HC Deb 20 December 1906 vol 167 cc1768-800

Order read, for Consideration of Lords Amendments.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."

MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple)

said the House again had to consider a Bill which had been mangled and mutilated by Amendments made in another place. There were three courses, he believed, open to the House. One course was to propose a Resolution, such as that proposed in the case of the Education Bill, to reject the Amendments in toto, but he believed that required notice. Another course was to deal with the Amendments seriatim, but that would take a very long time. The third was to move that the Amendments be considered on that day three months. He was in very grave doubt as to the course which ought to be followed that afternoon. He was sincerely anxious that the Bill should pass into law if possible, and he knew that the farmers in the West country were intensely anxious that the Bill should be put on the Statute Book. It was evident also that this view was shared by the agricultural interest throughout the country, for there had been an enormous number of resolutions in its favour passed by agricultural clubs and chambers. Then, too, there had been an enormous amount of Parliamentary time spent on the measure. The Government had given exceptional facilities to the Bill. Lord Carrington had thrown his whole heart and soul into the matter, and they were exceedingly grateful to him for it. He did not like to think that all the energy, trouble, and toil should be entirely wasted. But what was the position to-day? Only twenty-eight Members could be found to vote against the Bill in this House, but it had gone up to the House of Lords and had been whittled down and smothered by Amendments. He would deal only with some of the principal Amendments which had been made. By one the House of Lords had made the game clause of no effect, because it permitted contracting out. The Bill was intended to deal with bad landlords, and they would be the first to contract out of the clause. If they accepted the Amendment they would deprive the clause of all its value and introduce practically the Scotch game law into this country. With regard to the Amendment dealing with existing tenancies, all the landlord would have to do in defence when a claim for damages was made was to say to the arbitrator, "Well, I meant to allow a certain sum." If the House accepted these two Amendments they would make the game law a farce. The Amendments which had been made in the freedom of cropping clause vitiated the whole section, for it meant that there could be no experiments made, no progressive methods tried. The effect of one of the Amendments to the clause was to prevent its application to the whole of Scotland, and having regard to the fact that the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture approved of this clause unanimously he did not see how they could possibly accept that. Then they came to the Amendments to the all-important Clause 4. There was a little bit left of the clause, but the Lords had inserted an Amendment to the effect that it was not to apply in the case of leases for fourteen or more years. Here again Scottish tenants were to be deprived of the benefits of the Act, and to be liable to arbitrary and capricious treatment on the part of the landlords. But the most serious and important alteration of this clause was the insertion of the following subsection— Any question arising under this section as to whether a landlord acted without good and sufficient cause or for reasons inconsistent with good estate management shall, for the purposes of the provisions as to arbitration relating to the statement of a case and any appeal there from, be deemed to be a question of law. If they accepted that Amendment they did away with all the benefits of Clause 4. It would mean that any tenant who had been evicted harshly and capriciously would, first of all, have to go to arbitration, then before he could get any compensation, there must be an action in the county court, and from the judgment of that court there might be an appeal to a divisional court. The ordinary tenant farmer would certainly not be able to afford this costly litigation. Finally the Lords had inserted an Amendment which deferred the coming into operation of the Bill from 1908 to 1909. The effect of that would be to enable every bad landlord in the country to give his tenants notice and try to dodge the provisions of the measure. If all these Amendments were put into it the Bill would be absolutely worthless. There was no use sending Bills of this kind to the House of Lords, which consisted of nothing but large landlords. They might just as well ask a jury of hounds to try a case dealing with the rights of foxes as to ask the House of Lords to try a case dealing with the rights of tenants. The House of Lords was not guided by principles of justice, but by principles of prejudice and pride, and he sincerely hoped that it was the pride which went before a fall. He moved that the Lords Amendments be read that day three months.

*MR. LYNCH, (Yorkshire, Ripon)

in seconding, said that while the Bill as it left the House of Commons was a very material measure of land reform, it did not go nearly so far as a good many Members wished. His desire was to provide that, where a tenant had put money into the cultivation of the soil, and where the sinking of that money had produced a distinct improvement in the holding, at the termination of the tenancy the tenant should be able to get full compensation. The Bill was a modest one when it was introduced; but it had been whittled down until it had become of very little use to tenant farmers, containing only one really valuable provision, namely, Clause 4, relating to unreasonable disturbance. That was the form in which the Bill had left the House of Commons; but since then the Lords had so amended it that on its present form it could be of no use. The action of the Lords in omitting the preamble of the Bill showed in a very extraordinary way their incapacity to deal with the laws of the country. By striking out the preamble the Lords had omitted the words— Consistently with the interests of the rural labouring class and of the community generally. With regard to these words a very interesting discussion took place in the Commons. They were inserted mainly in order to cover the words inserted in Clause 4 relating to the provision— Without good and sufficient cause and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management. The Solicitor-General had put these last words in to cover the case of a landlord who made a change in the nature of the farm by introducing small holdings. That would be a reason consistent with good estate management. The Lords had struck out the corresponding words in the preamble. [AN OPPOSITION MEMBER: The Government struck them out.] Yes, the President of the Board of Agriculture in the House of Lords had been continually pressed from the Opposition side of that House and had yielded in some matters. Anyone who had witnessed the Lords debates on this Bill must have been struck by the extraordinarily frivolous manner in which they had dealt with it.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER

Order, order. In discussing a matter of this kind the custom is to speak of the House of Lords in terms of respect; that is one of our fundamental rules, and I must therefore ask hon. Members to take care that it is observed.

