COMMITTEE. [FIRST NIGHT.]

HC Deb 25 July 1883 vol 282 cc429-502

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Compensation for Improvements.

Clause 1 (General right of tenant to compensation).

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

moved, in page 1, line 6, to leave out, "made on his holding any improvement," and insert "improved his holding." The Amend- ment raised the very important question as to how compensation to tenants should be adjusted. According to the Bill as it now stood, it was proposed to compensate the tenants only in respect of certain improvements mentioned in the Schedule attached to the Bill. This was a mode of assessing improvements or giving compensation which would prove unsatisfactory both to landlords and to tenants. He was willing to admit that the compensation by Schedule would give a certain amount of compensation to tenants now in the occupation of farms who otherwise would not get any compensation whatever. Tenants in this position wore justly entitled to compensation; but the effect of the Schedules would be that tenants who contemplated giving up their farms would gain a considerable advantage; while, with regard to those who contemplated carrying on their farms, he did not think the proposals of the Bill would be of any very substantial advantage. He did not think that compensations by means of Schedules would accomplish what was the principal aim of the Bill — namely, to improve the cultivation of the soil. Farmers had always contemplated that their improvements should be taken as a whole. The improvements in a holding could be much more easily judged, both to the incoming and outgoing tenant, if the general condition of the farm was taken into account. Tenants did not expect or ask for any compensation in respect of the increased value of the holding, other than was due to the improvements effected by them; and if the Amendment was carried he should propose to qualify it by a subsequent alteration—namely, to leave out at the end of the clause "the value of the improvement to an incoming tenant," and insert— The increase of the letting value of the holding properly due to its improvement by such tenant. The farmers of Scotland, so far as he believed, would be very willing to accept the proposal embodied in this Amendment as a settlement of the question of compensation for improvements for an indefinite period; but they could not regard compensation by Schedule as any settlement of the question; and the present Bill, so far from putting the relations between landlord and tenant on a proper, sound, and just foundation, could not be accepted by the tenant as any settlement of the question, and would only stimulate further agitation, with the view of placing the tenant on a fair and just relation towards the land he cultivated. He would have been glad to have accepted the Bill as a settlement of the question; but he warned the Committee that he believed the Bill would offer no settlement, and would not be accepted by the tenant as such. The Bill would only stimulate agitation to obtain by the tenants what would put them in a corresponding position to other classes of the community, who had the right of enjoying the whole benefit of any expenditure they made so far as the success of their enterprize justified.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words "made on his holding any improvement," and insert the words "improved his holding."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Clause."

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, he was sorry it was quite impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment. The matter had been very fully considered on the English Bill; and the principle adopted, both in the English and Scotch- Bills, had been to define, by way of Schedule, the kind of improvements for which compensation should be given. The principle was fully discussed on the second reading, not only of the English Bill, but also of the Scotch Bill; and the reasons which led the Government to deliberately adopt the principle were then stated. He thought the action of the Government had been affirmed and approved by a majority of the House in the discussions in Committee on the English Bill. It had been pointed that to use such very general language as his hon. Friend (Mr. Barclay) proposed would be too indefinite and too vague, and would not give au opportunity either to the landlord or tenant of knowing what their relative rights were. He, therefore, could not accept the Amendment.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

earnestly desired the existing strife between the landlords and tenants to be put an end to; and, therefore, he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend. There was a great difference between the systems of agriculture in England and Scotland; and if the language proposed by the hon. Member was too vague, the Lord Advocate, who was a master of language, could easily put in words which would make the clause more definite. The only way the present relations between the landlords and tenants could be put a stop to would be by granting the request of the tenants; and this request could be acceded to without in any way doing anything which would be injurious to the landlords.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he hoped the Government would bear in mind, in referring to the distinctions between the English and Scotch Bills, that the English Bill dealt with yearly tenancies, while the Scotch Bill dealt with leases of 19 years, so that the arguments applicable to the English Bill would not in all cases be applicable to the Scotch Bill. He strongly supported the Amendment. They had been. told more than once by the Government that they had a great horror of fixity of tenure and judicial rent; but, in the opinion of a large number of people in Scotland, the Government could not take a step more conducive to the bringing about of this result than to pass the Bill in its present form.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

said, it was quite true there was a great difference between English and Scotch agriculture—that was Scottish agriculture was conducted under the system of leases, while the English was conducted under a system of yearly tenancies. The principal reason for a lease had been the security which it gave to the tenant for the outlay of his capital. That security being given by this Bill, it would no longer be necessary to give the tenant a lease, and he did not suppose the tenant would desire it. The tenant would be in no fear; and, therefore, he hoped the Committee would receive an early assurance from the Government that the Amendments on the Scotch Bill would be treated in the same spirit, as far as possible, as the Amendments on the English Bill. Such an assurance would very much shorten the criticism of the measure from the Opposition side of the House.

MR. M'LAGAN

agreed with the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) that it would be much better if they could do without Schedules in the Bill; but if they did away with Schedules it would be necessary for them to have some authority to decide between the landlord and tenant. He was quite prepared to waive his own opinions on this subject. The House had decided by a large majority that the principle of this Bill should be compensation for improvements, the value of which should be to the incoming tenant; but he differed from the remark that the Bill would have no effect in the interests of the tenant. On the contrary, he thought it would be a great boon to the tenants. Many of the provisions of the Bill were such as to make the landlords look better after their own interests than they had done hitherto, and for both parties he thought this Bill would be a very great benefit. He would do all he could to support the Bill. As regarded the question of leases, he hoped the Government would take into account that the tenure of land in Scotland was different from what it was in England. The Government should bear in mind that Scottish agriculture had been built up upon the system of leases, and the superiority of that agriculture had depended very much upon leases; and nothing should be done in this Bill which would tend to do away with leases in Scotland.

MR. BOLTON

said, he hoped the Lord Advocate would not give way on this Amendment. The effect would be to enable a tenant, first of all, to obtain a lease, and then to obtain the value of his improvements.

MR. RAMSAY

said, he was sorry to find that strife between landlords and tenants had been alluded to by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir George Balfour) as one of the reasons why the Amendment should be assented to. He had quite as much experience of those matters as his hon. and gallant Friend; and he had not known or heard of any such strife in the district, at all events, with which he was connected. He did not think there was any foundation for such a statement. He distinctly recognized the importance of the Government giving heed to the fact that the leasehold system was the system on which the management of agriculture in Scotland had hitherto been founded. If anything in the Bill tended to do away with the inducement to the tenant to take a lease, it would be one of the greatest evils to which Scotland could be exposed. He had a dread that the inducement to grant or to accept leases might hereafter be impaired by the operation of the Bill; and therefore he trusted that the Government would do what they could to perpetuate the existing system. He might mention that on one of the largest properties in Scotland, in consequence of the agitation that had taken place regarding the system of agriculture in Scotland, and the desire of a certain class of tenants, capitalists chiefly, to have this compensation provided, there had not been, for some years past, a single lease granted. The agitation, so far as it existed, and the strife, so far as it existed, was principally in connection with arable farms. It had not existed in pastoral districts; but it was a fact that farmers on arable land had been placed in years past at considerable disadvantage as compared with farmers on other lands. Not one-fifth of the whole area of Scotland was arable, and why should they deal with the question as if the whole of Scotland were arable? He could not see any good in legislating on such grounds. He hoped the Government would adhere to the terms of the Bill in this respect, and do nothing which would impair the inducements to grant and accept leases.

MR. MACFARLANE

suggested that the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) and his hon. Friends should cease arguing with the Government when the Government had once made up their minds. He (Mr. Macfarlane) had found it was perfectly useless to appeal to the Government, and thought the best thing they could now do was to argue the case out in the Division Lobby. He thought also that if the hon. Gentleman now took a Division, he would very likely, in the state of the Committee, carry his Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

agreed with some of the remarks made in support of the Amendment. It was quite unnecessary to back up by artificial arrangements the leasehold system, because everyone knew that the leasehold system had conferred immense benefit on Scotland. He thought the custom of leases was so deeply ingrained in the habits of the agricultural population that neither the landlords nor tenants would part with it. It had been said that ill-feeling and strife existed between landlords and tenants; but he entirely denied the accuracy of the statement. Of course, there were farmers' meetings where those questions were discussed, and sometimes in rather a sharp manner; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir George Balfour) ought to know that there was nothing in the relations between the landlords and tenants in Scotland that deserved the name of strife. They lived together, generally speaking, in perfect harmony. He did not believe that the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) represented the tenant farmers in the least. He represented a certain Chamber of Agriculture; but when they considered the rights and feelings of the tenant farmers of Scotland as a whole, he could not for one moment accept, and he did not think the Government would do well to accept, the view that they were now called upon to bring forward legislation of a remedial character to allay animosity.

DR. FARQUHARSON

said, if the hon. Member for Forfarshire went to a Division, he would follow him into the Lobby, because he believed the Amendment would encourage the farmer, especially the smaller farmer, to do that which he was sorry to say he had not always done—namely, to farm high and energetically up to the termination of his lease. Under the Amendment the tenant would get compensation which was not acknowledged by the Bill, and that was for his skill and industry, as well as for his outlay in respect of machinery and improvements, which were not provided for in the Bill.

MR. BAXTER

agreed with much that had fallen from the hon. Member for Forfarshire; but he could not follow the hon. Gentleman into the Lobby, because he felt that if the Amendment were carried, it would be fatal to a Bill which he believed would be extremely useful. The Government measure, as a whole, would be of great benefit to the farmers and to the landlords as well. If they were to attempt to make it more stringent, it could not be carried in the House of Commons, far less in the Upper House of Parliament. He hoped that instead of employing their time in moving and supporting Amendments that were impossible, hon. Gentlemen who represented the farmers would devote their attention to trying to make the Bill a little better for the interests of the farmers than the English Bill.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he thought that the hon. Member for Forfarshire should content himself with having obtained a moral victory. He hoped the hon. Member would not place them in a dilemma by asking them to go to a Division on any Amendment which would be fatal to the Bill.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 26: Majority 76. — (Div. List, No. 231.)

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

proposed to omit, in page 1, line 9, the words "on quitting his holding." He said, the retention of these words would tend to injure, if not to prevent, the continuous tenure of farms which it was so desirable to encourage in Scotland. There were many cases in which leases were renewed three or four times, and some cases in which the same family had remained on one farm for 100 years. That was an advantage to the country, and an advantage to both the proprietor and the tenant, and such a system ought to be encouraged. These words were now inserted in the English Bill for the first time by the Government under the idea that they would benefit the tenant; but how that could be he could not understand. One objection to these words was that the landlord might be tempted to raise the rent, and might be tempted to take a new tenant, if the sitting tenant objected to pay the additional rent. The tenant could only claim compensation by giving notice to quit; and, therefore, the landlord was at liberty to get a now tenant at an increased rent. They discussed the matter at considerable length on the English Bill; and, therefore, he would not further trouble the Committee.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, to leave out the words "on quitting his holding."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, it was quite impossible that this Amendment could be accepted. It raised a large question which had been already fully discussed more than once—namely, whether there should be a separate provision made in the case of the sitting tenant? The Government held—and he believed the House had adopted the same view—that, if not in expression, still in effect, there was ample protection given to the sitting tenant as the Bill stood. In reference to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman had said, he might say that the probabilities of the continuity of relations would not be improved by instituting an arbitration between landlord and tenant at the end of every tenancy; and the Amendment would not be likely to bring about what his hon. and gallant Friend desired—the perpetuation of leases in Scotland.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, the Committee were entitled to some further explanation of the grounds upon which the Government had inserted this clause in the Bill, introducing, as it did, a new and an additional condition, which was not in the Agricultural Holdings Act for England of 1875. The Lord Advocate had not referred to the question at all. These words did not deal with the sitting tenant at all. They raised the question whether a tenant's right to compensation should arise in equity and justice on the termination of his contract of tenancy, instead of being only entitled to compensation on quitting his holding. As the Bill stood, the tenant must be prepared to quit his holding before he could claim compensation; whereas the Act of 1875 simply said the tenant should be entitled to compensation on the termination of the tenancy for improvements. If this new condition were inserted against the tenant, it was an evidence that the Bill would be of a reactionary character, for this Liberal Government, who had promised to doso much for tenant farmers, were putting in a new condition between them and their just claims to compensation. He was unwilling to divide the Committee; but unless some satisfactory explanation was given, a vote ought to be taken upon it as a protest against this reactionary step.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he had put down a similar Amendment to the one they were discussing. He could not conceive anything more fatal to the lease system in Scotland than that the Government should insist upon the tenant quitting his holding before he could get compensation.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

said, that if the Committee wore to go again through the whole discussion which had been entered upon on the English Bill they might despair of getting the Bill through Committee. He appealed to hon. Members not to prolong a discussion on questions already settled, but to go at once to a Division.

MR. PUGH

pointed out that the Amendment would not, as the Lord Advocate suggested, introduce for the first time arbitration, as that was created under Clause 1. He hoped the Government would not insist upon this reactionary provision.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, that practically, when a tenant went to make a new agreement, the landlord took his improvements into consideration, and made an allowance for them in the rent.

MR. M'LAGAN

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) told them the other night that these words were inserted, not for the benefit of the landlord, but of the tenant. The right hon. Gentleman said that if these words were not retained a tenant would forfeit his claim to compensation if he did not give notice of the termination of his lease. Sometimes neither the landlord nor the tenant remembered when the lease came to an end, and the lease was allowed to run on. In such a case a tenant would forfeit his claim; but these words in the clause would remind him at once that he must give notice of the termination. Until he heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster he was in favour of the omission of the words.

