiralty would be the one righteous man found among them.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONconsidered the statement made by the hon. and learned Attorney General satisfactory as far as it went; but the question of contracting out of the Bill was too important to be lightly passed over, and he thought they ought to have some definite assurance from the Government as to the alteration they proposed to make in Clause 45. As there was a reference in another clause to agreements outside the Bill, he wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government so to alter the 45th clause as to give agreements entered into between landlords and tenants equal force with the provisions of this Bill?
§ MR. HUNTsaid, he understood the proposal of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Mr. Knight) to be that if the landlord and tenant were anxious to avail themselves of the provisions of the Bill to a certain extent only, or wished to define more clearly than the Bill did for what improvements compensation should be given, they should have the right to enter into such an agreement, and still be able to use the machinery of the Bill in other respects. It was the wish of the Government, in framing the 45th clause, to give landlords and tenants 1916 such a power; and, if the clause did not go far enough in that direction, he should be happy to amend it so as to ensure the attainment of that object. Not only ought parties to be allowed to contract themselves entirely out of the Bill, but they should be permitted to make special agreements within it so as to entitle them to all the advantages which the machinery of the Bill could afford them.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTinquired whether the parties entering into special agreements outside the Bill would in such cases have the advantages of Clauses 34, 35, and 36, the most valuable part of it, and be enabled, under these special agreements, to charge the inheritance?
MR. CHAPLINhoped that Her Majesty's Government would not give any pledge as to amending a clause until the clause was reached. Although he believed that 99 landlords out of 100 would contract themselves out of the Bill, he considered it a most valuable measure, because, in future, tenants throughout the country would enjoy security either under it or under specific agreements adapted to their wants or the circumstances of their particular locality, and based upon the principles laid down in the Bill. It was ludicrous, therefore, to suppose that the tenant farmers of England were so blind to their own interests that they would deprive themselves of the advantages they would possess under the Bill.
§ MR. DODSONsaid, he should like to know precisely what was to be done with the 45th clause before they parted with the Amendment?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought that the promise which had been made by his right hon. Friend ought to satisfy the Committee. There was no difficulty in understanding what the hon. Member for West Worcestershire wanted. His object was to give the parties the option of using the machinery of the Bill or not; but although it might be right to allow the landlord and tenant to enter into such contracts as they might think fit, excluding wholly or in part the provisions of the Bill, it would not, in his opinion, be right to confer upon them power to charge the inheritance by virtue of contracts which were entirely beyond the scope of the Bill.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1917§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENmoved an Amendment, the object of which was to extend the term during which compensation should be given for improvements in the second class from seven years to ten years. He called attention to the evidence given before the Select Committee in 1848 on "agricultural customs," wherein witnesses declared that chalking and marling were improvements not exhausted in seven years, some giving ten, and some as much as 20 years, as the period at which they had themselves seen the effects of such improvements. As they were now only fixing a maximum, this could be no injury to landlords, and it would be a graceful concession to tenant-farmers. Moreover, the Farmers' Club had earnestly pressed for this concession.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 14, to leave out the word "seven," in order to insert the word "ten."—(Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen.)
§ MR. HUNTadmitted that there was room for difference of opinion as to the length of time the benefit of these improvements lasted, but the Central Chamber of Agriculture had taken seven years, and he thought it a very fair maximum.
§ MR. PEASEsaid, that when the time to be fixed by the valuers was governed by the words "not exceeding," they might make the clause more elastic. Agriculture was a rapidly progressive science, and every encouragement should be given to scientific farming and the application of more capital.
§ MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONthought they were taking a great deal of care of the outgoing and very little of the incoming tenant.
§ SIR THOMAS ACLANDadmitted that the Central Chamber of Agriculture was an important body, but he did not think the Bill they had put forward could be quoted as strong evidence in that House. The farmers on the Eastern side of England attached a good deal of importance to this point.
§ MR. DODSONsaid, the Lincolnshire Chamber of Agriculture and some other bodies advocated this extension of time, and in the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Bead) in conjunction with Mr. Howard, 10 years were allowed for durable improvements. As the result of the Amend- 1918 ment already accepted by the Government would be to make the number of years stated the maximum number, there need be no hesitation in making this concession.
§ MR. CLARE READsaid, there was considerable difference between the Schedule in this Bill and the Schedule in Mr. Howard's Bill of 1873. A good many of the improvements mentioned in the latter were taken out of the second and put in the first class in this Bill.
§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, some of these improvements did not begin to tell for two or three years. On moorland, for instance, liming did not tell until after three years.
