HL Deb 16 July 1874 vol 221 cc107-17

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he admitted that legislation was not so much required for the protection of tenants of largo landed estates in the hands of individual owners, as for those of estates held by corporate bodies and trustees. These were neither few in number nor small in extent, and in respect of these the operation of the Bill would be most beneficial. In the case of those held by corporations, there were generally no funds by which the necessary improvements could be effected; and in the case of land held in trust, there were obvious prudential reasons why the trustees were unwilling or unable to do so. He thought, therefore, that any legislation by which the tenants should be enabled to make the improvements themselves, without the risk of losing their money, could not but be of public advantage. The effect of the present state of the law was most injurious. He knew a case of an estate in one of the Midland Counties which was devised by will to a tenant for life, and then to trustees for 21 years. The consequence was that nothing had been done for years; the buildings were in a ruinous condition, and the land was utterly unimproved. He had obtained some in- formation with respect to the estates held by corporations in Scotland, and as the result of his inquiries he found that in the county of Aberdeen, out of a rental of £267,000, no less than £160,000 was held by trustees or corporate bodies. Again, in Edinburgh, out of estates the rentals of which amounted to £580,000 a-year, property to the value of £163,000 a-year was held by corporations; and with respect to Renfrewshire, the proportion was as £560,000 to £112,000. If, therefore, that was the case with respect to two or three Scotch counties, they might judge of the value of the land held by corporate bodies throughout the whole of the Kingdom. The object of the present Bill was to secure for agricultural tenants the value of any improvements which they made during their occupancy, whether permanent or temporary, on a scale proportioned to the durability of the improvements. He had tried to keep two things in view—non-interference with legal customs and freedom of contract. From all that he had heard, there was not the slightest chance of success in endeavouring to import any new custom into a part of the country in which it did not previously exist. All attempts that had been made hitherto in that direction had completely failed. He had, therefore, inserted in the Bill a clause to the effect that there should be no compensation for any improvement made under Act or custom. The next point which he had in view was the maintenance of freedom of contract. He had been told that he had not attained that object in the Bill; but it was certainly intended to secure it, and if it did not in its present shape, he should be glad to see a clause inserted which would do so. He admitted that there were great difficulties in framing a measure of this kind, so as to avoid making it too free on the one hand and too restricted on the other. What he proposed was, that when a contract was silent upon those improvements which were mentioned in the Schedules to the Bill, it should come into operation. The 4th clause provided that— This Act shall not apply to anything as an improvement which a tenant is by a contract of tenancy taking effect before the commencement of this Act expressly or by necessary implication hound or forbidden to do. He proposed to insert in the clause the words, "in respect to which any con- tract of tenancy makes no express provision"—this would avoid all appearance of interfering with contract. Their Lordships would agree with him that it would be desirable to have a state of law under which there should be a constant improvement on the land, and any measure which would effect that object would be a great boon to all classes. He had divided the improvements contemplated by this Act into two classes—permanent improvements, which went to benefit the owner of the land—such as drainage, building, reclamation of waste land, fencing, roads, cottages, farm buildings, and the introduction of water or steam-power to farm buildings—and temporary improvements, such as sub-soiling, removing of stones, surface draining, manuring by phosphates amounting to at least 10 cwt. of bones per acre, or the equivalent thereof in phosphate of lime, liming, laying down permanent grass, &c, and so on, which should be done within seven years before the termination of tenancy. He proposed that where any differences arose between landlord and tenant with respect to the value of the improvement, or its duration, that it should be decided by an arbitrator appointed by the Inclosure Commissioners. He was told that the weak part of the Bill was that which made the Inclosure Commissioners the authority under the Bill. He preferred them because they were thoroughly conversant with the matter, and had the management of the Land Improvement Act. The award of the arbitrator so appointed would be conclusive. A tenant proposing to make a permanent improvement would serve a notice upon his landlord, and upon the Inclosure Commissioners. If no objection were made he would be allowed to proceed, subject to inspection, and when the work was finished he would receive a certificate from the Inclosure Commissioners, and upon receiving the certificate would be entitled to receive on the expiring of his tenancy compensation in respect of the value of the unexhausted benefit. In respect of temporary improvements he would also be entitled to compensation, but only to the annual average value of the fertilizers or corn mentioned in the Schedule. The compensation would be subject to deductions for dilapidation, and the tenant would be obliged to hand over the works in tenantable repair. The landlord would also be allowed to charge the holding with an annuity upon certain terms and conditions. The matter was not new to their Lordships. In the Sessions of 1849, 1850, and 18,51, a Bill had been introduced which was referred to a Select Committee. In 1848 Mr. Pusey's Committee reported in favour of a Bill of this kind, as being likely to extend employment and improve agriculture. The Prime Minister, the other night, expressed an opinion in favour of the general principle, and the Chambers of Agriculture had passed resolutions in favour of giving the tenant-farmers compensation for unexhausted improvements. He had, therefore, brought forward the present Bill, believing that the matter could not be discussed by their Lordships without benefit to the interests of agriculture in Great Britain.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Huntly.)