MR. ANDERSON

said, that in spite of the explanation of his hon. Friend (Mr. M'Lagan) He was not at all satisfied that these words were in favour of the tenant. They appeared to him to have the contrary effect, and he was opposed to them. He wished particularly to protest against the view taken by the hon. Member for Wigtonshire (Sir Herbert Maxwell), that because something had been settled in the English Bill, therefore Scotland was to model her Bill exactly upon that. The Scotch people had never been accustomed to limit their reforms strictly by the measure of English reforms. They considered that they were in advance of the English in many things, and were ready for a good deal that England was not ready for. This particular point was a matter of leases. Leases had undoubtedly been a great benefit to Scotland, and Scotch farming had greatly improved under the system of leases; but the principal benefit had been to the landlords, for leases certainly meant high and increasing rents. That had always been their effect hitherto, at least up to the recent depression. He hoped this Bill would be made better than the English Bill, and he saw no reason for retaining these words.

MR. C. S. PARKER

agreed with the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) that they should not accept any provision on the mere ground that it had been accepted in the English Bill; but they should look at the difference between England and Scotland. In each case they should examine whether the reasons given on the English Bill were applicable to Scotland. He thought hon. Members were a little mistaken and confused as to the interests of the tenant in this matter. They seemed to forget that the sitting tenant was both the outgoing and the incoming tenant. As outgoing, he had a certain claim to compensation; as incoming, He paid extra rent for improvements. The measure of the compensation was the value of the improvements to the incoming tenant; and if the same man was the outgoing and incoming tenant, there was a gain both to himself and the landlord in not going through arbitration, and possibly litigation, to settle the matter. The fair thing for the landlord to do was to allow the tenant, if he took a further lease, to continue to sit at a rent which did not take into account the value of his own improvements. The danger hon. Gentlemen were afraid of was that a landlord would not act fairly, but that he would raise the rent. They seemed to forget, however, that if a landlord insisted upon raising his rent, the tenant could always obtain compensation by leaving; and although that might be a loss and annoyance to him, it would also be a loss to the landlord, and so there would be a strong motive on both sides to come to terms. Hon. Members argued that circumstances might enable the landlord to charge the sitting tenant more than a fair rent, and, therefore, he should be required to pay the tenant at once for his improvements; but, supposing that was done, the same circumstances would enable the landlord then to demand a still higher rent; and, therefore, the sitting tenant's position would not be improved by receiving this payment. It was far more natural that his compensation for the time should be the continued enjoyment of the improvements; and his remedy, if they could not agree, must be to leave, and so obtain compensation. In short, if the tenant were not prepared to leave, nothing could save him from paying the rent demanded except a judicial fair rent, as in Ireland, which no one desired to see in Scotland.

CAPTAIN MAXWELL-HERON

said, there was no doubt that the tenant ought to receive compensation at the end of his lease; but if he received this compensation, of course he Must receive it subject to what was very likely to follow—an increase of rent. The amount which He received as the equivalent of the incoming tenant's interests in the improvements would outbalance the increase of rent, and in this way would he prevented a great deal of litigation and unpleasantness between landlord and tenant. The practice he adopted was that a year or so before the termination of a lease he came to some arrangement with his tenant. He had the farm revalued, and then he offered it to the tenant at 10 per cent reduction on the increased value. He thought that was a fair practice. A sitting tenant ought to receive compensation at the termination of his leave; and if what he did were generally adopted, what very often happened would be prevented—namely, a tenant's being obliged, very unwillingly, to leave his farm.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, the object of the Bill was to attract capital to the land, to induce farmers to invest more capital, in order that the cultivation of the land might be improved. If a commercial man invested £1,000 in a speculation, he either lost the money if the speculation failed, or he gained a profit if it did not; but if someone was allowed to come in, and, after repaying the £1,000, took all the profits, how much money was likely to be laid out in commerce on those conditions? It was the same with regard to agriculture. The farmer laid out his money with a view to getting the profits; but it would be absolutely beyond his power to get those profits if, after he had effected improvements, the owner could step in and increase his rent, or pay him the simple amount of his outlay and get all the benefit of his improvements. As the Bill stood at present, it was put beyond a tenant's power to secure the results of his outlay. It would be better if the Lord Advocate, instead of indulging in bare assertions that the sitting tenant was protected, would show how the tenant was protected. As a matter of fact, the only way in which a sitting tenant was protected was that he could leave his farm. But the object of the farmer was not to leave his farm; it was to lay out money and reap the fruits. If what was provided in this clause was the only thing which could be done in the interest of the tenants, it was high time tenant farmers ceased to send landowners to represent them. If the property of the tenant could not be protected save by some such provisions as were contained in the Irish Land Act, the Committee ought to adopt those provisions at once. He was certainly of opinion that the only way of protecting the tenant was by the adoption of the principle of fixity of tenure.

MR. MARJORIBANKS

said, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) had assumed that all the tenant could get back on quitting his holding was the value of his outlay; but that was not the case. He would get back such sum as fairly represented the value of the improvements to the incoming tenant. He believed that the Scotch Members intended to keep this clause as it stood; and, therefore, the tenant would not get back simply his outlay, but a sum decided by the consideration of whether his expenditure had been judicious or not.

MR. J. LOWTHER

reminded the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), who had spoken of fixity of tenure, that the Committee was met for the purpose of practical discussion, and not for ventilating discarded theories, though, at the same time, he felt much indebted to the hon. Gentleman for the candour with which he had exposed the real aims of those with whom he acted.

MR. JAMES HOWARD

said, He did not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) that it was impossible to secure the sitting tenant except by resorting to the principles of the Irish Land Act. There was a way of securing the interests of the sitting tenant without calling into requisition the provisions of the Irish Land Act. It was done most effectually in New Zealand. The legal and practical men of New Zealand had provided a satisfactory solution of the question how the interests of the sitting tenant could be secured. He (Mr. J. Howard) had made a tour of the world—

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

rose to Order. He wished to ask the Chair whether the hon. Gentleman was not travelling rather wide of the Amendment?

THE CHAIRMAN

I think the last remark of the hon. Member referred to New Zealand. The Bill relates to Scotland; but I am not prepared to rule that the hon. Member is out of Order.

MR. JAMES HOWARD

said, he was saying that what amounted to an insuperable difficulty here had been satisfactorily solved in our own Colony of Now Zealand. At the end of his term a tenant in possession in New Zealand had simply to demand a reference. Valuers were then called in, who estimated the increased value to the holding by the tenant's improvements, separated the "unearned increment," and fixed a fair rent; and, upon the terms they fixed, the tenant had a right to sit if he chose. Such was the object of the clause which he (Mr. J. Howard) was prevented moving on the English Bill.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, the reply to the arguments of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Parker) was that the retention of these words would put the sitting tenant at a disadvantage in seeking to make a bargain for the renewal of the lease.

MR. RAMSAY

regretted that this subject had again occupied so much time, after it had been so fully discussed from a Scotch point of view on the English Bill. The Committee seemed to forget that the Legislature was just as much bound to protect the incoming tenants as to protect the outgoing tenants who were quitting their holdings. The tenant quitted his holding at the determination of his tenancy, which was defined by this measure as "the expiration of his lease"—a provision which was peculiarly applicable to Scotland. On this point the explanations of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and of the First Commissioner of Works were so satisfactory that anyone who had paid attention to the discussion on the English Bill must be satisfied that they were merely wasting time now by further discussion.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 124; Noes 39: Majority 85. — (Div. List, No. 232.)

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he should not move the next Amendment, nor the one following in his name.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, the Amendment that he had next on the Paper was not intended to alter, as he understood it, the meaning of the Bill, but to make it more clear. He had pointed out before that the value of an improvement to an incoming tenant would depend upon the interest the incoming tenant had in the farm. He only wished to have that made more clear. The Amendment was to add to line 12— Carrying on the same kind of husbandry, and entitled to the benefit of the improvement. Ho did not intend to move the whole of this Amendment, but only the latter part of it—namely, "entitled to the benefit of the improvement," which, to his mind, would make the standard of valuation quite clear. He could not see how the Government could take any exception to this proposal.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, at end, add "entitled to the benefit of the improvement."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

agreed with his hon. Friend as to the desirability of the provision being made perfectly clear. He did not think what was now proposed was at all necessary to give that clear effect to the provision as it stood. The words of the Bill were as to compensation— Such sum as fairly represents the value of the improvement to an incoming tenant. Its object was to make the incoming tenant, for the time being, the possessor of the soil and all upon it, whatever the duration of his tenancy might be.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he was sorry to delay the Committee; but he must point out that the compulsory part of the compensation would be paid by the incoming tenant, whoever he might be, to the outgoing tenant. The incoming tenant might only have one year's lease of the holding, and it would be unjust to compel him to pay the whole value, which might extend over two or three years.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, the only persons recognized by this Bill as dealing with each other were the landlord and the outgoing tenant. It would only be by virtue of some separate agreement that the incoming tenant could be brought into the matter; and what might be the terms of the agreement between the landlord and the incoming tenant would be their own affair.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, that upon the assurance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the clause meant what was proposed by the Amendment he had put upon the Paper he would not further take up the time of the Committee. He would withdraw the Amendment; but, at the same time, he must confess that he was not satisfied with the explanation of the Lord Advocate. The Bill, as it stood, left great risk of injustice being done either to an outgoing or to an incoming tenant.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

I beg to ask the Chairman whether my Amendment has been passed over?

THE CHAIRMAN

replied in the negative.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

I have to apologize to the Committee for having proposed the wrong Amendment. The one which I have just proposed and withdrawn comes after that of the hon. and gallant Baronet.

THE CHAIRMAN

I did not understand the hon. Member to move that Amendment.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

The Amendment before that of the hon. and gallant Baronet, standing in my name, I do not wish to move.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, the Amendment he had to propose was one which was clear in itself. It was to omit the words "to an incoming tenant," and to insert— In so far as it may be suitable to the purpose for which the holding was let. An incoming tenant might probably have in contemplation a different mode of culture, and even a different mode of procedure, altogether in the raising of crops to an outgoing tenant. The improvements might not be of the same value to an incoming tenant as they were to an outgoing tenant, or to a person who might follow with a similar description of cultivation to that of an outgoing tenant. An arable farm, for instance, might be of less value to a dairy farmer than to any other farmer; or it might be the other way about, that the outgoing farmer had used his farm for dairy purposes, whereas the incoming tenant might wish to use it as an arable farm. The Bill, as it stood, enabled the landlord and the tenant to defraud another person. For instance, the landlord might put into a holding a tenant of a different character for, say, two years, and the value of the improvements to the incoming tenant might be very small at the end of two years, so that when the tenant went out and the landlord let the holding again for its original purpose, and compensation was paid for the improvements, the result might be that a large sum of money over the real value might be pocketed by the landlord and the outgoing tenant. Therefore, he thought the Amendment was a better test of the value than the words of the Bill.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 12, to leave out the words "to an incoming tenant," and insert the words "in so far as it may be suitable to the purpose for which the holding was let."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, this Amendment raised substantially the same question as the last Amendment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to have in his mind that the standard of valuation was as to a particular incoming tenant, whatever the duration of his lease might be. But that was not the case. Unless the thing called "an improvement" was really for the benefit of the holding it would not deserve the name, and would not be subject to valuation.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, the valuation could only take place once, and that was when the outgoing tenant was leaving the farm. Upon that valuation being made it became permanent, and could not be altered; and, practically, it would be the next tenant coming into the farm who would decide what in future was to be the value of the improvements made. He believed the right hon. and learned Gentleman assumed that the object he bad in moving this Amendment was already effected, and that was all he cared about. If the Committee desired it, he should be willing to withdraw the proposal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper to add, after the word "tenant," the words— Provided that it does not exceed in amount the original outlay by the tenant. The effect of this would be to limit the amount of compensation to be paid to a tenant to his original outlay. The Amendment raised the question already decided on the English Bill on the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. A. J. Balfour). He trusted the Government would be willing to modify the Bill in this particular, although he would not move his Amendment, in order that his hon. Friend (Mr. A. J. Balfour) might bring on his Amendment on the same subject, which, no doubt, would be favourably received by the Government.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

asked the hon. and gallant Member not to proceed on the assumption he had indicated.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

said, he only wished to express the hope that the Government would accept the proposal.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he had on the Paper the following Proviso:— Provided always, That, in respect of those improvements for which consent of landlord is not required, the amount of such compensation shall in no case exceed the amount of outlay incurred by the tenant. This Amendment was already familiar to Members of the Committee, as it was one which they had already decided on the English Bill—decided in a House of about 300 Members, and decided in the affirmative. The Government at the time refused to accept the Amendment, on the ground that it had been decided in a thin House, though the House numbered fully 300; and he therefore presumed that they would not wish to take an important Division upon a similar Amendment in a similar Bill in a House which did not number half 300. [An hon. MEMBER: It is a Scotch Bill.] He heard some hon. Gentleman say—"Not on a Scotch Bill!" but he could not understand why Scotch matters were to be looked upon as so insignificant that they could be decided in a small House; whereas a large House was necessary to settle matters relating to England. It was a matter of common rumour—indeed, the Government had never concealed their intention—that they meant to contest the decision come to with regard to this matter on the Report of the English Bill. If he (Mr. Balfour) moved the Amendment now, the result would be that the question would have to be discussed four times—once in Committee on the English Bill, once in Committee on the Scotch Bill, once on the Report of the English Bill, and probably it might be again discussed on the Report of the Scotch Bill. Therefore, he thought the most convenient way to deal with the question would be to defer any action on the Scotch Bill until after the Government had raised the question on the Report of the English Bill, and had made up their minds as to what course they ought to take. Under these circumstances, he should not move the Amendment at present.

