§ As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.)
rose to move the following Amendment to Clause 2—In page 2, line 9, at end, to insert the words, 'Provided that in the case of Ireland, where the tenant has bought out under any of the Land Purchase Acts, no such charge shall be imposed on the Irish Development
§ *MR. SPEAKER
As I understood it, the Bill does not apply to Ireland, and if that be so the hon. Member's Amendment is out of order.
§ SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.)
said that the clause itself could not possibly refer to Ireland, and he would further say that it was the intention of the Government to strike out Clause 3, which was the only clause which did apply to Ireland.
§ MR. BEALE (Ayrshire, S.)
in moving to insert in Clause 2 after the word "agreement" the words "made after the damage has been suffered," said that his object was to put right what he thought was obviously a slight error in the drafting of the section, because it said in the first sub-section that "any agreement to the contrary shall be void" and subsequently that "the amount of compensation payable under this section shall in default of agreement." Clearly the meaning of the word "agreement" was an agreement by which landlord and tenant bargained beforehand that there should be no compensation. Landlord and tenant should be able to fix the amount by agreement made after the damage was done without the expense of arbitration.
In page 2, line 11, after the word 'agreement,' to insert the words 'made after the damage has been Buffered.' "—(Mr. Beale.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR EDWARD STRACHEY
intimated that the Government proposed to accept the Amendment together with a similar Amendment which he understood was going to be moved and which, in application, was identical with that of his hon. friend.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. PAULTON (Durham, Bishop Auckland)
moved to insert after the word "arbitration" the words "and the arbitrator shall have regard to any existing arrangements between owner and occupier under which damage by game 763 has been taken into consideration." The object of the Amendment was to meet the case of damage by game having been taken into consideration in determining the rent, and to give the landlord some protection against being called on to pay twice over. He noticed that the Solicitor-General had placed an Amendment upon the Paper which for all he knew might entirely achieve the object he had in view. He felt bound, however, to move his own Amendment, because his right hon. and gallant friend the Member for Shropshire had agreed to accept it in lieu of an Amendment he himself had on the Paper. While he was quite willing, if hon. Gentlemen were satisfied with the proposal of the Solicitor-General, to withdraw in its favour, he rather preferred his own and shorter form of Amendment. It was not necessary to discuss the matter further, especially as his whole object was to save the time of the House upon a very small question, upon which they had virtually come to an agreement during the previous day's debate, viz., that the tenant should not receive compensation twice over where compensation had been given in determining the rent. If those in charge of the Bill and hon. Members opposite were willing he was quite ready to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the Solicitor-General. There might be in the complicated and legal phraseology points which required explanation, and for this reason also he would withdraw his own Amendment, if desired.
In page 2, line 11, after the word 'arbitration,' to insert the words, 'and the arbitrator shall have regard to any existing arrangements between owner and occupier under which damage by game has been taken into consideration'—"(Mr. Paulton.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ SIR EDWARD STRACHEY
said he quite agreed that something was required to make the clause clearer in its meaning, but he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment, because the Solicitor-General had a similar Amendment on the Paper which he (Sir Edward Strachey) thought was preferable.
§ VISCOUNT TURNOUR (Sussex, Horsham)
hoped the hon. Gentleman would 764 not withdraw his Amendment. It was a better one than that of which notice had been given by the Solicitor-General. Perhaps the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill would explain to the House why the Solicitor-General's Amendment was preferable to that of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. The latter was shorter and more easily understood, and he could see no possible reason for its non-acceptance. It was much clearer and contained fewer words, whilst that of the learned Solicitor-General was long, cumbersome, and difficult to understand.
§ *MR. WHITBREAD (Huntingdonshire, Huntingdon)
hoped the Amendment moved by his hon. friend would not be dismissed quite so summarily by the Front Bench. On the previous afternoon they had been engaged in a lengthy discussion over an Amendment which, according to the general consensus of opinion in the House, aimed at the object they had in view. It was explained, however, from the Front Bench that it would not achieve the object desired. Unquestionably in the letting and taking of a farm, the probability of damage by game almost always entered into consideration. It was the general consensus of opinion in the House that, this being so, it was desirable to have some form of words inserted in the Bill giving power to the arbitrator, when considering a claim for damage by a tenant, to take notice of any such consideration, if embodied in the agreement and affecting the rent. Personally, he much preferred the Amendment before the House, because it almost exactly reproduced what he believed to be the sense of the House on the previous afternoon. If there were points which needed explanation, and rendered the Solicitor-General's Amendment preferable, it was all the more reason why they should not hastily discard the proposal under discussion.
§ COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)
believed there was a general agreement that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland covered the ground better than that of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.)
said that as the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill had suggested that the 765 Amendment before the House should be withdrawn in favour of one standing in the name of the Solicitor-General, it behoved them to look at both in order to see in what respect they differed. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said that—The arbitrator should have regard to any existing arrangements between owner and occupier under which damage by game has been taken into consideration,whereas that of the Solicitor - General stated that—Where the landlord proves that under a contract of tenancy, made before the commencement of this Act, any compensation for damage by game is payable, or that in fixing the rent to be paid under such agreement allowance to an agreed amount was expressly made, the arbitrator shall, in assessing the compensation under this section, make such deduction from the compensation which would otherwise be payable as may appear just.It seemed to him that there was a great difference between the two Amendments. Under the Solicitor-General's Amendment no arrangement between landlord and tenant would have any effect, whereas under the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland it seemed to be open to the tenant and landlord to take into consideration, when making a letting, any possible damage that might be done by game. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman would persist in his Amendment, which was perfectly clear and short, and the purport of which was more easily understood by the ordinary layman than the technical Amendment of the Solicitor-General.
§ THE SOLICITOR - GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. URE, Linlithgowshire)
thought he could explain why the Government preferred the Amendment of the Solicitor-General to that of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. The real object was to insert a clause which would make specific provision for the value of the loss caused by game. What the Government were anxious to avoid was that the landlord should pay compensation twice over. The Amendment of the Solicitor-General guarded against that danger, so that if the arbitrator found in the lease some clause by which there had been an anticipation as to the damage done by game, he would take it into account. That would quite rightly throw upon the landlord the onus of showing from the lease that 766 he had already by anticipation made an allowance or compensation in respect of damage by game, and that, therefore, it would be grossly inequitable to ask him to pay over again. The two Amendments really came to the same thing; but in the view of the Government it was much better that the arbitrator should have his attention drawn to the point which they all had in view.
§ *MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)
thought that the Solicitor-General for Scotland was wrong. It had been made abundantly clear, from the speeches delivered on the previous day, that very often allowance was made for the amount of damage done by game by a reduction of rent. In the southern counties farms were let by yearly agreements, which were usually made out in the same form for a whole estate. He hold in his hand a form of such agreement which was frequently adopted. He could assure the hon. and learned Solicitor-General for Scotland that, although no express mention was made of compensation for damage caused by game, considerable differences were made in the rent of different farms owing to the presence on some farms of large coverts for game. The Amendment of the Solicitor-General contained the word "expressly," which would cut out all the cases whore the reduction of rent by way of compensation was made by tacit understanding, as it was in many parts of the country; and in numerous cases of that kind the arbitrator would have nothing to look to in coming to his decision. Of course, in the future that would be provided for, but it could not be remedied in existing agreements. He hoped the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill would reconsider the matter and see whether his own object would not be better served by accepting the shorter and clearer Amendment of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland.
§ MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)
hoped the Government would refuse this Amendment and insist on the words to be proposed by the Solicitor-General. He did not think the two Amendments meant the same thing. He thought the word "arrangement" instead of "agreement" would allow the evasion of the understanding arrived at in the previous day's discussion. The compensation to be given to the tenant by the landlord 767 should be compulsory, and the Amendment of the Solicitor-General would secure that.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)
thought that hon. Members must have been very agreeably surprised when they saw on the Order Paper the present Amendment. He was glad to hear that a concession of a most valuable character had been made to carry out the understanding arrived at, as he believed, on the previous day, that when an arbitrator came to deal with the question of what compensation was to be given he should be allowed to take into consideration any arrangement which the landlord and tenant had come to on that point. There was no suggestion on the previous day that the arrangement should be expressed in writing in a document under seal. A great many farms in England were let verbally, and it would be impossible in a large number of cases to comply with the stringent and objectionable terms which the Solicitor-General had incorporated in his Amendment. The House would be well advised if they accepted the straightforward and simple language of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland.
§ MR. ALEXANDER CROSS (Glasgow, Camlachie)
pointed out that in effect they were in Committee upon this Bill in consequence of the action of the Government, instead of dealing with the matter upon the Report stage in the ordinary way. The whole question under debate was that of existing contracts, and he took it that the Amendment before the House, unless it was modified by some other words, would put into the hands of arbitrators in the future a power to consider agreements of a private nature which it was the object of the Bill to prevent; in fact it would defeat the whole object of the Bill. In the case of new tenancies, how was it possible at the beginning of nineteen years to say anything about the amount of damage which would be done at any time during that period? The tenant, however, would submit to whatever game the landlord put upon the land, because he had already obtained as much reduction of rental in regard to such damage as he could possibly receive, and he took it that under this Act he would be able to obtain 768 a reduced rental in the case of larger heads of game being on the farm, and also to claim an arbitrator's decision and get a second allowance. That was what they on that side of the House objected to—that a tenant should be allowed to claim compensation twice over. He thought the Solicitor-General should see that this compensation was not paid twice over, and that a man who had already obtained a reduction of rent, because of game preservation, should not be able to claim a second allowance.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)
said the speeches which had been delivered showed that there was an ambiguity in the proposed Amendment. Some of his hon. friends assumed that the word "existing" meant existing at the time of arbitration; he did not know whether that was the meaning given to it by the promoters of the Amendment or whether it was to be interpreted as meaning "existing" at the time of the passing of the Bill. In that case it would be possible for any tenant and landlord to come to an agreement with regard to the amount of game to he kept on a farm, and the tenant would not be able to claim compensation for damage except beyond that. There was a vital and enormous difference between the two proposals; indeed, there was the difference of the whole diameter of the globe between them, because in one case they preserved the right to make future contracts in regard to game and in the other they did not. If the first interpretation was the correct one, then there was a vital difference between the Amendment of the hon. Member and that of the Solicitor-General. He thought they ought to know the object with which the Amendment was moved.
