SECOND READING. (Hansard, 7 April 1876)

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
said, that before the Bill was read the second time he wished to make a few observations. When the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) introduced the Agri- 1380 cultural Holdings Bill for England last Session, and stated that it would be followed by one for Scotland, he (the Duke of Argyll) expressed his opinion that owing to the almost universal prevalence of leases in Scotland such a measure would have very little effect in that country; and when the present Bill was introduced he repeated his opinion that it would have no effect whatever, one way or another. He (the Duke of Argyll) had since examined the measure and thought very carefully over the matter, and the result was that he was confirmed in his belief that this Bill would have no effect whatever on Scotland, either for good or bad. In addressing their Lordships last year he pointed out that although the Bill might do some good in regard to those holdings which were not held on a lease, it was not applicable to any case in which leases were granted. From the peculiar conditions of agriculture in Scotland the owners of land would object to come under the Bill, not because they were averse to its principles, but because they asserted—and asserted truly—that the object of the measure was already accomplished by the system of leases. In Scotland the system was to let land for leases of 19 years, and therefore he could not understand how an Act of this kind could possibly apply there. The object of the Bill was to secure to the tenant a return of the capital which he might have spent in improvements which were unexhausted at the end of the tenancy. Now, there were three ways in which capital invested in farming could be lost. In the first place, it could be lost by bad farming; and he supposed that the most strenuous supporter of this Bill would not advance the doctrine that they could by any Act of Parliament prevent a man from losing his money by bad farming. The next way in which a tenant was liable to lose his money was by his rent being raised at uncertain times. This a lease effectually prevented. A third way in which a tenant might lose his capital was by his tenancy being determined altogether by eviction. Now, what he (the Duke of Argyll) desired to point out was this—that a lease was the great security to the tenant against both these latter causes of loss, because every holder was secured against being evicted or suddenly having his rent increased. Therefore the operation of the lease was 1381 infinitely better than the operation of this Bill. But while, in his opinion, in ordinary cases in Scotland the Bill would have no effect whatever, it did not at all follow that it would not have a good effect in England, where there were a great number of farmers holding land without leases. In general the provisions of the Act did not apply, because the landlords would not allow it to be brought into operation. He was informed that on a great many estates in England there was no written agreement; and he had been told in that House, by the owner of an estate celebrated in the history of agriculture in England, that as far as he knew, he had not a single scrap of agreement with his tenants, but that all his land had been held time out of mind under ancient customs. There was another point on which he regarded leases as being very important—namely, in regard to the operation of the principles involved in the 17th clause of the Bill. It was one of the principles of the Bill that the improvements effected by a tenant should not be compensated for if the landlord had given to the tenant value in consideration of improvements effected by him. Their Lordships would recollect that when the Bill of last year was before the House, he moved an Amendment which would have had the effect of withdrawing from the Bill all those cases in which valuable consideration had been given for the improvements by the landlord; and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, with his usual acuteness, had pointed out that in every case of lease there was a valuable consideration. On every ground, therefore, the Act would not be operative in Scotland. He ought, however, to limit himself a little in making that observation, because there were a certain number of small tenants in the Western Highlands called "crofters," who did not hold under any lease; but that class of tenants were so poor that they would never make any agricultural improvements, and it was with the greatest difficulty that they could be got to pay even the most moderate interest for improvements effected by the landlord. There was one provision in the Bill which he hoped the noble Duke would consent to alter, because it effected a change in the law of Scotland which no tenant that he had ever heard of asked for—namely, that clause which proposed 1382 the substitution of one year's notice of the termination of the tenancy, instead of 40 days. There might be very much to be said for it in regard to England, where tenancies at will so extensively prevailed, but in regard to Scotland, under the system of leases it would be injurious, because it would practically give 18 months to the tenant before he could be called upon to leave the farm. There was indeed one provision of the Bill of which he cordially approved, and that was the power given to the limited owner to charge on the inheritance improvements made by him—if the Bill had any extensive effect in that direction, it would be very valuable indeed: but the power, in fact, went very little further than was given by the Entails Bill of last year. It was, however, a step in the right direction. No doubt the measure would extend the list of improvements; but certainly the more important effect of the Bill would be the powers which it gave to entailed owners to borrow money, and charge the land for the purposes of improvements made by themselves. So far as it went the measure would be beneficial in this direction. He believed the English Bill had indirectly brought about agreements between the landlords and tenants, and in this respect had done good, but as far as concerned any general operation it would have on Scotland, his own opinion was that practically the Bill would be a dead letter.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, that when his noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) said that the Bill would do less good in Scotland than in England, he was at a loss to understand how that could possibly be. He was one of the smallest landowners in their Lordships' House, though he had land in four counties; but his experience was that everybody had been contracting himself out of the English Act. Many public bodies had done so, and even the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in his official capacity, had adopted that course. He did not know whether it had been brought into operation on the estates of his noble Friend the Lord President.

