§ MR. STORERsaid, his next Amendment was directed to a practical object, and it was, he thought, quite necessary. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport moved an Amendment something of the same nature earlier, but withdrew it because it could be dealt with in the Schedule. The Amendment was merely to secure the landlord from paying for manure of a worthless character, such as artificial manure often was, and in this direction it would serve as a guide to the valuer.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 31, after "manure," insert "of fully and generally recognized value."—(Mr. Storer.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. DODSONsaid, to insert this Amendment would be to needlessly encumber the Act with words that would have no force in them for the protection of the landlord. If manure was to be paid for according to its value, it was obvious the valuer would have to ascertain if it was of good value.
§ MR. STORERsaid, he thought it extremely necessary to have that pointed out. It was very well known in business that quantities of valueless artificial manures were palmed off upon tenants, 411 and valuers ought to be made aware of that; it would strengthen their case.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ MR. STORERsaid, the addition which he next had to propose was necessary in relation to consumption by animals of feeding stuffs not produced on the holding, and, without it, a tenant might be unfairly treated. It was obvious that feeding stuffs might pass through horses on the holding as well as through cattle, sheep, or pigs. Many farmers devoted themselves very much to the breeding and rearing of horses for sale, and it seemed only right that this should be taken into consideration in reference to unexhausted improvements.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 32, after "by," insert "horses."—(Mr. Storer.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word ' horses' be there inserted."
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press this Amendment, and he would tell him why. Under the Schedule "corn" was included. It was undoubtedly among the feeding stuffs for which compensation was to be given, and though a farmer might keep many horses, he might keep them for other purposes than those of the farm. Farmers sometimes kept hunters and carriage horses. That being so, it was impossible to discriminate between the classes of horses consuming the food, and it would be unreasonable to give compensation in respect to horses kept for luxury only. Under the Lincolnshire custom corn was carefully excluded in the Schedule, for the very reason that horses were liable to be used. in that way.
§ MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he should support the Amendment. In the Fen country during the winter months a farmer would often have one yard filled with young cart horses, and another with bullocks. It appeared to him most unjust that the referee called upon to value the improvements on the holding should take into consideration the corn, the cake, and other things consumed by the bullocks, and not take into account the same feeding stuffs consumed by these growing horses. He was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) take exception to the Amendment, knowing 412 the great interest in the breeding of horses taken by his county. The breeding and rearing of cart horses was becoming a very important industry, and large numbers were being exported, and every encouragement should be given to the pursuit. He hoped the hon. Member, with faith in the justice of the provision, would press the Amendment to a Division.
§ MR. CROPPERsaid, he thought it would be a great absurdity to make a charge on account of keep for horses kept for luxury, or which were let out for hire in carts or waggons, and all such would come in under the Amendment.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the fact was that the corn consumed on the farm by horses was produced on the farm.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 104: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 239.)
§ SIR HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Charles Phipps) he would move the Amendment standing in his name. As many hon. Members would know, at present a very large quantity of milk was often sold from the dairy on a farm. In former days cheese was made and the whey was given to the pigs, so that the farm benefited largely by the produce of this consumption of corn and cake by the cows. But when the milk was sold off the farm, the farm was deprived of that produce. It was, therefore, a question whether a landlord should be called upon to compensate for the consumption by milk cows whose produce was sold off the farm.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 32, after "cattle, insert "other than cows in milk."—(Sir Hussey Vivian.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. DODSONsaid, he felt some difficulty in dealing with this Amendment. He did not see how the Amendment could be made applicable to mixed farms, farms not dairy farms, but where a tenant kept cattle, sheep, and pigs, and among the animals a certain number of cows. How was anyone to determine the extent and proportion of the consumption by cows? He should think the case would probably be this. If the land was to be perpetually "dairied," 413 which was an exhaustive process, that would be a matter considered in adjusting the rent; or, if not, there could be some agreement by which the tenant, in consideration of this, would be liable to bring back manure, and if the tenant claimed compensation, the owner would have a set-off under Clause 6. He did not see his way to accept the Amendment; but he did not wish to pronounce dogmatically on the subject, for he had had no experience of land perpetually "dairied" in that way.
§ MR. STORERsaid, the Amendment, if accepted, would be another robbery of the tenant in addition to that just perpetrated.
