Lords Sitting of 22 April 1875

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Bankruptcy (Scotland) Law Amendment* (62).
Second Reading—County Courts * (57); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation * (53); Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation* (54).
Committee—Agricultural Holdings (England) (39–63).
Royal Assent—Mutiny [38 Vict. c. 7]; Marine Mutiny [38 Vict. c. 8]; Building Societies Act (1874) Amendment [38 Vict. c. 9]; Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Orders Confirmation [38 Vict. c. ii.]

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL—(No. 39.)
(The Lord President.)
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL—(No. 39.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, that as he had no opportunity on a previous occasion he begged to be allowed to make a few observations upon the general scope and principles of the measure. He regarded the Bill as an honest attempt on the part of his noble Friend who had charge of it to settle a very difficult and important question. He concurred with the noble Earl who spoke on a former occasion (the Earl of Airlie) that his noble Friend was right in upholding the principle of freedom of contract as between landlord and tenant; but many of their friends out-of-doors thought that instead of being permissive the Bill ought to be compulsory. But that idea, he thought, was based on a mistake. It was a great mistake to imagine that the interests of the landlord were contradictory to those of the tenant. It was quite as much to the advantage of the landlord as it was to the tenant that the land should be cultivated in the best possible manner, and that the largest amount of capital should be invested in the land, and that the tenant should have security for the capital he invested. Again, there were those out-of-doors who looked with alarm at this Bill because they thought it likely to introduce "the thin edge of the wedge." He thought that was a baseless fear. The people of this country were sufficiently intelligent to know well that there ought to be freedom

  1423
  of contract between landlord and tenant, and that consequently landlords and tenants should not be compelled to come in under this Bill. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Somerset) was, he thought, rather hard upon the farmers of England. He said, when the Corn Laws were repealed they showed no great desire to increase the food of the people, but now they were extremely anxious for a Tenant Eight Bill to pass, in order to add to the quantity of food. Now, he (the Duke of Rut-land) believed the farmers of England were quite as patriotic as any other class of men, and were just as capable of taking large, enlightened, and patriotic views of any question that came before them; and he would remind the noble Duke, when he told them that 600,000 acres had been laid down in permanent pasture, that the main argument used by those who supported the Corn Laws was that that very thing would happen, and that they might, in case of war, be dependent on the Power they were at war with, for their food. A perfect Bill was what no one had a right to expect, for everyone was aware that no possible Bill could be introduced that would be perfectly satisfactory to both sides; but this Bill he thought was as good a one as could be had. There were two points, however, in the measure respecting which he entertained objections. First, he thought that the drainage of land should be put in the second class of improvements instead of in the first class. Next, he thought that the year's notice proposed by the Bill was objectionable. He did not see of what advantage it could be to the tenant, while it might be a great disadvantage to the landlord. In many cases it would amount to practically two years' notice. He was sorry to say that one of his own tenants had become insolvent. He could not give that tenant notice till next Lady Day, so that he would not be obliged to quit till Lady Day, 1877. In the meantime, the tenant might exhaust the land so as to get all he could out of it. He might be told that as landlord he could claim compensation if the tenant acted in that way. But how was he to recover payment and compensation from an insolvent tenant? Excepting these points he thought the Bill satisfactory.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
  Preliminary.
  Tenants Compensations for Improvements.
  Clause 5 (Tenants' title to compensation.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYinquired whether its provisions were to be retrospective?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDreplied that decidedly the intention of the Government was that they were to be prospective only; and the 16th clause provided that neither landlord nor tenant should be entitled to compensation unless three months before the determination of the tenancy he gave notice to the other of his intention to claim compensation. This showed that it did not apply to anything done before the passing of this Act.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the provision requiring such a notice was not in the original draft of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHpointed out that it often happened that in the matter of drainage the landlord cut the drains and the tenant built them, and in other ways the tenant was assisted by the landlord by materials and by money in the case of temporary buildings. There ought therefore to be some words inserted to meet such cases.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsubmitted that the words "adding to the letting value thereof" were objectionable, and he would move that they be struck out. It might be that an improvement was a valuable one, though from circumstances with which the tenant had nothing to do, the letting value of the farm was not improved in the sense of a higher rent being obtained for it. He moved, as an Amendment, the omission of those words.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he would be willing to consider the suggestion of the noble Earl when they came to consider the 6th clause. He was sorry he could not agree to the Amendment of the noble Duke. The principle that the improvements for which compensation was to be paid should add to the letting value of the holding was that from which the Government started in the framing of the Bill. First of all, by the clause now under consideration, where the tenant executed an improvement which added to the letting value, he should be entitled on the termination of his tenancy to compensation for the improvement—in other words, the tenant