§ MR. PAULTON
said he might be mistaken as to what his hon. friend opposite meant, but he had no other intention than that of dealing with contracts existing at the time of the passing of the Bill.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that was his interpretation of the Amendment, and the hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to be of the same opinion. Having settled that preliminary ambiguity, he ventured to put in an appeal for the Amendment now before the House and for this very plain and obvious reason. On the subject 769 of contracts already running the Solicitor-General's Amendment would forbid any arrangement between landlord and tenant being taken into account by the arbitrator unless an arrangement was in writing. He instanced the case of the taking of a lease where a tenant might have to pay £300 a year; but, in view of game being kept on the farm, it was lot by the landlord at £280 a year. This abatement of the rent agreed upon between landlord and tenant was never inserted in the lease; and he wanted to know whether a tenant relieved of £20 rent was to be compensated for damage by game, since the contract was not of the formal character suggested by the Solicitor-General. He hoped that the Amendment of the hon. Member would be agreed to.
§ THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON, South Shields)
said that the objections now being urged to the Bill were more extensive in form and substance than the objections seized upon by way of illustration the previous day, and sought to be met by his Amendment. He pointed out, however, that it had not been suggested in the case of existing contracts that an arbitrator should be at liberty in every case, without any proof of distinct agreement, to re-open the negotiations as to the rent. ["Yes."] Where a distinct agreement was made it would be practically nullifying the Bill, as far as existing contracts were concerned, if, in every case, the arbitrator was entitled or obliged to put the tenant through a cross-examination as to whether or not at the time when he made his bargain there was any game on the land. The extreme case of injustice where a distinct agreement had been made at the commencement of the tenancy in respect to compensation for damage done by game had been met by the Treasury Bench, and could easily be met again. It would practically repeal the provisions of this Bill if the arbitrator in every case had to put the questions suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to whether or not at the time the tenant made the bargain there was any game upon the land, because they would all admit that there was not a tenancy of which the rent was fixed without the knowledge that there was some game on the land. He did not deny that this Bill was in some measure an interference 770 with existing contracts, and hon. Gentlemen opposite did not put the Government in any dilemma when they suggested it, because the Act of 1900 was to some extent an interference with then existing contracts. If hon. Members would read Section 7 of that Act they would find that although under existing tenancies the tenant had no right to compensation for improvements, yet under that Act, notwithstanding agreements, he was to be entitled to compensation for all sorts of improvements which he might make. In this matter the Government was following Conservative precedent. He admitted that the Bill interfered with existing contracts to some extent, and it did so because in this case they were not dealing only with the interests of two classes. This Bill was not brought in in the interests of the farmer and the landlord alone, although hon. Gentlemen opposite had tried to treat it in that way. Any interference with existing contracts was made on grounds of public policy, it being considered that in the interest of the community the agricultural industry should proceed without being hampered by loss and detriment, such as had been alluded to, from game preservation. The Government had tried to meet the extreme case put by the other side, and now they were told that that case never existed. He wished he had been told that before he attempted the rather difficult task of drafting an Amendment to deal with it. Passing to the Amendment of the hon. Member, it was quite clear, as had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that the words proposed would apply not only to tenanices existing at the passing of the Act, but also to those existing at the time of the arbitration. Did the Amendment limit this to cases where express agreements had been made. On the other hand, it would reopen negotiations for Tent in the case of every existing tenancy. In England the majority of the tenancies existed from year to year and could be determined by notice in any year. Therefore, in the case of tenancies existing at the time of the passing of this Act, the arbitrator in granting compensation would have to take into account the fact that the rent 771 had been fixed without any regard to the damage done by game. The whole object of the Bill was to discourage the preservation of an undue amount of game upon the land, and if the Government were to accept the phrase "existing arrangements" difficulties would arise which would practically nullify the statute. With regard to long tenancies, he thought the difficulties could be overcome by the provisions of the Ground Game Act, which treated existing tenancies at the time of the passing of the Act as terminating at the time at which they could be determined. But he saw no reason why they should not, like other tenancies, come under the same general object of public policy and be subject to compensation for damage. Those were the general purposes he had in view. In framing his Amendment he had endeavoured to meet the extreme case put by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but they must resist the tendency to apply that treatment to every kind of case, because that would have the effect of greatly diminishing the scope of the Bill.
§ MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)
pointed out that the Act of 1900 on which the hon. and learned Gentleman relied as a precedent gave no compensation "in respect of improvements made before the passing of this Act."
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said that that clause only applied to the restricted class of improvements made before the passing of the Act. but the Act applied to all classes made after.
§ MR. COCHRANE
said he heard the question argued by his hon. and learned friend behind him the other day, and although the Solicitor-General had then an opportunity of dealing with one of his own calibre he failed to bring forward the arguments with which he now endeavoured to overwhelm him. The Solicitor-General was enamoured of the Act of 1900, and said that it was a precedent worthy of imitation. He therefore asked the hon. and learned Gentleman if he would amend this Amendment to put it on the same lines as Section 7 of the Act of 1900. He 772 suggested that the Amendment should read as follows—And the arbitrator shall have regard to any arrangements existing at the time of the passing of this Act between owner and occupier under which damage by game has been taken into consideration.He thought that would bring the Amendment into line with the precedent laid down by the Solicitor-General, and also with the hon. and learned Gentleman's view that where an arrangement existed between landlord and tenant on the question of the compensation to be paid for the game, that arrangement might come before the arbitrator who would give the weight that was due to it. Arrangements between the landlord and the tenant by which the rent was fixed according to the head of game on the land had been made time out of mind in almost every case of a farm being let. If there had been fraudulent arrangements, as the hon. and learned Gentleman might suggest, they would come before the arbitrator under the Bill, arid all that was asked was that the arbitrator should take these facts into consideration. If the arbitrator found that the arrangement entered into was a bona fide arrangement, it would be monstrous and absurd that it should not have some weight given to it. He begged to move.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment—
To leave out the word 'existing,' and insert after the word 'arrangement' the words 'existing at the time of the passing of the Act.'"—[Mr. Cochrane.)
§ Agreed to.
§ Question proposed, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted in the Bill."
§ MR. PAULTON
said his sole object in moving the Amendment had been to save time and difficulty, and he thought it would have received support on all sides. He repudiated very strongly the utterly baseless suggestion which had been made from below the Gangway opposite as to his motive. He was in a position of some difficulty, as he wanted 773 to keep faith with the House, but he found that in putting forward the words of his Amendment he was mistaken in thinking that they would be generally acceptable. He would therefore ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ MR. EVERETT (Suffolk, Woodbridge)
opposed the withdrawal of the Amendment, which he hoped would be carried. While wishing to do justice to the tenants they did not want to do any injustice to the landlords. Those who knew anything about land were perfectly well aware that a farm was let at a lower rent if a large head of game were kept on it. It would he very unfair to landowners if under this Bill in the case of a claim being made for damage done by game, there should not be set against that damage the fact that a lower rent was paid in consideration of the large head of game kept on the farm,
§ SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD (Somerset-shire, Wellington)
said the Solicitor-General really could not have been serious in his reply, from which he seemed to think that a conspiracy between landlords and tenants might be entered into to overrun the whole land with pheasants and partridges to the detriment of the food supply of the country. The hon. and learned Gentleman must know as well as he did that if every pheasant and every partridge in the country were killed to-morrow there would be no appreciable increase in the amount of home-grown wheat. He wished to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his phrase in which he said the Government were dealing not with the interests of the tenants only, but with the interests of agriculture and the country as a whole. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman, when he came to the clauses which really dealt with land tenure and agriculture, would adopt that principle, and look not at the tenant side only, but also at the maintenance and fertility of the land
§ under the experienced care of those who had managed it for years.
§ VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH (Maidstone)
said all these difficulties would be obviated if the Government would accept an Amendment that the Bill should not come into force until 1908. Farms had been let at a lower rent in consequence of the presence of game, but according to this Bill the tenant would be able to obtain compensation twice over. It would be possible now for the landlords to revise their leases.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! The noble Lord is dealing with matters which have already been disposed of.
