§ Clause 29 (Appeal to County Court).
§ On Motion of Sir HENRY JAMES, words were omitted from the clause the effect of which would be that no appeal would exist where the sum was below £50.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that upon this part of the clause would arise the question whether the appeal should or not be to the County Court Judge.
§ MR. J. S. HARDYobjected to the appeal being to the County Court Judge. Such an appeal, from its cheapness, would lead to much litigation; and he should therefore prefer that the appeal should be to a higher tribunal. To effect his object he moved to omit the words "to the judge of the county court."
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the appeal to the County Court would be the cheapest and readiest form of appeal, and it appeared to him, as a lawyer, to be the best; it was, however, for those hon. Members who were more conversant with agricultural matters than he was to state what objections there were to the proposal of the Government.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsupported the appeal to the County Court, where the case could be speedily decided; whereas if the appeal were to be to a tribunal in London, it would operate very hardly upon the farmers.
§ MR. MELDONmaintained that there should be no appeal at all from the decision of the referees.
§ MR. RODWELLthought that all matters of fact should be left with the valuers, who, being conversant with 114 agricultural details, would be more competent to deal with them than County Court Judges, and that on matters of law there should be an appeal to a Superior Court at once. He suggested that the appeal to the County Court should be done away with.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENthought that if this was the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire, he should have supported his (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen's) proposal to get rid of the County Court Judge on a previous clause. Now, however, that the Committee had decided that the County Court Judges should be brought into the Bill, the proper course would be to let them determine questions of law only.
§ MR. HUNTsuggested that the decision of the referees or umpires should be final as to all matters of fact and as to the amount of compensation; but that on points of law an appeal should lie to the County Court, which the Government thought would be the cheapest, most accessible, and most expeditious tribunal.
VISCOUNT GALWAYthought that if there was to be an appeal from the referees or the umpires, it would be preferable that it should be given to the County Court.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the question of law, which would arise in nearly every case, would be whether or not the landowner was the absolute owner of his estate, and the County Court Judge was a most undesirable person to have to decide such a question. He thought it would be better to take appeals on such questions at once to a Court of Law.
§ MR. J. S. HARDYremarked that he attached no importance to the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford with reference to the absolute owner. After what had been said by the First Lord of the Admiralty, he did not desire to press his Amendment
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESmoved, in page 8, line 1, after "court," to leave out to end of clause, and insert—
1, on the ground that the award is invalid; 2, that compensation has been awarded to which the party claiming was not entitled; 3, or that the amount of compensation was not correct; and the County Court Judge shall hear and determine the said appeal, or, in his discretion, 115 remit the case to be reheard as to the whole or any part thereof by the referee or referees or umpire.
§ MR. MELDONsuggested the addition of the following words to the Amendment:—"With such directions as he may think fit."
§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESmoved an Amendment, that the decision of the Judge of the County Court should be final, except either party should request him to state a case on a question of law or a rejection or admission of evidence for the Judge of the High Court of Justice.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 30 (Recovery of compensation).
§ SIR HENRY JAMESmoved, in page 8, line 14, after "recoverable," to insert, "upon order made by the Judge of the County Court," that it should be enforced, otherwise there was no guarantee that the document handed to the bailiffs of the County Court to be enforced was a genuine document.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 31 to 33, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Charge of Tenant's Compensation.
§ Clause 34 (Power for landlord, on paying compensation, to obtain charge for himself).
§ MR. FLOYERmoved, in page 8, line 41, after "Act," to insert, "for an improvement of the first class." There was a great difference in the character of the improvements comprehended severally under the first, second, and third classes, and, in his opinion, there could be no reason for charging the holding with improvements not of the first class.
§ MR. HUNTopposed the Amendment. The hon. Member would see, on reflection, that in some cases—such as that of the incumbent of a benefice who let the glebe farm, but had no personalty of his own. If he died or left, the tenant had no remedy, if the improvement could not be charged upon the holding. The law did not recognize the incoming tenant, who could only deal with his predecessor through the landlord.
§ MR. FLOYERobserved, that it would be no security to the tenant to charge for these improvements, but the advantage would be to the landlord in case the tenant should leave before his time had run out.