§ MR. KNIGHTbelieved that a seven years term would be a proper allowance for lime laid on pasture land, and four years on arable land.
§ SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, his experience was that the liming of lands was exhausted in about seven years, while marling lasted ten years. There could be no harm in allowing that maximum.
§ COLONEL DYOTThoped the Government would not give way by accepting the Amendment.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that there was danger in legislating for England according to the customs of any particular county. Legislation on this subject was sure after a time to be made compulsory, and he respectfully warned his brother landlords in that House that if they did not now act in a generous and liberal manner they would not only have this Bill hereafter made compulsory, but probably a much stronger one substituted for it. Talking of different counties, in Kent the chalk was brought from a distance down to the clay lands and much expense incurred in the process.
§ MR. PELLwas inclined to think there was sound sense in the Amendment. He thought the Government might very well accept it seeing that they had already accepted that of the hon. and gallant Member for West Suffolk. In some cases seven years would not exhaust the advantage gained, and as the allowance to be made would rest with the arbitrators, there was no reason why the Amendment should not be accepted.
MR. CHAPLINhoped, after the Amendment which had been already 1919 adopted, the Government would be disposed to accept the one before the Committee.
§ SIR GEORGE JENKINSON, on the other hand, expressed a hope the Government would resist the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 196; Noes 133: Majority 63.
MR. CHAPLINsaid, that the Bill as it stood, provided compensation for improvements in the third class, which calculated according to the two years' scale, would be, in the case of artificial manures, half as much again, and of feeding stuffs three times as much again as was now paid by the Lincolnshire custom, which many people thought too much. He would take a farm of 500 acres, on which the compensation under the Lincolnshire custom would be £625, but under the Bill as it now stood the compensation would amount to £1,500. If they did not take great care they would be creating a tenant-right so exceedingly heavy that it would be almost impossible for an incoming tenant to pay it. It would simplify matters very much if the Government would adopt his proposal, which he put under three heads—manures, cake, and feeding stuffs not produced on the farm, and on this scale—for artificial manures, the whole sum properly laid out by last year's tenant; for cake one-half of the sum properly laid out during the last year, subject to no restriction; and for feeding stuffs not produced on the holding, he would give such proportion not exceeding one-half as had been properly laid out, which would fairly represent at the termination of the tenancy the manurial value to the incoming tenant. With this view he would move as an Amendment, in page 3, line 15, the omission of "two years," and the insertion of "one year."
§ MR. HUNTsaid, he sympathized with the intention of the Amendment, and quite admitted that his hon. Friend was right in his anxiety not to make the burden too heavy upon the incoming tenant. But what they had to consider was, whether one year would really satisfy the justice of the claims in all cases, and the Government had arrived at the conclusion that it would not, especially in the case of a Lady-Day tenancy. There was a certain amount of dissatisfaction 1920 with the wording of the 8th clause, and it was, that the taking the outlay simply, even with a deduction of the profit which the tenant himself had derived, was too excessive a mode of dealing with the question in regard to third-class improvements. Various Amendments on the Paper were to the effect that manurial value should be taken, and, after great consideration, the Government had come to the conclusion that that was a just view. In this clause he proposed to insert the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot) for including hay, and on the same principle he would add seeds; so that the last paragraph would read thus—
Where it is of the third class, the end of two years, or the taking of a crop of corn, seed, hay, or potatoes (whichever first happens).It was also proposed that Clause 8 should be amended by the insertion of the following words—The amount of the tenant's compensation in respect of improvements of the third class shall (subject to the provisions of this Act) be such proportion of the sum properly laid out by the tenant on the improvement as fairly represents the manurial value thereof to an incoming tenant.That would extend to the whole of the three classes of the improvements, and the rest of the clause would be omitted.
§ SIR THOMAS ACLANDcongratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon the proposed change in the 8th clause. He thought it would meet the common-sense view of the case, and get rid of a great many difficult details.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTconcurred entirely with the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) as to the effect of the clause, but he was afraid that making it one year instead of two would not remove the difficulty. It would not prevent controversy as to which field the manure had been put upon, and they would have to identify the land.
§ MR. PEASEsaid, the excellent Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman in the 8th clause would accomplish all he had been striving for, 1921 and would make a wonderful improvement in the Bill.
§ MR. KNIGHTdisapproved of manurial valuation, and thought if they adopted the Lincolnshire custom the clause would be as perfect as it could be made.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENbelieved the question was one which had better be left to referees and umpires who could decide what was really the manurial value.
