§ Amendments reported (according to Order).
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, there was an Amendment made yesterday in the 1st sub-section of the 2nd section, dealing with the landlord's remedy when six months' rent was due and unpaid, and providing that the tenants who were removed or ejected should not forfeit rights to which they were entitled. He proposed to make two Amendments upon that Amendment to better meet the case. After the provision that where the tenant was removed or ejected, he should not be liable to pay rent for more than the period between the previous term and the date of removal, the following was inserted:—
Provided always, that where any away-going crop to which a tenant is entitled is immature at the date of such removing or ejection, neither the tenant, nor anyone deriving right through him, shall be entitled to carry away such crop at maturity until payment shall have been made to the landlord of the proportion of rent effeiring to the period between the date of removing or ejection and the separation of such crop from the ground.The objections to that were, he understood, two. The first was, that, taking the words literally, it would make the tenant pay larger rent on the whole of his holding, and not merely rent on that part of the holding occupied by the crop. The second was, that the tenant, under this clause, taking away the crop at maturity in the month of August or September, would only pay a fraction of the rent by August or September, and would not pay the rent up to the end of the half-year following. And this case had been put—that there might be land which was only valuable for the whole year, and, therefore, that the value of that crop represented the value of the land for the whole year. He did not think, however, that it was possible to provide that the tenant taking away the crops at maturity should be obliged to pay rent, not only up to the end of the current term, but up to the end of another term. It would be quite right that if he took away the crop at maturity he should pay up to the end of the term, if 1167 the incoming tenant had no property in the land till the end of it; but he thought it should only be for that part of the land occupied by the crop. The first of the two Amendments he proposed was, that they should insert after the word "effeiring" the words "to the land under such crop for the period," &c. That would meet the first objection. The second objection would be met by leaving out the words "and the separation of such crop from the ground," and substituting—And the next term of Martinmas, the rent of such land being estimated, unless otherwise expressly stipulated, according to the average rent of the whole land from which the tenant has been so removed or ejected.
LORD BLANTYREmade another appeal for the delay of the measure, which he thought should not be pressed forward that Session. Thirty out of 60 lines which made up the Bill had been altered since Monday. Scotland had not seen the Bill; the county meetings there would take place next month, and it would be well to have their opinions thereon. He represented that if they did away with the security which the crop at present afforded for the payment of the rent of a farm, and substituted the caution of one man for another, they would cover the land with cautioners. He argued that it was the interest of the Conservative, as of any other Party, to pass measures of permanent utility, and not merely of temporary popularity. He still considered the Amendment of which he had given Notice was just, and that the Lord Chancellor's alterations would not meet his objection, which was that, by the Bill, the tenant, after ejectment, might retain the way going crop, which occupied two-thirds of the farm, on paying merely a proportion of the year's rent for the time between his ejectment and the removal of the crop from the ground, leaving the landlord without security for the remainder of the year's rent. Either the ejectment ought to be from the whole farm, with compensation to the tenant for seed, labour, and manure on unripe crops, or, if he was allowed to retain the way going crop, he should pay the year's rent of the land it had occupied before he removed it. It was to be borne in mind that when the tenant was ejected he was six or 12 months in arrear; and to allow him to add considerably more to this unse- 1168 cured debt to his landlord would be unreasonable.
THE LORD CHANCELLORreminded their Lordships that the Bill only applied to future arrangements, and if it was not satisfactory to any particular man, it would be competent for him to make such arrangement by convention as would suit his particular estate. It would be utterly impossible to introduce into a general measure applying to the whole country a provision that a tenant taking away a crop in the month of August or September should be sentenced to pay rent, not only up to Martinmas, but up to the following September.
§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, the objection he had before taken to this mode of proceeding with this Bill was justified by everything which had occurred since; and at that present moment they were asked to agree to an important Amendment, which none of their Lordships had in their hands, which none of them had even seen, and which it was impossible for anyone to say removed the objections it was intended to remove, or did not. He had a right, at least to ask that these Amendments should be printed, and that the third reading should not be taken until to-morrow. He objected strongly to this mode of proceeding. They did not know what they were doing. He did not believe that any noble Lord in the House, except the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack and some of his Colleagues, knew what the proposed words were, or what their effect would be. They had had no time to consider them; and on such an important subject it would be a mistake on the part of the House, and discreditable to the Government, to press on the proposal on the present occasion.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the noble Earl forgot altogether that the Amendment had been printed. The Amendment now before their Lordships was that of which the noble Lord (Lord Blantyre) gave Notice, and was placed in their Lordships' hands that morning. It was because the Amendment so proposed was not considered satisfactory, that the Government now proposed an Amendment, and that Amendment, of course, there had been no opportunity of printing. The noble Earl was a dog in the manger. He contributed not in the slightest degree to the discussion on 1169 the Bill. He had done nothing but simply object. He expressed no opinion upon any stage of the Bill. The House would have been glad to have heard him, if he had any proposal to make on this clause or on any others. But all the noble Earl did was to object to their proceeding, without expressing himself regarding the merits of what they were discussing.
THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, there was great force in the objections urged to the clause as it stood. There was no doubt that the crop which was reaped in the autumn was used to pay rent, not only up to Martinmas, but up to Whitsunday. But the Bill only applied to future contracts.
§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that with regard to the fault which the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack had found to making these objections to this proceeding without discussing the Bill, the objection he made was that it was not in accordance with the due dignity of the House to pass a measure of this kind in the manner in which it was proposed to do it now. The objection which he took was one which he had made almost always towards the close of a Session when important Bills had been attempted to be hastily pushed through, when there had been no time for consideration. He had not taken part in the discussions on this Bill, because he did not know the Scotch law or practice; and if he wished to do anything he should wish to consult with some persons in Scotland upon whose judgment he could rely. Their Lordships had had no opportunity of that kind, and they had had no time to consider the Amendments now proposed by the noble and learned Earl. There was no earthly reason why the Bill should not be reprinted, and these additional Amendments proposed on the third reading to-morrow. The Bill could then go to the other House, and it could have time to consider their Lordships' Amendments. To proceed in the way they were asked to do—to consider something not in print before them, no one knowing exactly what it was—was not creditable to the transaction of Business in that House, and was highly injurious to legistation.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, the noble Earl who had 1170 just sat down was in the habit of indulging in strong expressions. He had spoken of what was due to the dignity of that House. He (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) did not think it was due to the dignity of that House, that one holding the position of Chairman of Committees should say that the conduct of the Government with regard to this Bill was discreditable. That was language which he should not have expected to hear from the noble Earl. It was language which could not justly be applied to the conduct of the Government on the present occasion. If the noble Earl's argument was to hold good, no Amendment could be proposed on any Bill unless that Amendment appeared in print.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONYes; that was what it amounted to. A noble Lord opposite (Lord Blantyre) had moved an Amendment. That Amendment was printed. The noble Earl objected to the words which the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack proposed, and it came to this—that they were to accept this dictum, that no Amendment could be made during the passage of the Bill through Committee unless that Amendment had appeared in print. Now, that was perfectly impossible; and he should have thought the noble Earl's experience would have told him that he was asking them to sanction a practice which would lead to lasting inconvenience. At the end of his speech the noble Earl said this Amendment should be printed and considered on the third reading to-morrow. That was inconsistent with what he said before.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONThe noble Earl would allow him to make his remarks without interruption, and he could make his own afterwards. He said it should be printed and discussed on the third reading tomorrow. The noble Earl was wholly ignorant of the Bill. He knew nothing about it, from the first letter to the last in it; but, inasmuch as they were legislating on a subject connected with the agriculture of Scotland, the noble Earl wished to consult those persons in Scotland to whom he could apply for the information he required before legislating. Yet, in the next breath, he said 1171 he would be prepared to consider the Amendment to-morrow. If he required all this information from his Scotch friends, it was impossible that he could get it before to-morrow. Therefore, he repeated, the noble Earl was inconsistent in his view. There was no virtue to be secured by taking all the stages of that Bill to-day; and if it would enable the noble Earl to communicate by telegraph with his friends in Scotland as to the merits of this Amendment, then this question could be discussed to-morrow evening. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had more to say on this Amendment than he (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) had, though he entirely agreed with what his noble and learned Friend had proposed. There was, however, no objection to the Bill standing over for third reading until to-morrow, although he could see no special reason why it should not pass to-day. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Blantyre) had said something about the inadvisability of proceeding with the Bill that Session. But that was a question which they discussed the other night when they decided that they should go on with it. The Bill was looked for by a a great portion of Scotland. The fact that it only applied to the future and not to existing leases made it of such a character that a landlord, who understood the circumstance of his property and looked after it might watch that the measure should benefit and not injnre him.
LORD DENMANsaid, that through the noble Earl's (the Earl of Haddington's) Amendment not being printed with the Bill, but separately, it was difficult to discuss an Amendment upon it, and to write it out, so as to see how the Amendment of the noble Earl would read, if inserted. He thought the Bill might be considered in Easter week, as it could only put off the meeting of the new Parliament till after Whitsuntide, which was early this year.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he thought it would be more convenient that the Amendments should be introduced now, and he would take care that the Bill was printed and circulated as amended, and then their Lordships would see exactly how the Bill stood with the Amendments made upon it.
§ Amendments agreed to.
1172§ Order for considering Standing Orders Nos. XXXVII. and XXXVIII. read, and discharged; Bill to be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 49.)