  1425
  received compensation for an unexhausted improvement. This was the keystone of the Bill. Then came Clause 6, which defined by classes the improvements for which compensation was to be allowed; and that was followed by a clause defining what the amount of the tenant's compensation was to be. If the tenant laid out money on the land which would result in making the farm one which would let for a better rent—when his improvements added to the letting value of the land—he would be entitled to compensation if his tenancy was not sufficiently long to enable him to recoup himself for his outlay in the improvements. On the other hand, if the improvement did not add to the letting value, the tenant could not be compensated under this Bill. He hoped their Lordships would keep Clause 5 as it stood.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYthought the noble Duke had overlooked this consideration—that though the improvement might be a valuable one per se, yet other causes might operate to decrease the letting value of the farm, and in this case the tenant would not be entitled to compensation. He thought that a certain ambiguity would present itself in respect of the third class of improvements, which were the application to land of purchased artificial or other manure, and consumption by cattle or sheep or pigs of corn, cake, or other feeding stuff. He did not see how these added to the letting value of the farm. If any unexhausted good was left from such sources the succeeding tenant, not the landlord, would have the benefit.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDapprehended that such an improvement as his noble Friend had suggested in the opening portion of his remarks would come within the Bill. As to the third class of improvements, there was an inconvenience in discussing a clause which was not before their Lordships, and the classes of improvements were provided for in Clause 6; but in reply to his noble Friend he was willing to introduce a proviso to the effect that all improvements of the third class should be deemed to be unexhausted if no crop of corn or potatoes had been taken off the land after the manure had been applied. As everyone knew, there would then be nothing left.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXobserved, that what would come within the third class
  1426
  was rather an improvement to keep the farm precisely as it was—to prevent it from deteriorating—than one which would add to the letting value of the land. Artificial manures did not add to the letting value of a farm. He thought, therefore, that Clause 5 ought to be restricted to the first and second classes of improvements.
  LORD CARLINGFORDthought the Government were quite right in adhering to the words which the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) proposed to strike out. Even though the land would not let at a higher rent, the particular improvement might have increased the value of the land on which it had been effected. Whether it did or did not was a matter which could be ascertained without reference to the rent at which the farm, as a whole, could be let.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEthought the Government were quite right in maintaining that anything which contributed to the preservation of the land contributed to its letting value.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the question was not whether the improvement had increased the rent, but whether, if it had not been effected, the letting value of the land would have been as great.
  LORD HAMPTONhoped his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) would re-consider this matter, because he thought that the words which the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) proposed to strike out would lead to litigation.
  THE MARQUESS of BATHwas of opinion that those words were of vital importance, and he therefore opposed their omission.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that some of the objections urged against the words of the clause now under consideration might be ground for modifying Clause 7, which defined the amount of compensation; and when the latter clause came on for discussion he would propose an Amendment in its terms to meet those objections; but Clause 5 was the keystone of the structure of the Bill, and he could neither assent to the Amendment nor promise to re-consider the matter.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that the words to which the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) attached so much importance were scarcely just to the tenant. The Bill required the consent