§ MR. HICKS BEACH (Gloucester, Tewesbury)
could not understand why the Government should not accept the Amendment in its revised form. The Solicitor-General had stated that there were a large number of agreements in which an express sum was named as compensation for damage by game, and that was quite true. That, however, only proved that it was impossible to legislate in a satisfactory manner as regarded the tenure of land and the damage done by game for the whole country. It was well-known that in many cases a lower rent had been accepted than would have been the case if there had been no game on the farm. It had been said that the only thing the landlord would have to do in such cases would be to revise the agreements with his tenants, but that was just what they wanted to avoid. It was desirable to avoid the friction between landlord and tenant which would undoubtedly arise unless this Amendment were accepted in its amended form.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 92; Noes, 281. (Division List No.385.)777
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F||Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester||Bertram, Julius|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Bignold, Sir Arthur|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.||Barrie H. T. (Londonderry, N.||Bowles, G. Stewart|
|Balcarres, Lord||Beach. Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Bridgeman, W. Clive|
|Balfour, Rt Hn A. J. (City Lond.)||Beck, A. Cecil||Burnyeat, W. J. D.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Butcher, Samuel Henry,|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.||Renton, Major Leslie|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Helmsley, Viscount||Ridsdale, F A.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Hervey, F.W. F. (B'ryS. Edm'ds)||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Hills, J. W.||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Kimber, Sir Henry||Starkey, John R.|
|Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Staveley-Hill, Henry Staff'sh.)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Dalmeny, Lord||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt. -Col. A. R.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Univ)|
|Doughty, Sir George||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)|
|Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)||M'Calmont, Colonel James||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Turnour, Viscount|
|Fell, Arthur||Napier, T. B.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard|
|Fletcher, J. S.||Parkes, Ebenezer||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.)||Percy, Earl||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Ratcliff, Major R. F.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Hamilton, Marquess of||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Paulton and Mr. Whitbread.|
|Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)||Byles, William Pollard||Ferguson. R. C. Munro|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Cairns, Thomas||Ffrench, Peter|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Cameron, Robert||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace|
|Agnew, George William||Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|Alden, Percy||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Flynn, James Christopher|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Cheetham, John Frederick||Fuller, John Michael F.|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Churchill, Winston Spencer||Fullerton, Hugh|
|Ambrose, Robert||Cleland, J. W.||Furness, Sir Christopher|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Clough, William||Gibb, James (Harrow)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Clynes, J. R.||Gilhooly, James|
|Astbury, John Meir||Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Gill, A. H.|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)||Ginrell, L.|
|Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Cowan. W. H.||Glendinning, R. G.|
|Barker, John||Cox, Harold||Gooch, George Peabody|
|Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset||Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)||Grant, Corrie|
|Barnard, E. B.||Cremer, William Randal||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Crombie, John William||Greenwood, Hamar (York)|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Crooks, William||Gulland, John W.|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Cross, Alexander||Hammond, John|
|Beale, W. P.||Crossley, William J.||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil.)|
|Beauchamp, E.||Dalziel, James Henry||Harwood George|
|Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexh'm)||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)|
|Bell, Richard||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Haworth, Arthur A.|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Hedges, A. Paget|
|Bennett, E. N.||Delany, William||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Henry, Charles S.|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)|
|Billson, Alfred||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Higham, John Sharp|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Dolan, Charles Joseph||Hobart, Sir Robert|
|Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire)||Donelan, Captain A.||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.|
|Boland, John||Duckworth, James||Hogan, Michael|
|Brace, William||Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Horniman, Emslie John|
|Branch, James||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Hudson, Walter|
|Brigg, John||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)||Idris, T. H. W.|
|Bright, J. A.||Edwards, Frank (Radnor)||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Brodie, H. C.||Elibank, Master of||Jenkins, J.|
|Brooke, Stopford||Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward||Johnson, John (Gateshead)|
|Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)||Erskine, David C.||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)|
|Bryce, J. A.(Inverness Burghs)||Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Fenwick, Charles||Jowett, F. W.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.||Ferens, T. R.||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Kekewich, Sir George||Nuttall, Harry||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Kincaid-Smith, Captain||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Laidlaw, Robert||O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)||Snowden, P.|
|Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Lambert, George||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Lamont, Norman||O'Dowd, John||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||O'Grady, J.||Steadman, W. C.|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)||O'Malley, William||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Lehmann, R. C.||O'Mara, James||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Levy, Maurice||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||O'Shee, James John||Syllivan, Donal|
|Lough, Thomas||Parker, James (Halifax)||Summerbell, T.|
|Lundon, W.||Partington, Oswald||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Lupton, Arnold||Paul, Herbert||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Lynch, H. B.||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Mackarness, Frederic C.||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)||Thorne, William|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Perks, Robert William||Tomkinson, James|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|MacVeagh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Ure, Alexander|
|M'Crae, George||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Verney, F. W.|
|M'Killop, W.||Pirie, Duncan V.||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Maddison, Frederick||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Walsh, Stephen|
|Mallet, Charles E.||Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.)||Walters, John Tudor|
|Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)||Rainy, A. Rolland||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)|
|Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Raphael, Herbert H.||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Marnham. F. J.||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)|
|Massie, J.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Masterman, C. F. G.||Redmond, William (Clare)||Wardle, George J.|
|Meagher, Michael||Rees, J. D.||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Meehan, Patrick A.||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Menzies, Walter||Rickett, J. Compton||Watt, H. Anderson|
|Micklem, Nathaniel||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Money, L. G. Chiozza||Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Montagu, E. S.||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Mooney, J. J.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Rogers, F. E. Newman||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Rose, Charles Day||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth')|
|Morrell, Philip||Rowlands, J.||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Morse, L. L.||Runciman, Walter||Wilosn, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Wilson, P.W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Murphy, John||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Murray, James||Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)||Winfrey, R.|
|Myer, Horatio||Sears, J. E.||Young, Samuel|
|Nicholls, George||Seely, Major J. B.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)||Shackleton, David James|
|Nolan, Joseph||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr|
|Norman, Henry||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Whiteley and Mr. J. A|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Silcock, Thomas Ball||Pease.|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ *MR. EVERETT
moved to leave out the words "one week" and to insert "three days." He said it seemed to him undesirable to allow the crop, after it was cut so long a time as a whole week, to remain uncarted in order to be able to claim compensation for damage by game. Every day the crops remained the damage by game would increase, and surely three days notice would be ample.
In page 2, line 18, to leave out the words ' one week,' and insert the words ' three days.'" —(Mr. Everett.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ SIR EDWARD STRACHEY
said this matter was carefully considered by the Committee upstairs, and they took the Scottish precedent of the 1877 Act which, it was allowed, had worked well.
In page 2, line 20, at end, insert '(3) Where the landlord proves that under a contract of tenancy made before the commencement of this Act, any compensation for damage by game is payable, or that in fixing the rent to be paid under such contract allowance in respect of such damage to an agreed amount was expressly made, the arbitrator shall, in assessing the compensation under this section, make such deduction from the compensation which would otherwise be payable as may appear just.'"— (Sir W. Robson.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ MR. COCHRANE
said the Amendment did not seem to him to improve the clause very much, but probably it was better than nothing at all. He did not think it in any degree met which he understood to be the pledges given by hon. Gentlemen opposite in respect to this matter. It did not go so far as they had indicated they were willing to go, but it went some length, and therefore, he personally would not offer it any opposition. But he hoped the Solicitor-General would reconsider the matter, and see if he could not at a future stage meet the legitimate points which had been raised on both sides of the House.
§ COLONEL LOCKWOOD
seconded the Amendment. It was impossible to agree beforehand as to what the amount of damage would be. There might be a case where a farm when taken had a very large head of game upon it, and the landlord, having the shooting of it took that into consideration in fixing the rent. But afterwards a change might be made. The landlord might be invalided and not want any game at all. The conditions then would be altogether different, and it was impossible to lay down a hard and fast rule as to the amount of damage.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
To leave out the words 'to an agreed amount.'"—(Mr. Everett.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."780
§ MR. ABEL SMITH (Hertfordshire, Hertford)
said the hon. Member for the Woodbridge Division was a practical man who looked at these matters from the farmer's point of view. [Cries of "No."] He came from a district where there was probably more game than in any other part of England, and therefore a proposal made by him deserved some consideration. This was a perfectly reasonable Amendment. Before taking a farm a tenant went round and made inquiries in regard to all the circumstances. The amount of damage likely to be done by game was taken into consideration. If during the tenancy any change took place in the head of game on the land the tenant already had his remedy, because he could recover damages from the landlord where unusual steps had been taken to increase the head of game. It seemed to him natural and indispensable that the Amendment to the Amendment should be accepted, and that the arbitrator should not to be restricted to taking into account a sum actually named in the agreement. The arbitrator should be allowed to take all the circumstances into consideration, and if he was satisfied that a reduction of rent was allowed in respect of the head of game on the holding, that should be kept in view in assessing the damage. He hoped the Government in this matter would have some regard to the arguments of those who realty knew something about the question.
§ MR. NUSSEY (Pontefract)
said he should like to know the objection which the Government entertained to accepting this Amendment. It seemed to him to carry out precisely the pledges which the Government had given to the House on the previous day.
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said the Government had given no pledge on the previous day. They were under no obligation in the matter, but they had done their best to meet the wishes of the House.
§ MR. NUSSEY
said he apologised to his hon. and learned friend. If he remembered correctly the Government, at any rate, did not repudiate this proposal as they certainly might have done. He 781 thought that this Amendment which the Solicitor-General had brought up was intended to carry out the object the hon. Member for the Wood-bridge Division had in view. It had seemed to him that on the first clause the Government were adverse to anything being put in writing; but now they wanted everything to be put in writing. The Government. Amendment still left the onus of proof on the landlord. They must conclude that the arbitrator was a sensible man, and unless the Solicitor-General could convince him that his Amendment carried out the understanding come to on the previous day he would support the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for the Woodbridge Division.
§ *VISCOUNT TURNOUR (Sussex, Horsham)
thought the Government would do well to accept it. He was surprised that-some hon. Gentleman had disagreed with the statement that the hon. Member for Woodbridge was a farmer and had a complete knowledge of agriculture. If anyone were to go into the Woodbridge Division and say that the hon. Member was not a genuine farmer he would meet with a very warm reception. He believed that if the Government did not accept this Amendment the Bill would not be of very great value, because he defied any farmer or ordinary person to understand the Amendment of the Solicitor-General.
§ SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)
disagreed with his noble friend that no one could understand the Amendment of the Solicitor-General. It was put down in order that the Government might be able to say that having listened to the arguments on the Opposition side of the House they had endeavoured to meet them in a very considerable degree. He contended that the Amendment of the Solicitor-General was so illusive that it would practically make no alteration at all in the Bill. What happened? A farm fell vacant. The landlord told his agent to look about for a good tenant. A man came along and. when the agent asked a rent of £300 a year, the man replied, "You cannot expect me to give that rent for a farm which has so much game on it. 782 I offer £260 a year." The agent went to the landlord, and said, "Here is a very good tenant anxious to take the farm, but he is not willing to pay a rent of £300 a year," and the landlord would say, "Oh, if he is a very good man, let him have the farm for £260 a year." He believed that there was a regular form of agreement, but nothing was put in it as to the game. [A LABOUR MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because it was not the custom to do it. He sincerely hoped that the Amendment would be carried.