§ MR. GOLDNEYthought the provision would be a great security to the tenant.
§ MR. PELLasked, whether or no a tenant for life occupying a farm might obtain from the County Court a charge on the holding?
§ MR. MELDONsaid, that by a subsequent clause it was provided that if the landlord, under such circumstances, ceased to be so, the charge fell through.
§ SIR THOMAS ACLANDhad also a question to ask the Attorney General. Suppose a tenant for life had not contracted himself out of the Bill, and his tenant went on accumulating improvements under the second class for which the consent of the landlord was not necessary, and the tenant for life died after two years, what security had the tenant against the next man?
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. HUNTmoved an Amendment, with the view of meeting an objection taken by the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford (Sir William Harcourt). The clause said—
The Court shall have power, on proof of the payment, to make an order charging the holding with repayment of the amount paid,and he proposed to insert after the word "payment" these words—On being satisfied of the observance in good faith of the conditions precedent thereto imposed by the Act.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 9, line 1, after the word "payment," to insert the words "and on being satisfied of the observance in good faith by the parties of the conditions imposed by this Act."—(Mr. Hunt.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that this Amendment would merely get rid of the difficulty by evading it.
§ MR. MELDONmoved to add to the Amendment the words—
And that such payment did not exceed in amount the value of the improvement actually made by the tenant.
§
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to add, at the end thereof, the words
and that such payment did not exceed in amount the value of the improvement actually made by the tenant."—(Mr. Meldon.)
§ MR. DODSONthought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kildare an infinitely bettor and more intelligible one than that of the First Lord of the Admiralty.
§ MR. KNIGHTsaid, they were imposing on the County Court Judge duties which he could not perform. He thought the whole clause simply absurd.
§ MR. GOLDNEYprotested against the assumption that the landlord and tenant would conspire to defraud the remainderman.
§ Question put, "That those words be there added."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 168: Majority 77.
§ Amendment (Mr. Hunt) agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 35 (Power for landlord to obtain charge for tenant, in certain cases).
§ MR. MELDONmoved, in page 9, line 29, after "tenant," to insert—
Provided, That in case of the landlord being a limited owner no such order shall be made by the Court unless upon such notice being given as is mentioned in the concluding part of the foregoing section.
§ MR. HUNThad no objection to the insertion of the proviso, because he hoped the Committee would, on the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire, strike out the clause.
§ Amendment agreed to.
MR. GOLDSMIDhoped the hon. Gentleman would explain the reasons which had induced the Government to accede to the Amendment.
MR. CHAPLINsaid, the clause provided that, under certain circumstances, the compensation to the tenant was to be 118 paid by instalments; but, as the tenant would in most cases want the money immediately in order that he might take another farm, he thought it desirable that the clause should be omitted.
§ MR. MELDONthought that it was for the benefit of the tenant that the clause should be retained, else he would have no chance of obtaining compensation from an impecunious landlord.
§ MR. DODSONwished to know from the authors of the Bill why they agreed to omit Clause 7?
§ MR. HUNTsaid, the clause was not in the original Bill, but had been inserted in it on the Motion of the Lord Chancellor of the late Government. He was unable to defend it.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONcomplained that there was not some better understanding between those who had charge of the Bill in the House of Lords and those who had charge of it here. The former agreed to the clause and the others agreed to take it out.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause struck out.
§ Clauses 36 and 37 agreed to.
§ Clause 38 (Application of Act to land of Duchy of Lancaster).
MR. GOLDSMIDinquired whether it was not necessary first to obtain the consent of the Crown to such a provision?
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, that the assent of the Crown had been already obtained.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 39 to 42, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Notice to quit.
§ Clause 43 (Time of notice to quit).
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENmoved an Amendment to the effect that two years' notice should be substituted for one, as proposed by the clause. He made the proposal with diffidence, but it was one that had met with favour with the Farmers Club and other agricultural bodies, and its acceptance would be hailed by tenant farmers generally as an earnest of the sincerity of the House in desiring to give increased security of tenure. He reminded the Prime Minister that he himself had once made a similar proposal.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 11, to leave the word "a," in order to insert the word "two."—(Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen.)