*MR. LYNCH,

continuing, said that, difficult though the task might be, he would certainly obey the ruling. The cardinal point of the Bill when it left the House of Commons was Clause 4, and they could not afford to have that clause altered in any way by the House of Lords. The clause provided compensation for disturbance. Under the Lords Amendments the tenant would have to prove that he had inevitably incurred the loss, that the loss was directly attributable to his quitting the holding, and he had to give certain notices. The whole question of whether or not he had been turned out for good and sufficient cause would be reserved for a court of law, and might involve a tenant in costs which he was wholly unable to bear. All these proceedings related to a simple claim for the recovery of loss due to the sale of his goods and chattels necessitated by his having to leave his holding without good and sufficient cause. That was a monstrous provision. He was firmly convinced that the Bill, by giving fair and just rights to the tenants, would in no way damage a good landlord, but would greatly benefit him. The best way to deal with the Lords Amendments was to reject them. If by that means they lost the Bill he should not regret it, because he felt that a much more drastic measure of land reform on these lines ought to be introduced. If the Bill were accepted it would be letting off for a number of years all these who were opposed to such reform. He hoped the Government would make no concessions, but would stand firmly by Clause 4, and if as a result the Bill was lost he would not regret it.

Amendment proposed—

"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months."—(MR. Soares.)

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

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.)

said he was not surprised at the strong feeling expressed by his hon. friends, but he would remind them that, although this Bill had been very much altered since it was introduced, there was no doubt that in certain ways it had been considerably improved. It could no longer be called a one-sided Bill. While the tenant was protected in many ways, the landlord had ample protection against any injury. On the merits of the case he was inclined to agree that the Government had made every concession they could, but the period of the session must be taken into consideration. He would indicate what the Government were ready to do. The first Amendment he would deal with was on page 2, line 28, which proposed to leave out "before the commencement of this Act." The object of that Amendment was that there should be no difference between existing and future tenancies. The objection had been taken that it would allow contracting out and enable the landlord in fixing the rent to say that he was going to fix it at, say, £300 a year, nominal, but that, in consideration of the damage that would be done by game, he would reduce it to £200. The effect of that for all practical purposes would be that the landlord would be contracted out of giving any compensation to the tenant at all. Of course, he might be told that it would be impossible for the landlord to do so because the arbitrator in considering the question of compensation would consider what was fair and just. It was doubtful whether the arbitrator would not say at once, "This is a ridiculous agreement." On the other hand, he could quite see that the arbitrator might say, "You have entered into this with your eyes open, and therefore I cannot give you the compensation which would have been given in respect of the rent you are nominally supposed to pay." There were a good many pros and cons in connection with the matter, and, therefore, the Government had decided to leave it an open question to the House. As to the Amendment in page 2, line 34, inserting a proviso after the word "just," the Government, having considered the matter, thought the Amendment very vague, and they had come to the conclusion that they must resist it. The Amendment at page 3, line 5, inserting after "land" the words "on his holding consistent with the principles of good husbandry," was no doubt a very important and serious one. Speaking for himself, it seemed to strike entirely at the principle indicated in the Bill that tenants, as far as arable land was concerned, were to have no limitation placed upon them as to freedom of cropping. That was to his mind a very desirable enactment to make. The Lords imposed a limitation on that freedom by inserting words to the effect that freedom of cropping must be consistent with the principles of good husbandry, thereby empowering the landlord to say that the tenant must go back to the four-course: system. As the Bill was originally introduced, freedom of cropping was allowed in respect of pasture land as well as of arable land; but the Government limited it to arable land, and, as that was as far as they would go, they must resist the Lords Amendment. Other Amendments provided that in the last three years of nineteen years leases freedom of cropping should not apply to arable land, and that farms held under current leases of fourteen years and over should be excluded from compensation for disturbance. With both of these Amendments the Government proposed to disagree. The Bill provided that the arbitrator should himself decide whether the action of the landlord in refusing to renew a tenancy was for good and sufficient cause and for reasons consistent with good estate management; but the Lords referred the decision of this question to the county court with the right of appeal. It was clear that such an Amendment, on account of the heavy legal expenses it would involve, would destroy all chance of small tenants obtaining the benefits of the Bill, and the Government therefore proposed to resist it. The Lords also postponed the date on which the Bill was to come into operation until January 1st, 1909, and that Amendment the Government intended to accept. He hoped his hon. friend would, in these circumstances, withdraw his Motion and allow the House to proceed with the consideration of the Lords Amendments seriatim.

MR. WALTER LONG

said the Opposition had no desire, at this stage of the session, to contest the course which the Government proposed to take in regard to the Lords Amendments. For himself, he still held the opinion, which he had expressed on the Third Reading, that the Bill was a fair and reasonable compromise between these who represented the various interests in land, and that as it left the House of Commons there was nothing in it of which any reasonable person need be afraid. While he held that opinion, he thought the theory that compensation should be paid to a tenant on quitting a holding for reasons unconnected with ordinary husbandry was an unsound one which was likely to produce litigation between landlord and tenant, notwithstanding the safeguards by which the provision was surrounded. As to the omission of the words "made before the commencement of this Act" the hon. Baronet had stated that this was to be left an open question. If a division was taken upon it, he would support the omission of the words, as he thought it would be better on the whole if they were left out. As to the other Amendments, the hon. Baronet had spoken at length on the clause about freedom of cropping. In another place the words were inserted ''consistent with the principles of good husbandry." He maintained that the insertion of these words would have no effect whatever, for the hon. Baronet knew well that, in many districts where the four-course system prevailed, when the tenant altered it no good landlord raised any special objection. But what he argued was that an occupying tenant of land, paying a rent under certain conditions, ought not to be allowed to embark on what might be dangerous experiments without the consent of the landlord. They knew of the experiments that had been carried on at Roehampton, but it must be remembered that these were not made on land for which compensation would have to be paid. He did not think that the Amendments would have the effect which the hon. Baronet believed they would. As to the other Amendments dealing with leases of nineteen years or longer duration, there was a sub-section (b) which provided that— In any other case as respects the year before the tenant quits the holding, or any period after he has given or received notice to quit, which results in his quitting the holding.'' He assumed that the reason for that Amendment was that the original clause did not contain the words "quitting the holding. "If a man was paid by his landlord for any improvement he had made, that improvement ceased to be his property and became the property of the landlord, and not of the incoming tenant. He thought it would be much better to leave things as they were. As to leases, that was a question which applied almost exclusively to Scotland, because, as hon. Members knew, long leases were the exception in England. He had pro-profound sympathy with the President of the Board of Agriculture, because he understood that some of the Amendments introduced by the noble Lord in the other House had been received with the most scathing demonstrations by his friends in this House.