§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURY
said, that although there might be cases where the parties had contracted themselves out of the Act, they did not always contract themselves out of the whole Act: 1383 and even in cases where the parties had formally contracted themselves out of the Act it had had a very beneficial effect in bringing about agreements in conformity with some of its best clauses; and it would at any rate do good by giving the tenants the sense of security that was afforded by the compensation clauses.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE
said, that the Bill was less important in Scotland than England because the larger part of the land in Scotland was leased, and this Bill did not affect leases; but in Scotland especially he deemed all legislation with regard to land unnecessary, and, therefore, injurious, for during the last 50 years the value of land in Scotland had trebled, the produce was much larger, the rents were much higher, and the tenants were more intelligent and more prosperous, so every one interested in land benefited. This Bill was permissive; but by it the Legislature declared that a certain system of dealing in land was that which was just and fair, and he could not see, should the system so laid down not be carried out, how Parliament could consistently refuse to make it compulsory, and that, as tending to interfere with freedom of contract in land, he thought the Bill most objectionable and contrary to the best Conservative principles.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
remarked that probably where there were good existing agreements, the tenants would not make such a demand. He was in the unfortunate position of wishing to bring his property within the English Act, but his tenants refused. He ought, perhaps, to apply to Parliament to compel his tenants to take advantage of the Act.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, that he had never pretended that the Bill would have as great an effect in Scotland as the English Act in England. He quite approved of the principle of letting upon lease. In reply to the suggestion of the noble Earl (Earl Granville) he was himself strongly in favour of leases, and all his Sussex tenants had leases. He had given his tenants an offer to cancel their leases in order that they might bring themselves under the Act—but they had declined the offer. In cases where there were no leases, no notices had been given on 1384 either side—so that as to these holdings the Act applied. He quite admitted that in Scotland the system of a 19 years' lease subsisted, but the Bill certainly contained a novelty with respect to Scotland, and that was the introduction for the first time into that country of the powers conferred on England under the 14th and 15th of Victoria, authorising the erection of cottages to be charged for as improvements. With respect to the limited owner, it gave him a power to borrow money to be invested in permanent improvements, and it also gave to the tenants a simpler and more efficacious machinery for determining any disputes by empowering them to resort to the Sheriff Depute rather than the Court of Session. He thought that provision would be of great utility both to the landlord and tenant. Of course he did not expect that the Bill would satisfy everybody, because there were some persons whom nothing would satisfy: but this Bill did introduce a great change and a great benefit into Scotland, because it introduced for the first time the presumption of law in favour of the tenant. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) had referred to the necessity of altering the law of hypothec. That law was of great benefit to the smaller tenants, whilst those occupying large farms would be glad to see it abolished; but that was not a proper time for discussing a change in that law. There was only one point more, and that was with reference to the 40 days' notice. No doubt there were some objections to be raised to that, but it was thought on the whole to be a good plan to substitute 12 months for 40 days; but if there were any serious objections to it, it might be discussed in Committee.