  1427
  of the landlord to the execution of any improvement for which compensation was to be claimed. Supposing the tenant spent £1,000 on drainage which turned out to be a failure and did not add to the letting value of the land, ought the whole loss to fall on the tenant, though the expenditure was one to which the landlord had given his consent?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDthought that in the case just suggested the matter was one of covenant between landlord and tenant. If the latter entered into a bad speculation, was he to turn round and ask the landlord to pay for it?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, while approving the determination of the Government to adhere to the words which the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) proposed to expunge, thought at the same time that the difficulty just suggested by that noble Duke was one which was well worthy of consideration. In the county of Norfolk a body of gentlemen, among whom were Lord Leicester and Mr. Clare Read, drew up a document in which it was stated that—
  "No case has been made out for compensation for any outlay which is not suitable to the holding and calculated to increase the letting value unless it be made with the written consent of the landlord."
  This last qualification was an important one. Within his own personal experience as a landlord there had occurred a case which illustrated the point. A tenant of his undertook some drainage with his consent, and, after having consulted and obtained the advice of the best authorities, the work turned out a failure. It would have been rather hard on the tenant to have had to bear the loss, seeing that it had been executed under such circumstances. That case was not sufficiently provided for under the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYreminded their Lordships of the power to charge compensations on the estate which this Bill would confer on limited owners. He thought such compensation ought to be charged on the land, not on the landlord. This must be considered when they came to the question of paying for such improvements as that just referred to by his noble Friend.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, that in consequence of the Amendment which the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) had promised to propose on Clause 7, he would not propose the Amendment on Clause 5 of which he had given Notice.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEmoved an Amendment that the compensation should be limited to the amount laid out by the tenant.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he would accept his noble Friend's suggestion; but the proper place for the insertion of the words of the Amendment would be in the 7th clause.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that before the clause was agreed to he wished to make a few remarks. The plan of the Bill appeared to be this—it set out in this clause a general principle with respect to compensation for improvements, which, when they passed that clause, their Lordships would affirm. The Bill then went on to limit the application of that principle of compensation in various ways. It was most important, therefore, that their Lordships should look carefully to the wording of Clause 5, this clause being, as it were, the standard raised by the Government, and under which the provisions of the Bill were to be carried out. In considering the question of tenant-right there were several matters which ought to be borne in mind. First, the improvements should be real and such as to add to the value of the land; secondly, they should not be made in pursuance of any agreement with the landlord; thirdly, they should not be, directly or indirectly, for valuable consideration received; and, fourthly, that the tenant had not already been recouped his outlay, either by length of occupation or by cheapness of rent. These were four limitations upon the right and equity of compensation for improvements which so far were fully admitted, and which were fully admitted even in the case of the Irish Land Act. But this clause alluded to one only of these limitations—and that was that the improvement should be really effectual and really add to the letting value of the land. He asked whether it was wise to put into the Bill a sweeping assertion of right which went far beyond the obvious and admitted equities of the

  1429
  case? The Government Bill had the character of a general proposition, and then they were obliged afterwards to insert limitations which appeared inconsistent with the proposition. He ventured to suggest that if not now, at least on the Report, their Lordships would endeavour to import into this clause words which should cover the limitations to which he referred. He had not put down an Amendment because long experience had convinced him of the difficulty an independent Member found in effecting consistent improvements in a Bill introduced by another. They had imported the words into the Bill of "adding to the letting value." That, in the first place, meant adding to the profit of the tenant. Let them look at the clause in this light. "When a tenant executes on his holding improvements adding to his own profit he shall be compensated." And this was what the Government asked the House to affirm. No precaution had been taken with regard to cases where the tenants were allowed to sit in their holdings at prices far below the market value of their farms, and where they had long since been recouped for the improvements they carried out. He might illustrate that by a case within his experience. Some years ago a friend of his purchased a property in a picturesque but rather sleepy English county. He paid a high price for the estate, and he found that most of the tenants were sitting at rents much below the market value. He informed them that he had the best means of knowing that they enjoyed a large percentage for their money—that whereas his return was about 2 per cent. from information he received, their return was from 20 to 25 per cent. and that, under these circumstances, he asked them to advance the rents. Most of them said—"You think our rents are low; we think, on the contrary, we are sitting at the average rent of our neighbourhood, and we cannot advance our rents." The landlord said he was sorry, but he must put the farms to competition and test what other farmers would give. The result was that a considerable number of the tenants were themselves the highest bidders for their farms. What did the House think turned out to be the preference rent at which the tenants had been sitting and in respect of which they might well have executed the most
  1430
  costly improvements? They had been sitting at a preference rent of between 50 and 70 per cent. This might be an extreme case, but he was certain that in many parts of England where tenants were sitting at a very low preference rent, out of those preference rents they were well compensated for any improvements they made. Now under this Bill these tenants might make large claims for improvements, for nothing was said in the Bill on the point. It was announced that although this Bill referred only to England, it was to be followed by another Bill applicable to Scotland. One of the limitations admitted by the advocates of tenant-right was this—that improvements which were to be compensated for should not be improvements done in virtue of a contract or in fulfilment of any other understanding. He ventured to affirm this—that all improvements made by tenants holding under leases were improvements made in virtue of a contract; and it was preposterous that a man should make a clear and distinct bargain with another, taking a farm for a particular rent, and then, not satisfied with the profit which that rent would give him in the exercise of his legitimate occupation, that he should demand at the end of the lease additional compensation. He laid down the principle generally that this clause was not a clause which in principle ought to be extended to leases at all unless the improvements done were of an extraordinary nature. Each party ought to be kept to his own bargain. The clause affirmed a principle of compensation for improvements in terms dangerously, inequitably, wide and sweeping, and he suggested they should introduce into it words to the effect that they recognized this right on the part of the tenant only where he had not been otherwise remunerated for the improvements.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the greater part of the speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had been a criticism on the wording of this particular clause—a criticism which might have been rendered unnecessary by the proposal of seven additional words. Every person who admitted the idea of compensation for improvements was agreed that such compensation ought to be guarded and qualified by various conditions—such as lowness of rent, length of occupation, and the question