MR. SOARES

said he wished to thank the hon. Baronet for the fair manner in which he had met him in this matter, and he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

MR. MORTON (Sutherland)

said that an attempt had been made in the Lords to keep Scotland out of the benefits of the Bill. He insisted that Scotland was not represented in the Upper Chamber, although there were sixteen Scottish representative Peers there. These sixteen Peers, however, had not the slightest sympathy with the majority of the people of Scotland. If any little advantage was to be given to the farmers of this country it should be extended to Scotland. He understood that the Government were going to accede to the Lords Amendment that the Bill should not come into operation until 1st January, 1909, instead of 1908;but he hoped that the Scottish Members would be allowed a free hand in the division on that point. Everybody knew that at this particular period it was necessary to do something for the farming industry and to prevent the agricultural labourers from coming from the country into the already congested large towns. He desired that the whole of the United Kingdom should have the full benefit of this class of legislation. It had already been considerably whittled down, and he hoped that the Government would not allow it to be whittled down any further. He was glad to know that many noble Lords were beginning to see that something should be done to help the farmer and to keep the labourers on the land. He did not want to make any disrespectful allusions to the House of Lords, but they were not entitled to legislate alone for the people of this country, and he protested against their attempt to rob Scotland of the benefits of the Bill.

MR. BLACK (Banffshire)

said he would have been glad if the Government had considered the expediency of giving more time to the consideration of the Amendments made by the House of Lords. Those Amendments had been presented in a form which made the conception of their full effect difficult. He himself had endeavoured to analyse the game clause, in which his constituents were most interested, and he found that it was of such a character as to place many difficulties in the way of a tenant making good his claim for compensation for damage done by game. As the clause now stood, what chance had small tenants, paying only£20, or, £50, a year rent, of obtaining compensation from landlords who had the House of Lords at their back? Another reason why he objected to the clause was not only that the Bill as it stood was unfitted for Scotland, but, seeing that the Government had agreed to defer its operation until 1909, it might well be postponed until next session. Under the Bill as it stood they would have two whole sessions during which they could look at its provisions. He thought the Government was good enough to last for that period, and that it was wise not to allow the Bill to pass unless it was satisfactory, because they would not have another Agricultural Bill for some time. If, therefore, they allowed the Bill to lie over for two sessions they should have another opportunity of "licking it into shape." Another reason for delay was that the Bill was not suited for Scotland, and would require much alteration in that respect. For these reasons he hoped the Government would at this period of the year allow the whole Bill to go over to next session. He ventured to think that the good of the country would be best consulted by taking that course, which would be the same as had been adopted in the case of the Education Bill.

MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)

thought it would be a fatal policy to allow this Bill to be destroyed because of one Amendment in the House of Lords. If the Bill were delayed till next session or even till the year 1909, he did not think the House of Lords, if they exhibited the same disposition which he saw displayed last evening, would deal any more favourably with a Land Bill then than they had done now. He heard last night in the House of Lords the idea expressed that for a tenant to think that he had any rights in his holding was rank blasphemy. He also heard it suggested, with the approval of most Members of the other House, that in neither agricultural nor industrial matters had this House the slightest right to represent the people engaged in those pursuits. So long as that was the opinion expressed in another place, and so long as legislation dealing with social, political, and industrial reforms presented by the representatives of the nation, was dealt with in that way, they could not hope for more decent treatment of these measures in the future than they could now. On the other hand, it was clear that there would be a great constitutional question before the country in a few years which would overshadow land and all other reforms, and be the pivot upon which these reforms would hang; therefore although the principle contained in this Bill was a bare representation of the one which they would like to see adopted in regard to land reform, he thought they had better deal with this measure at once. Under these circumstances he hoped the Government would not accept the suggestion of his hon. friend, but would proceed to consider the Lords Amendments.

MR. CROMBIE (Kincardineshire)

said he could not associate himself with a course which would entirely destroy the Bill. As far as Scotland was concerned, he understood from the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill that he intended to put the Bill back into the form in which it left this House, and he did not think that Scottish Members would object to that course, although the Bill as applied to Scotland was not satisfactory. At earlier stage the House had a discussion as to whether or not the Bill should include Scotland, and the opinion of the Scottish Members was that, although it was a poor Bill and did not satisfy them, still they would rather have that Bill than nothing at all. That having been their opinion then, he thought Scottish Members would rather have the Bill even with the Amendments of the House of Lords than nothing at all. He thought the postponement of the date was objectionable, but it was not so objectionable in Scotland as it might be in England, because in Scotland they had the system of nineteen years leases. Even in Scotland, however, when a lease ran out, there was a practice of running on from year to year, and such a postponement would have a detrimental effect, and he should be glad if the Government would resist that Amendment.