Clause agreed to.

As to Improvements executed before the Commencement of Act.

Clause 2 (Restriction as to the improvements before Act).

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, the Amendment he had next on the Paper was a just and proper arrangement; but he did not want to take up the time of the Committee in discussing the question. He intended to raise the question in a modified form on line 17.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member propose the next Amendment?

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

replied in the affirmative. He said he would now ask the Committee to sanction an Amendment giving compensation to farmers for drainage executed upon their holdings "within ten years" before the commencement of the Act. This was a question upon which the farmers of Scotland felt very strongly, a very considerable amount of money having been laid out by tenants on their own behalf in the drainage of land. In consequence of that drainage the rental of the farms had been greatly improved, and the tenants believed that in justice—and he entirely agreed with them—they should be compensated for the execution of drainage executed 10 years before the commencement of the Act. An objection had been taken to that on the ground that the landlord had not an opportunity of seeing how the drainage was performed, and how it improved the farm; but he did not consider that by any means a sound objection, because the drainage of land, if the work was well and properly done, showed itself in the improved condition of the land. Drainage spoke for itself. If it was well done the land showed it, and if it was performed in a slovenly manner it showed it equally the same. There would, therefore, be no difficulty in the referees determining what was the value of the drainage of the land, as the work itself showed how it had been performed. For that reason, He hoped the Government would consent to this modified compensation for improvements executed before the commencement of the Act and allow it to become law. He wished to point out that there was no new question of principle involved in his proposal, because He proposed to give tenants compensation for improvements under Part III. of the Schedule executed before the commencement of the Act. The Bill proposed to give compensation for improvements under Part III.; therefore, there was no new principle involved. It did seem to him that some explanation ought to be given why landlords should be bound to give compensation in respect of the third kind of improvements, and not in respect of the 2nd and 1st Parts of the Schedule. He thought this claim of the tenants was founded upon justice and equity, and He hoped the Government would see their way to concede this point in favour of the Scotch farmers, especially when the Government admitted that the question of drainage was so important that it justified them in putting it in a clause by itself. He begged to move, after the word "has," the insertion of the words "within ten years."

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 17, after the word "has," to insert the words "within ten years."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, he was quite alive to the great importance of this question, and to the fact that it was one on which there was considerable divergence of opinion. After giving the matter full consideration, He did not feel that they were able to accept the Amendment, the effect of which would be to give a claim to a tenant in respect of drainage executed 10 years' prior to the passing of the Act. In considering this proposal he must ask the Committee to keep in view the conditions attached by the present Bill to a tenant having a claim for any future drainage at all. The conditions attached by the Bill were, in the first place, that when drainage was desired notice should be given, and that then the landlord might either enter into an agreement with the tenant by which they might execute the drainage on a joint account, or if the landlord chose he might have the opportunity of executing the drainage himself, so that it was only after agreement that the tenant came to have a right to execute the work, and -it was only for drainage executed under these conditions that compensation could be allowed. It was obvious that these conditions could not possibly be fulfilled in respect of drainage executed in times past. That was not a mere matter of form or technicality, but it was a matter of substance; because it was quite plain that if safeguards were to be provided the landlord should be permitted to see the drains executed by the tenant, if not executed by himself or after agreement. That was a safeguard which would exist in the future, and could not exist as to the past; and, therefore, if the claim were allowed, it would be in respect of that which the landlord had had no power to watch, and thought that no claim would ever be raised against him for it. To adopt the proposal would be to put past drainage in a much more favourable position from the tenant's point of view, whilst it would be the reverse of favourable from the landlord's point of view, and there would be the risk of not incon- siderable injustice being done. With regard to what had been said as to drainage being an obvious improvement, He was afraid it was by no means certain that it was always obvious. He was not certain that it was always obvious because the drainage was underground, and in many parts of the country it would be very difficult to form a satisfactory conclusion as to the efficiency or present condition of past drainage which the landlord had no call to watch. Therefore, while appreciating the considerations which led to an opposite view, and recognizing that the view was one upon which there was great difference of opinion existing, the Government did not feel that they were able to accept the Amendment.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, that what struck him more than anything else on this question was the great fear that was entertained that the fanner would got advantage over the landlord, forgetting the many advantages that the landlord got over the former. Unless the Amendment were adopted, the landlord would benefit by the great drainage works which had been effected by the tenant. Qualified persons would be able to show that the landlords would benefit. He was, therefore, sorry to see the Lord Advocate coming forward as an advocate of the landlords instead of those he represented. If they thought more of what the tenants had done, and less of what the landlords might gain, the better it would be.

Amedment negatived.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

said, he wished to move an Amendment to provide that the improvements executed before the commencement of the Act, and for which compensation should be given under the 3rd Schedule, should only be those which were "over and above the quantity and value stipulated for and agreed to in the existing lease." Allusion had been made already more than once to the prevalence of the lease system in Scotland; and though in the English Bill the terms of his Amendment were submitted to the consideration of the Committee, he ventured to think that the present proposal, in the nature of the case, was especially worthy of consideration. The Bill proposed to set aside any provisions into which the land- lord and tenant had entered in years past, and under which they were held bound. He ventured to think that the Committee would hesitate to accept this proposal. It seemed to him, and he thought it must seem also to every reasonable man, that where the landlord and tenant had, with their eyes open, and under no compulsion, entered into an agreement, part of which, as was commonly the case, was that the tenant should apply to his holding such and such a quantity of manure, and should keep it in good cultivation until the close of the lease, that there was no reason why the Legislature should step in and release the tenant from that part of his agreement. Why, it was evident on the face of it that in coming to an agreement of this nature, imposing such duties upon the tenant, the rent was fixed in consideration of those conditions. Of course, as soon as the Bill became law the tenant would be entitled to compensation, or ought to become entitled to compensation, whether it was stipulated for or not, providing the improvements were unexhausted. But this clause proposed to give him compensation for that which ho, as a free man in a free country, and of his own free will, had undertaken to apply to his holding during his tenancy. He (Sir Herbert Maxwell) ventured to hope that the Committee would consider twice, thrice—nay, indeed, many times—before they imposed upon the agriculturists of the country such dishonourable and dishonouring conditions. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 19, after the word "hereto," to insert the words "over and above the quantity and value stipulated for and agreed to in the existing lease."—(Sir Herbert Maxwell.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)

said, he understood the object of this Amendment to be that, where improvements had been executed before the commencement of the Act by the tenant, who was bound by his lease to make these improvements, then he should not be entitled to any compensation for the improvements so made. It was not the object of this Bill, nor was it within the scope of the Bill, that a tenant in that position would have a claim for any such improvement. But he thought the hon. and gallant Baronet would see; that the case He wished to provide for by this specific Amendment was already sufficiently provided for in another part of the Bill. [Sir HERBERT MAXWELL: Where?] The hon. and gallant Baronet would find it provided for in Clause 6, Sub-section (a), which said— Any benefit which the landlord has given or allowed to the tenant in consideration of the tenant executing the improvement.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, He hoped the interpretation given by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Scotland was correct; but he could not help having some doubt upon the subject. Let them take a case which illustrated the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, and then let the Law Officers of the Crown give their opinion upon it. Supposing he made a lease with an ordinary Scotch tenant for 19 years. In this the mode of cultivation and the outlay respectively required of the landlord and tenant would be specified; but though, without doubt, it would be assumed that the amount of manure necessary to the proper cultivation of the soil would be laid out to the end of the lease, yet for none of these things was there a specific reduction of rent made. Could the tenant, under such a lease, claim compensation for artificial manures or not? He (Mr. Balfour) maintained that he could. Under the Bill, the tenant could claim compensation, which, but for the Bill, he would not have the slightest right to; and, therefore, he considered that his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Herbert Maxwell) was right in contending that leases were, to a certain extent, interfered with by the clause. He would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that he (Mr. Balfour) had raised this point on the English Bill, and had asked whether the Government would not modify the measure in order to save existing leases. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) quite admitted that leases were broken; he said that the Government intended to break the leases. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would take into consideration the remarks he (Mr. Balfour) had made, and that he would see that the case of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Herbert Maxwell) was not at all met by Sub-section (a) of Clause 6.

MR. A. ELLIOT

said, that the Amendment standing next on the Paper had been put down by him with a similar object to that of the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell). He certainly did hope that the learned Lord Advocate, and the learned Solicitor General for Scotland, would accept words giving, at all events, effect to their intentions. Certainly, it was not at all clear that this Clause 2 was modified by Sub-section (a) of the 6th clause. It would be remembered that in Clause 2, as in Clause 1, they were dealing with claims to compensation; whereas the other matter was a sot-off against this claim. The question was, whether a tenant should have a right to claim compensation for what he had done, when it had been done in pursuance of the obligations of a lease? They had been told, on very high authority, that the very term "improvement" contemplated something in the nature of supererogation; and that the moment anything was done in pursuance of a contract, or a lease, it could not, properly speaking, be held to be an improvement. He would urge upon the Scotch Law Officers of the Crown to add additional words to the present section. His Amendment was to the effect that compensation under the clause should be confined to improvements which the tenant was "not under an obligation to make." He certainly hoped the Government would accept some Amendment of that nature.

MR. MARJORIBANKS

expressed a hope that the Government would consent to add the Amendment of the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Elliot), and that the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell) would withdraw his proposal. The only argument of the Solicitor General for Scotland appeared to be this—that these words would be surplusage. Seeing the importance some hon. Members attached to them, there could be no objection to their insertion.

MR. WARTON

urged on the Committee not to be satisfied with the assurance of the Solicitor General for Scotland. It was all very well for him, in a dignified way, to tell them that which they all knew already—namely, that stipulations entered into on the part of the landlord and tenant were correlative, and were mutually correspondent. The hon. and learned Gentleman might use as many of these phrases as he liked; but what they wished to do was to separate from real improvements what were merely the ordinary duties which a tenant was bound to fulfil upon his holding. Duties which a tenant covenanted to fulfil in a lease could not be called improvements. It was no use telling them what was done in Subsection (a), because it was obvious that that was something beyond the lease.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)

could not say the point was provided for in the clause as it stood; but it seemed to him, however, to be the desire of the Committee to make the clause still more clear. He could not say that he entertained any doubt that the point mentioned was provided for in the Bill as it stood; but it seemed to be the general desire of the Committee. [Mr. J. W. BARCLAY: No, no!] Yes. It seemed to be the desire of the Committee that the matter should be made still more clear. It appeared to him that the words suggested by the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Elliot) would meet the matter more directly than the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell); and if the latter would withdraw his Amendment, the Government would be prepared to introduce the words of the hon. Member for Roxburghshire, with the word "express" inserted before "obligation."

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

deeply regretted to hear the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Scotland, because if the Amendment were admitted into the Bill as it stood, it would entirely defeat the compensation to which the tenant, under Part III. of the Bill, was entitled under existing leases. ["No, no!"] Well, he would show how it would defeat the compensation. As the Bill at present stood, there would be no practical difficulty in interpreting it. If a tenant bound himself, for instance, in the last year of his lease, to apply, say, 500 cwt. of artificial manures to the land, he would have no claim to compensation under the Bill, because he would be under a specific obligation to apply it. But supposing words were put in providing that he was under an obligation to apply those artificial manures, the point would be raised, when the arbitration came on, that the tenant was bound, under the rules of good husbandry, to apply this additional 500 cwt. of manure to the soil; and in the same way this would also apply to every other improvement under Part III. of the Schedule, because in every lease in Scotland the tenant was bound to conduct his farm according to the rules of good husbandry. Every improvement in Part III. would come under the General Clause; and if the Government accepted this Proviso, the object of the Bill, with regard to Part III. of the Schedule, would be entirely defeated. He must express his disapproval and great disappointment at this concession on the part of the Government. It simply illustrated what had been going on hitherto in regard to this Bill. If hon. Members who advocated the interests of the landlords said a clause was not clear, the Government consented to make it clear in a manner adverse to the interest of the tenants; but if hon. Members who spoke on behalf of the tenants referred to a want of clearness in a clause, they were told that the matter was clear enough in the Bill, and that no alteration would be made. He objected to this Amendment, as it would defeat the claims of the tenants for compensation under existing leases.

MR. A. ELLIOT

really thought the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken did not understand the effect of the Amendment. The hon. Member professed to represent the tenant farmers of Scotland; but he (Mr. Elliot) knew enough about the Scotch tenant farmers and their views not to suppose that they wished to get one sixpence of money to which they were not legally entitled. The case the hon. Member had put was this. Supposing a tenant had in his lease an obligation to put several cwt. of manure on his land, he would have obtained his lease under that consideration amongst others, so he was bound to put the manure on the soil; and it would be monstrous if, after he had got his farm on that understanding, he should be absolutely entitled to be paid twice over by receiving compensation for such manure.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, that was not his intention.

MR. A. ELLIOT

said, that that, at any rate, was what he understood the hon. Member to contend. If the clause was not equitable between the parties he would withdraw it; but, to his mind, it was equitable and just, and therefore he expected the Government to stand by the declaration they had made.

MR. J. A. CAMPBELL

said, he must join in the appeal to his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment in favour of the words proposed by the Solicitor General for Scotland, for the reason that the stipulations between the landlord and tenant might not have been in the lease. The words proposed by the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Elliot), and those which he had himself placed on the Paper in almost identical terms, were wider than those of the hon. and gallant Baronet.