§ SIR BRAMPTON GURDON (Norfolk, N.)
said that when a farmer proposed to take a farm he inquired as to the amount of rates to be paid, as to the condition of the farm, and as to the head of game on it. There was no agreement about all those points any more than when a man bought a horse. When he wanted to buy a horse he looked to see whether the horse had broken knees. He knew that in some cases tenant farmers had been hardly treated, but speaking for his own part of the country and as a tenant farmer himself, he could say that tenant farmers were quite capable for making their own bargains.
§ MR. WINFREY (Norfolk, S. W.)
said that to accept this Amendment would be to whittle down the clause altogether. Difficulties would be sure to arise, and when a claim was made for compensation for damage done by game the land steward might come forward and say, "Oh, in fixing the rent I took the question of game into consideration." When a farm was let it was generally let to the highest bidder. [OPPOSITION cries of "No, No."] He knew as much about letting farms as hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he contended that in nine cases out of ten a farm was let to the highest bidder. If the Solicitor-General kept to his proposal those tenant farmers who had made bona fide arrangements in respect of game would be protected.
§ MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)
said he would ask the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down if he knew of any existing contract of tenancy in England in which allowance to "an agreed amount" for compensation for damage done by game was "expressly 783 made." What was the value which the Solicitor-General put on the words "an agreed amount was expressly made"? If they were struck out all that the hon. and learned Gentleman desired would remain in full force. He urged the Government to accept the Amendment.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
thought that the legislation upon which the Government was now engaged was almost the worst that could be conceived, because it introduced the maximum of variation of principle, and the minimum of benefit to either individuals or the community. If the Government were going to cut up contracts and destroy the basis of civilised society, if they were going to make sacrifices of this kind to the cry of the moment, let them do it for the benefit of someone, but they were introducing the maximum loss which would affect the social system as a whole and the minimum gain to any individual. That was what he called bad legislation. The Solicitor-General had never attempted a defence of this clause or of this Bill. All that he had done in the numerous and very able speeches which he had made was, in the first place, to allege that there was a precedent for this violation of contract in the Unionist legislation of six years ago, and in the second place that it was for the public interest that game preserving should be discouraged. He traversed both those statements. It was not necessary for him, however, to go into what had been done in the past. He did not mean to argue whether in substance what was being done by the hon. and learned Gentleman now was done by a previous Government; before he did so he should require from him some substantive definition of his own policy and a statement in what way it was going to benefit the community. He wished, however, to deal with his view that game-preserving was anti-social, and ought to be put a stop to. [MINISTERIAL cries of: That is not the question.] That was the question. The question was whether they were or were not to regard contracts as sacred. [An HON. MEMBER: For no fixed amount.] He did not think the hon. Member quite understood that there were contracts of various kinds, and dealing with this question 784 the hon. and learned Gentleman meant to give relief in some cases and not in others, and the proposal that they wished to quarrel with was the limiting proposal. In other words, they quarrelled with the words which limited the relief by excepting a certain class of contracts. Why did the hon. and learned Gentleman propose to strike this blow at a certain class of contracts? He had distinctly told them that afternoon on another Amendment that he wished to discourage game preserving, but if he wished to do that he ought to bring in a different kind of Bill.
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said he had not said that he desired to discourage game preserving and he did not desire to do so. He did point out, however, that it was an object of public policy that game preserving should not be excessive. Where it existed compensation should be given for the burden it placed upon persons engaged in producing food for the million.
§ Mr. A. J. BALFOUR
did not know whether the House thought that he was engaged in misinterpreting the hon. and learned Member. At all events one of the reasons why the hon. Gentleman liked this Bill was that it was going to discourage the game preserver. But let the House take into account that that was not the object of the Bill. If it were it would have to prevent, not only the owner of the soil from excessive game preserving, but also the tenant to whom the game had been let both from excessive game preserving and from using the land let to him for the purpose of growing corn and roots for the purpose of rearing pheasants and partridges. The object expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman was not the object of the Bill and was not to be found in its framework. What object could there be in this violation of contract? If there was to be no allowing people to contract themselves out of compensation, then those evils would not be a diminishing quantity after the Government had passed the present Bill, because existing contracts would come to an end month by month and year by year, and the time would come when every tenancy would be held under the stringent conditions 785 of this Bill. So that so far as general considerations were concerned there was no great and permanent benefit to be gained by breaking these contracts. The tenants had entered into contracts under which the damage caused by game had been taken into consideration in fixing the rent. No doubt it had not been put down in figures, but the tenant took the farm with a full knowledge that the rent was justified by the conditions of the farm with game on it. Was a man who had received the contracted amount of compensation to receive compensation every year over again? If so, the Government were reduced to this unhappy conclusion, that simply in order to meet the case of a small class they were going to violate all the admitted principles which had governed legislation. That could not be right or wise, and it was opposed to all the traditions of the profession to which the Solicitor-General belonged. For the sake of a small and microscopic advantage the hon. and learned Gentleman was going to make a change which would go beyond the trifling and petty advantages which the Government proposed to gain if they adhered to this proposal. The Government had never argued their own case, but had contented themselves with quoting the precedent of six years ago. He submitted that when they were going to make a great departure from constitutional principles they ought to give some reasons for it.
§ MR. GIBBS (Bristol, W.)
said he had had some experience in letting farms, and he could unhesitatingly say that in the majority of cases a landlord let to the farmer who he thought was the best man. [Some LIBERAL MEMBERS: To the man who gives the most rent.] If landlords had pursued such a policy as hon. Members suggested I the state of agriculture in the country would be in a far worse position than it was at present. He felt certain that the majority of the Members of the House who knew anything about land would agree that all good landlords let their farms to the applicants who they considered would do the most good to the land. If the landlord let his farm in every case to the highest bidder the tenant in many 786 cases would take all he could out of the land and leave nothing to the man who came after him.
§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)
said the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill and the Solicitor- General placed different constructions upon their proposal. The Solicitor -General said the object of the Bill was to deal with the national food supply, but the hon. Baronet said its object was to prevent excessive game preservation except when compensation was paid to the tenant. It was in the latter light they had considered it. Supposing a tenant had made an arrangement with his landlord under which he received £50 a year as the equivalent for the damage caused by game. There was no express written agreement, but he received £50 a year for ten years and then when he received notice for bad farming or gave notice he might claim compensation which would include the sum he had received.
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said the right hon. Gentleman had put with great clearness a case which exactly illustrated the necessity for this Amendment—a case in which there was a contract or an arrangement to compensate for the damage done by game and where the damage was estimated at a definite amount first of all, although it was neither arranged nor in the contract, nor made before the tenancy was arrived at. That was precisely the arrangement which might be valid under this Amendment. It must not be assumed that the Amendment did nothing. It certainly did exactly what was put by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Not only might the arbitrator take it into account, he must take it into account. The Amendment dealt with two cases. It dealt with one which he imagined was somewhat rare, the case of an agreement in the contract to allow a definite amount for any damage done by game. Then it dealt with an alternative case which was precisely that put by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, where before the contract was arrived at terms had been discussed and the landlord and tenant had in some way combined to deal with the question. When it was proved 787 to the arbitrator that the matter had been treated in a definite way he was bound to take it into account. But where there was no definite amount, where it was an ordinary case of each party taking into account all the conditions, the case would not come under the Amendment.