MR. ROWLANDS (Kent, Dartford)

was glad to see that the Government were going to restore the Bill to something like the form in which it left this House. Some of them who had followed the course of the Bill were not pleased with it now. The part of the country which he represented took a great interest in the question, and while they were pleased to accept the measure, they thought it right to put on record the fact that they accepted it as the absolute minimum in the shape of reform in this direction. This was not the last attempt that would be made for land reform.

Question "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON, South Shields)

said that the Government desired to agree with all the Amendments, except one, on the first page of the Lords Amendments, as they were all of a drafting character and raised no question of principle. As to the leaving out of the preamble, that was done in all modern statutes, and he should in due course move to disagree with a portion of the Lords Amendment which appeared at the bottom of the first page and at the top of the second page of Amendments.

Lords Amendments—

"In page 1, in the title, to leave out the words 'the Tenure of Land' and to insert the words 'Agricultural Holdings.'

In lines 1 to 5, to leave out the Preamble. In line 6, to leave out the word 'therefore.'To leave out lines 10 and 11. In line 12, after the second 'one' to insert the words 'of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900.' In line 19, to leave out the word 'his' and to insert the word 'a.'In line 24,.after the word 'Holdings' to insert the word 'England.' In line 25, after '1900' to insert the words 'or the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1883 to 1900.' In lines 25 and 26, to leave out the words 'any custom or' and to insert the word 'the.' In line 26, to leave out the words 'to be determined by' and to insert the words referred to."

"In page 2, in line 1, to leave out the words 'notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary and.' In line 2, to leave out the words 'tenancy commenced' and to insert the words 'matter to which the arbitration relates arose.' In line 3, after the word 'determined' to insert the words 'notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary;" read a second time and agreed to.

Lords Amendment—

"In line 6, after '1900' to insert the words 'and any sum awarded by such arbitrator to be paid, shall be recoverable in manner provided by the Agricultural Holdings (England) Acts, 1883 to 1900, or the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1883 to 1900, for the recovery of compensation. Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall interfere with or prevent any contract or agreement between the landlord and tenant for an outgoing or other valuation."

(3) The following rule shall be substituted for rule (10) in Part I. of the Second Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900:—

"'The arbitrator shall on the application of either party specify the amount awarded in respect of any particular improvement or any particular matter the subject of the award, and the award shall fix a day not sooner than one month or later than two months after the delivery of the award for the payment of the money awarded as compensation, costs, or otherwise, and shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries," read a, second time.

Sir W. ROBSON

moved that the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment save only as regarded one slight particular. The whole matter was, he explained, more or less a question of drafting. The beginning of the Amendment dealt with the recovery of money awarded by the arbitrator, which it was provided should be recoverable in the manner laid down in the English and Scottish Agricultural Holdings Acts. That was to enable the amount of money recoverable to be embodied in an Order of the Court, but the Lords had added a proviso which said that nothing in the sub-section should interfere with or prevent any contract or agreement between the landlord and tenant for an outgoing or other valuation. It was these words that he proposed to omit, because he considered that they were unnecessary. The sub-section dealt with arbitration and not with valuation, and he thought that if these words were inserted they might create a good deal of confusion.

Amendment proposed to Lords Amendment—

"To leave out the words 'Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall interfere with or prevent any contract or agreement between the landlord or tenant for an outgoing or other valuation."

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

MR. ABEL SMITH (Hertfordshire, Hertford)

inquired whether he was right in understanding the hon. and learned Solicitor-General to say that the effect of the Lords Amendment would not be changed if this proviso were omitted. He understood that it was being omitted because it was irrelevant. As it would affect many people in different parts of the country he wished to be quite clear upon the point.

Sir W. ROBSON

replied that the sub-section which he proposed to omit was irrelevant, as the main proposal dealt with arbitration and not with valuation.

Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords Amendments—

"In page 2, line 8, to leave out the words 'that neither he nor' and to insert the words 'the right to kill and take which is vested neither in him nor in."

"In line 9, to leave out the words 'has the lawful right to kill' and to insert the words 'and which the tenant has not permission in writing to kill," read a second time, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment—

"In line 19, to leave out the words intention to make a claim for compensation' and to insert the words 'the damage," read a second time.

SIR W. ROBSON

said the Government accepted this Amendment so far as the meaning of it was concerned and its intention. He moved to agree with the first part of the Amendment and to disagree with the second. He explained that the sub-section would then provide that compensation could not be claimed unless notice in writing was given to the landlord. The word "damage" was not a convenient expression. They did not want to multiply notices nor to make them too specific. He formally moved to agree with the Lords Amendment down to the word "compensation" and to omit the words "and insert the damage."

Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—

"To leave out the words 'and insert the damage."

Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to. Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords Amendments—

"In page 2, line 20, after the word 'landlord' to insert the words 'as soon as may be after the damage was first observed by the tenant and a reasonable opportunity is given to the landlord to inspect the damage."

"In lines 21 and 22, to leave out the words 'at least three weeks."

"In line 22, to leave out the words 'reaped or raised' and to insert the words 'begun to be reaped, raised, or consumed."

"In line 23, to leave out the word 'done."

"In lines 23 and 24, to leave out the words 'at least one week."

''In line 24, after the word 'is' to insert the words 'begun to be."

"In line 25, to leave out the words 'the claims made' and to insert the words 'notice in writing of the claim, together with the particulars thereof, is given to the landlord."

"In line 26, to leave out the word 'year' and to insert the words 'calendar year, or such other period of twelve months as by agreement between the landlord and tenant may be substituted therefor," read a second time, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment—

"In page 2 line 28, to leave out the words 'made before the commencement of this Act," read a second time.

Sir EDWARD STRACHEY

moved to disagree with the Amendment. He had already stated generally the views which induced the Government to leave this an open question, and he was quite ready to admit that there was something to be said on both sides. As, however, the right hon. Gentleman who was at present leading the Opposition had indicated his view upon the Amendment, he desired to say that he took entirely the opposite view. He therefore moved that they should not agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

MR. SOARES

said that if the Lords Amendment was carried it would be possible for people to contract out of the game clause.