  1431
  as to whether compensation had been already given in some other way for the improvements. He and those around him were perfectly agreed upon the propriety of these conditions; but he demurred to the course suggested by the noble Duke—for his criticism amounted to this—" At the beginning of the Bill, when you first enact that there shall be compensation, before you put a full stop at the end of the fifth section, you ought to enumerate in it every one of your qualifications and conditions, for if you leave one of them out the clause will hereafter be cited as a proof that you have admitted the principle of compensation without any qualification whatever." He put it to their Lordships whether this was not the effect of three-fourths of the noble Duke's speech. For his own part, he believed that one of the main causes of obscurity in Acts of Parliament was the attempting to express in one long sentence, running perhaps to a page or a page and a-half, a large number of qualifications. You must take an Act of Parliament by steps and go from clause to clause, and no one had a right to take one of a fasciculus of clauses and to maintain that it expressed Parliamentary approval of a general principle, unmodified and uncontrolled by anything that came after. Still, if the noble Duke wished to make the clause more guarded and more clear, it would only be necessary to introduce after "entitled" the words "subject to the provisions of this Act." Every modification and qualification would be thereby introduced into the section. He could not agree with the noble Duke in the other matter he referred to. The noble Duke said it was utterly repugnant to the idea of a lease that there should be engrafted in it any such provisions for compensation as were contained in this Bill. If it were meant that it was repugnant to the leases now in existence, he quite agreed with the noble Duke, because the Bill carefully guarded against affecting in any way any lease now in operation. But it would not be repugnant to the idea of a lease which might be made hereafter if the two parties to it agreed that these were proper provisions to insert, and that they would accept the offer contained in the Act of Parliament. If the parties did not like the provisions, they need not introduce them into the contract.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYconcurred to a great extent in what had been said by the noble and learned Lord in regard to leases. The object of this and kindred enactments was to offer to the tenant an inducement to keep up his good farming to the last moment of his occupation; and of course this object applied as much to leases as to yearly agreements. It was because Nature did not permit a tenant—especially in the case of high farming—to reap the whole benefit of his outlay before the termination of his tenancy that it became desirable to provide machinery by which to give him compensation. He thought a lease ought to be combined with a Bill of this kind, for under the present system, without the slightest dishonesty or unfairness, a tenant who farmed very high would, in the last three or four years of his tenancy, let his farm down from the high pitch of cultivation to which he had previously brought it.
  LORD CARLINGFORDthought that nearly all the conditions and safeguards which the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) desired to see introduced into this clause were covered by and included in the general power of making agreements which the Bill was intended to confer. Perhaps an exception should be made of the question the noble Duke raised as to general lowness of rent distinct from low rent in consideration of improvements to be made by the tenant. For that he only knew one remedy, and that a simple one—when a landlord believed his rents to be unreasonably low he ought to raise them.
  Clause, as amended, agreed, to.
  Clause 6 (Description and three classes of improvements).
  LORD HENNIKERmoved an Amendment that the classes of improvements should be four, instead of three, as proposed in the clause, and for that purpose proposed a re-arrangement of the classes, and, also, a small addition thereto. The object of his Amendment was to make a juster arrangement than that contained in the clause in respect of the number of years during which an improvement should be deemed to be unexhausted. The Bill should lay down, at all events, a model agreement, and the classes, as they stood, allowed more than could be adopted in some cases; draining, for instance, should not be

  1433
  allowed for for more than 12 years, as a rule, and so on. The alteration was not very great, but he believed it would be of use. The first class would provide, under his Amendment, for compensation over 20 years, the second over 12 years, the third over seven years, and the fourth over one year only—namely, for the last year of the tenancy. It was very important that corn produced on the farm, or rather producible on the farm, and so producible in the neighbourhood, should not be allowed for in the fourth class.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 11, leave out (" three") and insert (" four "); line 13, after ("Act") omit to end of clause and insert:—

  First Class.