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, he could not but think the noble Marquess would have exercised a wise discretion if he had abstained from laying upon their Lordships' Table this crude and ill-considered Bill, the more especially as it was his impression that he had neither the wish nor the expectation that the Bill should pass a second reading; because the noble Marquess must be perfectly aware that at this period of the Session it was impossible for this measure, dealing with so large a subject and involving such important interests, to pass into law during the short remainder of the Session. It was, indeed, a most objectionable practice, and one which he strongly deprecated, to bring in Bills without either the hope or expectation of carrying them. He ventured to think that the noble Marquess would have done better if he had reduced his views into the form of a pamphlet, or if he had called a meeting of his friends and tenantry in A berdeenshire and enunciated views which possibly might not have been unpalatable to some of his friends in that part of the country. He objected, however, to bringing in a Bill without the least intention of carrying it, because it would give rise to hopes and expectations out-of-doors the realization of which there was no possibility of fulfilling. He thought, moreover, that questions of this kind should be dealt with on the responsibility of the Executive Government, and with a fair prospect on their part of carrying a Bill to a successful issue. With regard to the measure itself, it seemed to him to be a kind of exaggerated Irish Land Act. The most arbitrary tenant-right 'which had over been introduced was milk-and-water compared with this measure. Surely the landlords of Great Britain had done nothing to their tenantry which warranted any attempt at dealing with them in the manner in which they would be if this Bill passed into law. He was not going to be drawn into a discussion on the subject of tenant-right, nor did he think this a fitting occasion on which to enter on a discussion of that matter, further than it was affected by the Bill now under consideration. The noble Marquess himself stated that this measure was not required for the vast majority of the landed estates in this country, but to certain lands held by corporations. Why, then, if it was not required for landed property generally should it be forced upon the attention of Parliament at all? The noble Marquess said that, from some information he had received from Scotland, it was required for the purpose of enabling the tenants to obtain compensation from certain bodies of trustees. He was not prepared to admit that it was; but if so, surely the better course for the noble Marquess to have pursued would have been to introduce some Bill to relieve those particular tenants from the disabilities under which he conceived them to labour, and to assimilate their condition to that of other tenants. The noble Marquess told them that the Bill did not interfere with customs. Why, it interfered with every custom that existed in the country from Land's End to John o' Great's. The noble Marquess also said it did not interfere with the rights of property and the freedom of contract. That was the very thing it did interfere with, for if it did not the Bill would not be worth the paper on which it was printed. It not only dealt with property and freedom of contract, but, in point of fact, it put an end altogether to freedom of contract. The noble Marquess admitted that the 4th clause was obscure, and that it would require the insertion of words to make it clearer. He (the Duke of Richmond) did not think that any words he might put in would make it sufficiently clear to prevent its being considered an inter- ference with the rights of property. What did the noble Marquess do? He handed over the whole property of the country to the tenants, and took it entirely out of the hands of the landowners; or rather, he might say, he took it out of the hands of the landowners and placed it in the hands of the Inclosure Commissioners. Now, one of the Inclosure Commissioners he knew to be an excellent practical farmer, and against the other two he knew nothing; but, at the same time, he objected to hand over his property to these three gentlemen, because—without any undue vanity on his part—he thought that he himself