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Cowan, W. H.||Hemmerde, Edward George|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Cox, Harold||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Alden, Percy||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.)|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Cremer, William Randal||Henry, Charles S|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Crombie, John William||Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)|
|Ambrose, Robert||Crooks, William||Higham. John Sharp|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Crosfield, A. H.||Hobart, Sir Robert|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Cross, Alexander||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.|
|Astbury, John Meir||Crossley, William J.||Hodge, John|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Hogan, Michael|
|Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)||Davies, M Vaughan-(Cardigan)||Holden, K. Hopkinson|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Hooper. A. G.|
|Barker, John||Delany, William||Horniman, Emslie John|
|Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset)||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey|
|Barnard, E. B.||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Hudson, Walter|
|Barnes, C. N.||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Dolan, Charles Joseph||Jackson, R. S.|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Donelan, Captain A.||Jenkins, J.|
|Beale, W. P.||Duckworth, James||Johnson, John (Gateshead)|
|Beauchamp, E.||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Johnson. W. (Nuneaton|
|Beaumont, Hn W. C. B. (Hexha'm||Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Bell, Richard||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Jones, William(Carnarvonshire|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)||Jowett, F. W.|
|Bennett, E. N.||Edwards, Frank (Radnor)||Joyce, Michael|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Elibank, Master of||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)||Ellis, Rt. Hon John Edward||Kekewich, Sir George|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Kennedy, Vincent Paul|
|Billson, Alfred||Evans, Samuel T.||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Eve, Harry Trelawney||Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James|
|Boland, John||Fenwick, Charles||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N.E.||Ferens, T. R.||Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster|
|Brace, William||Ffrench, Peter||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)|
|Branch, James||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Lambert, George|
|Brigg, John||Flynn, James Christopher||Lamont, Norman|
|Bright, J. A.||Fuller, John Michael F.||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)|
|Brodie, H. C.||Fullerton, Hugh||Layland-Barratt, Francis|
|Brooke, Stopford||Furness, Sir Christopher||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)|
|Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh.)||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Lehmann, R. C.|
|Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen||Gilhooly, James||Lever, W. H.(Cheshire, Wirral)|
|Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)||Gill, A. H||Levy, Maurice|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Ginnell, L.||Lloyd-George. Rt. Hon. David|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas||Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John||Lough, Thomas|
|Hyles, William Pollard||Glendinninig, R. G.||Lundon, W.|
|Cairns, Thomas||Gooch, George Peabody||Lupton, Arnold|
|Cameron, Robert||Greenwood, G (Peterborough||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Campbell- Bannerman, Sir H.||Greenwood. Hamar (York)||Lynch, H. B.|
|Carr-Gomm. H. W.||Gulland, John M.||Mackarness, Frederic C.|
|Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knigh||Haldane, Rt Hon. Richard B.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Hammond, John||Macpherson, J. T.|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)|
|Clarke, C. Goddard||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)|
|Cleland, J. W.||Hart-Davies, T.||M'Crae, George|
|Clough, William||Harwood, George||M'Killop, W.|
|Clynes, J. R.||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Maddison, Frederick|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Haworth, Arthur A||Mallet, Charles E.|
|Corbett, CH. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Hedges, A. Paget||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)|
§ Members opposite would be met by taking out the words proposed to be omitted and inserting the word "definite" in front of the previous word.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Aves, 305; Noes, 101. (Division List No. 386.)791
|Marnham, F. J.||Price, C. E.(Edinb'gh, Central)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Massie, J.||Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)||Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen, E.)|
|Masterman, C. F. G.||Radford, G. H.||Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)|
|Meagher, Michael||Rainy, A. Rolland||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Meehan, Patrick A.||Raphael, Herbert H.||Thorne, William|
|Menzies, Walter||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro)||Tomkinson, James|
|Micklem, Nathaniel||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Redmond, William (Clare)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Mond, A.||Rees, J. D.||Ure, Alexander|
|Money, L. G. Chiozza||Richards, T. F. (Wolvorh'mptor.)||Verney, F. W.|
|Montagu, E. S.||Rickett, J. Compton||Vivian, Henry|
|Mooney, J. J.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Walsh, Stephen|
|Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)||Walton, Sir John L.(Leeds, S.)|
|Morrell, Philip||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Walton, Joseph( Barnsley)|
|Morse, L. L.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Rogers, F. E. Newman||Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton|
|Murphy, John||Rose, Charles Day||Wardle, George J.|
|Murray, James||Rowlands, J.||Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)|
|Myer, Horatio||Runciman, Walter||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Nicholls, George||Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Watt, H. Anderson|
|Nolan, Joseph||Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Norman, Henry||Sears, J. E.||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Seaverns, J. H.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Nuttall, Harry||Shackleton, David James||Whitehead, Rowland|
|O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Wiles, Thomas|
|O'Connor, John ( Kildare, N.)||Silcock, Thomas Ball||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n|
|O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|O'Dowd, John||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||Williamson, A.|
|O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)||Snowden, P.||Wilson, Hon. C. H.W.(Hull, W.)|
|O'Mara, James||Soares, Ernest J.||Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. R.)|
|O'Shaughnessy. P. J.||Spicer, Sir Albert||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|O'Shee, James John||Stanger, H. Y.||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Parker, James (Halifax)||Steadman, W. C.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Paul, Herbert||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Winfrey, R.|
|Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Strachey, Sir Edward||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Young, Samuel|
|Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)||Stuart, James (Sunderland)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Summerbell, T.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Sutherland, J. E.||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Pirie, Duncan V.||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)||Pease.|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex. F.||Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Hamilton, Marquess of|
|Agnew, George William||Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H||Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)||Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)|
|Balfour, Rt Hn A. J. (City Lond.)||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Hervey, F.W.F.(BuryS. Edm'ds|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.|
|Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester||Craik, Sir Henry||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Dalmeny, Lord||Kimber, Sir Honry|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Doughty, Sir George||Lane-Fox, G. R.|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||Liddell, Henry|
|Beckett, Hon. Gorvase||Erskine, David C.||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)|
|Bertram, Julius||Fardell, Sir T. George||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Fell, Arthur||Lowe, Sir Francis William|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Moysey-Thompson, E. C.|
|Bull, Sir William James||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Forster, Henry William||Muntz, Sir Philip A.|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.)||Napier, T. B.|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Nield, Herbert|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Grant, Corrie||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Partington, Oswald|
|Paulton, James Mellor||Salter, Arthur Clavell||Valentia, Viscount|
|Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard|
|Percy, Earl||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Randles, Sir John Scurrah||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)||Whitbread, Howard|
|Ratcliff, Major R. F.||Starkey, John R.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Stone, Sir Benjamin||Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid)|
|Remnant, James Farquharson||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Renton, Major Leslie||Talbot, Rt. Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Ridsdale, E. A.||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury|
|Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert||Thornton, Percy M.||Everett and Colonel Lock-|
|Rutherford, John (Lancashire)||Turnour, Viscount||wood.|
§ Original question again proposed.
§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY
moved an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to insert after "made" in line 4, the words "or where payments or allowances have been made by the landlord in respect of such damage." The case he wished to provide for was that in which, after the contract had been made, the landlord voluntarily gave compensation year by year to a tenant for damage by game. The matter was not raised at the time the contract was entered into, but because the landlord recognised that damage had been done, or was being done, by game he voluntarily made a rebate every year. When compensation was claimed by an outgoing tenant in such a case, as it might be, it would be hard upon the landlord if the arbitrator was not allowed to take it into consideration.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
In line 4, after the word 'made' to insert the words 'or where payments or allowances have been made by the landlord in respect of such damage.'"—(Colonel Kenyon-Slaney.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment to the Bill."
§ THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. URE, Linlithgowshire)
said it was entirely unnecessary to introduce the words proposed. Any intelligent arbitrator would of course take into account any payments which the landlord had made in respect of damage by game.
§ MR. RAWLINSON
said that no doubt under ordinary circumstances the construction of the hon. and learned Gentle- 792 man was perfectly reasonable, but here it was expressly defined what the arbitrator had to take into account in dealing with the question. In a case where there was a long lease and the rent was originally fixed at a high sum, rebate might be made year by year, sometimes for damage by game and sometimes owing to bad times, and the arbitrator ought to have to find out the proportions. The Amendment of his right hon. friend could do no harm to the Amendment of the Solicitor-General.
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said all that the clause dealt with was compensation for damage by game, and any payment in respect thereof would undoubtedly be taken into account. If it were shown as to part of the damage that it had been treated as an equivalent claim compensation did not arise.
MR. LYTTLETON (St. George's, Hanover Square)
thought there was some doubt about the matter. He perfectly agreed with both the Solicitor-General for England and the Solicitor-General for Scotland that in any ordinary case a competent arbitrator would be bound to deduct any payments that had been made. But the crucial point was that special provision was made that this thing and that thing were to be taken into account, and it seemed more than doubtful whether it would not be held afterwards that in specific cases the arbitrator might make these deductions, but not in others.
SIR W. ROBSOX
contended that it could not be said that they had expressed something which would imply the exclusion of other things.
§ COLONEL LOCKWOOD
asked how simple laymen could understand what 793 the Government meant by this clause when two learned Members on one side said one thing and two learned Members on the other said something else. It surely ought to be possible for the Solicitor-General to set out this clause in such a manner that both landlord and tenant might be able to understand it, and so that justice might be done to both parties without having to call in gentlemen to indulge in whom was the most expensive form of luxury.
§ the main Amendment. If hon. and learned Members could not understand it the average tenant farmer would not be able to do so. This was only another instance of the trouble the Government had got themselves into by their ill-considered Amendments to a Bill introduced by other people.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 81; Noes 332. (Division List No. 387.)
|Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Montgomery. H. G.|
|Cawley, Frederick||Haworth, Arthur A.||Mooney, J. J.|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Hazel. Dr. A. E.||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Hedges, A. Paget||Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)|
|Clarke, C. Goddard||Hemmerde, Edward George||Morrell, Philip|
|Cleland, J. W.||Henderson, Arthur(Durham)||Morse, L. L.|
|Clough, William||Henderson. J M(Aberdeen, W.)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Clynes. J. R.||Henry. Charles S.||Murphy, John|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)||Murray. James|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W.||Herbert, T. Arnold(Wycombe)||Myer. Horatio|
|Corbett, CH(Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Higham, John Sharp||Napier, T. B.|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Hobart, Sir Robert||Nicholls. George|
|Cowan, W. H.||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r)|
|Cox, Harold||Hodge, John||Nolan, Joseph|
|Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)||Hogan, Michael||Norman, Henry|
|Cremer, William Randal||Holden, E. Hopkinson||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Crombie, John William||Hooper, A. G.||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Horniman, Emslie John||Nuttall, Harry|
|Cross, Alexander||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||O'Brien. Kendal(Tipperary Mid|
|Crossley, William J.||Hudson, Walter||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Dalmeny, Lord||Illingworth, Percy H.||O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Jackson, R. S.||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Davies, Ellis William(Eifion)||Jenkins, J.||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Davies, M. Vaugban-(Cardigan)||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||O'Donnell. C. J. (Walworth)|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||O'Dowd, John|
|Delany, William||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||O'Kelly. James(Roscommon, N'|
|Dewar, Arthur(Edinburgh, S.)||Jowett, F. W.||O'Malley. William|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Joyce, Michael||O'Mara, James|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Kearley, Hudson E.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Dolan, Charles Joseph||Kekewich, Sir George||O'Shee, James John|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Parker, James(Halifax)|
|Duckworth, James||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Partington. Oswald|
|Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness||Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James||Paul, Herbert|
|Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Laidlaw, Robert||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall)||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)|
|Edwards, Frank (Radnor)||Lambert, George||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)|
|Elibank, Master of||Lamont, Norman||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Erskine, David C.||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)||Radford. G. H.|
|Evans, Samuel T.||Lehmann, R. C.||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich||Raphael. Herbert H.|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Lever, W. H.(Cheshire, Wirral)||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Fenwick, Charles||Levy, Maurice||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')|
|Ferens, T. R.||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Redmond. John E. (Waterford)|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Lough, Thomas||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Ffrench, Peter||Lundon, W.||Rees, J. D.|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Lupton, Arnold||Renton, Major Leslie|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Lyell, Charles Henry||Richards, T. F.(Wolverhampt'n)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Lynch, H. B.||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs)||Ridsdale, K. A.|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Mackarness. Frederic C.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Roberts. John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Gardner, Col. Alan(Hereford, S.)||Macpherson, J. T.||Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Gill, A. H.||MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Ginnell, L.||M'Crae, George||Rogers. F. E. Newman|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John||M'Killop, W.||Rose. Charles Day|
|Glendinning, R. G.||Maddison, Frederick||Rowlands, J.|
|Gooch, George Peabody||Mallet, Charles E.||Runciman, Walter|
|Grant, Corrie||Mansfield. H. Rendall (Lincoln)||Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Marnham, F.J.||Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne)|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Massie, J.||Sears, J. E.|
|Gulland, John W.||Masterman, C. F. G.||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Meagher, Michael||Seely, Major J. B.|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Meehan, Patrick A.||Shackleton. David James|
|Hammond, John||Menzies, Walter||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Micklem, Nathaniel||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)||Molteno, Percy Alport||Shipman. Dr. John G.|
|Hart-Davies, T.||Mond, A.||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Harwood, George||Montagu, E. S.||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Torrance, Sir A. M.||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Snowden, P.||Ure, Alexander||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Scares, Ernest J.||Verney, F. W.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Spicer, Sir Albert||Vivian, Henry||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Stanger, H. Y.||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n)|
|Steadman, W. C.||Walsh, Stephen||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)||Wilson, Hon. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)|
|Strachey. Sir Edward||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)||Wilson, Henry J. (York. W. R.)|
|Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mill)|
|Stuart, James (Sunderland)||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Sullivan, Donal||Wardle, George J.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Summerbell, T.||Wason, Engene (Clackmannan)||Winfrey, R.|
|Sutherland, J. E.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid|
|Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)||Waterlow, D. S.||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Watt, H. Anderson||Young, Samuel|
|Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Whitbread, Howard|
|Thomasson, Franklin||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E||White, Luke (York, E. R.)||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Tomkinson, James||White, Patrick (Meath, North)||Pease.|
§ Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
§ MR. BEALE (Ayrshire, S.)