§ MR. DUCKHAMsaid, if the Schedule included a scale of compensation, then it would be desirable to consider the Amendment proposed; but it would certainly be a matter for the valuer and for arbitration in valuing the manure made from different kinds of animals. If on a dairy farm, where all the milk was sold off, which was very impoverishing to the land, it would be known there was very little benefit to the land from the consumption of feeding stuffs, and the valuation would be made accordingly. The Amendment was quite unnecessary.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. STORERsaid, he wished to have corn and maize added to the Schedule after "cake," unless he was assured by the right hon. Gentleman these articles were covered by the words "other feeding stuffs." Hitherto corn had not been allowed for, but when, as now, it was at a low price, it was largely purchased for feeding stock.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 32, after "cake," insert "corn, maize."—(Mr. Storer.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. DODSONsaid, these words were included under the general term "feeding stuffs."
§ MR. STORERsaid, that was what he wished to elicit, and he would withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. STORERsaid, he had another Amendment which completed the series. It was necessary that the valuer should 414 be satisfied that the purchases were actually used for feeding purposes. Vouchers might be produced for the purchase, but the grain bought might have been used for seed or other purposes.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 33, after "holding," insert "and bonâ fide purchased and used for feeding purposes only."—(Mr. Storer.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. DODSONsaid, the words appeared to him to be wholly unnecessary. The words in the Schedule dealt with the consumption of feeding stuffs on the holding, and to add to that "used for feeding purposes only" was more repetition. The bonâ fide purchase was a matter the valuer would have to see to.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, there was some necessity for some words of the kind, seeing that now in the feeding stuffs for which compensation was to be given corn would be included, for undoubtedly the door was opened to a good deal of fraud. Take the case of a tenant who was dishonestly inclined and about to leave his farm, it would be impossible for the valuer to place any check on the amount claimed to be consumed. The hon. Member supplied an admirable argument against his first Amendment when he said if they give compensation for corn they must insist on it having been used for food and not used for seed or sold by the farmer. What was to prevent a farmer exchanging corn with another, all purchased and not produced on the farm, who was to say what was used on the holding? He doubted whether corn should not be excepted altogether, and be still reserved the right, if upon consideration he thought it right to do so, to move its omission on Report. It would be wise to accept some such words as were proposed by the Amendment.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, if corn were purchased among feeding stuffs and no corn was ground on the holding, assuredly it must be used for feeding purposes.
§ MR. TOMLINSONsaid, there still might be some doubt which words such as these would remove.
§ SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, fraudulent transactions might arise in connection with cake and any other feeding stuff.
§ MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, this must be left to the judgment of the arbitrator. As to what the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) said as to the elimination of corn from the feeding stuffs and the Lincolnshire custom, some two years ago, in discussing the hon. Member's own Bill, one of the principal farmers of that county had written to him (Mr. Howard) to say how unsatisfactory it was to the farmers of Lincolnshire that they were not allowed for corn, for when barley was so low in price it was a good deal used instead of cake, and it seemed unjust that those who purchased foreign cake were compensated for its consumption, while those who purchased home-grown corn were not.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, he would ask the hon. Member whether he agreed that this compensation for corn did open the door to fraud? It undoubtedly would to an enormous extent. He knew perfectly well the gentleman to whom the hon. Member had referred, and he had often discussed the subject with him; but the view was far from being that of the Lincolnshire farmers, and the gentleman in question acknowledged the opinion was confined to himself. He owned a farm growing very little else than corn, and stood, therefore, in a very exceptional position.
§ COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEsaid, he quite agreed with his hon. Friend that there might be instances of fraud; but the valuer, if he suspected any dishonesty, would look into the matter and examine witnesses. Such frauds required collusion, and strict inquiry would prevent it being carried on any considerable extent.
§ MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he did not wish to prolong the debate; but as he had been directly appealed to, he would say if a man was inclined to be a rogue in such matters, he could as easily exercise his roguery in reference to cake as to corn; but it would not be difficult to detect such roguery.
§ MR. STORERsaid, he fully understood that state of things, and his Amendment applied to all feeding stuffs. With the same object with which he moved his Amendment in reference to the value of manure, so here he wished to insert the words as a guide to the valuer. The valuer would have to take care there was no fraud. The hon. Member for Mid 416 Lincolnshire justly said it was necessary to have some few words of this kind to guard the landlord against being imposed upon, making it absolutely necessary for the valuer to see that the corn was properly applied. It was very easy for a farmer to buy corn expressly for feeding purposes.
§ Question put, and negatived,