MR. MORTON

said it was dangerous to have a contracting-out clause.

MR. ABEL SMITH

said this was a question, not of contracting out, but of convenience. If the landlord and tenant could agree upon a sum to cover the estimated damage by game in an ordinary season, a large number of small claims would be avoided and an immense amount of friction would be prevented. He complained that on this question the representative of the Board of Agriculture had thrown over his chief in the other House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments—

"In page 2, line 29, after the word 'payable' to insert the words 'by him."

"In line 32, to leave out the words 'in assessing the compensation under 'this section."

"In line 34, after the word 'payable' to insert the words 'under this section," read a second time, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment—

"In page 2, line 34, after the word 'just' to insert the words 'Provided that in the case of a contract of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act, such a deduction as aforesaid shall be made whether the allowance was to an agreed amount or not, and whether the allowance was expressly made or not, and for the purposes of this proviso a tenancy from year to year current at the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to continue until the first day on which either the landlord or the tenant could, the one by giving notice to the other immediately after the commencement of this Act, cause the tenancy to determine," read a second time.

Sir EDWARD STRACHEY

moved that the House should disagree. This was the Amendment which provided that with regard to existing tenancies it should not be necessary for the landlord to prove that any allowance was agreed to as the amount of compensation, or whether there was any express provision or not in regard to the tenancy. He thought it would bevery much better, especially as they had just passed the previous Amendment, that the money given by the landlord as compensation should be dealt with in one manner. The simpler they made the Act the better it would be, because it was sufficiently complicated already. The Government, therefore, resisted the Amendment, and he moved that the House disagree with it.

Motion made, and Question "That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments—

"In page 2, line 35, after the word 'kill,' to insert the words 'and take the."

"In page 2, line 39, to leave out from the beginning of the line to the word 'deer' in line 40, and to insert the words 'For the purpose of this section, 'The expression 'game' means."

"In page 3, lines 3 and 4, to leave out the words 'produced upon the holding," read a second time, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment—

"In page 3, line 5, after the word 'land' to insert the words 'on his holding consistent with the principles of good husbandry," read a second time.

Sir EDWARD STEACHEY

moved to leave out the words "consistent with the principles of good husbandry," on the ground that if they were retained they would be giving with one hand and taking away with the other. It had been decided by this House that although the tenant ought not to be allowed to have freedom of cropping as regarded the whole of his holding, yet as regarded arable land such freedom was very desirable and the tenant should not be restricted by any covenants from cultivating arable land to the greatest possible advantage. It was obviously desirable in these days to encourage tenants to cultivate arable land to the very best advantage and that nothing should be done to hamper that cultivation. The right hon. Member for South Dublin seemed to think that the words "consistent with the principles of good husbandry" would not have a limiting effect, but certainly the impression on his mind in listening to the debate in another place was that the object of the Amendment was of a limiting nature. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman were right he would urge that it would be a ground for striking out these words, because in that case they would be of no use. If, on the other hand, the words would have the effect of limiting the tenants' freedom of cropping on arable land they should be struck out.

Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—

"To leave out the words 'consistent with the principles of good husbandry."—(Sir Edward Strachey.)

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

MR. WALTER LONG

thought the hon. Gentleman had derived a wrong impression from the debate in the other House. He imagined the object of another place was to prevent any wild experiments likely to result in damages, and certainly, if he thought the exclusion of these words would expose the land of the country to the very grave risk of wild experiments at the hands of these who knew very little about land cultivation, he should do his best to secure their retention. But he thought the clause placed the tenant within entirely satisfactory limitations, and, as he was afraid the introduction of these words might lead to confusion and litigation, it would be desirable to omit them.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords Amendments—

"In page 3, line 7, to leave out the words 'contained in any such contract of tenancy or agreement."

"In page 3, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words 'and provided also that he shall return to the holding as soon as may be' and to insert the words 'which provision shall in the case of disposal of the produce of the holding consist in the return to the holding of the full equivalent," read a second time, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment—

"In page 3, line 12, after the word 'value' to insert the words 'to the holdings'; after the word 'holding' to insert the words 'in contravention of the custom contract or agreement. Provided that this sub-section shall not apply—(a) In the case of a lease for nineteen years or longer duration as respects the last three years before the expiration thereof; or (b) in any other case as respects the year before the tenant quits the holding, or any period after he has given or received notice to quit, which results in his quitting the holding," read a second time.

Sir EDWAED STRACHEY

moved to amend the Lords Amendment by reinstating the provisions which were in the Bill when it was sent up to the other House. He said the first Amendment of the Lords restricted freedom of cropping in the case of a nineteen years tenancy, as regarded the last three years of the lease, when the tenant would have to go back to the three-course system, which he was told was in vogue in Scotland. The Government did not see why the tenant of arable land, whether he had a lease or not, should be restricted in this matter. The Scottish Chamber of Agriculture at their summer meeting unanimously approved of this section as it then appeared in the Bill, and therefore it might be assumed that they would equally unanimously disapprove of the alteration made in another place.

Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—

"To leave out from the word 'apply' to the end and insert the words (a) in the case of a tenancy from year to year as respects the year before the tenant quits the holding or any period after he has given or received notice to quit which results in his quitting the holding; or (b) in any other case, as respects the last four years before the expiration of the contract of tenancy."

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords' Amendment.