MR. M'LAGAN

said, he had grave doubts about this clause, and was afraid that if it were inserted in its present shape it would lead to great injustice being done; but the words proposed to be added would prevent that injustice. Let them consider a case where a tenant took a farm and was bound to cultivate it according to the terms of his lease—he was bound to keep it in a proper condition. He might be unable to do that without purchasing a large amount of manure. He was bound to keep the farm in a normal state; he was bound to apply manure, and such application, therefore, could not be called an improvement. The clause, however, said "an improvement;" and though they knew perfectly well that that which tended to keep a farm in a normal state could not properly be called "an improvement," it might be that an arbitrator, who came to give an opinion upon the matter, might overlook the fact that the tenant was bound to keep the farm in a normal condition. With these words in the Bill, however, such a mistake could not be committed. If there had been real improvements—such as boning, claying, chalking, or anything of that kind — the arbitrator would have no difficulty whatever; but in the case of the application of temporary light manures—such as guano—which the tenant was bound to put in to keep up the fertility of the soil, the matter might be different.

MR. MARJORIBANKS

looked upon the speech of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) as the strongest argument they could have in favour of the Amendment. The Government should congratulate themselves upon having accepted this Amendment, and the Committee should be very much obliged to them for having adopted that course.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

said, he was glad to hear from the Government that they would introduce words in the nature of his Amendment. He would withdraw his Amendment, on the assurance that words embodying its principle would be inserted in the clause by the Government.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)

said, that what the Government proposed to do was to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Elliot), which was to the effect that compensation should be paid for improvements which the tenant was not under obligation to make, subject to this modification, to make matters still more clear—namely, that the word "express" should be inserted before the word "obligation."

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he should be sorry if there was any misunderstanding on this point, as it was a most important one. He would repeat that if the Amendment proposed were accepted it would take out of the Bill all compensation under existing leases. With respect to Part III. of the Schedule, he was afraid he had not made himself clear. What he had intended to say was that if a tenant was bound, during the last two or three years of his lease, to apply a definite quantity of manure to his land—say 500 cwt.—he would have no claim whatever to compensation in respect of such application. But, as had been mentioned by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan), a lease in Scotland contained the condition that the farmer was bound to farm on the rules of good husbandry. That was an express obligation of the lease. Well, if the farmers were bound, under that rule, to keep their farms to the end of the lease in the condition in which they took them originally, they would get no compensation for artificial manures applied during the last year of their leases, unless they could show that the application was in excess of the rules of good husbandry. That, surely, was not what the Government intended by this Bill. Under this system the farmers under the Lincolnshire custom got compensation for the artificial ma- nures they used during the last years of their lease. Under the Amendment it was proposed to insert that right would be taken away. He protested against the concession of the Government in the most emphatic manner possible, and declared He would adopt every means in his power to emphasize the protest.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, after the word "hereto," to insert the words "which he was not under an express obligation to make."—(Mr. A. Elliot.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. BUCHANAN

said, there was one ambiguity which He hoped the Government would clear up before they accepted this Amendment. So far as he could make out, the hon. Member for the University of Glasgow (Mr. J. A. Campbell) understood the Amendment in a different sense to the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell) who had moved the last Amendment. The hon. and gallant Baronet's Amendment included only leases; but the hon. Member for the University of Glasgow had said that his Amendment was the same as that of the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot), and that under it any other arrangement made between the landlord and tenant would be included. He should like to know in what sense the Government accepted the Amendment? Did they hold that it would apply only to leases, or to all other arrangements and contracts between landlord and tenant?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, that if there had been any express obligation by a rider under the lease, or a separate document, that would come under the Amendment. The words the Government proposed to accept would only deal with cases in which there was an express obligation. He had inserted a safeguard in the Amendment in the word "express;" and to him it seemed to be a very proper safeguard.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 131; Noes 40: Majority 91. — (Div. List, No. 233.)

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

moved to amend the clause by inserting words giving compensation where the tenant had executed an improvement mentioned in the first or second part of the Schedule within 10 years previous to the commencement of the Act.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 20, after the word "improvement," insert "Where a tenant has executed an improvement mentioned in the first or second part of this Schedule within ten years previous to the commencement of the Act, and he is not entitled under any contract or custom to compensation in respect of such improvement, and the landlord has within one year after the commencement of the Act consented in writing to the making of the improvement."—(The Lord Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 (Consent of landlord as to improvements in first part of Schedule).

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he had given Notice of an Amendment to provide that compensation should be payable in respect of any improvement specified in the first part of the Schedule; but he thought that question had already been settled, and therefore he should not press the Amendment.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

moved, in line 4, after the word "hereto," to insert "with the exception of labourers' cottages occupied by workers on the holding." He wished to appeal to the Committee to make an exception of a certain class of improvements, and to enable them to be done without the consent of the landlord—namely, the right of erecting labourers' cottages. It was a very important question indeed, because labourers' cottages were exceedingly scarce in many parts of Scotland. The result was that many farm labourers were leaving the country—many of them were going into the towns, where they obtained superior inducements, and many of them were leaving the country altogether. He therefore thought it was a matter of great importance—of much more importance than many of the minor Amendments to the Bill — that the tenant farmers should be able to afford inducements to the labourers in the shape of neat cottages with gardens attached to them, in order to induce them to stay in the country. In some parts of Scotland the labourers' cottages were in a most wretched condition. Speaking for himself, if he had been entitled to compensation he should long ago have erected cottages for the accommodation of labourers. He was deeply persuaded that nothing would contribute more to the prosperity of agriculture than to induce good and efficient labourers to remain on the farm. But to induce them to take an interest in the farm the labourers must have a personal interest in the holding itself; and he did not know how to give them a greater inducement to look after their employer's interests than to supply them with adequate cottage accommodation, where they and their families would find themselves comfortably housed, and their lives rendered endurable. He heard a great many people say what they were prepared to do for the agricultural labourer, and he wished to give hon. Members an opportunity of putting their professions into practice. As a farmer, he felt it a reproach to himself that his labourers were not better accommodated than they were; but it was altogether unreasonable to expect the farmers to build cottages if such cottages were to be confiscated at the end of the lease without compensation. All that was asked by the Amendment was that a tenant farmer should be allowed to erect cottages for the occupation of the labourers working on the farm. The agricultural labourer was not at present represented in that House. Hon. Members were, therefore, bound in honour to take his case into consideration, seeing that he was not there to speak for himself and to state his wishes and demands. He felt it an obligation on himself as a farmer to bring forward the case of the labourers' cottages, and also, as a Representative of an agricultural constituency, he felt that it was his duty to represent all the interests of his constituency, and that, therefore, he was bound to bring this question before the House, and to urge it upon the consideration of the Committee with all the force in his power. He did not see that any danger could arise from granting this power to the tenant farmer. No one would suppose that the tenant farmer would build cottages in excess of the requirements of the case; and everyone knew that a farmer would give a much higher rent for a farm on which there was proper provision in the shape of labourers' cottages, and where he saw that he could get a supply of labour, and also, to a considerable extent, of juvenile labour, than He would for a farm on which no such accommodation was provided. It must also be borne in mind that this question of a proper supply of labour had a considerable bearing upon the economical working of a farm. In moving the Amendment he thought he was only discharging the responsibility he owed as a farmer to the farm servants. He was quite certain that if the matter were left in the hands of the farmers a good many of them would put themselves to the trouble and expense of erecting cottages for the accommodation of their labourers; and although he had already done a good deal in that way himself, he would be ready to do still more if he could be assured that he would obtain compensation at the end of his lease. He begged to move the Amendment, and to recommend it most strongly to the consideration of the Government.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 4, after the word "hereto," to insert the words "with the exception of labourers' cottages occupied by workers on the holding."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, the question was not whether it was desirable that adequate accommodation should be provided for agricultural labourers. That was a question they were all agreed upon; but the question raised by the Amendment was whether the tenant should, without the consent of the landlord, have the power of building labourers' cottages as he pleased and when he pleased, and then of charging the landlord with the expense. He thought it would have been a better way of approaching the matter if his hon. Friend had directed his arguments to that point, rather than to a point about which they were all agreed—namely, the desirableness of providing cottage accommodation. The first point he (the Lord Advocate) would call the attention of the Committee to was, that the adoption of the Amendment would substantially involve invasion of that which was the cardinal principle of the Bill—namely, that anything in the nature of the building of permanent structures must, under the clause, be erected with the consent of the landlord. The proposal of the Amendment was to reverse that principle in the case of a particular class of buildings; and, with every desire to see the labourers well housed, he did not see how the Committee could make so large au exception as the Amendment involved, and place it in the power of the tenant to build labourers' cottages how and where and when he pleased, and then compel the landlord to pay for them. It was the duty of the landlord to provide proper cottage accommodation upon the holding, and that duty he presumed the landlord would be prepared to discharge, not only in the interests of the labourer, but also in the interests of the real and actual letting value of the farm, because a farm which was not provided with labourers' cottages would certainly let for a less sum than on that was. He, therefore, thought that while they had every desire to see the labourers well housed that was not the real question they had to consider. They had rather to consider whether it would not be inconsistent with the leading principles of the Bill, or with any Act they might pass, if they gave an absolute right to the tenant to erect permanent buildings on the holding without the consent of the landlord.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

remarked that the Lord Advocate had such command of language that he was quite able to provide words to suit any purpose he was desirous of carrying out. Notwithstanding the remarks which had been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, He thought the labourers of Scotland, as a whole, were very badly provided with cottage accommodation, and that their case required some consideration at the hands of the Committee. He was satisfied that any provision that was made for that deserving class of persons would be hailed as a great boon. He had himself placed an Amendment upon the Paper, following the one now before the Committee, to provide— And whatever necessary and suitable improvements are to be executed after the commencement of this Act the tenant shall give the landlord three months' notice, and if he refuses to consent, then the tenant may apply to the sheriff of the county for leave to execute the same, and the tenant shall be entitled to deduct five per centum on the outlay from his rent an- nually, and on quitting his holding, or at determination of his lease, shall be entitled to compensation for what the improvement may then be worth, which shall be fixed by reference as is after provided by this Act. He was of opinion that, with the addition of this provision, the Amendment of his hon. Friend might be accepted by the Committee.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, it seemed to him that his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) was entirely right in principle in regard to the erection of labourers' cottages; but he thought it would be better to deal with the question in the second part of the Schedule, so that it might be placed in the same part as drainage. It might be provided, in Clause 4, that if a farm was not provided with suitable and adequate cottage accommodation the tenant should have power to erect cottages, and should be entitled at the end of the lease to claim compensation from the landlord. As a matter of principle, He should vote for the Amendment; but He thought it would come in much better in another place.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, the observations which had been made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) were entirely in accordance with the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper, in regard to Clause 4—namely, that the tenant should have power to apply to the Sheriffs' Court for authority to execute the improvements himself; that upon the receipt of such application the Sheriff should inquire into the merits of the case, and call for the production of such documentary evidence, or other evidence, as he might deem to be necessary; and if he was satisfied that the proposed improvement was suitable and necessary, he should make an award, authorizing the tenant to execute it himself. His Amendment further provided that the award should be final, and should specify the nature and the extent of the improvement, the amount to be expended upon it by the tenant, and the time within which the work was to be completed. The object of that Amendment was to encourage the tenant to improve the holding, to obtain heavier crops, and to increase the amount of produce. But he failed to see how these objects could be effected if the tenant had no buildings in which he could house the labourers who were necessary to cultivate the farm and attend to the cattle. The result of empowering the tenant to execute drainage works himself, if the landlord refused his consent, was to enable him to increase his crops, and thereby to place himself in a position in which he would be required to employ morn labourers. It was, undoubtedly, a great blot in Scotland at the present moment that there was so large a want of suitable labourers' cottages; and he thought the Committee ought to take advantage of this opportunity of doing something to provide for the future care and comfort of this deserving class of men. He was prepared fully to accept the principle of the Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, He hoped that the Government would adhere to the resolution they had already expressed. Of course, everybody agreed that the labourer ought to be well housed; but hon. Gentlemen opposite, who professed to know a great deal about Scotland, would admit that there was nothing in Scotland which had improved more within the last 25 or 30 years than the dwellings in which the agricultural labourers lived. No one would deny the fact that this increased provision had been made entirely by the landlords, with no consideration whatever in the shape of rent; or with a very trifling consideration. The work had been done by the landlords as a matter of principle, and not with a view to profit. Speaking of his own knowledge of Scotland, there was nothing of which he felt more convinced than this; and for that reason he opposed the Amendment. He believed that it would produce no good effect, because the landlords were prepared to erect suitable labourers' cottages already. The Amendment would not lead to the improvement of labourers' dwellings; and he failed to see for what object the tenant farmers desired to have this power. Did they desire to increase the letting value of the holding?

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, they were anxious to increase the value of the holding for their successors.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, that, in the event of such a proposal leading to a large addition to the existing number of labourers' dwellings, he was quite convinced that they would not lead to the improvement of the cottages them- selves, and the agricultural labourers would not find themselves housed in such cottages as hon. Members would wish to see erected. He believed, if they accepted the Amendment, that they would not only commit a breach of the principle of the Bill, but he was satisfied that they would not promote the object they professed to have in view. On the contrary, they might do a great deal to retard the development of the improvements in this direction, which were going on at the present moment, in reference to the dwellings of the agricultural labourers.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, the object of the Amendment was to take the erection of labourers' cottages out of the first part of the Schedule, and to insert it in the second. If the Amendment were accepted, a tenant would be able to call upon the landlord to carry out improvements of this nature; and if they were not carried out, then the tenant would be able to do them at his own expense, and be entitled to claim compensation at the termination of his lease. He was quite prepared to admit that in those parts of Scotland to which the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Balfour) had referred, the landlords had done a great deal in the way of building cottages; but the Amendment would only apply to those parts of Scotland where the building of cottages had been neglected, and not to those parts to which the hon. Member referred at all. What he proposed was, that the tenants should have power to supply better cottages than those which at present existed. He knew many instances in which the tenants had supplied better cottages than those which previously existed. He was sorry to say that, in certain districts in Scotland, and upon certain estates, the question of cottage accommodation was very much neglected indeed; and if the Government declined to accept the Amendment, they must take upon themselves the responsibility of not undertaking to do what could easily be done for the improvement of the condition of the agricultural labourers. Certainly, the responsibility would no longer remain with the farmers.