expressed his regret that he was prevented by accident from moving his previous Amendment. He hoped there would be an opportunity of putting the matter right in another place. The intention of the Amendment he desired to move now was to express and make perfectly definite the intention of the framers of this section in order to make it work smoothly and fairly. There was a danger that the tenant might grow his crops with a view to obtaining compensation, and he might neglect to get them in with proper care. It was essential that reasonable precautions should be taken to mitigate damage. The Amendment he now proposed was in the following terms—Provided also that the arbitrator shall take into consideration the question whether the crop was a proper mode of cultivation and that no compensation shall be included for damage which the arbitrator shall deem to be due to the neglect or refusal of the tenant to take such precautions to mitigate or prevent the damage as he could reasonably have taken without himself incurring any special expense for the purpose, and having regard to any permission or facilities given or offered by the landlord.The last words of the Amendment were intended to safeguard the tenant against having to incur extra expense in order to prevent damage by game. It was not suggested that the arbitrator should be able to say to the tenant that a certain amount of damage could have been prevented if he had armed a sufficient number of boys with guns or pistols to shoot the game. The arbitrator was only 798 to take into consideration what the tenant could be expected to do without increasing his staff. Above all, he was to have regard to the fact that game frequently came from the ground belonging to another landlord. The landlord would go to his neighbour and say that he must keep the game from coming or give the tenant compensation. It had been pointed out that that would not give complete protection in pheasant counties, but it would enable them to come to some reasonable arrangement without friction. What he wanted was that the arbitrator should be able to take into account reasonable conduct all round.
§ COLONEL LOCKWOOD
seconded the Amendment, remarking that it was an extremely fair one, and that probably, as it was moved by one of their own supporters, the Government might see fit to insert it. A tenant might, with the view of obtaining compensation for damage, abstain from taking certain precautions which he might fairly have boon expected to take. He might do so by leaving crops exposed to wind and wet, or he might, departing from the ordinary custom of the country as to the cropping, grow wheat in a field contiguous to a place whore it was known that game existed, a thing which he might have no right to do under his lease. It should be proved that the tenant had not neglected to take reasonable precautions against damage by game, provided that such precautions could be taken without expense to himself. He thought they were all agreed that that would be perfectly fair. A landlord, for instance, 799 might say to a tenant, "Your crops are open to the attacks of game from my cover. I will send down so many hundred yards of wire or netting, and I will send my men to do the fencing"—and that case was happening every other day— but if the tenant said he did not want the men that day, and left the wire or the netting lying about the hedgerows until it was practically useless, he would have neglected precautions to protect himself against damage by game which the landlord was ready to afford. Other precautions which the landlord was willing to give might be neglected by the tenant, and the landlord might be put in a very unfair position.
In page 2, line 20, after the word 'made,' to insert the words ' Provided also that the arbitrator shall take into consideration the question whether the crop was a proper mode of cultivation and that no compensation shall be included for damage which the arbitrator shall deem to be due to the neglect or refusal of the tenant to lake such precautions to mitigate or prevent the damage as he could reasonably have taken without himself incurring any special expense for the purpose, and having regard to any permission or facilities given or offered by the landlord.' "(Mr. Beale.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said the Amendment was very vague. The argument in favour of it had been temperately and moderately stated, and it was one which might appeal to the reason of anyone, but when they came to look into the proposal they found that it was certainly one which would turn a simple controversy or inquiry between landlord and tenant into a very serious and substantial litigation. The inquiry which this Amendment would involve might possibly necessitate the employment of solicitors and counsel at the arbitrations and the payment of substantial fees. The question whether a tenant had followed the proper and ordinary mode of cultivation in the country was a difficult matter to decide, and it could only be decided after elaborate inquiry. The Government could not accept the Amendment. It should not be imagined that the landlord was entirely without protection. There was a very excellent principle of English law that no man should profit by his own wrong, and that principle was imported 800 into every Act of Parliament. Therefore, if a tenant left his crop to the inclement influences of wind and wet, and if, watching it day by day, he, instead of delighting in its progress and hailing the sunshine, looked to the period when he would have a valuable claim, he would find himself disappointed. He would not be entitled to gain advantage from his own wrong. The Amendment would open up a very doubtful field of investigation, and it might be an extremely serious matter if the words received a very strict and unfriendly construction. The Government, on the whole, were content to rest upon the principle that a man should not profit by his own wrong. The arbitrator could not allow a tenant to take advantage of his own wrong, and they must leave him to deal generally with these matters, which would undoubtedly affect in his mind the amount of compensation.
§ *MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)
said there wore cases in which a farmer might lure game on to his farm, and it seemed to him that in such cases the arbitrator would have no such discretion as that to which the Solicitor-General had referred. There would be the tenancy, the game, and the damage. The game had caused the damage, and it would not be open to the arbitrator to take into consideration any of the causes due to the neglect of the tenant. The general rule of the law that a tenant or anybody else must not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong was one which in this case would not apply. It was not a wrongful act for a tenant to crop in any way he thought proper if the terms of his agreement permitted his doing so, nor would the arbitrator be able to take into consideration any such suggestion as to the tenant not having taken the precautions necessary to drive away the game.
§ *MR. BRIDGEMAN (Shropshire, Oswestry)
said the Amendment was all the more necessary on account of the fact that the tenant was under no obligation to give notice of damage to the croptill three weeks before it was reaped. He would like to ask the Solicitor-General if a man came to him on the 1st of August and said that his crop had been damaged by game in the spring, how would he satisfy himself as 801 to the truth of his statement? And how would he satisfy himself that the man's fields had boon cultivated according to good methods of husbandry? It was, therefore, all the more necessary to accept the Amendment. He understood that this Bill was intended to defend the good tenant from the bad landlord, and the good landlord from the bad tenant, but here was a distinct refusal on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman to protect the good landlord from the bad tenant.
§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY
said the gist of the Solicitor-General's argument seemed to be that injustice might possibly follow an act done by a tenant, but that as it was difficult to devise a proper form of words to remedy that injustice, they should leave that injustice alone. He thought that that was rather hard lines, and that the Government should really try to select a proper form of words. He did not want to press the idea that there would be either malignant or fraudulent tenants; but still there would be considerable temptation to some men to try to take advantage of the Act of Parliament for their own benefit.
§ MR. URE
said he would remind the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the clause now under consideration bore a strong family likeness to a clause in the Act. of 1877 which owed its form largely to the right hon. Gentleman himself. In Committee upstairs there was not a hint of a suggestion that such an instruction as was embodied in the Amendment should be introduced, and he thought it was entirely unnecessary. Were the House really going to say that an arbitrator, selected by intelligent landlords and tenants to settle a claim for damages, would have so little sense as not to be able to see when a man had wilfully courted damage, and that therefore he was not entitled to compensation? He might not have the maxim volenti non fit injuria always before him, but he would have the spirit of that maxim in his mind, and would not be likely to give the tenant damages for his own failure to take the precautions referred to in the Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT TURNOUR
said that it seemed to him, at first sight certainly, and with the law as it stood at present, 802 that the first part of this Amendment was more or less unnecessary. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved it to say that the first part of the Amendment was to prevent the farmer cultivating and growing an improper crop for the purpose of obtaining compensation. Under the law, as it stood at present, he thought both sides of the House would agree that that was an exceptional case, and not likely to occur. Under the law, however, as it was proposed to be altered by this Bill he was not sure it would be such an exceptional case. Looking at this clause and another to be subsequently discussed, and also to the amount of compensation which it was proposed to pay under the Bill for different classes of damage, he was bound to admit that it might be possible in very exceptional cases for an unscrupulous tenant to grow a crop for the purpose of compensation. Supposing, for instance, a tenant farmer whose land was very poor and unsuited for market gardening turned it into a market garden and wished to cultivate strawberries. He would have an object for doing so, though not a very proper one, viz., that he might obtain two classes of compensation—the first for damage done to his strawberries by game; and, secondly, when he loft his holding, for so-called improvements. The cultivation of strawberries might not be an improvement to the farm at all in the long run. He thought also there was a second point which had escaped the notice of the House. There was no reason why an unscrupulous farmer should not feed his land for the purpose of attracting partridges and pheasants upon it. Everyone would agree with him that if they put down amongst strawberries a certain amount of maize and corn considerable injury would be done by pheasants or partridges. The hon. Member for Cardiff laughed. Did he see anything very extraordinary—
§ VISCOUNT TURNOUR
said he could not carry on an argument across the floor of the House, but when he sat down perhaps the hon. Gentleman would tell the House where the intrinsic absurdity came in in the instance he had given. There was nothing absurd in a farmer 803 wishing to cultivate strawberries for the purpose he had referred to. Coming to the second part of the Amendment, namely—That no compensation shall be included for damage which the arbitrator shall deem to be due to the neglect or refusal of the tenant to take such precautions to mitigate or prevent the damage as he could reasonably have taken without himself incurring any special expense for the purpose and having regard to any permission or facilities given or offered by the landlord,he was bound to confess that he saw no hardship in the proposed Amendment to cither tenant or landlord. He thought one hon. Gentleman opposite had admitted that in many respects it was a reasonable Amendment: it was exceedingly necessary before compensation was paid that tenants should do their best to prevent damage being done to their crops. Even if the House and the Government refused to accept the first part of the Amendment, they should accept the second part. Under the Bill as it stood it gave an opening which, however, might only be taken advantage of in rare instances, to an unscrupulous farmer to grow a crop, say, of strawberries simply for the purpose of obtaining compensation of two classes and a crop which did not pay, but which would pay on the grounds he had mentioned.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
said the hon. Member was not entitled to make a speech. He could withdraw his Amendment.
