§ [SECOND NIGHT.].
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Regulations as to Estimates of Improvements.
§ Clause 6 (Set off of benefit to tenant).
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURmoved the adjournment of the dedate. The majority of the Scotch Members, he said, were absent; and he appealed to Scotch Gentlemen opposite whether they did not think it was putting Scotland to considerable disrespect to resume the consideration of this Bill in Committee at a quarter past 6 o'clock on a Morning Sitting? Of course, if Scotch Members thought a discussion of such importance should be taken at that hour he had nothing more to say; but he thought if the argument that a good many Members had gone away not knowing what was to come on was a good reason for postponing the further consideration of Amendments on the English Bill, there 822 was surely still greater reason for postponing this Bill, which had come on quite unexpectedly. He would, therefore, move the adjournment of the debate.
THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the proper form of the Motion would be that Progress be reported. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
§ MR. A. ELLIOTagreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Hertford. The fact was that a number of Scotch Members had left the House, and he did not think the opportunity a favourable one for discussing the very important matters that were about to be proceeded with. He, therefore, appealed to the Government not to go on with the Bill at present. He had heard it said that they might run through the Bill in half-an-hour; but that could only be done by avoiding discussion on the 6th clause.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYregretted that the hon. Member for Hertford had made this Motion. He thought a sufficient number of Scotch Members were present. They might not be able to get through the Bill by 7 o'clock, but they might at least make some progress; and the Scotch Members were always eager to get on with the work they had in hand.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he did not see why they should not put to the best use they could the part of the Sitting that remained. The practical character of his countrymen was well known; and he thought if they tried they might get through a good deal in the time that remained.
§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEexpressed a hope that the hon. Member for Hertford would withdraw his Motion. It was not often Scotch Members had the chance of half-an-hour, and he thought they should take advantage of it when they had.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he was willing to withdraw his Motion on the condition that the Government would not bring on anything but non-contentious Business.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERagreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford 823 (Mr. A. J. Balfour) as to the advisability of postponing the discussion of the Bill.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he was not aware that there was anything of a very controversial character to come on. He hoped the Committee would allow them to proceed and go as far as they could in the time that remained.
§ MR. MACFARLANEsupported the proposal to proceed with the Bill, observing that unless they did so, it was extremely likely they would have a Morning Sitting to-morrow.
CAPTAIN MAXWELL - HERONobjected to the Bill being brought on in this way, and said it would be unfair to Members representing Scotch constituencies.
§ SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he hoped they would be allowed to proceed. If the proposal were to run through the Scotch Bill in half-an-hour, it would certainly be objectionable; but it was only intended to go as far as they could. The Motion was made by an excellent Scotchman, though not by a Scotch Member; and the general feeling of the Scotch Members present, undoubtedly, seemed to be that they should take advantage of the portion of the Sitting that remained.
§ SIR JOHN HAYrequested his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion. At the same time, he wished to point out the great inconvenience to which the House was put by the vacillation of the Government. Nearly all the Scotch Members on that side of the House had gone away, not knowing what Business was to be taken.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYindicated that he should not propose the Amendment which stood in his name.