119§ MR. ASSHETONobjected to the Amendment, because he regarded it as a most grave interference with the tenure of the greater part of the land of this country—namely, with yearly holdings.
§ MR. M'LAGANsupported the Amendment, as without it the Bill would be of a revolutionary character.
§ Question put, "That the word 'a' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 202; Noes 39: Majority 163.
MR. CHAPLINmoved, in page 12, line 12, after the word "same," to insert "unless the year of tenancy shall have commenced in the months of April or May." He said, that when a farm was to be vacated the sooner the tenancy came to an end the better it was for the farm, for the outgoing tenant himself, for the incoming tenant, and for the general consumer. He had always felt the strongest objection to a 12 months' notice to quit, but had deferred to the representations made to him as to the feelings of the tenant farmers. In the parts of the country with which he was acquainted a Michaelmas entry was the rule, and a Lady Day or May Day entry the exception, and the object of his Amendment was, instead of omitting the clause, to obtain the exemption of those holdings which were held on Lady Day or May Day entries. A Michaelmas holding differed very much from those entered upon in the Spring. One of the chief operations was the cleaning of the land and preparing it for the crops, and under such a holding it mattered little whether the notice was six or 12 months. With a Lady Day entry and six months' notice, however, it was the incoming tenant who performed that operation. He might be told that people might contract themselves out of the Bill. That remark applied to his own proposal also; but he protested against accepting anything as permissive which he should reject as compulsory. There was one golden rule in that House, which was to let well alone. In the county which he had the honour to represent—and there was none which had attained a higher position in agriculture—every farm, without exception, was let on a Lady Day entry, and with a six months' notice to quit. That system they believed to be an excellent one. But if this clause remained unaltered, that custom, from which so much 120 advantage was derived, would be overridden. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would be able to accept his Amendment; if not, he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the Committee upon it.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 12, line 12, after the word "same," to insert the words "unless the year of tenancy shall have commenced in the months of April or May."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. MELDONexpressed a hope that the Committee would not accept the Amendment, which was one of the most unjust and unfair that could possibly be conceived as regarded the interest of the tenant farmers.
§ MR. BEACHsaid, that in Hants the Michaelmas tenancy prevailed, and that it was found to act just and fair to both parties, and he objected to a tenant being turned out at a six months' notice, which would materially affect the value of his stock, and not give him sufficient time to find another holding.
MR. MONCKTONsaid, the tenants attached more importance to this part of the Bill than to any other portion of it, and he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment. He should prefer to see the whole clause omitted from the Bill.
§ COLONEL KINGSCOTEsaid, it was no hardship that a tenant should only have six months' notice. The incoming tenant would recompense him for his clearing the land, and a six months' notice was equally beneficial for the tenant as for the landlord.
§ LORD ELCHOsaid, no landlord who had a good tenant would think of getting rid of him, and it was now proposed that a bad tenant, who was deteriorating the land, and lessening the supply of food, should be able to pursue that course six months longer.
MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, it would be better to omit the clause. The six months' notice was only required for the purpose of getting rid of a bad tenant. He should vote against the clause.
§ MR. FLOYERsaid, the Committee appeared to be legislating on the assumption that every landlord was a good one, but their object should be to meet 121 the difficulty where both were bad. A good tenant would be compensated, and a bad one would have to pay his landlord for his neglect, and surely that met the difficulty. A tenant required a longer notice to quit under the new system of farming now in use than formerly. He considered a year's notice a fair and reasonable proposition, and believed that it would cripple the farmers if the term of notice was reduced to six months.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTobserved, that the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), who had, among other hon. Members, given the Committee the benefit of their views on this question, represented a county which was distinguished by having perhaps the greatest agriculturist in the United Kingdom. He referred to Mr. Hope, of Fenton Barns, and his tenancy had been terminated. It would be of great advantage to the Committee if the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Head), whom he saw sitting on the Treasury Bench, would inform them of the opinion of the tenant farmers upon this subject. He understood the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire to say that the tenant farmers did not desire the substitution of 12 months for six months; but he (Sir William Harcourt) had observed in the papers in the agricultural interest that the one thing which the farmers valued in this Bill more than anything else was the 12 months' notice to quit. If a man was turned out of his employment it was a great hardship not to allow him adequate time to find fresh employment for his capital. Most of the Amendments made in the Bill had been made in the interests of the landlords and not of the tenant farmers. He should have thought a proposal which had come down from the House of Lords would not have been objected to by the supporters of the Bill.
