§ Order for Third Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Dodson.)
§ MR. DUNDASsaid, he did not wish to detain the House; but he thought the words "fair and reasonable" in the Bill were somewhat indefinite. He hoped they would have an assurance from the Government that words would be inserted in "another place" with the view of making more clear what it was that constituted a fair and reasonable agreement—whether it was fair and reasonable at the time, under the circumstances and conditions which existed when the agreement was made.
§ MR. DODSONsaid, that he had explained to his hon. Friend that the Government would consider the point to which he had referred.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, it was impossible to exaggerate the importance of the point which had been raised by the hon. Gentleman. He had always felt that it was desirable, where compensation to tenants for unexhausted improvenents was not given by lease or agreement, that it should be provided by legislation; and he therefore regretted that the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1229 1875 was only of a permissive character. The principle was embodied in the present Bill, and, on this account, he had felt himself able to support its second reading; but it appeared to him that a very great objection to the Bill was that there were scarcely any directions to guide the valuers in estimating the value of unexhausted improvements to the incoming tenant. The Bill had been improved by the insertion, in the 2nd clause, of words declaring the principle which he understood Her Majesty's Government had always bad in their mind—that the tenant should not profit by anything that belonged to the landlord. But there was still so wide a scope left for difference of action on the part of ignorant or prejudiced valuers that it might lead to great contention between landlords and tenants, and to great inequality in the valuations that wore made. Then came the alternative which the Government had proposed. They had proposed—and, he thought, necessarily —that it should be possible, where desired, for the landlord and tenant to contract themselves out of the Bill by an agreement giving fair and reasonable compensation. Such a proposal was, in his opinion, absolutely necessary in legislation of this kind, on account of the varying circumstances of different parts of the country. Those circumstances would make it unjust, and probably also impracticable, to apply a hard-and-fast rule of legislation all over England. But, having done that, the Government had not attempted to define what fair and reasonable compensation was, and they had left the question to the decision of a Court of Law, perhaps 30 or 40 years after the making of the agreement. It was obvious that when the time came—the end of the tenancy—for an agreement between the two parties to be construed, one or other of the parties, or their representatives, might not improbably find something in that agreement to which to take exception, though it had been accepted as perfectly fair at the time the agreement was made. It might be the landlord, it might be the tenant, who desired to set aside the agreement entered into giving to the tenant at the time it was made bonâ fide compensation for unexhausted improvements; but whether it was the landlord or tenant, he had the power to drag the other into 1230 a Court of Law. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had endeavoured to meet that by proposing that the two parties should be enabled to settle the question once for all before an impartial umpire; but the House did not adopt the proposal. he felt the importance of this matter so strongly that, agreeing as he did to the principle on which the Bill was based, he could hardly feel justified in giving his vote for the third reading, were it not for the hope and belief that this matter would be considered not only "elsewhere" by those whose practical knowledge and experience entitled them to express an opinion quite as much as any Members of that House, but that it would have the favourable consideration of Her Majesty's Government, so that the two parties might be enabled to make an agreement with some reasonable assurance that it would be binding, and both landlords and tenants might be saved from litigation.
Motion agreed to.
Bill (Queen's Consent signified on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Prince of Wales's Consent on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall),—read the third time, and passed.