MR. WALTER LONG

said the whole difference between the two Houses narrowed itself down to a question of three years or one year. He thought there was a good deal to be said on behalf of the Lords Amendment, but he was bound to recognise that the Act of 1900 did interfere with existing holdings. This Bill carried the interference further, because it interfered with leases, and interfered with them in a way which was somewhat serious. He believed there was a strong feeling in Scotland in favour of the original form of this particular provision, and, on balance, he did not feel himself justified in offering opposition to the action of the Government.

Colonel KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)

said on this point he did not think English Members were the best judges, because they had very limited experience, but he could not help feeling that the Lords Amendment might be beneficial from the point of view of the continuance of leases. While he did not separate himself from his right hon. friend, he would not like the matter to pass without it being understood that some of them recognised there were strong arguments in favour of the Lords Amendment.

MR. MORTON

said that, so far as he could gather the opinion of his constituents and others in Scotland, they were most anxious to come under the Bill as it was before, and they would take the risk about the leases.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords Amendments—

"In page 3, line 15, after the word 'shall' to insert the words 'without prejudice to any other remedy which may be open to him."

"In line 17, to leave out the words 'or as the case may require,' and to insert the word 'at any time and should the case so require' and after the word 'injunction' to insert the words 'or in Scotland an interdict."

"In line 23, to leave out the word 'adequate,' and insert the word 'such,"

Read a second time, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment—

"In page 3, line 24, to leave out from the word 'deterioration' to the end of the clause, and to insert the words 'as is required by this section or in respect of other provision made for the purpose of complying with this section, (4) In this section the expression 'arable land' shall not include land in grass, which by the terms of any contract of tenancy, is to be retained in the same condition throughout the tenancy,"

Read a second time.

Sir EDWARD STRACHEY

said he believed the object of this Amendment—though he did not think the words carried it out in the most satisfactory way—was to prevent a tenant being paid twice over, that was to say for selling crops and for manures or feeding stuffs to replace what he had sold off the land. He proposed to amend the Amendment by leaving out the words "or in respect of other provision made for the purpose of complying with this section," and to insert in their place, "improvements comprised in Part III. of the first schedule of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900, which have been made."'

Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—

"To leave out the words "or in respect of other provision made for the purpose of complying with this section, and to insert the words 'improvements comprised in Part III. of the first schedule of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900, which have been made."

Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment as amended, agreed to.

LordsAmendments—

"In page 3, line 37, to leave out the words 'or refuse to grant a renewal of the tenancy or,' and insert the words 'a tenancy by notice to quit, or after having been requested in writing at least one year before the expiration of a tenancy to grant a renewal thereof refuses to do so or where'; in line 38, to leave out the word 'is' and insert the words 'has been'; in line 39, to leave out the words 'as the result of,' and insert the words, 'and that such increase was demanded by reason of an increase in the value of the holding due to in lines 39 and 40, to leave out the words 'effected at the cost of such' and insert the words 'executed by or at the cost of the."

"In page 4, line 5, after the word 'expense' to insert the words 'directly attributable to his quitting the holding'; in line 6, to leave out the words 'by reason of his quitting the holding, sustains or incurs,' and insert the words 'may unavoidably incur,"

Read a second time, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment—

"In page 4, lines 7 and 8, to leave out the words 'goods, implements, produce or stock' and insert the words 'household goods or his implements of husbandry produce or farm stock on or used in connection with the holding; provided that no compensation under this section shall be payable

  1. '(a) Unless the tenant has given to the landlord a reasonable opportunity of making a valuation of such goods, implements, produce, and stock as aforesaid ; or
  2. '(b) Unless the tenant has within two months after he has received notice to quit or a refusal to grant a renewal of the tenancy, as the case may be, given to the landlord notice in writing of his intention to claim compensation under this section; or
  3. '(c) Where the tenant with whom a contract of tenancy was made has died within three months before the date of the notice to quit, or in the case of a lease for years before the refusal to grant a renewal; or
  4. '(d) If the claim for compensation is not made within three months after the time at which the tenant quits the holding; or
  5. '(e) In the case of leases for fourteen or more years current at the passing of this Act;"

Read a second time.

MR. MONTAGU (Cambridgeshire, Chesterton)

moved to leave out sub-section (c). As he understood it, the Bill prevented a landlord dealing with a tenant in an unreasonable manner or in a way that was inconsistent with good estate management, but if they left in sub-section (c) a landlord might deal in an unreasonable manner or in a way inconsistent with good estate management, and to the detriment of the widow or son, or whoever might be farming the land, however satisfactory that farming might be.

Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—

"To leave out sub-section (c)."—(MR. Montagu.)

'Question proposed, "That sub-section (c) stand part of the Lords Amendment."

MR. SOARES

begged the hon. Baronet to accept this Amendment. It was, he said, bad enough for a widow to lose her husband, but if three months afterwards she was to be capriciously evicted by the landlord it would be a bad case indeed. Out of pity for widows, who were sometimes just as good farmers as their husbands had been, he appealed to the hon. Baronet to accept the Amendment.

MR. ABEL SMITH

said it was all very well to appeal for pity for the unfortunate widow and children, but he did not think that had very much to do with the question before the House, which was really as to whether this clause should be extended not only to tenants who would employ deputies, but to the representatives and successors of tenants who had died. This was an entirely new question, and it was rather a strong order to ask the House to accept the proposal at this late period of the session.

MR. J. WARD,

in view of the peculiar sentiment underlying the exclusion of the widow or children from benefits of the law, hoped some arrangement would be come to to meet the case.