§ MR. A. ELLIOTmoved to leave out Sub-section (b.), which stood in the following terms:—
In the case of compensation for manures the value of the manure that would have been produced by the consumption on the holding of any hay, straw, roots, or green crops sold off the holding within the last two years of the tenancy or other less time for which the tenancy has endured, except in so far as a proper return of manure to the holding has been made in respect of such produce sold off.The hon. and learned Member said, this sub-section had excited a good deal of 824 hostility among agriculturists generally throughout Scotland; and the view taken of it by the Scotch Chamber of Agriculture was that it would be a source of great injustice to a large number of tenants. He must say he considered that view well-founded. The sub-section might be right and proper when they were dealing with a state of matters such as that which existed in England; but he held that it was not applicable to the conditions under which tenancies were held in Scotland. These matters were regulated in distinct language, and there was no reason whatever why the tenant, when he had not contracted to consume a certain quantity of hay, straw, roots, or green crops on his holding, should be held to do so. [The hon. and learned Member read an extract from an agricultural paper in which it was contended that this sub-section would entail great injustice to farmers in Scotland.] He considered that if the subsection were cut out altogether, full protection would be given to the landlord, in all cases where the landlord desired that protection, by the sub-section immediately following—Sub-section (c.)—because that stipulated that where a tenant made a claim for compensation, the landlord should be able to make a reduction on any contract relevant to the lease. The landlords were thus really protected; and he, for one, thought it perfectly unnecessary that the Committee should protect the landlords when they were perfectly able to protect themselves.Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 12, to leave out Sub-section (b).—(Mr. A. Elliot.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he was afraid he could not assent to this section being entirely omitted. Members of the Committee would observe that he had given Notice of certain important Amendments upon the section as it stood. He quite saw that the section, as it stood, was open to criticism; because it had been pointed out that under the section as it was in the Bill, there might be a claim of deduction in respect of potatoes, and hay, and straw, and other things that in many parts of the country were regarded as sale crops. That would be 825 unfair; but he thought the injustice would be obviated by the Amendments he had placed upon the Paper. The question raised by the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire was simply this—whether it would be proper for a tenant to sell off everything grown on the farm, and then claim for all the manure he might purchase and apply to the land as an improvement? He did not think to omit this sub-section would be fair; because this Bill throughout was directed to provide for compensation for improvements. It was for something that was done, either in excess of contract or custom, or ordinary and average administration. It was quite plain that unless some such provision were made as that which had been introduced into the Bill, it would be competent for the farmer to sell off everything, and even to sell off manure, and then to make a claim for all the manure he had brought on to the farm, although it was absolutely necessary manure, and not in excess of what would have been produced by the consumption on the farm of the part of the crops usually consumed there.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsupported the Amendment. He confessed that he was not convinced by the argument of the Lord Advocate, though the Amendments which the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to introduce would, no doubt, remove, to a great extent, the injustice that would otherwise arise under the sub-section. He had received strong representations with regard to the injustice of the sub- section, and felt bound to support the Amendment.
MR. PRESTON BRUCEsaid, he was glad that the Lord Advocate would not accept the Amendment. He thought great injustice might be done under existing leases, which permitted the sale of all those crops, but which had been negotiated on the understanding that the tenants would have to bring on to the farm a considerable quantity of manures if they sold a large part of the produce off the farm. Such tenants would be able to charge the landlord with part of the cost of that manure, which it was absolutely necessary they should bring on to the farm, in order to keep it up to an ordinary state of cultivation. As regarded leases made after the passing of this Act, he did not think the sub-section mattered much, for, of 826 course, special stipulations might be made.
§ MR. ALBERT GREYsaid, he thought it was desirable that the words in question should be omitted, because, if the sub-section were admitted, it would drive every tenant to make an agreement with his landlord.
§ MR. A. ELLIOTasked leave to withdraw his Amendment, as he thought it would be more convenient to take a Division on the clause as amended.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that he had to propose several Amendments, which, he hoped, would obviate the main difficulty which had been felt in regard to the clause. He wished, first, to insert after "holding," in line 14, the words "according to the rules of good husbandry;" secondly, to omit the words "hay, straw, roots, or green;" and, thirdly, after "off," to insert "or removed from." The sub-section would then run as follows:—
In the case of compensation for manures, the value of the manure that would have been produced by the consumption on the holding, according to the rules of good husbandry, of any crops sold off, or removed from the holding, within the last two years of the tenancy, or other less time for which the tenancy has endured, except in so far as a proper return of manure to the holding has been made in respect of such manure so sold off or removed therefrom.The effect would be this—that without defining the particular descriptions of crops which were usually sold from the farm in fair and ordinary administration, it would be competent to sell such crops, without any obligation, to substitute manure for them in stating the account. On the other hand, 'such crops—and they varied in different parts of the country—as according to the rules of good husbandry, were consumed on the farm, and made manure on the farm, would be taken into account, and the manure which would have been so produced debited to the tenant in making out the account. That would not at all operate against leases of the kind referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot); because if the lease permitted everything to be sold off the farm, still the same necessity would lie upon the tenant, unless his farm was to become barren, of laying 827 a fair and reasonable amount of manure on it. While he admitted the propriety of omitting any words which might define, adversely to the tenant, the particular crops which should be acknowledged as sale crops, he maintained that it was proper to provide that a deduction should be made from the tenant's compensation, in respect of such an amount of manure as would in due course be produced and used on the farm.Amendments proposed,
In page 3, line 14, after the word "holding," to insert the words "according to the rules of good husbandry;" line 14, leave out the words "hay, straw, roots, or green;" line 14, after the word. "off," insert the words "or removed from."—(The Lord Advocate.)Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he did not think there was much objection to the clause as proposed to be amended by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. But he wished to call the attention of his hon. Friends to this—that the clause did not say that the value of the manure produced was to be deducted from the compensation; it was only in the nature of an instruction to the referees to take into account the manure which would have been produced on the holding had those crops been consumed upon it. He thought it was unnecessary to put in such an instruction, as all referees worth having would take this into account, even if there was no instruction in the Bill. If, however, the Government wished the instruction to be inserted lie had no objection.