  Erection or enlargement of buildings.

  Planting of orchards.

  Making of gardens.

  Reclamation of waste land.

  Making or improving of roads or bridges.

  Warping of land.

  Making or improving of watercourses, ponds, wells, or reservoirs.

  Construction of works for the supply of water for the purposes of a farm or farmhouse.

  SECOND CLASS.

  The drainage of land.

  Making and planting of ozier beds.

  Making and protecting of new fences.

  Planting of hops.

  Laying down of permanent pastures.

  THIRD CLASS.

  Boning of pasture land with undissolved bones.

  Clay burning.

  Chalking of land.

  Claying of land.

  Liming of land.

  Marling of land.

  FOURTH CLASS.

  Application to land of purchased, artificial or other manure used for any green crop consumed on the farm.

  Consumption on the farm of any cake and purchased corn of any description not producible on the farm, or other feeding stuffs of mammal value.

  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he regretted that he differed from his noble Friend, who had paid great attention to this matter. In the first place, he preferred three classes to four, because the fewer the classes were the simpler would be the operation of the Bill. In the next
  1434
  place, the difference between the classes proposed by the Amendment of his noble Friend and the arrangement of classes in the clause was infinitesimally small. He opposed the proposition of the noble Lord mainly on the ground that it was unnecessary. Improvements coming under Class 1, as defined in the Bill, would include all the improvements set forth in the noble Lord's Classes 1 and 2, and as the period of exhaustion under the first class would extend over 20 years, it would be perfectly possible for landlords and tenants, by mutual agreements, to make any new limit within the maximum of 20 years which they might think desirable.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDmade a few remarks, which were not heard.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwas glad the noble Duke proposed to retain the classification as proposed in the Bill. No doubt there were difficulties, but the lesser evil would be to leave the arrangement of the Government alone.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought it would be hard to prevent landlords and tenants adopting varying time limits in accordance with the different conditions existing in different parts of the country. All that could reasonably be done was to lay down a rule which was likely to be applicable to as many cases as possible.
  On Question? resolved in the negative.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDmoved an Amendment, to strike out the words "Drainage of land" from the list of First Class improvements, and insert them in the Second Class.
  The Marquess of BATH and The Earl of AIRLIE opposed the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDalso opposed the Amendment. He recollected that in former times it was calculated that drainage improvements exhausted themselves in 10 years.
  LORD WAVENEYthought drainage of a superior nature should, come under the first class, while the inferior kind should come under the second class of improvements.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, the difficulty might vanish if the House were clearly to understand that the periods mentioned in Clause 8 were only maximum periods, and not to be allowed in every instance.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDstated that the periods mentioned were intended to be maximum; but that if the language of the clause was not explicit enough he would insert words to make it so. He thought it would be best to leave the question of drainage improvements where it was.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, referring to the next item in Class 1, "Erection or enlargement of buildings," said, that 20 years was not sufficient to allow for exhaustion in improvements of this description. He should suggest the period of 30 years.
  LORD CARLINGFORDthought it would be wiser to leave out buildings altogether, rather than restrict the period to 20 years.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDtook the same view, remarking that the erection or enlargement of buildings was generally done by the landlord.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the proposal of the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) was only material in the case of limited owners, because if the owner of property was an absolute owner he could make what agreement he liked with his tenant. Now, this Bill recognized only the person in possession of the estate as the representative of all the interests in it, so far as what might be called "ordinary management" was concerned, and he thought excellent reasons could be shown for the adoption of that principle. The proposal of the noble Earl would defeat the whole object of the Bill, which was meant to be a practical working measure, and he therefore hoped their Lordships would not commit themselves to it. It might, perhaps, be necessary to introduce some safeguards in the case of trustees. It was considered, when the Bill was about to be introduced, whether it should not go further, and whether larger powers, in respect of agricultural leases and special agreements, should not be given to limited owners, and it was the intention of the Government at some convenient time to propose a measure which should deal with and probably extend those powers. It might be desirable to take into account whether the limited owner, with proper checks, might not be empowered to make such agreements
  1436