§ MR. RODWELLexpressed a hope that the Government would not accede to the proposal to alter the clause. He denied that the Amendments made in the Bill were unfair to tenants; but admitted this would be so, as it would expose them to the caprice of a landlord. He did not need the six months' notice for his own protection, because he could claim compensation for waste or neglect.
§ MR. KNIGHTsaid, that the tenant farmers would be disappointed if in any cases they were deprived of the protection of the 12 months' notice, and hoped that the Government would retain the clause.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the Bill, as it came from the other House, was a Bill which a landlord was very likely to contract himself out of, and the invidious duty was cast upon the House of Commons of protecting those who would not protect themselves. Hon. Members, however, had also to consider what the farmers would say, and were likely to be called to account by them for neglecting their interests. He should support the Amendment.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, that if this Amendment passed there would be two great classes of tenancies—one with six and another with 12 months' notice. Upon matters of this kind the Government might always rely upon his vote, and he should therefore oppose the Amendment.
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, it was quite true, as the House had been once reminded by the right hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), that he was at one time in favour of a two years' notice to quit; but it would have been more ingenuous to have added that this notice was offered as an alternative for compensation for unexhausted improvements. Therefore, when the Government brought forward a measure which secured compensation for unexhausted improvements, he was perfectly free, on the subject of notice to quit, to take any course that he thought fit and best for the country. As far as regarded his original proposition of two years, his mind was a complete tabula rasa when, with much larger information derived from all parts of the country, and after ascertaining what was the predominant feeling of the country, he was called upon to consider the opinion of the other House as expressed in this Bill. In revising the relations of landlord and tenant, the other House had adopted 12 months' notice as a period more adapted to the circumstances of the present day than the period of six months; they had, after much reflection, and with a due sense of their responsibility, fixed upon 123 this term, and he was not disposed to alter it now.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONthought there had been on both sides a disposition to exaggerate the importance of the question. It would be quite a mistake to decide this question as if it were one between landlord and tenant; it was as much the interest of tenants to enter upon farms in a good state of cultivation as it was the interest of landlords they should do so. The only question was, which was the most convenient term? No doubt, the two years proposition was made with the object of securing the return of invested capital; that could not be secured by one year's notice, which, on the other hand, was too long to enable a bad tenant to take all he could and more than he ought. He could not see the advantage of the proposed Amendment, and thought, on the whole, that it would be better to adopt the clause as it stood in the Bill.
§ MR. ASSHETONmoved to amend the Amendment, by inserting the word February before April.
MR. CHAPLIN, with reference to the remarks of the Prime Minister, said, that if there was a predominant feeling in the country in favour of 12 months' notice, it was an uneducated feeling. He should take the sense of the Committee upon his Amendment.
§ MR. GREENEsaid, the object of the Bill was to protect the incoming and the outgoing tenant, and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would adhere to the clause.
§ Amendment (Mr. Assheton) negatived.
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, by inserting in line 2, after the word "of," the word "March."—
§ (Mr. Chaplin.)
§ Question, "That the word 'March' be inserted in the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.
§
Question put,
That the words 'unless the year of tenancy shall have commenced in the months of March, April, or May' be inserted after the word 'same,' in line 12.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 200: Majority 179.
§ MR. WHITWELLmoved that the Chairman report Progress.
§ MR. DILLWYNasked what would be the Business taken to-morrow?
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, he had proposed that, if the Committee on the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill had not concluded its labours to-night, the Bill should be resumed to-morrow, at half-past 4. Progress would be reported, in order that the Merchant Shipping Bill might be brought in.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.