§ MR. BEACHconsidered the Amendment proposed by the Government a very proper solution of the difficulty.
MR. CHAPLINsaid, the difference between this proposal and that which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) was about to substitute for Clause 8 was not very great. It was whether the compensation for manurial value of the third class should be given for one year's application or two. He felt satisfied that if compensation were allowed for two years, such a discretion would be given to the valuers that tenant-right might become a much heavier burden than it ought to be.
§ MR. DODSONsaid, a tenant-right existed in his county (Sussex) which was a great deal older than that of Lincolnshire. The difference was that the Lincolnshire tenant-right was a very sensible and good one, and that the Sussex tenant-right was a very bad one. Looking at all the circumstances, he believed with the hon. Gentleman who proposed the Amendment, that compensation for manurial value should be given for one year only.
§ MR. PELLsaid, the probability was, as matters were tending, that the tenant would get no compensation at all.
§ MR. FLOYERrecommended the House to abide by the clause.
§ MR. CLARE READagreed that, after a crop of corn had been taken, it was most difficult to say what the manurial value was. At the same time there were certain manures, such as rape-cake and greaves, which were certainly not exhausted in one year. After full consideration, he preferred the proposal made by the Government in the Bill to that of his hon. Friend.
MR. CHAPLINsaid, the object of his Amendment was of immense importance in his opinion; but, as there was so much diversity of opinion expressed about it, he would consent to withdraw 1922 it, and so save the Committee the trouble of dividing.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. STORERmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 15, to leave out all the words after the words "two years" to the end of the clause. The effect of the clause as it now stood would be to deprive a tenant who raised a crop of corn or potatoes off any part of his farm of all right to compensation, and this, he thought, would in many cases inflict hardship on the outgoing tenant.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, to leave out from the word "years," in line 15, to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Storer.)
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that he thought the term of "two years" might be left without additional words, as had been the terms of 20 and 7 years respectively in the other classes, and the details left to the referees, words being inserted to direct them to ascertain what amount of unexhausted value remained for the incoming tenant. He urged the hon. Member to persevere in his Amendment.
§ MR. CLARE READobserved, that in eases of difficulty it would be better to give the doubt in favour of the incoming tenant. He hoped the Committee would adopt the clause as it stood.
§ SIR WALTER BARTTELOTexpressed a hope that the Committee would not consent to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire. In West Sussex they had bought up all the old customs, and it was now sought by this Amendment to bring them back again. About two years ago he purchased a farm of 190 acres, and had to pay on a valuation a sum of £978. How could a tenant entering upon the land on such terms hope to make anything out of it? In the case he referred to, he extinguished the custom, bearing the loss himself.
§ MR. GREGORYwas in a position to affirm what his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter Barttelot) had said as to the hardship of the custom referred to upon an incoming tenant. One of his farms fell in some time since, and the valuation was so oppressive to the succeeding tenant that he at once extinguished the custom by purchase.
§ Question put, "That the words 'or the taking of a crop' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 248; Noes 98: Majority 150.
§ MR. HUNTmoved in page 3, line 16, after "corn" to insert "seed" and "hay," so as to provide that an improvement should be deemed exhausted where it was of the third class, at the end of two years, or the taking of a crop of corn, seed, hay, or potatoes.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 16, after the word "corn," to insert the words "seed, hay."—(Mr. Hunt.)
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked for some explanation of what was intended by the term "seed?"
§ MR. CLARE READsaid, it might include turnip seed, and every kind of agricultural seed that exhausted land.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENinquired whether it might include clover seed?
MR. GOLDSMIDsuggested that the Government should consider this classification before the Report. It would not be easy to prepare a complete list of "exhausting crops." Many had not been mentioned a all—as, for example, horse-radish and onions. Whole fields of these were grown, and they greatly exhausted the land.
§ COLONEL MUREsaid, they would do well to stop at crops, and say, "any crops to which manure is supplied" ought to be taken into consideration by the valuer, because it would be unwise to specify some crops and leave out others.
§ SIR WALTER BARTTELOThad put the Amendment down, as he thought it a very important one. He would also say some seeds exhausted the land much more than other seeds.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENapproved of the suggestion that a general power should be given to the valuer.
§ MR. MARLINGsuggested that a crop of teazles should be added.