MR. M'LAGAN

said, he thought that the Amendment was a good one in principle as far as it went; but he could not support it in its present form. There certainly ought to be some restriction upon the erection of cottages. He would have no objection whatever to give the tenant the right of providing cottage accommodation, provided that there were some authority to whom the question might be previously referred. He approved of the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member behind him (Sir Alexander Gordon) to that effect, and he should be glad to support it. But, without some restriction, he should certainly hesitate before he voted for the present Amendment.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

wished again to point out that the only effect of the present Amendment was to take labourers' cottages out of the 1st Part of the Schedule, which provided that they should not be erected without the landlord's consent. They could be put in Part II. of the Schedule afterwards; but if the clause were passed as it now stood that could not be done.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he thought that the matter ought to be kept in the 1st Part of the Schedule. It was a question of principle, in regard to which he hoped the Government would stand firm.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, the question was not that the tenant might erect labourers' cottages, but that they might erect them and then charge the landlord with the expense.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 154: Majority 117.—(Div. List, No. 234.)

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he would move the next Amendment, which stood in his name, because he did not think that it was altogether disposed of by the Division which had just taken place. The object of his Amendment was to give the tenant power, if he desired to execute improvements, to appeal to an appointed party in the event of the landlord refusing his consent. Of course, if the Lord Advocate refused to accept the Amendment, it would be useless to press it.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 4, after the word "executed," leave out from "after" to end of Clause, and insert, "over and above contract under current leases, whether before or after commencement of this Act. And whatever necessary and suit- able improvements are to be executed after the commencement of this Act the tenant shall give the landlord three months' notice, and if he refuses to consent, then the tenant may apply to the Sheriff of the county for leave to execute the same, and the tenant shall be entitled to deduct five per centum on the outlay for his rent annually, and on quitting his holding, or at determination of his lease, shall be entitled to compensation for what the improvement may then be worth, which shall be fixed by reference, as is after provided by this Act."—(Sir George Balfour.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, he felt it impossible to accept the Amendment, which would make a fundamental alteration in the principle of the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 5, after the word "landlord," to insert the words "or his agent duly authorized on that behalf."—(The Lord Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 (Notice to landlord as to improvements in second part of Schedule).

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

moved, in page 2, line 14, to leave out the words "and executed after the commencement of the Act." He explained that his object in moving the Amendment was simply to omit the words, because he considered them to be altogether unnecessary.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 14, to leave out the words "and executed after the commencement of the Act."—(Sir Herbert Maxwell.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

objected to the Amendment.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

said, he would not press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

wished to ask the Lord Advocate, before the next Amendment was moved, whether the notice to the landlord to execute improvements should not be given by the tenant more than a month before the execution of such improvements? A month was a very short time, especially in a case where the landlord might have a large number of applications of this kind. He would suggest two months instead of one month.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that, at present, there is no Question before the Committee.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he would move that Amendment, in order to give the Lord Advocate an opportunity of considering it. Perhaps it would be better to make a further Amendment. He would therefore move, in line 15, to substitute five months for three months, and, in line 16, to substitute two months for one month.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 15, to leave out the word "three," and insert the word "five."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Clause."

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

said, he hoped that, in considering the Amendment, the Lord Advocate would remember that the Bill was to extend throughout the whole length and breadth of Scotland; and, as an illustration of the way in which the clause, as it stood, might work, and the necessity of increasing the term, he might state that a landlord, who was a friend of his own, had a farm in the Island of Barra, one of the Hebrides. Some time ago this gentleman wrote to his agent in Barra, and on the same day he wrote to a brother in Canada; and the answer from the agent in Barra and from the brother in Canada arrived almost simultaneously. Probably the right hon. Gentleman would be aware that there were other places in the same position, such as the Island of St. Kilda, the Orkneys, and other parts of the Hebrides, where it was quite possible that the notice sent to the landlord would not be received until the limit now fixed in the clause had expired.

MR. MARJORIBANKS

said, he thought that some two or three months' notice should be required in the case of all these improvements.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he thought there would be some difficulty in working the clause on account of the notice, because the improvements would depend very much on the landlord's reply. The usual custom was to give the landlord notice; and the landlord said what he would do and what he would not do.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, there was no difficulty in the clause as it stood. It required that before executing any improvement the tenant should have given the landlord notice in writing of his intention to do so, not more than three months and not less than one month. The meaning of putting in a maximum was that the tenant should not have a year or 18 months within which he should begin to execute the improvement after calling the attention of the landlord to it. Then, as to the minimum of one month, the reason of fixing that was that it should be necessary to give the landlord an opportunity of seeing whether he was willing to enter into an agreement with the tenant, or whether he would do the drainage himself. If the landlord remained silent, the tenant would be able to go on with the work; and he did not know any part of Scotland which was so inaccessible that the tenant would not be able to get a reply from his landlord within a month. He, therefore, did not see that there would be any advantage in accepting the Amendment.

MR. PRESTON BRUCE

asked whether, after the period of one month had expired, the tenant could commence executing the improvement?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, that was so; but, then, if the tenant did nothing within three months, the landlord would be justified in holding that the matter had dropped.

MR. PRESTON BRUCE

thought that one month was too short a time.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

pointed out that if no limit were fixed, the tenant, after giving the landlord notice, might hold the matter over for five or six months, or a year, and be able to go on with the work whenever he liked. The object of this part of the clause was to prevent the matter from being hung up for a year or two.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he did not think any hardship would be done to the tenant by increasing the period of one month to two months; but, on the other hand, it might be a matter of great inconvenience to have the period extended.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

remarked, that one month was a very short time to enable the landlord to make up his mind.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, the feeling of the Committee seemed to be that one month was too short; and he should, therefore, defer at once, and make it two months.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 16, to leave out the words "one month," and insert the words "two months."—(The Lord Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. COCHRAN-PATRICK

moved, in page 2, line 17, after "landlord," to insert the words "or any person duly authorized by him." He explained that the object of this Amendment was to prevent the inconvenience that might arise if a landlord happened to be abroad. If such a person as his factor was authorized to act on his behalf that would greatly add to the working of the Act.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 17, after the word "landlord," to insert the words "or any person duly authorized by him."—(Mr. Cochran-Patrick.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, He would assent to the Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

wished clearly to know whether an agent must have his authorization in writing to execute drainage works?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, it would not be necessary for the agent to have any specific authority for that purpose. There would be a general authority; but if there was any apprehension that the words would lead to doubt, he would suggest that the form should be "or his duly authorized agent."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, that would be quite satisfactory to him.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 17, after the word "landlord," to insert the words "or his duly authorized agent."—(The Lord Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 17, after the word "do," to insert the words "and a specification of such works."—(The Lord Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

proposed to omit all that part of the clause which related to the making of an agreement between landlord and tenant with regard to the terms, as to compensation or otherwise, on which the improvement was to be executed, and, failing agreement, allowed the landlord, or, in his default, the tenant, to execute the improvements. His object was to allow the landlord and tenant to agree freely together upon the terms on which drainage ought to be done. He thought that would practically be the greatest benefit to both parties. It would follow that the tenant should give notice to the landlord of his intention to execute the improvement; and this would give an opportunity to the landlord to come forward and offer to do the work upon such terms as they might agree upon. In almost every case where the landlord made a reasonable offer it would be accepted, and the tenant would then be able to devote his own capital to the soil. The Amendment would still leave it open, if the landlord pressed his bargain too hard, for the tenant to execute the improvement himself, and claim compensation.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 17, after the last Amendment, to leave out all the words to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, he could not assent to the Amendment, and it was not necessary in order to accomplish the purpose indicated. The clause already allowed a landlord and tenant to agree, and upon ample terms; but the effect of the Amendment would be not only to allow that, but also to cut out the landlord from the right of executing drainage himself, because in the clause first mention was made of a tenant executing drainage, which was indicatory of this—that the tenant was only to execute drainage himself, failing an agreement, or he was to pay the landlord to execute the work. That would have a very large operation; but he was afraid that if the rest of the clause was left out the effect would be to give an absolute right to the tenant to execute drainage on the expiry of a certain period, without anything to stop that right being defined.

MR. PRESTON BRUCE

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper which practically came to the same thing. He did not think this alternative right given to the landlord to do the drainage would work well, because it was absolutely necessary that that right should be controlled by a particular rate of interest which the landlord might charge. If a low rate of interest was charged, a landlord might be able to do the work only at a loss. On the other hand, if a high rate was named, that would practically amount to a veto in the hands of the landlord, by which he could prevent the tenant from doing the work. If drainage was an improvement which ought to be put in a separate Schedule by itself, it would be sufficient to provide that a tenant should give due notice to the landlord of the nature of the drainage which he proposed to carry out. If, after a sufficient time, the parties failed to agree on the terms of carrying out such drainage, then the tenant should be allowed to do the drainage on his own account, and claim compensation for it. Unless the clause was so modified, he thought it would be almost as well to put drainage in Part I of the Schedule.

MR. JAMES HOWARD

failed to see any use in the latter part of the clause, and which it was proposed to omit. The clause conferred on the tenant absolute power to carry out improvements in drainage, subject to his giving the land' lord notice; and then it proceeded to permit the tenant and landlord to come to an agreement. Surely an Act of Parliament was not required to enable a landlord and tenant to come to an agreement; and then the clause went further, and proceeded on the pernicious principle of saying what amount of percentage should be charged upon the work as against the landlord. He thought that was a matter which might be left entirely to freedom of contract. If the right to drain was conferred on the tenant he would be made master of the situation.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, that if the last part of the clause was cut out the tenant who had capital would be made absolute master of the situation, for He would be able to say to the landlord that he wanted certain work done—he would be able to put such onerous terms on the landlord that the landlord would not be able to execute the work; and then, having the capital, the tenant would execute it after his own fashion. The rich tenant would therefore be made master of the situation, but not the poor tenant. The latter would be deprived of freedom of contract, and of the protection which the Bill gave him. At present the Bill protected the poor tenant, because the landlord would not be able to charge more than 5 per cent.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

He will not be able to refuse to do it.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, that if the last part of the clause, which detailed the terms upon which the landlord and tenant might agree, was left out, all the benefit to the poor tenant would be taken away, and the rich tenant would be left master of the situation, and he would be able to drain land which did not belong to him upon a system of which the landlord might disapprove.

MR. JAMES HOWARD

said, the hon. Member had misunderstood his argument. His view was that the first part of the clause gave an absolute right to the tenant, the effect of which was to put the landlord and tenant on terms of equality in making a contract, and thus practically made the tenant master of the situation, inasmuch as if the terms offered by the landlord were not satisfactory the tenant could do the work himself, and obtain compensation. The whole question of freedom of contract was overruled by the absolute power which the clause gave to the tenant. When the tenant was thus put, in contracting terms, upon an equality with the landlord, freedom of contract should have fair play.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, the clause, as it stood, was no protection to the poor tenant, because he could not drain the land if the landlord said he would not advance the money. The Amendment, however, was only a suggestion, and he would withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he wished next to move an Amendment with the object of making explicit what he understood this clause to contain. It proposed to provide that the landlord might, within one month after receiving the notice from the tenant, offer to execute the improvement himself, and if the offer was accepted by the tenant, the tenant should pay the landlord 5 per cent a-year until the work was completed. The clause did not say how long the tenant was to pay the interest; but the Amendment would make it quite clear, and defined accurately the arrangement between the parties; and he did not see any possible objection that the Government could make to having the meaning of the clause made clear. The Amendment said the landlord should, after one month—or he would be willing to say two months or six weeks—say whether He would do the work himself or not. It required that the tenant should accept the offer in order to make the relations between the two parties clear; and, after accepting the offer, he should be bound to pay the landlord 5 per cent per annum for the amount the landlord expended. He thought that would make the clause work in a practical way.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 23, to leave out all the words from "may" to "per cent" in line 24, inclusive, and insert "may within one month after receiving the notice from the tenant offer to execute the improvement himself, and if this offer be accepted by the tenant, the tenant shall pay to the landlord yearly from the completion of the improvement to the determination of the tenancy five pounds per centum."—(Mr. J.W. Barclay.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, the hon. Member indicated that his only purpose in this Amendment was to make clear the meaning which the Government had endeavoured to express in their own language but as the Government and the hon. Member were agreed in intention, he should certainly prefer the terms of the clause. The hon. Member's language was not quite the same as theirs, and might, he thought, lead to some misapprehension as to the relations between the parties. The Amend- ment would put the tenant in the position of one who was entitled to accept or refuse the landlord's offer; but that was not the position created by the Bill. The landlord got a right to give an undertaking and to execute drainage himself, not by way of that being accepted by the tenant, but to prevent the tenant executing work which the landlord disapproved of, or if the two did not come to an agreement. The Amendment would lead to misapprehension, because it did not say what was to happen if the landlord's offer was not accepted. Surely the tenant was not to be allowed to go on and drain. If not, then was the matter to be left hanging in the air? If nothing more was meant than to convey that the tenant had a right to execute draining failing an agreement or an undertaking by the landlord being duly carried out, he thought that was carried out better by the Bill as it stood. With regard to the specified period for the payment of interest, he scarcely thought the hon. Member was right in saying there was a failure, for "five pounds" meant that the payment was to be per cent; but, lest there should be any doubt, he would, later on, insert "per cent" and "per annum." Five per cent per annum would be the charge between the landlord and the tenant as long as they stood in the relation of landlord and tenant, or while the lease lasted.