§ MR. JAMES HOWARDpointed out, as a practical objection, that the subsection applied not only to root or green crops consumed on the holding, but to all crops—as, for instance, wheat and oats.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, it was not according to any rules of good husbandry that he knew of that wheat should be consumed on the holding.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, lie thought the expression "the rules of good husbandry" was utterly unintelligible.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the expression was absolutely familiar in Scotland, and was heard every day.
§ MR. BOLTONsaid, that, having an Amendment in his name to this sub-section, he wished to remark that the Lord Advocate had very happily solved the 828 great difficulty which this clause would have caused in Scotland. He hoped that the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot) would not persist in his intention of dividing on the clause.
Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)moved, in page 3, line 19, to leave out from "any" to "landlord," in line 30, and insert—
The amount of compensation payable to the tenant shall be subject to deduction of any sums duo to the landlord:This, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, was not intended to alter, in substance, the provisions of the clause as it stood before; but it was to express more clearly—and, he ventured to think, more accurately—the intention of the clause. According to the terms of the clause, as it originally ran, it might have been held to express the idea that rent and other liquid claims, such as taxes, were to be taken into account in striking compensation. It was expressed more accurately by saying that they should form deductions from compensation."There shall be added to the tenant's compensation any sum due to the tenant for compensation in respect of a breach of any stipulation of a lease, or other contract relative to a lease, committed by the landlord.
- (1.) For rent payable in respect of the holding;
- (2.) For any taxes, rates, or public burdens payable in respect of the holding for which the tenant is liable as between him and the landlord.;
- (3.) For the breach of any stipulation of the lease, or of any contract relative to the lease, committed by the tenant;
- (4.) For any deterioration committed or permitted by the tenant;
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. RAMSAYsaid, he should like some explanation as to what was meant by—
Taxes, rates, or public burdens payable in respect of the holding for which the tenant is liable as between him and. the landlord.He had had a good deal of experience in these matters, and did not know what was meant by that language.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, there were sometimes agreements by which one of the parties undertook liability for the whole of the taxes, part of which was by law pay- 829 able to the Revenue authorities to the other.
Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. BIGGARmoved, in page 3, line 30, after the word "landlord," to insert—
(e.) When the tenant of any holding held by him under a yearly tenancy or on the expiration of a lease is disturbed in his holding by the act of his landlord, he shall be entitled to such compensation as the county court judge of his district, in view of all the circumstances of the case, shall think just, subject to the scale of compensation hereinafter mentioned;When the rent is thirty pounds or under, a sum not exceeding seven years' rent;When the rent is above thirty pounds and not exceeding fifty pounds, a sum not exceeding five years' rent;When the rent is above fifty pounds and not exceeding one hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding four years' rent;When the rent is above one hundred pounds and not exceeding three hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding three years' rent;When the rent is above three hundred pounds and not exceeding five hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding two years' rent;When the rent is above five hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding one year's rent.'The hon. Member said, he proposed this clause chiefly in the interest of crofters and the aboriginal inhabitants of the Highlands and Islands. It was notorious that some landlords turned many miles of their estates into deer forests or sheep farms. That system was disastrous and ruinous to the interests of the population, and it was one which the House ought to do its best to make impossible. There was no doubt at all that these unfortunate people were descendants of families who had, in many cases, lived for many generations on these holdings, and who had endured very grievous suffering and wrong. He certainly thought that it was the duty of the Government to agree to his proposal in the interests of the crofter description of tenants.Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. CALLANsaid, that the Amendment was of a character deserving consideration.
It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress; Committee to sit again this day.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Lord Advocate whether the Bill was to be brought on again at the Evening Sitting?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the Government were very anxious to proceed with the measure, and would do their best to bring it on, but not after half-past 12 o'clock.
The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.