§ MR. STORERsaid "seed or hay," if inserted, would not meet the difficulty; for there was a score of other crops he could mention, such as chickory, flax, and mustard, all of which should be considered, and as it was hardly possible to specify all the crops, why not say, after the word "taking," "any existing crop 1924 from land to which manure made or purchased during the last year shall have been applied? "
MR. GOLDSMIDthought it would be better to stop at the word "crops," instead of attempting to particularize what those crops were.
§ MR. HUNTbelieved that the word "seed" would include the crops which had been mentioned, except teazles.
§ MR. PELLsaid, the landlord would not be doing his duty either to himself or his tenant if he did not bar the growing of particular crops.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsuggested that, as it was impossible to insert all the crops, the Committee had better trust to the Government to get out of the difficulty in the best way they could on the Report.
§ MR. PELLthought it was hardly fair to get the landlord out of the difficulty when he could get out of it himself.
§ MR. MUNTZasked why the Committee should insert the words at all. Crops of Kohl Rabi and cabbages exhausted land more than anything else.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENpointed out the difficulty into which Government had brought the House by persisting in definitions of various "exhaustive" crops instead of using general words and leaving the matter to be settled by the valuers. He hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Pell) who had spoken for and voted against a recent Amendment would this time have the courage of his opinions, and speak and vote the same way.
§ Question put," That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 265; Noes 77: Majority 188.
§ MR. STORERproposed, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 16, to insert after "corn," "or any exhausting crop from land to which manures made or purchased during the last year shall have been applied."
§ MR. HUNTsaid, he could not accept the words proposed, but he would be ready to agree to the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Heygate) to insert the words "or other exhausting crop."
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On Motion of Mr. HEYGATE, Amendment made in page 3, line 16, by insert- 1925 ing after the word "potatoes" the words "or other exhausting crop."
§ On Motion of Mr. KNIGHT, preceding Amendment amended by adding after the word "crop," the words "not consumed on the holding."
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENexpressed his regret that more than half-an-hour had been wasted before the Government would concede, as they had now done, the point for which he had all along been contending.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 7 (Amount of tenant's compensation for first and second class).
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved an Amendment to provide that the amount of the tenant's compensation for improvements of the first class should be the sum laid out so far as it added to the letting value; and that in the second and third class it should be the sum laid out so far as unexhausted and of value to a succeeding occupier. He said the Government had accepted the principle of the Amendment for the third class, and why should they not do so in respect of the other two classes?
§ MR. HUNTsaid, it was true they had adopted it partially for the third class, which affected mainly the incoming tenant; but the other two classes affected the landlord, and were therefore dealt with differently. As the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rodwell) had an Amendment on the Paper which distinguished between each class of improvements, he would suggest to the hon. Member to postpone his Amendment until such time as the other was considered.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLacquiesced in the suggestion.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. RODWELLmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 18, to leave out "or of the second." In the previous discussion he understood from the Government that the limit of "letting value" was only introduced into the Bill to preserve the rights of the remainderman. But the present clause, as it now stood, dealt with the first and second classes in the same way—
So that the amount of the compensation shall not in any case exceed a capital sum fairly representing the addition of which the improvement, as far as it is unexhausted at the determi- 1926 nation of the tenancy, then makes to the value value of the holding.He now proposed an Amendment separating the first class from the second. The first class were essentially landlords' improvements extending over a considerable time. The second were tenants' improvements, and the subjects of compensation in which, in many cases, the landlord did not interfere at all. The restriction, therefore of "the letting value of the holding" was unnecessary in the first class, except in cases where the landlord was only the limited owner. He proposed to remove the second-class improvements, which extended over a short period, altogether out of the operation of the "letting value" restriction.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, that the proposed Amendment was consistent with the scope of the Bill. It was, however, important that the remainderman should be protected, as it would be obviously unjust that a landlord and tenant should have it in their power to execute some considerable improvement, and charge it upon the inheritance, if the remainderman reaped no benefit from it. He was, therefore, prepared to accept the hon. and learned Member's Amendments when the Committee came to them. The present was a verbal Amendment to open the door to the ulterior and important one he had in view, to which he (Mr. Hunt) not object.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, lines 19 and 20, to omit the words "a deduction of one-twentieth," and substitute "as far as it addds to the letting value of the holding at the determination of the tenancy."
§ And it being now ten minutes to Seven of the clock,
§ House resumed.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONexpressed a hope that before the Committee was resumed on Monday, the Government would place on the Paper the Amendments which they proposed to insert in Clause 45.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, he did not know whether it was possible to put them in the Paper that evening. He was afraid it was not, but he would put them in the Paper as soon as possible.
§ It being now Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
§ The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.