MR. MORTON

expressed the hope that the hon. Gentleman would give way on this matter. He did not see why a widow should be debarred from getting compensation because she was a widow. Surely it was a matter that might be left for the people to settle themselves. By putting in these words they would take away from people engaged in agriculture some of the good which it was hoped the Bill would do. The general feeling of the House was that the Amendment should be omitted. He did not suppose that much difficulty would be made over the matter in another place.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he had found great difficulty in estimating what the precise effect of the Amendment would be. It was well known that in a great many cases landlords, on the death of a tenant, did not care to allow the widow to succeed as the occupying tenant. It was not from any feeling of hostility to widows in general or to any widow in particular, but because farming was men's business, and because it was thought that the control of the work was much better in the hands of men. If he. was right, the Amendment was merely to protect the landlord who held these views from being liable to pay compensation for unreasonable disturbance for carrying out what was his invariable practice in not renewing the tenancy to a widow. The special circumstances to which the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire referred did not arise. The insertion of the words would not prevent the payment to a widow of a claim to which her husband would have been entitled if he had lived. The claim for compensation under this clause only came into existence if the landlord behaved unreasonably or without good and sufficient cause. It should be remembered that the widow or child was not the tenant unless the terms of the tenancy stated that on the death of the occupier the widow or child should become the occupying tenant. The sentimental view of the case did not arise. He thought there would be considerable danger in accepting the Amendment unless it would have an operation different from what he believed it would have.

Sir W. ROBSON

said the object of the clause was perfectly clear. It was to deal with cases where the landlord did not care to have a tenancy of an onerous character continued by a widow. If the tenant died within three months before the date of the notice to quit, the notice to quit affected the widow. In such a case as that, it was not to be held as unreasonable disturbance because the landlord had chosen in the exercise of his discretion to say that he would rather have a male than a female tenant. It did not deprive the widow of any claim for compensation that might have accrued.

MR. TOMKINSON (Cheshire, Crewe)

said he was very much inclined to agree with the Solicitor-General. Everyone familiar with these matters knew that very often a landlord was unwilling to continue a widow as the tenant of a farm. The refusal to allow her to remain in occupation was one of the most painful duties a landlord had to perform. It seemed to him that the question might be asked—Does a widow require a notice to quit? Was not the tenancy terminated by the death of the husband? He would be sorry if anything were done by the Bill to deprive a widow of any compensation to which she was entitled.

MR. BLACK

said that in view of the fact that the Bill was applicable to Scotland it was necessary to accept the Amendment. Under Scottish leases it was a frequent thing for the contract to say that the heir of the tenant should succeed to the holding. There was no reason why the heir should be excluded from the operation of the clause.

Colonel KENYON-SLANEY

said nobody desired that what was fairly due to the husband at the time of his death should be denied to the widow, but what they would say if they accepted the Amendment was that the landlord was bound to continue the tenancy of the farm to the widow or the successor of the deceased. That was not reasonable.

MR. BLACK

That is so in Scotland.

Colonel KENYON-SLANEY

I do not know about Scotland. I am talking about England.

MR. BLACK

The Bill applies to Scotland.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

said the landlord had not taken into consideration the possibility of the widow or son succeeding to the farm, although there were instances in which that occurred. It would be going outside the scope of the Bill to put on the landlord the responsibility of accepting the widow or successor of the deceased as tenant of a farm. What was proposed in the Lords Amendment was, as the President of the Board of Agriculture had stated, the result of full consultation, and, therefore, it would hardly be fair to make the proposed alteration.

MR. EVERETT (Suffolk, Woodbridge)

said that when the tenancy of a farm was continued to a widow under a good landlord it was a very valuable asset. He had known cases where it had been the means of obtaining another suitable husband. He hoped the House would excise sub-section (c) and that the Lords would recognise that in doing so they were acting from considerations of humanity.

*Sir EDWARD STRACHEY

agreed that there was a good deal to be said for the argument of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. He had already intimated that the Government had made very great concessions with the view to securing the passage of the Bill. While personally he had the greatest possible sympathy with the idea that the widow, wherever possible, should be allowed to retain her deceased husband's farm, it was very difficult indeed to provide for that in an Act of Parliament. But this Amendment did not only refer to the case of widows he would remind the House If made the effect of the Amendment would be to give rights to any heirs however undesirable and even to creditors, it might be, which would make all kinds of complications and difficulties. He must appeal to his hon. friend, in consideration of the agreement which had been arrived at, to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. MORTON

asked whether the Solicitor-General could give an assurance that the widow or child would not be pecuniarily injured by this clause.

MR. AINSWORTH (Argyllshire)

said that a Scottish lease frequently provided that a man or his successor should be the tenant during the period for which the lease was made. What hon. Members from Scotland wanted to know was whether this clause would interfere with that succession.

Sir W. ROBSON

said if a widow had a right to the succession, she would come in with the tenant's right. He confessed that it was difficult to follow imaginary cases.

MR. MONTAGU

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir EDWARD STRACHEY

moved to leave out the following sub-section—

"(e) In the case of leases for fourteen or more years current at the passing of this Act."

Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—

"To leave out sub-section (e)."

Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords Amendment—

"In page 4, line 11, after the word 'arbitration' to insert 'any question arising under this section as to whether a landlord acted without good and sufficient cause or for reasons inconsistent with good estate management shall, for the purposes of the provisions as to arbitration relating to the statement of a case and any appeal there from be deemed to be a question of law."

Read a second time.

Sir W. ROBSON

thought the Amendment must have been made under a misapprehension. It overlooked the fact that an arbitrator had already the power under existing Agricultural Acts, when he found the facts, to state a special case asking a Court of law to decide the inference to be drawn from them. He did not think good estate management was a matter for a Court of law rather than an arbitrator. He therefore moved to disagree.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

MR. WALTER LONG

said he quite sympathised with the hon. Gentleman in his view as to the principle underlying the Lords Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments—

"In page 4, line 15, to leave out the word 'other,' and insert the words 'or after' ; in line 16, to leave out from the word 'respectively' to the end of the clause, and insert the words 'in like manner as the sections apply to improvements executed after those dates'; in line 26, after the word 'intention,' to insert the words 'together with particulars of such repairs'; in line 31, after the word 'fences,' to insert the word 'gates,' and after the word 'drains' to insert the word 'ditches'; in line 32, after the word 'made,' to insert the words 'within three months after the commencement of the tenancy'; to leave out Clause 9."