MR. WILLIAMSON

considered the clause perfectly clear, and thought the Amendment would be adverse to the interest of the tenant. The hon. Member proposed that the interest should be £5 per cent; but why should it not be £3 or £4 per cent?

MR. MARJORIBANKS

said, the Amendment would totally change the clause. As the clause stood, there was an option to the landlord to do the work just as he chose; but under the Amendment the option would be with the tenant, because if the offer was not accepted by the tenant that would not debar him from doing the work and refusing to allow the landlord to do it. If that was so, the tenant had the option and not the landlord, although the object of this clause was to give the option to the landlord.

MR. ANDERSON

said, it appeared to him that the Amendment threw upon the tenant the onus of proof that the landlord had received notice, and that might be very difficult if the landlord happened to be away from home.

MR. PRESTON BRUCE

said, he could quite understand the explanation of the Lord Advocate, for he thought the question was this—Whether, when a tenant had given notice that he wished a certain amount of drainage to be done, he thereby committed himself to allowing the landlord to do that work, and then to charge him with the maximum interest stated in the Bill—whether he committed himself in such a way that he could not withdraw? He did not think it would be reasonable to oblige the tenant so to commit himself; and he should like to ask, at the same time, whether there was any intention in this Bill to make the alteration which had been promised in the English Bill with regard to the interest? He understood that an alteration was to be made in the English Bill allowing a different rate of interest—namely, a rate which would pay off the principal sum in 25 years. The effect of that might be to enable the landlord to charge a much higher rate than 5 per cent; and if the tenant, by merely giving notice that he wanted drainage to be executed, was to incur the liability of having to pay this higher rate on the whole cost of the improvement, that would be rather hard upon the tenant.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

asked the Lord Advocate whether notice given by a tenant, without anything further on his part, would operate as an authority to the landlord to carry out the drainage specified, and to charge the tenant such interest as was named in the Bill? He desired that there should be a space for both parties to consider the matter; and, therefore, the tenant ought to accept the landlord's offer, or else the drainage should not be done. The hon. Member below him had failed to examine the remainder of the clause, which provided that if the landlord undertook to do the drainage then the tenant had no right to do it himself. That was quite clear. The only point—and it was one which he thought was in considerable doubt—was whether notice by the tenant was an authority to the landlord to carry out the drainage and charge the interest named in the Bill? It would, he thought, be for the advantage of both parties that they should have a space in which to consider; because he could quite understand that the tenant would say—"Let us have some talk about what the drainage is to cost." The landlord might propose to do it in an extravagant way. The tenant might have no idea what it was to cost, and they would talk it over, and so the tenant would be able to say what he could pay upon the expenditure. The Lord Advocate seemed to be very clear as to the meaning of the Bill; but he (Mr. Barclay) apprehended that there were strong opinions on both sides as to this clause, and he should be glad to have it made as simple as possible.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, he could see the point of the hon. Member but he did not think the mere giving of a notice, without anything else, would have the consequence which the hon. Member supposed. He admitted that the matter might be in doubt, and he should be quite prepared to deal with it on Report. The hon. Member asked whether, if the tenant gave notice and there was no agreement, but an undertaking by the landlord, the landlord, on giving that undertaking, without anything further, would bind the tenant to pay interest? He thought it might be well to make it clear that that would not be so, and he would introduce words to that effect. With regard to the question of an alteration respecting interest, it was intended to deal with the two Bills in the same way. The proposal would be brought up in each case on Report.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

wished the Government, before they committed themselves on this point, to consider an important difference between the two countries. Hon. Members opposite, who, he supposed, knew something about drainage, said it would not last more than 12 or 15 years in England; but if drainage was well done in Scotland it would last 35 or 40 years. It was quite clear that the rate of interest, which would be an important consideration even for 12 or 14 years, would be too serious a consideration for 40 years. He thought it would have been better if the Government had accepted his first offer; but he would withdraw his Amendment.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

asked whether the Government intended to bring up an Amendment on Report deal- ing with the question of interest, for he had an Amendment upon that point; and before he could consent not to move it, he must have an assurance from the Government that they would deal with this Bill in the same manner as the English Bill.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, that matter was not to be dealt with to-day; but the Government would consider whether the two Bills should not be brought up together in regard to that matter.

MR. RAMSAY

mentioned that, besides poor tenants, there were a large number of poor landlords; and he hoped the Government would carefully consider that fact before bringing up on Report any such qualification as was suggested.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. COCHRAN-PATRICK

said, he considered it desirable, in a Bill of this sort, that there should be some space of time mentioned. He should propose six months; but he was not wedded to that precise limit.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 27, to leave out the words "a reasonable time," and insert "six months."—(Mr. Cochran-Patrick.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, he thought a "reasonable time" preferable to a definitely fixed period. There were cases in which six months might be too long, or too short. With a scarcity of employment or labour, there might be great difficulty in executing the work in the time fixed; and quite sufficient protection was given by the clause as it stood.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 29, to leave out the word "on," and insert the words "in respect of."—(The Lord Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

said, he thought that in the consideration of the question of drainage there had been too much uncertainty as to the intentions of the Government as to dealing with that on Report. The value of drainage, of course, depended entirely on the mode in which it was carried out. It would be impossible, at the close of a tenancy, to dig up the drains to see whether they had been properly laid down and filled in, and were in good working order; and, therefore, he proposed that all drainage executed by a tenant, and for which the landlord might have to pay compensation, should be subject to inspection, and to the approval of an Inspector appointed by the Inclosure Commissioners. That was the only way of safeguarding the landlord against a tenant putting in inefficient work. As to what the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) had said about the permanency of drainage, he quite admitted that in certain soils drainage would last for half a century, or even more; but it was most uncertain as to how long improvements of that kind in moss-land would last. As the water left it the land would sink and form a hollow, and then water would collect in it. If the drainage was inspected, and approved by an Inspector duly appointed, he would take the nature of the soil and the surrounding circumstances into consideration, as well as the mode in which the work was carried out.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 30, at end, add—"After production of sufficient vouchers of cost, Provided always, That where the drainage is executed by the tenant it shall be subject to the inspection and approval of an inspector appointed by the Inclosure Commissioners."—(Sir Herbert Maxwell.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he thought it would be very unwise to take the responsibility in this matter off the tenant's shoulders. If a tenant was put under the control of the Inclosure Commissioners he would have to pay, not according to the result of the work, but in proportion to the outlay—a principle which was bad. The hon. Member could accomplish all that the Inspector could do by sending an Inspector down to look at the work, and to preserve the evidence as to how it was done, so that if there was dissatisfaction with it he would have that evidence to show to the referees.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he thought the proposal was one that ought to be adopted. No money was advanced by the Govern- ment for drainage purposes without an Inspector examining the works. A great deal of drainage had been carried out under those conditions; and this system would merely assure all the parties concerned that the drains were properly filled in, and all the care had been taken which the House desired to see for the improvement of agriculture. He could not conceive there being a right to impose a burden for drains which had been made without such inspection on any person whatever.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, this was an Amendment which the Government plainly could not accept consistently with the principles and policy of the Bill. It was no doubt true that where drainage was to be executed, and money was to be lent by the Government, or any other body, it was right that it should be inspected on behalf of the lender; and he could conceive that it was sound to say that if drainage was to be made on the basis of cost, such inspection would be intelligible. He must remind the Committee that the principle of the Bill was not payment according to the cost, but according to the value at the expiry of the lease. He thought that with notice, and with the opportunity of watching the work and checking what was going on, and of preserving evidence, the landlord was amply protected; but the question was really that of value, and not of outlay.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

said, his object in moving the Amendment was to insure impartiality on the part of Inspectors. If the landlord sent his own agent to report upon the works to be carried out, of course the bias was against the tenant. The agent would, of course, be in favour of his employer; and as to evidence being given when the question of compensation arose, that would be taken for what it was worth. His consideration was not that of the cost, but the mode in which the work was carried out; and that was a provision that ought to be made. He was willing, however, to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. ORR EWING

asked whether the Lord Advocate would consent to the insertion of the words "well-qualified Inspector?" It would be very difficult to ascertain the real value of a drainage improvement by looking at the surface, more especially if the drains had been put in a few years before the termination of the lease. He thought it would be well for both landlord and tenant that when drainage was done it should be well done, and under the supervision of a well-qualified Inspector. The value of the work would often be based on the expense of the work; and this was an Amendment upon which he thought a Division ought to be taken. He looked upon the Drainage Clause as somewhat of a farce; and he did not envy a landlord who was obliged to allow a tenant to put down a drain. He had had considerable experience in this matter, and he was not aware of any tenant in any part of the country who over thought of draining the land. Every drain he had known of had been put in by the landlord, and he was sure this clause would be a dead letter. He had known drains not 20 years old require to be extensively repaired; and he hoped that if drainage was to be done by tenants, provision would be made for there being some evidence of the way in which it was done.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, that in some cases the owner might be a minor, and it would depend on the tenant to carry out the work. In such a ease he thought inspection was absolutely necessary; and it was not enough to say whether the work would be of value 20 years hence, because the person then examining it might see it when the drains were not working.

MR. RAMSAY

begged his hon. Friend not to go to a Division. Inspection, to be of any use, would have to be done from day to day by a man on the spot. He, therefore, preferred the Bill as it stood, leaving it free to landlord and tenant to enter into an agreement for the purpose of having the drainage executed by the tenant, subject to inspection by the landlord, or else leaving it to the landlord to carry out the work himself.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 (Reservation as to existing and future leases).

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

said, the Amendment he wished now to propose was in the same spirit as one which had already been accepted by the Go- vernment, which provided that where an express stipulation had been entered into, a tenant should not receive compensation for anything in excess of his original outlay. This proposal stood on the same principle as other matters under the Schedule, and he hoped the Government would accept it.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 38, after the word "Act," to insert "where any improvement is made by the tenant in implement of an obligation undertaken by him in writing previously to the passing of this Act, or in compliance with an agreement in an existing lease for which no compensation has been stipulated for, no compensation shall be payable."—(Sir Herbert Maxwell.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, the Amendment was both unnecessary and inappropriate to the object of the clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BOLTON

, in proposing to leave out the second paragraph of the clause, which runs as follows:— Where, in the case of a tenancy under a lease beginning after the commencement of this Act, any particular agreement in writing secures to the tenant for any improvement specified in the second or third parts of the schedule hereto, and executed after the commencement of this Act, fair and reasonable compensation, then in such case the compensation in respect of such improvement shall be payable in pursuance of the particular agreement and not under this Act. It appeared to him (Mr. Bolton) that this paragraph was not an advantage either to the landlord or the tenant. If anyone would be benefited at all, it would be the lawyers. The effect of the paragraph would be to enable landlords and tenants to contract themselves out of the Act, provided they contracted themselves into an agreement. The agreement must be fair and reasonable; but fair and reasonable in relation to what, and fair and reasonable when? He presumed it was to be fair and reasonable in relation to the compensation provided for the tenant under the Act, and that it would only come into operation at the termination of the lease. What might be fair and reasonable at the beginning of a lease might be very unfair and unreasonable in relation to the Act at the termination of the lease. Then, the provision that it must be fair and reasonable was binding on the landlord and tenant; and, consequently, an agreement that should be valid must be an agreement exactly in accordance with the Act itself. If that was the case, what was the value of this paragraph? It was certain, he thought, to promote litigation, because it would be in the power of the landlord, if he imagined that to bring himself under the Act would be better than to be held by the agreement, to apply to have it found that the agreement was not fair and reasonable. In the same manner, the tenant, at the termination of the lease, if he thought it better to bring himself under the Act than to be held by the agreement, could make the same application. It was said that two men who had entered into an agreement would not be likely to repudiate it at a later date; but he would remind the Committee that the two men might not be the same two men. In Scotland 90 per cent of the land was let under long leases, and the men who might be landlord and tenant at the end of the lease would not in many cases—certainly not in all cases—be the landlord and tenant from the beginning of the lease, and would not have the same feeling of loyalty to the agreement. He could not see that any object would be served by retaining this portion of the clause, except that which he had already stated—namely, that it would promote litigation. It was in order to escape from the prospect of litigation, which would not be for the advantage of the landlord and tenant, but only for that of the lawyers, that he begged to move the omission of these words.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 38, to leave out all the words after the word "Act."—(Mr. Bolton.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, he sympathized very much with the object of his hon. Friend in moving this Amendment. He considered that the clause, in the shape in which it now stood, was an immoral one, because it would encourage people to come to agreements and then to disavow them afterwards. The property might change, or the circumstances alter; and after having agreed to the terms of com- pensation, one of the parties might consider it advantageous to disavow the agreement, and appeal to a Court to determine whether the agreement was reasonable or not. He saw no hope of passing any Amendment which would render the clause satisfactory, and he would have supported his hon. Friend if he had proposed to delete the clause altogether from the Bill. At the same time, he considered that it was one of the most important clauses of the Bill if it could be made to work well. He was not so sanguine as to suppose that the measure would work as satisfactorily in regard to the tenant as some persons imagined. He thought, when they came to consider the question with all the difficulties attending it, and when all those difficulties were forced on the minds of the tenants, the time would come when they themselves would wish to have some opportunity of coming to agreements other than that provided by the Bill. His own opinion was that it was most important an opportunity should be afforded for arriving at such agreements. How would the present clause work? In the first place, it would have to be determined whether any improvement had been effected at all. How could that be done without ascertaining what the state of the holding was before the improvements were made? It would have to be ascertained whether any abatement would have to be made in consideration of the outlay made by the tenant; and having ascertained those matters, it would be necessary, last of all, to come to a conclusion how much was owing to other elements beyond the actual outlay. When he bore in mind all these matters, he confessed that he saw a fertile field of difficulty for the valuator, and a great opportunity afforded for litigation and expense, which would demand the assistance of a lawyer. For this reason he thought some opportunity should be afforded to the parties for coming to an amicable agreement; and he should be most unwilling to reject this proposition until he could see whether any arrangement could be arrived at for carrying out that idea. He thought the Amendment of his hon. Friend would come in better at the end of the clause, and it could then be rejected altogether if it were not amended in the direction suggested; or its rejection could be moved, at all events, on another stage of the Bill. If the clause were not amended in the direction suggested, he should certainly support his hon. Friend hereafter in a Motion to reject it from the Bill altogether.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He admitted that the arguments of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke) were very weighty, with this exception—that he saw no advantage that would be derived from postponing the clause now, and therefore he hoped the Committee would settle the matter at once. Although this provision had been rejected with regard to yearly tenants in England, he thought such a provision was very much more necessary for tenants in Scotland, because there already existed in Scotland, to a considerable extent, a custom deferring the settlement of matters of this kind. He thought the able arguments which had been brought forward since the matter was last discussed would have some weight upon the Committee in the decision they were about to come to.