was equally as competent to manage it as any three gentlemen who could be selected by the noble Marquess. He should also like to know whether the noble Marquess had consulted the Inclosure Commissioners, and whether they were prepared, in addition to their present duties and in consideration of their present salaries, to undertake the management of the whole of the property of Great Britain. Just look what it would amount to. Suppose a tenant in Caithness considered himself aggrieved, and wished to make a permanent or temporary improvement, he must come to London, or write to the Commissioners to send down a competent person to inspect his farm, to see whether he was not justified in making such an improvement. The consequence would be that the Inclosure Commissioners would have the whole of their time occupied in inspecting farms and deciding whether all the fanciful improvements projected by tenants ought or ought not to be carried out. Surely if the noble Marquess had looked into the subject with the least consideration, he could never have produced a measure of this extraordinary character. He must know that, according to the customs of the country, various matters affecting agriculture varied and differed as much as anything possibly could. The noble Marquess said, that the Bill would not affect free contracts. According to him it would not affect tenants holding land under contracts of tenancy, but it would affect tenants from year to year, or holding under ordinary leases, and yet the end of the 4th clause; contained a provision that the Act— should have full operation in relation to every improvement to which the Act applied, notwithstanding any express stipulation or other matter to the contrary contained in or forming part of a contract of tenancy taking effect after the commencement of the Act. That was nothing more nor less than superseding' all contracts which took place after the passing of the Act, and he defied the noble Marquess to put any other construction upon the Bill; and he said that it did interfere, and interfere most seriously, with freedom of contract. His (the Duke of Richmond's) property was let on 19 years' leases, and agreements between landlord and tenant specified the manner of culture, and various other matters connected with the tenure of the land. Under this Bill not one of these contracts between him and his tenants would be binding, but the teant, if he were so minded, might call in the Inclosure Commissioners. The landlord, under this Bill, was the last man thought of. The tenant might suddenly make up his mind that he wanted to execute on his holding what was called a "permanent improvement;" the landlord might not give his assent, but the improvement would go on, unless the Inclosure Commissioners expressly objected. Next year the tenant—who might only be a tenant from year to year—might go out, and the landlord, having paid for those buildings, might find his farm overbuilt, and have considerable difficulty in getting another tenant, because there was far too large a steading on the farm. Surely this was an intolerable interference with property. If the arbitration was not to be invalidated by the non-observance of any technical rules, it might be decided practically by hearsay evidence; and that a distress warrant for the amount of the award should be issued in seven days was a preposterous proposition. Altogether, the Bill proposed a most novel mode of dealing with the subject. If the Commissioners might, from time to time, alter the rules of procedure, they would practically have the power of drawing up a code; and if what was prescribed by them was to have the same force as if prescribed by the Act, the Commissioners would virtually be entrusted with legislative powers. The result might be that the owner of a farm of 400 acres, on returning to it after an absence of 19 years, might find it divided into 400 farms of one acre, or so changed that he could not recognize it. Their Lordships took great interest in the management of their property; would they continue to do so if it were handed over to the tender mercies of the Inclosure Commissioners? They could not lay down any distinct line as to temporary improvements in the manner prescribed by the Bill; for manure that might remain on some land for seven years might be exhausted on other land in one or two years.

THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY

explained that the Bill did not lay down a rule, but fixed a maximum.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

Well, it classed among temporary improvements what might be no improvement at all; for a man might have a horse in his stable, and yet it might contribute nothing to the land, and yet this was to be considered a temporary improvement. The Bill was so extraordinary, on the whole, that he should not be justified if he failed to give it his decided opposition.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

, who had given Notice of his intention to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said, his noble Friend the Lord President had left him little to say, he had discussed it so thoroughly. No measure so sweeping had ever been passed, if ever one so sweeping had been introduced. It made important changes in existing tenancies, but still more important in future tenancies. The Bill would take the management of every estate in the country out of the hands of the owner who had a permanent interest in it, and place it partly in the hands of the tenant who had a temporary interest, and partly in the hands of the Inclosure Commissioners who had no interest at all. It would establish compulsory tenant-right throughout the country, and do away with contracts—for while under the Irish Act a tenant who occupied a farm at more than £50 a-year might contract himself out of the Act, under this Bill a tenant could not do so, whether he paid £500 or £5,000. The permanent improvements which a tenant might make if he could only obtain the assent of the Commissioners were also a serious matter. A landowner might have acquired farms from different proprietors, and arrangements that might be very good in themselves for a group of farms might be very different when considered in reference to each farm singly. In such a case the landlord might desire to expend only as large an amount as would be necessary in order to put the farm buildings in a proper state up to the end of the lease. Such an arrangement I would, however, be impossible under the Bill of his noble Friend; because every one of the tenants might, with the assent of the Inclosure Commissioners, put up buildings in spite of the landowners, and render it impossible for the landowners to carry out their own plans, or to carry out their improvements gradually. Last year a Bill on this subject was introduced in the House of Commons by Mr. Howard, the then Member for Bedford, and Mr. Read, now a Member of Her Majesty's Government. He did not mean to say that these gentlemen were not honestly desirous to do justice to the landlords, but still they, not unnaturally, looked at the matter from the tenants' point of view. Notwithstanding this fact, there was the essential difference between their Bill and that of the noble Marquess that they did not propose to allow the tenants compensation for permanent improvements, except in the shape of drainage and the improvement of water-courses, unless before making them they obtained the written consent of their landlords. Both in the Irish Land Act, and in the Bill to which he had just alluded, it was provided further that improvements for which compensation was to be given should be such as would add to the letting value of the land. There was no such proposal in the present Bill. The Bill of Mr. Howard proposed that the assent of the landlord should be necessary before a tenant should have power to claim compensation for the reclamation of waste land; but in the Bill before the House there was no definition either of reclamation or of waste land. There might be circumstances in which it would be very profitable to reclaim land and grow corn upon it when corn was at a high price, but it would not benefit the landlord if these crops were produced by over-stimulating the land to such an extent that at the expiry of the lease it would come back, into the hands of the landlord in a more or less exhausted state. There were other things, such as drainage, which would add to the value of the land; but tenants ought not to possess unlimited power to make and claim compensation for drainage works because cases might arise—close to towns, for instance, where it would be unwise to spend large sums of money in draining land for agricultural uses which might speedily be required for building purposes. Then there were set forth in the Bill temporary improvements which tenants might make, and, with the assent of the Inclosure Commissioners, compel their landlords to pay for; but this was a question very difficult to deal with, and one upon which there ought to be the clearest possible definitions. The question of compensation for unexhausted manures, again, was one of very great difficulty, and one which had engaged the attention of very high authorities. He admitted that the present state of things was not satisfactory to tenants in all cases—it sometimes worked them great hardship. On the other hand was the great difficulty of ascertaining the value of unexhausted manures—the value of what was left in the ground—the receipts and expenditure of the tenants would not necessarily show it. In the year 1851, Mr. Caird, at the request of the proprietors of The Times, made a tour through the various counties of England in order to report upon the best course to be adopted with regard to the holding of land. Mr. Caird came to his work with a prepossession in favour of tenant right, but, as he proceeded, he became more and more impressed with the disadvantage of the custom, and in the end gave it up altogether. Mr. Caird stated that the system that the noble Marquess now advocated encouraged obsolete methods of husbandry, that it was, in many cases, injurious to the incoming tenant, by forcing him to pay large sums for so-called improvements in which he had had no voice, and thereby absorbing a large amount of his capital; that in many parts of the country not only the landlords, but the tenants disliked it, and that in parts of the country where tenant-right did prevail the husbandry was not only not better, but was not so good as it was in districts where it did not exist. That, however, was the custom which his noble Friend wished to see made compulsory throughout the country. It might, however, be said that it was a long time since that inquiry was made. Well, the subject had been recently introduced and discussed in the House of Commons, and every hon. Member, with one exception, who took part in the debate protested in the strongest terms against the imposition of any such custom by compulsion, and also against any interference with freedom of contract between landlord and tenant. He was not insensible to the fact that agriculture in England was not all that it ought to be—there was room for improvement; but if they looted at the position of England as a producer of agricultural wealth, and compared it with the other countries of the world, no one could deny that with the single exception of Belgium no country could compare with England as to its production per acre; and Belgium was not a case in point as regarded the present question, as in that country, while there were many small holdings and many short leases, the tenant-right system—that was to say, the liability to make compensation for improvements—did not prevail. The subject under discussion was important, and might well, he thought, be remitted to the consideration of a strongly-constituted Royal Commission, which during the Recess could obtain much useful and valuable information. No case had been made out in favour of the Bill; and as his (the Earl of Airlie's) belief was that such legislation would introduce nothing but mischief and confusion between landlord and tenant, he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

An Amendment moved to leave out ("now,") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Earl of Airlie.)

On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2a this day three months. House adjourned at half past Eight o'clock, 'till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.