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex. F.||Bull, Sir William James||Craik, Sir Henry|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Burdett-Coutts, W.||Cross, Alexander|
|Balcarres, Lord||Butcher, Samuel Henry||Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond)||Carlile, E. Hildred||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Castlereagh, Viscount||Fardell, Sir T. George|
|Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Finch. Rt. Hon. George H.|
|Barrie, H.T. (Londonderry, N.)||Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Forster, Henry William|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Coats, E. Feetham (Lewisham)||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Hamilton, Marquess of|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)|
§ in consequence of what the learned Solicitor-General for Scotland had said.
§ Leave to withdraw Amendment refused.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Glare, E.)
said his whole attitude towards the Amendment had been changed by the speech of the noble Lord above the gangway and by his cogent, lucid, and closely reasoned argument. He did not think anyone could have thrown more light upon the subject. For instance, he did not believe that there was any man in this House into whose mind it would have entered that the tenant might ruin the land in order to grow a crop of strawberries. That put the matter in an entirely different light. He appealed to the noble Lord not to do what he understood he was about to do and leave his Party for some time. He could not blame the noble Lord or anyone for wanting to leave the Party. He would ask the noble Lord, however, to respond to the call of duty, to stand by the ship and not desert it at the present moment. He did not know what they would do in these complicated debates in which nice law points suddenly occurred if they were deprived of his services. One naturally liked to see the Party to which one was opposed reach the lowest possible level of power, but he did not think any one wanted to see the Party deprived of the noble Lord's services.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURY
thought that the statement of the Solicitor-General for Scotland fell to the ground, as there was no power to appoint an arbitrator.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 68; Noes, 307. (Division List No. 388.)
|Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.||Percy, Earl||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ)|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Randles, Sir John Scurrah||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark|
|Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury, S. Edm'ds||Ratcliff, Major R. F.||Turnour, Viscount|
|Hills, J. W.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Valentia, Viscount|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.||Remnant, James Farquharson||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard|
|Kimber, Sir Henry||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Lane-Fox, G. R.||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Salter, Arthur Clavell||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Lowe, Sir Francis William||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East|
|Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||Starkey, John R.||Beale and Colonel Lockwood.|
|Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)||Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W||Hart-Davies, T.|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Harwood, George|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)|
|Agnew, George William||Cowan, W. H.||Haworth, Arthur A.|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Hazel, Dr. A. E.|
|Allen. Charles P. (Stroud)||Cremer, William Randal||Hedges, A. Paget|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Crombie, John William||Hemmerde, Edward George|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Crosfield, A. H.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Astbury, John Meir||Crossley, William J.||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Dalmeny, Lord||Henry, Charles S.|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Dalziel, James Henry||Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Davies, David (Montgomery C.||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)|
|Barker, John||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Higham, John Sharp|
|Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Hobart, Sir Robert|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Delany, William||Hodge, John|
|Barnard, E. B.||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Hogan, Michael|
|Barnes, G. N.||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Holden, E. Hopkinson|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Hooper, A. G.|
|Beaumont, Hon. H. (Eastbourne||Dolan, Charles Joseph||Horniman, Emslie John|
|Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexh'm)||Donelan, Captain A.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Duckworth, James||Hudson, Walter|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)||Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel|
|Bennett. E. N.||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Jackson, R. S.|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)||Jenkins, J.|
|Bertram, Julius||Elibank, Master of||Johnson, John (Gateshead)|
|Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)||Erskine, David C.||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Billson, Alfred||Evans, Samuel T.||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Eve, Harry Trelawney||Jowett, F. W.|
|Boland, John||Everett, R. Lacey||Joyce, Michael|
|Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)||Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Brace, William||Fenwick, Charles||Kekewich, Sir George|
|Branch, James||Ferens, T. R.||Kennedy, Vincent Paul|
|Brigg, John||Ferguson, R. C. Munro||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)|
|Bright, J. A.||Ffrench, Peter||Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James|
|Brodie, H. C.||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Brooke, Stopford||Flynn, James Christopher||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)|
|Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J.T. (Cheshire||Fuller, John Michael F.||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)|
|Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)||Fullerton, Hugh||Lambert, George|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Furness, Sir Christopher||Lamont, Norman|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.||Gill, A. H.||Layland-Barratt, Francis|
|Byles, William Pollard||Ginnell, L.||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)|
|Cameron, Robert||Gladston, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Lehmann, R. C.|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Glendinning, R. C.||Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Grant, Corrie||Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)|
|Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Levy, Maurice|
|Cawley, Frederick||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Lough, Thomas|
|Churchill, Winston Shencer||Gulland, John W.||Lundon, W.|
|Clarke, C. Goddard||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Lupton, Arnold|
|Cleland, J. W.||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Clough, William||Hammond, John||Lynch, H. B.|
|Clynes, J. R.||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)||Mackarness, Frederic C.|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Partington, Oswald||Summerbell, T.|
|Macpherson, J. T.||Paul, Herbert||Sutherland, J. E.|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.||Paulton, James Mellor||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|M'Crae, George||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury|
|M'Kean, John||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|M'Killop, W.||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Thompson. J. W. H. (Somerset, E|
|Maddison, Frederick||Pirie, Duncan V.||Tomkinson, James|
|Mallet, Charles E.||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Torrance. Sir A. M.|
|Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)||Radford, G. H.||Ure, Alexander|
|Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston||Rainy, A. Rolland||Verney, F. W.|
|Marnham, F. J.||Raphael, Herbert H.||Vivian, Henry|
|Massie, J.||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Masterman, C. F. G.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Walsh, Stephen|
|Meagher, Michael||Rees, J. D.||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)|
|Meehan, Patrick A.||Renton, Major Leslie||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Menzies, Walter||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent|
|Micklem, Nathaniel||Rickett, J. Compton||Ward, W. Dudley (South'mpton)|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Ridsdale, E. A.||Wardle, George J.|
|Mond, A.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Montagu, E. S.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Montgomery, K. G.||Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Mooney, J. J.||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Watt, H. Anderson|
|Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Robinson, S.||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||White. J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Morrell, Philip||Rogers, F. E. Newman||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Morse, L. L.||Rose, Charles Day||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Rowlands, J.||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Murphy, John||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Murray, James||Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Napier, T. B.||Sears, J. E.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Shackleton, David James||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Nicholls, George||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n)|
|Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Nolan, Joseph||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Silcock, Thomas Ball||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Nussey, Thomas Willans||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Nuttall, Harry||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||Winfrey, R.|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Snowden, P.||Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid)|
|O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)||Soares, Ernest J.||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Spicer, Sir Albert||Young, Samuel|
|O'Dowd, John||Steadman, W. C.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N||Strachey, Sir Edward||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|O'Malley, William||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Stuart, James (Sunderland)||Pease.|
|O'Shee, James John||Sullivan, Donal|
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 2, line 21, after the word 'kill,' to insert the word 'the.'"—(Colonel Kenyon-Slaney.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'the' be there inserted in the Bill."
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. ABEL SMITH
moved an Amendment to provide that the shooting tenant should be entitled to the same notice of a claim for damage as that to be given to the landlord. He thought it was an Amendment which the Government would have no difficulty in accepting. The hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill would observe that in the case of the 808 landlord where damage had been done and compensation had to be paid by him, he was entitled to have further notice, so that he might be able to ascertain whether a fair claim had been made and whether so much damage had been done as was alleged. And by the third section, where the right to kill game had been vested in a third person, the landlord was entitled to be indemnified by that third person. Under these circumstances it was only fair and just that the third person, the shooting tenant, should be entitled to the same notice that the landlord received. He begged to move.
§ VISCOUNT TURNOUR
seconded the Amendment, which he imagined the 809 Government would have no difficulty in accepting as it was only just that the shooting tenant should have the same rights as the landlord under this section.
In page 2, line 24, at end, to add the words, 'Such other person shall be entitled to the same notice of intention to make a claim as the landlord is entitled to under this section, and the same limit of time within which a claim can be made shall apply.' "—(Mr. Abel Smith.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY
expressed the opinion that it was worth while to accept this Amendment if only for the reason that in all probability when the shooting tenant received this notice he would more often than not step in and settle the claim, and in most cases settle it very generously.
§ THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LAMBERT, Devonshire, South Molton)
said the acceptance of this Amendment would be to throw an obligation on the tenant to give notice to a third party whom he did not know. The better plan would be to let the whole thing be done together. The shooting was very often let to different people every year and the tenant had no means of finding out who the shooting tenant was. The landlord did know. Therefore, with great respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite he could not accept the Amendment. It would add complexity to the Act. They had already given power to the landlord to be indemnified by the person to whom he let the shooting. Surely under these circumstances they might leave this matter where it was.