MR. ALBERT GREY

said, he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw the Amendment. As he understood the Amendment, if it were carried, and the second part of Clause 5 were struck out, it would not be possible for a single landlord in Scotland to come to an agreement with his tenant; and he therefore hoped that the Amendment would not be proceeded with, but that the Committee would be allowed at once to consider that of the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot), which raised the question at issue in what he believed to be a better way.

MR. BOLTON

desired to say, in reply to the remarks of the hon. Member, that he thought it would be far better there should be no power on the part of the landlord and tenant to make an agreement than to sanction an agreement under the clause which would be altogether illusory, because under the clause, as it stood, the only agreement which could be made was au illusory one. It could not possibly be a valid agreement, because it could not be made valid until it was decided, and it could not be decided until the termination of the tenancy. Personally, he was strongly in favour of the landlord and tenant being able to contract themselves out of the Act, provided that they did not contract the tenant out of the benefit of it. But, without some such clause, the tenant would not have the claim upon the landlord which the Act would give him.

MR. RAMSAY

said, he concurred in everything which the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Bolton) had said, and he was prepared to accept a further Amendment of the hon. Member to strike out the words "fair and reasonable" in regard to compensation. If those words were struck out, he believed they would be at one in the object they had in view. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Stirlingshire referred to making agreements between the owner and the occupier of the land. This clause gave power to make agreements; but it also provided that at the termination of the tenancy, if the compensation stipulated for was not fair and reasonable in the estimation of the Court, then the agreement was to be set aside, and the provisions of the Act were to come into operation.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he regarded the clause as one of the most important of the Bill, on account of the elasticity it imparted to the measure. It was impossible to lay down a cast-iron system to compel the landlord and tenant to make a fair and reasonable agreement; but it would, in his opinion, to a certain extent, enable the landlord and tenant to make some reasonable agreement, instead of allowing things to remain as they were in many cases. He could quite understand the desire of his hon. Friend to improve the clause, and when they went a little further, they might be able to improve it; but he was not prepared to go to the extent of leaving out the clause altogether.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

remarked, that several hon. Members were in favour of retaining this section of the clause, in the hope that it would be in their power to amend it. He thought that object might easily be accomplished by the insertion of a provision similar to that proposed by the hon. and learned Member for West Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill), which provided that landlords and tenants might make such agreements as they thought proper, but that the tenant should have the right to claim compensation under the Bill, if the terms of the agreement were less than those provided in the Bill. He thought such a provision would afford large facilities to the landlord and tenant for meeting any serious difficulty that might arise. The landlord would know the worst he would have to submit to, if the tenant did not think fit to contract himself out of the Bill. He believed that the Committee were not desirous of giving less compensation than was provided by the Bill, nor would the landlord propose to offer the tenant less. All the objects sought to be accomplished could be accomplished by giving the tenant a clause of this kind.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, his objection to the clause was that the landlord might use it against the tenant by taking him into Court.

MR. ALBERT GREY

again appealed to the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Bolton) to withdraw the Amendment. He pointed out that, if it were carried to a Division, the Committee would be compelled to divide upon a false issue. He agreed with every word of the hon. Member's speech, and also with the speech of the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke); but if they voted for the Amendment, they would do the very thing they were anxious to avoid, by making it impossible for the landlord and tenant to come together. He therefore hoped the hon. Member would withdraw the Amendment in favour of the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot), which he considered to be an admirable Amendment. If the Amendment were withdrawn, the discussion could be taken upon the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Roxburgh-shire.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, it was quite impossible that the Government could assent to the Amendment. As had been pointed out, if the clause were struck out, it would no longer be possible for the landlord and tenant to make any agreement whatever, fair or unfair, reasonable or unreasonable; but it would make matters absolutely compulsory in regard to the subject-matter with which the clause dealt. The first question for the Committee to consider was, whether or not it was desirable to prevent the landlord and tenant from making agreements that were fair and reasonable? He thought there was a consensus of opinion in the Committee that it was undesirable to shut out altogether the possibility of making agreements. As to the assertion of the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke), that the clause would give rise to illusory agreements, the language had been framed to provide, and he believed it would provide, that the agreement should not be illusory. The danger the tenant was assumed to be under was that he might be allowed to concur in an illusory agreement without having given the matter any great amount of consideration. It was to prevent that contingency that the words "fair and reasonable" had been introduced, and it was intended to provide that it was only when the agreement was fair and reasonable that it would shut out the tenant's claim.

MR. BOLTON

said, that, after the remarks which had been made by the Lord Advocate, he would not press the Amendment further.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. A. ELLIOT

moved, in page 2, line 40, after the word "writing," to insert "made in good faith, and for valuable consideration." The hon. and learned Member said that this Amendment, together with others which he proposed to move in the same section of the clause, raised the question which many hon. Members were anxious to raise. He proposed in the next line, after the word "secures," to insert "compensation;" and then in the first line of the next page to leave out the words "fair and reasonable compensation." If this Amendment were adopted, the clause would run as follows:— Where, in the case of a tenancy under a lease beginning after the commencement of this Act, any particular agreement in writing made in good faith, and for valuable consideration, secures compensation to the tenant for any improvement specified in the second or third parts of the Schedule hereto, and executed after the commencement of this Act, then in such case the compensation in respect of such improvement shall be payable in pursuance of the particular agreement, and not under this Act. The effect of these words was to provide that where a bonâ fide agreement was made in writing, and for valuable consideration, securing compensation to the tenant by such agreement, the compensation should be settled by the agree- ment itself, and not by the Act. It was with a feeling of very sincere regret that He found introduced into the commercial system which had hitherto prevailed in regard to Scottish agriculture a principle of such doubtful expediency as that set forth in the clause. Hitherto matters of bargain in trade had been respected, but it was now proposed to set them aside altogether. They had been told, and told rightly, that Scottish agriculture differed from English agriculture, and differed, in the main, in this respect—that the tenant farmers of Scotland owed their position, prosperity, and success in business, not to mere custom, but to some understanding with the landlord, not to the favour of the landlord or the landlord class, but to the fact that their rights were put down by themselves in black and white, and that the lease under which they held was their title to the land. What the Government now proposed to do was to introduce an entire change. They had brought before the House a serious proposal, that covenants in leases between landlord and tenant were not to be binding on one side, unless a Court of Law considered the bargain a fair and reasonable one. The Lord Advocate had made use of an illustration. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to the issue of railway tickets, and had said that a man who went hurriedly to a railway station and took a ticket, and either travelled himself or sent off his goods in the hurry of the moment, was not a contractor, and it would therefore be for a Court of Law to determine whether the bargain he had entered into in taking the railway ticket was a reasonable contract or not. Of course, there wore many interferences with the freedom of contract that were perfectly right; but he was not prepared to make any depreciatory denunciation of the freedom of contract; and it was probably right that the amount of costs to be paid to a solicitor should be settled by the Taxing Master, because the client was, to a certain extent, at the mercy of the solicitor, and would neither know the law nor the cost of the machinery he was setting in motion. He proposed now to consider the object of the contracts dealt with by the clause. The first item in Part III. of the Schedule was boning land with undissolved bones. He wished to know if the Government meant to tell the Committee that any Scotch farmer was unacquainted with the process of boning land with undissolved bones? On what principle of common sense was it to be argued that the tenant farmer did not know the full cost and value of an improvement to be carried out in that way? The tenant farmers of Scotland were quite as likely to know the full value and expense of labour in that direction as anybody in England. He was bound to say that every article in Part III. of the Schedule related to a subject with which preeminently the tenant farmers were intimately acquainted. Their case was utterly different from that of a contract between a trader and a Railway Company. It was a contract made directly between the two parties concerned. The right view of regarding a lease was that it was as much the tenant's lease as the landlord's lease; and if the tenants were to combine together, if they found they were not sufficiently strong to do it singly, they would be able to extort from the landlords such terms as might enable them to hold their land on satisfactory conditions. They could do far better for themselves by combination and insisting on good terms than the Legislature could do for them. How was it possible that a Court of Law could understand the question of boning land with undissolved bones as well as the tenant farmers of Scotland; and how, if he might say so without disrespect, could the House of Commons understand that question as well as they did? He was informed, and he made the statement with due humility, that the next agricultural process mentioned in the Schedule—namely, the claying of land—was a process with which the agriculturists of Scotland were generally unacquainted; and yet here were they, the House of Commons, about to introduce into an Act of Parliament an agricultural matter in regard to which the farmers of Scotland were themselves perfectly ignorant. There was another matter of considerable importance which he wished the Committee to consider. They were going to submit these contracts about undissolved bones and other matters to a Court of Law. He wished to express an opinion that it was a perfect absurdity to submit one contract or covenant in a lease for the consideration of a Court of Law, with a view to its being decided whether it was a fair and reasonable one, without submitting the whole of the contracts contained in the lease. What was the main idea of every contract? It was rent. Then what, in the name of common sense, was the good of taking one stipulation by itself—a stipulation as to what should be done in the last year of the tenancy—liming and marling—if they did not look at what the tenant got in consideration for it? They must not go into the question of rent alone; but also into the question of the reduction of rent. It was an absurdity to consider the reasonableness of a lease if they were to exclude from consideration the amount of the rent; and, to be perfectly logical, they must refer to a Court of Law the question of rent as well as the conditions under which the rent had been fixed. He wished to urge it as strongly as he could upon the Committee. The tenant got a reduction of rent in consideration for doing certain things; and it was impossible that a Court of Law could give any material benefit to a tenant, unless it entered into the question of not only what He was to do, but the consideration he got for doing it. There was a very great principle involved in this question. All Liberals had for years advocated the principle of bringing commercial and trading notions into the consideration of the business of agriculture. They had urged that principle for years, and he believed it to be a right one; but if they were to introduce the principle of Court regulations, let them do it honestly, and let thorn see if the Court had the power of doing what they propose to leave to it. These were the views which he ventured to urge before the Committee; and he would ask the Government, before they introduced an entire change of practice into the commercial and trading system of Scotch agriculture, to consider seriously whether they were not making an absolute departure from all sound principles without any reason or cause what-over? He begged to move the first of the Amendments of which he had given Notice.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 40, after the word "writing," to insert the words "made in good faith, and for valuable consideration."—(Mr. A. Elliot.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)

said, the question raised by the Amendment was simply whether certain words should be substituted for those which had been inserted in the Bill. The words in the Bill were "fair and reasonable compensation." He understood his hon. and learned Friend to propose to insert, after the word "writing," the words "made in good faith, and for valuable consideration." That was to say, his hon. and learned Friend proposed that a claim made in good faith and for valuable consideration, should be effectual between the landlord and the tenant, and he suggested that that would be an improvement of the Bill for an agreement which stipulated that there should be fair and reasonable compensation. He understood his hon. and learned Friend, in the first place, to agree that there should be power given to the landlord and tenant to contract; and, in the second place, he understood him to agree that that power should not be unlimited—that there should be a limitation or qualification of the power, such as that suggested by the words of the Amendment—"made in good faith, and for valuable consideration."