  as that to which the noble Earl referred, and under such agreement to charge the inheritance; but he trusted their Lordships would not enter upon this larger and very difficult subject in dealing with a measure of a limited purpose.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, it seemed to him that the passing of the 3rd clause had estopped the House from going into that question.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, unless the effect of the Bill, so far as it related to the limited owner, would be injurious, he saw no reason for alarm as to what might happen to the remainder-man. He did not concur in the theory that this legislation was needed for what was called increasing the food of the people, but that was the ground on which the Bill was based by the Government, and nothing was, in his opinion, more essential to good farming than that permanent sound buildings should be provided. Now the very person who would not put up such buildings was the limited owner. It seemed to him, therefore, that if buildings of a permanent nature were erected and added to the letting value of the land, the tenant should be allowed sufficient to recoup him for his outlay, and the charge should be placed upon the estate.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHthought the limited owner possessed all the powers which were requisite, and, if not, he might apply to the Court of Chancery to obtain them.
  After a few words from the Earl of DERBY, the words "erection or enlargement of buildings" were agreed to and ordered to stand part of the First Class.
  Other items of improvements of the First Class agreed to.
  Improvements of the Second and Third Classes agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Amount of tenants' compensation) amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Time in which improvements exhausted).
  Clause 9 (Consent of landlord for first class).
  On the Motion of the Duke of RICHMOND the following new clause was inserted to follow Clause 9—
  (Notice to landlord for second and third class).
  "The tenant shall not be entitled to compensation in respect of an improvement of the second or of the third class, unless not more than 14 days before executing it he has given to the landlord notice in writing of his intention to do so."
  Clause 10 (Restrictions on outlay on third class).
  Clause 11 (Deductions for compensation for rent, taxes, &c.)
  Clause 12 (Set off for benefit of tenant) agreed to.
  Landlords' Compensation for Waste.
  Clause 13 (Landlords' title to compensation for waste) struck out.
  Clause 14 (Description of Waste).
  Clause 15 (Amount of Landlords compensation) agreed to.
  Procedure.
  Clause 16 (Notice of intended claim).
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHobjected to the form of the clause as unsatisfactory, and suggested that the words "three months," defining the period of notice to be given by either party to the other of them, should be omitted.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORexplained that the object of the three months' notice was to put the parties on their guard by letting them know before the expiration of the tenancy that a claim was to be made for compensation. It was only on the termination of the tenancy that the tenant could go to the landlord and make his claim. If the landlord disputed the claim, then came the provision under the 18th clause by which referees were to be appointed. If both parties concurred there might be a single referee; if they did not concur, each might appoint a referee; and if a referee died or failed to act after seven days' notice, and the party failed to appoint another, the County Court Judge was to appoint a competent and impartial person as referee. Then there were provisions for the appointment of an umpire and as to the time within which the referees and the umpire were to make their awards. Those various stages would altogether occupy about 11 weeks; so that the landlord would have sufficient time given him for examining into the matter.
  Clause 17 Compensation agreed or settled by reference) agreed to.
  Clause 18 (Appointment of referee or referees and umpire).
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHmoved an Amendment extending the period for the referee to take action from 7 to 14 days.
  After a few words from Earl GRANVILLE and the LORD CHANCELLOR, in opposition to the Amendment,
  Amendment negatived.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHthen moved an Amendment substituting the Inclo-sure Commissioners for the County Court Judge to appoint a new referee on failure of one of the parties to do so.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clauses 19 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 25 (Award to find time of improvement).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDproposed to leave out the clause, and insert the following new clause:—
  (Award to give particulars.)
  "The award shall not award a sum generally for compensation, but shall, as far as reasonably may be, specify—
  "The particulars of the several improvements, acts, and things in respect whereof compensation is awarded;
  "The time at which each thereof was executed, committed, or permitted;
  "The mode and extent in and to which each thereof adds to or diminishes the letting value of the holding; and
  "The sum awarded in respect of each thereof."
  Motion agreed to; original clause struck out, and new clause inserted.
  Clauses 26 to 29 relating to costs, payment, and removal, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 30 (Appeal to County Court).
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYproposed to omit the clause.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYthought that an appeal ought to be allowed, and that, as a rule, the County Court would be the best tribunal to appeal to. In some cases, however, where very large sums of money were at stake, there ought to be the right of appeal to a more important Court.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHthought that the decision of a Judge of Assize would be more satisfactory than that of a County Court Judge, who would not have the assistance of able counsel. He