"In Page 5, leave out Clause 10."

Read a second time, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment—

"In page 5, line 6, to leave out 'eight' and insert 'nine."

Read a second time.

Sir EDWARD STRACHEY

said he had already indicated that the Government assented to this Amendment.

*MR. LYNCH

said it seemed to him that this Bill was mainly directed against the bad landlords, and why should its operations be delayed for another year?

*Sir EDWARD STRACHEY

said that he knew there was a strong feeling in the House in regard to some of the Lords Amendments and he had moved to disagree with all substantial ones except this one. But he refused to believe that anyone imagined that the additional year interval would be taken advantage of to any substantial extent by the landlords or attempt to contract themselves out of the Act. They were generally agreed that the Bill held the balance between the landlord and the tenant, and that it was in favour of good husbandry. It had been said that the Bill was directed against bad landlords, but he maintained that these were very small in number indeed, and in his view few would desire the longer they had to consider its true effect to contract themselves out of the Act. However, he would like to add a word of warning, that if the arrested facilities given by the extension of a year were used by landlords to any great extent to contract themselves out of the Act the question would have to be re-opened by further agricultural legislation, and in a very drastic manner, and very good care would be taken by the Government that in future no opportunity would be given of contracting out of any Act in the interests of agriculture.

MR. SOARES

said he was glad that the Government had stuck nobly to the promises made by Lord Carrington, and he thought that they might let this Amendment go with the protest which had already been made.

MR. LYNCH

said that he was not in the House when the agreement which the hon. Baronet had announced was made; but he thought that this was a very substantial concession in return for the other concessions which had been made.

MR. MORTON

said that according to this Amendment the people were to wait two years before the Act came into force. The hon. Baronet had told the House that the landlords were not likely to take advantage of the additional year to contract themselves out of the Act. But they knew in Scotland what some landlords had done in view of the mere prospect of the introduction of a Land Tenure Bill. He deeply regretted that the Government had been so weak in this matter, and allowed the Bill to be whittled down.

MR. J. WARD

said he understood that at the beginning of the evening the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill made a statement as to certain concessions which the Government were prepared to make to the Opposition side of the House, and that having that statement before them they decided to proceed to consider the Amendments on those lines. It seemed to him, therefore, a strange thing that, having elected to proceed upon that definite settlement, one Member got up and moved one Amendment and another got up and moved another. Either they should have rejected the concessions altogether or else they should have gone on like men and accepted the position.

MR. ADKINS

said he agreed that this provision was a great blemish on the Bill, but an agreement had been come to by the President of the Board of Agriculture on this subject, and many of them would like to be loyal. Still they must recognise the fact that the real reason for this position was the action of the House of Lords, and that the responsibility for this blemish rested with that House and not with the House of Commons.

*MR. LYNCH

did not desire to depart from the arrangement which had been made but said they desired to record their protest. After all, as the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill had said, it was the bad landlords against whom this Bill was aimed; and it was these bad landlords who would take advantage of this extended term. However, they had a pledge that the Government would take action and accelerate the Bill if necessary. Therefore it behoved them all to watch in their respective districts and bring to the notice of the Government any efforts to defeat the Act.

*SIR FRANCIS CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)

thought that if it was in the power of the Government to take such action as that mentioned by the last speaker it would remove some objections, but he wished to enter his protest against the unwise surrender on so vital a point by the President of the Board of Agriculture in another place and by his hon. friend in this House. He had listened to the speech of his hon. friend with absolute astonishment. They were not legislating for the good landlord, but for the bad landlord, and by this proposal they were giving two years grace to the bad landlord to shower notices to quit, and deprive his tenants of advantages under the Bill; and they gave an opportunity also to those landlords who were sitting on the fence to jump down on the side against their tenants. He entered his protest against this surrender. He thought the Bill was a weak wishy-washy one to begin with, and after all the whittling down and emasculation it had gone through it was hardly more than a mere sign post to the promised land. This Amendment almost reduced their proceedings to a farce.

Colonel KENYON-SLANEY

said he did not attach much importance to this Amendment himself, but he wanted hon. Members to consider what the effect of it would be. The Bill might frighten a good many timid landlords, but on the other hand the Amendment would give them time to look at it. Having that time they would not be so frightened and would not be inclined to do anything foolish. He thought some of the fears which had been expressed need not have excited hon. Members.

MR. R. PEARCE (Staffordshire, Leek)

asked whether the arrangement which had been arrived at contemplated the idea that in the event of a change of Government taking place in the meantime there should be no alteration made in the date at which this enactment would come into force.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Sir EDWARD STRACHEY

moved that a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments to the Bill.

MR. WALTER LONG

wished to express the gratitude which they on that side felt to the Solicitor-General and the hon. Baronet the Member for Somersetshire for the manner in which they had met the Opposition and for the firmness with which they had adhered to the arrangement which, had been arrived at.

Sir W. ROBSON

thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his appreciation and for the tone which he had adopted throughout the discussions.

MR. MORTON

said that such arrangements between the two front benches were always dangerous.

Question put, and Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments to the Bill.

Committee nominated of—MR. Alexander Black, Sir Francis Channing, Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, MR. Long, MR. Soares, MR. Solicitor-General, and Sir Edward Strachey.

Three to be the quorum.

To withdraw immediately.—(Sir Edward Strachey.)