MOTION FOR A RETURN. (Hansard, 29 May 1876)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
said, their Lordships would remember that on Friday evening a noble Earl opposite (Earl De La Warr), moved for a Return of landowners of 500 acres and upwards in each county of England and Wales, 1343 showing those who had contracted themselves out of the Agricultural Holdings Act up to June in the present year. The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) objected to the granting of such a Return on grounds which, he submitted, would not apply to a Return which he now begged to move for. It was a Return of the Public Departments which hold land as Owners or Occupiers in England and Wales, specifying whether they have or have not contracted themselves out of the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act up to the 1st of June, 1876.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, that on a former occasion he expressed an opinion that to accede to the Motion of his noble Friend (Lord De La Warr) would lead to considerable inconvenience, that Motion having been for a Return which would have involved an inquiry into the arrangements between private owners of land and their tenants under the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act. Of course, the same objections did not apply to a Return respecting arrangements made by public bodies. He took it there were three public bodies to which the Motion now before the House could be taken to apply—namely, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Woods and Forests. As to the first—the Return of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—the information sought for by his noble Friend would be found in Returns already produced in the other House of Parliament, and which could very easily be laid on their Lordships' Table. The following paragraphs from that Return would put their Lordships in possession of the advice given to the Commissioners by their Surveyors with reference to the Agricultural Holdings Act:— Under these circumstances we advise that each of the Commissioners' tenants have notice that their tenancies remain unaffected by the Act, but that each notice he accompanied with an intimation that the Commissioners themselves have no objections to the Act, and will be prepared to arrange with each tenant for the addition to his agreement of such portions of the Act as may be deemed expedient. We continue of opinion that the Act will prove very advantageous to the interests of the country through the adaptation of its provisions to the circumstances of each tenancy, but it will rarely be in the first instance adopted. Next as to the lands held under the 1344 Duchy of Lancaster. He found that they were about 37,000 acres in all. Of those, 30,000 were held on lease; so that only 7,000 came under the operation of the Act; and of the tenants of these lands, 44 were perfectly content with existing arrangements. The case was therefore narrowed to about 3,000 acres. These had been put out of the operation of the Act because of the very great improvements being made by the Crown on this portion of the property. And when he told their Lordships that the rental of these 3,000 acres was only 7s. 6d. an acre, their Lordships would very readily understand that they could not be in a very high state of cultivation, or be very valuable as regarded farming interests. More than that—of the rental of 7s. 6d. per acre the Crown had to lay out 2s. 6d. per acre. The third case was that of the Woods and Forests. With regard to this land he had an answer from the Crown Receiver by which it appeared that very nearly the whole of the land managed by that Department was let on leases for terms of years. In the cases where the land was not so let the Agricultural Holdings Act was allowed to operate.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
thought there could not be much good in the Act seeing that the tenants were so very little anxious to take the benefit of it. But there were other public bodies beside those mentioned by the noble Duke which had the management of lands—such as the Duchy of Cornwall and Greenwich Hospital.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, he had been under the impression that he was giving the noble Earl all the information he asked for; but perhaps the noble Earl would be good enough in an amended notice to enumerate the Departments respecting which he desired information, and he would give it him. Return of all the Reports made to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners by their surveyors relative to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875: Ordered to be laid before the House.—(The Lord President.)