  1439
  would suggest to leave out the words "appeal against it to the Judge of the County Court," and insert "remove the same by due process into any of Her Majesty's Courts at Westminster."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORpointed out that, although in Common Law actions the jurisdiction of the County Court Judges was limited to a comparatively small sum, yet in cases of equitable jurisdiction it had been extended to £500; while in Bankruptcy proceedings, as well as in all cases where the parties to a suit consented, they might exercise an absolutely unlimited judgment. To what better tribunal could appeals under this Bill be referred? His noble Friend proposed a Judge of Assize; but it should be borne in mind that in most of these cases a very considerable body of evidence would have to be disposed of, and that numerous documents and intricate accounts would have to be examined. How could a Judge of Assize, with the Circuits adjusted as at present and whose time was limited, be able to hear all these cases in addition to the work he had already to get through? These cases would necessarily involve processes of account and examination of vouchers—no Judge of Assize could undertake to grapple with them, and in the result they would be referred to some other tribunal. Besides, if appeals were to be tried before a Judge of Assize they must be tried by a jury, and he could conceive nothing more dangerous than to submit differences arising between landlords and tenants virtually to the decision of tenants residing in the neighbourhood. A County Court Judge would have ample leisure to examine not only the witnesses, but also the papers and accounts, and come to a decision on his personal responsibility, instead of casting the responsibility on a jury.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, if it was the opinion of the Committee that there should be an appeal, he did not see why an award under £50 should not be a subject of appeal as well as an award of a larger amount.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that, having made every order of reference in the Court of Queen's Bench for 12 years, in which the referee was sole judge, and which were very seldom questioned, he hoped that the decision of an umpire in all cases might be final, awards up to
  1440
  £50 being recoverable in County Courts, and beyond that sum in the Superior Courts; and he trusted that the County Court Judges, who were already very much overworked, would not be saddled with these appeals.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that if the Committee would affirm the principle of the clause, he would endeavour to amend it upon Report so as to make it more acceptable.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 31 (Recovery of compensation); and 32 (Costs, remuneration, &c, in the County Courts), agreed to, with Amendments.
  Charge of Tenant's Compensation.
  Clause 33 (Power for landlord paying compensation to obtain charge), agreed to.
  Ecclesiastical and Charity Lands.
  Clause 34 (Landlord, archbishop, or bishop, incumbent of benefice, trustees for charities, &c.) agreed to.
  Notice to Quit.
  Clause 35 (Time of Notice to quit).
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, that this clause, which provided that where a half-year's notice expiring with a year of tenancy was by law necessary for determination of a tenancy—not created by lease—from year to year, a year's notice should by virtue of the Act be necessary and sufficient for the same.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDtrusted the Committee would pass the clause in its present form.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought it inconsistent with the proposal made by the Prime Minister of a two years' notice.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDreplied, that the suggestion made by his right hon. Friend was not on all-fours with the present case. His right hon. Friend, no doubt, suggested that one of the modes of settling the tenant-right question would be a two-years' notice; and that was under other circumstances quite capable of being supported. But a two-years' notice with a yearly tenant was clearly inapplicable.
  LORD HATHERTONsaid, that as the theory of giving notice was changed he would suggest adding to the clause the

  1441
  following words:—"Nevertheless, if a tenant sublets any part of his farm the usual notice of six months shall be sufficient."
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he could not accept the suggestion.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXpointed out that one advantage of retaining the six months' notice to quit would be that an outgoing tenant would have no time to "play tricks with his farm" if he were so disposed.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYheld that the object of the Bill ought to be the encouragement of the good, "improving" tenant, and therefore he did not think a year's notice too long.
  Clause agreed to.
  Cottages: Gardens: Planting.
  Clause 36 (Resumption of possession for cottages, &c.) agreed to.
  General Application of Act.
  Clause 37 (No restriction on contract) agreed to.
  Clause 38 (Application of Act as regards current tenancies).
  On Motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, clause struck out, and the following new clause substituted:—
  "This Act subject to any contract in writing between the landlord and tenant, shall apply to all contracts of tenancy taking effect after the commencement of this Act.
  "For the purposes of this section, a contract of tenancy from year to year, current at the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to take effect from and after the end of the first year of tenancy begun and completed after the commencement of this Act. Except as in this section provided, this Act shall not apply to any contract of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act."
  Clause agreed to, and inserted in the Bill.
  Clause 39 (Exception of non-agricultural holdings); Clause 40 (Exception where compensation under custom); Clause 41 (General saving of rights); agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Friday the 30 th instant; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 63).
  House adjourned at half-past Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow half-past Ten o'clock.