§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.)
said he certainly was surprised at the attitude of the Government in this matter. Of one thing he was certain and that was that the learned Solicitor-General for Scotland would be in favour of this Amendment. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty had said it was very desirable that it should not be made more difficult for the tenant to get compensation, which 810 would be the case if he had to give an additional notice. But the hon. and learned Solicitor-General for Scotland had told the House how well the Scottish Act worked and that there the tenant had no difficulty. Section 7 of that Act provided that no action could be taken by a lessee against a lessor unless notice had been given by the lessee of his intention to take the same, and the third section of that Act defined the word "lessor" to mean the grantor of a lease of a farm for not less than two years, or any person holding under him. Under the law of Scotland notice had to be given by the tenant to the grantor or any person holding under him. But apart from the question of law, equity demanded that such notice should be given to the shooting tenant. Let them take the case of a field of potatoes next a cover. In a dry year pheasants would come out of the cover and do a deal of damage by scratching among and uncovering the potatoes. That would take place comparatively early in the autumn months. If the shooting tenant got notice of that at the time he could send his keepers round and prevent it by wiring off that part of the field or in some other manner. But if the farmer had to claim from the landlord and the landlord in turn from the shooting tenant all he could say was that if he were the shooting tenant he would turn round and say he had been very unfairly treated in not having had notice earlier. But the landlord might not have had notice at the time. He suggested that instead of adopting the circuitous methods so beloved by all Governments, the comparatively simple method of dealing with the matter by accepting this Amendment should be adopted.
§ MR. HICKS BEACH
was surprised the Government could not accept this Amendment, and also at the arguments that had been urged against it. He failed to see that there would be any difficulty in the tenant's finding out who the shooting tenant was. It would be very unfair for the landlord to be able to come down on the shooting tenant in order to be indemnified for damage done by game, without giving the shooting tenant an opportunity of investigating the extent of the damage.
§ MR. URE
said that what would happen would be that the tenant would make a claim against the landlord, who, knowing he had a right of relief from the shooting tenant, would on receiving the claim instantly intimate the fact to the shooting tenant so as to enable him to defend the claim. The tenant did not need to give any intimation to anybody but the man who had let the land to him, leaving the landlord to obtain his own relief against the shooting tenant, which he was well enabled to do without any express provision to this effect. This clause had been well considered by the Government. It would be a little hard to insert the Amendment now suggested, because if by any mischance notice was not given by the tenant to the shooting tenant the former's claim against the landlord would be barred merely because he had made the technical mistake of not giving notice to the shooting tenant. It would be putting too heavy a burden on the tenant without any corresponding advantage to the landlord.
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex F.||Cross, Alexander||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Fell, Arthur||Rawlinson, John Frederick Pee|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Balcarres, Lord||Forster, Henry William||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'd||Starkey. John R.|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Hills, J. W.||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)|
|Bull, Sir William James||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W||Turnour, Viscount|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Kimber, Sir Henry||Valentia, Viscount|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Cave, George||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.- Col. A. R.|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Lowe, Sir Francis William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Abel Smith and Mr. Hicks|
|Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington||Beach.|
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)||Beale, W. P.||Bright, J. A.|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Bellairs, Carlyon||Brodie, H. C.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp't)||Brooke, Stopford|
|Agnew, George William||Bennett. E. N.||Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Berridge, T. H. D.||Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Bertram, Julius||Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)||Burke, E. Haviland-|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Burnyeat, W. J. D.|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Billson, Alfred||Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Byles, William Pollard|
|Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset||Boland, John||Carr-Gomm, H. W.|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)||Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight|
|Barnard, E. B.||Brace, William||Cheetham, John Frederick|
|Barnes, G. N.||Branch, James||Clarke, C. Goddard|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Brigg, John||Cleland, J. W.|
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURY
said it would not be any advantage to the landlord, but he thought the shooting tenant would be put into a very hard position if notice was not given him. The claim should be made against the landlord, but if they were going to allow the landlord to make a counter - claim against the shooting tenant, they must give the hitter some opportunity of making a defence. If the shooting tenant received notice at the same time as the landlord he would be able to act. If, however, he did not receive a notice until he got it in the form of a claim from the landlord some time afterwards, it would be impossible for him to get any evidence in mitigation of the claim. It was absurd to suggest that the tenant did not know who the shooting tenant was. The only difficulty was writing an extra letter and buying an extra stamp.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 53; Noes, 275. Division List No. 389).
|Clough, William||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||O'Malley, William|
|Clynes, J. R.||Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Jowett, F. W.||O'Shee, James John|
|Collins, Sir Win. J. (S. Pancras)||Joyce, Michael||Partington, Oswald|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstd)||Kearley, Hudson E.||Paul, Herbert|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Kekewich, Sir George||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Cowan, W. H.||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Cox, Harold||Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)|
|Cremer, William Randal||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Laidlaw, Robert||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)||Radford, G. H.|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Delany, William||Lambert, George||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Lamont, Norman||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Dolan, Charles Joseph||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Redmond. William (Clare)|
|Duckworth, James||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)||Rees, J. D.|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Lehmann, R. C.||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn|
|Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)||Levy, Maurice||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Elibank, Master of||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Roberts, John H. Denbighs.|
|Erskine, David C.||Lough, Thomas||Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Lundon, W.||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Evans, Samuel T.||Lupton, Arnold||Robinson, S.|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||Lyell, Charles Henry||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Lynch, H. B.||Rose, Charles Day|
|Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bghs.)||Rowlands, J.|
|Fenwick, Charles||Mackarness, Frederic C.||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Ferens, T. R.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Sears, J. E.|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Macpherson, J. T.||Shackleton, David James|
|Ffrench, Peter||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||MacVeigh, Chas.(Donegal, E.)||Shipman. Dr. John G.|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||M'Crae, George||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Flynn, James Christopher||M'Kean, John||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||M'Killop, W.||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Fullerton, Hugh||M'Micking, Major G.||Snowden, P.|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||Maddison, Frederick||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Cardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S)||Mallet, Charles E.||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Gilhooly, James||Mansfield, H. Kendall (Lincoln)||Steaclman, W. C.|
|Gill. A. H.||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Marnham, F. J.||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Grant, Corrie||Massie, J.||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Meagher, Michael||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Gulland, John W.||Meehan, Patrick A.||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Menzies, Walter||Sullivan, Donal|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Micklem, Nathaniel||Summerbell, T.|
|Hammond, John||Molteno, Percy Alport||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Mond, A.||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Hart-Davies, T.||Montagu, E. S.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Montgomery, H. G.||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Mooney, J. J.||Tomkinson, James|
|Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Hedges, A. Paget||Morrell, Philip||Ure, Alexander|
|Hemmerde, Edward George||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Verney, F. W.|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Murphy, John||Vivian, Henry|
|Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.||Murray, James||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Henry, Charles S.||Napier, T. B.||Walsh, Stephen|
|Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Nicholls, George||Walters, John Tudor|
|Higham, John Sharp||Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Hobart, Sir Robert||Nolan, Joseph||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)|
|Hodge, John||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton|
|Hogan, Michael||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Wardle, George J.|
|Holden, E. Hopkinson||Nuttall, Harry||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Hooper, A. G.||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Horniman, Emslie John||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Watt, H. Anderson|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Hudson, Walter||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Jackson, R. S.||O'Dowd, John||White, Luke (York, E. R.]|
|Johnson, John (Gateshead)||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)||Young, Samuel|
|Wiles, Thomas||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Williams, J. (Glamorgan)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n)||Winfrey, R.||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)||Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid)||Pease.|
§ ME. COCHRANE
moved an Amendment excluding Scotland from the operation of the Act. He said he did not object to Scottish farmers having the protection which was claimed for them under the Act. but his objection was that it removed a good deal of the protection which Scottish tenant farmers already enjoyed. The Act did not apply to Ireland, although he understood that a good case could be made out for applying it to that country. The law upon. this subject affecting Ireland was the same as in England, whereas in Scotland they had had an Act of Parliament for thirty years which had operated extremely well. The Solicitor-General had admitted that the Act of 1877 had worked admirably in Scotland, but it was now proposed by the Government to remove Scotland from the operation of that Act and place her under a totally different set of provisions. The Scottish law on the subject at the present time was clear and intelligible. It had been the subject of many decisions and had given universal satisfaction. Under the Scottish law there was this provision for arbitration. Each party might nominate an arbitrator, and before they set to work these two men nominated a third party in case they could not come to an agreement. The Government now proposed to remove this excellent arrangement and to substitute a rigid cast-iron system, under which the landlord and tenant had to agree upon one arbitrator, and in case of a dispute to appeal to the Secretary of the Board of Agriculture, who could appoint some friend of his own, who would have to settle the amount of the damage by game. The tenant farmers of Scotland would not be one whit better off under this Bill than they were at the present moment—in fact he thought they would be distinctly worse off. At present the Scottish tenant farmer was entitled to damage from his landlord if the damage from game exceeded one shilling per acre. In cases where no agreement existed between 816 landlord and tenant the farmer could claim compensation for damage exceeding 40s. for the whole of his farm. The farmer would now have to go through two processes. The first was that he would have to prove that there had been damage to a greater extent than Is. per acre; and in the second place he would have to go to the arbitrator to have the amount of the damage settled. What would be the tenant's position? The damage might be in spots all over the farm where the barley or wheat had been blown down by the storm, for that was the time when the pheasants did the damage. The tenant would have to show that a certain acreage had been damaged to the extent of 1s. per acre. When he had made his claim before the arbitrator and shown the damage he would perhaps only be able to prove damage to five or ten acres, and the rest of the damage to his farm he would not be able to prove. By this Bill they were restricting the tenant's power of claiming damage, they were not facilitating the opportunities he had of getting compensation and the general scheme of the clause did not commend itself to the tenants of Scotland. If he could see anything in this Bill which would make it easier for the Scottish tenant farmer to get any advantage he should heartily support this measure, but he did not see anything in it that would be of any benefit to the tenant farmers of Scotland.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 2, line 24, at the end, to insert the words, ' (4) This section shall not apply to Scotland.' "—(Mr. Cochrane.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill. "
§ And, it being a quarter past Eight of the clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.