MR. A. ELLIOT

said, He did not mean to suggest that any contract would not be made in good faith.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)

said, he understood the general feeling of the Committee to be that there should be some qualification to the power of the landlord and tenant to contract themselves out of the Act. He hoped the Committee would decide on leaving the words "fair and reasonable" in the Bill; because, notwithstanding all the discussion which had taken place previously on the matter, he thought the impression generally left by it was that' no words had been suggested which would be found, in practice, to work more satisfactorily than "fair and reasonable." It was said that these words were difficult of interpretation; but his answer to that statement was that the words "fair and reasonable" were constantly interpreted by the Courts, and he was not aware that any special difficulty had ever been experienced in interpreting them. The circumstances under which any contract had been entered into were fully placed before the Court, and. it was in the power of the Court to come to a conclusion whether a contract, dealing with any particular matter, was fair and reasonable or not. It was out of the question to define à priori what was fair and reasonable; that must depend on the particular circumstances of the case. His hon. Friend behind him (Sir Edward Colebrooke) wished to determine that the words "fair and reasonable" were illusory, and that nothing would be fair and reasonable that was not in precise conformity with the compensation provided under the Act. He could not agree with his hon. Friend in his interpretation of the words. He could well understand an agreement under which compensation was stipulated, but which would not be the sum that could be claimed under the Act, but which might, notwithstanding, be held to be a fair and. reasonable agreement. It appeared to him, with regard to the words "fair and reasonable," that they were words not difficult of interpretation, and that they would provide a sufficient safeguard for the tenant, and that no other words had yet been suggested which would meet the object in view more adequately. He had been struck by one feature in the course of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Roxburgshire (Mr. A. Elliot)—namely, that his hon. and learned Friend did not tell the Committee what he meant by the expression, "in good faith, and for valuable consideration." If, by the words "good faith," the hon. and learned Member meant an agreement obtained by one party from the other by fraud, he presumed that that would be a very rare occurence indeed. Landlords and tenants voluntarily contracting would not be in a position to exercise fraud one upon the other in effecting such an agreement. Then, in regard to the expression, "for valuable consideration," he should like very much to hear what the hon. and learned Member meant by it. Did he mean for any sum of money; and if he did mean for any sum of money, then, what sum did he mean? What was to be a lawful sum of money, and what was to be the amount of the improvement? He certainly thought it would be much better to see whether the agreement, taken as a whole, was not a fair and reasonable agreement; and he, therefore, respectfully submitted that the substitution of the words pro- posed by his hon. and learned Friend would not facilitate the ascertainment of this matter at all. It would be far better to retain the words "fair and reasonable." It would have the effect of not inviting other parties to set aside a contract made voluntarily, and under circumstances where it could be carried out. If the contract was made under circumstances that were not fair and reasonable, then the Court would have full power to set it aside; and therefore he thought it would be well to retain the words "fair and reasonable."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he agreed with every word which had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Roxburgshire (Mr. Elliot); but he was bound to say that, although he agreed with the, object of his hon. and learned Friend, the substance of his speech did not apply to the Amendment. The essence of the speech was that a Court should not determine whether the contract was equitable or fair. To that proposition he (Mr. Balfour) entirely agreed, and he had moved an Amendment in the English Bill to that effect. The only difference, if the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend were carried out, would be in the nature of the inquiry of the Court, because the Court would have to decide the meaning of the words which the hon. and learned Member proposed quite as much as those in the Bill as it stood.

MR. A. ELLIOT

said, the Solicitor General had asked him to explain what he meant by the expressions contained in the Amendment. He thought that the legal phrase, "in good faith, and for valuable consideration," was so well known that it did not require explanation. If the words he proposed were inserted, the Court would have to inquire into the existence of the agreement; but it would not inquire whether it was a fair or reasonable agreement. The goodness or the badness of the bargain would be precisely the thing that would be withdrawn from the consideration of the Court.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

asked if that was so as a matter of Scotch law?

MR. A. ELLIOT

said, he had no doubt about it.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, if that were so, then all the Court would have to determine would be whether there had been a fraudulent agreement or not. In that case, he should support the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend.

MR. A. ELLIOT

said, the Court would have to decide whether the bargain was simply a substantial one.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

remarked, that, under these circumstances, he saw very little difference between himself and his hon. and learned Friend.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)

said, he thought that if these words were inserted, the Court would certainly feel itself entitled to inquire into the nature of the case.

MR. A. ELLIOT

said, his view of the matter was that the Court would inquire into the question of the consideration, but not into the meaning of its reasonableness.

MR. JAMES HOWARD

said, he had listened with great attention to the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot), and he had listened to them with some amount of surprise. He still failed to gather what the intentions of the hon. and learned Member were.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

rose to Order. He said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Balfour) had not concluded his remarks, but had simply allowed the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Elliot) to interpose with an explanation.

THE CHAIRMAN

That is not a point of Order. I called on the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. Howard), because I thought that the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot) and the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Balfour) had concluded the discussion in which they had been engaged for some time.

MR. JAMES HOWARD

, resuming, said, he had listened to the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire with surprise, and he wished to know if the same arguments were to apply to contracts in regard to other matters — for instance, the property tax? If an agreement had been entered into between the landlord and tenant in regard to the property tax, by which the tenant bound himself to pay the tax, the Courts would rule that such an agreement was null and void, and would set it aside. He had always understood that the only justifi- cation for interference with freedom of contract was one in which two persons did not enter into a bargain upon equal contracting terms, and also where, in consequence, the interests of the public might be endangered. Unless the Amendment could keep this particular class of agreements out of a Court of Law, he failed to see the use of it. Without the Law Officers of the Crown were enabled to devise some means of preventing these particular agreements from being carried to a Court of Law to decide whether they were fair and reasonable, he believed the effect of the clause would be to paralyze the efforts of the farmers in England and Scotland, because it would introduce an element of uncertainty into agreements, and it would not be known what force an agreement really had until it was submitted to a Court of Law. He hoped the Law Officers of Scotland and the Law Officers of England would devise some means of keeping these agreements out of the Courts of Law, or otherwise the farmers of both countries would be greatly disappointed.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, it was quite clear that if the Amendment were adopted, there would be the greatest facility for contracting out of the Act. He had known a landlord, in taking a 19 years' lease, agree to receive a trifle a-year less than the farm was worth, and. that might be held to contract the tenant out of the Act. If, on the other hand, the tenant had agreed to pay more than the landlord was entitled to demand, it might be insisted on, after inquiry by a Court of Law that it was unfair and unreasonable. This was virtually a proposal to allow both the land-land and tenant to contract themselves out of the Act.

MR. WARTON

said, that for once he was inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay). The payment of any sum of money would be sufficient to make such an agreement valid, and to contract the parties out of the Act.

MR. ALBERT GREY

said, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would press the Amendment to a Division. It had been certainly shown how injurious it would be for the tenant to be left in a state of uncertainty as to the condition in which he was placed. It was impossible to say to what amount of trouble they might be put hereafter, owing to the litigation which they would probably be drawn into by the clause as it stood. In order to put a stop to that uncertainty, it was most desirable that valid agreements—bonâ fide agreements—entered into with great deliberation, and where there was nothing of a colourable complexion attaching to them, should be held to be valid agreements which ought not to be set aside. He had listened to the speech of his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works on the first discussion on the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman then stated that the object of the Bill was to secure compensation to the tenant in all cases, and to apply alike, whether the tenant had a substantial agreement, or whether he had only a bogus agreement. It was under those circumstances that no Division was taken upon the second reading of the Bill. But if they had known what they now knew, that there was not a single agreement between landlord and tenant, however carefully they might have entered into such agreement, which would be allowed to stand as fair, he thought the opinion of the House would have been taken on the occasion of the second reading of the Bill; because he could not believe that the House would have committed itself so blindly and so wilfully to the principle that in every case the State ought to reject contracts between landlords and tenants where there was nothing mala fides in the contract itself, but where it was a straightforward contract between the landlord and tenant.

SIR DONALD CURRIE

said, the hon. Member who had just sat down virtually asked the Government to give the landlord and tenant power to contract themselves out of the Act, and he hoped his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate would adhere to the clause as it stood.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, that before they came to a Division he could not help supporting what had been said by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. Howard). He certainly preferred the words as they stood in the Bill to those of the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Elliot). He was of opinion that the words "fair and reasonable" were, on the whole, likely to receive a larger interpretation in favour of the tenant than those which his hon. and learned Friend proposed. But, whatever course was taken, a difficulty would remain behind; and he hoped the Government would find some means of releasing them from the dilemma which had arisen, and leaving the interpretation of the clause free from any doubt, so that the parties interested should not have to remain in doubt, perhaps for 20 years, only to be relieved ultimately by a Court of Law.

MR. A. ELLIOT

said, he did not wish the Division to be taken on a false issue. What he wished to raise was simply the question that agreements properly entered into in writing should be held to be good, and that what had been called bogus agreements should be invalid. Au agreement in writing meant a perfectly honourable agreement. He would have no objection to substitute the words "particular agreement in writing," and take a Division upon those words.

MR. M'LAGAN

said, that, notwithstanding the able speech of the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Elliot), he thought the words "fair and reasonable" were better than those proposed by his hon. and learned Friend, which were "made in good faith, and for valuable consideration." He was sorry, therefore, that he should feel obliged to vote against his hon. and learned Friend. He thought the words "valuable consideration" were dangerous. It might be held that it was a valuable consideration, although it would not be equal to what the tenant was entitled to; whereas, if they made use of the words "fair and reasonable," the Court would have no difficulty in deciding what was fair and reasonable, and would see, at all events, that it was what the tenant was fairly entitled to. The words of the Bill were less open to mistake than those proposed by his hon. and learned Friend.

MR. BOLTON

asked his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Elliot) whether it would not be wise on his part to withdraw the Amendment? Certainly, after the discussion which had taken place, he (Mr. Bolton) very much preferred the words of the Government to those of the hon. and learned Member. He hoped, however, that before the Report stage the Government would consider whether it was not better to avoid the opportunity for litigation, which the clause was certainly giving.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

suggested to the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire that he should move only the first words of his Amendment—namely, the words "made in good faith."

MR. A. ELLIOT

said, he would accept that suggestion, and withdraw the Amendment on the Paper, substituting the words "made in good faith" after the word "writing." He should then, if that Amendment were carried, propose, after the word "secures," in the next line, to insert "compensation."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 40, after the word "writing," to insert the words "made in good faith."—(Mr. A. Elliot.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. ANDERSON

pointed out that it would be necessary to insert also the word "compensation."

MR. A. ELLIOT

said, his Amendment was intended to involve that.

MR. RAMSAY

said, the words proposed still left the matter vague and indefinite, and he thought it would be better to take the Bill as it stood.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 187: Majority 142.—(Div. List, No. 235.)

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 42, to leave out the words "second or third parts," and insert the words "third part."—(The Lord Advocate.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

wished to point out to the Lord Advocate that this proposal would still further extend the scope of the Bill, and that agreements between the landlord and tenant with regard to drainage would come under the clause. He understood that the object of the Amendment of the Lord Advocate was to withdraw the controlling clause, so that it should not apply to drainage.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, that was a mistake; the object was to apply it to the 3rd Part of the Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

moved to add, at the end of the Clause— In the event of a question arising as to whether such substituted compensation is fair and reasonable, the same shall be determined by the sheriff, whose decision shall be final. The object of the Amendment was to prevent litigation, and to prevent the tenant from being dragged by the landlord before a Court of Justice on a question whether the compensation was fair and reasonable. It was the custom in Scotland to refer these cases to the Sheriff of the county. He hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 4, at end, add "in the event of a question arising as to whether such substituted compensation is fair and reasonable, the same shall be determined by the sheriff, whose decision shall be final."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, he was afraid he could not accept the Amendment. The whole of the matter was fully gone into on the English Bill, in the analogous case of referring such questions to the County Court Judge. There was no more reason for referring the matter to the Sheriff in Scotland than there was for referring it to a County Court Judge in England. The matter of the fairness or reasonableness of a claim must be left to the determination of the Court when it arose.

Amendment negatived.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

moved to add, at the end of the Clause— Provided, That a landlord and tenant may, before executing any such particular agreement, concur in referring the terms thereof to an umpire to be appointed by the sheriff, and an. agreement which has been found by such umpire to secure just, fair, and reasonable compensation as aforesaid, and has been signed by the landlord and tenant, and countersigned by the umpire, shall be deemed to secure fair and reasonable compensation to the tenant. The hon. Baronet said, he had already explained the reason why He thought it a most important matter that this question should not be left to the future decision of a Court of Law; but there should be a third party to decide whether the agreement was a fair and valid one. The only reason against it was that the landlord might have forced upon him some particular umpire who might not understand what the question really was. But the umpire could be named by the Inclosure Commissioners, and it had already been decided that the question should not be left to the Sheriff of a county. His only object was to provide against future litigation as much as possible. All he asked of the Government was that they should not leave the matter in its present uncertain state.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, at end, add—"Provided, That a landlord and tenant may, before executing any such particular agreement, concur in referring the terms thereof to an umpire to be appointed by the sheriff, and an agreement which has been found by such umpire to secure just, fair, and reasonable compensation as aforesaid, and has been signed by the landlord and tenant, and countersigned by the umpire, shall be deemed to secure fair and reasonable compensation to the tenant."—(Sir Edward Colebrooke.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, it was not possible to assent to the Amendment, the result of which would be greatly to hamper the arrangements between the landlord and tenant. The Amendment embodied this principle, that wherever an agreement was entered into, its terms should be submitted to another person, and the result of that would be, as he had said, to hamper the arrangements, and he was afraid they might degenerate into a mere formality, and in that way the Amendment might retard the course of justice. If the agreement was fair and reasonable, there was no fear that it would be challenged; and in the very few cases in which it might be challenged there was no fear that it would be set aside.

Amendment negatived.

MR. DUNDAS

intimated that on the Report he would move to add to this clause a Proviso, that in the event of any question arising as to whether such substituted compensation was fair and reasonable, regard should be had to the time and circumstances under which the agreement was made.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Chairman do report Pro- gross, and ask leave to sit again."—(The Lord Advocate.)

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

asked when it was proposed that the Committee should sit again?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, he would put the Bill down for to-morrow.

Motion agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.